"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement,
in the thrill of creative effort. The joy, the moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten
in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days, my friends, will be worth all they cost
us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves,
to our fellow men.
Recognition of that falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with
the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued
only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct
in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous
and selfish wrongdoing.
Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness
of obligations, on faithful protection, and on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933
Globalization and free trade are fast becoming dirty words. That’s because they are culprits
for major shocks—like the 2008 financial crisis. In the United States alone, median household
income has been practically stagnant for about three decades, the labor market continues to be anemic,
manufacturing jobs have been lost, and many have experienced a significant deterioration in living standards.
Much of the post-Brexit and primary election conventional wisdom seems to be stuck in a political
narrative in which the Brexit vote and the rise of Trump_vs_deep_state in the United States are seen as symbols
of the populist revolution. These symbols are combined with a nationalist tide has been sweeping
not only the United Kingdom and the United States, but also many other parts of Europe, including
Poland, Hungary, France, The Netherlands and Scandinavia, not to mention, Russia, Turkey, India and
Israel.
According to this narrative, economic insecurity and cultural anxiety that reflect sociodemographic
trends have given momentum to ethnonationalism and religious separatism in both the United States
and the United Kingdom. The Rust Belt is pitted against New York City, and the Midlands against London.
All this means that the crisis of neoliberalism, which started in 2008 now obtained political
dimension, when the institutions created by neoliberalism are under attacks from the disgruntled
population. The power of neoliberal propaganda, the power of brainwashing and indoctrination of
population via MSM, schools and universities to push forward neoliberal globalization started to
evaporate.
This is about the crisis of neoliberal ideology and especially Trotskyism part of it
(neoliberalism can be viewed as Trotskyism for the rich). The following integral elements of this
ideology no longer work well and are starting to cause the backlash:
High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity).
"Greed is good" or "Trickle down economics" -- redistribution of wealth up will create (via
higher productivity) enough scrapes for the lower classes, lifting all boats.
"Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific
market. Human beings also are viewed as market actors with every field of activity seen as a
specialized market. Every entity (public or private, person, business, state) should be governed
as a firm. "Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating,
or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market
techniques and practices." People are just " human capital" who must constantly tend to their own
present and future market value.
Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" (under
neoliberalism everything is a marketable good, that is traded on explicit or implicit exchanges.)
The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war for
permanent peace" -- wars for enlarging global neoliberal empire via crushing non-compliant
regimes either via color revolutions or via open military intervention.
Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of
citizens (moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class
(0.1% or "Masters of the Universe") being above the law like the top level of "nomenklatura" was
in the USSR.
"Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making
transnational corporations the key political players, "the deciders" as W aptly said. Who
decide about the level of immigration flows, minimal wages, tariffs, and other matters that
previously were prerogative of the state.
So after 36 (or more) years of dominance (which started with triumphal march of neoliberalism in
early 90th) the ideology entered "zombie state". That does not make it less dangerous but its power
over minds of the population started to evaporate. Far right ideologies now are filling the vacuum,
as with the discreditation of socialist ideology and decimation of "enlightened corporatism" of the
New Deal in the USA there is no other viable alternatives.
The same happened in late 1960th with the Communist ideology. It took 20 years for the USSR to
crash after that with the resulting splash of nationalism (which was the force that blow up the
USSR) and far right ideologies.
It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal US elite will fare better then Soviet nomenklatura
as challenges facing the USA are now far greater then challenges which the USSR faced at the time.
Among them is oil depletion which might be the final nail into the coffin of neoliberalism and,
specifically, the neoliberal globalization.
Advocates of the neoliberalism constantly repeat the refrain that "there is no alternative" (TINA).
Brexit is a powerful demonstration that this is not true (Back to (our) Future)
A major crack has appeared in the edifice of globalization, and the neoliberal order that has
dominated the world’s economy since the end of World War II is now in danger.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, by any means. But poisonous weeds are just as likely as green
shoots to grow up through those cracks. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy: Those who make constructive
evolution impossible may be making destructive devolution inevitable.
We now know that Great Britain, itself an amalgam of older nations, is divided. England and Wales
voted to leave Europe, while Scotland, Northern Ireland, and ethnically diverse London voted to remain.
This vote was a stunning rejection of Great Britain’s political establishment. “Leave” prevailed
despite opposition from all three major political parties. Prime Minister David Cameron, who will
now step down, called on voters to “Remain.” So did socialist Jeremy Corbin, the most left-wing Labor
leader in a generation. Barack Obama crossed the Atlantic to stand beside Cameron and offer his support.
Voters rejected all of them.
The uprising has begun. The question now is, who will lead it going forward?
Globalism’s Shadow Self
The world’s financial and political elites must now face the fact that resistance to their economic
order, which has shaped the world since the Bretton Woods conference of 1944, is a major phenomenon.
These elites are apparently more out of touch with the citizens of the industrialized world than
at any time in modern memory.
Make no mistake: The “Leave” vote was a rejection of globalization, at least as it’s currently
structured. This was a revolt of working class Britons who have seen their postwar prosperity erode
around them and their social contract eviscerated by the corporate and financial oligarchy.
But it was also the sign of a darker and more sinister worldwide phenomenon: the resurgence of
global nativism and xenophobia. This worldwide turn toward fear of the Other is globalization’s shadow
self.
But this near-victory wasn’t won with leftist arguments about resisting the global oligarchy.
The left was too divided to make that case clearly or forcefully. It was largely won by stirring
up bigotry against immigrants, cloaked in flimsy arguments about excessive regulation. Legitimate
economic grievances were channeled into nationalist hostility.
Many “Leave” voters felt powerless, that they no longer had much of a say in their own destinies.
They weren’t wrong. The European Union was largely a creation of transnational financial forces driven
by a self-serving neoliberal ideology of “free” markets, privatization, and corporate economic governance.
But ,even at its worst, the EU is a symptom and not a cause. Great Britain’s citizens haven’t
been losing control over their fate to the EU. They’ve been losing it because their own country’s
leaders – as well as those of most other Western democracies – are increasingly in thrall to corporate
and financial interests.
The British people have lost more sovereignty to trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP then they
could have ever surrendered to the European Union. Their democratic rights are trampled daily, not
by faceless EU bureaucrats, but by the powerful financial interests that dominate their politics
and their economy.
Low Information Voters
This vote won’t help the middle class. British workers will no longer be guaranteed the worker
rights that come with EU membership. British corporations will be less regulated, which means more
environmental damage and more mistreatment of employees and customers. They will not, in the words
of William Blake, “build Jerusalem in England’s green and pleasant land.”
Most “Leave” voters probably don’t know that, because the media failed them too. Instead of being
given a balanced understanding of EU membership’s advantages and disadvantages, the British people
were fed a constant diet of terror fears and trivial anti-government anecdotes meant to reinforce
the notion that EU was needlessly and absurdly bureaucratic.
As
Martin Fletcher explains, Boris Johnson played a key role in degrading the performance of Britain’s
corporate press back in his days as a journalist. Other outlets were all to eager to mimic his anti-government
and anti-Europe stereotypes. And now? It’s as if Sean Hannity’s
deceptive sensationalism had made him a top presidential prospect.
Johnson and UKIP leader Nigel Farage played the same role in the Leave campaign that Donald Trump
is playing in US politics. Like Trump, they have used economic fears to stoke the anti-immigrant
fear and hatred that is their real stock in trade. Their slogan might just as well have been “Make
England Great Again.”
The campaign’s fearmongering and hate has already claimed a victim in Jo Cox, the Labor MP who
was violently martyred by a white British racist. Tellingly, her murder was not described as an act
of terrorism, which it clearly was. The decision to restrict the “terrorist” label to Muslims, in
Great Britain as in the United States, feeds precisely the kind of hatred that fuels movements like
these.
Great Britain’s immigrant population
grew
by 4.5 million under EU membership. But in a just economy, that would lead to growth for the
existing middle class. Britain’s immigrants didn’t wound that country’s middle class. They’re scapegoats
for rising inequality and the punishing austerity of the conservative regime.
Aftershock
What happens next? Markets are already reacting, retrenching in anticipation of new trade barriers
and political uncertainty.
Before the voting,
estimates of a Leave vote’s effect on Britain’s economy ranged from “negative” to outright “calamitous.”
The outcome will probably fall somewhere between the two.
Will the reprehensible Mr. Johnson, who pushed aggressively for Brexit, now lead his party -perhaps
even his country? How much will this boost UKIP? By rejecting the EU, will Great Britain soon experience
even harsher economic austerity measures than Cameron’s?
Scotland may once again pursue independence so that it can rejoin Europe. Sinn Fein is calling
again for the reunification of Ireland. Suddenly anything seems possible.
There are already calls for a similar referendum in France.
British workers are likely to be
worse off without EU protections, especially if the far right prevails in future elections as
the result of this vote.
Trade deals will need to be negotiated between Britain and the EU, along with the terms of separation.
Judging by its behavior toward Greece, Germany prefers to punish any nation impertinent enough to
try guiding its own economic destiny. These negotiations won’t be pleasant.
The New Resistance
The current order is unstable. The uprising has begun. But who will lead it?
All over the world there are Boris Johnsons and Nigel Farages poised to capitalize on the chaos.
The US has Trump, who was quick to
tie himself to the vote. Greece has Golden Dawn. Germany has the far-right, anti-immigrant AfD
party. Scandinavia has the Sweden Democrat Party and the Danish People’s Party. Hungary’s ruling
Fidesz party, itself nationalistic and totalitarian by nature, is in danger of being outdone by the
racist and anti-Semitic Jobbik party.
Hungary is already building a Trump-like wall, in fact, a barb-wired fence meant to keep Syrian
refugees out of the country and Jobbik out of political power.
There is also also a growing democratic counterforce, poised to resist both the global elites
and the nationalist bigots. It includes Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and the Corbin movement
in Great Britain (although Corbin’s fate is unclear in the wake of this vote). In the US it has been
seen in both the Occupy movement and, more recently, in the newly resurgent left inspired by Bernie
Sanders’ campaign.
The global financial order is fracturing. But will it fall? It’s powerful and well organized.
Even if it does, what will replace it: a more humane global order, or a world torn by nationalism
and hate? Should these new progressive parties and factions form a transnational movement?
That’s the goal of economist
Yanis Varoufakis, among others. Varoufakis confronted the EU’s economic leadership directly when
he negotiated with them as Greece’s first Finance Minister under Syriza. They prevailed, and Varoufakis
is now a private citizen.
The Greeks chose economic autonomy when they voted for Syriza. They didn’t get it. The British
aren’t likely to get what they want from this vote either. No matter what happens, British citizens
will still be in thrall to corporate financial forces – forces that can rewrite the rules they go
along.
Greece’s fate has been a cautionary tale for the world, a powerful illustration of the need for
worldwide coordinated resistance to today’s economic and political elites. We can vote. But without
economic autonomy, we aren’t truly free. In the months and years to come, the people of Great Britain
are likely to learn the truth: We are all Greece now.
The EUP is cutting its own throat trying to bully China. I see the move was made as soon
as Blinken arrived and began spreading lies about both Russia and China. I know China and
Russia would like these rogue nations to uphold their honor by obeying the UN Charter, but it
seems too many have caught the Outlaw US Empire's disease and now want to return to their
Colonial ways. If the EUP ends up trashing the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI)
with China, many individual European nations are going to be very angry. China won't mind if
that's what the EUP does as is explained here :
"After China announced sanctions on 10 individuals and four entities from the EU as a
countermove to EU's unilateral sanctions against China, some people from the EU reacted
strongly, claiming China's countermeasures were "unacceptable." The European Parliament
canceled a meeting on Tuesday to discuss the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) with
China. Some members of the European Parliament warned that the lifting of Chinese sanctions
should be a condition to promote talks on CAI. Voices that support to block the agreement in
an attempt to punish China have been hyped by some anti-China forces.
"Yet those forces should be told that the CAI between China and the EU is mutually
beneficial, rather than a gift from the EU to China. If the European Parliament wants to
obstruct the deal, taking it as a bargaining chip in interactions with China, it should first
reach a consensus among European countries. If they all agree, let's just take it as
negotiations between China and the EU never took place last year. But don't blackmail China
with the case. China despises such ugly deeds."
China's saying essentially that it will forego the benefits of trade if it isn't properly
respected and doesn't care if the EU's dire economic condition worsens because it can't stand
up for itself in the face of the world's #1 Bully, which is exactly the same line Russia has
taken.
It is not just Jens Quisling, half (or more) of the European political elite are USA
proxies.
Take for example the European green parties.
I am pretty sure that the Dutch green party is at its core a NATO/military intelligence
operation. It was created as a merger of three parties, all of whom had a distinct pacifist
and socialist signature. The new party, GroenLinks ("GreenLeft") has forgotten all of that
and has limited itself to churning out Big Climate slogans. The party leader is an obviously
hollow puppet in the image of Justin Trudeau. His opinions are handed to him by advisors in
the shade.
A few years ago, an MP for GroenLinks, Mariko Peters was enthousiastically
promoting more military missions in Afghanistan. She was also a board member of the
"Atlantische Commissie", the local Dutch chapter of the Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(the USA chapter is the more well-known Atlantic Council). If you study her antics and
associations more closely, it is pretty obvious that there is nothing green or left about
this lady and that she is an obvious atlanticist diplomat/spy type.
Currently, there are no political parties in the Netherlands that are critical of NATO.
This used to be very
different not even a very long time ago.
What the article does not mention is the association, reputedly for a six-figure salary)
of former Grüne luminary Joschka Fisher to the Nabucco pipeline project (competing with
ns2). Fischer is also a member of the council on foreign relations and a founding member even
of the European chapter ECFR.
Your editorial "The
Semiconductor Shortage" (March 13) is right that government action is not needed to correct
the short-term supply-demand imbalance causing the global chip shortage, but wrong that the
U.S. can "prod" its way to stronger domestic semiconductor production and more secure chip
supply chains in the long term. Global competitors haven't passed the U.S. as a location for
chip manufacturing by prodding. They've done it by funding ambitious government incentives to
lure semiconductor production to their shores.
As a result, only 12% of global manufacturing is now done in the U.S., down from 37% in
1990.
The only way really to understand Brexit is as the outcome of a civil war within
capitalism. There are two dominant forms of capitalism. One you could describe as house
trained capitalism. This is corporations and rich people who are prepared to more or less
go along with democracy, as long as democracy doesn't get out of hand and actually
represent the interests of the people, but as long as it's a sort of thin and narrow form
of democracy, they'll go with it. What they want is stability. They want regulations
which protect their market position from rougher and dirtier companies who would
otherwise wipe them out. They're happy with the administrative state.
And then there's another faction who could be described as capitalism's warlords. These
are people who don't want any constraints in their way at all. They see taxation as
illegitimate, they see regulation as illegitimate. In their unguarded moments, they
reveal that they see democracy as illegitimate. People such as Peter Thiel, the guy who
founded PayPal says actually democracy and market freedom are incompatible. The conflict
should be resolved in favor of this thing he calls the market. Τhe market is an
euphemism for the power of money. And they believe that that power should be unmediated,
that it should be able to do whatever it wants without anyone standing in its way. And
they see as their enemy house trained capitalism. And this is really where the power lies
within.
The whole Brexit debate, is on the one side, the august institutions of capitalism,
like the Confederation of British Industry, saying this is terrible, we don't want this
to happen at all. And on the other side, the oligarchs from the City, very powerful
people who are funding dark money think tanks and other lobby groups, saying we want to
clear it all out of the way. In Steve Bannon's words, " we want the deconstruction of
the administrative state ". And it's a second group, the warlords of money who have
won.
First of all, both capitalist factions in this civil war seek the " deconstruction
of the administrative state. " And actually, the administrative state could be
deconstructed much more efficiently through super-national formations like the European Union.
The European Union institutions have been taken over by powerful banking and corporate lobbies.
And these are taking advantage of the legislative power of those institutions in order to
promote more deregulation and destroy the administrative power of nation-states. As the
Corporate Europe Observatory reported
in 2016: Since Jean-Claude Juncker took office as President of the European Commission in November
2014, there has been an even greater deregulation push, not just on specific rules and laws
which should be scrapped, but on how decisions are made about future laws. Under Juncker,
fundamental changes in policy-making are being introduced which will put major obstacles in the
way of new regulations aimed at protecting the environment or improving social conditions.When David Cameron was renegotiating the terms of the UK's membership of the EU with
European Council President Donald Tusk, a greater European emphasis on deregulation was one of
the four priority areas. To pile on the pressure, Cameron and the UK government spearheaded an
appeal from 18 other member states, demanding quantitative targets, meaning that for every new
regulation put in place, a certain number of other regulations should be removed. [...] As
presented here, Cameron and the European Commission – together with big business - share
a common approach on the deregulation agenda.
That's why the "house trained capitalism", as Monbiot describes it, wants the UK to remain
member of the EU. And, in fact, it's rather contradictory to say that this capitalist faction
is "happy with the administrative state" when at the same time supports a super-national
organization whose ultimate goal is to eliminate the administrative power of the
nation-states.
Monbiot describes the pro-Brexit capitalist faction as " capitalism's warlords ... people
who don't want any constraints in their way at all. They see taxation as illegitimate, they see
regulation as illegitimate. In their unguarded moments, they reveal that they see democracy as
illegitimate. " Yet, these are common characteristics with the "house trained capitalism"
faction. That's because both capitalist factions in previous decades were functioning as a
united force through the complete domination of neoliberalism. A domination which was evident
not only in an economic and a political level, but also in a cultural level, especially in the
Western world. And that's why, as we
wrote recently, both the liberal elites and the far right (as representatives of
the capitalist factions), are seeing the real Left as the primary threat which must be dealt at
all costs, after all.
We need to understand that this civil war between the capitalist factions does not come out of
any substantially different ideological or political approach. Essentially, it's only a tough
bargain. Capitalists just pick sides to negotiate terms and secure their position in the
post-capitalist era, which already looks like a kind of 21st century corporate feudalism. Yet,
we would completely agree with Monbiot's remark that " What happens to us, to the citizens
of the UK, is of very little interest. We're just the grass that gets trampled in this civil
war. "
As we already
pointed out , the level of ruthlessness of this capitalist war can also be
identified in the behavior of the US political class against the American people. It's
astonishing that, inside this terrible situation, where thousands die from the pandemic,
millions lose their jobs and live under extreme insecurity, no one is willing to offer
anything. Both Democrats and Republicans have turned the oncoming election into a political
bargain and they don't even try to hide it.
Inside this ruthless capitalist war, people have become almost irrelevant. What only matters
for the political puppets is to secure the interests of the capitalist faction they represent.
The
rampageous bulls of capitalism are fighting each other in an arena in which
democracy has now turned into dust under their violent clatters. Therefore, we would also
certainly agree with Monbiot's conclusion: We need a political economy which is good for the
people, the people who live today, the people of future generations, good for the rest of the
living world and is actually governed by the people themselves. Not by this kind of capitalism
or that kind of capitalism. These corporations or those oligarchs. A democracy which responds
to people not just once every four or five years, but every day, when we have participation as
well as representation. We need a system that transcends both of these warring factions, and
puts the people in charge.
In fact it is exactly like the last civil war englanders had, the local big fish in a
small pond don't want any outsiders making decisions or competing with them.
In 1642 ancestors of the current englander ruling elite became concerned that James
Stuart, then Charles Stuart were not only encouraging types established in that ever so
provincial Scots Court to compete for valuable contracts, they were taking instruction from
some eyetalian in Rome when there was perfectly good advice available from the Archbishop
of Canterbury. They knew that the archbish would give sound advice because they, the
englander elite had selected & promoted him themselves.
The EU is the stuarts with the pope, and england's established hierarchy realised pretty
soon after entry into the old EC that 'johnny foreigner' who they assumed would bow to the
englander elite's superior insight & worth was doing no such thing. Often, they
believed the rejection was just pure spite done out of envy of england's 'success' lol.
Once it became certain that neither the french or the germans would kowtow, the strategy
to extricate england from the eu was begun. Types like johnson the tele's man in Brussels
filled englander media up with lies & beatups - all horror stories about eurocrats
etc.
Why wouldn't the mugs believe this tosh? They had swallowed some fantastic yarns spread
by the media which kept conservative control of england for decades, eu= evil would be no
different and it wasn't.
There are sound reasons for leaving the eu but this brexit business addresses none of
them, if anything it exacerbates things like sweatshop labour as Poles expect pay and
conditions that people in some commonwealth states will not. Plus they will be easier to
control with no 'schengan nonsense' as they'll all be on temporary work visas and can be
sent home if they are troublemakers supporting organised labour or the like.
I would'nt have thought that a socialist sympathizer would be an enthusiast for the "level
playing field". The neo-liberal Thatcherite freedoms of the single market have led to much
unemployment in Europe. Freedom of capital and freedom of labour work to the benefit of
transnational corporations and much to the detriment of ordinary working people. Much of the
liberal left in Britain now insists that we must remain locked in to this neo-liberal
straight jacket. https://www.thefullbrexit.com/quit-single-market
@ james | Dec 22 2020 19:58 utc | 80 who wrote
"
@ Maff | Dec 22 2020 16:05 utc | 68.. thanks maff.. i stand corrected... i thought the city
wanted brexit.. it appears that is wrong...
"
Maff qualified their claim with the "almost" adverb "all" and provided no linked backing or
specifying the "corporation, bank, financial institution and media outlet" camps. I still
believe that The City of London Corp wanted Brexit, but silly me, I still think those that
own global private finance run the West/world.
I'd say you're both correct. Several banker types have profited nicely on Brexit so far.
Others clearly have not or stand to lose out. Rees Mogg is an excellent example of the Brexit
disaster capitalist lackey.
For long time I viewed the city as homogeneous, but the last five years have taught me
otherwise.
The question I have is was it always like this (well concealed), or is it another side
effect of the west turning in on itself?
James it was a very large majority that wished to leave.
And this is entirely consistent with the history of the EU and its predecessors (The Common
Market): the Irish also voted to leave, then, after great pressure and an almost unanimous
front including almost all the political parties and fire threats of retribution, the vote
was reversed.
In France and the Netherlands where the EU's neo-liberal constitution was put to a vote it
was defeated in both countries. In this case though, as I recollect, the matter of approving
the Constitution was simply taken out of the electorate's hands. The barely revised rejected
constitution was then approved in the form of a treaty which of course was not put before the
electorate.
The reality is that the EU is both a stalking horse for Washington and a hedge against
democracy. It is a neo-liberal project established to ensure that private property should not
be threatened by a potentially egalitarian electorate. It is essentially anti-democratic a
recreation of the Hapsburg empire complete with parliaments/talking shops without sovereign
power and directed by unelected commissioners.
This month's New Left Review has a marvelous article-some 19000 words long, by Perry
Anderson which reveals the EU's nature in great detail. I gave a link a week or so ago.
The problem with much discussion of this matter is that it is a subject on which a radical
socialist and a conservative banker can both agree that the EU is a bad thing. I, a radical
socialist, because I believe that the state must take control over the commanding heights of
the economy and ensure that such horrors as homelessness and poverty are ended. The
conservative financier because he believes that the City of London, which he and his class
have defended from socialist regulation over the years, ought not to be controlled by
bureaucrats in Brussels or the European Central Bank.
The millions of working class Englishmen and women who voted to leave the EU anticipated
that the procedure of doing so would be orderly, sensible and transparent. They were not
voting for Boris and his banker friends but for a revival of manufacturing, progressive
taxation, nationalised, rather than profit taking, utilities and natural monopolies and a
restoration of trade union and civil rights, the right to strike for example.
The truth is that the world is a very big place and there are plenty of countries who
would eagerly embrace offers from the UK to enter into trade agreements formal or informal:
Venezuela, Cuba and Iran all spring to mind. But Russia and China are also obvious potential
partners. And what such countries have in common is that they would not seek to interfere in
the UK's internal politics and to dictate the limits within which political parties there can
operate. In this they differ from the EU, joined at the hip with NATO which is always under
US command. We have just seen in the surgical defenestration of Jeremy Corbyn and his
replacement by a Zionist member of the Trilateral Commission how the EU/US axis, acting
through the tame media and employing the agency of the swollen security establishment (where
the first loyalty is to the Empire and Washington), arrogates to itself the right to decide
just how far the British people will be allowed to go.
In this matter that means that they will, at a pinch, be allowed to leave the EU but that
the Special Relationship (US Occupation) is sacrosanct and NATO is forever.
Like the petrodollars, WTO better known as globalization, was formed in 1995 after the
fall of Eastern blocks ,to dominate and control the world trade in US fiat currency specially
when China with her cheap skilled labor was to become major world manufacturers of goods.
Basically like oil America agreed not to impose tariff on goods they consumed if you trade
and exported on their fiat currency which costed US nothing to produce. Obviously unlike oil
trade this globalization of trade in US dollar could not work, since unlike oil trade America
couldn't politically dominated and control the good manufacturing countries, like it could,
with small oil producing countries. The period of free trade in goods and energy is coming to
an end, therefore US needs to lower her standards of living, or to go to major wars with
other resources hungry powers to continue colonizing the third world resources and labor.
Either way the end result will be the sam as for, not so Great Britain, ottomans, Spanish,
Persian empires, the only obvious difference shorter empire.
The American Revolution was a catastrophe for its economy, which had to endure decades of
reconstruction. In order to neutralize the threat of the British Empire, it stroke multiple
trade deals with it.
The USA is home to the father of protectionism: Alexander Hamilton. He stated that a
national industry in its infancy should be protected from its more mature competition. The
USA followed his advice and protected its nascent industry from the British threat.
When the British Empire begun to degenerate, the Americans used the cheap British capital
in excess in the financial markets to build up their infrastructure, specially their
railways. Australia did the same.
The Founding Fathers did what they had to do in order to protect their country and make it
flourish. When the ideology of the time stated they shouldn't, they invented a new ideology
that stated they should. And the could: when the British and French tried to destroy the USA
through a sea embargo, they responded in kind (Embargo Act of 1807) and prevailed; they did
not cave in to the then imperial powers.
So, I don't understand why so many Americans are offended with China. The capitalist world
tried to keep China poor and as a raw material exporter, sweatshop conglomeration. China
didn't accept this, and decided to fight back. The result is here for all of us to see.
"Today the Department of State is updating the public guidance for CAATSA authorities
to include Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream 2. This action puts investments or
other activities that are related to these Russian energy export pipelines at risk of US
sanctions. It's a clear warning to companies aiding and abetting Russia's malign influence
projects and will not be tolerated. Get out now or risk the consequences".
Pompeo speaking at a press conference today.
CAATSA -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act
So Russia and Turkey are "adversaries" of the USA?
In what way?
Do these states wish to wage war against the USA?
Is it adversarial to United States interest to compete economically with the hegemon?
Who cares? Really, is Pompeo still scary? If he has a functioning brain, he should realize
that all these blatant efforts to reserve markets for America by sanctioning all its
competitors out of the picture is having the opposite effect, and frightening customers away
from becoming dependent on American products which might be withheld on a whim when America
wants political concessions. 'Will not be tolerated' – what a pompous ass. Sanction
away. The consequence is well-known to be seizure of assets held in the United States or an
inability to do business in the United States. That will frighten some into submission
– like the UK, which was threatened with the cessation of intelligence-sharing with the
USA (sure you can spare it?) if it did not drop Huawei from its 5G networks. But others will
take prudent steps to limit their exposure to such threats, in the certain knowledge that if
they work, they will encourage the USA to use the technique again.
The good news is that the unstoppable juggernaut of globalization has fallen to it's
knees. Countries and societies around the world will have to look at ways they came become
independent and self sufficient,at least to some degree. It's like "War of the Worlds"
really, the best effort of humanity to contain the plague fails, but a random natural
occurrence saves humanity from the brink of destruction. Hopefully some real scientists will
be allowed to mitigate the medical disaster, but one thing is for sure, the grand plan of
turning everyone into a nomad competing for pennies on the international market, for the sole
benefit of the richest among the rich, is dead. Some really hard times are coming for the
international nomads/ parasites, and hopefully humanity will move to some more beneficial
culture, and have a real chance to survive as a species, in the long term.
"... I agree that globalism is/will be heading into the dumpers, but I see no chance that US-based manufacturing is going to make any significant come-back. ..."
"... What market will there be for US-manufactured goods? US "consumers" are heavily in debt and facing continued downward pressures on income. ..."
"... There will certainly be, especially given the eye-opener of COVID-19, a big push to have medical (which includes associated tech) production capacities reinvigorated in the US. ..."
"... More "disposable" income goes toward medical expenditures. Less money goes toward creating export items; wealth creation only occurs through a positive increase in balance of trade. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, death, the US will likely continue, for the mid-term, to export weaponry; but, don't expect enough growth here to mean much (margins will drop as competition increases, so figure downward pressure on net export $$). ..."
"... the planet cannot comply with our economic model's dependency on perpetual growth: there can NOT be perpetual growth on a finite planet. US manufacturing requires, as it always has, export markets; requires ever-increasing exports: this is really true for all others. Higher standards of living in the US (and add in increasing medical costs which factor into cost of goods sold) means that the price of US-manufactured goods will be less affordable to peoples outside of the US. ..."
"... I'll also note that the notion of there being a cycle, a parabolic curve, in civilizations is well noted/documented in Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival (you can find electronic bootlegged copies on the Internet)- HIGHLY recommended reading! ..."
"... All of this is pretty much reflected in Wall Street companies ramp-ups in stock-buy-backs. That's money that's NOT put in R&D or expansion. I'm pretty sure that the brains in all of this KNOW what the situation is: growth is never coming back. ..."
"... Make no mistake, what we're facing is NOT another recession or depression, it's not part of what we think as a downturn in the "business cycle," as though we'll "pull out of it," it's basically an end to the super-cycle ..."
"... We are at the peak (slightly past peak, but not far enough to realize it yet) and there is no returning. Per-capita income and energy consumption have peaked. There's not enough resources and not enough new demand (younger people, people that have wealth) to keep the perpetual growth machine going. ..."
I agree that globalism is/will be heading into the dumpers, but I see no chance that US-based manufacturing is going to
make any significant come-back.
The world's economy is in contraction. Although capital, what actual capital exists, will have to try and do something "productive,"
it is confronted by this fact, that everything is facing contraction. During times of contraction it's a game of acquisition rather
than expanding capacity: the sum total is STILL contraction; and the contraction WILL be a reduction in excess, excess manufacturing
and labor.
What market will there be for US-manufactured goods? US "consumers" are heavily in debt and facing continued downward pressures
on income. China is self-sufficient (enough) other than energy (which can be acquired outside of US markets). Most every other
country is in a position of declining wealth (per capita income levels peaked and in decline). And manufacturing continues to
increase its automation (less workers means less consumers).
There will certainly be, especially given the eye-opener of COVID-19, a big push to have medical (which includes associated
tech) production capacities reinvigorated in the US. One has to look at this in The Big Picture of what it means, and that's that
the US population is aging (and in poor health).
More "disposable" income goes toward medical expenditures. Less money goes toward
creating export items; wealth creation only occurs through a positive increase in balance of trade. And on the opposite end of
the spectrum, death, the US will likely continue, for the mid-term, to export weaponry; but, don't expect enough growth here to
mean much (margins will drop as competition increases, so figure downward pressure on net export $$).
Lastly, and it's the reason why global trade is being knocked down, is that the planet cannot comply with our economic model's
dependency on perpetual growth: there can NOT be perpetual growth on a finite planet. US manufacturing requires, as it always
has, export markets; requires ever-increasing exports: this is really true for all others. Higher standards of living in the US
(and add in increasing medical costs which factor into cost of goods sold) means that the price of US-manufactured goods will
be less affordable to peoples outside of the US.
And here too is the fact that other countries' populations are also aging. Years
ago I dove into the demographics angle/assessment to find out that ALL countries ramp and age and that you can see countries'
energy consumption rise and their their net trade balance swing negative- there's a direct correlation: go to the CIA's Factbook
and look at demographics and energy and the graphs tell the story.
I'll also note that the notion of there being a cycle, a parabolic
curve, in civilizations is well noted/documented in Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival (you can find
electronic bootlegged copies on the Internet)- HIGHLY recommended reading!
All of this is pretty much reflected in Wall Street companies ramp-ups in stock-buy-backs. That's money that's NOT put in R&D
or expansion. I'm pretty sure that the brains in all of this KNOW what the situation is: growth is never coming back.
MANY years ago I stated that we will one day face "economies of scale in reverse." We NEVER considered that growth couldn't
continue forever. There was never a though about what would happen with the reverse "of economies of scale."
Make no mistake,
what we're facing is NOT another recession or depression, it's not part of what we think as a downturn in the "business cycle,"
as though we'll "pull out of it," it's basically an end to the super-cycle.
We will never be able to replicate the state of things
as they are. We are at the peak (slightly past peak, but not far enough to realize it yet) and there is no returning. Per-capita
income and energy consumption have peaked. There's not enough resources and not enough new demand (younger people, people that
have wealth) to keep the perpetual growth machine going.
@Rev. Spooner bout the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or community. Those are a joke
to people whose money is made transnational.
The lumpens who have never traveled out of their state have no concept of geographic
dimensions. They have never even left home. They think everyone is as patriotic as them and
will fight and die for their country and their community.
I assure none of the elite care a whit. Penthouses look the same from Manhattan to
Tokyo.
Ask the Boers in South Africa or Polish in Detroit who did not "sniff the wind" in
time.
The guy who has a gun loaded in his pocket as an insurance policy has a plan and it does
not end well for the person who hit him.
The elites have two or three passports, own businesses overseas, own houses.
"... Moreover, people do distinguish between needs and wants. Americans need to eat, but they mostly don't need to eat out. They don't need to travel. Restaurant owners and airlines therefore have two problems: they can't cover costs while their capacity is limited for public-health reasons, and demand would be down even if the coronavirus disappeared. This explains why many businesses are not reopening even though they legally can. Others are reopening, but fear they cannot hold out for long. And the many millions of workers in America's vast services sector are realizing that their jobs are simply not essential. ..."
"... America's economic plight is structural. It is not simply the consequence of Trump's incompetence or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's poor political strategy. It reflects systemic changes over 50 years that have created an economy based on global demand for advanced goods, consumer demand for frills, and ever-growing household and business debts. This economy was in many ways prosperous, and it provided jobs and incomes to many millions. Yet it was a house of cards, and COVID-19 has blown it down. ..."
In the 1960s, the US had a balanced economy that produced goods for both businesses and
households, at all levels of technology, with a fairly small (and tightly regulated) financial
sector. It produced largely for itself, importing mainly commodities.
Today, the US produces for the world, mainly advanced investment goods and services, in
sectors such as aerospace, information technology, arms, oilfield services, and finance. And it
imports far more consumer goods, such as clothing, electronics, cars, and car parts, than it
did a half-century ago.
And whereas cars, televisions, and household appliances drove US consumer demand in the
1960s, a much larger share of domestic spending today goes (or went) to restaurants, bars,
hotels, resorts, gyms, salons, coffee shops, and tattoo parlors, as well as college tuition and
doctor's visits. Tens of millions of Americans work in these sectors.
Finally, American household spending in the 1960s was powered by rising wages and growing
home equity. But wages have been largely stagnant since at least 2000, and spending increases
since 2010 were powered by rising personal and corporate debts. House values are now stagnant
at best, and will likely fall in the months ahead.
Mainstream economics pays little attention to such structural questions. Instead, it assumes
that business investment responds mostly to the consumer, whose spending is dictated equally by
income and desire. The distinction between "essential" and "superfluous" does not exist. Debt
burdens are largely ignored.
But demand for many US-made capital goods now depends on global conditions. Orders for new
aircraft will not recover while half of all existing planes are grounded. At current prices,
the global oil industry is not drilling new wells. Even at home, though existing construction
projects may be completed, plans for new office towers or retail outlets won't be launched
soon. And as people commute less, cars will last longer, so demand for them (and gasoline) will
suffer.
Faced with radical uncertainty, US consumers will save more and spend less. Even if the
government replaces their lost incomes for a time, people know that stimulus is short term.
What they do not know is when the next job offer – or layoff – will come along.
Moreover, people do distinguish between needs and wants. Americans need to eat, but they
mostly don't need to eat out. They don't need to travel. Restaurant owners and airlines
therefore have two problems: they can't cover costs while their capacity is limited for
public-health reasons, and demand would be down even if the coronavirus disappeared. This
explains why many businesses are not reopening even though they legally can. Others are
reopening, but fear they cannot hold out for long. And the many millions of workers in
America's vast services sector are realizing that their jobs are simply not essential.
Meanwhile, US household debts – rent, mortgage, and utility arrears, as well as
interest on education and car loans – have continued to mount. True, stimulus checks have
helped: defaults have so far been modest, and many landlords have been accommodating. But as
people face long periods with lower incomes, they will continue to hoard funds to ensure that
they can repay their fixed debts. As if all this were not enough, falling sales- and income-tax
revenues are prompting US state and local governments to cut spending, compounding the loss of
jobs and incomes.
America's economic plight is structural. It is not simply the consequence of Trump's
incompetence or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's poor political strategy. It reflects systemic
changes over 50 years that have created an economy based on global demand for advanced goods,
consumer demand for frills, and ever-growing household and business debts. This economy was in
many ways prosperous, and it provided jobs and incomes to many millions. Yet it was a house of
cards, and COVID-19 has blown it down.
"Reopen America" is therefore an economic and political fantasy. Incumbent politicians crave
a cheery growth rebound, and the depth of the collapse makes possible some attractive
short-term numbers. But taking them seriously will merely set the stage for a new round of
disillusion. As nationwide protests against systemic racism and police brutality show,
disillusion is America's one big growth sector right now.
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity
in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into
the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite
power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes
sense
It is undeniable that China has made impressive achievements since the Maosits revolution to
date. BUT lets be realistic pre1973 China still a Nation with markedly 3th world living
standards, even today with a soft racist inuendos , people speak about the Chinese must adopt
better hygiene standards personally and privately.
Before 1973 China had mainly 3th world status, eversince Nixon (or Kissinger?) opened
China US Corporate Capitalists inundated Chinas economic landscape, in other words the real,
KEY bases for Chinas economic success remain USA Corporations majority perhaps more than 70%
of their industrial output, although China has wisely constraint, restrain the USA/World
FINANCIAL cartels..(Soros speclation against te yuan, ans Soros Opensociety inflkuence in
HongKong)
Can China remain stable internally with a growing well travel educated savvy middle
class, and a POOR lower working class with meager salaries, slave like labor conditions, and
oppressive political controls, that's a recipe for a social cauldron..
Will the Chinese proletariat demand more "democracy" western/eastern oriented
reforms??..
... ... ...
China has become GREAT because the USA decided to become poor a Spartan, byzantinne,
militaristic, mercenary rogue nation at service of the Globaloists ELITES which do not care
about that cosmological romantic lyrical notion of America.
@anon Lets add to the bigger picture. With regards to Israel: Exceptions don't make the
rule.
_______
The forces that off-shored the jobs, to then make wage arbitrage and become masters of the
universe, are the very same ones that are now demonizing China.
They are "international" in outlook, and the only national country that matters to them is
Israel.
In general, it is a "class" of people -sometimes called "Davos Man" who goes by other
names, such as globo-homo, ZOG (zionist world government), Ne0-Con, Neo-Liberal.
Globo-Homo couldn't resist the wage arbitrage that China represented after the Berlin Wall
fell in 1990. Clinton gave China effective MFN status in 1993. Wall Street begins Green Mail
Coercion Techniques against American industry to then off-shore jobs.
China also runs a simultaneous gambit against the U.S. by buying up TBills instead of
goods from U.S. main-street. This then insures that U.S. dollar is propped up against the
Yuan e.g. currency manipulation. The China/Wall Street Gambit is in full swing, and
globo-homo is happy.
Globo-Homo doesn't care about the destruction of American Mainstreet, because only prices
matter, and they are getting rich. China becomes the workshop for the world.
There are still elements within Globo-Homo that like their easy money derived from
ownership of transplanted industry.
If you look at today's propaganda emission center for China psy-ops you will see that it
is another mouthpiece and organ of the "international." They are festooned with neo-liberals
and ne0-cons.
Why the sudden shift, where China is the golden goose, to becoming the enemy?
Summary: There are two main enemies against American Mainstreet Labor. There is the
internal and international enemy of globo homo centered in Wall Street and London, and there
are elements within China that used Mercantile techniques to continue imbalanced trade and
theft of American patrimony and industry.
Globo homo has new marching orders, as they have belatedly realized that they got played.
The jig is up, you cannot operate the usury mechanism, do speculation, and RIG THE WORLD,
forever.
The U.S. military security state has communicated clearly, they don't like their
"international" supply chains and loss of U.S. domestic manufacturing. Globo Homo has long
used the US. military as a Golem which protected movement of ships from China's east
coast.
Atlantacist Method: Raw materials come into China by Ship, and finished Goods leave by
ship. Globo Homo ownership class takes the increment of production and wage arbitrage as
gains. Wall Street/London is a hero, main street is a zero.
The tectonic shifts and the trajectory of both countries (China and the USA) after this
epidemics end is unpredictable. "Chimerica" type of globalization was in decline before the
epidemic (Huawai, etc) and Trump badly wants decoupling from China. Somebody needs to pay for
those changes. It might well be us. So it is quite probable that those techno Nouveau
riche like us might be soon royally fleeced one way or another.
It might be prudent to have at least 300K in three bank accounts (in the USA only the first
100K are ensured) at 1% or less. Buying TIPs directly from Treasury is another option. I hope
your house is already fully paid.
BTW Marina can get half of your Social Security pension if her own is too small.
"... Authored by Joaquin Flores via The Strategic Culture Foundation, ..."
"... the declining rate of profit necessitated by automation, with the increasingly irrational policies, in all spheres, being pursued to salvage the ultimately unsalvageable. ..."
"... Because the present system is premised on a production-consumption and financial model, the solutions to crises are presented as population reduction and what even appears, at least in the case of Europe, as population replacement. As cliché as this may seem, this also appeared to be the policy of the Third Reich when capitalism faced its last major crises culminating in WWII. ..."
The coronavirus pandemic has shown that the twin processes of globalization and planned
obsolescence are deficient and moribund. Globalization was predicated on a number of
assumptions including the perpetuity of consumerism, and the withering away of national
boundaries as transnational corporations so required.
What we see instead is not a globalization process, but instead a process of rising
multipolarity and a rethinking of consumerism itself.
Normally a total market crash and unemployment crisis would usher in a period of militant
labor activity, strikes, walk-outs and community-labor campaigns. We've
seen some of this already . But the 'medical state of emergency' we are in, has effectively
worked like a 'lock-out' . The elites have effectively
flipped-the-script. Instead of workers now demanding a restoration of wages, hours, and
work-place rights, they are clamoring for any chance to work at all, under any conditions
handed down. Elites can 'afford' to do this because they've been given trillions of dollars to
do so. See how that works?
All our lives we've been misinformed over what a growing economy means, what it looks like,
how we identify it. All our lives we've been lied to about what technical improvement literally
means.
A growing economy in fact means that all goods and services become less expensive. That cuts
against inflation. Rather all prices should be deflating – less money ought to buy the
same (or the same money ought to buy more). Technical innovation means that goods should last
longer, not be planned for obsolescence with shorter lifespans.
Unemployment is good if it parallels price deflation. If both reached a zero-point, the
problems we believe we have would be solved.
In a revealing April 2nd article that featured on the BBC's website, Will coronavirus reverse globalisation?
it is proposed that the pandemic exposes the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of a global
supply-chain and manufacturing system, and that this in combination with the over-arching
US-China trade war would see a general tendency towards 're-shoring' of activities. These are
fair points.
But the article misses the point of the underlying problem facing economics in general:
the declining rate of profit necessitated by automation, with the increasingly irrational
policies, in all spheres, being pursued to salvage the ultimately unsalvageable.
The
Karmic Wheel of Production-Consumption
The shut-downs – which seem unnecessary in the numerous widely esteemed experts in
virology and epidemiology – appear to be aimed at stopping the production-consumption
cycle. When we look at the wanton creation of new 'money', to bailout the banks, we are told
that this will not cause inflation/debasement so long as the velocity of money is kept to a minimum.
In other words – so long as there is not a chain reaction of transactions, and the money
'stays still' – this won't cause inflation. It's a specious claim, but one which
justifies the quarantine/lock-down policy which today destroys thousands of small businesses
every day. In the U.S. alone, unemployment claims
will pass 30 million by mid April .
Likewise, this money appears real, it sits digitally as new liquidity on the computer
screens of tran-Atlantic banks – but it cannot be spent, or it tanks the system with
hyper-inflation. More to the point, the BBC piece erroneously continues to assume the necessity
of the production-consumption cycle, spinning wheat into gold forever.
The elites were not wrong to shut-down the cycle per se. The problem is that they cannot
offer the correct hardware in its place – for it puts an end to the very way that they
make money. It is this, which in turn is a major source for the maintenance of their dopamine
equilibrium and narcissist supply.
This is not an economic problem faced by 'the 1%' (the 0.03%) . It is an existential crisis
facing the meaning of their lives, where satisfaction can only be found in ever greater levels
of wealth and control, real or imagined – chasing that dragon, in search of that
ever-elusive high.
So naturally, their solutions are population reduction and other such quasi-genocidal
neo-Malthusian plans. Destruction of humanity – the number one productive-potential force
– resets the hands of time, back to a period where profit levels were higher. The
algorithmically favored coronavirus Instagram campaign of seeing city centers without people
and declaring these 'beautiful' and 'peaceful' is an example of this misanthropic principle at
play.
That the elites have chosen to shut-down the western economy is telling of an historic point
we have reached. And while we are told that production and consumption will return somewhat
'after quarantine', we also hear from the newly-emerged unelected tsars – Bill Gates et
al – that things will never
return to normal .
What we need to end is the entire theory and practice of globalization itself, including
UN
Agenda 21 and the dangerous role of 'book-talking' philanthropists like Gates and his
grossly unbalanced degree of power over policy formation in the Western sphere.
In place of waning globalization, we are seeing the reality of rising multipolarity and
inter-nationalism. With this, the end of the production-consumption cycle, based upon off-shore
production and international assembly, and at the root of it all: planned obsolescence towards
long-term profitability.
The Problem of Globalization Theory
Without a doubt, globalization theory satisfied aspects of descriptive power. But as time
marched forward, its predictive power weakened. Alternate theories began to emerge –
chief among these, multipolarity theory.
The promotion of globalization theory also raises ethical problems. Like a criminologist
'describing' a crime-wave while being invested in new prison construction, globalization theory
was as much theory as it was a policy forced upon the world by the same institutions behind its
popularization in academia and in policy formation. Therefore we should not be surprised with
the rise of solutions like those of Gates. These involve patentable 'vaccines' by for-profit
firms at the expense of buttressing natural human immunities, or using drugs which other
countries are using with effectiveness.
The truth? Globalization is really just a rebrand of the Washington Consensus
– neo-liberal think-tanks and the presumed eternal dominance of institutions like the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which in turn are thinly disguised
conglomerates of the largest trans-Atlantic banking institutions.
So while globalization was often given a humanist veneer that promised global development,
modernization, the end of 'nation-states' which presumably are the source of war; in reality
globalization was premised on continuing and increasing concentration of capital towards the
19th century zones – New York, London, Berlin, and Paris.
'Internationalism' was once rooted in the existence of nations which in turn are only
possible with the existence of culture and peoples, but was hi-jacked by the trans-Atlanticist
project. Before long, the new-left 'internationalists' became champions of the very same
process of imperialism that their forbearers had vehemently opposed. Call it 'globalization'
and show how it's destroying 'toxic nationalism' and creating 'microfinance solutions for women
and girls' –
trot out Malala – and it was bought; hook, line and sinker.
This was not the new era of 'globalization', but rather the usual suspects going back to the
19th century; a 'feel-good' rebranding of the very same 19th century imperialism as described
in J.A Hobson's seminal work from 1902, Imperialism. Its touted 'inevitability' rested not on
the impossibility of alternate models, but on the authority that flows forth from gunboat
diplomacy. But sea power has given way to land power.
In many ways it aligned with the era of de-colonialization and post-colonialism. New nations
could wave their own flags and make their own laws, so long as the traditionally imperialist
western banking institutions controlled the money supply.
But what is emerging is not Washington Consensus 'globalization', but a multipolar model
based in civilizational sovereignty and difference, building products to last – for their
usefulness and not their repeatable retail potential. This cuts against the claims that global
homogenization in all spheres (moral, cultural, economic, political, etc.) was inevitable, as a
consequence of mercantile specialization.
Therefore, inter-nationalism hyphenated as such, reminds us that nations –
civilizations, sovereignty, and their differences – make us stronger as a human species.
Like against viruses, some have stronger natural immunity than others. If people were
identical, one virus could wipe-out all of humanity.
Likewise, an overly-integrated global economy leads to global melt-down and depression when
one node collapses. Rather than independent pillars that could aid each other, the
interdependence is its greatest weakness.
Multipolarity is Reality
This new reality – multipolarity – involves processes which aspects of
globalization theory also suggest and predict for, so there are some honest reasons why experts
could misdiagnose multipolarity as globalization. Overlooked was that the concentration of
capital nodes in various and globally diverse regions by continent, were not exclusively
trans-Atlantic regions as in the standard globalization model of Alpha ++ or Alpha+ cities.
This capital concentration along continental lines was occurring alongside regional economic
development and rising living standards which tended to promote the efficiency of local
transportation as opposed to ocean-travel in the production process. As regional nodes by
continent had increasingly diversified their own domestic production, a general tendency for
transportation costs to increase as individual per capita usage increased, worked against the
viability of an over-reliance on global transit lines.
But among many problems in globalization theory was that the US would always be the primary
consumer of the world's goods, and with it, the trans-Atlantic financial sector. It was also
contingent on the idea that mercantilist conceptions of specialization (by nation or by region)
would always trump autarkic models and ISI (income substitution industrialization). Again, if
middle-class consumer bases are rising in all the world's inhabited continents as multipolarity
explains and predicts, then a global production regimen rationalized towards a trans-Atlantic
consumer base as globalization theory predicts isn't quite as apt.
Because the present system is premised on a production-consumption and financial model,
the solutions to crises are presented as population reduction and what even appears, at least
in the case of Europe, as population replacement. As cliché as this may seem, this also
appeared to be the policy of the Third Reich when capitalism faced its last major crises
culminating in WWII.
Breaking the Wheel
The shutdown reveals the karmic wheel of production-consumption is in truth already broken.
We have already passed the zenith point of what the old paradigm had to offer, and it has long
since entered into a period of decay, economic and moral destruction.
Like the Christ who brings forth a new covenant or the Buddha who emerges to break the wheel
of karma, the new world to be built on the ruins of modernity is a world that liberates the
productive forces, realizing their full potential, and with it the liberation of man from the
machine of the production-consumption cycle.
Planned obsolescence and consumerism (marketing) are the twin evils that have worked towards
the simultaneous
time-wasting enslavement of 'living to work' , and have built globalization based on global
assembly and global mono-culture.
What is important for people and their quality of life is the time to live life, not be
stuck in the grind. We hear politicians and economists talking about 'everyone having a job',
as if what people want is to be away from their families, friends, passions, or hobbies. What's
more – people cannot invent, innovate, or address the greater questions of life and death
– if their nose is to the grindstone.
Now that we are living under an overt system of control, a 'medical state of emergency' with
a frozen economy, we can see that another world is possible. The truth is that most things
which are produced are intentionally made to break at a specific time, so that a re-purchase is
predictable and profits are guaranteed. This compels global supply chains and justifies
artificially induced crashes aimed at upward redistribution and mass expropriations.
Instead of allowing Bill Gates to tour the world to tout a police-state cum population
reduction scheme right after a global virus pandemic struck, one which many believe
he owns the patent for , we can instead address the issues of multipolarity, civilizational
sovereignty, and ending planned obsolescence and the global supply chain, as well as the
off-shoring it necessitates – which the BBC rightly notes, is in question anyhow.
A policy that US allies in Europe have recently slammed as 'piracy' is set
to continue, as Washington unabashedly and unapologetically continues blocking shipments from
US soil of personal protective equipment (PPE) -- such as gowns, gloves, and N95 face masks --
which hospitals and health workers desperately need in the fight against COVID-19.
The Hill
reports that "The federal government will begin seizing exports of personal protective
equipment, or PPE, until it decides if the tools should be kept in the country to fight the
coronavirus."
The announcement was made Wednesday by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), formalizing
an existing controversial practice under Defense Production Act (DPA) which has
recently blocked millions of masks from being exported from Minnesota-based 3M to Canada.
US customs will block all respirators, surgical masks and surgical gloves from going
abroad.
Canadian leaders blasted the move as putting lives in danger, while Germany and France
described the US policy, which has seen recent interventions against shipments from China bound
for Europe, as 'piracy'.
"FEMA and CBP are working together to prevent domestic brokers, distributors, and other
intermediaries from diverting these critical medical resources overseas,"
a joint statement indicated.
"Today's order is another step in our ongoing fight to prevent hoarding, price gouging, and
profiteering by preventing the harmful export of critically needed PPE," the White House also
said in a statement. "It will help ensure that needed PPE is kept in our country and gets to
where it is needed to defeat the virus."
It appears Trump's 'America First' policy in action at a crucial time of crisis , as the US
is the global epicenter for COVID-19, now with over 430,000 confirmed cases - most in New York
state - which has witnessed hospitals running desperately low on supplies, including
ventilators.
However, foreign governments have of late essentially warned 'what goes around comes around'
. Berlin Interior Minister Andreas Geisel at the start of the week stated bluntly of
Washington's brazen policy that it
constitutes a Wild West tactic - essentially warning Europe can play dirty too.
Japan
has allocated $2.2 billion (US) of its $993 billion emergency stimulus package to help
manufacturers relocate production out of China amid the COVID-19 pandemic which began in the
communist nation. According to SCMP , $2 billion (US) will be set aside for companies shifting
production back to Japan , while roughly $223.5 million will be spent on helping companies move
production to other countries, according to
SCMP .
Under normal circumstances, China is Japan's largest trading partner - however imports from
China plummeted nearly 50% in February as the coronavirus pandemic resulted in closed factories
and unfilled orders. Meanwhile, a planned visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to Japan early
this month - the first such trip in a decade - was postponed with no date rescheduled.
It remains to be seen how the policy will affect Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's years-long
effort to restore relations with China.
" We are doing our best to resume economic development ," Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao
Lijian told a briefing Wednesday in Beijing, when asked about the move. " In this process, we
hope other countries will act like China and take proper measures to ensure the world economy
will be impacted as little as possible and to ensure that supply chains are impacted as
little as possible ." -
SCMP
China's production trainwreck has revived discussion among Japanese firms over reducing
their reliance on China as a manufacturing base - while the government's panel on future
investment recommended last month that manufacturing of high-value products should shift back
to Japan - while other goods should be diversified across Southeast Asia.
"There will be something of a shift," according to Japan Research Institute economist
Shinichi Seki, who noted that Japanese companies were already considering moving out of China.
"Having this in the budget will definitely provide an impetus." That said, certain industries
such as automotive will likely stay put.
Japan exports a far larger share of parts and partially finished goods to China than other
major industrial nations, according to data compiled for the panel. A February survey by
Tokyo Shoko Research found 37 per cent of the more than 2,600 companies that responded were
diversifying procurement to places other than China amid the coronavirus crisis. -
SCMP
@Divine
Right American conflicts with Russia are based partly on self-serving fictions of the
military industrial complex that need an enemy for their continued existence, as well as some
more realistic conflicts involving Eastern Europe and rival interests over oil prices. The US
need for hegemony, which is highly tied to the value of the dollar as a reserve currency,
further thrusts this forward and center(and indeed, into conflict with China as well). This
all is intermingled with a [fake and hypocritical] generalized rejection of "authoritarian"
governments.
China, on the other hand, has no real current conflicts with Russia – most conflicts
involve sales of weaponry and political influence over central Asian states, nothing of vast
importance at least compared to being their the target of an enormous world-spanning
sanctions order or a dedicated trade war.
Your argument has the weird self-contradiction that the CCP both is supposedly the
mind-controlling alien brain of all Asians, while at the same time, not actually benefiting
from any specific conflict with Russia. This also ignores the fact that Asians tend to
assimilate the highest by any population(at nearly 40% intermarriage
in some segments, that Chinese students in particularly no longer tend to stay in the US(
only
20% by 2017 ), and that a overwhelming part of the demographic increase by
immigration is
Indian with long historical and cultural rivalries with China. And far more than Chinese
Americans, who often engage in racial masochism(witness Gordan Chang ), Indian Americans are vastly
more active and influential in American
politics both due to cultural reasons as well as higher verbal IQ. This isn't even
hypothetical: Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing
for more hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China
Seas conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."
I do agree that the US has long since crippled its resource base. But there's no evidence
that Trump, or anyone else, is demonstrating the barest inkling of trying to resolve it(or
that it is even possible, given the bueaucratic overload and red tape of regulations). Gould
once described evolution as a "drunkard's walk" between complexity, where organisms sometimes
fall trapped inside rail tracks, unable to stumble out.
Indian American political writers dominate National Interest articles stressing for more
hawkish Chinese attitudes and were directly contributory to renaming the South China Seas
conflict to the "Indo-Pacific region."
@Anatoly
Karlin There is apparently a large colony (100.000) of Chinese workers in Lombardy, with
direct flights between Lombardy and Wuhan, so this Italian outbreak is not a coincidence.
Many Italians in Northern Italy sold their leather goods and textiles companies to
China. Italy then allowed 100,000 Chinese from Wuhan/Wenzhou to move to Italy to work in
these factories, with direct Wuhan flights. Result: Northern Italy is Europe's hotspot for
Wuhan Coronavirus
UK had a "herd immunity" strategy from the beginning. They made no real effort at
containment. British government allowed their people to become infected, and only
began to change course after public outrage.
@Felix
Keverich The large Chinese population in Italy has been completely ignored by the media,
in fact China itself seems to have been let completely off the hook. The focus is now on how
terrible Britain and the native British people are.
Someone even posted a Tweet above by a Vietnamese person trying to claim that BRITAIN of
all countries is responsible for the outbreak in Vietnam, I mean what kind of ridiculous
logic is that? Vietnam bloody BORDERS China, the origin and epicentre of the Coronavirus
outbreak, and the Vietnamese are trying to say Britain is the cause? It beggars belief.
less globalization outside North America/Europe/Japan/Australia
You are missing the point of globalization: manufacturing in cheap Third World countries
and rewarding the local compradors with a permission to migrate to the West. That's the deal,
that's what globalization is.
With NA-Europe-Japan all you get is tourism and travel. I would be surprised if we can at
this point convince Chinese and the other cheap labor countries to do the work and forgo the
hope of migration. It was a Faustian deal and those as we know end in hell.
@AP
Calm down, man and stop the stupid blaming game. It seems that your Banderite spin also
includes bashing Chinese which, on the second thought, should not be surprising as there is
only one paymaster. Perhaps you should specialize in Ukraine only and leave China to more
competent haters.
Compare Canada and Italy on Chinese residents: Canada has 5 times more Chinese than Italy
but 62 times less infection cases and 539 times less fatalities than Italy (as of March 16).
Furthermore France and UK have more Chinese than Italy.
What about tourists: In Canada 0.75 mil Chinese tourist but in Italy 3.5 mil Chinese
tourists. So it must be the tourists, right?
So compare Japan with Italy on Chinese tourists: 8.4 mil Chinese tourist in Japan vs. 3.5
mil Chinese tourists in Italy. How many cases in Japan?
So what I am trying to convey is that the expression of the epidemic in different
countries is not congruent with the number of Chinese residents or Chinese tourist.
We will never know where the patients zero (yes plural, there are many patients zero)
really came from. For various political reasons we will not be told and what we will be told
we must be skeptical about. I found interesting data about the first infected in British
Columbia that has huge rather affluent Chinese population. There were as many Iranians as
non-Iranians on the list.
In British Columbia cases 1 to 5 were from China though it does not appear they infected
others while cases 6, 7, , 12 and 14, 15, 19 were traced to Iran. Then the case 22 was from
Iran and also case 31. Case 32 was from Italy, case 35 was from Egypt and case 37 was from
Germany. So out of first 37 cases over 50% were people came form Iran, Egypt, Germany and
Italy. My point is that while Canada has huge Chinese population (1.7 mil) and gets 700,000
Chinese visitors per year it does not look like China was the main vector. In BC it is Iran
and Europe.
One should consider a possibility whether virus introduction to Iran and the Middle East
did precede its introduction in China.
Now let's return to Italy. Most Chinese tourists go to Rome, Florence and Venice. These
cities were not affected as much as Lombardy where there is not that many tourists. So we are
told that Chinese workers could carry the virus. So look at Prato (in Tuscany near Florence)
which has the highest density of Chinese population in Italy. Wiki lists 11,882 (6.32%) for
Prato while the highest absolute number is Milan 18,918 (1.43%). The numbers are probably
outdated as most likely they do not include illegal residents.
"In a single day the positive cases of coronavirus in the province of Prato have
tripled: from 7 to 21 . It is the darkest day since the outbreak began. According to
what was announced in the afternoon of today, March 11, by the bulletin of the regional
council "
"Therefore, 314 patients are currently positive in Tuscany. This is the subdivision by
signaling areas: 71 Florence, 32 Pistoia, 21 Prato (total Asl center: 124), 43 Lucca, 40
Massa Carrara, 34 Pisa, 16 Livorno (total North West Asl: 133), 12 Grosseto, 37 Siena , 14
Arezzo (total Asl southeast: 63)."
So clearly the 2nd largest Chinese community in Italy (and first in density) with 21 cases
(out of 12,246 cases in Italy) did not contribute a lot to the corona virus outbreak in
Italy.
@AP
Calm down, man and stop the stupid blaming game. It seems that your Banderite spin also
includes bashing Chinese which, on the second thought, should not be surprising as there is
only one paymaster. Perhaps you should specialize in Ukraine only and leave China to more
competent haters.
Compare Canada and Italy on Chinese residents: Canada has 5 times more Chinese than Italy
but 62 times less infection cases and 539 times less fatalities than Italy (as of March 16).
Furthermore France and UK have more Chinese than Italy.
What about tourists: In Canada 0.75 mil Chinese tourist but in Italy 3.5 mil Chinese
tourists. So it must be the tourists, right?
So compare Japan with Italy on Chinese tourists: 8.4 mil Chinese tourist in Japan vs. 3.5
mil Chinese tourists in Italy. How many cases in Japan?
So what I am trying to convey is that the expression of the epidemic in different
countries is not congruent with the number of Chinese residents or Chinese tourist.
We will never know where the patients zero (yes plural, there are many patients zero)
really came from. For various political reasons we will not be told and what we will be told
we must be skeptical about. I found interesting data about the first infected in British
Columbia that has huge rather affluent Chinese population. There were as many Iranians as
non-Iranians on the list.
In British Columbia cases 1 to 5 were from China though it does not appear they infected
others while cases 6, 7, , 12 and 14, 15, 19 were traced to Iran. Then the case 22 was from
Iran and also case 31. Case 32 was from Italy, case 35 was from Egypt and case 37 was from
Germany. So out of first 37 cases over 50% were people came form Iran, Egypt, Germany and
Italy. My point is that while Canada has huge Chinese population (1.7 mil) and gets 700,000
Chinese visitors per year it does not look like China was the main vector. In BC it is Iran
and Europe.
One should consider a possibility whether virus introduction to Iran and the Middle East
did precede its introduction in China.
Now let's return to Italy. Most Chinese tourists go to Rome, Florence and Venice. These
cities were not affected as much as Lombardy where there is not that many tourists. So we are
told that Chinese workers could carry the virus. So look at Prato (in Tuscany near Florence)
which has the highest density of Chinese population in Italy. Wiki lists 11,882 (6.32%) for
Prato while the highest absolute number is Milan 18,918 (1.43%). The numbers are probably
outdated as most likely they do not include illegal residents.
"In a single day the positive cases of coronavirus in the province of Prato have
tripled: from 7 to 21 . It is the darkest day since the outbreak began. According to
what was announced in the afternoon of today, March 11, by the bulletin of the regional
council "
"Therefore, 314 patients are currently positive in Tuscany. This is the subdivision by
signaling areas: 71 Florence, 32 Pistoia, 21 Prato (total Asl center: 124), 43 Lucca, 40
Massa Carrara, 34 Pisa, 16 Livorno (total North West Asl: 133), 12 Grosseto, 37 Siena , 14
Arezzo (total Asl southeast: 63)."
So clearly the 2nd largest Chinese community in Italy (and first in density) with 21 cases
(out of 12,246 cases in Italy) did not contribute a lot to the corona virus outbreak in
Italy.
If this started in the USA and spread elsewhere the world would have good cause to
condemn the USA and to judge any subsequent efforts by Americans to help others as "the
least they could do."
Chinese shipments of medical goods are actually to the risk of the own population, where
hospitals are still recovering. While in some ways it is a blatant PR play, its quite a
significant cost amd self-risk that goes beyond "the least they could do."
The Chinese are showing an unprecedented amount of humanity, morality and basic decency
by giving medical aid to more than half the world in genuinely useful forms despite almost
everyone shitting on them by calling this a "Chinese virus" and other garbage.
... ... ...
Here is an article about them in the New York Times. Written soon before the onset of the
plague. It would not be written now – there's too obvious a connection between open
borders, multiculturalism, and death:
As Prato's factories went dark, people began arriving from China to exploit an
opportunity.
Most were from Wenzhou, a coastal city famed for its entrepreneurial spirit. They took
over failed workshops and built new factories. They imported fabric from China, sewing it
into clothing. They cannily imitated the styles of Italian fashion brands, while affixing a
valuable label to their creations -- "Made in Italy."
Chinese groceries and restaurants have emerged to serve the local population. On the
outskirts of the city, Chinese-owned warehouses overflow with racks of clothing destined for
street markets in Florence and Paris.
Among Italian textile workers who have veered to the right, the arrival of the Chinese
tends to get lumped together with African migration as an indignity that has turned Prato
into a city they no longer recognize.
"I don't think it's fair that they come to take jobs away from Italians," says Ms.
Travaglini, the laid-off textile worker. She claims that Chinese companies don't pay taxes
and violate wage laws, reducing pay for everyone.
Since losing her job at a textile factory nearly three years ago, Ms. Travaglini has
survived by fixing clothes for people in her neighborhood. "There are no jobs, not even for
young people," she says.
Chinese-owned factories have jobs, she acknowledges, but she will not apply. "That's all
Chinese people," she says, with evident distaste. "I don't feel at ease."
:::::::::::
Lots of Ukrainians there also. They don't bring such a virus to Italy, but they bring the
virus back to Ukraine.
::::::::::
So nice PR move after killing lots of European old people. One of the sacrificed in Milan
to this virus, Vittorio Gregotti, was an architect who helped build the city. Killed by the
Chinese virus. A symbol of native Italy replaced by migration.
@Kim
The Chinese have internal natural resources and have been vigorously working world wide to
obtain rights to, develop, and extract mineral and energy resources in order to keep
production going. See the documentary Empire of Dust about Chinese getting the rights to
African resources and developing the infrastructure to extract them. Also following the
supposed "war for oil" in Iraq the oil contracts went almost entirely to China. China has a
lot of the mines for the rare earths needed in modern technological products. The largest
single mine used to be in California. A Chinese company bought and re-opened it.
In effect they already own or have contracts for what they need and are much less leveraged
than we are.
As to whether their customers can continue to pay for it, that is a different kettle of fish.
The rest of us have been running up our credit card with them. We have been paying it off by
selling off our countries piece by piece through Chinese purchases of real estate,
businesses, port facilities etc. As China has grown economically they have been developing
their internal market to reduce dependence on Wal-Mart so that might reduce the impact of
poorer foreign markets.
In any event they own a huge infrastructure in plants tooling and human expertise for making
things. Our leaders have deliberately hollowed ours out for profits and cheaper consumer
goods.
The term Globalism has been around from at least the 1960's but its origins come from Cecil
Rhodes Round Tables which were set up around 1900 as a mechanism for Rhodes and his allies from
the British and South African Oligarchs to take over the world. Globalism is another term for
Neoliberalism, which is another term for Corporatism. It is principally pushed by Fake Liberals
who pretend to be lefties, but are actually Corporatists or Corporate Fascists.
Globalism
The aim of Globalism is to transfer all power and wealth from ordinary people to a handful
of Banking Elites, Oligarchs and major Corporate CEO's. The ultimate aim is to set up an anti
democratic, authoritarian one world government where ordinary people are effectively serfs and
have no say, in a system of Neo-Feudalism. We are very nearly already there.
This is being constantly carried out by transferring ever increasing powers from elected
local governments to massive governmental Super States, such as the EU or the Federal
government in Washington DC.
A great example of a Globalist policy was Obama's Corporate Power Grab TPP and TTIP,
Corporate protectionist deals, which transferred power from elected legislatures to
transnational tribunals staffed by Corporate lawyers acting as Judge and Jury.
"Neo-libs" are NOT Centrists. They are extremist supporters of Perpetual War, Corruption,
Corporatism, Authoritarianism & the Transfer of all wealth & power from ordinary ppl to
the Oligarchs & CEOs in the top 0.01%.
"... Corbyn's weakness was always the elephant in the room but was fully revealed when he had to step up to plate and fight. No leader can survive without being able to fight his enemies and no country should be led by such a person. Saddly he squandered the enormous opportunity handed to him in the last election: in hindsight, that opportunity was handed to him by an electorate steeped in wishful thinking ..."
"... Of course it's criticism of the state of Israel. And of course that's not anti-Semitism. But the label "anti-Semitism" is the kiss of death to the executive class i.e. that middle layer who "inform" the masses. If you are one of them and you get called "anti-Semitic", it's the equivalent of your boss saying, "I want a word – and bring your coat!" ..."
"... Corbyn seems like a nice enough guy, an honest, yet unremarkable footsoldier MP, but the idea he was suited to leading the Labour Party into an epic struggle with a revitalised Tory Party under a strong leader like Boris Johnson, is a fantastic notion. Johnson had to be cut down to size, before the election. ..."
"... And, finally, Corbyn could have turned the media bias against him to his advantage, only he's not suited to the strategy that's required. That strategy is the one Donald Trump employed, taking on the media and identifying them as the enemy and explaining why they publish lies. Corbyn should have publically taken on both the Guardian and the BBC, rather than appeasing them, unsuccessfully, because appeasing them isn't possible. ..."
"... Why didn't Corbyn express anger and shock when he was accused of being a paedophile, sorry, an anti-Semite? Those MPs who went along with that sordid narrative, should have been kicked out of Labour immediately by Corbyn himself. ..."
"... "A big part of why Labor and Corbyn lost so badly is the complete abdication of "the Left" on Brexit. The left were supposed to be anti-globalists, in which case their task was to join battle offering an egalitarian, left-populist version of Brexit which would have benefited the people. Instead, faced with a real decision and a real opportunity they punted and ran home to globalist mama. This removed one of the main reasons to bother supporting them. ..."
"... The point about the EU not being directly responsible for Tory austerity is technically true but it is nonetheless a neo liberal monster crushing the shit out of the most vulnerable ..."
"... Especially when it comes to countries like Greece. I don't understand the constant veneration of the EU. By design, our membership did nothing to protect us from the carnage of this Tory crime wave. The EUs constitutional arrangements contains baked in obligations to maintain permanent austerity in the service of ever greater corporate profit. ..."
No one feels like recalling, for example, that more people voted against the Tories than for them (13.9mn for and 16.2mn against).
Or that 10.3 million people still voted Labour despite the entirety of the unprecedentedly vicious and Stalinist hate campaign
conducted against them – and Corbyn in particular – since the latter became leader in 2015.
Which fact, along with Labour's near-win in 2017 and the surprise Brexit victory in 2016, implies the mainstream media's ability
to direct and manipulate public opinion is a lot less wholesale and guaranteed than we oftentimes assume, and that this is unlikely
to be a single explanation for yesterday's result.
More importantly, no one – even those who are boggling at the implausibility – is questioning the validity of the result.
No one.
It's as if even suggesting election fraud can happen in a nice majority-white western country like the UK is improper and disrespectful.
Election fraud is – as every good racist knows – done by brown people or Orientals, or 'corrupt' eastern European nations, not by
fine upstanding empire builders like the British.
This seems to be so much of a given that the results of any vote are simply accepted as 100% valid – no matter how improbable
they may seem.
And apparently even in the face of clear evidence for at least some level of shady activity.
Remember this? It only happened on Wednesday but it's already some way down the Memory Hole.
There's been a lot of effort expended in
minimising the significance of this in social media and in the mainstream press – and indeed by resident trolls on OffG. There
have been claims it's 'routine' – as if that somehow makes it ok. Or that Kuenssberg was misinformed, or 'tired'.
And after all this, Labour heartlands – red since World War 2, through Thatcher and Foot and every anti-Labour hate campaign the
media could muster – all voted Conservative?
Does that seem likely?
I don't know, all I do know is I think that discussion needs to start. I think it's time to think the unthinkable, and at least
open the prospect of electoral fraud up for real discussion.
How secure is our electoral process? Can results be stage-managed, massaged or even rigged? What guarantees do we have that this
can't happen here? In an age of growing corruption and decay at the very top, do the checks and balances placed to safeguard our
democracy sill work well, or even at all?
This Friday the Thirteenth, with BoJo the Evil Clown back in Downing Street, looks like a good moment to get it going.
aspnaz ,
Corbyn's weakness was always the elephant in the room but was fully revealed when he had to step up to plate and fight. No
leader can survive without being able to fight his enemies and no country should be led by such a person. Saddly he squandered
the enormous opportunity handed to him in the last election: in hindsight, that opportunity was handed to him by an electorate
steeped in wishful thinking. Should he apologise to his supporters, probably not, they backed the wrong horse but the limp
was visible from day one.
That inequality and poverty will continue increasing under neoliberal economic policies, and the majority of us will continue
being ground into the dirt, or that Julian Assange will end up in the U.S for certain to face a Stalinesque show trial, or the
observation about George Galloway.
George Mc ,
I know it's bad for my health but oh I just can't stop myself. Had another Groan trip. Here's one from that good time gal Jess
Phillips:
I only supply the link to see if anyone can see any actual content in this. I suppose it must be a real cushy number to get
paid for pitching in a lot of foaming waffle that feels purposeful but remains totally non-commital. That and those nice cheques
rolling in from that Hyslop and Merton quiz fluff.
George Mc ,
You have to understand that it's all showbiz. Why did the Tories prefer Boris to Jeremy Hunt? Because Hunt looked and sounded
like the oily little tyke everyone wanted to kick. Whereas Boris was the cutesie country womble from a Two Ronnies sketch. When
Boris appeared on his test outing as host for Hignfy, all he had to do was to be incompetent i.e. all he had to do was turn up.
Oh how we all laughed.
As for Jess – well, she's the ballsy fake prole tomboy – like a WOKE verson of Thatcha. I doubt anyone is "buying this" (to
use one of the Americanisms we'll all be spouting as we become the 51st state) but it's all part of "the movie".
ricked by its sharp thorn anywhere near the heart. Don't know what the street name will be for it but it has two current codewords
i heard 'stellar' & 'jessa'.
George Mc ,
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=When+I+said+%26%238220%3Bcome+clean%26%238221%3B+I+meant+as+...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F12%2F13%2Fboris-johnsons-incredible-landslide%2F%23comment-106199">
When I said "come clean" I meant as in "reveal yourself". I really think you should calm down. Take some deep breaths. Have a
nice cup of tea.
By all means comment, but when you slander those who actually felt it important that their vote counted, that their opinion
mattered and then were told to fuck off by the very people asking them for their opinion, its expected you get blow back, which
is what has happened.
Now, may i enquire, do you have a belief in democracy and upholding democratic outcomes, do you believe that Russian interference
actually resulted in the Brexit vote itself, and do you believe that the working class is so fucking pig ignorant that it should
never be allowed to vote.
In summation, are you a Blairite by any chance as they way you communicate shows an utter contempt for those poor sods slagged
off by Remainiacs for so long to just fuck off.
As for economic decline, strange, but the UK is one of the top 10 wealthy nations globally, much of said wealth now from the
FIRE Economy, which means its extractive and put to no real purpose, whilst the break-up of the Union is up to the constituent
parts itself – as i support Irish reunification, i don't weep for Northern Ireland, whilst the Scots have every right o be free
of Westminster, its not as if they held an actual Referedum on it prior to the signing of the Act of Union is it.
And as for wales, well, here's a small country who's political establishment are incapable of recognising it elected to Leave
the EU, which sometimes has aspirations itself to Independence, an Independence it will never gain due to the fact nearly 800K
English live within our lands, but the fantasists persist none the less.
Now, as the EU, via the Treaty named after Lisbon is very much a neoliberal organisation, one that puts monetary union above
the welfare of its own citizens, please explain why I must support such an Institution that does not benefit the average Joe in
most member States?
Alan Tench ,
What you must remember is that a democratic decision isn't always a good one. In my view, the current one concerning Brexit, is
a bad one. The fact that a majority support it doesn't make it good or right. We just have to live with it. Consider the death
penalty. I'm sure the vast majority of voters in this country would vote in favour of it. Would that might it right?
Ruth ,
Don't blame them. In all likelihood they had their votes hijacked by MI5
Alan Tench ,
All this anti-Semitism stuff – anyone know what it's about? I assume it had zero influence on the electorate. Just how does it
manifest itself? Is most of it – maybe nearly all of it – concerned with criticism of the state of Israel? If so, it's not anti-Semitism
.
George Mc ,
Of course it's criticism of the state of Israel. And of course that's not anti-Semitism. But the label "anti-Semitism" is
the kiss of death to the executive class i.e. that middle layer who "inform" the masses. If you are one of them and you get called
"anti-Semitic", it's the equivalent of your boss saying, "I want a word – and bring your coat!"
MichaelK ,
I think the Labour Party's election strategy, and long before, was fatally flawed. I'm shocked by it. How bad it was. First they
should never have agreed to an election at this time. Wait, at least until Spring. The idea, surely, was to keep weakening Johnson's
brand and splitting the Tories apart. Johnson wanted an election for obvious reasons, that alone should have meant that one did
everything in one's power not to give him what he wanted. Labour did the exact opposite of what they should have done, march onto
a battleground chose by Johnson.
Of course one can argue that the liberals and the SNP had already hinted that they would support Johnson's demand, but Labour
could have 'bought them off' with a little effort. Give the SNP a pledge on a second referendum and give the Liberals a guarantee
of electoral reform, whatever.
The Liberals actually had an even more stupid and incompetent leadership than Labour and suffered a terrible defeat too. Why
is it that it's only the Tories who know how to play the election game, usually?
Corbyn seems like a nice enough guy, an honest, yet unremarkable footsoldier MP, but the idea he was suited to leading
the Labour Party into an epic struggle with a revitalised Tory Party under a strong leader like Boris Johnson, is a fantastic
notion. Johnson had to be cut down to size, before the election.
Allowing the Tories to become the People's Party, the Brexit Party in all but name; was a catastrohic mistake by Labour; unforegivabel
really.
And, finally, Corbyn could have turned the media bias against him to his advantage, only he's not suited to the strategy
that's required. That strategy is the one Donald Trump employed, taking on the media and identifying them as the enemy and explaining
why they publish lies. Corbyn should have publically taken on both the Guardian and the BBC, rather than appeasing them, unsuccessfully,
because appeasing them isn't possible.
Why didn't Corbyn express anger and shock when he was accused of being a paedophile, sorry, an anti-Semite? Those MPs who
went along with that sordid narrative, should have been kicked out of Labour immediately by Corbyn himself. He needed to
be far more aggressive and proactive, taking the fight to his enemies and using his position to crush them at once. Call me a
kiddy fiddler and I'll rip your fucking throat out! Only Corbyn was passive, defencesive, apathetic and totally hopeless when
smeared so terribly. People don't respect a coward, they do respect someone who fights back and sounds righteously angry at being
smeared so falsely. Corbyn looked and sounded like someone who had something to hide and appologise about, which only encouraged
the Israeli lobby to attack him even more! Un-fuckin' believable.
What's tragic is that the right understood Corbyn's weaknesses and character far better than his supporters, and how to destroy
him.
Ruth ,
I agree with you about the election timing
Derek ,
And, finally, Corbyn could have turned the media bias against him to his advantage, only he's not suited to the strategy that's
required.
Yes you are absolutely right, he should have stolen a journalists phone or hid in a fridge, maybe stare at the ground when
shown a picture of a child sleeping on a hospital floor. Now that's turning turning events to your advantage right?
He made many mistakes and you are right, but caving into "remain" the perceived overturning of the referendum by the Labour
party is what dunnit, the final nail in his coffin. I am sorry to see him go.
tonyopmoc ,
Judging by the spelling of "Labour", I guess an American wrote this on The Moon of Alabama's blog. It is however very accurate
and I know that MOA is a German man, running his blog from Germany. His analyses, are some of the best in the world.
Tony
"A big part of why Labor and Corbyn lost so badly is the complete abdication of "the Left" on Brexit. The left were supposed
to be anti-globalists, in which case their task was to join battle offering an egalitarian, left-populist version of Brexit which
would have benefited the people. Instead, faced with a real decision and a real opportunity they punted and ran home to globalist
mama. This removed one of the main reasons to bother supporting them.
Posted by: Russ | Dec 13 2019 7:09 utc | 33″
MichaelK ,
I thought the left were supposed to be internationalists too? I dunno. I think they should never have supported the referendum
scam in the first place. If the Tories wanted it, that alone should have made them oppose it. Look at what's happened, the referendum
and Brexit have massively benefitted the Tories and crushed everyone else. Isn't that an objective fact, or am I missing something;
seriously?
What does 'anti-globalist' really mean? The tragedy was allowing the Tories to blame Europe for the devastating consequences
of their own 'austerity' policies which hit the North so hard. These policies originated in London, not Bruxelles!
The truth is harsh. Corbyn was a terrible leader with awfully confused policies that he couldn't articulate properly and a
team around him that were just as bad.
Pam Ryan ,
The point about the EU not being directly responsible for Tory austerity is technically true but it is nonetheless a neo liberal
monster crushing the shit out of the most vulnerable.
Especially when it comes to countries like Greece. I don't understand the constant veneration of the EU. By design, our
membership did nothing to protect us from the carnage of this Tory crime wave. The EUs constitutional arrangements contains baked
in obligations to maintain permanent austerity in the service of ever greater corporate profit.
Thom ,
'Incredible' is the word. We're expected to believe that for all his personal and intellectual flaws, Johnson achieved a landslide
on the scale of Blair and Thatcher; that he drew in Leave supporters from traditional Labour voters while holding on to Remain
Tories; that all three major UK opposition parties flopped, including the one party pushing for outright Remain; and that turnout
fell even though millions registered just before the election. Sorry, but it doesn't add up.
nottheonly1 ,
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=What+just+happened+was+an+inverted+U.S.+selectio...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F12%2F13%2Fboris-johnsons-incredible-landslide%2F%23comment-106262">
What just happened was an inverted U.S. selection. In the U.S., a confused rich man got elected, because the alternative was a
psychopathic war criminal. In the U.K. a confused upper class twat got elected, because the alternative was too good to be true.
Something like that?
tonyopmoc ,
Something strange going on in Sedgefield. What the hell is Boris Johnson doing there today? Tony Blair Labour, Boris Johnson
Tory. What's the difference? Same neocons. Same sh1t?
tonyopmoc ,
Dungroanin, Jeremy Corbyn is 70 now. He's done his bit. Now its time for him to take it easy.
Incidentally "Viscount Palmerston was over 70 when he finally became Prime Minister: the most advanced age at which anyone
has ever become Prime Minister for the first time."
George Mc ,
The Groan is keen to highlight the sheer thanklessness of the BBC's undying fight to objectively bring The Truth to the masses:
And for all the tireless work they do, they are open to accusations of "conspiracy theory" and worse:
"The conspiracy theories that abound are frustrating. And let's be clear – some of the abuse which is directed at our journalists
who are doing their best for audiences day in, day out is sickening. It shouldn't happen. And I think it's something social
media platforms really need to do more about."
Sickening social media abuse? Echoes of all those frightfully uncivil – and never verified – messages that wrecked poor little
Ruth Smeeth's delicate health.
Thom ,
The only way the BBC and Guardian will understand if people don't pay the licence fee and don't click on their articles (and obviously
don't contribute!). Hit them in the pockets.
George Mc ,
It didn't take long for the Groaniad to "dissect" the Labour defeat. Here we get THE FIVE REASONS Labour lost the election:
Interesting. Note the space given to Blairite toadies Ruth Smeeth and Caroline Flint. Note the disingenuousness of this:
"In London, antisemitism and what people perceived as the absence of an apology appeared to be a key issue."
It's always suspicious when we get that expression "what people perceived". What "people"? And note that the dubiousness relates
to the absence of an apology for anti-Semitism – not the anti-Semitism itself which is, of course, taken for granted.
Also note the conclusion:
"With a new Conservative government led by Boris Johnson poised for office, the Guardian's independent, measured, authoritative
reporting has never been so vital."
Yes – The Groaniad is yer man, yer champion, yer hero!
"... Neoliberalism and its usual prescriptions – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion of mainstream economics. ..."
"... The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation, privatisation or fiscal austerity. Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash. ..."
"... The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated with two developments, neither of which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008 financial crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle . The second was economic globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious type of trade agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world. ..."
"... That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders, does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that centre-left politicians – Democrats in the US, socialists and social democrats in Europe – enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatisation, financial liberalisation and individual enterprise? Much of our contemporary policy discussion remains infused with principles supposedly grounded in the concept of homo economicus , the perfectly rational human being, found in many economic theories, who always pursues his own self-interest. ..."
Neoliberalism and its usual prescriptions – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion of
mainstream economics.
As even its harshest critics concede, neoliberalism is hard to pin down. In broad terms, it
denotes a preference for markets over government, economic incentives over cultural norms, and
private entrepreneurship over collective action. It has been used to describe a wide range of
phenomena – from Augusto Pinochet to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, from the
Clinton Democrats and the UK's New Labour to the economic opening in China and the reform of
the welfare state in Sweden.
The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation,
privatisation or fiscal austerity. Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas
and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of
our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash.
We live in the age of neoliberalism, apparently. But who are neoliberalism's adherents and
disseminators – the neoliberals themselves? Oddly, you have to go back a long time to
find anyone explicitly embracing neoliberalism. In 1982, Charles Peters, the longtime editor of
the political magazine Washington Monthly, published an essay titled
A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto . It makes for interesting reading 35 years later, since the
neoliberalism it describes bears little resemblance to today's target of derision. The
politicians Peters names as exemplifying the movement are not the likes of Thatcher and Reagan,
but rather liberals – in the US sense of the word – who have become disillusioned
with unions and big government and dropped their prejudices against markets and the
military.
The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated
with two developments, neither of which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was
financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008
financial crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle . The second was economic
globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious
type of trade agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt
manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world.
That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders,
does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a
decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that centre-left politicians –
Democrats in the US, socialists and social democrats in Europe – enthusiastically adopted
some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatisation,
financial liberalisation and individual enterprise? Much of our contemporary policy discussion
remains infused with principles supposedly grounded in the concept of homo
economicus , the perfectly rational human being, found in many economic theories, who
always pursues his own self-interest.
But the looseness of the term neoliberalism also means that criticism of it often misses the
mark. There is nothing wrong with markets, private entrepreneurship or incentives – when
deployed appropriately. Their creative use lies behind the most significant economic
achievements of our time. As we heap scorn on neoliberalism, we risk throwing out some of
neoliberalism's useful ideas.
The real trouble is that mainstream economics shades too easily into ideology, constraining
the choices that we appear to have and providing cookie-cutter solutions. A proper
understanding of the economics that lie behind neoliberalism would allow us to identify –
and to reject – ideology when it masquerades as economic science. Most importantly, it
would help us to develop the institutional imagination we badly need to redesign capitalism for
the 21st century.
N eoliberalism is typically understood as being based on key tenets of mainstream economic
science. To see those tenets without the ideology, consider this thought experiment. A
well-known and highly regarded economist lands in a country he has never visited and knows
nothing about. He is brought to a meeting with the country's leading policymakers. "Our country
is in trouble," they tell him. "The economy is stagnant, investment is low, and there is no
growth in sight." They turn to him expectantly: "Please tell us what we should do to make our
economy grow."
The economist pleads ignorance and explains that he knows too little about the country to
make any recommendations. He would need to study the history of the economy, to analyse the
statistics, and to travel around the country before he could say anything.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest Tony Blair and Bill Clinton: centre-left politicians who enthusiastically
adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism and Reaganism. Photograph: Reuters
But his hosts are insistent. "We understand your reticence, and we wish you had the time for
all that," they tell him. "But isn't economics a science, and aren't you one of its most
distinguished practitioners? Even though you do not know much about our economy, surely there
are some general theories and prescriptions you can share with us to guide our economic
policies and reforms."
The economist is now in a bind. He does not want to emulate those economic gurus he has long
criticised for peddling their favourite policy advice. But he feels challenged by the question.
Are there universal truths in economics? Can he say anything valid or useful?
So he begins. The efficiency with which an economy's resources are allocated is a critical
determinant of the economy's performance, he says. Efficiency, in turn, requires aligning the
incentives of households and businesses with social costs and benefits. The incentives faced by
entrepreneurs, investors and producers are particularly important when it comes to economic
growth. Growth needs a system of property rights and contract enforcement that will ensure
those who invest can retain the returns on their investments. And the economy must be open to
ideas and innovations from the rest of the world.
But economies can be derailed by macroeconomic instability, he goes on. Governments must
therefore pursue a sound
monetary policy , which means restricting the growth of liquidity to the increase in
nominal money demand at reasonable inflation. They must ensure fiscal sustainability, so that
the increase in public debt does not outpace national income. And they must carry out
prudential regulation of banks and other financial institutions to prevent the financial system
from taking excessive risk.
Now he is warming to his task. Economics is not just about efficiency and growth, he adds.
Economic principles also carry over to equity and social policy. Economics has little to say about how
much redistribution a society should seek. But it does tell us that the tax base should be as
broad as possible, and that social programmes should be designed in a way that does not
encourage workers to drop out of the labour market.
By the time the economist stops, it appears as if he has laid out a fully fledged neoliberal
agenda. A critic in the audience will have heard all the code words: efficiency, incentives,
property rights, sound money, fiscal prudence. And yet the universal principles that the
economist describes are in fact quite open-ended. They presume a capitalist economy – one
in which investment decisions are made by private individuals and firms – but not much
beyond that. They allow for – indeed, they require – a surprising variety of
institutional arrangements.
So has the economist just delivered a neoliberal screed? We would be mistaken to think so,
and our mistake would consist of associating each abstract term – incentives, property
rights, sound money – with a particular institutional counterpart. And therein lies the
central conceit, and the fatal flaw, of neoliberalism: the belief that first-order economic
principles map on to a unique set of policies, approximated by a Thatcher/Reagan-style
agenda.
Consider property rights. They matter insofar as they allocate returns on investments. An
optimal system would distribute property rights to those who would make the best use of an
asset, and afford protection against those most likely to expropriate the returns. Property
rights are good when they protect innovators from free riders, but they are bad when they
protect them from competition. Depending on the context, a legal regime that provides the
appropriate incentives can look quite different from the standard US-style regime of private
property rights.
This may seem like a semantic point with little practical import; but China's phenomenal
economic success is largely due to its orthodoxy-defying institutional tinkering. China turned
to markets, but did not copy western practices in property rights. Its reforms produced
market-based incentives through a series of unusual institutional arrangements that were better
adapted to the local context. Rather than move directly from state to private ownership, for
example, which would have been stymied by the weakness of the prevailing legal structures, the
country relied on mixed forms of ownership that provided more effective property rights for
entrepreneurs in practice. Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), which spearheaded Chinese
economic growth during the 1980s, were collectives owned and controlled by local governments.
Even though TVEs were publicly owned, entrepreneurs received the protection they needed against
expropriation. Local governments had a direct stake in the profits of the firms, and hence did
not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
China relied on a range of such innovations, each delivering the economist's higher-order
economic principles in unfamiliar institutional arrangements. For instance, it shielded its
large state sector from global competition, establishing special economic zones where foreign
firms could operate with different rules than in the rest of the economy. In view of such
departures from orthodox blueprints, describing China's economic reforms as neoliberal –
as critics are inclined to do – distorts more than it reveals. If we are to call this
neoliberalism, we must surely look more kindly on the ideas behind the most dramatic
poverty reduction in history.
One might protest that China's institutional innovations were purely transitional. Perhaps
it will have to converge on western-style institutions to sustain its economic progress. But
this common line of thinking overlooks the diversity of capitalist arrangements that still
prevails among advanced economies, despite the considerable homogenisation of our policy
discourse.
What, after all, are western institutions? The size of the public sector in OECD countries
varies, from a third of the economy in Korea to nearly 60% in Finland. In Iceland, 86% of
workers are members of a trade union; the comparable number in Switzerland is just 16%. In the
US, firms can fire workers almost at will;
French labour laws have historically required employers to jump through many hoops first.
Stock markets have grown to a total value of nearly one-and-a-half times GDP in the US; in
Germany, they are only a third as large, equivalent to just 50% of GDP.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest 'China turned to markets, but did not copy western practices ... '
Photograph: AFP/Getty
The idea that any one of these models of taxation, labour relations or financial
organisation is inherently superior to the others is belied by the varying economic fortunes
that each of these economies have experienced over recent decades. The US has gone through
successive periods of angst in which its economic institutions were judged inferior to those in
Germany, Japan, China, and now possibly Germany again. Certainly, comparable levels of wealth
and productivity can be produced under very different models of capitalism. We might even go a
step further: today's prevailing models probably come nowhere near exhausting the range of what
might be possible, and desirable, in the future.
The visiting economist in our thought experiment knows all this, and recognises that the
principles he has enunciated need to be filled in with institutional detail before they become
operational. Property rights? Yes, but how? Sound money? Of course, but how? It would perhaps
be easier to criticise his list of principles for being vacuous than to denounce it as a
neoliberal screed.
Still, these principles are not entirely content-free. China, and indeed all countries that
managed to develop rapidly, demonstrate the utility of those principles once they are properly
adapted to local context. Conversely, too many economies have been driven to ruin courtesy of
political leaders who chose to violate them. We need look no further than
Latin American populists or eastern European communist regimes to appreciate the practical
significance of sound money, fiscal sustainability and private incentives.
O f course, economics goes beyond a list of abstract, largely common-sense principles. Much
of the work of economists consists of developing
stylised models of how economies work and then confronting those models with evidence.
Economists tend to think of what they do as progressively refining their understanding of the
world: their models are supposed to get better and better as they are tested and revised over
time. But progress in economics happens differently.
Economists study a social reality that is unlike the physical universe. It is completely
manmade, highly malleable and operates according to different rules across time and space.
Economics advances
not by settling on the right model or theory to answer such questions, but by improving our
understanding of the diversity of causal relationships. Neoliberalism and its customary
remedies – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion
of mainstream economics. Good economists know that the correct answer to any question in
economics is: it depends.
Does an increase in the minimum wage depress employment? Yes, if the labour market is really
competitive and employers have no control over the wage they must pay to attract workers; but
not necessarily otherwise. Does trade liberalisation increase economic growth? Yes, if it
increases the profitability of industries where the bulk of investment and innovation takes
place; but not otherwise. Does more government spending increase employment? Yes, if there is
slack in the economy and wages do not rise; but not otherwise. Does monopoly harm innovation?
Yes and no, depending on a whole host of market circumstances.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest 'Today [neoliberalism] is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas
that have produced growing economic inequality and precipitated our current populist backlash'
Trump signing an order to take the US out of the TPP trade pact. Photograph: AFP/Getty
In economics, new models rarely supplant older models. The basic competitive-markets model
dating back to Adam Smith has been modified over time by the inclusion, in rough historical
order, of monopoly, externalities, scale economies, incomplete and asymmetric information,
irrational behaviour and many other real-world features. But the older models remain as useful
as ever. Understanding how real markets operate necessitates using different lenses at
different times.
Perhaps maps offer the best analogy. Just like economic models, maps are highly
stylised representations of reality . They are useful precisely because they abstract from
many real-world details that would get in the way. But abstraction also implies that we need a
different map depending on the nature of our journey. If we are travelling by bike, we need a
map of bike trails. If we are to go on foot, we need a map of footpaths. If a new subway is
constructed, we will need a subway map – but we wouldn't throw out the older maps.
Economists tend to be very good at making maps, but not good enough at choosing the one most
suited to the task at hand. When confronted with policy questions of the type our visiting
economist faces, too many of them resort to "benchmark" models that favour the
laissez-faire approach. Kneejerk solutions and hubris replace the richness and humility of
the discussion in the seminar room. John Maynard Keynes once defined economics as the "science
of thinking in terms of models, joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant".
Economists typically have trouble with the "art" part.
This, too, can be illustrated with a parable. A journalist calls an economics professor for
his view on whether free trade is a good idea. The professor responds enthusiastically in the
affirmative. The journalist then goes undercover as a student in the professor's advanced
graduate seminar on international trade. He poses the same question: is free trade good? This
time the professor is stymied. "What do you mean by 'good'?" he responds. "And good for whom?"
The professor then launches into an extensive exegesis that will ultimately culminate in a
heavily hedged statement: "So if the long list of conditions I have just described are
satisfied, and assuming we can tax the beneficiaries to compensate the losers, freer trade has
the potential to increase everyone's wellbeing." If he is in an expansive mood, the professor
might add that the effect of free trade on an economy's longterm growth rate is not clear
either, and would depend on an altogether different set of requirements.
This professor is rather different from the one the journalist encountered previously. On
the record, he exudes self-confidence, not reticence, about the appropriate policy. There is
one and only one model, at least as far as the public conversation is concerned, and there is a
single correct answer, regardless of context. Strangely, the professor deems the knowledge that
he imparts to his advanced students to be inappropriate (or dangerous) for the general public.
Why?
The roots of such behaviour lie deep in the culture of the economics profession. But one
important motive is the zeal to display the profession's crown jewels – market
efficiency, the invisible hand, comparative advantage – in untarnished form, and to
shield them from attack by self-interested barbarians, namely
the protectionists . Unfortunately, these economists typically ignore the barbarians on the
other side of the issue – financiers and multinational corporations whose motives are no
purer and who are all too ready to hijack these ideas for their own benefit.
As a result, economists' contributions to public debate are often biased in one direction,
in favour of more trade, more finance and less government. That is why economists have
developed a reputation as cheerleaders for neoliberalism, even if mainstream economics is very
far from a paean to laissez-faire. The economists who let their enthusiasm for free markets run
wild are in fact not being true to their own discipline.
H ow then should we think about globalisation in order to liberate it from the grip of
neoliberal practices? We must begin by understanding the positive potential of global markets.
Access to world markets in goods, technologies and capital has played an important role in
virtually all of the economic miracles of our time. China is the most recent and powerful
reminder of this historical truth, but it is not the only case. Before China, similar miracles
were performed by South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and a few non-Asian countries such as Mauritius
. All of these countries embraced globalisation rather than turn their backs on it, and they
benefited handsomely.
Defenders of the existing economic order will quickly point to these examples when
globalisation comes into question. What they will fail to say is that almost all of these
countries joined the world economy by violating neoliberal strictures. South Korea and Taiwan,
for instance, heavily subsidised their exporters, the former through the financial system and
the latter through tax incentives. All of them eventually removed most of their import
restrictions, long after economic growth had taken off.
But none, with the sole exception of Chile in the 1980s under Pinochet, followed the
neoliberal recommendation of a rapid opening-up to imports. Chile's
neoliberal experiment eventually produced the worst economic crisis in all of Latin
America. While the details differ across countries, in all cases governments played an active
role in restructuring the economy and buffering it against a volatile external environment.
Industrial policies, restrictions on capital flows and currency controls – all prohibited
in the neoliberal playbook – were rampant.
Facebook
Twitter Pinterest Protest against Nafta in Mexico City in 2008: since the reforms of the
mid-90s, the country's economy has underperformed. Photograph: EPA
By contrast, countries that stuck closest to the neoliberal model of globalisation were
sorely disappointed. Mexico provides a particularly sad example. Following a series of
macroeconomic crises in the mid-1990s, Mexico embraced macroeconomic orthodoxy, extensively
liberalised its economy, freed up the financial system, sharply reduced import restrictions and
signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). These policies did produce
macroeconomic stability and a significant rise in foreign trade and internal investment. But
where it counts – in overall productivity and economic growth – the
experiment failed . Since undertaking the reforms, overall productivity in Mexico has
stagnated, and the economy has underperformed even by the undemanding standards of Latin
America.
These outcomes are not a surprise from the perspective of sound economics. They are yet
another manifestation of the need for economic policies to be attuned to the failures to which
markets are prone, and to be tailored to the specific circumstances of each country. No single
blueprint fits all.
A s Peters's 1982 manifesto attests, the meaning of neoliberalism has changed considerably
over time as the label has acquired harder-line connotations with respect to deregulation,
financialisation and globalisation. But there is one thread that connects all versions of
neoliberalism, and that is the
emphasis on economic growth . Peters wrote in 1982 that the emphasis was warranted because
growth is essential to all our social and political ends – community, democracy,
prosperity. Entrepreneurship, private investment and removing obstacles that stand in the way
(such as excessive regulation) were all instruments for achieving economic growth. If a similar
neoliberal manifesto were penned today, it would no doubt make the same point.
Critics often point out that this emphasis on economics debases and sacrifices other
important values such as equality, social inclusion, democratic deliberation and justice. Those
political and social objectives obviously matter enormously, and in some contexts they matter
the most. They cannot always, or even often, be achieved by means of technocratic economic
policies; politics must play a central role.
Still, neoliberals are not wrong when they argue that our most cherished ideals are more
likely to be attained when our economy is vibrant, strong and growing. Where they are wrong is
in believing that there is a unique and universal recipe for improving economic performance, to
which they have access. The fatal flaw of neoliberalism is that it does not even get the
economics right. It must be rejected on its own terms for the simple reason that it is bad
economics.
A version of this article first appeared in Boston
Review
So here we are, with a global economy that's very cost-efficient but not resilient. It's wonderful that Walmart has worked
out how to order a new tube of toothpaste from China the second one is pulled off a shelf in Topeka, KS. But that means there is
no deep storage to draw upon in times of disruption to the status quo. No warehouses stocked with 12 months of future goods.
Just a brilliantly-complicated supply chain thousands of miles long that has to work perfectly for things to keep running.
As an example that drives home this point: we learned during the 2011 earthquake in Japan
that there was just one single
factory making a necessary polymer gel for the odd-shaped lithium batteries used in
smartphones and iPods. There was no backup factory.
We watched closely during that enormous crisis (which also spawned the Fukushima nuclear
disaster) as electronics companies scrambled to triage their remaining supplies and attempt to
find new sources. It was very touch and go. Vast portions of the battery-fueled electronic
industry came within a whisker of simply shutting down production -- all for want of an
esoteric polymer gel.
Yes, the most cost-effective way to make that gel was to house it all in a single plant. But
it made no sense from a redundancy and resilience standpoint.
And did 'we' learn from that experience? Nope.
Supply Chain Armageddon
The global economy is more interdependent than ever. Its supply chains are built on a huge
network of dependencies with many 'single points of failure' strung along its many
branches.
Can anybody predict what will happen next? No.
But we're already seeing early failures as Chinese plants, factories and ports sit idle from
the country's massive quarantine efforts:
China set to lose out on production of 1M vehicles as coronavirus closes car plants
China exports about $70 billion worth of car parts and accessories globally, with roughly
20 percent going to the U.S.
Feb. 5, 2020, 4:32 PM EST
By Paul A. Eisenstein
China could suffer the loss of a million vehicles worth of production as factories in its
crucial automotive industry remain shuttered until at least next week -- and likely longer in
Wuhan, the "motor city" at the center of the coronavirus outbreak.
With more than 24,000 people infected, the impact of the highly contagious disease is also
beginning to be felt by automakers in other parts of the world. Hyundai is suspending
production in its South Korean plants because of a shortage of Chinese-made parts, and even
European car manufacturers could be hit: Volkswagen and BMW could see a dip of 5 percent in
their earnings for the first half of 2020, according to research firm Bernstein.
We're predicting that these auto shutdowns are just beginning. All it takes is a single
component to be unavailable and the entire line has to be shut down.
Is China the sole source for many critical components in the auto industry? Absolutely.
Here's an inside view:
On Monday, Steve Banker and I had the opportunity to speak with Razat Gaurav, CEO of
Llamasoft. Razat had some interesting takes on the outbreak, especially as it relates to the
automotive and pharmaceutical supply chains. On average it takes 30,000 parts to make a
finished automobile.
Due to the virus, production facilities have already indicated that they will have lower
than normal parts volumes. This has left companies scrambling to make contingency plans.
During my conversation with Razat, he mentioned that inventories for most of these automotive
parts are managed on a lean just-in-time basis.
This means that, on average, companies have anywhere between two and twelve weeks of
buffer inventory on-hand for automotive parts. As production volumes are decreasing, this has
the potential to cause quite the global shortage of parts. The buffer inventory will only
last so long, and once the pre-holiday supply runs dry, the industry is going to be in
serious trouble. According to Gaurav: " Most OEMs single source components for new vehicles
and China is a large supplier of those."
"Single sourcing" is exactly what it implies. There's a single factory somewhere churning
out a single component that is absolutely vital to make a motorized vehicle. If that factory
goes away for any length of time, a new source has to be identified or – worse, from a
time and cost standpoint – built from scratch.
But this vulnerability to China-dependent supply chains is by no means unique to the auto
industry:
Last month, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission held a hearing on the
United States' growing reliance on China's pharmaceutical products. The topic reminded me of
a spirited discussion described in Bob Woodward's book, Fear: Trump in the White House.
In the discussion, Gary Cohn, then chief economic advisor to President Trump, argued
against a trade war with China by invoking a Department of Commerce study that found that 97
percent of all antibiotics in the United States came from China.
That's as close to a 'sole source' as you can get.
And to put the cherry on top: guess the name of the region in China responsible for
producing all if these antibiotics? Yep, Hubei province. With Wuhan its most important
production hub.
Can we find another source for our generic drugs and antibiotics? India, possibly. But here
again we run into the same global interdependency issue:
Another industry that is feeling the impact of the coronavirus is the pharmaceutical
industry. The average buffer inventory for the pharmaceutical industry is between three and
six months. However, this does not tell the full story. Gaurav mentioned that China is
responsible for producing 40 percent of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for the
pharmaceutical world.
Additionally, China supplies 80 percent of key starting materials (KSM's), which are the
chemicals in APIs, to India . Put together, this represents 70 percent of all APIs across the
world.
India's production is directly tied to uninterrupted supply from China:
Indian generic drugmakers may face supply shortages from China if coronavirus drags on
Feb 13 (Reuters) – Shortages and potential price increases of generic drugs from
India loom if the coronavirus outbreak disrupts suppliers of pharmaceutical ingredients in
China past April , according to industry experts.
An important supplier of generic drugs to the world, Indian companies procure almost 70%
of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for their medicines from China.
India's generic drugmakers say they currently have enough API supplies from China to cover
their operations for up to about three months.
"We are comfortably placed with eight to 10 weeks of key inventory in place," said
Debabrata Chakravorty, head of global sourcing and supply chain for Lupin Ltd, adding that
the company does have some local suppliers for ingredients.
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd said it has sufficient inventory of API and raw
materials for the short term and has not seen any major disruption in supplies at the
moment.
The Indian drugmaker, however, said supply has been impacted for a few API products and
the company is closely monitoring the situation. It did not identify the products.
India supplies nearly a third of medicines sold in the United States , the world's largest
and most lucrative healthcare market.
If you're dependent in any way on prescription drugs, it would be entirely rational to chase
down whether those come from China or India and, if they are, begin talks with your doctor
about alternatives or what to do if supplies get pinched.
A Fast-Moving Situation
Look, we entirely get why the authorities and media are downplaying the covid-19 pandemic.
We really do. They feel the need to manage the crisis, which means managing the public
narrative.
But c'mon. Does it make any sense for Apple's stock price to be up while its main Foxconn
manufacturing facility is all but completely shuttered?
Fewer iPhones and Airpods being made should equate with lower future earnings and thus a
lower stock price. But no, AAPL is up handily over the past month:
And this is even crazier. Does it make ANY sense for Boeing's stock to be up $12 over the
past month? As it reported its first year (2019) of NEGATIVE orders and a completely order-free
January (2020)? No, of course not.
But those are the sorts of 'signals' that the officials believe have to be sent in order to
keep the masses from catching on that something really concerning is happening.
Unfortunately, such signals work on the masses. Higher stock prices send a powerful
comforting message that "all is well".
But prudent critical thinkers, which defines those in the Peak Prosperity tribe, can readily
see through the ruse and get busy preparing themselves for what's coming.
It's Time For
Action
The situation with covid-19 is fluid, and fast-moving. Staying on top of the breaking
developments and making sense of them for you is our primary job.
But information without informed action is useless.
After all, knowing something concerning but then doing nothing about it is merely cause for
anxiety if not alarm.
The only ways to remain calm and protect your loved ones from the threat of this pandemic
are rooted in taking smart action.
Yes, we can all hope this blows over. We sincerely wish the macro-planners all the best in
shaping the narrative and keeping the macro economy somehow functioning and glued together.
But we're going to prepare as best we can, here at our micro level because that's our duty
to ourselves, to our families, and to our communities.
Creating A Resilient Defense
Against The Coronavirus
This is a huge moment in history. The first global pandemic at a time when the world economy
is sole-sourced and completely interdependent.
Nobody can predict what will happen next. Autos, drugs who knows what the next industry to
stumble will be?
Given the ridiculously high rate of infectivity of covid-19 there's really no chance of
stopping its spread. The rate is now just a equation of time, luck, and official actions to
aggressively isolate and quarantine infected individuals and communities.
Our position affords us many experienced contacts with experts throughout the world, and
those we know with deep medical training are preparing the most aggressively right now. This
outbreak has their full attention; and that informs us that it should have ours, too.
Which is why our advice is to get busy preparing yourself now.
Particularly useful for those who have recently found their way to PeakProsperity.com, it
offers both a valuable framework to use in preparing for any disaster (including pandemics) and
then details out specific action steps to take today across all aspects of your life (i.e., not
just health & hygiene) against a coronavirus outbreak in your local area.
"... The thoughtless people who constructed " globalism " overlooked that interdependence is dangerous and can have massive unintended consequences . With or without an epidemic, supplies can be cut off for a number of reasons. For example, strikes, political instability, natural catastrophes, sanctions and other hostilities such as wars, and so forth. Clearly, these dangers to the system are not justified by the lower labor cost and consequent capital gains to shareholders and bonuses to corporate executives. Only the one percent benefits from globalism. ..."
"... Globalism was constructed by people motivated by short-term greed. None of the promises of globalism have been delivered. Globalism is a massive mistake. Yet, almost everywhere political leaders and economists are protective of globalism. So much for human intelligence. ..."
If the coronavirus proves to be serious, as it does not appear to be at the present time,
many economies could be adversely affected. China is the source of many parts supplied to
producers in other countries, and China is the source of the finished products of many US firms
such as Apple. If shipments cannot be made, sales and production outside of China are affected.
Without revenues, employees cannot be paid. Unlike the financial crisis of 2008, this would be
an unemployment crisis and bankruptcy of large manufacturing and marketing corporations.
This is the danger to which globalism makes us vulnerable. If US corporations produced in
the US the products that they market in the US and the world, an epidemic in China would affect
only their Chinese sales, not threaten the companies' revenues.
The thoughtless people who constructed " globalism " overlooked that interdependence is
dangerous and can have massive unintended consequences . With or without an epidemic, supplies
can be cut off for a number of reasons. For example, strikes, political instability, natural
catastrophes, sanctions and other hostilities such as wars, and so forth. Clearly, these
dangers to the system are not justified by the lower labor cost and consequent capital gains to
shareholders and bonuses to corporate executives. Only the one percent benefits from
globalism.
Globalism was constructed by people motivated by short-term greed. None of the promises
of globalism have been delivered. Globalism is a massive mistake. Yet, almost everywhere
political leaders and economists are protective of globalism. So much for human
intelligence.
At this point of time, it is difficult to understand the hysteria over coronavirus and
predictions of global pandemic. In China there are about 24,000 infections and 500 deaths in a
population of 1.3 billion people. This is an inconsequential illness. Compared to the ordinary
seasonal flu that infects millions of people worldwide and kills 600,000, the coronavirus so
far amounts to nothing. Infections outside of China are miniscule and appear to be limited to
Chinese people. It is difficult to know for certain, because of the reluctance to identify
people by race.
Perhaps the coronavirus is just warming up and much worse is to come. If so, world Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) will take a hit. Quarantines prevent work. Finished products and parts
cannot be made and shipped. Sales cannot take place without products to sell. Without revenues
companies cannot pay employees and other expenses. Incomes decline across the world. Companies
go bankrupt.
You can take it from here.
If a deadly coronavirus pandemic or some other one does erupt and there is a world
depression, we should be very clear in our mind that globalism was the cause. Countries whose
governments are so thoughtless or corrupt as to make their populations vulnerable to disruptive
events abroad are medically, economically, socially, and politically unstable.
The consequence of globalism is world instability.
It makes sense for rich countries elites to leverage poor backwards shithole countries to
manufacture the things they need because the elites then don't have to worry about anyone but
themselves. Globalism is wonder as it bypasses all that crazy western nonsense like jobs and
wages and society and hope and such.
Globalism is nothing more than the major central banks finding ways to dump off their
inflation which is the deflation of an ever increasing number countries which the major cb's
used to deflate their currencies. The older the cb you are the worse off yo are. From a since
A.D. perspective only the Sterling is what you have to worry. From my last fiat currency
perspective its the Venisthaler that is un doing everything.
To get more zero's you have to add more nine's. They can not be added as nausem like
people think zero's are. The compensation pool has been shrinking for centuries on end now.
Globalism is an attempt to keep the pool growing at all cost which results relentless asset
appreciation. We are out of nine's. The end result of that is hyper deflation for the man and
hyper reflation for the people. Easily provable at a store named Vons owned by the treasury
retired.
That ladies and gents is your simplified street fed explanation. I am not trying to even
remotely write out the longer technical version.
Having said that meet me at what is known as the small walmart around here, which is the
home of what does MU do, what does MU do at walmart it never gets old fame for a real life
walk thru of what globalism is and looks like. We will then progress to the "Big Walmart" not
even a mile away and I will show you what an out of control system looks like.
So we are clear of what I just said. I live in the only place in the world where when a
tourist ask you where Wal Mart is, you get your choice of size. Whats the difference you
ask??? The small Wal Mart has one main entrance, the big one has three. The lady almost
smacked the **** out of the guy I got that from when she asked what the difference was. The
hand came up. You really had to be there.
Regional trade blocks with relatively balanced resource and production capabilities make
more sense. Globalisation just lead to one country seeking to 'DOMINATE' in every sphere of
global activity, raising the threats of economic and military conflict, as clearly
demonstrated and this with the aim of global enslavement to multinational corporations, the
aim of Globalism, really sick psychopathic stuff.
Regional trade blocks relatively balanced for resource and production, provide stability
within each block and lesson competition for outside resource and commercial competitiveness,
and represents a far more long term stable structure.
Within each trade block, as it is economic rather than socio-political the original
identities of each distinct region can be preserved for the long term, so that future
generations can enjoy and share in the different cultures. Race ******** is race ********,
there is only one race and all of it's people are free to share in which ever culture they
choose or combinations there of. Whether you get to move to those regions and enjoy those
cultures will be done to your personal worth, character and ability to contribute to those
societies, just the way it will be.
Some economic blocks will be far more preferable to others and will attract higher worth
individuals (character and ability to contribute to society), the least and most desirable
will become more so as higher worth individuals move to the most preferable away from the
least preferable and make the most preferable more preferable by their active presence.
I would tip the Japan Australia one to be the most preferable for this century, the next
hard to tell (there are real deep problems in the Americas caused by the USA, the EU had an
bad immigrant problem as in they let in too many bad unvetted immigrants, Africa will be what
Africa will be corrupt and Russia China it depends upon how quickly the modernise and
socially advance, the middle of the middles south east to mid east it depends how long it
takes them to come together and religion is a real problem for them).
I've been wondering if this might be some kind of Globalist Drill. It doesn't make sense,
although there is always the potential it could become worse than it is.
I thought so, too. Strangely enough, Wuhan Chinese are now repatriated from Bali back to
Wuhan?!
Instability is a necessary condition to get more conflicts and then wars going. Weapons
production must be kept up; peace and stability would make make weapons production an
expensive hobby.
"... If the strategy is to pressurise the EU into giving the UK a better trade deal though, it is unlikely to be treated as a credible threat. In the short to medium term, the UK is in no position to set up inspection systems which could handle the volume of goods coming in from EU Member States . ..."
"... The fundamental problem is that the most brilliant team of negotiators in the world can't do anything unless they have a clear negotiating mandate. (This was the case in 1972 and 1991 by the way). There comes a point in negotiations where you have to decide whether to stick, twist or bust, and you can only do that if you have a clear idea of the overall political objectives of your masters. There's nothing worse (it's happened to me) than to be sent out to die in a ditch on some issue only to find out half way through that your principals have had a rethink and changed their position. It doesn't do your credibility any good, but it also makes it practically impossible to negotiate, because nobody believes you afterwards when you say "no." ..."
"... Johnson has one fatal weakness – the Faustian bargain he struck to deliver a hard Brexit to win the prime ministership. Any economic bounce this year will be short-lived: the Bank of England's forecast of 1.1% growth for the next three years could even be optimistic, as both inward direct investment and UK business investment dry up when access to the EU single market and customs union ceases. The Canada-style trade deal Johnson advocates is as close to self-immolation as economics provides. Britain already has a vast trade deficit in goods that will widen alarmingly as competitive overseas exporters take advantage of zero tariffs, while services – where Britain has great competitive strengths – will be crippled by being denied their former EU markets. It is insane and risks an unstoppable run on the pound, as a former cabinet minister privately agreed. Renewed austerity and recession will follow. ..."
"... For Johnson the first objective of Brexit is to place greater controls on labor. The intention is to ensure that by controlling free movement labor itself can be controlled, and so too can its price be kept at rates the government would desire. And that is low, of course. ..."
"... Freeports are instead about permitting the free movement of capital beyond the control of the state and without the imposition of any taxes. ..."
"... Quite bizarrely, given that freeports are effectively declared to be outside the country that creates them, one of the major objectives Johnson has for Brexit is to carve whole chunks of the UK out of the control he claims to have just taken back, and to pass it over to the free loaders who frequent freeports. ..."
"... The aim of freeports is to undermine the state. It achieves this by suspending the law. Freeports permit illicit activity ..."
On the one hand, we Americans are hardly ones to talk about empty posturing, usually
accompanied with moral indignation and finger-wagging. On the other hand, it isn't just that
the Government's approach to Brexit has been heavy on theatrics and thin on substance. It's
also that the UK is in Groundhog Day mode, subjecting the rest of us to tired tropes yet
another time.
The latest iteration of this far-too-familiar play is Boris Johnson acting as if he can
threaten the EU with a no deal at the end of the transition period. Specifically, Johnson has
made a big show of poking the EU in the eye by setting forth his tough guy negotiating demands
over this past weekend. Admittedly, the Prime Minister isn't setting out his position formally
until Monday, but there's no mystery as to what it will be: a rejection of accepting EU rules
yet saying it wants a Canada-style free trade agreement.
... ... ...
The BBC said Johnson also intends to threaten the EU with customs checks at UK point of
entry. As Richard North pointed out, the EU is not impressed :
If the strategy is to pressurise the EU into giving the UK a better trade deal though,
it is unlikely to be treated as a credible threat. In the short to medium term, the UK is in
no position to set up inspection systems which could handle the volume of goods coming in
from EU Member States .
Needless to say, a "senior EU source" has rejected the idea of reacting to Johnson's plan
to impose import controls. "We saw similar threats from Theresa May" he says, "but frankly we
never believed them. And if the UK is actually ready for border checks – which are
indeed coming – then so much the better for both sides".
Even the normally sober Economist concludes that Johnson is aiming for "
the hardest possible Brexit ." He does have a fallback:
"A government source said last night: "There are only two likely outcomes in negotiation,
a free trade deal like Canada or a looser arrangement like Australia – and we are happy
to pursue both." Australia is the new euphemism for No Deal or WTO ! https://t.co/BDpwb4Z3qP
This new stance has prompted bafflement in Brussels, given that Canberra is still in the
process of negotiating a wide-ranging trade deal with the EU.
... ... ...
Needless to say, this does not look pretty. As I said to our Brexit mavens by e-mail
yesterday:
Johnson is playing a game of chicken. He's already lashed himself to the mast of 11
months.
Sir Ivan Rogers basically warned that the early months would amount to shape of the table
talks and he thought negotiations could break down then. I would not see that as lasting but
with time so tight any delay increases the risk of bad outcomes. And Sir Ivan warned that
there had never been a trade deal between countries trying to get further apart. He's
stressed that point so often that I think he is saying at least that the human dynamics of
that make getting to a deal more difficult.
Again, if the time weren't so rigid, the odds would look completely different.
And the EU would almost certainly give an extension if the UK asked .but at a price .and
would Johnson ever ask? The most I can see him being able to finesse might be say a 2 -3
month "technical" extension, which won't buy meaningful negotiating runway given the
complexity of deals like this.
Now we've seen these games of chicken resolve without a crash before, but Johnson is
making it difficult as hell, and the UK is further hampered by a Foreign Office which is
short staffed and has effectively no experience negotiating trade deals.
David's response:
The fundamental problem is that the most brilliant team of negotiators in the world
can't do anything unless they have a clear negotiating mandate. (This was the case in 1972
and 1991 by the way). There comes a point in negotiations where you have to decide whether to
stick, twist or bust, and you can only do that if you have a clear idea of the overall
political objectives of your masters. There's nothing worse (it's happened to me) than to be
sent out to die in a ditch on some issue only to find out half way through that your
principals have had a rethink and changed their position. It doesn't do your credibility any
good, but it also makes it practically impossible to negotiate, because nobody believes you
afterwards when you say "no."
Not only do I not think Johnson has no real negotiating objectives, I also believe that
he's uninterested in even fairly high-level detail, and sees the negotiations as one more
jolly game that he wants to win. My fear is that he's out to deliberately sabotage progress
in order to create drama and tension, only to fly to the rescue at the very last minute. This
is more than dangerous. "Insane" is perhaps the word for it.
Some other takes. Will Hutton in the Guardian contends that Johnson has become a prisoner of
the allegiances he made to become Prime Minister (and Hutton is very complimentary of the moves
Johnson has made so far ex Brexit). I'm not sure I agree, since before his ascent, Johnson was
famed for shamelessly reversing himself and getting away with it. But Johnson sure looks like
someone who is choosing to throw away the steering wheel.
From the Guardian:
However, Johnson has one fatal weakness – the Faustian bargain he struck to
deliver a hard Brexit to win the prime ministership. Any economic bounce this year will be
short-lived: the Bank of England's forecast of 1.1% growth for the next three years could
even be optimistic, as both inward direct investment and UK business investment dry up when
access to the EU single market and customs union ceases. The Canada-style trade deal Johnson
advocates is as close to self-immolation as economics provides. Britain already has a vast
trade deficit in goods that will widen alarmingly as competitive overseas exporters take
advantage of zero tariffs, while services – where Britain has great competitive
strengths – will be crippled by being denied their former EU markets. It is insane and
risks an unstoppable run on the pound, as a former cabinet minister privately agreed. Renewed
austerity and recession will follow.
Johnson and his Brexit cabinet, backed by our Europhobic rightwing press, will blame
dastardly Europeans for the crisis – and the anti-foreigner mood will grow ugly. But
even if the worst is avoided, Britain is plainly not going to grow at "new dawn" rates of up
to 2.8%, as our curiously naive chancellor wants. Rather, the years ahead are going to be a
drip of disappointments, as the reality of a hard Brexit bites. And on this Johnson cannot be
breezily opportunistic and convert to a soft Brexit, tempted though he may be. He will be
imprisoned by his know-nothing right – the European Research Group in full battle
cry.
Richard North
argues , "What this looks like, therefore, is Johnson setting up his alibi for the failure
of the talks, getting his blame game cranked into gear before the EU can react." And Richard Murphy contends Johnson knows what he is doing,
which it to put in place Singapore on the Thames :
Nothing I have yet seen so starkly states what Brexit is all about.
For Johnson the first objective of Brexit is to place greater controls on labor. The
intention is to ensure that by controlling free movement labor itself can be controlled, and
so too can its price be kept at rates the government would desire. And that is low, of
course.
And his second objective is to create freeports. He will claim that these are all about
creating regulation free hubs for enterprise. This is completely untrue. There is no evidence
that regulation free ports have ever generated work, wealth, much employment, or free market
enterprise, come to that. This is unsurprising. That is not what freeports are about, at all.
Freeports are instead about permitting the free movement of capital beyond the control of the
state and without the imposition of any taxes.
Quite bizarrely, given that freeports are effectively declared to be outside the country
that creates them, one of the major objectives Johnson has for Brexit is to carve whole
chunks of the UK out of the control he claims to have just taken back, and to pass it over to
the free loaders who frequent freeports.
To understand how freeports really work I suggest watching this video. I know it's not in
English, but it's good, and explains how the Geneva freeport works to handle diamonds, gold,
armaments, fine art and rare wines, all beyond the control of authorities and all beyond the
reach of tax:
The aim of freeports is to undermine the state. It achieves this by suspending the law. Freeports permit illicit activity. They permit wealth to be accumulated in secret. That wealth is beyond the reach of tax. Research suggests that much of that wealth is also shielded by anonymous offshore shell
companies that disguise the ownership of an asset even if it can be located. The object is to ensure wealth can accumulate without constraint.
This is the paradox that Johnson revealed in his video. He wants to control and constrain
people. He will use that power to oppress, not just those who want to come to the UK but
also, of course, those who wish to leave the UK as well. The market in labour will be
constrained. People will suffer as a result.
At the same time the market in illicit wealth will be liberated to traffic at will. The
cost will be to us all, in lost tax revenue, increased inequality and the undermining of the
rule of law. Additional jobs will be few and far between.
And let's not for a moment pretend that any freeport activity supports markets: creating
ring fences always creates unlevel playing fields that will always, by definition and in
practice, undermine effective markets. So there is nothing in this policy that is about
wealth creation: it is all about wealth expropriation and extraction.
This is what Brexit was for. And Johnson admitted it last night. One day people will
realise.
If Murphy is correct, that would explain Johnson's recent conversion to fixity of purpose,
at least with Brexit. We'll have more clues in due course whether the hard core Brexit faction
is mad like a fox or simply a different variant of the madness we've seen all along.
but it's good, and explains how the Geneva freeport works to handle diamonds,
gold , armaments, fine art and rare wines, all beyond the control of authorities and
all beyond the reach of tax: [bold added]
Gold obviously has value in industry but its use as or to back fiat is inherently corrupt*
and obsolete** too.
So let's please quit idolizing a corrupt and obsolete money form, i.e. Central Banks,
along with other reforms, should be required, in a manner to promote the general welfare, to
sell all private asset forms, including precious metals such as gold.
*Fiat is backed by the authority and power of the State to tax and needs no other backing;
hence to "back" fiat with gold is to do no such thing but is to back gold with the authority
and power of the State to tax, a violation of equal protection under the law.
**Historically, precious metals had some use as an anti-counterfeiting measure but modern
payment systems have no need for such.
Yup, the Freeports thing is clearly the Big Idea that lots of Brexit backers are hoping to
cash in on. Of course, what will happen is that lots of manufacturers will simply move into
the Freeports to save on taxes and regulations and close down their existing premises.
The UK has been there before – Thatcher was a huge fan of Development Corporations
which were low tax low regulation zones in crumbling industrial areas of the North and
Midlands. They became a byword for outright corruption. And of course huge areas which were
supposed to be redeveloped for industry became distribution hubs or frequently just massive
shopping malls (such as Merry Hill in the West Midlands, owned by two major Tory financial
contributors). Various studies after the event intended to demonstrate their success were
quietly buried when the results were not as expected. In reality, they were a costly
failure.
I like Moon aka Bernard or whatever but he says the EU needs slightly less regulation. This
stupid giant politically correct police state has like 66,000 laws and they pass 5,000 new
ones a year. Nanny police state fascism and all they do is steal money from the taxpayers of
Europe. It is a Central Bank ponzi scheme that is going to implode.
Most recent joke today is the EU Army which has pretty much no working tanks, planes or
ships. Who are they going to fight anyway? The Russians? God help Europe - maybe Russians and
Putin might reinstate Christianity in Europe and throw off the yoke of the CIA/MIC/Operation
Gladio-Mockingbird from USA.
The impression I'm getting from comments here is that there are still many Europeans (in the
broad sense, both EU and British) in complete denial.
Europe is in decline, not in ascension. The numbers just came out yesterday: 0.1% for the
EU (with France and Italy in recession); UK's number for Q4 are still one month away, but Q3
was also pathetic.
World trade (globalization) has grown to a halt. It's all maxed out already, there are no
more free trade deals to be made.
Germany is in de facto recession. Most worryingly, its industrial output is plummeting -
with only its services sector keeping the whole thing afloat. And we know that's not how the
German economy should work.
The UK is still a capitalist economy - free from the EU or not. It will not invest in
those fabled renewable energy sources from tide, wind etc. etc. if the profit rates are not
high enough. And they are not high enough. The only way, then, for those investments to
happen is if energy prices spike up - very bad news for the British people (which, fair to
say, could happen in or out of the EU, so this is not a Brexit question).
Many countries in Europe tried to invest in those renewable, but apart from insignificant
micro-nations such as Denmark, most failed to supplant the old sources. It was reduced to a
complementary source.
The only reason to think the European Peninsula can rise from the ashes is that it rose
from the ashes before (post-war miracle). But the post-war miracle was a very exceptional
historical period, where a lot of improbable variables aligned. It will certainly not happen
again.
The European peoples should stop with their dellusions of grandeur and accept a treaty of
Eurasian integration, with a subordinate status to Russia and China. You did it before with
the USA in 1945, you can do it again now with Russia/China. That is unexceptional in European
History, and can certainly happen again.
The Commonwealth long since ceased to have any meaning for the UK other than as a
vestige of an expropriative empire, which has been a caricature since 1942[.]
If you think that the land mass of the Commonwealth represents a kind of control comparable
to the EU then you need to study the last century[.]
In that comment you have attracted Her Majesty's displeasure. Suggest a read up of the 53
Commonwealth countries' property ownership in common law - in fee simple>radical
title > The Crown's underlying title in common law. Oh, add the thirteen
colonies prior to the American revolution found unpalatable.
Fun read from George Galloway @RT. Lot's of things independent minded folk can agree with but
pay particular attention to the conclusion / ending and give it a 1 to 10 reality rating.
Think of the absolutely absurd straight line that separates Canada from the U.S. West of
the great lakes.
Now think of that artificially imposed boundary and ask yourself, "What a stupid line,
surely that line wouldn't be able to instill any cultural differences between two artificial
constructs (nations)?"
(Anecdotally, I live in the Pac NW and every time I have ever crossed the border into
Canada it literally feels like you are entering a retiring, European state.)
And then ask yourself how it is possible one country has a national healthcare system
while the other abhors the idea. Or why the U.S. has the worst gun violence in the First
World while Canada has a 1/10th of that number.
Face it, regardless of lines on a map, a national identity still gives a people the choice
to galvanize and develop independently.
I think the EU is in for more trouble in the future than the UK. By the end of this decade,
several central and eastern European countries economies will have grown sufficiently that
their EU yearly subsidies will now become EU payments. In other words, the EU cash cow will
suddenly become a cash drain for some countries. In the meantime, France and Germany will
have the pick up the financial slack caused by Brexit. Put it all together and it seems to me
some trouble ahead for the EU.
I believe you have stated the underlying facts here -
"b is correct tho that the tendency of politicians pretending to be technocrats to
centralise in order to build a trade-able power base must be halted. otherwise the national
devolution movements become superseded by a Brussels top down pyramid management structure
where citizens are too removed from decision makers and the decision makers are too removed
from the results of their decisions."
That's the reason we have to leave the EU.
The next question is how.
The central fact here is that on a key point Brussels is absolutely in the right.
Frictionless access to the Single Market - what we have now - can only go with Dynamic
Alignment - continuing adherence to EU regulations. This fact was obscured during the
vacillations of the May Premiership and may still be being obscured.
Me, I think the "regulatory ecosystem" that the EU has evolved is unsound. It also goes
well beyond the technical setting of standards (most of which are set outside the EU in any
case) and affects matters far removed from the purely technical. But it's what they have and
it's not for us to attempt to change it.
Much of the hostility from the EU derives from the belief that as we leave we are trying
to change their system, and for our own benefit. All the fears of "Cherry picking" and the
rest. But it's not that they won't change. They can't, not without an entire recasting of
that regulatory ecosystem. That would cause chaos if they attempted to do it. Engrenage is
their watchword, the gradual accumulation of regulation and prescription, not demolition or
radical rebuilding.
In short, for the reasons you have given above, we have to leave. When we consider the
"how", we see that there is no magic solution that allows us to leave while continuing
trading as if we have not left. Out really does mean out.
So where's the problem?
We've built up a good many trade links with the 27, the EU countries. They are vulnerable
links, particularly the JIT links. It's going to take time to run down these links and
replace them with new. We have other links as well - through the agencies - that will also
take time to replace.
Such changes could take several years. If Brussels insists on that process happening
overnight the result is serious disruption. On the principle that the EU is so much larger
the calculation is that that disruption would hurt the UK much more than the EU. That is
Brussels' bargaining counter.
Whether Brussels is using that counter for punitive reasons or whether it is using it in
order to retain at least some control over the UK is irrelevant. The threat is there, however
you look at it.
Some think we should face the threat down. I do - I think it is bluff. Others think we
should not face it down - they fear it is not bluff. We wait to see which course the Johnson
administration will adopt, not forgetting that the previous UK administration, and certainly
the previous Parliament, didn't much like Brexit anyway - they wanted to stay in or close -
and we're not yet sure what Johnson's position is.
.
(Note - engrenage as it works in practice explained here)
"The affirmative task we have now is to actually create a new world order."
-- Vice President Joe Biden, April 5, 2013
"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can
emerge."
-- President George H. W. Bush, September 11, 1990
"We saw deterioration where there should have been positive movement toward a new world
order."
-- Mikhail Gorbachev, October 19, 2011
"I think that his [Obama's] task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in
this period, when really a 'new world order' can be created. It's a great
opportunity."
Remember it was the British that basically established political Zionism as a state back
in Palestine.
It was Trump that declared Jerusalem as the 'eternal capital' of anti-Christ Judaism.
Boris Johnson is a 'passionate Zionist' by his own proclamation.
This is about a realignment of Zionist interest in the English speaking world.
The EU wasn't going to play ball on the terms of American (and British) Zionism.
The English (KJV) world of eschatology demands a pseudo-Christianity to bow down to the
interests of anti-Christ Jewish nationalism. (It is why the U.S. Senate has passed
legislation making it illegal to criticize 'Israel' as 'anti-Semitic')
American evangelicals are being misrepresented by heretics like John Hagee and a
pseudo-Christianity that cares not for Jesus Christ at all but rather maintains a focus only
on 'Israel'. A dual covenant theology mixed with heresies galore served up in a controlled
media that doesn't allow for the recognition of Christianity as the real Israel against a
history of the destruction of ancient Israel because of their rejection of Jesus Christ as
the Son of God.
The New Testament Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen is Jesus foretelling and giving clear
reason for the destruction of anti-Christ Judaism in 70 AD.
The heresies of John Darby and Cyrus Scofield (again nearly exclusively in English) have
created everything from British Israelism to fear and anxiety hustling crapola such as Hal
Lindsey and The Late Great Planet Earth end of the world heresies.
On the basis of Christian heresy has emerged anti-Christ political Zionism and its vast
adherents in the English speaking world now realigning.
The way most Canadians define themselves and our country is in NOT being like the US in
the most important ways. The decline into US-vassalage has been incrementally implemented
since WW2, but there is still hope. Scheer and Ignatief found out exactly what Canadians
thought about having a dual Cdn/US citizen PM... NOT HAPPENING. Harper found out trying to
US-ify Canada was a bad idea.
The Cdn-US cultural border has been basically open for decades, the effectiveness of CRTC
Cdn-content rules have been diluted to the point of irrelevance. But still we Canucks prefer
little things like our free medical and minimal military bloat to the US shit-show.
But highly unlikely Canada will return to the "preferred trading status" the Commonwealth
enforced. NAFTA Part Deux pretty much blocks that.
So Britain could easily be maneuvered into a similar vassal state situation with the US as
Canada, but what will Britain bring to the table the US military/corporatocracy would want?
No natural resources to speak of, so what is on offer? A handy military lily-pad perhaps, but
the US already has that, and can't see Britain booting the US military off the island.
Britain is in a VERY weak bargaining position with the US, if anything weaker as it closes
one avenue of access/influence the US has within the EU.
Britain has already been a de facto vassal state when it comes to aligning itself with
every empire FP misadventure abroad for 30 years.
I do not think the U.S. will give the U.K. a bad deal. I think this is the hope of many
here who foolishly advocate for the EU, which is really a byproduct of their unconscious from
their academia templates they wish to lay down over the world a la a good technocrat.
They will get along swimmingly. The U.S. is looking for better deals as opposed to getting
raped by China under the globalist paradigm.
The most encouraging aspect of the BREXIT SNAFU is that it confirms the suspicions/ wishful
thinking of many observers that fissures are appearing in the fabric which unites the Masters
Of The Universe/ the 1%.
With China's Belt & Road Initiative gaining momentum, the weaponisation of the USD, and
many countries looking East, it won't be difficult to cook up wedge issues to further erode
the "unity" of the EU.
When the recession starts biting and politicians begin prattling about "Austerity" (for the
99%) it'll be time to instigate a thorough investigation into the Tax Haven Network, and a
vigorous debate about how and why they should be closed down, the assets therein
redistributed in a Fair & Balanced way, and the perps imprisoned or executed for Tax
Evasion, Greed and Perjury.
The englanders refused to accept that the primary issue was never about brexit stay or go,
but what philosophy would underpin england for the next decades.
The picked the mean, racist, classist & regionalist (only the south east matters) Tory
Party so it won't be pretty. Yep the tories won seats in the working class areas of the
midlands & further north in addition to the seats in the bourgeois areas up there they
already held and yep Johnson did make noises about spending up large up there. However since
the remainers in the south east didn't desert the tories, I doubt much will be diverted
outside the south east, represented by long-standing MP's who don't 'talk funny' ie have a
regional accent unlike the new largely inexperienced northern representatives.
It was M Thatcher who introduced the heroin addict traineeships for miners & factory
workers in place of their jobs and I do not see the lobbyists who have worked so hard to
ensure that the financialisation of everything industry grew to be the major component of the
englander economy, countenancing anything more than token funds being diverted from them, not
least because that industry is going to take a major hit.
There is no way the EU is going to agree to england's banks & finance corps getting
anything like the same deal england had in the EU which means that the tax avoidance rorts
are going to be harder to implement whilst being more transparent to regulators.
Already stockbrokers, accountancy firms and a couple of the bigger banks are checking out
the weather in frankfurt now.
If the EU's shift to 137 governments international tax rules for tech giants idea remains as
minimal & toothless as it appears to be, most corporate CFO's are going to see the notion
of doing business in another jurisdiction & another currency expensive & pointless,
when the job can be done easier within the EU.
I'm sure that those banksters who cannot or will not shift their operations outta London
have some big strategy for persuading the EU to give way and treat the City as if it is still
in the EU, but that price will be high for all other englander industries, leaving Jo/Joe
Blow and the rest of the 99% in worse crap than they were before.
In case it gets hard for the UK economically after Brexit, the City of London will ask for
Johnson´s head, who will not hesitate, as Eton privileged class, selling what of
welfare still remains there, especially what Trump will for sure demand, the NHS, to try to
save face...
They will not low Johnson or his successor´s wage, nor will renounce to their
billionaire earnings, it will be he working class who will lose, as always happens. Then,
probably a new labor movement will arise...but after having payed such a price....
The best and most realistic analysis, from satire group ICYMI member (v this time notice
his graveness...)
Much more realistic than the delusional vision by Galloway, since to reach his dreamt
utopic state of affairs through this way, working people in the UK will first have to suffer
a lot, even a confrontation amongst ecah other, which is the "ultra-right" agenda, chaos from
which they reap...
I think Diane Johnstone's piece sums it up the best:
UK Came & Went, Leaving Europe in a Mess
30 January 2020 -- Consortium News
As Great Britain returns to the uncertainties of the open sea, it leaves behind a European
Union that is bureaucratically governed to serve the interests of financial capital, writes
Diana Johnstone
/../
From the start, the question of British membership appeared as a thorn in the side of
European unity. Initially, London was opposed to the Common Market. In 1958, Prime Minister
Harold MacMillan assailed it as "the Continental Blockade" (alluding to Napoleon's 1806
European policy) and said England would not stand for it. But as the project seemed to take
shape, London sought accommodation.
De Gaulle warned from the start that Great Britain didn't belong in a unified Europe,
geographically, economically or above all psychologically.
1. 50% of UK exports do not go to the EU. The "Rotterdam Effect" - whereby UK goods
transported to the rest of the world go via Europe's largest container port and are counted
in Eurostat land as exports to the EU.
2. The net balances of trade is massively in favour of the EU - ie the EU exports much
more to the UK than vice versa. Thus its the EU which desperately needs a trade deal. With
Germany a blink away from recession the last thing they need is tariffs on Mercedes, Audi, VW
etc..
3. Don't underestimate the value of old Commonwealth (Australia, NZ etc) ties
4. The sole ECB guarantor, in reality, is now Germany. When the Euro banks go tits up it
will be devastating for Germany.
5. The UK is a major financial hub, and will not be replaced by Frankfurt or Paris.
6. The UK could very easily do a Singapore by slashing business taxes and becoming the
gateway to Europe.
7. The world does not end when the transition period ends with no deal. See 1 & 2
above. WTO trade terms then apply. Its how the rest of the world trades with the EU, and I
don't see the likes of China or the US complaining.
I could go on. But the over-riding factor is that the UK gets back its sovereignty, and at
last a democratic vote has been respected, albeit belatedly. This will have many positive
effects for the UK. Oh, and the UK won't be the last to leave the EU.
I think b that you got it all wrong. The European Union has no advantage whatsoever since
it's institution are flawed. Just like Occupation put it "The structure of its financial
system and capital flows is not equitable, sustainable or resilient". We saw that very fact
unfold with the Greek crisis where the European union institutions and member states and
countries refused to support Greece in any way whatsoever (Germany, mainly.). Greece is
almost a third world country now to where the government has shortage of drugs and is selling
some of his major islands to billionaire like Warren Buffet.Add to that the rise of anti
European, German and globalist sentiments coupled with like minded terrorist groups such as
the Popular fighter Group and the revolutionary Struggle since the 2008 crisis and we have
pretty much a country in decay , very unstable and about to implode. I could go on and on
adding the so call PIGS country economic and social state therein it wouldn't make a
difference.
There is unity in European union but in name only.
Furthermore the European Union while not being democratic (since its parliament has not
the power and freedom to introduce bills of law and the European commissioners can put any
law they deem so necessary into effect without parliament consent ) has however a tremendous
amount of legal power, when it comes to societal changes and free trade, that can overrule
any member states and countries judicial systems (Let's Think of the introduction of GMO
products and destructive and unhealthy agriculture in spite of states and people opposing
them).
This may very well be one of the reasons why England and part of its ruling elite are keen
to get out of the European Union.
Lets be in honesty and speak truth here, countries and member states of the European Union
are ancient countries b, some having more than a thousand year history. Even if they truly
wanted to make an efficient European union, their differences, different interests and mostly
languages, cultural, practical and natural organizations of society inherited from years past
make the European union way too hard to achieve . Such a dream will take at least a couple of
centuries to happen if it ever does and will require unprecedented sacrifices and a denying
of people long established habits, behaviors, and so on only history can overcome.You, b,
better than anyone knows how politic even with great vision must be based on practical means
and understanding of realities or else its result can be catastrophic. That isn't the path
undertook by the European union.
Talking of economy, I wholeheartedly disagree with your statement on England weaknesses
after the Brexit.
First, it will be easier for great Britain to protect its main industries and tax big
corporations such as the GAFAM and the FANG.
Second, Britain is a very well educated and able country and there is nothing she cannot
mostly (or at least partially) do and achieve on her own in the possibility that she lacks
significant imports from other European countries. If anything,the refusal from other
European countries of importing some products via trade deals will boost inner production and
force Britain to re-industrialize segments of its economy which is very good for employment
and salaries. Britain may take a few years to recover but in the end she will come out of the
European union stronger and richer than she was in it.
Finally lets not fool ourselves England will certainly increased ties with the
commonwealth, the united states and china without major issues. Africa as a whole is not far
behind and I doubt France will ever stop selling cheese and wine to England and Germany stop
selling Cars and machine tools to it.
@ Posted by: NemesisCalling | Jan 31 2020 19:57 utc | 26
No. Nation-States are not born from cultural isolation: economic development develops
culture, not the inverse. The problem with the "cultural genesis" hypothesis is that it is
completely arbitrary: you could come up with an infinite combination of nation-States at
every time, at any stage. It is a hypothesis that explains everything without explaining
anything. It is, therefore, a scientifically useless hypothesis at best; a logical fallacy at
worst.
My observation about the development of the productive forces come from the objective
reality. It is the most scientifically precise description of human societal development in a
historical frame. This is not an opinion of mine: it's a fact. So, let's not waste time with
this anymore, as it would only bother the people who visit this blog.
--//--
@ Posted by: cdvision | Jan 31 2020 22:38 utc | 48
1. Maybe. But, as you state at #5, the UK is basically a rentier economy, so the battle
won't be won by the UK in the exports front.
2. This could be because the UK's productive sector is weak, not that the EU's productive
sector is strong. Besides, we live in a capitalist world, where there are not one, but two
balances: trade and capitals. The UK has a massive surplus in the capitals balance - massive
enough to cut by 7% its entire deficit per year.
3. Well then...
4. True.
5. True. But it will lose its Euro swap services monopoly - not enough to break the bank,
but a minus nevertheless.
6. You know you're desperate when you begin to resort to fucking Singapore to try to
search from some light at the end of the tunnel. First of all: Singapore is tiny. Very tiny.
Actually, it is a city.
Second, the UK's tax rates are already very low, and it already controls the main tax
havens, so there isn't much to lower anymore.
Third: as mentioned here in my first comment, the UK already had more than 750 bilateral
free trade agreements with the rest of the world; the UK was already "free" while it was in
the EU.
True, it won't be the total collapse the Remainers have been touting - but it won't be
that boom the Brexiter are preaching too. Basically nothing will change in the UK in terms of
trade agreements. Fourth: did I mention you're literally comparing a nation-State of 70
million people to a city-state?
7. True. Europe simply isn't that relevant anymore.
But the most funny thing I find about this Brexit debate is how amplified it is: Remainers
think the world will end; Brexiters think the Empire will come back. People, Brexit only
makes things go as they were before . Did the world end when the WTO ruled trade? No.
Did the UK become a superpower again when Thatcher rose to power? No. Was the UK a superpower
before the EEC and after WWI? No.
So, in other words, almost nothing will change. UK will strike some Norway-type deal with
the rest of the EU (is Norway collapsed? No.), it will probably renegotiate its already
existing trade deal with the USA - under unfavorable terms, for sure, since the USA is
infinitely richer and stronger than the UK - and the other one gazillion bilateral deals it
already had before will continue to exist.
The only notable thing I find about Brexit is its symbolism: it represents the inexorable
fall of Europe as a significant world player. In its history, Europe only became a world
player on two short lived occasions: when the Roman Empire was at its apex (the "High
Empire", from Augustus to Marcus Aurelius) and when the British Empire led a coalition of
second-rate empires essentially at the 19th Century (i.e. when capitalism became global).
That's only 350 years in more than 12,000 of human civilization history. During the rest of
it, Europe not only wasn't a world player, but it was probably one of the most peripheral and
poor regions of the planet.
I think MA outlook for Britan is too shadowed in sorrow. Britain strength in fishing waters
and import of germany cars are too underestimated. Britain with there connection to former
colonial countries make them sustainable. In the end germany will bend down to any toll on
cars. Britain has the upper card. Meanwhile the whole french spanish portuguise fishing
industry can wish they where british.
Still you wounder, the Illuminati outpost recommended brexit, what are they planning? Hope
it's a struggle between Illuminati and not a plan to extinguish common people. Eu will fall
like Rom, but the timeline is quit quick. Farage the city of london citizen talking to the
people convinced to leave eu what can be wrong? The world is no democracy and you can just
observe Illuminati decisions.
We should not underestimate the importance of today from the viewpoint of sovereignty and
democracy.
The principal of sovereignty must apply both to the countries we here defend as the
targets of the Empire, and even to the Chief Poodle of the US Empire itself, the UK. It is of
course unlikely, but if Britain is to be free of Brussels it should be free of Washington
too. Hard to imagine when the CIA and MI6 seem to be the same thing.
One of the reasons I voted Leave was to remove the toxic Chief Poodle influence of Britain
from Europe. If the EU becomes less Russophobic with MI6 removed, then this is a win for
Brexit.
The democracy thing is huge though. Here we have had for three and a half years almost the
whole coalition of forces who constitute the ruling-class narrative control (minus a few
Tories) demonise Brexit and portray Leavers as knuckle-dragging racist xenophobe chauvinist
nazi fascist bigoted hateful morons who were duped by a gross rather than net figure on the
side of a bus.
Despite this Leavers have quietly, peacefully and patiently voted in three elections since
the referendum with outcomes favouring Leave. In the 2017 GE both Tory and Labour promised to
respect the referendum and Labour did well. The Lib Dems ran on reversing Brexit and got
nothing. In the EU Parliament elections (there are no elections for the EU commission - now
there's a thing) the Brexit Party basically smashed it and won most of the seats. Then in the
2019 GE Labour was forced by the Blairites (and probably not opposed by the Corbynistas who
are also pro-Eu, contrary to their guru's long-held Tony Bennite Left Euro Scepticism) to
campaign on a rejection of the referendum, and the so-called Red Wall of sold, traditional
Labour working-class constituencies voted Tory because Labour had betrayed them.
And so, after FOUR polls, and the majority of the elites trying to crush the popular will,
finally The Thing is done - at least symbolically - there is more to come.
The future is uncertain, but tonight this is a victory for democracy, and a blow for the
elites who instructed the proles to Remain. The proles refused.
Britain has until the end of this year to make a new trade deal with Europe, with the U.S.,
and with other countries.
The UK already had more than 750 bilateral deals around the world. The argument used by
the brexiters that EU membership was "isolation" is a complete farce.
Nothing significant will change in this front after Brexit.
But the EU will also need to change its urge to centralize and regulate everything. If it
continues on its path other countries may want to follow the British example despite the
damage it will cause to them.
The issue is not between "centralization vs decentralization", but the historical process
of the development of the productive forces.
Before the creation of the Euro, it was economically advantageous for the little poor
countries from the European Peninsula to seek EU membership. After its creation, the
economies begun to diverge: Germany begun to siphon the wealth from its poorer members.
Add to that the worldwide capitalist meltdown from 2008 and you have the toxic mixture for
what is essentially a neoliberal union in the EU.
Centralization and decentralization, in abstract, mean nothing. It's always the historical
context that counts. It's not the quest for centralization that menaces the dissolution of
the EU, but the fact that the EU was already economically declining for two decades that
resulted in its smaller members to complain about its perceived quest for centralization.
This vicious cycle generated a dialetical contradiction which impelled the EU to actually try
to seek more centralization in response - in a classic "self-realizing prophecy" case.
This must be the case, since it explains why Brexit happened in 2016 and not in 2000; why
the Scotish referendum happened in 2015 and not in 1708; and why similar movements are
happening more or less at the same time in Italy and Greece. It also explains why there is
not "exit" movements in Poland and Hungary, even though there are anti-EU movements
there.
IMO, this leaves GB more susceptible to the influences of the empire. I fully expect the U$A
to attack the British National Health Service with pressure to privatize.
Spot on vk! Your analysis of EU dynamics is a pretty succint summary.
Those who think that Brexit will reduce immigration to the UK are fantasists (as well as
racists - at this point UKIP and Farage have an undeniable track record one could plausibly
claim not to know about in 2014). The current UK economic model relies on a large inflow of
immigrant labour to underpin fanciful "growth" statistics, depress wages, and keep up
pressure on the housing market, among other "schemes" in the worst sense of the word, and the
government has already said that it will seek to increase non-European immigration to make up
for decreases in EU immigration. Bye bye Polish plumber, hello ???...
Exactly! It was always going to be Brexit in name only (BRINO) with Theresa May and Boris at
the helm (due to their establishment masters including the civil service). If the 2019
election hadn't been transparently & despicably corrupt (with its uber smears of Jeremy
Corbyn and the outright rigging with postal ballots) we would not be in this position. The
truth must be that the estab had too much to lose to not rig it.
Will we be leaving all the EU institutions including the ECJ?
Why did Theresa May (and Boris) insidiously sign us up to the Global Compact for
Migration? Why did Theresa May (and Boris) also insidiously sign us up to the EU/European
Defence Union? Do some people not know what I am talking about? Well, there is a Media 'D
Notice' on these subjects. if you need to find out about these things you will have to look
to the alternative media like UK column and social media (like Twitter e.g Veterans for
Britian) to find these things out.
Did you know Lord James of Blackheath was threatened for speaking about the EU Defence
Union last year – that may tell you how important it is that the estab need keep most
of the public unaware of the subject.
Neoliberals are mostly neocons and neocons are mostly neoliberals. They can't understand the
importance of Brexit and the first real crack in neoliberal globalization facade.
She really was on the wrong side of history: a tragedy for a politician. EU crumles with the
end of her political career which was devoted to straightening EU and neoliberalism, as well as
serving as the USA vassal. While she was sucessful in extracting benefits for Germany
multinationals she increased Germany dependency (and subservience) on the USA. She also will be
remembered for her handing of Greece crisis.
Notable quotes:
"... The UK's departure will continue to hang over Brussels and Berlin -- the countdown for a trade deal will coincide with Germany's presidency of the EU in the second half of this year. ..."
"... Brexit is a "wake-up call" for the EU. Europe must, she says, respond by upping its game, becoming "attractive, innovative, creative, a good place for research and education . . . Competition can then be very productive." This is why the EU must continue to reform, completing the digital single market, progressing with banking union -- a plan to centralise the supervision and crisis management of European banks -- and advancing capital markets union to integrate Europe's fragmented equity and debt markets. ..."
"... its defence budget has increased by 40 per cent since 2015, which is "a huge step from Germany's perspective". ..."
"... Ms Merkel will doubtless be remembered for two bold moves that changed Germany -- ordering the closure of its nuclear power stations after the Fukushima disaster of 2011, and keeping the country's borders open at the height of the 2015 refugee crisis. That decision was her most controversial, and there are some in Germany who still won't forgive her for it. But officials say Germany survived the influx, and has integrated the more than 1m migrants who arrived in 2015-16. ..."
It's a grim winter's day in Berlin, and the political climate matches the weather.
Everywhere Angela Merkel looks there are storm clouds, as the values she has upheld all her
career come under sustained attack. At the start of a new decade, Europe's premier stateswoman
suddenly seems to be on the wrong side of history.Shortly, the UK will leave the EU. A volatile
US president is snubbing allies and going it alone in the Middle East. Vladimir Putin is
changing the Russian constitution and meddling in Libya and sub-Saharan Africa. Trade tensions
continue, threatening the open borders and globalised value chains that are the cornerstones of
Germany's prosperity.
Ms Merkel, a former physicist renowned for her imperturbable, rational manner is a
politician programmed for compromise. But today she faces an uncompromising world where liberal
principles have been shoved aside by the law of the jungle.
Her solution is to double down on Europe, Germany's anchor. "I see the European Union as our
life insurance," she says. "Germany is far too small to exert geopolitical influence on its
own, and that's why we need to make use of all the benefits of the single market."
Speaking in the chancellery's Small Cabinet Room, an imposing wood-panelled hall overlooking
Berlin's Tiergarten park, Ms Merkel does not come across as under pressure. She is calm, if
somewhat cagey, weighing every word and seldom displaying emotion.
But the message she conveys in a rare interview is nonetheless urgent. In the twilight of
her career -- her fourth and final term ends in 2021 -- Ms Merkel is determined to preserve and
defend multilateralism, a concept that in the age of Trump, Brexit and a resurgent Russia has
never seemed so embattled. This is the "firm conviction" that guides her: the pursuit of "the
best win-win situations . . . when partnerships of benefit to both
sides are put into practice worldwide". She admits that this idea is coming "under increasing
pressure". The system of supranational institutions like the EU and United Nations were, she
says, "essentially a lesson learnt from the second world war, and the preceding decades". Now,
with so few witnesses of the war still alive, the importance of that lesson is fading.
Of course President Donald Trump is right that bodies like the World Trade Organization and
the UN require reform. "There is no doubt whatsoever about any of that," she says. "But I do
not call the world's multilateral structure into question. "Germany has been the great
beneficiary of Nato, an enlarged EU and globalisation. Free trade has opened up vast new
markets for its world-class cars, machines and chemicals. Sheltered under the US nuclear
umbrella, Germany has barely spared a thought for its own security. But the rise of "Me First"
nationalism threatens to leave it economically and politically unmoored. In this sense, Europe
is existential for German interests, as well as its identity.
Ms Merkel therefore wants to strengthen the EU -- an institution that she, perhaps more than
any other living politician, has come to personify. She steered Europe through the eurozone
debt crisis, albeit somewhat tardily: she held Europe together as it imposed sanctions on
Russia over the annexation of Crimea; she maintained unity in response to the trauma of
Brexit.
The UK's departure will continue to hang over Brussels and Berlin -- the countdown for a
trade deal will coincide with Germany's presidency of the EU in the second half of this
year. Berlin worries a post-Brexit UK that reserves the right to diverge from EU rules on
goods, workers' rights, taxes and environmental standards could create a serious economic
competitor on its doorstep. But Ms Merkel remains a cautious optimist. Brexit is a "wake-up
call" for the EU. Europe must, she says, respond by upping its game, becoming "attractive,
innovative, creative, a good place for research and
education . . . Competition can then be very productive." This is
why the EU must continue to reform, completing the digital single market, progressing with
banking union -- a plan to centralise the supervision and crisis management of European banks
-- and advancing capital markets union to integrate Europe's fragmented equity and debt
markets.
In what sounds like a new European industrial policy, Ms Merkel also says the EU should
identify the technological capabilities it lacks and move fast to fill in the gaps. "I believe
that chips should be manufactured in the European Union, that Europe should have its own
hyperscalers and that it should be possible to produce battery cells," she says. It must also
have the confidence to set the new global digital standards. She cites the example of the
General Data Protection Regulation, which supporters see as a gold standard for privacy and
proof that the EU can become a rulemaker, rather than a rule taker, when it comes to the
digital economy. Europe can offer an alternative to the US and Chinese approach to data. "I
firmly believe that personal data does not belong to the state or to companies," she says. "It
must be ensured that the individual has sovereignty over their own data and can decide with
whom and for what purpose they share it."
The continent's scale and diversity also make it hard to reach a consensus on reform. Europe
is deeply split: the migration crisis of 2015 opened up a chasm between the liberal west and
countries like Viktor Orban's Hungary which has not healed. Even close allies like Germany and
France have occasionally locked horns: Berlin's cool response to Emmanuel Macron's reform
initiatives back in 2017 triggered anger in Paris, while the French president's unilateral
overture to Mr Putin last year provoked irritation in Berlin. And when it comes to reform of
the eurozone, divisions still exist between fiscally challenged southern Europeans and the
fiscally orthodox new Hanseatic League of northern countries.
Ms Merkel remains to a degree hostage to German public opinion. Germany, she admits, is
still "slightly hesitant" on banking union, "because our principle is that everyone first needs
to reduce the risks in their own country today before we can mutualise the risks". And capital
markets union might require member states to seek closer alignment on things like insolvency
law. These divisions pale in comparison to the gulf between Europe and the US under president
Donald Trump. Germany has become the administration's favourite punching bag, lambasted for its
relatively low defence spending, big current account surplus and imports of Russian gas. German
business dreads Mr Trump making good on his threat to impose tariffs on European cars.
It is painful for Ms Merkel, whose career took off after unification. In an interview last
year she described how, while coming of age in communist East Germany, she yearned to make a
classic American road trip: "See the Rocky Mountains, drive around and listen to Bruce
Springsteen -- that was my dream," she told Der Spiegel.
The poor chemistry between Ms Merkel and Mr Trump has been widely reported. But are the
latest tensions in the German-US relationship just personal -- or is there more to it? "I think
it has structural causes," she says. For years now, Europe and Germany have been slipping down
the US's list of priorities.
"There's been a shift," she says. "President Obama already spoke about the Asian century, as
seen from the US perspective. This also means that Europe is no longer, so to say, at the
centre of world events."She adds: "The United States' focus on Europe is declining -- that will
be the case under any president."The answer? "We in Europe, and especially in Germany, need to
take on more responsibility."
Germany has vowed to meet the Nato target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on defence by the
start of the 2030s. Ms Merkel admits that for those alliance members which have already reached
the 2 per cent goal, "naturally this is not enough". But there's no denying Germany has made
substantial progress on the issue: its defence budget has increased by 40 per cent since
2015, which is "a huge step from Germany's perspective".
Ms Merkel insists the transatlantic relationship "remains crucial for me, particularly as
regards fundamental questions concerning values and interests in the world". Yet Europe should
also develop its own military capability. There may be regions outside Nato's primary focus
where "Europe must -- if necessary -- be prepared to get involved. I see Africa as one
example," she says.
Defence is hardly the sole bone of contention with the US. Trade is a constant irritation.
Berlin watched with alarm as the US and China descended into a bitter trade war in 2018: it
still fears becoming collateral damage.
"Can the European Union come under pressure between America and China? That can happen, but
we can also try to prevent it. "Germany has few illusions about China. German officials and
businesspeople are just as incensed as their US counterparts by China's theft of intellectual
property, its unfair investment practices, state-sponsored cyber-hacking and human rights
abuses in regions like Xinjiang.
Once seen as a strategic partner, China is increasingly viewed in Berlin as a systemic
rival. But Berlin has no intention of emulating the US policy of "decoupling" -- cutting its
diplomatic, commercial and financial ties with China. Instead, Ms Merkel has staunchly defended
Berlin's close relationship with Beijing. She says she would "advise against regarding China as
a threat simply because it is economically successful".
"As was the case in Germany, [China's] rise is largely based on hard work, creativity and
technical skills," she says. Of course there is a need to "ensure that trade relations are
fair". China's economic strength and geopolitical ambitions mean it is a rival to the US and
Europe. But the question is: "Do we in Germany and Europe want to dismantle all interconnected
global supply chains . . . because of this economic competition?"
She adds: "In my opinion, complete isolation from China cannot be the answer."Her plea for
dialogue and co-operation has set her on a collision course with some in her own party.
China hawks in her Christian Democratic Union share US mistrust of Huawei, the Chinese
telecoms equipment group, fearing it could be used by Beijing to conduct cyber espionage or
sabotage. Ms Merkel has pursued a more conciliatory line. Germany should tighten its security
requirements towards all telecoms providers and diversify suppliers "so that we never make
ourselves dependent on one firm" in 5G. But "I think it is wrong to simply exclude someone per
se," she says.
The rise of China has triggered concern over Germany's future competitiveness. And that
economic "angst" finds echoes in the febrile politics of Ms Merkel's fourth term. Her "grand
coalition" with the Social Democrats is wracked by squabbling. The populist Alternative for
Germany is now established in all 16 of the country's regional parliaments. A battle has broken
out for the post-Merkel succession, with a crop of CDU heavy-hitters auditioning for the top
job.
Many in the political elite worry about waning international influence in the final months
of the Merkel era.While she remains one of the country's most popular politicians, Germans are
asking what her legacy will be. For many of her predecessors, that question is easy to answer:
Konrad Adenauer anchored postwar Germany in the west; Willy Brandt ushered in detente with the
Soviet Union; Helmut Kohl was the architect of German reunification. So how will Ms Merkel be
remembered?
She brushes away the question. "I don't think about my role in history -- I do my job." But
what about critics who say the Merkel era was mere durchwurschteln -- muddling through? That
word, she says, in a rare flash of irritation, "isn't part of my vocabulary". Despite her
reputation for gradualism and caution, Ms Merkel will doubtless be remembered for two bold
moves that changed Germany -- ordering the closure of its nuclear power stations after the
Fukushima disaster of 2011, and keeping the country's borders open at the height of the 2015
refugee crisis. That decision was her most controversial, and there are some in Germany who
still won't forgive her for it. But officials say Germany survived the influx, and has
integrated the more than 1m migrants who arrived in 2015-16.
She prefers to single out less visible changes. Germany is much more engaged in the world:
just look, she says, at the Bundeswehr missions in Africa and Afghanistan. During the Kohl era,
even the idea of dispatching a ship to the Adriatic to observe the war in Yugoslavia was
controversial. She also mentions efforts to end the war in Ukraine, its role in the Iran
nuclear deal, its assumption of ever more "diplomatic, and increasingly also military
responsibility". "It may become more in future, but we are certainly on the right path," she
says.
The Merkel era has been defined by crisis but thanks to her stewardship most Germans have
rarely had it so good. The problem is the world expects even more of a powerful, prosperous
Germany and its next chancellor.Letter in response to this article:At last, I understand
Brexit's real purpose / From John Beadsmoore, Great Wilbraham, Cambs, UK
Rich countries embraced trade multilateralism when it suited them, and now they're abandoning it. That may not be such a bad thing.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is on its last legs now that the Trump administration has blocked the appointment or reappointment
of judges to the appeals court of its Dispute Settlement Mechanism -- which is the central pillar of the 24-year-old multilateral
body.
Do I regret the demise of the World Trade Organization now that Trump is on a unilateral trade rampage? No. I always saw the WTO
and unilateralism as two faces of U.S. power deployed against those countries seeking to remake the world trading order in a more
equitable and just direction.
Multilateralism and unilateralism have, since the end of the Second World War, been alternative strategies for global hegemony
preferred by competing factions of the U.S. ruling elite.
The Democrats preferred multilateralism because they felt it would both institutionalize the U.S.'s hegemonic status in the world
trading order at the same time that it would make it more legitimate by obtaining the consent of its allies. Republicans, however,
felt that the exercise of U.S. power should be as little constrained by global rules and institutions as possible.
These two views clashed head-on in 1948 during the debate over the ratification of the Havana Charter, which would have established
the International Trade Organization (ITO). After having participated in the negotiations, the Democratic administration of President
Truman did not submit it to the Senate for ratification, worried that the Republicans would successfully block it. The Republicans
argued that ratifying the Havana Charter would be unconstitutional since no legal code could stand above the U.S. Constitution, and
that a treaty governing trade would do precisely that.
Republicans and Democrats agreed to a compromise: the much weaker General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which had little
checks on U.S. trade practices and did not bring under its ambit the global agricultural trade that U.S. corporations dominated.
With trade making up only a small part of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) then, the U.S. was not worried about the absence of strong
rules on global trade, and felt these would only harm the bottom line of its emerging transnational corporations.
Paradoxically, GATT allowed the rise of a number of formerly minor trading countries into major actors in global trade, which
would not have been possible within an iron-clad free trade regime. These were mainly economies from East Asia like South Korea,
Taiwan, and Malaysia that engaged in aggressive export policies while building up manufacturing industries protected by high tariffs
and import quotas. At the same time, by the 1970s and 1980s, trade accounted for a greater part of U.S. GDP than in the late 1940s,
and U.S. corporations wanted fewer restrictions on their penetration of foreign markets.
So Washington changed its mind in the 1980s, and both Republicans and Democrats agreed to push for a strengthened global trade
regime.
The U.S. was confident that it would benefit mainly its corporations which it saw as the most competitive in the world. The European
Union decided to join the bandwagon for a strengthened international trade regime mainly because, like Washington, it wanted to dump
its massive agricultural surpluses on developing countries.
Leading industries in Europe, the U.S., and Japan -- like the automobile, information, and pharmaceutical industries -- also had
a joint interest in preventing the emergence of new competitors from East and Southeast Asia by making the latter's liberal acquisition
of complex technologies (dubbed "intellectual piracy") a violation of trade rules, or by preventing them from using trade restrictions
to build up their industries.
The result was the World Trade Organization, which came into being in 1995. The WTO, from the perspective of U.S. interests, was
a set of rules and institutions that would promote, consolidate, and legitimize structures of global trade ensuring the hegemony
of US interests.
While free trade was the rhetoric of the WTO, the achievement of monopoly was actually the aim of the WTO's three most important
agreements.
The Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) institutionalized the dumping of U.S. and European surpluses on developing countries by forcing
the latter to end their import quotas and lower their tariffs. The Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPs) sought
to institutionalize U.S. corporations' monopoly of high technology by outlawing reverse engineering and other methods used by developing
countries to get universal access to knowledge. The Trade Related Investment Measures Agreement (TRIMs) sought to prevent countries
from imitating Japan, South Korea, and Malaysia and using trade policy, like reducing imported inputs into finished goods in favor
of local inputs, to build up industries that became significant competitors both in local and global markets.
Then, in 2003, with the heft provided by India, Brazil, and China (a WTO member since 2001), the developing countries in the WTO
were able to prevent the U.S. and EU's attempt to dismantle government protection of small farmers. They foiled attempts to tighten
the already very restrictive TRIPs Agreement, and prevented the joint U.S.-EU attempt to bring investment, government procurement,
and competition policy under the ambit of the WTO.
Following this, the U.S. abandoned the multilateral route. After the Fifth Ministerial of the WTO collapsed in Cancun in 2003,
the Republican Bush administration's Special Trade Representative Robert Zoellick warned: "As the WTO members ponder the future,
the U.S. will not wait: we will move towards free trade with can-do countries."
Over the next few years, the U.S. and the EU preferred to put their efforts into forging bilateral trade agreements or limited
multilateral agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that was the fallback position favored by the Obama administration.
So Trump did not initiate the move back to unilateralism -- he merely brought to its climax, with his trade war with China, a swing
back to unilateralism that had begun with the George W. Bush administration in 2003.
Indeed, Trump's blocking of judges to the WTO's appellate court is simply an extension of the policy of blocking the appointment
or reappointment of judges practiced earlier by the supposedly multilateralist Obama administration. The most notorious trade act
of the U.S. under Obama was its ouster in 2016 of Appellate Body Member Seung Wha Chang of South Korea on the grounds that it did
not agree with the distinguished South Korean jurist's judgments in four trade disputes involving the U.S.
The result, the current global trading system, is a hodge-podge featuring a weakened WTO, failed trade agreements like the TPP,
stalemated or slow-moving negotiations like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), developing country trade arrangements
like Mercosur, bilateral treaties like the South Korea-U.S. free trade agreement, and non-institutionalized bilateral and unilateral
initiatives.
This may, in fact, be the least undesirable of outcomes. For many developing countries, the era of the weak GATT regime from 1948
to 1995 was a dynamic era that left them a lot of development space owing to the lack of pressure for them to open up their agricultural
and manufacturing sectors, weak trade dispute mechanisms, and the absence of anti-development pro-developed country regimes like
TRIPs.
Instead of the chaos that neoliberal ideologues warn us against, current conditions might, in fact, be moving in the direction
of a hybrid GATT-like system that would hold out a larger space for efforts at genuine sustainable development by the global South.
Share this:
One of the principal actors in the Anti-Globalization Movement, FPIF commentator Walden Bello is the author of Deglobalization:
Ideas for a New World Economy (Zed, 2000) and Revisiting and Reclaiming Deglobalization (Focus on the Global South, 2019). He can
be contacted at [email protected]. This article originally
appeared in German in the German periodical Welt-Sichten, Nov 7, 2019
The desire by people to see themselves as a national community – even if many of the
bonds binding them together are fictional – is one of the most powerful forces in the
world
Patrick Cockburn | @indyworld |
Nationalism in different shapes and forms is powerfully transforming the politics of the
British Isles, a development that gathered pace over the last five years and culminated in the
general election this month.
National identities and the relationship between England, Scotland and Ireland are changing
more radically than at any time over the last century. It is worth looking at the British
archipelago as a whole on this issue because of the closely-meshed political relationship of
its constituent nations. Some of these developments are highly visible such as the rise of the
Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to permanent political dominance in Scotland in the three
general elections since the independence referendum in 2014.
Other changes are important but little commented on, such as the enhanced national
independence and political influence of the Republic of Ireland over the British Isles as a
continuing member of the EU as the UK leaves. Dublin's greater leverage when backed by the
other 26 EU states was repeatedly demonstrated, often to the surprise and dismay of London, in
the course of the negotiations in Brussels over the terms of the British withdrawal.
Northern Ireland saw more nationalist than unionist MPs elected in the general election for
the first time since 1921. This is important because it is a further sign of the political
impact of demographic change whereby Catholics/nationalists become the new majority and the
Protestants/unionists the minority. The contemptuous ease with which Boris Johnson abandoned
his ultra-unionist pledges to the DUP and accepted a customs border in the Irish Sea separating
Northern Ireland from the rest of Britain shows how little loyalty the Conservatives feel
towards the northern unionists and their distinct and abrasive brand of British
nationalism.
These developments affecting four of the main national communities inhabiting the British
Isles – Irish, nationalists and unionists in Northern Ireland, Scots – are easy to
track. Welsh nationalism is a lesser force. Much more difficult to trace and explain is the
rise of English nationalism because it is much more inchoate than these other types of
nationalism, has no programme, and is directly represented by no political party – though
the Conservative Party has moved in that direction.
The driving force behind Brexit was always a certain type of English nationalism which did
not lose its power to persuade despite being incoherent and little understood by its critics
and supporters alike. In some respects, it deployed the rhetoric of any national community
seeking self-determination. The famous Brexiteer slogan "take back control" is not that
different in its implications from Sinn Fein – "Ourselves Alone" – though neither
movement would relish the analogy.
The great power of the pro-Brexit movement, never really taken on board by its opponents,
was to blame the very real sense of disempowerment and social grievances felt by a large part
of the English population on Brussels and the EU. This may have been scapegoating on a
grandiose scale, but nationalist movements the world over have targeted some foreign body
abroad or national minority at home as the source of their ills. I asked one former Leave
councillor – one of the few people I met who changed their mind on the issue after the
referendum in 2016 – why people living in her deprived ward held the EU responsible for
their poverty. Her reply cut through many more sophisticated explanations: "I suppose that it
is always easier to blame Johnny Foreigner."
Applying life lessons to the pursuit of national happiness The Tories won't get far once
progressives join forces 22,000 EU nationals have left NHS since Brexit vote, figures show This
crude summary of the motives of many Leave voters has truth in it, but it is a mistake to
caricature English nationalism as simply a toxic blend of xenophobia, racism, imperial
nostalgia and overheated war memories. In the three years since the referendum the very act of
voting for Brexit became part of many people's national identity, a desire to break free,
kicking back against an overmighty bureaucracy and repelling attempts by the beneficiaries of
globalisation to reverse a democratic vote.
The political left in most countries is bad at dealing with nationalism and the pursuit of
self-determination. It sees these as a diversion from identifying and attacking the real
perpetrators of social and economic injustice. It views nationalists as mistakenly or malignly
aiming at the wrong target – usually foreigners – and letting the domestic ones off
the hook.
The desire by people to see themselves as a national community – even if many of the
bonds binding them together are fictional – is one of the most powerful forces in the
world. It can only be ignored at great political cost, as the Labour Party has just found out
to its cost for the fifth time (two referendums and three elections). What Labour should have
done was early on take over the slogan "take back control" and seek to show that they were
better able to deliver this than the Conservatives or the Brexit Party. There is no compelling
reason why achieving such national demands should be a monopoly of the right. But in 2016, 2017
and 2019 Labour made the same mistake of trying to wriggle around Brexit as the prime issue
facing the English nation without taking a firm position, an evasion that discredited it with
both Remainers and Leavers.
Curiously, the political establishment made much the same mistake as Labour in
underestimating and misunderstanding the nature of English nationalism. Up to the financial
crisis of 2008 globalisation had been sold as a beneficial and inevitable historic process.
Nationalism was old hat and national loyalties were supposedly on the wane. To the British
political class, the EU obviously enhanced the political and economic strength of its national
members. As beneficiaries of the status quo, they were blind to the fact that much of the
country had failed to gain from these good things and felt marginalised and forgotten.
The advocates of supra-national organisations since the mediaeval papacy have been making
such arguments and have usually been perplexed why they fail to stick. They fail to understand
the strength of nationalism or religion in providing a sense of communal solidarity, even if it
is based on dreams and illusions, that provides a vehicle for deeply felt needs and grievances.
Arguments based on simple profit and loss usually lose out against such rivals.
Minervo , 1 day ago
Bigger by far are two forces which really do have control over our country -- the
international NATO warmongers but even more so, the international banksters of the finance
industry.
Why no 'leftist' campaign to Take Back Control of our money? Gordon Brown baled out the
banks when they should have gone bankrupt and been nationalised.
Blair is forever tainted with his ill-fated Attack on Iraq. Surely New Liberals or
Democrats or Socialists would want to lock down on that fiasco?
The Nationalism of taking back control could be a leftist project too.
The desire by people to see themselves as a national community – even if many of the
bonds binding them together are fictional – is one of the most powerful forces in the
world
Patrick Cockburn | @indyworld |
Nationalism in different shapes and forms is powerfully transforming the politics of the
British Isles, a development that gathered pace over the last five years and culminated in the
general election this month.
National identities and the relationship between England, Scotland and Ireland are changing
more radically than at any time over the last century. It is worth looking at the British
archipelago as a whole on this issue because of the closely-meshed political relationship of
its constituent nations. Some of these developments are highly visible such as the rise of the
Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to permanent political dominance in Scotland in the three
general elections since the independence referendum in 2014.
Other changes are important but little commented on, such as the enhanced national
independence and political influence of the Republic of Ireland over the British Isles as a
continuing member of the EU as the UK leaves. Dublin's greater leverage when backed by the
other 26 EU states was repeatedly demonstrated, often to the surprise and dismay of London, in
the course of the negotiations in Brussels over the terms of the British withdrawal.
Northern Ireland saw more nationalist than unionist MPs elected in the general election for
the first time since 1921. This is important because it is a further sign of the political
impact of demographic change whereby Catholics/nationalists become the new majority and the
Protestants/unionists the minority. The contemptuous ease with which Boris Johnson abandoned
his ultra-unionist pledges to the DUP and accepted a customs border in the Irish Sea separating
Northern Ireland from the rest of Britain shows how little loyalty the Conservatives feel
towards the northern unionists and their distinct and abrasive brand of British
nationalism.
These developments affecting four of the main national communities inhabiting the British
Isles – Irish, nationalists and unionists in Northern Ireland, Scots – are easy to
track. Welsh nationalism is a lesser force. Much more difficult to trace and explain is the
rise of English nationalism because it is much more inchoate than these other types of
nationalism, has no programme, and is directly represented by no political party – though
the Conservative Party has moved in that direction.
The driving force behind Brexit was always a certain type of English nationalism which did
not lose its power to persuade despite being incoherent and little understood by its critics
and supporters alike. In some respects, it deployed the rhetoric of any national community
seeking self-determination. The famous Brexiteer slogan "take back control" is not that
different in its implications from Sinn Fein – "Ourselves Alone" – though neither
movement would relish the analogy.
The great power of the pro-Brexit movement, never really taken on board by its opponents,
was to blame the very real sense of disempowerment and social grievances felt by a large part
of the English population on Brussels and the EU. This may have been scapegoating on a
grandiose scale, but nationalist movements the world over have targeted some foreign body
abroad or national minority at home as the source of their ills. I asked one former Leave
councillor – one of the few people I met who changed their mind on the issue after the
referendum in 2016 – why people living in her deprived ward held the EU responsible for
their poverty. Her reply cut through many more sophisticated explanations: "I suppose that it
is always easier to blame Johnny Foreigner."
Applying life lessons to the pursuit of national happiness The Tories won't get far once
progressives join forces 22,000 EU nationals have left NHS since Brexit vote, figures show This
crude summary of the motives of many Leave voters has truth in it, but it is a mistake to
caricature English nationalism as simply a toxic blend of xenophobia, racism, imperial
nostalgia and overheated war memories. In the three years since the referendum the very act of
voting for Brexit became part of many people's national identity, a desire to break free,
kicking back against an overmighty bureaucracy and repelling attempts by the beneficiaries of
globalisation to reverse a democratic vote.
The political left in most countries is bad at dealing with nationalism and the pursuit of
self-determination. It sees these as a diversion from identifying and attacking the real
perpetrators of social and economic injustice. It views nationalists as mistakenly or malignly
aiming at the wrong target – usually foreigners – and letting the domestic ones off
the hook.
The desire by people to see themselves as a national community – even if many of the
bonds binding them together are fictional – is one of the most powerful forces in the
world. It can only be ignored at great political cost, as the Labour Party has just found out
to its cost for the fifth time (two referendums and three elections). What Labour should have
done was early on take over the slogan "take back control" and seek to show that they were
better able to deliver this than the Conservatives or the Brexit Party. There is no compelling
reason why achieving such national demands should be a monopoly of the right. But in 2016, 2017
and 2019 Labour made the same mistake of trying to wriggle around Brexit as the prime issue
facing the English nation without taking a firm position, an evasion that discredited it with
both Remainers and Leavers.
Curiously, the political establishment made much the same mistake as Labour in
underestimating and misunderstanding the nature of English nationalism. Up to the financial
crisis of 2008 globalisation had been sold as a beneficial and inevitable historic process.
Nationalism was old hat and national loyalties were supposedly on the wane. To the British
political class, the EU obviously enhanced the political and economic strength of its national
members. As beneficiaries of the status quo, they were blind to the fact that much of the
country had failed to gain from these good things and felt marginalised and forgotten.
The advocates of supra-national organisations since the mediaeval papacy have been making
such arguments and have usually been perplexed why they fail to stick. They fail to understand
the strength of nationalism or religion in providing a sense of communal solidarity, even if it
is based on dreams and illusions, that provides a vehicle for deeply felt needs and grievances.
Arguments based on simple profit and loss usually lose out against such rivals.
Minervo , 1 day ago
Bigger by far are two forces which really do have control over our country -- the
international NATO warmongers but even more so, the international banksters of the finance
industry.
Why no 'leftist' campaign to Take Back Control of our money? Gordon Brown baled out the
banks when they should have gone bankrupt and been nationalised.
Blair is forever tainted with his ill-fated Attack on Iraq. Surely New Liberals or
Democrats or Socialists would want to lock down on that fiasco?
The Nationalism of taking back control could be a leftist project too.
The latest monthly indicators of economic activity in Japan, the Eurozone and Britain do
not make pleasant reading.
Japan's December manufacturing sector PMI, as it is called, fell to 48.8 from 48.9 in
November. Anything below 50 indicates a contraction. The services sector, however, picked
up slightly to 50.6 from 50.3. So the overall 'composite' PMI was unchanged at 49.8. That
means Japan is in recession (just).
The Eurozone manufacturing PMI slipped to 45.9, the lowest since October 2012 and
employment also fell at the fastest pace for more than seven years. New orders declined for
a fifteenth successive month, while input prices continued to fall sharply. The sector was
driven down mainly by Germany, where the manufacturing PMI hit 43.4, falling for the 12th
straight month.
However, as in Japan, there was a slight pick-up in the services sector, where Eurozone
PMI reached 52.4 from 51.9 in November. So the overall 'composite' PMI stood unchanged at
50.6. In effect, the Eurozone economy is standing still.
In the UK, the manufacturing sector took another dive to 47.4 (a sharp contraction).
Output fell the most since July 2012. The services sector was also down to 49.0, making the
overall composite PMI in negative territory at 48.5 - the deepest contraction since July
2016. The UK is in recession - but maybe the Conservative government election victory and
the ending of uncertainty over Brexit (the UK will now definitely leave the EU in 2020) may
encourage a recovery.
In sum, as we end 2019, Japan, the Eurozone and the UK are in recession or
stagnation.
Long story short: the EU is only not in outright recession because the "services sector"
(gig economy) is compensating for the collapse of its manufacturing sector - for now.
And no, the UK won't become "Singapore upon the Thames".
Editor's Note: Last month, Foreign Policy ran an article, "Open Borders Are a
Trillion-Dollar Idea," which advocated for Open Borders. So for all those who say, "Oh, no
one supports Open Borders," here it is in writing! Every point made by author Bryan Caplan,
an economics professor, is refutable, and, while the piece is long, we believe it's important
"for the record" to counter all of his points.
As I first read Bryan Caplan's "Open Borders Are a Trillion-Dollar Idea" in Foreign
Policy, besides disbelief, my thoughts were that this person must not get out much or must
not read much. A quote from writer Upton Sinclair came to mind as well: "It is difficult to
get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." https://progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/open-borders-trillion-dollar-mistake/
Re Bill Mitchell–his theme is that the Labour disaster is all due to the failure of
the party to follow their working class base–if that is their base–and support
Brexit. I believe that was Clive's theme as well. This is definitely not my topic but any
Remainers care to rebut?
It is interesting how the situation in Britain seems to mirror the political situation
here and the dilemma of the Dems–aka our Blairites. People like Hillary denounce the
deplorables and Obama calls them bitter clingers but these verbal targets were once the
backbone of a party that stood in opposition to the party of the bankers and finance.
The problen for the DemoRats is that their new, hoped for diversity base isn't large
enough to replace the former great unwashed base. Perhaps that's Labour's problem too. We
have a party of the people whose leaders are (in secret when not in public) batting for the
other team.
All polls indicated that around 40% of Labour supporters were Brexiters, 60% Remainers (of
course the intensity of support might be different). Those were mostly the older working
class 'old Labour' types along with some ideological left wingers. Doing what Mitchell
suggested would certainly have shored up Labours working class bases. It would also have lost
Labour its base in the major metropolitan areas and most voters under 40. In short, it would
have been politically suicidal.
In the months after the referndum, people like Owen Jones tried to convince the Remainer
Labourites that they had to accept the result of the referendum and fight for the "softest"
Brexit possible (I remember because he was bringing that up in his post-mortems after the
election). And of course, most Remainers were having none of it. They came up with "The
People's Vote" and eventually Jones and the rest of the Labour bigwigs got on board.
But objectively, Brexit will be, and can only be, a disaster for Britain and most
pro-Brexit voters are badly misinformed, so what were Labour leaders supposed to do?
It looks undemocratic to stop people from shooting themselves (and you too!) in the foot, but
are you supposed to just let them pull the trigger?
The constituency where I canvassed, the divide was very clearly generational – the
old were Tory, the young were Labour or Libdem. It was very stark. I have not seen any
national data on this – has anyone else?
Yep, chechout the 3rd chart on this post. Very generational split moving from Labour to
Tories with age. 18-24 yos voted 19% Tory, 67% Labour, and it virtually reversed when looking
at 65yo+ which voted 62% Tory, 18% Labour, with an almost linear movement inbetween. I think
someone linked to this a few days ago
> Doing what Mitchell suggested would certainly have shored up Labours working class
bases. It would also have lost Labour its base in the major metropolitan areas and most
voters under 40. In short, it would have been politically suicidal.
I would say that what Labour ended up doing was suicidal, quite evidently. Labour (and
Corybn's) problem was existential, the fractured base (not merely by age, but geographically
and by class) bequeathed to them by Blair. I would say that Mitchell's proposal is not like
suicide, but like an animal caught in a trap chewing off a leg to escape -- the leg, in this
case, being PLP. Of course, if Labour wants to be the party of London professionals, that's
fine, but rebranding from "Labour" might be in order.
Richard North has been running some interesting material recently, including today,
raising the question to what extent the traditional working class still exists in England in
the sense it was once understood. I have no real insights into what is clearly a very large
topic but I found todays piece especially interesting.
I am doubtful Labour wants to be the party only of London professionals – there are
far too few of them to win elections. At present it is clearly the party of the young. Any
strategy for its future needs to take this into account. Although I am old myself I know a
fair number of the young in the UK through my children and their friends. They are having a
very hard time of it as their jobs are very insecure and their prospects of owning their own
homes/better quality housing are far poorer than those enjoyed by the boomers. They also face
a high risk of being made redundant at 40.
Rather than a class-based analysis of UK politics I wonder if a generational analysis
– boomers v the rest – would not be more fruitful at present. Though of course
you can see this as a rich/old versus young/poor struggle.
Labour lost biggest among the pensioners, who by definition, are not labouring. The reason
they lost all those Northern towns was that they had so many pensioners.
Doing deliveries on a bicycle, teaching children, and keeping the elderly alive,
meanwhile, are all labour, even if they don't take place in a factory or a mine. Certainly
not "professional" in the traditional sense.
Labour's error was failing to build a legacy media operation (print, TV, radio) to reach
the pensioners, and not turning out the younger vote.
The Blairites foisted the U-turn on Brexit onto the party when most of the seats it held
in the old parliament, and most of the seats it needed to win, voted leave. Now the Blairites
are hypocritically blaming Corbyn for the result of their own policy. The election loss was
exactly what they wanted: Corbyn out of the way and Britain 'safe' for neo-liberalism.
BigB ,
31 mn people voted to extend the consensual mandate of the neoliberal capitalist state to
globally expand, extract and expropriate planetary wealth for themselves. Unconsciously:
without any consideration of the consequences. Now, nearly 11 mn of them want to pretend they
were duped into this because two films did not get released? Can there be a more deluded
abdication of self-responsibility? Without any inherent maturity at all: it's hard to see
where UK politic goes from here? What is the deepest spot a mile below the nadir? The
'People's Government' of Boris Johnson we co-constituted the reality of last week?
The election was for a successor capitalist imperialist state: the capitalist imperialist
state was duly elected. No one – no one – can then abdicate responsibility to say
it was the "wrong capitalist state". If people do not like this process – and it is the
most debilitating, dehumanising, and destructive of all processes – then it is their
social responsibility to at least explore the possibility of finding another process. In the
co-creation of superior/inferior status and co-determination of the master/slave dialectic
– we volunteer to choose position of the inferior and the enslaved. Then spend the
consensual contract term complaining about the subordinant class politics we voted for.
Projecting blame scattergun everywhere but where the blame is due: with the voters and
endorsers of globalised neoliberal capitalism.
Is no one else getting bored of this? Not just the embarassment of excuses we can find for
our own self-inferiorisation and voluntary infantalisation: but the fact that no one will
make a positive assessment of how to break this vortex cycle of self-defeatism and
performative powerlessness so we never have to go through the same charade again? Which, no
doubt we will in five years time. Unless we take it on the chin: and fess up to what we have
created as a social reality the Trump/Johnson axis of world power.
If this below and beyond the low point cannot act as a bifurcation point – whereby
we totally reject the state electoral inferiorisation process – I do not know what can.
It is unlikely there will be much left to reclaim in five years: much less so in ten. If we
cannot claim humanity and ecology back from neoliberal globalisation in the next few years
well, it ain't going to be pretty.
A good starting point would be to admit the corruption of the entire state electoral
process of inferiorisation: and take co-responsibility for our part in the election of
Johnson. Then the avowal never to do it again and take the legislative and judicial power we
abdicated back. Which is the socially responsible alternative to the drawnout emetic debrief
that seems to be favoured.
GEOFF ,
Great point BigB I think you're wasting your time they don't care what happens here so long
as they're out of the EU that is all that matters to them. I'm so happy I don't have any
grandchildren, although I fear for those that have, so sad all done in the name of getting
our country back, I wonder how they will feel if farage gets some kind of peerage, you know
the one that has been fighting the elites, and celebrating his birthday at the Ritz owned by
those two socially aware brothers barclay , ha ha ha ha .
smelly ,
We have the very few, the few, and the serfs. The politics of the world is driven by the
Economics of the very few. The very few have created for themselves a feudal system, its
informal, its hidden, but its highly functional and it accounts in large measure for the
global atrocities.
The chiefs (a very few) distribute to the feudal lords(the few) in a variety of ways.
1. direct government contracts
2. privatize the assets and government services that remain after regime change or infra
structure destruction of economic value from regime sex corrupted, blackmailed, regime
changed or defeated nation states and or from sweetheart deals in corporate takeovers.
3. appointment to and assignment to intelligence, or high level diplomatic positions in
defeated entities.
4. promotion to USA congress or the USA presidency or to a high level corporate job.
5. control of access of the goy to education, entry level jobs leading to the knowledge to be
promoted, to bank loans, to houses in neighborhoods, to medical care, and to a massive
variety of other things. They are all in on it together.
6. many others
The tools of the trade are coercion by any means available to include sex, blackmail, spy
technology, war machinery, military, intelligence, private armies, dark money and money
laundering operations to name but a few.
Dependency : it is
This is no longer a problem bounded by one nation, it has become a problem important to the
liberties and freedoms and the station of status of person in the society, membership in
clubs, obtaining credentials to be eligible for licenses (law, medicine, home building,
contracting, service provider, and everything else). License is a huge gate used to keep the
Goya
What Bexit has shown is that there is not a bit of difference between those governed by
any of the nation governments of any kind(they are controlled by the same few), we are just
the Goy or as Hilary Clinton puts it: the deplorables. No longer should we look at ourselves
as citizens of Britain, or Citizens of the United States, or citizens of France, or citizens
of Saudi Arabia, or citizens of Israel, or citizens of Libya, or whatever, we must recognize
that it is the many vs the few . from here on out. We must not identify and expose all of the
ways nation state leaders use or allows others to use information to control our behaviors
and to dictate our rights.
We must help each other no matter or sex, language, religion or nationality because they
have made us all one, but trying to control our lives from birth to death and by trying to
use us, at our expense, for their purposes.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Professor Emeritus Vilfredo Pareto outlined the empirical skew of wealth transfer for 'the
few' as a function of culture whereby all have the same or similar wealth distribution.
Post-Lehman evidenced the wholesale destruction that empirical skew manifested on the Western
Banking System & concomitant ruling oiligopoly.
Empirically, the Western Fractional Reserve Banking System has crashed outright to
reveal
even greater skew after all the M&A post-Lehman debacle. In terms of wealth distribution
we are now in what Professor Emeritus Minsky characterized as Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism.
Amazon & Bezos are transnational, leveraged like a Hedge Fund, and a monopoly that was
legislated against during the 30s in the USA.
Today, in contemporary totalitarian society we are fed a daily diet of pseudoscience &
half-baked so-called 'truths' that serve to mask the lies & falsehood.
What is evidently true today is that the empirical skew of wealth has become a matter of
superstructural fault where the tectonic plates of sovereign nations are bound to give us all
degrees of continental shift in contradistinction to the empirical skew of wealth transfer
which is by no means immoveable.
Like gravity, what goes up must come down. Wealth hoarding sub-groups of elite will have
nowhere to hide when the avalanche cascades on top of them without notice before hand.
Six Sigma extinction level events exist for all empirical distributions given the right
conditions.
MOU
BigB ,
The other problem with 'the Few' analysis I have been trying to highlight is that we are in
it the Few that is. In terms of per capita mass aggregate consumption/pollution rates –
93% of us in the UK are in 'the Few'. Which holds for a rough Pareto Principle (80/20): we
are among the top 20% of consumers responsible for 70% of the lifestyle consumption emissions
[Anderson; LabourGND; Oxfam]. Which amounts to 28,000 tonnes per capita of aggregate material
flows: against a global average of 7,000 tonnes [Hickel]. In global consumption/pollution
terms: we are among the "wealth hoarding sub-groups of [the] elite" of the mass material
consumption bourgeoisie.
There are unfair distributions: and inequitable distributions between the haute
bourgeoisie and we in the bourgeoisie. But the greatest inequitable maldistribution is North
to South: where the poorest 50% of the global population are limited – by being
resource cursed and having to subsidise us – to 10% of lifestyle consumption emissions.
If you can call it a lifestyle; a consumer lifestyle; or a profligate pollution problem which
is doubtful? And it current rates of wealth redistribution: it will be 200-900 years before
they are out of poverty.
As for 'wealth hoarding sub-groups': we in the UK voted to extend the amount of mass
material material aggregate demand. Which is complex: because UK rates have been falling but
only because of the service economy. Rates of industrialisation and resource extractivism are
effectively exported. Global demand rises: and so must global supply. Our consumption
fetishism is driving global capitalism. Not solely: the whole of the developed world is.
It is this material economy that acts as a baseline – of sorts – for the
overfinancialised derivative, arbitrage, and highly leveraged stocks, bonds, and equities and
any other exotic financial instruments that can be gambled on. A market that is roughly 75
times the size of the material 'real' productive economy. The market that is likely being
subsidised by the repo- and other 'not QE' hypertrophic liquidity supplements. The market
that is going to collapse when the anabolic steroid effect fails to maintain exponential
growth. Professor Minsky will have his moment!
Whereupon the UK will quickly realise that it is a pissling little island in a sea of
globalisation. With an 80% tertiarised service economy. Servicing an extinct financial market
economy. With failing services and no food coming in from abroad. Or medicines. Or water
purification products. And possibly no energy. But we will have 60,000 military and
paramilitary police to uphold the private property rights of the haute bourgeoisie.
Maybe then we will see and feel what it is like for the rest of the world? Who we have
only ever viewed as subsidisers of our wealth? Just as we subsidise the wealth of those we
choose to be subordinate to. It's a shitty, shitty, system which the UK has done not too
badly out of. Well, enough for us to never look from the outside in through the eyes of a
Frantz Fannon: and try to change the system for a globally more equitable system free from
our white privileged ethnosupremacist racism.
We got the government we deserved – and voted for. And we await the fate of collapse
we deserve – and voted for. As John Michael Greer said: the UK is rushing to collapse
early to avoid the disappointment in the rush. We live in a complete fantasy bubble of a
post-Empire state of mind. As if other – dehumanised foreign – people and the
holistic integrity of the biosphere did not exist. Well, thanks to our lifestyle choices,
they may not for much longer. But the only thing that has perturbed our reserved compassion
and indifferent inhumanity is our election of a Johnson government. Well, that is an
indignity! But not even a fraction of an indignity that we are quite happy to violently
impose on the rest of the world. But let us pretend and console ourselves it would have been
a utopia if they had not held back those films.
Dungroanin ,
"We don't have to join too many dots to see why a discussion about Wikileaks, war crimes in
Iraq, and OPCW crimes in Syria was something the Tories didn't need,"
They also didn't need the Intelligence report of 'Russian' influence in their party and
government; the direct threat made by Pompeo to stop Labour, the deal which they have been
negotiating with the US which confirms the NHS is part of it amongst many other things
– as was confirmed by their Ambassador Woody (Of Johnson&Johnson fame who stand to
benefit hughy) ;the dangerous levels of capacity in the NHS; etc etc etc.
Anyway the Graun is claiming to run a ask us a question about the election now on their
blog – I've asked mine but am not holding my breath for an answer.
tonyopmoc ,
David Macilwain usually writes far better than this. In fact 90% of this, is the same sort of
nonsense, he has apparently been brainwashed with, by reading the Guardian et al.
He displays his own ignorance and arrogance, by yet again telling over 50% of The British
voting public that we didn't know what we were voting for re Brexit.
"not least because only 30% of that public actually voted for Brexit, and did so in
complete ignorance of what it might mean and because of their own long-standing
prejudices."
He analysed Skripal very well. This is total crap.
Tony
JudyJ ,
As soon as UK based Russian oligarchs are mentioned the presumption of many –
encouraged by Western media – is that they must be 'friends' of Putin or have 'close
connections' to him. In fact, in respect of most of them, it is exactly the opposite. They
are based in London precisely because the UK establishment doesn't clamp down on tax dodging
and corrupt business dealings as Putin has done since the beginning of his Presidential
tenures. Corrupt business owners donations to parties in power? Hmm, I wonder why it is that
they are given every encouragement and incentive to settle in London undisturbed?
This article is wrong to imply/assume that Brexiters/Lexiters didn't know what they were
voting for. Wrong to suggest/assume we did/do not have a strategy to try to help leave the
EU. Wrong to assume we are racist and/or stupid. Of course there are a few exceptions but on
the whole people know the score and we love the individual, distinct European countries; we
just despise the imperial, uber-technocratic, ultimately anti-democratic superstate that is
the EU.
See UK Column & similar websites, and the archive of Tony Benn/Barbara Castle/Peter
Shore/Bob Crow (on the reasons for disliking the EEC/EU/Maastrict & Lisbon Treaties etc)
for why so many people voted to leave the EU. I reckon when the options on who to vote for
were purposely limited by the LP (in the last few months after JC was forced to go along with
the PLP) and TBP (after Farage made a deal with Trump/Boris) many Brexiters (and a few
Lexiters?) were forced to vote for the Tories to give a message to the establishment? I am
guessing they thought the election would result in a hung parliament with the tories having
to ally with the DUP again.
Imo – I have a strong suspicion that the real result was a very close result (hung
parliament) and that the establishment using the secret services helped in some way to
engineer this landslide result (probably through postal ballot rigging). On the day of the
election many people observed and commented on the huge queues in the poll stations and
seeing so many young people voting like never before (including many photos on social media).
The result does not seem plausible and the status quo has/had so much to lose.
Incidentally, and this is obviously anecdotal but in my household (and as far as I know)
all my friends voted Labour or stayed at home (we are mostly Lexiters, don't-knows, and a
couple Brexiters) and only know quite well of two openlyTory voters (at my partners'
workplace). On the other hand, I do know my local area (which has been impoverished since the
Thatcher years) is a heavy leave-voting area and I reckon most people here lend their vote to
Tories for strategic reasons (I know a neighbour who wants the Tories to 'own' Brexit knowing
full well they will renege on all their promises and not just the Brexit promise – they
think Boris is a fake and wants to BRINO or, ultimately, even to remain).
I can only state what I observe and hear around me, and what I saw on social media during
the election, but I do know people are so much more informed than the establishment/media
would like to admit.
Francis Lee ,
I was shocked, yes shocked, to see the type sentiments espoused below.
"No-one could seriously believe that Brexit is something the ruling elite has pursued
because it respects the so-called democratic will of the British public – not least
because only 30% of that public actually voted for Brexit, and did so in complete ignorance
of what it might mean and because of their own long-standing prejudices.
That could have come from the mouth Jo Swinson, the Economist, the Guardian or any other
ultra-remainer rag.
It gets better, or worse depending on your point of view.
"Had the Government not had an interest in restructuring its relationship with the US and
NATO, and seen political and economic gains – well illustrated by the jump in the value
of Sterling following the result – then the idea of Brexit would just have quietly died
away."
Yep, it's those damn proles who voted for Brexit again and "did so in complete ignorance
of what that might mean and because of their own long-standing predudices." But of course!
Time to rethink the idea of universal suffrage perhaps. Actually those sort of sentiments
(see above) are precisely why Labour lost the election so heavily.
The point seems to be missed that euroland is an occupied zone and has been zone since
1945 – it is a neoliberal juggernaut and junior partner in the geopolitical global
order. In addition it is the civilian wing of NATO, another American construction. It is
based upon a core-periphery economic structure and upon a currency which locks its members
into a neoliberal straight-jacket, and since they cannot devalue the core runs up trade
surpluses whilst to periphery runs up permanent trade deficits. The euro currency is designed
to do precisely this. Moreover the Stability and growth pact robs states of their ability to
have an independent foreign and economic policy. The eastern and southern peripheries are
little more than colonies. Printing their own currencies – God forbid – is
strictly verboten, so that they cannot and will not recover. Taking Italy 137% of debt-to-gdp
ratio and Greece with a staggering 181% of debt-to-gdp you will get a pretty good picture of
what is happening in Euroland.
It really don't know why I have to explain all of this, particularly in light of the fact
that Corbyn himself has always been a eurosceptic, along with other notables such as Benn
(Sr.) Bryan Gould, Peter Shore and Barbara Castle, that was a unlike the present time when
Labour was Labour.
I think the Labour party has now gone to far to reverse course; it has become an
anachronism, and a neo-Blairite – ultra-remainer – is party now taking shape.
GEOFF ,
I've no idea why you keep going on about the EU , you got your way, we're leaving forget it,
lets see how good it's going to be in this shithole without some protection from the EU , why
do none of you address that, the slob has already started with his refusal to include workers
rights, the fat slob says we can have better employment protection once we leave ha ha ha ha
ha ha whats been stopping him from doing it for the last 40 years ? nothing. everyone is
entitled to their view obviously and I respect it, but you just shut us out as if your
opinion is all that matters, I would suggest 80% of those that voted leave know absolutely
nothing about the EU, I arrive at that by talking incessantly to people, who think they're
clued up and when you start pointing faults with their argument, you get the usual ' hey mate
I've only come in for a pint'
Francis Lee ,
"Share On Twitter" target="_blank"
href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=But+we+haven%26%238217%3Bt+left+it.+And+there+is+g...+&url=https%3A%2F%2Foff-guardian.org%2F2019%2F12%2F20%2Fofficial-secrets-lies-and-the-five-eyes%2F%23comment-107077">
But we haven't left it. And there is good reason to suppose that we never will. A BRINO is
being cooked up by a coalition of the usual suspects whose object is to end the existence of
the UK as an independent nation state and turn it into a province of a European super-state.
We will be voting – if at all – in the equivalent of local government or council
elections with decisions, with economic and geopolitical issues being decided by non-elected
technicians and bureaucrats.
Democracy is only meaningful at the national level. Democracy and Empire (the EU) or
should I say the EUSA, do not mix. Even Thucydides knew this.
GEOFF ,
But that happens here without the EU there are two pricks zac goldsmith and morgan, both been
rejected by the electorate , both been given a place in the H.O.L £305 a day , totally
unelcted but there to make our laws and you still won't see i twill you
Cassandra2 ,
Very much agree, I don't trust Boris to effect a clean break.
I generally trust my instincts like most normal plebs, but since the Lisbon Treaty Europe
has consolidate Federalisation, far removed from the original concept and principles of a
Common Market and my instincts prompted a closer look.
Delving deeper, an easy process given internet access, one discovers a cesspit of
deception. European Union is in reality the successor to the (totalitarian) Third Reich.
Refer to Christopher Story's YouTube 3 part lecture on the subject. EU was planned in 1942 by
a German social elite hierarchy in the likely event of Hitlers defeat. Key members of this
hierarchy were transferred (operation paperclip) to USA at the end of the war and were
integrated into a form of 5th column governing elite (power behind Deep State) who have since
1946 systematically hollowed the out the USA by undermining it's production base (excluding
military hardware production) and displacing economic investment through reckless
speculation/manipulation and perpetual global warfare.
Other than filling the Elites multi-trillion banking chest USA's resources and manpower
(Military & Intelligence) have been utilised to construct a global platform for imposing
a 'New World Order'. Europe's homogenization simply forms an essential part of this
ambition.
Given a cursory (pleb) assessment of Europe's widespread corruption, undemocratic
structure and it's true strategic purpose I cannot help but feel that those who voted
'remain' have had their critical faculties effectively lobotomized by Elite owned State MASS
INDOCTRINATION i.e. BBC et al.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Goldman Sachs engineered the entire EU finance by first fudging the books on Greece. The
whole edifice was built upon a shifting substrate of sand.
Castles made of sand float into the sea, eventually. Jimi Hendrix Axis Bold as Love
MOU
Francis Lee ,
"NOBODY voted for a HARD brexit onto WTO rules and the country should have been asked very
specifically if that is what the mythical 17 Million wanted."
'Nobody voted for a hard -Brexit.' Really!
How come you are privy to this "information?" It would be amusing to see you trying to
substantiate this statement.
And as for the 'mythical 17 million' (17.2 million actually) 'well, yes that must have
been a mirage; it didn't happen.
Strange times in which we live when conjecture is treated as if it were fact. Yep, that is
one of the hallmarks of the totalitarian mindset. In his marvellous essay, 'Notes on
Nationalism' Orwell captures this frame of mind perfectly. He writes:
"By 'nationalism' I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be
classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people'
(Leave voters by any chance?) "can be labelled 'good' or 'bad' But secondly (and this is much
more important) I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a particular nation, political
party, religious group or even football team, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising
no other duty than that of advancing its interests" (Remainers perhaps?)
Moreover, "although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat or revenge, the
nationalist is somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to
feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do
this off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether or not they support his
views Arguments with his adversaries are always inconclusive since each of the contestants
believe themselves always right and always winning the victory (in the sight of God
anyway).
Some of the true believers are not far from clinical schizophrenia, living quite happily
amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connexion with the physical world."
Sadly true.
Dungroanin ,
WE will NOT let YOU forget the VoteLEAVE bs. Paul & co.
Here is Vote Leave NOT saying we are going onto WTO rules:
'The day after nothing changes legally. There is no legal obligation on the British
Government to take Britain out of the EU immediately. There will be three stages of creating
a new UK-EU deal – informal negotiations, formal negotiations, and implementation
including both a new Treaty and domestic legal changes. There is no need to rush. We must
take our time and get it right.
WHAT'S THE OVERALL FRAMEWORK WE NEED?
Overall, the negotiations will create a new European institutional architecture that
enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in
a friendly way. In particular, we will negotiate a UK-EU Treaty that enables us 1) to
continue cooperating in many areas just as now (e.g. maritime surveillance), 2) to deepen
cooperation in some areas (e.g. scientific collaborations and counter-terrorism), and 3) to
continue free trade with minimal bureaucracy. The details will have to await a serious
negotiation but there are many agreements between the EU and other countries that already
solve these problems so we will be able to take a lot 'off the shelf'.'
Etc. http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
AND HERE IS FACT CHECK
'As far as we've seen, Leave campaigners hardly mentioned the customs union in explicit
terms at all, so there was generally little clarity about what leaving might mean in that
regard.'
&
'There are also examples of leave campaigners claiming the UK could adopt a position similar
to Norway -- which is still part of the single market while not being an EU member.
Arron Banks, a founder of the Leave.EU campaign tweeted in November 2015 "Increasingly the
Norway option looks the best for the UK".'
This article has clarified the main targets for the globalists but where do you think
Brexit stands in their agenda, do they want out of the EU or not? I am confused which side is
in favour of freedom and liberty and which one wants global centralised command and
control.
They will gingerly exchange the regulated EU economy for the freewheeling American economy - and hasn't that economy worked
so well for American workers.
If so, that's a good thing, for the regulated EU economy has treated Britons and Europeans even worse. The EU regulations, treaties
and policies are overall highly destructive to workers, massive welfare for the rich. What remains of European Social Democracy and
welfare states obscure the fact that US workers are actually treated better by their nation's fundamental economic policies and structures.
Europe as a whole is MORE unequal, more of a class society than the USA, not less.
Brexit is a good thing, a leftist, progressive policy. It's jumping completely off the hot stove, not into the fire. The British,
who preferred Labour's other policies, felt that the merits of Brexit outweighed all the other negatives of the Tories. They might
be right.
Money quote: "Johnson will have to work superhard on this if he is to re-create not the
Thatcher coalition but the Disraeli nation. That's what he means when he talks about "One Nation
Conservatism." That was Disraeli's reformist conservatism of the 19th century, a somewhat
protectionist, supremely patriotic alliance between the conservative elites and the ordinary man
and woman. It will take a huge amount of charm and policy persistence to cement that coalition if
it is to last more than one election. But if Boris pulls that off, he will have found a new
formula designed to kill off far-right populism, while forcing the left to regroup."
Notable quotes:
"... But just as important, he moved the party sharply left on austerity, spending on public services, tax cuts for the working poor, and a higher minimum wage. He outflanked the far right on Brexit and shamelessly echoed the left on economic policy ..."
Brexit is an eruption of English nationalism, and the Tories are now, under that shambling
parody of a drunk racist English aristo, Johnson, an English nationalist party.
IMHO this is highly questionable statement. Brexit is a form of protest against neoliberal
globalization. The fact that is colored with nationalism is the secondary effect/factor:
rejection of neoliberalism is almost always colored in either nationalist rhetoric, or Marxist
rhetoric.
Here are some quotes from paleoconservative analysis of the elections taken from two recent
articles:
While I do not share their enthusiasm about "Red Tories" rule in the UK, and the bright
future for "Trumpism without Trump" movement in the USA, they IMHO provide some interesting
insights into paleoconservatives view on the British elections results and elements of social
protest that led to them:
[AS] It is clearer and clearer to me that the wholesale adoption of critical race, gender,
and queer theory on the left makes normal people wonder what on earth they're talking about
and which dictionary they are using. The white working classes are privileged? A woman can
have a penis? In the end, the dogma is so crazy, and the language so bizarre, these natural
left voters decided to listen to someone who
does actually speak their language , even if in an absurdly plummy accent.
[AS] But just as important, he moved the party sharply left on austerity, spending on
public services, tax cuts for the working poor, and a higher minimum wage. He outflanked the
far right on Brexit and shamelessly echoed the left on economic policy . ... This is
Trumpism without Trump. A conservative future without an ineffective and polarizing nutjob at
the heart of it. Unlike Trump, he will stop E.U. mass migration, and pass a new immigration
system, based on the Australian model. Unlike Trump, he will focus tax cuts on the working
poor, not the decadent rich. Unlike Trump, he will stop E.U. mass migration, and pass a new
immigration system, based on the Australian model. Unlike Trump, he will focus tax cuts on
the working poor, not the decadent rich. It's very much the same movement of left-behind
people expressing their views on the same issues, who, tragically, put their trust in Trump.
What we've seen is how tenacious a voting bloc that now is, which is why Trumpism is here to
stay. If we could only get rid of the human cancer at the heart of it.
[AS] Trump has bollixed it up, of course. He ran on Johnson's platform but gave almost all
his tax cuts to the extremely wealthy, while Johnson will cut taxes on the poor. Trump talks
a big game on immigration but has been unable to get any real change in the system out of
Congress. Johnson now has a big majority to pass a new immigration bill, with Parliament in
his control, which makes the task much easier. Trump is flamingly incompetent and unable to
understand his constitutional role. Boris will assemble a competent team, with Michael Gove
as his CEO, and Dom Cummings as strategist.
[AS] If Johnson succeeds, he'll have unveiled a new formula for the Western right: Make no
apologies for your own country and culture; toughen immigration laws; increase public
spending on the poor and on those who are "just about managing"; increase taxes on the very
rich and redistribute to the poor; focus on manufacturing and new housing; ignore the woke;
and fight climate change as the Tories are (or risk losing a generation of support).
[RD] I have no idea why the Republicans are so damned silent on wokeness, including the
transgender madness. No doubt about it, the American people have accepted gay marriage and
gay rights, broadly. But the Left will not accept this victory in the culture war. They
cannot help bouncing the rubble, and driving people farther than they are willing to go, or
that they should have to go. It's the elites -- and not just academic elites. Every week I
get at least two e-mails from readers sending me examples of transgender wokeness taking over
their professions -- especially big business. People hate this pronoun crap, but nobody dares
to speak out against it, because they are afraid of being doxxed, cancelled, or at least
marginalized in the workplace.
[RD] My friend said (I paraphrase):
"Can you blame people for not answering pollsters' questions? Everybody is told all the
time that the things they believe, and the things they worry about, are backwards and
bigoted. They have learned to keep it to themselves. It's the same thing here. I hate
Donald Trump, but I'm probably going to end up voting for him, because at least he doesn't
hate my sons. I want a good future for every child -- black, Latino, white, all of them --
but the Left thinks my sons are what's wrong with the world
[RD] Boris (and Sully) style Toryism is better than nothing, isn't it? As a general rule,
in this emerging post-Christian social and political order, we conservative Christians had
better not let the unachievable perfect be the enemy of the common-sense good enough.
"... I think the current period can be called the “collapse of neoliberalism” period. In any case the neoliberal elite who was in power (Blairists, Clintonists) lost the trust of people. This is true both for the US and labour in the UK. In this sense the anti-Semitic smear against Corbin is equivalent to neo-McCarthyism hysteria in the USA. Both reflect the same level of desperation and clinging to power of “soft neoliberals.” ..."
It’s time to stop pretending we’re still in the postwar period (the question is, are we in a pre-war one).
True. As “Full Spectrum Dominance” inevitably lead to “threat inflation” it is logically drives the USA into the major war.
I think the current period can be called the “collapse of neoliberalism” period. In any case the neoliberal elite who was
in power (Blairists, Clintonists) lost the trust of people. This is true both for the US and labour in the UK. In this sense the
anti-Semitic smear against Corbin is equivalent to neo-McCarthyism hysteria in the USA. Both reflect the same level of desperation
and clinging to power of “soft neoliberals.”
Unfortunately Corbin proved to be too weak to withstand the pressure and suppress Blairists. But Blairists in labour might
still be up to a great disappointment. The history train left the station and they are still standing on the neoliberal platform,
so to speak.
That’s why Brexit, as a form of protest against neoliberal globalization, has legs. It is a misguided, but still a protest
movement.
From now on, only the rich will have the luxury of any sense of historical continuity.
The rich are not uniform. Financial oligarchy wants to stay, while manufacturers probably would prefer Brexit.
Why did so many people – from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to state department and National
Security Council officials – feel the need to lie about how the war in Afghanistan was going?
This is because it’s easy cash cow for the old boys club by sending working class kids to be killed in a far off land.
The pentagon with the full cooperation of MSM will sell it as we are defending our ways of life by fighting a country 10,000
kms away.
This show the poor literacy, poor analytical thinking of US population constantly brain washed by MSM, holy men, clergy,
other neo con organisations like National rifle club etc.
and
manoftheworld -> Redswordfish 10 Dec 2019 15:47
Perhaps the only thing Trump has got right .. and ever will get right.. is his dislike for war. He is right about Afghanistan.
The terrible US press and political reaction to his peace talks with the Taliban showed that the deep state still doesn’t
get it…
Mattis, Graham et al are insane liars… and so is Hilary Clinton and Petraeus… none of them has ever had the guts to tell
the truth…
the average American is way more indoctrinated than the average pupil at a madrasa. …we should boot these lying American
generals out of NATO.. they’re a threat to world peace…
In any case Brexit is a litmus test of what is the next stage for neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization.
This year's winner is Branko Milanovic's
Capitalism, Alone: The Future of the System That Rules the World . (This is the second
Globie for Milanovic, who won it in 2016 for Global Inequality .) The book is based on
the premise that capitalism has become the universal form of economic organization. This type
of system is characterized by "production organized for profit using legally free wage labor
and mostly privately owned capital, with decentralized coordination." However, there exist two
different types of capitalism: the liberal meritocratic form that developed in the West, and
state-led political capitalism, which exists primarily in Asia but also parts of Europe and
Africa.
The two models are competitors, in part because of their adoption in different parts of the
world and also because they arose in different circumstances. The liberal meritocratic system
arose from the class capitalism of the late 19th century, which in turn evolved out of
feudalism. Communism, Milanovic writes, took the place of bourgeoise development. Communist
parties in countries such as China and Vietnam overthrew the domestic landlord class as well as
foreign domination. These countries now seek to re-establish their place in the global
distribution of economic power.
Milanovic highlights one characteristic that the two forms of capitalism share: inequality.
Inequality in today's liberal meritocratic capitalism differs from that of classical capitalism
in several features. Capital-rich individuals are also labor-rich, which reinforces the
inequality. Assortative mating leads to more marriages within income classes. The upper classes
use their money to control the political process to maintain their position of privilege.
Because of limited data on income distribution in many of the countries with political
capitalism, Milanovic focuses on inequality in China. He attributes its rise to the gap between
growth in the urban areas versus the rural, as well the difference in growth between the
maritime provinces and those in the western portion of the country. There is also a rising
share of income from capital , as well as a high concentration of capital income. In addition,
corruption has become systemic, as it was before the communist revolution.
The mobility of labor and capital allows capitalism to operate on a global basis.
Migrants from developing economies benefit when they move to advanced economies. But residents
in those countries often fear migration because of its potentially disruptive effect on
cultural norms, despite the positive spillover effects on the domestic economy. Milanovic
proposes granting migrants limited rights, such as a finite term of stay, in order to
facilitate their acceptance. He points out, however, the potential downside of the creation of
an underclass.
Multinational firms have organized global supply chains that give the parent units in their
home countries the ability to coordinate production in different subsidiary units and their
suppliers in their host nations. Consequently, the governments of home countries seek to limit
the transfer of technology to the periphery nations to avoid losing innovation rents. The host
countries, on the other hand, hope to use technology to jump ahead in the development
process.
The Trump administration clearly shares these concerns about the impact of globalization.
President Trump has urged multinational firms to relocate production facilities within the U.S.
Government officials are planning to limit the
export of certain technologies while carefully scrutinizing foreign acquisitions of
domestic firms in tech-related areas. New
restrictions on legal immigration have been enacted that would give priority to a
merit-based system. Moreover, the
concerns over migration are not unique to the U.S.
Milanovic ends with some provocative thoughts about the future of capitalism. One path would
be to a "people's capitalism," in which everyone has an approximately equal share of both
capital and labor income. This would require tax advantages for the middle class combined with
increased taxes on the rich, improvements in the quality of public education, and public
funding of political campaigns. But it is also feasible that there will be a move of liberal
capitalism toward a form of political capitalism based on the rise of the new elite, who wish
to retain their position within society.
Milanovic's book offers a wide-ranging review of many of the features of contemporary
capitalism. He is particularly insightful about the role of corruption in both liberal and
political capitalism. Whether or not it is feasible to reform capitalism in order to serve a
wider range of interests is one of the most important issues of our time.
==quote==
The Trump administration clearly shares these concerns about the impact of globalization.
President Trump has urged multinational firms to relocate production facilities within
the U.S. Government officials are planning to limit the export of certain technologies
while carefully scrutinizing foreign acquisitions of domestic firms in tech-related
areas. New restrictions on legal immigration have been enacted that would give priority
to a merit-based system. Moreover, the concerns over migration are not unique to the
U.S.
== end ==
In plain language that means the collapse of neoliberal globalization.
When Liberal governments fail to provide answers for economic despair the road is paved for
strong-armed, bloviating fascists. And the more desperate things become fascism will only get
stronger if history is any indication.
ban nock on Fri,
12/13/2019 - 6:18am and the analogies with Sanders and the US only go so far.
Politics in the US, Britain, and Europe in general are being upended, I'd caution against
pigeon holing things into the old left/right, Dem/Repub, Tory/Labor, scenario.
Britain's Labor similar to America's Democratic Party has lost lots of it's legitimacy with
working people. Globalisation has decimated cities like Liverpool and Manchester. Labor didn't
support Brexit, the biggest issue in politics in Britain. Being a part of the EU allowed
workers from Eastern Europe to enter England and directly compete for low skilled jobs.
Labor in England also included upper middle class woke culture, which is very pro EU and
anti Brexit. It's impossible to imagine a pro Brexit leader in Labor just as much as it is
impossible to imagine working class people in England supporting the loss of their jobs via
Remain. People voted for their economic self interests, can you blame them? As in the US there
are more working class voters than there are upper middle class intellectuals.
Boris Johnson promised increased funding for the National Health Service, not tearing it
down as many seem to suggest. Whether he does so is yet to be seen, but I wouldn't read his win
as a rejection of the social safety net. Socialism is for many some kind of intellectual game,
the working class is much less interested in ideas, and much more interested in health care,
higher wages, and better conditions overall.
Ever since I watched Bernie Sanders' rise in the primaries in 16 I've felt he would be a
much stronger general election candidate than he is in the primaries. As contrary as Trump
might seem to hard core political junkies, Trump did steal many of Sander's memes and use them
in the general election. Most wage earners actually do feel powerless in the face of the
corporate overclass, they feel things getting worse not better.
To have even a snowball's chance in the pre primaries, the endless positioning and twitter
wars that have occurred for months prior to even our first primary, Sanders is now committed to
many of the same positions as the woke side of the Democratic Party. There might well be a big
enough drop off of Hispanics, African Americans, and Working Class Dems of all hues to lose
this thing again, even if Sanders wins the primary. The Democratic Party has lost working
people even as it has gained Country Club Republicans from the suburbs.
Last night as the results were obvious I watched the old DK, the NYT, and other web sites.
Stunned Silence. It's as if they didn't realize 2016 happened and were surprised all over
again.
A big part of why Labor and Corbyn lost so badly is the complete abdication of "the Left" on
Brexit. The left were supposed to be anti-globalists, in which case their task was to join
battle offering an egalitarian, left-populist version of Brexit which would have benefited
the people.
Instead, faced with a real decision and a real opportunity they punted and ran home to
globalist mama. This removed one of the main reasons to bother supporting them.
Thing is, this destroys the left in Britain. The right in Labour had been in control since
the early 1980s, and Corbyn's leadership victory was an accident which will not be given a
second chance. Now what will replace Corbyn will not be Blairism, it will be something well
to the right of Blairism, something much more like the DNC in the United States.
In other words, this is not a defeat of a party, it is a catastrophe for anyone seeking to
struggle against the triumph of neoliberal barbarism. Oh, and it makes the probability of the
end of the world through environmental catastrophe or nuclear war much higher. So apart from
the ideological catastrophe it's also a human calamity.
Corbyn destroyed hismelf. He performed quite well, unexpectedly so, in 2017 because he said
that he would honour the result of the 2016 referendum. Yesterday the electors punished him
for reneging on that and telling 17.4 million voters that they were wrong.
It was the less well off who voted to Leave, and it was the less well off who yesterday
deserted Labour in droves. They have had enough of being told that they are in the wrong by a
middle class elite who would be repelled if they ever actually met someone from the working
class.
I am no expert on UK politics, but it does look like Brexit was the issue that Boris won
on. Everybody is sick of it and wants if over with.
I am no expert on UK politics either, but from my point of view in Norway the main issue
to be resolved is dismantling the EU, and it looks like the Brexit vote and this election
confirms that many in the UK see it the same way. Whether it will happen is another
question.
I voted NO in the 1994 Norwegian referendum on the question of becoming member of
"European Community". One of the arguments in the debate at that time was that the "European
Community" was aiming to become a union and a superstate. Those who argued that way were
called lots of things, including conspiracy theorists. Today we are not members of the EU,
but all the "regulations" are forced upon us anyway. The EU is a non-democratic nightmare
that must be demolished.
I don't expect much good from the Tories, I don't exclude another betrayal of the Brexit
cause, but we shall see. Corbyn lost on his betrayal of Brexit, that is for sure. I
sympathize with Corbyn, but betraying the Brexit referendum is a no-no.
What the UK needs is real progressives that see the EU as the globalist project it is. It
also means that the "climate crisis" must be recognised as a political tool created by the
same forces. Corbyn failed on both accounts and therefore he lost.
Now that the official results are out, I'll comment on the British elections.
If Corbyn had won and taken us out of the EU we would have gone all Venezuela. If he'd won
and kept us in the EU we'd have gone all Greece. The result is the best of the bad options
available.
This comment on The Guardian encapsulates the average Conservative voter for these 2019
elections.
The UK is really at a crossroads: it is too tiny and poor in natural resources to
implement socialism, but it is declining as a capitalist power.
I don't think the average British really thinks Venezuela is socialist or that Corbyn's
policies would make them very poor, but I think they are afraid of the sanctions and
embargoes they would suffer from the USA if they dared to try to go back to
social-democracy.
This defeat may also be historic: this could go to History as the end of social-democracy.
Social-democracy was already dead as an effective political force after the oil crisis of
1974-5, but at least it was able to polarize with neoliberalism in the ideological field and
had some prestige that far outlived itself (to the point it was the main propaganda weapon
that ultimately convinced Gorbachev to destroy the USSR, and to the point it was able to
convince historians like Hobsbawn that it had actually "won the war" after 2008). Now it
isn't considered even credible by half of the population of one of the few countries it was
able to govern and fully influence in the post-war period.
In Rosa Luxemburg's last article (a few days before she was executed), she finally
admitted defeat to the Bolsheviks. "We must separate the essential from the non-essential",
she wrote. And the essential, she completed, was the fact that the Bolsheviks were right and
the German Social-Democrats were wrong. It happened again, almost 100 years later.
(Brexit anger is about wage inequality - like US Trump support. 35 years, GDP doubled,
median earnings up 10% in UK, 0% in US. If the media wrote about basic economics everyone
would know this. Instead the bottom 75% have plain unfocussed anger with Trump/Brexit being
lightening rods to direct it).
It might be wise to be careful here about assumptions used. First off, cognisance of
population changes will not automatically translate into employed working sector changes,
many factors intervene preventing a direct relationship. Secondly, having a accurate GDP
measure from beginning to end of the period observed is crucial (to avoid apples vs. oranges
comparisons) so that changes in productive sources (and their employed numbers) are accounted
for (law offices rarely employ as many as heavy industrial firms). The history of price/wage
inflation or loss of exchange value of currency will affect reported GDP statistics as well.
Thirdly is measuring the general education and skill level of those employed, as those
decrease so do earnings/salaries/wages. Fourthly, look at the change in social protections
provided to the population in question, these protections have a cost that must be met, their
absence has an even greater cost to income obtained but rarely appearing on the economic
balance sheets. Regulatory capture by monopoly, sovereign & trust-fund management removes
business restrictions and passes those costs to those employed. Try putting this on a
bumper-sticker for your car.
In the U.S. the population had increased in double digits from the census of 1950 (150.9
millions) to 2010 (308.7 millions). Working income had not significantly increased from
1970's, Purchasing Power Parity of 1970 dollar and 2019 dollar is unobtainable information.
GDP statistics are of the nature of apples vs. oranges, measuring unrelated economic
production; it can be done but isn't (for reasons political) [an income of US$400,000 in 1915
would translate into a 1980's income of about US$ 8.5 millions; the economies were still
roughly speaking nearly the same still and comparable, as wealth distributions were becoming
again].
Globalism sounds like such a nice thing for many, it even has a nice ring to it! At least to
the naïve, whom actually believe that if the world could just get together and work out
its problems under one big umbrella, all would be great. I think most people would agree that
true free trade, coupled with safeguards to protect American jobs would be fine. The corrupted
globalism that this world has become nearly immersed in is a mechanism that, in reality, is
intent on creating a one world corporate owned planet operated under a top-down, locked-down,
political and economic management system backed up by coercion. Whew! That is a mouthful I
agree! It will be run by a partnership of the top .001% of wealthiest elites and administered
by the United Nations. International rules and laws for every single decision will nearly all
come under the auspices the United Nations. This plan has been laid out in various United
Nations publications and official policy.
President Trump has vowed to, and succeeded in some ways, to buck these one world
globalists, not to say he hasn't treated them to overly generous tax breaks since he has been
in charge! Not withstanding the prior, these one world globalists include even some of the most
prominent lawmakers in Washington D.C. far too often. The entrenched snake sales people over at
the White House lawmaking division are far too often part of the plan to decimate America
whether they believe it or not. We can only hope that a large part of them are do not realize
what the end-game is of this globalist cabal. Perhaps this is of course why we so often shake
our heads in disbelief when they utter ideas and beliefs that sound so foreign to ears,
anti-American and even scary!
So far, Pres. Trump seems to have accomplished about as much as any one president ever could
accomplish when walking into a room of entrenched den of thieves! Washington is not going to be
a part of solving the problems of globalism, for they and the globalists are in bed together.
Part of the problem remains that the establishment agenda is overrun by statists who walk in
lock-step with their leaders and party platforms even if corrupted. It is just too profitable
for them to ignore. Yet, the truth is that statism has no sense of proportion. These sometimes
well-meaning politicians, once they are put into power, knowingly or unknowingly become slaves
to their corporate owners. This is corporatocracy, and it is unsustainable. The one world
corporate pirates, comprising a collection of the largest 100 or so family dynasties, do in
fact control approximately 90 percent of the wealth of the world, hidden inside a dark web of
very complex multi-structured organizations and corporate nameplates. Such makes it very
difficult, but not impossible to truly figure out who the real owners are behind the maze. This
is perhaps the reason why I contend that President Trump, an outsider with a new direction for
America, may be our last chance. Most of these types hate Trump because he is hitting them
where it hurts on most fronts and is slowing down the globalist agenda!
Corporate socialism IS globalism. It is a growing and controlled oligarchy. As such, it
affords both the supranational capitalists, world's governments and non-elected quasi
governmental agencies to profit together as a baseball team would. Yes, working together with
one unified grand vision for the profit and powers of both. Globalism is the name. We already
see how nearly everything around us is becoming part of the so-called global order. These,
creating quid-pro-quo systems of control over the entire world economies, whom create wars for
profit, create inflation to inadvertently benefit themselves and enact so-called "free-trade
partnerships" that portend to help creates jobs here at home, only succeed occasionally of
creating low wage service jobs in large part in the parts of the world that the globalists
venture with their self-serving con-game. Limiting competition, being on the inside, having
power over others, this is what the global government and one world monopolistic corporations
are all about. The free trade agreements offer all of its members to petition, (and usually
get) allowances to get around many of the safeguards and traditional legal rules that used to
be sacrosanct in world trade. Especially as to food processing. The move toward monopolization
is perhaps the biggest motivator these have for supporting globalist (un)free trade
agreements.
What the true elite globalists (who reside in both political parties in Washington and world
power centers in particular) want is unbridled control over nearly everything in order to unite
us into a global world of subservient slaves unto them. So, what's the answer?
It is easy to witness that the far leftists often do not divulge they are socialists at all.
In recent years, this is changing, now that millions of young voters have been convinced by
their colleges and mass media outlets that socialism IS the answer. In the past, no candidate
would utter the word socialism for fear of many lost votes. Today, a surprisingly large
percentage of politicians in government are onboard. We can easily spot them if we compare
their voting records. Then compare them to the promises made when running for election! So,
before you get too comfortable with politicians who come off as infectiously kind and
compassionate while often using the words 'fairness', "world community", "social equality",
"open borders", "free trade", "globalism", "social justice" and other such pleasantly
attractive bleeding heart politicians using such catch-phrases, be careful. Although Democrats
will more often than not fall into this category of unsung globalists, many on both sides of
the isle fit the bill as well. Some more than others knowingly use these kind sounding
platforms in order to garner votes from the gullible young in particular. History shows over
and over again how gullible citizens can be duped into voting for someone they thought was a
caring politician, then come to discover they voted for a hidden socialist or communist in
fact. Although we can all agree on the responsibilities of our government as spelled out in the
Constitution, our founding fathers warned the new country that we must beware of politicians
who promise more than that great document promises.
Government / corporate partnerships, whether formal or consensual, create insanely
profitable fortunes for their owners while too often screwing over not only Americans but the
worlds taxpaying citizens and their industrialized countries as well. Who do you think the
prime contractors are who build and supply trillions of dollars of military weapons to the
huge, high testosterone American military machine? These war factories are largely owned by
billion-dollar super elites whose huge goliath corporations very often operate under a
duplicity of names that largely hides the true identities of the owners behind them. These true
owners often use layers of sub-corporations operating under various, differing names and
locations providing legal and illegal tax havens around the world. Apple pays zero US taxes for
example using such a scheme. This is just one case amongst thousands. Often the tax havens are
claimed are justified by the existence of a foreign post office box. Seldom are these caught or
fined by our U.S. authorities. When they do occasionally get caught, the fines are typically
just a miniscule part of the total savings they have accumulated over the past years.
With a little research we can find many of the same board members appearing again and again
on the rosters of the quietly interconnected mega corporations. This creates the long-time
problem of immoral collusions that often allow shifting of profits to other tax havens,
allowing American profits to go untaxed and shifting the responsibility fully onto the American
worker. Does it not make sense that a corporation that makes ridiculous record profits such as
Apple and others do, that they should pay their share? This globalist mindset of the elites
creates record profits at the expense of American workers and their spending powers.
Within our public "screwling system" as I call it, students are increasingly taught that
"globalism" is a new religion of sorts, a "cure-all" for world discourse perhaps! Those with
enough power to create massive changes in culture are behind the politically correct culture,
the green movement and most other leftist power grabs. These are often the very same
supra-national corporations and political kingpins who wish to undermine the America we
remember, its legal system while creating a monopolistic economic and totalitarian one world
state. It is wise to remember the confirmed beliefs and admissions o f the godfathers of the
one world order. Of course I am speaking of the Rockefellers, J.P. Morgan and dozens more of
the wealthiest families of the world whom have for centuries verifiably acted upon and talked
of such plans. Their heirs, as well as the new titans such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos (Amazon
fame), Elon Musk (Tesla) and other such billionaire or trillionaire types are nearly all on
board vocally with a one world order system of governance. I will cover this much more further
on.
For over 100 years, much of American education has been stealthily entrenched in
anti-Western "cultural Marxism" propaganda and other damaging indoctrinations (as I document
later). Public schools have long promoted the globalism lie, teaching such as the yellow brick
road towards acceptance of a one world order that delivers utopia. It is hard indeed to find a
young person today in America who still believes strongly in traditional values and ideas of
self-responsibility, detest government interference in their lives, loves the Constitution,
what it stands for and protects. They have been indoctrinated by our schools to the point that
common sense no longer matters, for honest discourse in discussions are heavily discouraged in
many a classroom. I prove further along that most of the liberal ideology being increasingly
touted by the left is borne out of a long dreamt of socialist utopia carried out by a
partnership between the corporate globalists, the U.N. and those elites who desire power over
the world. And I can guarantee to you that these are getting impatient. These, their
cohorts/devotees are those whom desire to make the choices as to everything you buy, eat,
drive, live, your job destiny, how much or how little you make, etc. etc. Most of this agenda
is not so hidden, contained already within the prime vehicle to bring about the one world order
with the United Nations Agenda 21 policies taking place around the world.
Considering that at least 50% of the world's wealth is verifiably controlled by the top 1%
consisting of only 67 of the world's wealthiest individuals (and shrinking), this is pretty
good evidence that we are essentially being controlled by a very small corporate global elite
club designed and run for the few. These stats are verified later. The pace of their
destruction is staggering.
Today, the top 200 corporations are bigger than the combined economies of 182 countries and
have twice the economic influence than 80 per cent of all humanity as I prove!
Globalism has come very far in rendering world with greatly reduced amounts of anything
amounting to a capitalistic system that comes with practical safeguards against abuses that
place too much harm to the hard working stiffs. Increasingly, we witness wage inequalities
worse than in the Great Depression. Truly, the top 10 percent earners have left everyone else
in the dust increasingly over the last 50 years. The top 1 percenters incomes during this time
has gone to the moon at the expense of the masses.
Globalism is the vehicle to achieve the elite globalist goals of a one world order,
separate, nationalistic and independent nations with their own borders must be eliminated,
which shouldn't be too much of a problem to accomplish in much of the world, especially in the
current socialist run countries in and around the European continent and America who largely
embrace socialism. What is ironic is that socialist Briton's have turn their backs on Brexit,
meant to centralize nearly all power to the elite globalists. Little did they realize that you
can't have both, at least in the long run.
The League of Nations was the precursor of the United Nations. From their beginnings, the
primary long-term reason for both of them had always been to be the primary central agency of
the world, an assemblage of the top global power brokers created to steer and carry out the new
world order which has been dreamt of for millennium. Its creation has not been, as it touts,
"to create a harmonious and peaceful world". No, the U.N.'s overarching goal has been to create
a one world government using the ploy of globalism. There are ample records dating back before
its very creation, direct from the U.N.'s own publications and top officers and founders to
support this statement which I document quite fully in order to prove that point. This UN has
with much ambition endorsed and sanctioned one world inspired leaders, corporations, groups,
agencies, NGO's and billionaires from countries all around the globe in a long term unified
vision of this new world order in order to further the one world agenda. The help that the UN
has supplied in the creation of most planned wars, coups and disruptions across the world is
well known by those who have done their homework on that subject. It is this cabal and others
that are the enemies of true freedoms, borders, sovereignty across the globe yet are completely
onboard with creating a one world government. Americanism or any other type of governance
besides their one world order. These are the a major part of the world's Deep State apparatus
who are in fact often hidden forces behind the worlds corporate powered global power
structure.
The global multinational corporatist leaders have pushed their un-free trade treaties, long
creating a horrid record of killing millions of good paying jobs across America and nearly
everywhere they venture. These stealing of good jobs have swelled the bank accounts and powers
of these globalist multinational corporations while boosting their wealth into the top 1%
largely at the expense of the masses who now work for far less. lowered wages.
The globalists new world order plan requires a complete breakdown of the required systems
that have historically allowed nation to prosper on its own merits. Sold by both parties is the
false belief that big government can fix everything. This long-running sales job actually
promotes self-interest above all, using deceptive techniques as I cover. Such a sales job
requires a break away from traditions that bind us with our neighbors and family. It requires a
growth in narcissism, self above God so much so that we can now even witiness the horrid
reality of pedophilia becoming more mainstream! Since President Trump's reign, thousands of
pedophilia people and groups have been arrested as never before! Thousand of killer gang
members have been arrested as never before, especially those inside of the MS-13 ruthless
group. This is just one of many actions by this President that leads to my belief that our new
President is holding up his end of the agreement. Like him or not, he at least is holding up
his promises.
History is replete with all the immense damages that the globalist movement has brought upon
the world. These have sold the lie that globalism is the answer to the inequalities between the
haves and the have nots. While the opposite is the real truth! The truth is now evident when
one looks at the condition of the world they have pushed upon all of us over the last many
years.
The elite new world order operatives have infiltrated all the major nations governmental
agencies, top positions of power. Led by the lure of power, connectedness, money, these are
often not aware that they are actually perpetuating a plan that is deadly for much of the world
if the globalist elites they serve should get their way. Unfortunately for these self serving
minions only are concerned with self promotion often. Yet the fact remains that political
expediency and promotions come with compliance. The heads of nearly every major country are
working together with this huge one world apparatus machine that is enclosed within the UN,
World Bank, IMF, European Union, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal
Family, the corporation called America, and hundreds of other governmental and non-governmental
centers of power. Many of these hide behind nice sounding, humanitarian nameplates. Nearly all
the crises we see play out are ones they actually create, (of which American hegemony around
the world is a large player). For these, the ends always justify the means.
Continual non-stop conflicts around the world, of which America is often at the forefront of
are exponentially increasing. I will explain why and how America's endless war policies has
been implemented over the last many years, but I cannot divulge my take on who and what is
behind much of the openly visible powers working behind much of the news we hear.
Explained will be real, actual reasons why America has spent over 15 years in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Libya with nothing to show besides disasters and deaths, while earning a bad
reputation around the world as a bully. Be assured that the elites and banking system have made
trillions of dollars from these three examples. And lives mean little. Psychopaths don't care
about anything beyond their own desires and powers, and many of these are psychopaths indeed.
They use false justifications as a passport to sell many of their warring's and destructions.
This is globalism.
I predict that the CIA, (a globalist arm of the U.S. Government and deep state), armed with
an unlimited budget and trillions of dollars derived from their years of secret under the radar
dirty operations, are likely to be an agency to be reviewed, revamped or remodeled within the
not so distant future. The truths behind this clandestine, above the law and corrupted agency
may finally be surfacing as well. Ever since the Trump Russian collusion witch hunt also with
an unlimited budget as well both of these conducted, likely during Pres. Trump's time as
president, we should expect to witness a firestorm of controversy and change more momentous
than anything in American history, hopefully.
President Donald Trump has his work cut out, but his years in office have shown he is no
typical deep state establishment fixture of either political party! What we are now witnessing
is perhaps the most important and fateful elections in America's entire history. The results
will either allow the Republican Party to prove itself to be the party of the people, or become
impotent, simply becoming water boys for the Democrat Party, thereafter having little real
power for decades perhaps. The results of the coming elections leading into 2020, (general and
mid-terms), will in fact be the determining factor for whether America and the world reject
conservativism or falls into the clutches of a highly touted, yet untruthful liberalism that
doesn't even resemble the old party of the people that dems used to own in the far past. So, we
must ask ourselves, how did this all come to such a historic moment as we are living in?
It is unclear why he calls this "incompetence". Tories clearly want to sabotage the deal and at the same time save face. That's
a very tricky task and mistakes were made.
Notable quotes:
"... Politically the Tories have no plan at all, and when the clock stops on Brexit they will completely implode. The Tories are so deadlocked on Brexit that they can't even talk to themselves. ..."
"... You know the conservative party is full of incompetent wankers when the business community prefers a radical socialist over them. ..."
"... Christian Schulz at Citi says "perhaps" Corbyn is no longer as bad an option as no deal, while Deutsche's Oliver Harvey says fears about the Labour leader "may be overstated". ..."
"... "It is not that the financiers favour the opposition leader's plans for 'higher taxes, tighter labour laws, spending increases and the nationalisation of network industries', but that this may cause less harm than leaving the EU without a deal" says the Telegraph. ..."
gjohnsit on Fri, 09/06/2019 - 12:07pm A little over a year ago I wrote
this .
Politically the Tories have no plan at all, and when the clock stops on Brexit they will completely implode. The Tories are
so deadlocked on Brexit that they can't even talk to themselves.
...This is a political and economic disaster, not just waiting to happen, but firmly scheduled...unless Labour's neoliberal
Blairites save them, the Tory government is headed for an epic collapse.
It's rare that my predictions are 100% accurate, but this time I totally nailed it. To give you an idea of how badly the Tories
have bungled things, look at these two headlines.
You know the conservative party is full of incompetent wankers when the business community prefers a
radical socialist over
them.
But while Corbyn may be less popular than no deal among the public, The Daily Telegraph says "the scourge of bankers and avowed
opponent of capitalism, is winning support from unexpected new quarters" with two of the biggest global banks operating in the
City of London "warming to the Labour leader".
According to the paper, he is now seen as the lesser of two evils by analysts at Citibank and Deutsche Bank, two titans of
the financial system.
Christian Schulz at Citi says "perhaps" Corbyn is no longer as bad an option as no deal, while Deutsche's Oliver Harvey
says fears about the Labour leader "may be overstated".
"It is not that the financiers favour the opposition leader's plans for 'higher taxes, tighter labour laws, spending increases
and the nationalisation of network industries', but that this may cause less harm than leaving the EU without a deal" says the
Telegraph.
To put this sentiment in
hard numbers , a coalition led by his party would spur the pound more than 5%.
As for those overstated fears about the Labour leader, that's because of a highly coordinated three year smear campaign by the
very same business community.
Then, his efforts to secure a snap general election -- with the goal of replacing the sacked lawmakers with a new slate of candidates
more aligned with his hard-Brexit views -- were scuppered when opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn refused to play along.
Now, he is effectively trapped in Downing Street, with Corbyn holding the keys. The government plans to propose new elections
again on Monday, but the opposition leader says his party will only support the move when its efforts to prevent a no-deal Brexit
are locked down.
"Certainly his biggest tactical mistake so far was not to realize that it was Corbyn, as leader of the opposition, who effectively
had veto power over when a general election could be held," said Professor Tony Travers, director of the Institute of Public Affairs
at the London School of Economics.
This allows time for Corbyn to appear like a professional leader, so that when he finally allows a general election the memory
of his steady hand will be fresh in the public's mind.
Like all other Tories worldwide, Boris "Tiny" Johnson is a charlatan. Hopefully, the British People will wake up and
end their decades-long nightmare by placing him [Corbyn] in power.
As we need to do, ourselves.
edit: Added Corbyn's name to clarify that last sentence. And we, too, need to remove all Tories from power.
The value of an idea is often assessible by the number and strength of the enemies arrayed against it. Since so many entrenched
interests and Powers-That-Be and elitists/globalists are against Brexit, I'm beginning to think that deal or no deal, Brexit must
in the best interests of the 99%. Otherwise, the 1% wouldn't fight against it so hard.
@edg
I think Brexit is like tariffs. Tariffs are a good idea for the working class because it puts a cost on off-shoring jobs. BUT
the way Trump is doing it is stupid and doesn't help anyone. Same thing with Brexit. It probably helps the 99%, but not the way
the Tories are going about it.
The value of an idea is often assessible by the number and strength of the enemies arrayed against it. Since so many entrenched
interests and Powers-That-Be and elitists/globalists are against Brexit, I'm beginning to think that deal or no deal, Brexit
must in the best interests of the 99%. Otherwise, the 1% wouldn't fight against it so hard.
The fact that Blair, the City of London, and neoliberals the world over hate Brexit and especially no-deal Brexit makes me
think it's probably a good thing. Anything that chips away at the hegemony of global finance seems positive.
The fact that Blair, the City of London, and neoliberals the world over hate Brexit and especially no-deal Brexit makes
me think it's probably a good thing. Anything that chips away at the hegemony of global finance seems positive.
"The Trade War Spurs China's Technology Innovators Into Overdrive" [
Industry Week ]. "In Shenzhen's glitzy financial district, a five-year-old outfit creates a
360-degree sports camera that goes on to win awards and draw comparisons to GoPro Inc.
Elsewhere in the Pearl River Delta, a niche design house is competing with the world's best
headphone makers. And in the capital Beijing, a little-known startup becomes one of the biggest
purveyors of smartwatches on the planet. Insta360, SIVGA and Huami join drone maker DJI
Technology Co. among a wave of startups that are dismantling the decades-old image of China as
a clone factory -- and adding to Washington's concerns about its fast-ascending international
rival.
Within the world's No. 2 economy, Trump's campaign to contain China's rise is in fact
spurring its burgeoning tech sector to accelerate design and invention. The threat they
pose is one of unmatchable geography: by bringing design expertise and innovation to the place
where devices are manufactured, these companies are able to develop products faster and more
cheaply ." •
Gee, didn't we have this advantage once? Thanks, neoliberals!
This is a Marxist critique of neoliberalism. Not necessary right but they his some relevant
points.
Notable quotes:
"... The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. ..."
"... The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world output. ..."
"... While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy? The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in the latter and meet global demand. ..."
"... The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5 ..."
"... This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state, the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse , causing a financial crisis. ..."
"... The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument, as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6 ..."
"... If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment. ..."
"... The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their home market ..."
"... In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people ..."
"... In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop and finds fascism. ..."
"... The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their support. ..."
"... The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions, imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of neoliberalism. ..."
"... And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more. ..."
"... Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11 Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against it. ..."
The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth.
But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this
ideological prop.
Harry Magdoff's The Age of
Imperialism is a classic work that shows how postwar political decolonization does not
negate the phenomenon of imperialism. The book has two distinct aspects. On the one hand, it
follows in V. I. Lenin's footsteps in providing a comprehensive account of how capitalism at
the time operated globally. On the other hand, it raises a question that is less frequently
discussed in Marxist literature -- namely, the need for imperialism. Here, Magdoff not only
highlighted the crucial importance, among other things, of the third world's raw materials for
metropolitan capital, but also refuted the argument that the declining share of raw-material
value in gross manufacturing output somehow reduced this importance, making the simple point
that there can be no manufacturing at all without raw materials. 1
Magdoff's focus was on a period when imperialism was severely resisting economic
decolonization in the third world, with newly independent third world countries taking control
over their own resources. He highlighted the entire armory of weapons used by imperialism. But
he was writing in a period that predated the onset of neoliberalism. Today, we not only have
decades of neoliberalism behind us, but the neoliberal regime itself has reached a dead end.
Contemporary imperialism has to be discussed within this setting.
Globalization and
Economic Crisis
There are two reasons why the regime of neoliberal globalization has run into a dead end.
The first is an ex ante tendency toward global overproduction; the second is that the
only possible counter to this tendency within the regime is the formation of asset-price
bubbles, which cannot be conjured up at will and whose collapse, if they do appear, plunges the
economy back into crisis. In short, to use the words of British economic historian Samuel
Berrick Saul, there are no "markets on tap" for contemporary metropolitan capitalism, such as
had been provided by colonialism prior to the First World War and by state expenditure in the
post-Second World War period of dirigisme . 2
The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages
across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector
of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world
output. As Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy argued in Monopoly Capital , following the lead of
Michał Kalecki and Josef Steindl, such a rise in the share of economic surplus, or a shift
from wages to surplus, has the effect of reducing aggregate demand since the ratio of
consumption to income is higher on average for wage earners than for those living off the
surplus. 3
Therefore, assuming a given level of investment associated with any period, such a shift would
tend to reduce consumption demand and hence aggregate demand, output, and capacity utilization.
In turn, reduced capacity utilization would lower investment over time, further aggravating the
demand-reducing effect arising from the consumption side.
While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous
phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an
explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy?
The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the
first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the
metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in
the latter and meet global demand.
Historically, while labor has not been, and is still not, free to migrate from the third
world to the metropolis, capital, though juridically free to move from the latter to the
former, did not actually do so , except to sectors like mines and plantations, which
only strengthened, rather than broke, the colonial pattern of the international division of
labor. 4
This segmentation of the world economy meant that wages in the metropolis increased with labor
productivity, unrestrained by the vast labor reserves of the third world, which themselves had
been caused by the displacement of manufactures through the twin processes of
deindustrialization (competition from metropolitan goods) and the drain of surplus (the
siphoning off of a large part of the economic surplus, through taxes on peasants that are no
longer spent on local artisan products but finance gratis primary commodity exports to
the metropolis instead).
The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to
the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and
take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of
the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the
third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the
real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was
marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5
At the same time, such relocation of activities, despite causing impressive growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) in many third world countries, does not lead to the exhaustion of
the third world's labor reserves. This is because of another feature of contemporary
globalization: the unleashing of a process of primitive accumulation of capital against petty
producers, including peasant agriculturists in the third world, who had earlier been protected,
to an extent, from the encroachment of big capital (both domestic and foreign) by the
postcolonial dirigiste regimes in these countries. Under neoliberalism, such protection
is withdrawn, causing an income squeeze on these producers and often their outright
dispossession from their land, which is then used by big capital for its various so-called
development projects. The increase in employment, even in countries with impressive GDP growth
rates in the third world, falls way short of the natural growth of the workforce, let alone
absorbing the additional job seekers coming from the ranks of displaced petty producers. The
labor reserves therefore never get used up. Indeed, on the contrary, they are augmented
further, because real wages continue to remain tied to a subsistence level, even as
metropolitan wages too are restrained. The vector of real wages in the world economy as a whole
therefore remains restrained.
Although contemporary globalization thus gives rise to an ex ante tendency toward
overproduction, state expenditure that could provide a counter to this (and had provided a
counter through military spending in the United States, according to Baran and Sweezy) can no
longer do so under the current regime. Finance is usually opposed to direct state intervention
through larger spending as a way of increasing employment. This opposition expresses itself
through an opposition not just to larger taxes on capitalists, but also to a larger fiscal
deficit for financing such spending. Obviously, if larger state spending is financed by taxes
on workers, then it hardly adds to aggregate demand, for workers spend the bulk of their
incomes anyway, so the state taking this income and spending it instead does not add any extra
demand. Hence, larger state spending can increase employment only if it is financed either
through a fiscal deficit or through taxes on capitalists who keep a part of their income
unspent or saved. But these are precisely the two modes of financing state expenditure that
finance capital opposes.
Its opposing larger taxes on capitalists is understandable, but why is it so opposed to a
larger fiscal deficit? Even within a capitalist economy, there are no sound economic
theoretical reasons that should preclude a fiscal deficit under all circumstances. The root of
the opposition therefore lies in deeper social considerations: if the capitalist economic
system becomes dependent on the state to promote employment directly , then this fact
undermines the social legitimacy of capitalism. The need for the state to boost the animal
spirits of the capitalists disappears and a perspective on the system that is epistemically
exterior to it is provided to the people, making it possible for them to ask: If the state can
do the job of providing employment, then why do we need the capitalists at all? It is an
instinctive appreciation of this potential danger that underlies the opposition of capital,
especially of finance, to any direct effort by the state to generate employment.
This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as
finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state,
the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second
World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is
globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a
nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large
fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse ,
causing a financial crisis.
The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews
direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since
that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their
social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument,
as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the
pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6
It may be thought that this compulsion on the part of the state to accede to the demand of
finance to eschew fiscal intervention for enlarging employment should not hold for the United
States. Its currency being considered by the world's wealth holders to be "as good as gold"
should make it immune to capital flight. But there is an additional factor operating in the
case of the United States: that the demand generated by a bigger U.S. fiscal deficit would
substantially leak abroad in a neoliberal setting, which would increase its external debt
(since, unlike Britain in its heyday, it does not have access to any unrequited colonial
transfers) for the sake of generating employment elsewhere. This fact deters any fiscal effort
even in the United States to boost demand within a neoliberal setting. 7
Therefore, it follows that state spending cannot provide a counter to the ex ante
tendency toward global overproduction within a regime of neoliberal globalization, which makes
the world economy precariously dependent on occasional asset-price bubbles, primarily in the
U.S. economy, for obtaining, at best, some temporary relief from the crisis. It is this fact
that underlies the dead end that neoliberal capitalism has reached. Indeed, Donald Trump's
resort to protectionism in the United States to alleviate unemployment is a clear recognition
of the system having reached this cul-de-sac. The fact that the mightiest capitalist
economy in the world has to move away from the rules of the neoliberal game in an attempt to
alleviate its crisis of unemployment/underemployment -- while compensating capitalists
adversely affected by this move through tax cuts, as well as carefully ensuring that no
restraints are imposed on free cross-border financial flows -- shows that these rules
are no longer viable in their pristine form.
Some Implications of This Dead End
There are at least four important implications of this dead end of neoliberalism. The first
is that the world economy will now be afflicted by much higher levels of unemployment than it
was in the last decade of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first, when
the dot-com and the housing bubbles in the United States had, sequentially, a pronounced
impact. It is true that the U.S. unemployment rate today appears to be at a historic low, but
this is misleading: the labor-force participation rate in the United States today is lower than
it was in 2008, which reflects the discouraged-worker effect . Adjusting for this lower
participation, the U.S. unemployment rate is considerable -- around 8 percent. Indeed, Trump
would not be imposing protection in the United States if unemployment was actually as low as 4
percent, which is the official figure. Elsewhere in the world, of course, unemployment
post-2008 continues to be evidently higher than before. Indeed, the severity of the current
problem of below-full-employment production in the U.S. economy is best illustrated by capacity
utilization figures in manufacturing. The weakness of the U.S. recovery from the Great
Recession is indicated by the fact that the current extended recovery represents the first
decade in the entire post-Second World War period in which capacity utilization in
manufacturing has never risen as high as 80 percent in a single quarter, with the resulting
stagnation of investment. 8
If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a
beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the
United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen
the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the
United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already
appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be
because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping
unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we
look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment.
There has been some discussion on how global value chains would be affected by Trump's
protectionism. But the fact that global macroeconomics in the early twenty-first century will
look altogether different compared to earlier has not been much discussed.
In light of the preceding discussion, one could say that if, instead of individual
nation-states whose writ cannot possibly run against globalized finance capital, there was a
global state or a set of major nation-states acting in unison to override the objections of
globalized finance and provide a coordinated fiscal stimulus to the world economy, then perhaps
there could be recovery. Such a coordinated fiscal stimulus was suggested by a group of German
trade unionists, as well as by John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
9
While it was turned down then, in the present context it has not even been discussed.
The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large
over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with
protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even
spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world
market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the
ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their
home market.
Such a transition will not be easy; it will require promoting domestic peasant agriculture,
defending petty production, moving toward cooperative forms of production, and ensuring greater
equality in income distribution, all of which need major structural shifts. For smaller
economies, it would also require their coming together with other economies to provide a
minimum size to the domestic market. In short, the dead end of neoliberalism also means the
need for a shift away from the so-called neoliberal development strategy that has held sway
until now.
The third implication is the imminent engulfing of a whole range of third world economies in
serious balance-of-payments difficulties. This is because, while their exports will be sluggish
in the new situation, this very fact will also discourage financial inflows into their
economies, whose easy availability had enabled them to maintain current account deficits on
their balance of payments earlier. In such a situation, within the existing neoliberal
paradigm, they would be forced to adopt austerity measures that would impose income deflation
on their people, make the conditions of their people significantly worse, lead to a further
handing over of their national assets and resources to international capital, and prevent
precisely any possible transition to an alternative strategy of home market-based growth.
In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over
third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits
in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or
that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even
domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people.
The fourth implication is the worldwide upsurge of fascism. Neoliberal capitalism even
before it reached a dead end, even in the period when it achieved reasonable growth and
employment rates, had pushed the world into greater hunger and poverty. For instance, the world
per-capita cereal output was 355 kilograms for 1980 (triennium average for 1979–81
divided by mid–triennium population) and fell to 343 in 2000, leveling at 344.9 in 2016
-- and a substantial amount of this last figure went into ethanol production. Clearly, in a
period of growth of the world economy, per-capita cereal absorption should be expanding,
especially since we are talking here not just of direct absorption but of direct and indirect
absorption, the latter through processed foods and feed grains in animal products. The fact
that there was an absolute decline in per-capita output, which no doubt caused a decline in
per-capita absorption, suggests an absolute worsening in the nutritional level of a substantial
segment of the world's population.
But this growing hunger and nutritional poverty did not immediately arouse any significant
resistance, both because such resistance itself becomes more difficult under neoliberalism
(since the very globalization of capital makes it an elusive target) and also because higher
GDP growth rates provided a hope that distress might be overcome in the course of time.
Peasants in distress, for instance, entertained the hope that their children would live better
in the years to come if given a modicum of education and accepted their fate.
In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with
neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological
prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop
and finds fascism. This changes the discourse away from the material conditions of people's
lives to the so-called threat to the nation, placing the blame for people's distress not on the
failure of the system, but on ethnic, linguistic, and religious minority groups, the
other that is portrayed as an enemy. It projects a so-called messiah whose sheer
muscularity can somehow magically overcome all problems; it promotes a culture of unreason so
that both the vilification of the other and the magical powers of the supposed leader
can be placed beyond any intellectual questioning; it uses a combination of state repression
and street-level vigilantism by fascist thugs to terrorize opponents; and it forges a close
relationship with big business, or, in Kalecki's words, "a partnership of big business and
fascist upstarts." 10
Fascist groups of one kind or another exist in all modern societies. They move center stage
and even into power only on certain occasions when they get the backing of big business. And
these occasions arise when three conditions are satisfied: when there is an economic crisis so
the system cannot simply go on as before; when the usual liberal establishment is manifestly
incapable of resolving the crisis; and when the left is not strong enough to provide an
alternative to the people in order to move out of the conjuncture.
This last point may appear odd at first, since many see the big bourgeoisie's recourse to
fascism as a counter to the growth of the left's strength in the context of a capitalist
crisis. But when the left poses a serious threat, the response of the big bourgeoisie typically
is to attempt to split it by offering concessions. It uses fascism to prop itself up only when
the left is weakened. Walter Benjamin's remark that "behind every fascism there is a failed
revolution" points in this direction.
Fascism Then and Now
Contemporary fascism, however, differs in crucial respects from its 1930s counterpart, which
is why many are reluctant to call the current phenomenon a fascist upsurge. But historical
parallels, if carefully drawn, can be useful. While in some aforementioned respects
contemporary fascism does resemble the phenomenon of the 1930s, there are serious differences
between the two that must also be noted.
First, we must note that while the current fascist upsurge has put fascist elements in power
in many countries, there are no fascist states of the 1930s kind as of yet. Even if the fascist
elements in power try to push the country toward a fascist state, it is not clear that they
will succeed. There are many reasons for this, but an important one is that fascists in power
today cannot overcome the crisis of neoliberalism, since they accept the regime of
globalization of finance. This includes Trump, despite his protectionism. In the 1930s,
however, this was not the case. The horrors associated with the institution of a fascist state
in the 1930s had been camouflaged to an extent by the ability of the fascists in power to
overcome mass unemployment and end the Depression through larger military spending, financed by
government borrowing. Contemporary fascism, by contrast, lacks the ability to overcome the
opposition of international finance capital to fiscal activism on the part of the government to
generate larger demand, output, and employment, even via military spending.
Such activism, as discussed earlier, required larger government spending financed either
through taxes on capitalists or through a fiscal deficit. Finance capital was opposed to both
of these measures and it being globalized made this opposition decisive . The
decisiveness of this opposition remains even if the government happens to be one composed of
fascist elements. Hence, contemporary fascism, straitjacketed by "fiscal rectitude," cannot
possibly alleviate even temporarily the economic crises facing people and cannot provide any
cover for a transition to a fascist state akin to the ones of the 1930s, which makes such a
transition that much more unlikely.
Another difference is also related to the phenomenon of the globalization of finance. The
1930s were marked by what Lenin had earlier called "interimperialist rivalry." The military
expenditures incurred by fascist governments, even though they pulled countries out of the
Depression and unemployment, inevitably led to wars for "repartitioning an already partitioned
world." Fascism was the progenitor of war and burned itself out through war at, needless to
say, great cost to humankind.
Contemporary fascism, however, operates in a world where interimperialist rivalry is far
more muted. Some have seen in this muting a vindication of Karl Kautsky's vision of an
"ultraimperialism" as against Lenin's emphasis on the permanence of interimperialist rivalry,
but this is wrong. Both Kautsky and Lenin were talking about a world where finance capital and
the financial oligarchy were essentially national -- that is, German, French, or British. And
while Kautsky talked about the possibility of truces among the rival oligarchies, Lenin saw
such truces only as transient phenomena punctuating the ubiquity of rivalry.
In contrast, what we have today is not nation-based finance capitals, but
international finance capital into whose corpus the finance capitals drawn from
particular countries are integrated. This globalized finance capital does not want the world
to be partitioned into economic territories of rival powers ; on the contrary, it wants the
entire globe to be open to its own unrestricted movement. The muting of rivalry between major
powers, therefore, is not because they prefer truce to war, or peaceful partitioning of the
world to forcible repartitioning, but because the material conditions themselves have changed
so that it is no longer a matter of such choices. The world has gone beyond both Lenin and
Kautsky, as well as their debates.
Not only are we not going to have wars between major powers in this era of fascist upsurge
(of course, as will be discussed, we shall have other wars), but, by the same token, this
fascist upsurge will not burn out through any cataclysmic war. What we are likely to see is a
lingering fascism of less murderous intensity , which, when in power, does not
necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically
annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally.
But since its successor government, as long as it remains within the confines of the neoliberal
strategy, will also be incapable of alleviating the crisis, the fascist elements are likely to
return to power as well. And whether the fascist elements are in or out of power, they will
remain a potent force working toward the fascification of the society and the polity, even
while promoting corporate interests within a regime of globalization of finance, and hence
permanently maintaining the "partnership between big business and fascist upstarts."
Put differently, since the contemporary fascist upsurge is not likely to burn itself out as
the earlier one did, it has to be overcome by transcending the very conjuncture that produced
it: neoliberal capitalism at a dead end. A class mobilization of working people around an
alternative set of transitional demands that do not necessarily directly target neoliberal
capitalism, but which are immanently unrealizable within the regime of neoliberal capitalism,
can provide an initial way out of this conjuncture and lead to its eventual transcendence.
Such a class mobilization in the third world context would not mean making no truces with
liberal bourgeois elements against the fascists. On the contrary, since the liberal bourgeois
elements too are getting marginalized through a discourse of jingoistic nationalism typically
manufactured by the fascists, they too would like to shift the discourse toward the material
conditions of people's lives, no doubt claiming that an improvement in these conditions is
possible within the neoliberal economic regime itself. Such a shift in discourse is in
itself a major antifascist act . Experience will teach that the agenda advanced as part of
this changed discourse is unrealizable under neoliberalism, providing the scope for dialectical
intervention by the left to transcend neoliberal capitalism.
Imperialist
Interventions
Even though fascism will have a lingering presence in this conjuncture of "neoliberalism at
a dead end," with the backing of domestic corporate-financial interests that are themselves
integrated into the corpus of international finance capital, the working people in the third
world will increasingly demand better material conditions of life and thereby rupture the
fascist discourse of jingoistic nationalism (that ironically in a third world context is not
anti-imperialist).
In fact, neoliberalism reaching a dead end and having to rely on fascist elements revives
meaningful political activity, which the heyday of neoliberalism had precluded, because most
political formations then had been trapped within an identical neoliberal agenda that appeared
promising. (Latin America had a somewhat different history because neoliberalism arrived in
that continent through military dictatorships, not through its more or less tacit acceptance by
most political formations.)
Such revived political activity will necessarily throw up challenges to neoliberal
capitalism in particular countries. Imperialism, by which we mean the entire economic and
political arrangement sustaining the hegemony of international finance capital, will deal with
these challenges in at least four different ways.
The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation
that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even
before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby
denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only
increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may
well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from
a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers
and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their
support.
Even if capital controls are put in place, where there are current account deficits,
financing such deficits would pose a problem, necessitating some trade controls. But this is
where the second instrument of imperialism comes into play: the imposition of trade sanctions
by the metropolitan states, which then cajole other countries to stop buying from the
sanctioned country that is trying to break away from thralldom to globalized finance capital.
Even if the latter would have otherwise succeeded in stabilizing its economy despite its
attempt to break away, the imposition of sanctions becomes an additional blow.
The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the
sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the
local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of
civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection
generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions,
imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political
elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of
neoliberalism.
And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic
warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military
warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third
world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when
revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more.
Two aspects of such intervention are striking. One is the virtual unanimity among the
metropolitan states, which only underscores the muting of interimperialist rivalry in the era
of hegemony of global finance capital. The other is the extent of support that such
intervention commands within metropolitan countries, from the right to even the liberal
segments.
Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing
for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First
World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state
intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only
occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11
Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize
itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist
intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against
it.
Samuel Berrick Saul, Studies in British Overseas Trade, 1870–1914
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960).
Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1966).
One of the first authors to recognize this fact and its significance was Paul Baran in
The Political Economy of
Growth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957).
For the role of such colonial transfers in sustaining the British balance of payments and the
long Victorian and Edwardian boom, see Utsa Patnaik, "Revisiting the 'Drain,' or Transfers
from India to Britain in the Context of Global Diffusion of Capitalism," in Agrarian
and Other Histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri , ed. Shubhra Chakrabarti and
Utsa Patnaik (Delhi: Tulika, 2017), 277-317.
Federal Reserve Board of Saint Louis Economic Research, FRED, "Capacity Utilization:
Manufacturing," February 2019 (updated March 27, 2019), http://fred.stlouisfed.org .
This issue is discussed by Charles P. Kindleberger in The World in Depression,
1929–1939 , 40th anniversary ed. (Oakland: University of California Press,
2013).
Joseph Schumpeter had seen Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace as
essentially advocating such state intervention in the new situation. See his essay, "John
Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)," in Ten Great Economists (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1952).
Utsa Patnaik is Professor Emerita at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her books include Peasant Class Differentiation (1987),
The Long Transition (1999), and The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays (2007). Prabhat Patnaik
is Professor Emeritus at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. His books include Accumulation and Stability Under Capitalism (1997),
The Value of Money(2009), and Re-envisioning Socialism(2011).
a farmer has at least 3 PhD qualifications just to contend in the business
No need for a tongue-in-cheek, you're on track, if manufacturing food is akin to other
manufacturing.
. . .from last year
August 2018, The fall of employment in the manufacturing sector
Today's manufacturing output is at least 5 percent greater than it was in 2000, but it has
become much more capital intensive and much less labor intensive. Accordingly, workers in
the sector are more likely to have at least some college education than their counterparts
of years past. But there are far fewer manufacturing workers overall, with about 7.5
million jobs lost since 1980.
What is most responsible for the manufacturing job losses? Rising trade with China is often
cited as a possible culprit. But competition from China only accounts for about a fourth of
the decline in manufacturing during the 2000s. This theory is further eroded by the fact
that local markets that did not compete with Chinese imports also saw employment
declines.
A skills mismatch -- the gap between the skills workers have and the skills employers need
-- has also contributed to the decline of manufacturing employment.
Prime age men and women with less than a high school degree have been hit particularly hard
by changes to manufacturing employment. As the manufacturing sector has shifted from
low-skilled to high-skilled work, workers who possess higher skill levels (e.g., engineers,
computer programmers, software developers, etc.) have become more sought after than before.
. . here
And the US supply of STEM graduates for any technical profession seems to be wanting.
Meanwhile we must recognize that employment is not directly tied to the economy, given
mechanization.
"... Brute facts tell us this. As part of the European Union, the UK and Germany have the same trading rules. Last year, however, Germany exported $134bn of goods to the US whereas the UK exported only $65.3bn. Per head of population, Germany's exports to the US were therefore 60% higher than the UK's. Much the same is true for other non-EU nations. Last year Germany exported $11.8bn to Australia whilst the UK exported just $5.9bn, a per capita difference of over 50%. German exports to Canada were $12bn whilst the UK's were $7.3bn, a 28% per capita difference. German exports to Japan, at $24.1bn were 2.2 times as great per head as the UK's. And German exports to China, at $109.9bn were three times as great per capita as the UK's $27.7bn. ..."
John Bolton says the UK can strike a quick trade deal with the US. This reminds me of an
under-appreciated fact – that it is not trade rules that are significantly holding back
UK exports.
Brute facts tell us this. As part of the European Union, the UK and Germany have the same
trading rules. Last year, however, Germany exported $134bn of goods to the US whereas the UK
exported only $65.3bn. Per head of population, Germany's exports to the US were therefore 60%
higher than the UK's. Much the same is true for other non-EU nations. Last year Germany
exported $11.8bn to Australia whilst the UK exported just $5.9bn, a per capita difference of
over 50%. German exports to Canada were $12bn whilst the UK's were $7.3bn, a 28% per capita
difference. German exports to Japan, at $24.1bn were 2.2 times as great per head as the UK's.
And German exports to China, at $109.9bn were three times as great per capita as the UK's
$27.7bn.
Now, these numbers refer only to goods where Germany has a comparative advantage over the
UK. But they tell us something important. Whatever else is holding back UK exports, it is not
trade rules. Germany exports far more than the UK under the same rules.
As for what it is that is holding back exports, there are countless candidates – the
same ones that help explain the UK's relative industrial weakness: poor management; a lack of
vocational training; lack of finance or entrepreneurship; the diversion of talent from
manufacturing to a bloated financial sector; the legacy of an overvalued exchange rate. And
so on.
If we were serious about wanting to revive UK exports, we would be discussing what to do
about issues such as these. Which poses the question: why, then, does the possibility of
trade deals get so much more media attention?
One reason is that the right has for decades made a consistent error– a form of
elasticity optimism whereby they over-estimate economic flexibility and dynamism. Back in the
80s, Patrick Minford thought, mostly wrongly, that unemployed coal miners and manufacturers
would swiftly find jobs elsewhere as, I dunno, astronauts or lap-dancers. The Britannia
Unchained crew think, again wrongly, that deregulation will create lots of jobs. And some
Brexiters in 2016 thought sterling's fall would give a big boost to net exports.
In the same spirit, they think free trade deals will raise exports a lot. But they won't -
and certainly not enough to offset the increased red tape of post-Brexit trade with the EU.
Jobs and exports just aren't as responsive to stimuli as they think. The economy is more
sclerotic, more path dependent, than that.
Secondly, the BBC has a bias against emergence. It overstates the extent to which outcomes
such as real wages, share prices or government borrowing are the result of deliberate policy
actions and understates the extent to which they are the emergent and largely unintended
result of countless less obvious choices. In this spirit, it gets too excited about trade
deals and neglects the real obstacles to higher exports.
But there's something else. Perhaps the purpose of free trade deals is not to boost
exports at all. It is instead largely totemic. Such deals are one of the few things we'll be
able to do after Brexit that we couldn't do before. They are therefore a symbol of our
new-found sovereignty. They are, alas, largely just that – a symbol.
"John Bolton says the UK can strike a quick trade deal with the US. "
---
Clueless. The US and the UK do not need a trade deal, Brexit is happening because the UK
decided it didn't need any trade deals, open market trading on whatever restrictions foreign
government makes is fine with brexiters.
Way back when we were a smarter people, we assumed that trade deals are a restriction on
trade. They exist to overcome protectionism which was there prior.
"... What has caused the rapid decline in US manufacturing employment in recent decades? This column uses novel data to investigate the role of US multinationals and finds that they were a key driver behind the job losses. Insights from a theoretical framework imply that a reduction in the costs of foreign sourcing led firms to increase offshoring, and to shed labour." [link above] ..."
"... It looks like 'free' trade fundamentalists like Krugman are going to have to revisit their ideology... ..."
"... How pathetic can Democrats get with thier anti-worker policies ..."
"... Late 90's US corporations went whole in to industrializing [extreme low wage] China... FOREX, federal deficits, ignoring the US worker, etc. were in the [sympathetic] mix. There is a chicken, which egg is not important. ..."
"... Personally, I think that Trump is exploiting the distress of the working stiff and not doing anything for him. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership has shown callous indifference toward the working stiff so Trump gets their votes, because at least he will acknowledge that there's a problem unlike kurt and his ilk. ..."
"A new assessment of the role of offshoring in the decline in US manufacturing employment,"
by Christoph Boehm, Aaron Flaaen, Nitya Pandalai-Nayar 15 August 2019 What has caused the rapid decline in US manufacturing employment in recent decades? This
column uses novel data to investigate the role of US multinationals and finds that they were
a key driver behind the job losses. Insights from a theoretical framework imply that a
reduction in the costs of foreign sourcing led firms to increase offshoring, and to shed
labour." [link above]
It looks like 'free' trade fundamentalists like Krugman are going to have to revisit
their ideology...
As for kurt, expect him to continue to deny the fact that 'free' trade has cost a
significant number of jobs and caused enough economic disruption to tilt the election to
Trump in 2016.
Further, expect the Democratic leadership to continue to tout the benefits of 'free' trade
without acknowledging its severe adverse effects, both economically and politically. And of
course, as long as they never acknowledge the adverse effects, they will never have to
address it which will allow Trump to continue to bludgeon them on the issue.
How pathetic can Democrats get with thier anti-worker policies
Late 90's US corporations went whole in to industrializing [extreme low wage] China...
FOREX, federal deficits, ignoring the US worker, etc. were in the [sympathetic] mix. There is
a chicken, which egg is not important.
The US worker lost in the evolutions. Aside from Trump who has tried anything for the US
working stiff?
Personally, I think that Trump is exploiting the distress of the working stiff and not
doing anything for him. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership has shown callous indifference
toward the working stiff so Trump gets their votes, because at least he will acknowledge that
there's a problem unlike kurt and his ilk.
Without suppression of Wall Street speculators the renaissance on manufacturing is impossible...
Notable quotes:
"... A tooling firm closes, and a complex organism withers. The machinery is sold, sent to the scrapyard, or rusts in place. The manuals are tossed. The managers retire and the workers disperse, taking their skills and knowledge with them. The bowling alley closes. The houses sell at a loss, or won’t see at all. Others, no doubt offshore, get the contracts, the customers, and the knowledge flow that goes with all that. All this causes hysteresis. “The impact of past experience on subsequent performance” cannot be undone simply by helicoptering a new plant in place and offering some tax incentives! To begin with, why would the workers come back? ..."
If I lived in the past, I might assume that re-industrialization would be as easy as building a new plant and plopping it down
in my model town; "build it and they will come." But this America is not that America. Things aren't that frictionless. They are
not, because of a concept that comes with the seventy five-cent word hysteresis attached,
covered here in 2015. Martin Wolf wrote :
"Hysteresis" -- the impact of past experience on subsequent performance -- is very powerful. Possible causes of hysteresis
include: the effect of prolonged joblessness on employability; slowdowns in investment; declines in the capacity of the financial
sector to support innovation; and a pervasive loss of animal spirits.
(To "loss of animal spirits" in the entrepreneurial classes we might add "deaths of despair" in the working class.) And if there
were a lot of people like me, living in the past -- in a world of illusion -- that too would would cause hysteresis, because we would
make good choices, whether for individual careers, at the investment level, or at the policy level, only at random.
Our current discourse on a manufacturing renaissance is marked by a failure to take hysteresis into account. First, I'm select
some representative voices from the discourse. Then, I will present a bracing article from Industry Week, "
Is US Manufacturing Losing Its Toolbox? " I'll conclude by merely alluding to some remedies. (I'm sure there's a post to be written
comparing the policy positions of all the candidate on manufacturing in detail, but this is not that post.)
"We're in the midst of a manufacturing renaissance -- something which nobody thought you'd hear," Trump said. "We're
finally rebuilding our country, and we are doing it with American aluminum, American steel and with our great electrical contractors,"
said Trump, adding that the original NAFTA deal "stole our dignity as a country."
Despite Trump's promises of a manufacturing "renaissance," the country is now in a manufacturing
recession
. The Federal Reserve just reported that the manufacturing sector had a second straight quarter of decline, falling below Wall
Street's expectations. And
for the first
time ever , the average hourly wage for manufacturing workers has dropped below the national average.
Amazingly, under Trump, America has experienced a 2½-year manufacturing jobs boom. More Americans are now employed in well-paying
manufacturing positions than before the Great Recession. The miracle hasn't slowed. The latest jobs report continues to show robust
manufacturing growth, with manufacturing job creation beating economists' expectations, adding the most jobs since January.
Obviously, the rebound in American manufacturing didn't happen magically; it came from Trump following through on his campaign
promises -- paring back job-killing regulations, cutting taxes on businesses and middle-class taxpayers, and implementing trade
policies that protect American workers from foreign trade cheaters.
But nothing has reversed the decline of the county's manufacturing base. From January 2017 to December 2018, it lost nearly
9 percent of its manufacturing jobs, and 17 other counties in Michigan that Mr. Trump carried have experienced similar losses,
according to a newly updated analysis of employment data by the Brookings Institution.
Perhaps the best reality check -- beyond looking at our operational capacity, as we are about to do -- is to check what the people
who will be called upon to do the work might think. From Industry Week, "
Many Parents
Undervalue Manufacturing as a Career for Their Children " (2018):
A mere 20% of parents associate desirable pay with a career in manufacturing, while research shows manufacturing workers actually
earn 13%more than comparable workers in other industries.
If there were a manufacturing renaissance, then parents' expectations salaries would be more in line with reality (in other
words, they exhibit hysteresis).
Another good reality check is what we can actually do (our operational capacity). Here is Tim Cook explaining why Apple ended
up not manufacturing in the United States (
from J-LS's post ).
From Inc. :
[TIM COOK;] "The products we do require really advanced tooling, and the precision that you have to have, the tooling and working
with the materials that we do are state of the art. And the tooling skill is very deep here. In the US you could have a meeting
of tooling engineers and I'm not sure we could fill the room. In China you could fill multiple football fields.
"The vocational expertise is very very deep here, and I give the education system a lot of credit for continuing to push on
that even when others were de-emphasizing vocational. Now I think many countries in the world have woke up and said this is a
key thing and we've got to correct that. China called that right from the beginning."
With Cook's views in mind, let's turn to the slap of cold water administered by Michael Collins in Industry Week, "
Is US Manufacturing Losing
Its Toolbox? ":
So are we really in the long-hoped-for manufacturing renaissance? The agency with the most accurate predictions on the future
of jobs is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Their projection to 2026
shows that US manufacturing sector will lose 736,000 manufacturing jobs. I spoke with BLS economists James Franklin and Kathleen
Greene, who made the projections, and they were unwavering in their conclusion for a decline of manufacturing jobs.
This prompted me to look deeper into the renaissance idea, so I investigated the changes in employment and establishments in
38 manufacturing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries from 2002 to 2018. I really hoped that the optimists
were right about the manufacturing renaissance, but
the data I collected in Table 1 (see link) shows some inconvenient truths -- that 37 out of the 38 manufacturing industries
are declining in terms of both number of plants and employees.
So, yeah. Mirage.
... ... ...
A tooling firm closes, and a complex organism withers. The machinery is sold, sent to the scrapyard, or rusts in place. The
manuals are tossed. The managers retire and the workers disperse, taking their skills and knowledge with them. The bowling alley
closes. The houses sell at a loss, or won’t see at all. Others, no doubt offshore, get the contracts, the customers, and the knowledge
flow that goes with all that. All this causes hysteresis. “The impact of past experience on subsequent performance” cannot be undone
simply by helicoptering a new plant in place and offering some tax incentives! To begin with, why would the workers come back?
So, when I see no doubt well-meant plans like Warren’s “Economic Patriotism” — and not to pick on Warren — I’m skeptical. I’m
not sure it’s enough.
Here are her
bullet points:
More actively managing our currency value to promote exports and domestic manufacturing.
Leveraging federal R&D to create domestic jobs and sustainable investments in the future.
Production stemming from federally funded research should take place in the United States
Taxpayers should be able to capture the upside of their research investments if they result in profitable enterprises.
R&D investments must be spread across every region of the country, not focused on only a few coastal cities.
Increasing export promotion to match the efforts of our competitors.
Deploying the massive purchasing power of the federal government to create markets for American-made products.
Restructuring worker training programs to deliver real results for American workers and American companies.
Dramatically scale up apprenticeship programs.
Institute new sectoral training programs.
There’s a lot to like here, but will these efforts really solve the hysteresis that’s causing our tooling problem? Just spit-balling
here, but I’d think about doing more. Start with the perspective that our tooling must be, as much as possible, domestic. (“If your
business depends on a platform, you don’t have a business.” Similarly, if your industrial base depends on the tooling of others,
it’s not an industrial base.)
As tooling ramps up, our costs will be higher. Therefore, consider tariff walls, as used by other developing nations when they
industrialized. Apprenticeships and training are good, but why not consider skills-based immigration that brings in the worker we’d
otherwise have to wait to train?
Further, simply “training” workers and then having MBAs run the firms is a recipe for disaster; management needs to be provided,
too.
Finally, something needs to be done to bring the best and brightest into manufacturing, as opposed to having them work on Wall
Street, or devise software that
cheats
customers with dark patterns. It’s simply not clear to me that a market-based solution — again, not to pick on her — like Warren’s
(“sustainable investments,” “research investments,” “R&D investments,” “export promotion,” and “purchasing power”) meets the case.
It is true that Warren also advocates a Department of Economic Development “that will have a single goal: creating and defending
good American jobs.” I’m not sure that’s meaningful absent an actual industrial policy, democratically arrived at, and a mobilized
population (which is what the Green New Deal ought to do).
https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F08%2Fa-new-assessment-of-the-role-of-offshoring-in-the-decline-in-us-manufacturing-employment.html
<img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
By Christoph Boehm, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Texas at Austin, Aaron
Flaaen, Senior Economist, Research and Statistics Division, Federal Reserve Board, and Nitya
Pandalai-Nayar, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Texas at Austin. Originally
published at VoxEU
What has caused the rapid decline in US manufacturing employment in recent decades? This
column uses novel data to investigate the role of US multinationals and finds that they were a
key driver behind the job losses. Insights from a theoretical framework imply that a reduction
in the costs of foreign sourcing led firms to increase offshoring, and to shed labour.
One of the most contentious aspects of globalisation is its impact on national labour
markets. This is particularly true for advanced economies facing the emergence and integration
of large, low-wage, and export-driven countries into the global trading system. Contributing to
this controversy, between 1990 and 2011 the US manufacturing sector lost one out of every three
jobs. A body of research, including recent work by Bloom et al. (2019), Fort et al. (2018) and
Autor et al. (2013), has attempted to understand this decline in manufacturing employment. The
focus of this research has been on two broad explanations. First, this period could have
coincided with intensive investments in labour-saving technology by US firms, thereby resulting
in reduced demand for domestic manufacturing labour. Second, the production of manufacturing
goods may have increasingly occurred abroad, also leading to less demand for domestic
labour.
New Facts on Manufacturing Employment, Trade, and Multinational Activity
On the surface, the second explanation appears particularly promising. Manufacturing
employment declined from nearly 16 million workers in 1993 to just over 10 million in 2011,
shown by the black line in Figure 1. This large decline in manufacturing employment coincided
with a surge in outward foreign direct investment (FDI) by US firms (the blue line in Figure
1). Nevertheless, existing theories of trade and multinational production make ambiguous
predictions regarding the link between foreign production and US employment. Further, due to a
lack of suitable firm-level data on US multinationals, there has been limited research on their
role in the manufacturing employment decline (see Kovak et al. 2018 for a recent
exception).
Figure 1 US manufacturing employment and US outward FDI
Source : BEA for FDI; Longitudinal Business Database (LBD) and authors'
calculations for employment.
In a recent paper, we address the question of whether foreign input sourcing of US
multinationals has contributed to a decline in US manufacturing employment (Boehm et al. 2019).
We construct a novel dataset, which we combine with a structural model to show that US
multinationals played a leading role in the decline in US manufacturing employment. Our data
from the US Census Bureau cover the universe of manufacturing establishments linked to
transaction-level trade data for the period 1993-2011. Using two directories of international
corporate structure, we augment the Census data to include, for the first time, longitudinal
information on the direction and extent of firms' multinational operations. To the best of our
knowledge, our dataset is the first to permit a comprehensive analysis of the role of US
multinationals in the aggregate manufacturing decline in the US. With these data, we establish
three new stylised facts.
Fact 1: US-owned multinationals were responsible for a large share of the aggregate
manufacturing employment decline
Our first finding is that US multinational firms, defined as those US-headquartered firms with
foreign-owned plants, contributed disproportionally to the decline in US manufacturing
employment. While 33.3% of 1993 employment was in multinational-owned establishments, this
group directly accounted for 41% of the subsequent decline.
Fact 2: US-owned multinationals had lower employment growth rates than similar
non-multinationals
In Figure 2, we show that multinationals exhibited consistently lower net job creation rates in
the manufacturing sector, relative to other types of firms. Compared to purely domestic firms
and non-multinational exporting firms, multinationals created fewer jobs or shed more jobs in
almost every year in our sample. Of course, these patterns may not be causal, and other
characteristics of multinationals could be driving the low job creation rates. To address this
concern, we control for all observable plant characteristics, and find that multinational
plants experienced lower employment growth than non-multinational owned plants in the same
industry, even when the size and age of the plants are held constant.
Figure 2 Net US manufacturing job creation rates by type of US firm
Source : Authors' calculations based on the LBD, Directory of Corporation
Affiliations (DCA), and Longitudinal Foreign Trade Transactions Dataset (LFTTD)
Fact 3: Newly multinational establishments experienced job losses, while the parent
multinational firm expanded imports of intermediate inputs
An alternative way to assess the role of multinational activity on US employment with our data
is to use an 'event study' framework. We compare the employment growth trajectories of newly
multinational-owned plants to otherwise similar plants in terms of industry, firm age, and
plant size. As can be seen in Figure 3a, prior to the plants becoming part of a multinational,
their growth patterns are not different from the control group. However, in the years following
the multinational expansion, there is a brief positive but then sustained negative trajectory
of employment at these manufacturing plants. Ten years after the transition, these newly
multinational-owned plants have manufacturing employment that is about 20% smaller than an
otherwise similar plant.
Figure 3 US employment and import dynamics at new multinational plants
a) Relative imports
b) Cumulative relative employment (Index)
Source : Authors' calculations based on LBD, DCA, and LFTTD.
Further, these newly multinational firms increase imports following the expansion abroad. As
Figure 3b demonstrates, these firms substantially increase imports both from related parties
and other firms (at arms-length), relative to their control group. Taken together, Figures 3a
and 3b suggest that offshoring might explain the observed negative relationship between trade
and employment.
Structural Analysis: Did the Offshoring of Intermediate Input Production Result in a Net
Employment Decline in the US at the Firm Level?
While the patterns we identify above are suggesting that increased foreign input sourcing by
multinational firms led to a decrease in US manufacturing employment, they are not necessarily
causal. Standard models of importing, such as Halpern et al. (2015), Antras et al. (2017) or
Blaum et al. (2018), make ambiguous predictions as to whether foreign sourcing is associated
with increases or decreases in domestic employment. At the heart of this ambiguity are two
competing forces. First, a reduction in the costs of foreign sourcing leads firms to have
access to cheaper intermediate inputs. As a result, their unit costs fall and their optimal
scale increases. This 'scale effect' raises their US employment. On the other hand, firms
respond by optimally reallocating some intermediate input production towards the location with
lower costs. This 'reallocation effect' reduces US employment. Theoretically, the scale effect
could dominate the reallocation effect and lead to positive employment effects of offshoring,
or vice versa.
We use our microdata to estimate the relative strengths of these two competing forces. We
show that in a conventional class of models and in partial equilibrium, the value of a single
structural constant – the elasticity of firm size with respect to firm production
efficiency – completely determines which of the two forces dominates. Our estimation
approach is to develop a method to structurally estimate an upper bound on this constant using
our data on the universe of US manufacturing firms. While a high value of the upper bound
leaves open the possibility that foreign sourcing and domestic employment are complements, a
low value of the bound unambiguously implies that the two are substitutes.
Our estimates of the bound are small, indicating that during the period 1993-2011, the
reallocation effect was much larger than the scale effect. In other words, during this period
of aggregate manufacturing employment decline, multinationals' foreign input sourcing was
leading to a net decline of manufacturing employment within these firms.
Aggregate Implications for US Manufacturing Employment
It is important to point out that the model we use only speaks to employment changes within
existing firms and does not take into account general equilibrium forces that can also affect
employment. Since such general equilibrium effects are inherently difficult to assess,
estimates of how much of the observed aggregate decline can be attributed to offshoring of
multinational firms are uncertain and often require strong assumptions. We thus proceed under
two alternative sets of assumptions. In the first, we conduct a simple partial equilibrium
aggregation exercise, which uses observed changes in firm cost shares of domestic inputs
together with our estimated parameter bounds to obtain model-implied predictions of the
employment loss due to foreign sourcing. This approach captures both the direct impact of
foreign sourcing by existing firms as well as the first-order impact on domestic suppliers,
holding all else equal. Under the second, we model these indirect, general equilibrium effects,
such as firm entry and exit, explicitly. In both of these scenarios, we find that the
offshoring activities of multinationals explains about one-fifth to one-third of the aggregate
US manufacturing employment decline.
Policy Implications
Our research shows that the global sourcing behaviour of US multinational firms was an
important component of the manufacturing decline observed in the past few decades. These firms
set up production facilities abroad and imported intermediate goods back to the US, with the
consequence of reduced demand for domestic manufacturing workers. While our research suggests
that offshoring had a negative impact on employment, we caution that it does not support the
view that offshoring and trade should be contained with tariffs or other policy interventions.
Previous research has shown that both trade and offshoring are critical for consumers' access
to affordable goods in the US. Instead, our research implies that government assistance for
displaced manufacturing workers could facilitate their transition to new jobs in other
sectors.
Authors' note: Any opinions or conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the view of the US Census Bureau or the Board of Governors or its
research staff.
It's not just big-ticket manufacturing (appliances, etc) .little stuff that a nation uses
on a daily basis has been off-shored as well -- electrical wiring, capacitors, even
foodstuffs like cookies and candy.
I think an overlooked aspect is environmental protection and labor working conditions as
well as wages.
We are offshoring our pollution by moving manufacturing to other countries with much less
stringent environmental regulation. Similarly, labor rules in those countries don't require
as much worker safety, so we are offshoring injuries as well.
As the other countries become wealthier and more educated, they are starting to push for
more of these protections as well as higher wages which is forcing the companies to move
their production again to keep their costs low.
An interesting recent trend is the rejection of our "recycling" from countries that used
to receive it, so the feel-good greenwashing of filling the recycling bins is started to
boomerang back to North America as countries ship back the trash parts of the recycling. This
will likely require a second recycling revolution with more domestic processing of recycling
or an admission that it simply isn't going to happen in which case the righteousness quotient
of many suburbanites is going to plummet.
This is such an easy problem to solve from a policy standpoint- and it has been solved by
countries as small as the Netherlands.
Legally mandate a small list of fully recyclable materials for manufacturers to use in
production and packaging, and enforce it with punitive tariffs on non conforming goods. This
can take many forms, one logical option being that of holding companies responsible for the
costs of recycling their products.
This is as applicable to soda bottles as it is to large and complex products like
automobiles; BMW is a world leader in lifecycle waste reduction and recycling of
vehicles.
As usual, the impediment isn't technology or consumerism, it's corporate profitability and
one time costs of adjusting the supply chain.
So the writer says "that government assistance for displaced manufacturing workers could
facilitate their transition to new jobs in other sectors." I take it to mean that a policy
such as "free college" as advocated by Sanders which would involve government funded
vocational training in other sectors would go a long away toward helping those displaced by
outsourcing?
I remember all that BS back in the 80's and 90's everybody was on the bandwagon about
careers in computers, or any other hi-tech. I was one of those who had *some* training at
least .. right before they offshored all those jobs to India. It was a double kick in the
nuts.So, manufacturing went to China, computing went to India. And people wonder why I'm so
bitter and cranky sometimes.
Napoleon: "Money has no Fatherland. Financiers are without patriotism and without shame.
Their sole object is gain." IMHO US manufacturing is the reason why we're not all speaking
German today. And we gave all that capacity away like a bunch of lemmings over the
cliff
"that government assistance for displaced manufacturing workers could facilitate their
transition to new jobs in other sectors."
This "implies" that there are "jobs in other sectors" that create as much economic value,
expertise and "innovation" as manufacturing jobs do. What are they–"service" jobs?
Taking in each other's laundry? Delivering McDonald's to your door? Netflix?
Manufacturing is not just a job category that can be changed out for something shiny and
new, it's vital infrastructure that represents a nation's ability to provide for itself, and
to create a standard of living that reflects that capability. Those "affordable goods" so
important to american "consumers" are manufactured goods. It's not just the price to
buy them, it's the ability to make them that's important.
Like it or not, the once mighty american economy was built on the mightiest manufacturing
capacity that the world had ever known. Trivializing it as being only about cheap stuff is a
colossal mistake. We used to know that, and we've only begun to pay the price for
forgetting.
We* might very well learn to make lasting things of value again .. on a lesser scale,
after half the population is dead from despair, war, and disease ..
Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs by multi-nationals contributed to job losses ..
Really! LOL!
30 years too late for this info.
Wasn't hard to see even way back in the 1980's how multi-nationals were working very hard to
export jobs and import their "anti-labor" behaviour they were excising outside the laws and
borders of the US.
Tariffs were historically used to protect domestic manufacturers. Both the fees and
increased price were use to boot domestic manufacturing, and hence domestic employment.
Yes, during the wave of industrialization. But they don't work so well once consolidation
starts. 1875-1925(roughly) was the golden age of US manufacturing, even the WWII bounce was
government DoD driven. Private ex-DoD manufacturing peaked in 1924 and was flat since then.
Then we have the 97-05 downwave which then has boosted us about back to 1925's ex-DoD high.
Just like the tech wave, it ended.
I mean, by 1925 Portsmouth Ohio was done by 1925, by 1950 they just bled manufacturing
while it consolidated around bigger cities after WWII.
We need self-efficiency not capitalists growth. It ain't happening people. Its over. We
need 10% contraction of GDP just to get manufacturing growing again from a much lower base.
Tariffs are dead in the water for growth now, and act like the opposite. They are also
creating a bubble in "base" consumption while killing domestic production and yes, eventually
overcapacity will kill base consumption and it crash again like last years 4th quarter
driving down domestic manufacturing further.
Anecdotally, in a field I worked in for a while, middle management in a small privately
owned "needle trades" firm, the "growth" among our competitors was in firms that (we assumed)
did their design work in US but manufactured overseas. Domestic manufacturers either adapted
to this, or closed down.
At least in this field, automation had next to nothing to do with it.
Instead, our research implies that government assistance for displaced manufacturing
workers could facilitate their transition to new jobs in other sectors.
Ah yes, the subsidised retraining for manufacturing jobs that, in fact, do not exist.
Louis Uchitelle covered this policy failure in his 2006 book "The Disposable American:
Layoffs and their consequences". Is the phrase "got the T-shirt" relevant here?
For the government to re-employ workers who have lost their factories would be a form of
industrial policy. Ours is never clearly stated, if there is one. But one thing is clear and
that is the government gave the internationals every opportunity to offshore our national
productivity without any safety net for labor except unemployment insurance. Which runs out.
Michael Pettis has just backed a proposal to tax foreign capital saving and investment here
in this country. Because most of it is just financial "investments". Foreign investment for
long term capital projects would be virtually unaffected. It is claimed that this tax on
money parking would reduce out trade deficit and make it fluctuate within an acceptable
balance. By doing something that sounds like real-time exchange rate adjustments for every
transacted trade, now to include foreign investment and savings. So why didn't the
government, after offshoring all those jobs, re-employ all the laid-off workers as banking
and investment managers? So all this unproductive foreign money is skewing our trade balance.
Making our unemployment deeply structural. It is so bizarre that we are "trading" in money at
all. We are trading in the medium of exchange, which is fiat, which itself is susceptible to
exchange rate adjustments with other money and all of it supposedly backed by the
productivity of that country. That foreign productivity is frequently nothing more than IMF
money, stolen and taken out of the country. The P word. Because the world has reached
manufacturing overcapacity, I assume, all this money is totally skewing the ledgers. It's
laughable except for the fact that the bean counters take it seriously. The mess we are in is
something more fundamental than balanced exchange rates. It's more like hoarding at its most
irrational. Way over my head. And for us to fix unemployment here in the US will take far
more than a tax on all this loose international money.
Yeah it's nice to have it "officially" credentialed etc its not like I haven't been saying
this since they passed NAFTA, but then I wasn't "credentialed" so nobody listened . its like,
"No $#!t sherlock ???" pretty much *everyone* who has spent some time in the industrial
sectors knows this by heart without even needing to be told. Of course maybe now its OK to
say it out loud or something . smh.
===the Role of Offshoring in the Decline in US Manufacturing Employment===
It is not just the role of offshoring in the decline of US manufacturing employment, BUT
the effect the offshoring, and the competing with foreign manufacturers, had on the existing
US manufacturing workforce. The manufacturers and manufacturing workers that remain in the US
have to compete with their cheaper foreign competition for work.
I spent most of the last 25 years working in plastics injection molding. After spending
the first six years of my career in plastics/ polymer research and development, I
transitioned to injection molding. In the mid 90's when I started in injection molding,
globalization had already begun especially in the automotive sector. The car manufacturers
were already setting up global and domestic supply chains. But even then the Chicago area
(and the US in general) was heavy in mold making and injection molding businesses.
Then China became a major player in the world economy, NAFTA started, etc. and in the
early 2000's it was like the last manufacturer who gets stuck in the US gets to turn out the
lights!
There were a lot of small to medium size mold maker shops and plastic injection molders in
the Chicago area that went under because they could not compete with the cheaper foreign
competition. It was very sad as I knew many small mom and pop mold makers and injection
molders in the Chicago area who were in business for 20 – 30+ years that closed.
The fact that many businesses/corporations in the US, due to offshoring and globalization,
are forced to compete with foreign competitors that have cheaper labor, less regulation,
cheaper land costs, etc. etc. is beyond reason.
And to this day you can see the effects of neoliberal globalization in any manufacturing
or other business you visit as they are dealing with consequences of having to compete
directly with cheaper foreign competitors through cost cutting, low wages, and running the
employees into the ground.
The tables were tilted against manufacturers and manufacturing employees in the US. It is
like the US manufacturing (and other sectors) are trying to fight a battle with one hand tied
behind our backs.
There is a good book that relates to this post. The book is called Failure to Adjust: How
Americans Got Left Behind in the Global Economy by Edward Alden.
NAFTA killed a bunch of material extraction jobs, but boosted a bunch of auto production
jobs down the supply chain. You can see that on the data. Granted, auto sales have been flat
for 20 year which has led to a flattening of employment growth since 2005 after the material
extraction driven drop.
That is why the Trump Administration just basically rebooted it.
lol, but it created a bunch of debt finance jobs throughout the economy as well, that
boosted existing manufacturing. Offshoring accounts for .1% of the job loss. Most of it is
consolidation and technology. My great grandfather lost his job in 1925 during the first wave
of consolidation. What about that?
As someone working in manufacturing, while I am glad that there is some acknowledgement
that outsourcing is responsible, I strongly disagree about not implementing tariffs.
Effectively workers are competing for a race to the bottom in wages, working conditions, and
other factors like environmental laws.
Guess what if there are tariffs? Things will cost more, but there will also be more jobs
for the working class. Actually there will also be quite a few white collar jobs too.
Engineering, HR, Finance, Sales, etc, are all needed in any manufacturing industry.
I suspect that net, most workers would be better off even if prices were higher due to the
jobs. The thing is, the top 10 percent would not be and the 1 percent would not be. That's
the main reason for this outsourcing. To distribute income upwards so the rich can
parasitically take it.
While our research suggests that offshoring had a negative impact on employment, we
caution that it does not support the view that offshoring and trade should be contained
with tariffs or other policy interventions. Previous research has shown that both trade and
offshoring are critical for consumers' access to affordable goods in the US. Instead, our
research implies that government assistance for displaced manufacturing workers could
facilitate their transition to new jobs in other sectors.
This is where I strongly disagree. As discussed above, I think that the net effect might
be beneficial for the majority of society.
The other is the old retraining claims, which never pan out. What jobs are there? Visit
the communities in the Midwestern US and Southern Ontario. Retraining for what? For jobs that
are part time, minimum wage, with few or no benefits?!
Manufacturing may not have been perfect, but at least there were benefits, it was often
full time, and the salaries allowed a middle class existence.
When I read things like this, as much as I dislike Trump, I can understand why people
would support him.
For the life of me I don't see how any other outcome could have happened. With the
economic system we have embraced at least in my long lifetime, it was inevitable that
"capital" would seek the lowest level playing field in the long term. Nation's boundaries
kept that flow "fenced" to a certain limit for as long as there have been physical borders
between countries. Once the cat was let out of the bag of competing countries after WW2, for
example the Japanese with computer driven machinery (lathes) that crushed American companies
that in too many cases refused to invest and welcomed the slow destruction of organized labor
here in the US, it was inevitable that that condition would be the future of manufacturing
here. The advent of the Mexican maquiladoras gave a great push to the exporting of jobs.
NAFTA put the nails in the coffin so many more of those good paying jobs. "Labor" was never
invited to those global meetings that proved to be so destructive to so many countries.
But, again. The system we embrace can have no other outcome. "Tariffs" will eventually lead
to wars. So in the words of that famous Russian: "What is to be done?"
Anybody have a solution? You will be saving civilization from itself. We need a complete
rethinking of how we live on this planet. That will take better humans that we have now that
lead nations. In the meantime it's, "kill them all and let God sort them out!" The weak will
succumb; the strong will continue to battle for territory, in this case jobs, jobs, jobs.
The United States is openly encouraging a hard or radical split between the United Kingdom
and the European Union. This by way of John Bolton. Why the administration would take such a
position is a puzzle to me, and the openness is shocking.
U.S. supports no-deal Brexit with trade deals ahead, says Bolton
The United States would enthusiastically support a no-deal Brexit if that is what the
British government decided to do, U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton said on Monday
during a visit to London aimed at reassuring Britain over UK-U.S. ties.
"If that's the decision of the British government we will support it enthusiastically, and
that's what I'm trying to convey. We're with you, we're with you," Bolton told reporters
after his first day of meetings.
"They will have to figure out how to do what they can by October 31 or soon thereafter.
From our point of view, we would have been happy to do it before that," the official said.
"The previous government didn't want to do it, this government does. We're very happy about
it," he added.
U.S. President Donald Trump wants to see a successful British exit from the European Union
on October 31 and Washington will be ready to work fast on a U.S.-UK free trade agreement,
Bolton told British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
BBC quoted Bolton as saying that a bilateral agreement or "series of agreements" could be
carved out "very quickly, very straight-forwardly."
He said British officials had given him an unmistakable sense that they were determined to
honor the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU.
"The fashion in the European Union: When the people vote the wrong way from the way the
elites want to go, it's to make the peasants vote again and again until they get it right,"
Bolton said.
The central message Bolton was delivering is that the United States would help cushion
Britain's exit from the EU with a free trade deal that is being negotiated by U.S. Trade
Representative Robert Lighthizer and his British counterpart, Liz Truss.
Bolton said Britain and the United States could agree trade deals on a sector-by-sector
basis, leaving more difficult areas in the trading relationship until later.
He said the ultimate aim was a comprehensive trade deal, but highlighted that financial
services could be one of the more difficult industries to reach an agreement on.
Bolton had been expected to urge officials from Johnson's government to align its policy
on Iran more along the lines of the United States, which has pushed a much tougher line
against Tehran since withdrawing from world powers' 2015 nuclear agreement with Tehran.
But, after his meetings Bolton said talks on some of these thornier diplomatic issues
could wait.
Johnson has told the European Union there is no point in new talks on a withdrawal
agreement unless negotiators are willing to drop the Northern Irish backstop agreed by his
predecessor Theresa May.
The EU has said it is not prepared to reopen the divorce deal it agreed with May, which
includes the backstop, an insurance policy to prevent the return to a hard border between the
British province of Northern Ireland and EU-member Ireland.
Good to catch you around these economic matters. The WWIII is actually just being waged by
one side, I think. China is the caravan moving on. The fading bark of the dogs is the western
end of the deal, I think. But no time to enlarge on this right now, what with Europe having
the vapors...
Everybody got economics going on, it seems like, and Europe is no exception. Check out
below.
~~
Brexit and the EU
Alastair Crooke has a new piece out, riffing largely on a Pritchard Evans article in the
Telegraph, and including a very hot video clip from the heart of German concerns as the UK
executes Brexit.
I didn't realize how important the UK is to the EU and how its exit changes everything for
Germany. But the EU realpolitik illustrated in this Crooke article and in the 6-minute video
clip of the German speech is an entire facet of Brexit I had never seen until now. Check this
quote:
Speaking in the German parliament, Alice Weidel, the AfD leader, tore into Chancellor
Merkel for her and the Brussels botched handling of Brexit (for which "she, Merkel bears
some responsibility"). Weidel pointed out that "the UK is the second biggest economy in
Europe – as big as the 19 smallest EU members combined". "From an economic
perspective, the EU is shrinking from 27 member-states to 9." [My emphasis]
Crooke and co are saying that the UK departure from the EU changes the entire regime of
monetary controls within this economic union. Crucially, the lead is now shifting away from
Germany and to the failed economic model of France.
To make the chronic acute, now Trump cares, and the US has a stake in this - who knew? The
EU didn't know. It always thought the US was a partner, but maybe not.
If you want to dive straight into the German angst, here's the six-minute video of Alice
Weidel ripping German complacency apart with a call to attention from her constituency in
marginalized eastern Germany: German view of
Brexit
And for the containing article from Crooke - be warned that he quotes Paul Krugman but I
have to say it sounds pretty good to me - here's his article: Germany
Stalls and Europe Craters
J.M.Keynes addressed 'foreign exchange' between sovereign states in his original version
of World Bank and International Money Fund, both addressing the fundamental causes of the
Great Depression. These presentations to U.S. government authorities also included the
British application for war debt forgiveness at the termination of hostilities to avoid
repeating post WWI scenarios. These presentations were then made to the Bretton Woods
Conference as the American version of the proposals, reversing institution and purpose as
contrived by Washington's design. Makes interesting reading the cables between Keynes and
London. What exists since Bretton Wood is the American version and as usual it was all
screwed up, but Keynes original proposals contain policies needed for the EAEU's ability to
function (and to avoid the economic causes of the Great Depression).
I recalled it was tax collection that became the failure of the colonial confederation,
the failure of the Continental Congress to meet its obligations, but then interpretations can
vary.
Finally got around to reading Crooke's latest. Yes, the EU's surely in a fix; but IMO,
he's correct about the ultimate source of the problem and the inability of solving it without
a total reformation. However, I would argue that reforming the EU would be a massive error.
IMO, it makes far greater sense to learn from the mistakes and negotiate with Russia and
China to consummate Putin's proposal for an EAEU sans the strangulating aspects of an EAEU
Central Bank and currency--the Euro and EUCB being two of the EU's mistakes. Such a creation
would also see the demise of NATO and the freeing of monies for war to be used on debt
relief, infrastructure, and building public/human capital. Russo- and Sinophobia would
immediately cease. The issues of South Asia would become easier to handle. And to be included
in the club Occupied Palestine would need to become Palestine--one state--thus defusing the
last colonial imposition impeding Eurasian integration/unity.
Yes, the five anglophone entities would be left out in the cold, although I can't see The
City allowing its politicos to blow its opportunity to cash in by having a piece of the
action (but then the British are unpredictable) while Scotland, Ireland and Wales prosper.
Africa would see its future lies in joining with Eurasia.
I don't think either Merkel or Macron have the vision required to even imagine the above
possibility, although I'd be happy to get surprised. But would such a suggestion need to come
from either France or Germany; why not Central and Southern Europe as such a change would
really benefit those nations?
Don't forget the generation that formed the Treaty of Rome and conducted subsequent
negotiations were mostly replaced by the 1980's with a generation not sharing common
experiences that the war generation had. Also, by the 1980's the economic theories being
taught had substantially changed from the economic understandings and experiences of the war
generation.
The war generation had each sovereign country having sufficient and adequate laws governing
banking and finance that prevented most aberrations within that country. Each country had
developed from differing circumstances and had drafted their laws to those specific
circumstances. Finding a common legal denominator proved to be, as they say 'a bridge too
far' but as long as each country's laws were effective, no problems presented.
The subsequent generation under the neoliberal economic theories found the central EU
government devoid of economic governance or regulatory structures; an open field easily
commanded by removing the abilities of each country to provide such governance for their
state. Centralisation of economic power became the problem and the cause of problems that
remain unaddressed and unless address is done, the economic house of cards will not last for
long.
Agreed! That's why I made it a point to list the EUCB and Euro as the two main mistakes
that must be learned from if an EAEU is to be formulated. Both Russia and China are
determined that each nation must remain sovereign, which means each must have control over
its monetary and political systems. Instead of a Union implying a federal structure, the
proposed political entity would be better termed as a Confederation with each nation
retaining its homogeneity. The major difference being the proposed Confederation would have
no trade barriers and visa-free movement for its citizens. (Recall the main failing of the
initial Confederation of United States were the trade barriers erected between states that
prompted the businessmen's revolt that led to the 1787 Constitution and the formation of the
federal United States of America.) If a regional grouping of nations--say the former
Yugoslavian entities--wanted to reform into a larger political-economic unit to better
provide for their collective citizenry, there would be no objection; and the reverse would be
possible as sovereignty of people would remain a foundation of human rights.
Given future challenges, IMO the above makes the best sense for Eurasia and Africa. The
implosion of the Outlaw US Empire and its affect on its hemispheric neighbors remains
unknown. It's possible the once formidable economic magnet of the Empire's economy will
reverse its polarity and drive people out as it did during the Great Depression. The vast
amount and depth of corruption within the Empire will take several generations to be
extinguished, and only then will political reformation become possible.
"... US President Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US hegemony because of so called isolationism, as some may think. Trump does that in order to save US hegemony, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised by the US military/intelligence/science community. They now want to hamper globalisation and create fortress US, in order to bring back manufacturing and save as much as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of cooperation in the world benefit the US. They now realise globalisation no longer serves the US as it leads to the rise of developing nations. Thus they no longer support it and even sabotage it." ..."
"... Trump and his trade negotiators continue to insist on China agreeing to an unequal trade treaty. ..."
"... IMO, China can continue to refuse and stand up for its principles, while the world looks on and nods its head in agreement with China as revealed by the increasing desire of nations to become a BRI partner. ..."
"... It should be noted that Trump's approach while differing from the one pushed by Obama/Kerry/Clinton the goal is the same since the Empire needs the infusion of loot from China to keep its financial dollarized Ponzi Scheme functioning. ..."
"... Russia's a target too, but most of its available loot was already grabbed during the 1990s. ..."
"... I keep going back to believing that multilateralism is a code word for no longer allowing empire global private finance hegemony and fiat money. ..."
"... The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire and its associated corporations and vassal nations checkmates what you think Trump's trying to accomplish. Hudson has explained it all very well in a series of recent papers and interviews: Neoliberalism is all about growing Financial Capitalism and using it to exert control/hegemony on all aspects of political-economy. ..."
"... Trump hasn't proposed any new policy to accomplish his MAGA pledge other than engaging in economic warfare with most other nations. His is a Unilateral Pirate Ship out to plunder all and sundry, including those that elected him. ..."
I will mention this again, to see what people here think, as they are intelligent people. I sent mails to Russian and Chinese
authorities about this.
"I will provide you with possible reasons behind the current trade wars and rejection of globalisation by the US. In short,
they think that they will save their hegemony, to a certain degree, that way.
There are long term GDP Growth and Socioeconomic Scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
OECD, and the world scientific community. They are generally used to measure the impact of Climate change on the World. In order
to measure it, Socioeconomic Scenarios were developed, as the level of economic growth in the world is very important for determining
the impact of Climate Change in the future. High growth levels will obviously affect Climate Change, so these GDP estimates are
important. The scenarios are with time horizon 2100.
For more on this you can check these studies here, some of the many dealing with this topic. They describe the scenarios for
the world.
There are 5 main scenarios, or "Shared Socioeconomic Pathways". All of them describe different worlds.
SSP 1 - Green World, economic cooperation, reduced inequality, good education systems. High level of economic growth, fast
catch up of the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
SSP 2 - More of the same/ Muddling through - continuation of the current trends. Relatively high level of economic growth,
relatively fast catch up of the developing world with the developed world. Good level of multipolarity.
SSP 3 - Regional Rivalry - nationalisms, trade wars, lack of global cooperation, fragmentation of the word, environmental
degradation. Low levels of economic growth everywhere, the developing world remains poor and undeveloped. Low level of multipolarity,
West retains many positions.
SSP 4 Inequality - depicts a world where high-income countries use technological advances to stimulate economic growth;
leading to a high capacity to mitigate. In contrast, developments in low income countries are hampered by very low education
levels and international barriers to trade. Growth is medium, the catch up process between the developing world and the developed
world is not fast. Medium level of multipolarity.
SSP 5 Economic growth and fossil fuels take priority over green world - High levels of economic growth, fast catch up of
the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
See SSP 3. A world of rivalry, trade wars, trade barriers, lack of global cooperation, and fragmentation, will lead to lower
level of growth in the developing world, and thus a slow catch up process. Multipolarity in such a world is weak as the developing
world is hampered.
In other words, a world of cooperation between countries will lead to higher economic growth in the developing world, faster
catch up process, and thus stronger multipolarity.
Low cooperation, fragmented world, high conflict scenarios consistently lead to low growth in the developing world and thus
to the US and the West retaining some of its positions - a world with overall bad economy and low level of multipolarity.
Basically, globalisation is key. The developing world (ex West) was growing slowly before globalisation (before 1990). Globalisation
means sharing of technology and knowledge, and companies investing in poorer countries. Outsourcing of western manufacturing.
Etc. After globalisation started in 1990, the developing world is growing very well. It is globalisation that is weakening the
relative power of the West and empowering the developing world. The US now needs to kill globalisation if it is to stop its relative
decline.
So what do we see: exactly attempts to create the SSP 3 scenario. Trade wars, sanctions, attacks on multilateral institutions
- the WTO, on international law, on the Paris Climate Change Agreement (which if accepted would put constraints on the US economy),
on the UN, bullying of Europe, lack of care for european energy needs, support for Brexit (which weakens Europe), crack down on
chinese students and scientists in the US, crack down on chinese access to western science data, demands to remove the perks for
poor countries in the WTO, etc. This is hitting economic growth in the whole world and the global economy currently is not well.
By destroying the world economy, the US benefits as it hampers the rise of the developing nations.
US President Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US hegemony because of so called isolationism,
as some may think. Trump does that in order to save US hegemony, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised by the US military/intelligence/science
community. They now want to hamper globalisation and create fortress US, in order to bring back manufacturing and save as much
as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of cooperation in the world benefit the US. They now realise globalisation no longer
serves the US as it leads to the rise of developing nations. Thus they no longer support it and even sabotage it."
You ask, "The concept of multilateralism is not completely clear to me in relation to the global public/private finance issue
and I am not of faith but of questions...."
"In international relations, multilateralism refers to an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal."
The key point for the Chinese during negotiations as I understand them via their published White Paper on the subject is
development and the international rules put in place at WTO for nations placed into the Developing category, which
get some preferential treatment to help their economies mature. As China often reminds the global public--and officials of the
Outlaw US Empire--both the BRI and EAEU projects are about developing the economies of developing economies, that the process
is designed to be a Win-Win for all the developing economies involved. This of course differs vastly from what's known as the
Washington Consensus, where all developing economies kowtow to the Outlaw US Empire's diktat via the World Bank and IMF and thus
become enslaved by dollar dependency/debt. Much is written about the true nature of the Washington Consensus, Perkins Confessions
of an Economic Hit Man and Klein's Disaster Capitalism being two of the more recent and devastating, and many nations
are able to attest to the Zero-sum results. The result is very few nations are willing to subject their economies to the pillaging
via Washington Consensus institutions, which Hudson just recently reviewed.
The Empire is desperate and is looking for ways to keep its Super Imperialism intact and thus continue its policy aimed at
Full Spectrum Dominance. But the Empire's abuse of the dollar-centric institutions of international commerce has only served to
alienate its users who are openly and actively seeking to form parallel institutions under genuine multilateral control.
However as Hudson illustrates, Trump doesn't know what he's doing regarding his trade and international monetary policies. Today's
AP above the fold headline in Eugene's The Register Guard screamed "Trump threatens 10% tariffs;" but unusually for such
stories, it explains that the 10% is essentially a tax on US consumers, not on Chinese companies, which provides a message opposite
of the one Trump wants to impart--that he's being tough on the Chinese when the opposite's true. China will continue to resist
the attempts to allow the international financial sharks to swim in Chinese waters as China is well aware of what they'll attempt
to accomplish--and it's far easier to keep them out than to get them out once allowed in, although China's anti-corruption laws
ought to scare the hell out of the CEOs of those corps.
The Empire wants to continue its longstanding Open Door policy in the realm of target nations opening their economies to the
full force of Imperial-based corps so they can use their financial might to wrestle the market from domestic players and institute
their Oligopoly. China already experienced the initial Open Door (which was aimed at getting Uncle Sam's share of China during
the Unequal Treaties period 115 years ago) and will not allow that to recur. China invokes its right under WTO rules for developing
economies to protect their financial services sector from predation; the Empire argues China is beyond a developing economy and
must drop its shields. We've read what Hudson advised the Chinese to do--resist and develop a publicly-based yuan-centered financial
system that highly taxes privatized rent-seekers while keeping and enhancing state-provided insurance--health, home, auto, life,
etc--while keeping restrictions on foreign land ownership since it's jot allowed to purchase similar assets within the domestic
US market.
The Outlaw US Empire insists that China give so it can take. Understandably, China says no; what we allow you to do, you should
allow us to do. Trump and his trade negotiators continue to insist on China agreeing to an unequal trade treaty. Obviously,
the latest proposal was merely a repetition of what came before and was rejected as soon as the meeting got underway, so it ended
as quickly as it started. IMO, China can continue to refuse and stand up for its principles, while the world looks on and
nods its head in agreement with China as revealed by the increasing desire of nations to become a BRI partner.
It should be noted that Trump's approach while differing from the one pushed by Obama/Kerry/Clinton the goal is the same
since the Empire needs the infusion of loot from China to keep its financial dollarized Ponzi Scheme functioning.
Russia's a target too, but most of its available loot was already grabbed during the 1990s. D-Party Establishment
candidates have yet to let it be known they'll try to do what Trump's failing to do, which of course has nothing to do with aiding
the US consumer and everything to do with bolstering Wall Street's Ponzi Scheme.
Good comment, karlof1 , i think that the attack against China is attack against the heart of multipolarity. It will be good
if b could post about the escalation of the trade war. This is important. The US clearly intends to resist multipoarity, and tries
to stop it.
If I would have had my act together last night I would have posted another link fro Xinhuanet (can't find now) about how
China wants to retain developing nation status and provides as data that the (I think) per capita GDP had gone down....gotten
worse in relation to the US per capita GDP.
I keep going back to believing that multilateralism is a code word for no longer allowing empire global private finance
hegemony and fiat money.
Passer by @30--
The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire and its associated corporations and vassal nations checkmates
what you think Trump's trying to accomplish. Hudson has explained it
all very well in a series of recent papers and interviews: Neoliberalism is all about growing Financial Capitalism and using it
to exert control/hegemony on all aspects of political-economy.
Thus, there's no need to sponsor the reindustrialization that would lead to MAGA. Indeed, Trump hasn't proposed any new
policy to accomplish his MAGA pledge other than engaging in economic warfare with most other nations. His is a Unilateral Pirate
Ship out to plunder all and sundry, including those that elected him.
In your outline, it's very easy to see why BRI is so attractive to other nations as it forwards SSP1. Awhile ago during a discussion
of China's development goals, I posted links to its program that's very ambitious and doing very well with its implementation,
the main introduction portal
being here .
psychohistorian @11 asked: "The concept of multilateralism is not completely clear to me in relation to the global public/private
finance issue and I am not of faith but of questions...."
karlof1 @31 covered it pretty well I think, but I want to try to answer in just a couple sentences (unusual for me).
Global private finance is driven by one thing and one thing only: making maximum profits for the owners quarter by financial
quarter. Global public finance is driven by the agendas of the nations with the public finance, with profits being a secondary
or lesser issue.
This boils down to private finance being forever slave to the mindless whims of "The Market™" (hallowed be Its name),
while public finance is, by its nature, something that is planned and deliberated. Nobody can guess where "The Market™"
(hallowed be Its name) will lead society, though people with the resources like placing bets in stock markets on the direction
It is taking us. On the other hand, if people have an idea which direction society should be heading in, public control
over finance is a precondition to making it so.
"The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire"
I'm not sure this will be the case anymore -
Former heads of DHS and NSA explain how the U.S. can keep Huawei at bay
"Perhaps more importantly, this proposal demonstrates one way the U.S. can reinforce elements of what the government calls
the “national technology and industrial base” (NTIB), the collection of companies who design, build and supply the U.S. with vital
national-security related technologies."
I think that 10 years from now the biggest impact from Trump will be from his cancellation
of the Iran nuclear accord and unilateral imposition of strict sanctions which the Europeans
were not able to bypass in any meaningful way due the prevalence of the US dollar in global
transactions.
There is now significant motivation in Europe and even China in creating a real
alternative to the US dollar for international transactions which bypasses US banks. If this
happens to any significant degree, it would undercut the US dollar as the world's reserve
currency, resulting in a permanent drop in its value.
Without international support, US Government deficits and trade deficits will become
unsustainable, and there will be a significant drop in the American median standard of
living.
The overwhelming correlation between austerity and Brexit
Jeff Spross
July 22, 2019
Across the pond, the Brexit disaster continues to unfold in newly disastrous ways. Theresa
May has resigned as prime minister, and the Trump-esque Boris Johnson looks like a lock to
replace her. Parliament members -- up to and including Johnson's own fellow Conservatives --
are panicking that the new prime minister may try hardline tactics to force Brexit through,
plan or no plan.
At this point, predicting how this mess will end is a fool's errand. But there are still
lessons to be learned from how it began.
In particular, the Conservatives might want to look in the mirror -- and not just because
it was their government that called the Brexit vote in the first place. It turns out the
brutal austerity they imposed on Britain after the global 2008 financial crisis probably goes
a long way towards explaining why Brexit is happening at all.
In the run-up to the Brexit referendum in 2016, much of the campaigning in favor of
"Leave" was unabashedly racist. Hard-right political groups like the U.K. Independence Party
(UKIP) painted a picture of native Britons overrun by hordes of foreign immigrants that were
straining the country's health care, housing, public services, jobs and wages to the breaking
point. The thing is, the racism was a particular poisonous way of framing a very real
underlying economic fear: all those necessities really had become harder to come by.
Yet, as it is in America, actual evidence linking influxes of immigrants to rising
scarcity in jobs and wages and other services is scarce. But something else had also recently
happened that could explain why hospitals and schools were closing and why public aid was
drying up: massive cuts to government spending.
A decade ago, the aftershocks of the global financial crisis had shrunk Britain's economy
by almost 3 percent, kicking unemployment up from 5 percent to 8 percent by 2010. Under
then-Prime Minister David Cameron, the Conservatives in power concluded that "confidence"
among investors was necessary to restore economic growth -- and that meant cuts to government
spending to balance the budget.
Thus the Conservatives pushed through a ferocious austerity package: Overall government
spending fell 16 percent per person. Schools, libraries, and hospitals closed; public
services like garbage collection ground to a halt; poverty shot up; and homelessness doubled.
Despite unemployment staying stubbornly high and GDP growth staying stubbornly low -- in
defiance of their own economic theory -- the Conservatives crammed through even more
reductions in 2012. "It is hard to overestimate how devastating Cameron's austerity plan was,
or how fast it happened," the British journalist Laurie Penny observed. A United Nations
report from last year called the cuts "punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous."
But the damage was not evenly distributed across the country. At the district level --
Britain's units of local governance -- the reductions in spending ranged from 6.2 percent to
an astonishing 46.3 percent from 2010 to 2015. The districts that were already the poorest
were generally the hardest hit.
These differences across districts allowed Thiemo Fetzer, an associate professor of
economics at the University of Warwick, to gauge the correlation between the government cuts
and whether a district voted Leave or Remain. "Austerity had sizable and timely effects,
increasing support for UKIP across local, national, and European elections," Fetzer wrote in
a recent paper. He found that UKIP's share of a district's vote jumped anywhere from 3.5 to
11.9 percentage points in correlation with austerity's local impact. "Given the tight link
between UKIP vote shares and an area's support for Leave, simple back-of-the-envelope
calculations suggest that Leave support in 2016 could have been easily at least 6 percentage
points lower," Fetzer continued. As tight as the Brexit referendum was, that alone could have
been enough to swing it.
Other studies have shown links between how a local British community's economic fortunes
fared and how it voted for Brexit as well. Economists Italo Colantone and Piero Stanig found
that support for Leave was "systematically higher" in the regions of the country hit hardest
by trade with China over the last three decades. Another analysis by Torsten Bell showed a
strong correlation between British income inequality as of 2015 and Brexit support, with
higher local vote shares for Leave the lower the local incomes were. (It's worth noting the
Bell didn't find a correlation with Brexit when he looked at how local incomes changed from
2002 to 2015, but that's also a weird time frame to choose, as it mashes together a period of
wage growth before 2008 with a major drop afterwards.)
Inequality in Britain had been worsening for decades, as the upper class in the City of
London pulled further and further ahead of the largely rural working class, setting the stage
for Brexit. And then austerity fell hardest on the shoulders of the latter group, compounding
the effect.
"Individuals tend to react to the general economic situation of their region, regardless
of their specific condition," Colantone and Stanig wrote. But Fetzer was able to break out
some individual data in his analysis of austerity, and he found a correlation with Brexit
votes there as well. Individual Britons who were more exposed to welfare state cuts -- in
particular a reduction in supports for housing costs -- were again more likely to vote for
UKIP. "Further, they increasingly perceive that their vote does not make a difference, that
they do 'not have a say in government policy' or that 'public officials do not care,'" Fetzer
observed.
It isn't that the economic dislocation of the 2008 crisis and the ensuing austerity crunch
made Britons more racist. By all accounts, half or more of the country has consistently
looked askance on immigration going back decades. (Indeed, international polling suggests a
certain baseline dislike for immigration is a near-universal human condition.) What changed
in the last few years was the willingness of certain parts of British society to act
politically on those attitudes. And that, arguably, is where the economics come in.
Work from the Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman is instructive here. He found that
periods of economic growth, where people feel the future is bright, make national populations
more open, generous, and liberal. Times of economic contraction and stagnation have the
opposite effect.
The British people, like everyone everywhere, are a mix of good and evil impulses. But by
decimating public investment in a self-destructive quest for investor-led growth, the British
government created a monster from those impulses. And the reckoning for that terrible error
is still unfolding.
if - what should I call them? centerists? - like Krugman, Kurt and EMike really cared about
racism they'd be in favor of ambitious programs so that voters' living standards rise.
Instead they push incrementalism and make excuses about Dems never having any power.
Tut! Tut! Tut! It's not politically correct for Democrats to talk about the economy,
inequality, and dislocation, is it? If people keep raising the issue, Democrats might be
forced into acknowledging problems they helped to create. Worse, they might have to craft a
coherent economic message that their Big Money puppeteers might not like! OMG!!!
Armageddon!!!
He presented no evidence, just pundicizing based on priors.
Well I looked and could find no change in growth, it has been declining steadily since
1990, and the ten years has been correspondingly dropping since 1980.
So, I I am supposed to see evidence, then cite the chart I am supposed to look at. We are
tired of useless pundicizers.
No, he would have cited evidence.
If he had any brains he would have recognized that we got the secstags going around, meaning
the one cannot just look at the eight year recession cycle, one has to look at the full
monetary cycle.
It is easy to tell the dufas among economists, they never look at nor cite any data.
For example, Krugman ignored the fact that Obamacare raised monthly taxes about $500 per
household, lost four elections, proved himself a dolt and now want to write off Obamacare.
Never once did Krugman make any attempt to correlate the Obamacare taxes with election
losses, not once. He preferred the delusion, same as most of our favorite economists, I can
count the one who actually look.
As Kurt said, being delusional hysterical freaks who send hundreds of billions to wealthy
people then complain? Stupid,stupid stupid.
You are exactly right here - Obamacare subsidies should have tapered off or been taxed away
around the top 20% of income rather than the top 60. Big mistake - but it was a compromise to
get several republicans to vote yes, but they (the Rs) negotiated in bad faith and then
didn't do what they promised. But hey - when have the H brothers let facts get in the way of
what they know, know, know about me.
We are told constantly that the 2016 referendum gives our government a mandate for a No
Deal Brexit, and that we would not respect democracy if we failed to leave. Both arguments
are obviously false, yet they so often go unchallenged in the media.
Brexit like Trump election was a protest against neoliberal globalization. A sign of collapse
of neoliberal ideology and the grip of neoliberal elite on the population.
In essence, a "no confidence" vote for the neoliberal elite in both countries.
Of course, Simon Wren-Lewis is afraid to acknowledged this and is engaged in
sophistry.
EU bureaucracy is not compatible with UK identity.
I agree re. a sort of fundamental 'spirit'. So far, since 1973 (EEC, idk if this was
properly done, you say not: fraudulent ) EU-UK relations have not been riven by
disruptive strife or even temp. explosive argument (in part due to EU rules etc.)
Accomodations were made.. An apogee of hand-holding-harmony was reached when Mitterand and
Thatcher convinced the Germans to give up the D-mark in return for blessing the
re-unification of Germany. The UK did not join the Euro zone (1992). So the UK was overall a
big 'winner' on several levels (imho.)
Brexit is the first step in bringing politics back to local accountability
I hope so but dangers lurk and i am pessimistic. Crash-out on 31 Oct. will happen, and
will have a horrific impact. In any case the political accountability of the Gvmt. in the UK
is at present abysmally low.
Trump definitely contributes a lot to the collapse of classic neoliberalism. He rejected neoliberal globalization in favor of using
the USA dominant position for cutting favorable to the USA bilateral deals. That undermined the role of dollar of the world reserve
currency and several mechanisms emerged which allow completely bypass dollar system for trade.
Notable quotes:
"... US President Donald Trump's ruthless use of the centrality of his country's financial system and the dollar to force economic partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic interdependence. ..."
"... A new world is emerging, in which it will be much harder to separate economics from geopolitics. ..."
US President Donald Trump's ruthless use of the centrality of his country's financial system and the dollar to force economic
partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic
interdependence.
In response, China (and perhaps Europe) will fight to establish their own networks and secure control of their nodes. Again, multilateralism
could be the victim of this battle.
A new world is emerging, in which it will be much harder to separate economics from geopolitics. It's not the world according
to Myrdal, Frank, and Perroux, and it's not Tom Friedman's flat world, either. It's the world according to Game of Thrones
.
It made me do a face palm. Somebody thought they had separated economics from geopolitics or power…or at least they wanted
people to believe that and the jig is up.
“One reason for this is that in an increasingly digitalised economy, where a growing part of services are provided at zero
marginal cost, value creation and value appropriation concentrate in the innovation centers and where intangible investments are
made. This leaves less and less for the production facilities where tangible goods are made.”
It depends on what you mean by value.
If value is dollars in someone’s Cayman Islands tax-free account, then value is concentrated in NYC and SF.
But if we follow Natural Law (Marx or Mohammed) and define value as labor, then this is exactly wrong. A Natural Law economy
tries to maximize paid and useful work, because people are made to be useful.
The digital world steadily eliminates useful work, and steadily crams down the wages for the little work that remains. Real
value is avalanching toward zero, while Cayman value is zooming to infinity.
He’s talking more about the whims of the stock market and of our intellectual property laws. For example the marginal cost
for Microsoft to issue another copy of “Windows” is zero. Even their revised iterations of the OS were largely a rehash of the
previous software. Selling this at high prices worked out well for a long time but now the software can practically be had for
free because competitors like Linux and Android are themselves free. So digital services with their low marginal cost depend on
a shaky government edifice (patent enforcement, lack of antitrust) to prop up their value. Making real stuff still requires real
labor and even many proposed robot jobs–driving cars, drone deliveries, automated factories and warehouses–are looking dubious.
Dean Baker has said that the actual investment in automation during the last decades has slowed–perhaps because expensive and
complicated robots may have trouble competing with clever if poorly paid humans. And poorly paid is the current reality due to
population increases and political trends and perhaps, yes, automation.
And even if the masters of the universe could eliminate labor they would then have nobody to buy their products. The super
yacht market is rather small.
>the distribution of gains from openness and participation in the global economy is increasingly skewed. …. True, protectionism
remains a dangerous lunacy.
Well “openness and participation” is looking like lunacy to the Deplorables for exactly the reason given, so what is actually
on offer here?
With useful physical labor being off-shored, first world citizens should all be made shareholders in the new scheme. We shall
all then become dividend collecting layabouts buying stuff made by people we do not know, see, or care about. If they object we
simply have the military mount a punitive expedition until they get whipped back into shape. Sort of like now but with a somewhat
larger, more inclusive shareholder base. It will be wonderful!
Are you sayin’ the lefty Social Wealth Fund concept is really just another way of replicating the same old bougie program of
domination and suppression?
I’m saying that it can be and historically, and that there are and have been multi-national systems of super exploitation of
peripheral, primarily resource exporting populations, relative to a more broadly distributed prosperity for “higher” skilled populations
of the center. This has been a common perspective within anti-imperialist movements.
The argument is not without merit. Is this a “contradiction among the people” where various sectors of a larger labor movement
can renegotiate terms, or is it some more intransigent, deeply antagonistic relationship is a crucial question. The exportation
of manufacturing to the periphery is disrupting the political status-quo as represented by the center’s centrism, political sentiments
are breaking away to the left and right and where they’ll land nobody knows.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
I was just reading this John Helmer below, like Pepe Escobar I’m not sure who’s buttering his bread but it’s all food for thought
and fresh cooked blinis are tastier than the Twinkies from the western msm, and this thought came to mind: Iran is the perfect
test ground for the US to determine Russian weapons and tactical capabilities in a major war context in 2019. That alone might
make it worth it to the Pentagon, why they seem so enthusiastic to take the empire of chaos to unforseen heights (depts?). Somewhat
like the Spanish Civil War was a testing ground for the weapons of WW2.
1. Because it has a lot of non US controlled Oil.
2. Because it is Central on the eastern end of the silk road.
3. Because it does not kiss the US Ring bearers hand at every opportunity, and the US is determined to make it an example not
to be followed.
But consider Saudi us relations… who is kissing who’s ring?
Or consider Israeli us relations… ditto.
We’re a thuggish whore whose favors are easily bought; bring dollars or votes. Or kiss the ring.
An environmental insight here. The world stands devastated. It has reached its carrying capacity for thoughtless humans. From
here on in we have to take the consequences of our actions into account. So when it is said, as above, that the dollar exchange
rate is more important than the other bilateral exchange rates, I think that is no longer the reality. There is only a small amount
of global economic synergy that operates without subsidy. The vast majority is subsidized. And the dollar is just one currency.
And, unfortunately, the United States does not control the sun and the wind (well we’ve got Trump), or the ice and snow. Let alone
the oceans. The big question going forward is, Can the US maintain its artificial economy? Based on what?
That is a factor that seems ignored by the philosophers who are the subjects of the headline posting. It is a great oversight,
a shoe which has been released and is now impacting the floor. “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men”
Looks like the world order established after WWIII crumbed with the USSR and now it is again the law if jungles with the US as the
biggest predator.
Notable quotes:
"... The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet. ..."
"... Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure, dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence, not democracy ..."
"... A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism" (meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest. ..."
"... For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.) to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness. ..."
"... Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II. ..."
"... Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards. ..."
"... Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations' International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity." ..."
"... This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago, and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer. ..."
"... England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank." ..."
"... But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium. ..."
"... On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas, this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions attack on Europe ..."
"... The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above. In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945. ..."
"... By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands. ..."
"... It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either. ..."
"... But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3 billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid. ..."
"... It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. ..."
"... Anticipating just such a double-cross, President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe. ..."
"... It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence. ..."
"... Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs, but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and settle for being a dominant minority. ..."
"... Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change. ..."
"... Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms". Interesting times. ..."
"... Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. ..."
"... To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles. ..."
"... Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet again. Nothing to see here, actually. ..."
"... So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change. ..."
"... Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. ..."
"... I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. ..."
"... If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be" to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing. ..."
"... In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3. ..."
"... Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble." ..."
"... He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas. ..."
"... The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run. ..."
"... Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics" on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners. ..."
"... Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence. There will be fierce competition to fill the gap. ..."
"... On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top. I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect. ..."
"... Former US ambassador, Chas Freeman, gets to the nub of the problem. "The US preference for governance by elected and appointed officials, uncontaminated by experience in statecraft and diplomacy, or knowledge of geography, history and foreign affairs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_882041135&feature=iv&src_vid=Ge1ozuXN7iI&v=gkf2MQdqz-o ..."
"... Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT. ..."
"... The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy. ..."
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected, thanks to the very same Neocons
who gave the world the Iraq, Syria and the dirty wars in Latin America. Just as the Vietnam War drove the United States off gold
by 1971, its sponsorship and funding of violent regime change wars against Venezuela and Syria – and threatening other countries
with sanctions if they do not join this crusade – is now driving European and other nations to create their alternative financial
institutions.
This break has been building for quite some time, and was bound to occur. But who would have thought that Donald Trump would become
the catalytic agent? No left-wing party, no socialist, anarchist or foreign nationalist leader anywhere in the world could have achieved
what he is doing to break up the American Empire. The Deep State is reacting with shock at how this right-wing real estate grifter
has been able to drive other countries to defend themselves by dismantling the U.S.-centered world order. To rub it in, he is using
Bush and Reagan-era Neocon arsonists, John Bolton and now Elliott Abrams, to fan the flames in Venezuela. It is almost like a black
political comedy. The world of international diplomacy is being turned inside-out. A world where there is no longer even a pretense
that we might adhere to international norms, let alone laws or treaties.
The Neocons who Trump has appointed are accomplishing what seemed unthinkable not long ago: Driving China and Russia together
– the great nightmare of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They also are driving Germany and other European countries into
the Eurasian orbit, the "Heartland" nightmare of Halford Mackinder a century ago.
The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution
of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported
even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States
is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet.
Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign
policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure,
dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank
to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence,
not democracy.
In the Devil's Dictionary that U.S. diplomats are taught to use as their "Elements of Style" guidelines for Doublethink, a "democratic"
country is one that follows U.S. leadership and opens its economy to U.S. investment, and IMF- and World Bank-sponsored privatization.
The Ukraine is deemed democratic, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries that act as U.S. financial and military protectorates
and are willing to treat America's enemies are theirs too.
A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public
relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism"
(meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest.
This trajectory could be seen 50 years ago (I described it in Super Imperialism [1972] and Global Fracture [1978].) It had to
happen. But nobody thought that the end would come in quite the way that is happening. History has turned into comedy, or at least
irony as its dialectical path unfolds.
For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that
opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties
that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.)
to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners
and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness.
The reality is that right-wing parties want to get elected, and a populist nationalism is today's road to election victory in
Europe and other countries just as it was for Donald Trump in 2016.
Trump's agenda may really be to break up the American Empire, using the old Uncle Sucker isolationist rhetoric of half a century
ago. He certainly is going for the Empire's most vital organs. But it he a witting anti-American agent? He might as well be – but
it would be a false mental leap to use "quo bono" to assume that he is a witting agent.
After all, if no U.S. contractor, supplier, labor union or bank will deal with him, would Vladimir Putin, China or Iran be any
more naïve? Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible
to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal
to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II.
Dismantling International Law and Its Courts
Any international system of control requires the rule of law. It may be a morally lawless exercise of ruthless power imposing
predatory exploitation, but it is still The Law. And it needs courts to apply it (backed by police power to enforce it and punish
violators).
Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country
have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy
years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which
let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards.
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their equity
share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy. Without such power, the United States would not join
any international organization. Yet at the same time, it depicted its nationalism as protecting globalization and internationalism.
It was all a euphemism for what really was unilateral U.S. decision-making.
Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international
court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations'
International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture
policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable
basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity."
[1]
Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton erupted in fury, warning in September that: "The United States will use any
means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," adding that
the UN International Court must not be so bold as to investigate "Israel or other U.S. allies."
That prompted a senior judge, Christoph Flügge from Germany, to resign in protest. Indeed, Bolton told the court to keep out of
any affairs involving the United States, promising to ban the Court's "judges and prosecutors from entering the United States." As
Bolton spelled out the U.S. threat: "We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and we will prosecute them in the
U.S. criminal system. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We
will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us."
What this meant, the German judge spelled out was that: "If these judges ever interfere in the domestic concerns of the U.S. or
investigate an American citizen, [Bolton] said the American government would do all it could to ensure that these judges would no
longer be allowed to travel to the United States – and that they would perhaps even be criminally prosecuted."
The original inspiration of the Court – to use the Nuremburg laws that were applied against German Nazis to bring similar prosecution
against any country or officials found guilty of committing war crimes – had already fallen into disuse with the failure to indict
the authors of the Chilean coup, Iran-Contra or the U.S. invasion of Iraq for war crimes.
Dismantling Dollar Hegemony from the IMF to SWIFT
Of all areas of global power politics today, international finance and foreign investment have become the key flashpoint. International
monetary reserves were supposed to be the most sacrosanct, and international debt enforcement closely associated.
Central banks have long held their gold and other monetary reserves in the United States and London. Back in 1945 this seemed
reasonable, because the New York Federal Reserve Bank (in whose basement foreign central bank gold was kept) was militarily safe,
and because the London Gold Pool was the vehicle by which the U.S. Treasury kept the dollar "as good as gold" at $35 an ounce. Foreign
reserves over and above gold were kept in the form of U.S. Treasury securities, to be bought and sold on the New York and London
foreign-exchange markets to stabilize exchange rates. Most foreign loans to governments were denominated in U.S. dollars, so Wall
Street banks were normally name as paying agents.
That was the case with Iran under the Shah, whom the United States had installed after sponsoring the 1953 coup against Mohammed
Mosaddegh when he sought to nationalize Anglo-Iranian Oil (now British Petroleum) or at least tax it. After the Shah was overthrown,
the Khomeini regime asked its paying agent, the Chase Manhattan bank, to use its deposits to pay its bondholders. At the direction
of the U.S. Government Chase refused to do so. U.S. courts then declared Iran to be in default, and froze all its assets in the United
States and anywhere else they were able.
This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago,
and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might
be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally
got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult
that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer.
But then came Venezuela. Desperate to spend its gold reserves to provide imports for its economy devastated by U.S. sanctions
– a crisis that U.S. diplomats blame on "socialism," not on U.S. political attempts to "make the economy scream" (as Nixon officials
said of Chile under Salvador Allende) – Venezuela directed the Bank of England to transfer some of its $11 billion in gold held in
its vaults and those of other central banks in December 2018. This was just like a bank depositor would expect a bank to pay a check
that the depositor had written.
England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo.
As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster
his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign
reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank."
Turkey seemed to be a likely destination, prompting Bolton and Pompeo to warn it to desist from helping Venezuela, threatening
sanctions against it or any other country helping Venezuela cope with its economic crisis. As for the Bank of England and other European
countries, the Bloomberg report concluded: "Central bank officials in Caracas have been ordered to no longer try contacting the Bank
of England. These central bankers have been told that Bank of England staffers will not respond to them."
This led to rumors that Venezuela was selling 20 tons of gold via a Russian Boeing 777 – some $840 million. The money probably
would have ended up paying Russian and Chinese bondholders as well as buying food to relieve the local famine.
[4] Russia denied this report, but Reuters has confirmed is that Venezuela has sold 3 tons of a planned 29 tones of gold to the
United Arab Emirates, with another 15 tones are to be shipped on Friday, February 1.
[5] The U.S. Senate's Batista-Cuban hardliner Rubio accused this of being "theft," as if feeding the people to alleviate the
U.S.-sponsored crisis was a crime against U.S. diplomatic leverage.
If there is any country that U.S. diplomats hate more than a recalcitrant Latin American country, it is Iran. President Trump's
breaking of the 2015 nuclear agreements negotiated by European and Obama Administration diplomats has escalated to the point of threatening
Germany and other European countries with punitive sanctions if they do not also break the agreements they have signed. Coming on
top of U.S. opposition to German and other European importing of Russian gas, the U.S. threat finally prompted Europe to find a way
to defend itself.
Imperial threats are no longer military. No country (including Russia or China) can mount a military invasion of another major
country. Since the Vietnam Era, the only kind of war a democratically elected country can wage is atomic, or at least heavy bombing
such as the United States has inflicted on Iraq, Libya and Syria. But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the
connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium.
Russia and China have already moved to create a shadow bank-transfer system in case the United States unplugs them from SWIFT.
But now, European countries have come to realize that threats by Bolton and Pompeo may lead to heavy fines and asset grabs if they
seek to continue trading with Iran as called for in the treaties they have negotiated.
On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran
and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument
in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored
Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas,
this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions
attack on Europe.
I have just returned from Germany and seen a remarkable split between that nation's industrialists and their political leadership.
For years, major companies have seen Russia as a natural market, a complementary economy needing to modernize its manufacturing and
able to supply Europe with natural gas and other raw materials. America's New Cold War stance is trying to block this commercial
complementarity. Warning Europe against "dependence" on low-price Russian gas, it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from the United
States (via port facilities that do not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required). President Trump also is insisting that NATO
members spend a full 2 percent of their GDP on arms – preferably bought from the United States, not from German or French merchants
of death.
The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above.
In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to
bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945.
The World Bank, for instance, traditionally has been headed by a U.S. Secretary of Defense. Its steady policy since its inception
is to provide loans for countries to devote their land to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves. That is
why its loans are only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive. By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food
blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands.
It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to
become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically
to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports
from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees
across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either.
Likewise, the IMF has been forced to admit that its basic guidelines were fictitious from the beginning. A central core has been
to enforce payment of official inter-government debt by withholding IMF credit from countries under default. This rule was instituted
at a time when most official inter-government debt was owed to the United States. But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3
billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country
deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption
to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid.
It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. Europe has taken
notice that its own international monetary trade and financial linkages are in danger of attracting U.S. anger. This became clear
last autumn at the funeral for George H. W. Bush, when the EU's diplomat found himself downgraded to the end of the list to be called
to his seat. He was told that the U.S. no longer considers the EU an entity in good standing. In December, "Mike Pompeo gave a speech
on Europe in Brussels -- his first, and eagerly awaited -- in which he extolled the virtues of nationalism, criticised multilateralism
and the EU, and said that "international bodies" which constrain national sovereignty "must be reformed or eliminated."
[5]
Most of the above events have made the news in just one day, January 31, 2019. The conjunction of U.S. moves on so many fronts,
against Venezuela, Iran and Europe (not to mention China and the trade threats and moves against Huawei also erupting today) looks
like this will be a year of global fracture.
It is not all President Trump's doing, of course. We see the Democratic Party showing the same colors. Instead of applauding democracy
when foreign countries do not elect a leader approved by U.S. diplomats (whether it is Allende or Maduro), they've let the mask fall
and shown themselves to be the leading New Cold War imperialists. It's now out in the open. They would make Venezuela the new Pinochet-era
Chile. Trump is not alone in supporting Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi terrorists acting, as Lyndon Johnson put it, "Bastards, but they're
our bastards."
Where is the left in all this? That is the question with which I opened this article. How remarkable it is that it is only right-wing
parties, Alternative for Deutschland (AFD), or Marine le Pen's French nationalists and those of other countries that are opposing
NATO militarization and seeking to revive trade and economic links with the rest of Eurasia.
The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed observer like
me. It took a colossal level of arrogance, short-sightedness and lawlessness to hasten its decline -- something that only crazed
Neocons like John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Mike Pompeo could deliver for Donald Trump.
[2] Patricia Laya, Ethan Bronner and Tim Ross,
"Maduro Stymied in Bid to Pull $1.2 Billion of Gold From U.K.," Bloomberg, January 25, 2019. Anticipating just such a double-cross,
President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe.
Well, if the StormTrumpers can tear down all the levers and institutions of international US dollar strength, perhaps they
can also tear down all the institutions of Corporate Globalonial Forced Free Trade. That itself may BE our escape . . . if there
are enough millions of Americans who have turned their regionalocal zones of habitation into economically and politically armor-plated
Transition Towns, Power-Down Zones, etc. People and places like that may be able to crawl up out of the rubble and grow and defend
little zones of semi-subsistence survival-economics.
If enough millions of Americans have created enough such zones, they might be able to link up with eachother to offer hope
of a movement to make America in general a semi-autarchik, semi-secluded and isolated National Survival Economy . . . . much smaller
than today, perhaps likelier to survive the various coming ecosystemic crash-cramdowns, and no longer interested in leading or
dominating a world that we would no longer have the power to lead or dominate.
We could put an end to American Exceptionalism. We could lay this burden down. We could become American Okayness Ordinarians.
Make America an okay place for ordinary Americans to live in.
If Populists, I assume that's what you mean by "Storm Troopers", offer me M4A and revitalized local economies, and deliver
them, they have my support and more power to them.
That's why Trump was elected, his promises, not yet delivered, were closer to that then the Democrats' promises. If the Democrats
promised those things and delivered, then they would have my support.
If the Democrats run a candidate, who has a no track record of delivering such things, we stay home on election day. Trump
can have it, because it won't be any worse.
I don't give a damn about "social issues." Economics, health care and avoiding WWIII are what motivates my votes, and I think
more and more people are going to vote the same way.
Good point about Populist versus StormTrumper. ( And by the way, I said StormTRUMper, not StormTROOper). I wasn't thinking
of the Populists. I was thinking of the neo-etc. vandals and arsonists who want us to invade Venezuela, leave the JCPOA with Iran,
etc. Those are the people who will finally drive the other-country governments into creating their own parallel payment systems,
etc.
And the midpoint of those efforts will leave wreckage and rubble for us to crawl up out of. But we will have a chance to crawl
up out of it.
My reason for voting for Trump was mainly to stop the Evil Clinton from getting elected and to reduce the chance of near immediate
thermonuclear war with Russia and to save the Assad regime in Syria from Clintonian overthrow and replacement with an Islamic
Emirate of Jihadistan.
Much of what will be attempted " in Trump's name" will be de-regulationism of all kinds delivered by the sorts of basic Republicans
selected for the various agencies and departments by Pence and Moore and the Koch Brothers. I doubt the Populist Voters wanted
the Koch-Pence agenda. But that was a risky tradeoff in return for keeping Clinton out of office.
The only Dems who would seek what you want are Sanders or maybe Gabbard or just barely Warren. The others would all be Clinton
or Obama all over again.
I couldn't really find any details about the new INSTEX system – have you got any good links to brush up on? I know they made
an announcement yesterday but how long until the new payment system is operational?
arguably wouldn't it be better if for USD hegemony to be dismantled? A strong USD hurts US exports, subsidizes American consumption
(by making commodities cheaper in relative terms), makes international trade (aka a 8,000-mile+ supply chain) easier.
For the sake of the environment, you want less of all three. Though obviously I don't like the idea of expensive gasoline,
natural gas or tube socks either.
It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive
Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence.
Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs,
but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and
settle for being a dominant minority.
Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast
their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change.
What this change would consist of, and how it would manifest, remained an open question. Would he pursue rapprochement with
Russia and pull troops out of the Middle East as he claimed to want to do during his 2016 campaign, would he doggedly pursue corruption
charges against Clinton and attempt to reform the FBI and CIA, or would he do both, neither, or something else entirely?
Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international
order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment
desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms".
Interesting times.
Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery
going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. Whether or not he ever had or has a coherent plan for the havoc he has
wrought, he has certainly been the agent for change many of us hoped he would be, in stark contrast to the criminal duopoly parties
who continue to oppose him, where the daily no news is always bad news all the same. To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you
don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the
best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles.
Look on some bright sides. Here is just one bright side to look on. President Trump has delayed and denied the Clinton Plan
to topple Assad just long enough that Russia has been able to help Assad preserve legitimate government in most of Syria and defeat
the Clinton's-choice jihadis.
That is a positive good. Unless you are pro-jihadi.
Clinton wasn't going to "benefit the greater good" either, and a very strong argument, based on her past behavior, can be made
that she represented the greater threat. Given that the choice was between her and Trump, I think voters made the right decision.
Hudson's done us a service in pulling these threads together. I'd missed the threats against the ICC judges. One question:
is it possible for INSTEX-like arrangements to function secretly? What is to be gained by announcing them publicly and drawing
the expected attacks? Does that help sharpen conflicts, and to what end?
Maybe they're done in secret already – who knows? The point of doing it publicly is to make a foreign-policy impact, in this
case withdrawing power from the US. It's a Declaration of Independence.
It certainly seems as though the 90 percent (plus) are an afterthought in this journey to who knows where? Like George C.Scott
said while playing Patton, "The whole world at economic war and I'm not part of it. God will not let this happen." Looks like
we're on the Brexit track (without the vote). The elite argue with themselves and we just sit and watch. It appears to me that
the elite just do not have the ability to contemplate things beyond their own narrow self interest. We are all deplorables now.
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected
Is not supported by this (or really the rest of the article). The past tense here, for example, is unwarranted:
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their
equity share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy.
And this
So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. Germany agreed
to slow down the transfer.
Doesn't show Germany as breaking free at all, and worse it is followed by the pregnant
But then came Venezuela.
Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet
again. Nothing to see here, actually.
So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change.
"So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change."
I'm surprised more people aren't recognizing this. I read the article waiting in vain for some evidence of "the end of our
monetary imperialism" besides some 'grumbling and foot dragging' as you aptly put it. There was some glimmer of a buried lede
with INTEX, created to get around U.S. sanctions against Iran ─ hardly a 'dam-breaking'. Washington is on record as being annoyed.
Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD
as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. World bond market flows are 10X the size
of world stock market flows even though the price of the Dow and Facebook shares etc get all of the headlines.
And foreign exchange flows are 10-50X the flows of bond markets, they're currently on the order of $5 *trillion* per day. And
since forex is almost completely unregulated it's quite difficult to get the data and spot reserve currency trends. Oh, and buy
gold. It's the only currency that requires no counterparty and is no one's debt obligation.
That's not what Hudson claims in his swaggering final sentence:
"The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed
observer like me."
Which is risible as not only did he fail to show anything of the kind, his opening sentence stated a completely different reality:
"The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected" So if we hold him to his first
declaration, his evidence is feeble, as I mentioned. As a scholar, his hyperbole is untrustworthy.
No, gold is pretty enough lying on the bosom of a lady-friend but that's about its only usefulness in the real world.
Always bemusing that gold bugs never talk about gold being in a bubble . yet when it goes south of its purchase price speak
in tongues about ev'bal forces.
thanks Mr. Hudson. One has to wonder what has happened when the government (for decades) has been shown to be morally and otherwise
corrupt and self serving. It doesn't seem to bother anyone but the people, and precious few of them. Was it our financial and
legal bankruptcy that sent us over the cliff?
Indeed! It is to say the least encouraging to see Dr. Hudson return so forcefully to the theme of 'monetary imperialism'.
I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you
haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. You can
find any number of articles on his web site that return periodically to the theme of monetary imperialism. I remember one in particular
that described how the rest of the world was brought on board to help pay for its good old-fashioned military imperialism.
If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt
status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long
as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington
neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be"
to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing.
Until the US returns to the path of genuine wealth creation, it is past time for the rest of the world to go its own way with
its banking and financial institutions.
In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same
pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3.
UK withholding Gold may start another Brexit? IE: funds/gold held by BOE for other countries in Africa, Asian, South America,
and the "stans" with start to depart, slowly at first, perhaps for Switzerland?
Where is the left in all this? Pretty much the same place as Michael Hudson, I'd say. Where is the US Democratic Party in all
this? Quite a different question, and quite a different answer. So far as I can see, the Democrats for years have bombed, invaded
and plundered other countries 'for their own good'. Republicans do it 'for the good of America', by which the ignoramuses mean
the USA. If you're on the receiving end, it doesn't make much difference.
Agreed! South America intervention and regime change, Syria ( Trump is pulling out), Iraq, Middle East meddling, all predate
Trump. Bush, Clinton and Obama have nothing to do with any of this.
" So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. "
What proof is there that the gold is still there? Chances are it's notional. All Germany, Venezuela, or the others have is
an IOU – and gold cannot be printed. Incidentally, this whole discussion means that gold is still money and the gold standard
still exists.
What makes you think that the gold in Fort Knox is still there? If I remember right, there was a Potemkin visit back in the
70s to assure everyone that the gold was still there but not since then. Wait, I tell a lie. There was another visit about two
years ago but look who was involved in that visit-
And I should mention that it was in the 90s that between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were manufactured in the
US under Clinton. Since then gold-coated tungsten bars have turned up in places like Germany, China, Ethiopia, the UK, etc so
who is to say if those gold bars in Fort Knox are gold all the way through either. More on this at --
http://viewzone2.com/fakegoldx.html
It wasn't last year that Germany brought back its Gold. It has been ongoing since 2013, after some political and popular pressure
build up. They finished the transaction in 2017. According to an article in Handelblatt (but it was widely reported back then)
they brought back pretty much everything they had in Paris (347t), left what they had in London (perhaps they should have done
it in reverse) and took home another 300t from the NY Fed. That still leaves 1236t in NY. But half of their Gold (1710t) is now
in Frankfurt. That is 50% of the Bundesbanks holdings.
They made a point in saying that every bar was checked and weighed and presented some bars in Frankfurt. I guess they didn't
melt them for assaying, but I'd expect them to be smart enough to check the density.
Their reason to keep Gold in NY and London is to quickly buy USD in case of a crisis. That's pretty much a cold war plan, but
that's what they do right now.
Regarding Michal Hudsons piece, I enjoyed reading through this one. He tends to write ridiculously long articles and in the
last few years with less time and motivation at hand I've skipped most of his texts on NC as they just drag on.
When I'm truly fascinated I like well written, long articles but somehow he lost me at some point. But I noticed that some
long original articles in US magazines, probably research for a long time by the journalist, can just drag on for ever as well
I just tune out.
This is making sense. I would guess that tearing up the old system is totally deliberate. It wasn't working so well for us
because we had to practice too much social austerity, which we have tried to impose on the EU as well, just to stabilize "king
dollar" – otherwise spread so thin it was a pending catastrophe.
Now we can get out from under being the reserve currency – the currency that maintains its value by financial manipulation
and military bullying domestic deprivation. To replace this old power trip we are now going to mainline oil. The dollar will become
a true petro dollar because we are going to commandeer every oil resource not already nailed down.
When we partnered with SA in Aramco and the then petro dollar the dollar was only backed by our military. If we start monopolizing
oil, the actual commodity, the dollar will be an apex competitor currency without all the foreign military obligations which will
allow greater competitive advantages.
No? I'm looking at PdVSA, PEMEX and the new "Energy Hub for the Eastern Mediterranean" and other places not yet made public.
It looks like a power play to me, not a hapless goofball president at all.
So sand people with sociological attachment to the OT is a compelling argument based on antiquarian preferences with authoritarian
patriarchal tendencies for their non renewable resource . after I might add it was deemed a strategic concern after WWII .
Considering the broader geopolitical realities I would drain all the gold reserves to zero if it was on offer . here natives
have some shiny beads for allowing us to resource extract we call this a good trade you maximize your utility as I do mine .
Hay its like not having to run C-corp compounds with western 60s – 70s esthetics and letting the locals play serf, blow back
pay back, and now the installed local chiefs can own the risk and refocus the attention away from the real antagonists.
Indeed. Thanks so much for this. Maybe the RICS will get serious now – can no longer include Brazil with Bolsonaro. There needs
to be an alternate system or systems in place, and to see US Imperialism so so blatantly and bluntly by Trump admin –
"US
gives Juan Guaido control over some Venezuelan assets" – should sound sirens on every continent and especially in the developing
world. I too hope there will be fracture to the point of breakage. Countries of the world outside the US/EU/UK/Canada/Australia
confraternity must now unite to provide a permanent framework outside the control of imperial interests. The be clear, this must
not default to alternative forms of imperialism germinating by the likes of China.
" such criticism can't begin to take in the full scope of the damage the Trump White House is inflicting on the system of global
power Washington built and carefully maintained over those 70 years. Indeed, American leaders have been on top of the world for
so long that they no longer remember how they got there.
Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it
now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's
inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of
a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble."
I read something like this and I am like, some of these statements need to be qualified. Like: "Driving China and Russia together".
Like where's the proof? Is Xi playing telephone games more often now with Putin? I look at those two and all I see are two egocentric
people who might sometimes say the right things but in general do not like the share the spotlight. Let's say they get together
to face America and for some reason the later gets "defeated", it's not as if they'll kumbaya together into the night.
This website often points out the difficulties in implementing new banking IT initiatives. Ok, so Europe has a new "payment
system". Has it been tested thoroughly? I would expect a couple of weeks or even months of chaos if it's not been tested, and
if it's thorough that probably just means that it's in use right i.e. all the kinks have been worked out. In that case the transition
is already happening anyway. But then the next crisis arrives and then everyone would need their dollar swap lines again which
probably needs to cleared through SWIFT or something.
Anyway, does this all mean that one day we'll wake up and a slice of bacon is 50 bucks as opposed to the usual 1 dollar?
Driving Russia and China together is correct. I recall them signing a variety of economic and military agreement a few years
ago. It was covered in the media. You should at least google an issue before making silly comments. You might start with the report
of Russia and China signing 30 cooperation agreements three years ago. See
https://www.rbth.com/international/2016/06/27/russia-china-sign-30-cooperation-agreements_606505
. There are lots and lots of others.
He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and
WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas.
The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical
foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed
the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run.
Whilst the far right factions fight over the rudder the only new game in town is AOC, Sanders, Warren, et al which Trumps supporters
hate with Ideological purity.
Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On
US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics"
on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners.
On a household level it fits, but there no "loser" household that in infinity can print money that the "winners" can accumulate
in exchange for their resources and fruits of labor.
One wonder what are Trumps idea of US being a winner in trade (surplus)? I.e. sending away their resources and fruits of labor
overseas in exchange for what? A pile of USD? That US in the first place created out of thin air. Or Chinese Yuan, Euros, Turkish
liras? Also fiat-money. Or does he think US trade surplus should be paid in gold?
When the US political and economic hegemony will unravel it will come "unexpected". Trump for sure are undermining it with
his megalomaniac ignorance. But not sure it's imminent.
Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash
will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence.
There will be fierce competition to fill the gap.
On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and
austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top.
I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect.
Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the
rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT.
The trade deficit required a large Government deficit to cover it and the US government could just create the money to cover
it.
Then ideological neoliberals came in wanting balanced budgets and not realising the Government deficit covered the trade deficit.
The US has been destabilising its own economy by reducing the Government deficit. Bill Clinton didn't realize a Government surplus is an indicator a financial crisis is about to hit. The last US Government surplus occurred in 1927 – 1930, they go hand-in-hand with financial crises.
Richard Koo shows the graph central bankers use and it's the flow of funds within the economy, which sums to zero (32-34 mins.).
The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy.
It should be remembered Bill Clinton's early meeting with Rubin, where in he was informed that wages and productivity had diverged –
Rubin did not blink an eye.
Dmitry Orlov offers a highly-pertinent review of a current report to the US Congress about
the severe degradation of the US's capacity to produce ANY heavy industrial goods - including
advanced weapons such as replacement aircraft carriers, cruisers, tanks and all the rest -
within its own borders, independent of (exceedingly vulnerable) global supply networks:
Also, the US only has 'plenty' of fossil-hydrocarbon fuel on cloud-cuckoo-land paper. In
reality, it has quite a lot of such stuff which it will never access, and will never be able
to access, because of the non-negotiable, iron logic of EROEI and EROCI (the second acronym
relating to energy returned on financial capital invested; currently a long way red-ink
negative across the whole US fracking ponzi). EROEI refers to the even more intractable,
terminally-insoluble problem of energy returned on ENERGY invested. When this gets down to
around 4 to 1 or thereabouts, it's game over for actually being able to maintain an
industrial hitech society that can hope - credibly - to do fossil-hydrocarbon mining in any
seriously challenging conditions - which most of the world's remaining pools of such fuels
now exhibit.
These predicaments are qualitatively different from problems; problems, by definition, can
hope to be solved; predicaments, inherently, can't be, and can only be endured. The world is
now close to the edge of a decisive non-availability of sufficient fossil-hydrocarbon fuels
to keep even a skeleton semblance of modern hitech industrial society operating - at all.
That's the predicament that is already staring us in the face, and that will soon be
trampling us into the ground. Doesn't mean that hopeless political inadequates such as
PompousHippo and The Insane Geriatric Walrus won't attempt to trigger such insanity as an
aggression against Iran, though, they being too stupid, too delusional, and too
morally-degenarate, to know any better.
This is the overall situation which insists that the US has literally zero chance of
attacking Iran, and actually getting anything remotely resembling a 'win' out of it. Read
Dmitry's piece to get a more detailed outline of why this is so.
PS: The above considerations apply just as decisively to the US's nuclear weapon capacity
as they do to all the other hitech industrial toys which USAmerica is now barely able to
produce on its own - at all.
"... Of course, correlation is not causation, and there is no shortage of alternative explanations for the decline in U.S. manufacturing. Globalization, offshoring, and skills gaps are just three frequently cited causes. Moreover, some researchers, like MIT's David Autor, have argued that workers are benefiting from working alongside robots. ..."
"... Yet the evidence suggests there is essentially no relationship between the change in manufacturing employment and robot use. Despite the installation of far more robots between 1993 and 2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33 percent drop in the United States. (We introduce a three-year time lag to allow for robots to influence the labor market and continued with the most recent data, 2012). ..."
"... Korea, France, and Italy also lost fewer manufacturing jobs than the United States even as they introduced more industrial robots. On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and Australia invested less in robots but saw faster declines in their manufacturing sectors. ..."
Don't blame the robots for lost manufacturing jobs
Scott Andes and Mark Muro
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
a recent blog we described new research by George Graetz
and Guy Michaels that shows the impact of automation
technology in productivity statistics. So now there is good
evidence that robots are a driver of economic growth.
However, this new evidence poses a question: Has
productivity growth from robots come at the cost of
manufacturing jobs?
Between 1993 and 2007 (the timeframe studied by Graetz and
Micheals) the United States increased the number of robots
per hour worked by 237 percent. During the same period the
U.S. economy shed 2.2 million manufacturing jobs. Assuming
the two trends are linked doesn't seem farfetched.
Of course, correlation is not causation, and there is no
shortage of alternative explanations for the decline in U.S.
manufacturing. Globalization, offshoring, and skills gaps are
just three frequently cited causes. Moreover, some
researchers, like MIT's David Autor, have argued that workers
are benefiting from working alongside robots.
So is there a relationship between job loss and the use of
industrial robots?
The substantial variation of the degree to which countries
deploy robots should provide clues. If robots are a
substitute for human workers, then one would expect the
countries with much higher investment rates in automation
technology to have experienced greater employment loss in
their manufacturing sectors. Germany deploys over three times
as many robots per hour worked than the United States,
largely due to Germany's robust automotive industry, which is
by far the most robot-intensive industry (with over 10 times
more robots per worker than the average industry). Sweden has
60 percent more robots per hour worked than the United States
thanks to its highly technical metal and chemical industries.
Yet the evidence suggests there is essentially no
relationship between the change in manufacturing employment
and robot use. Despite the installation of far more robots
between 1993 and 2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its
manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33
percent drop in the United States. (We introduce a three-year
time lag to allow for robots to influence the labor market
and continued with the most recent data, 2012).
Korea,
France, and Italy also lost fewer manufacturing jobs than the
United States even as they introduced more industrial robots.
On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and
Australia invested less in robots but saw faster declines in
their manufacturing sectors.
"Despite the installation of far more robots between 1993 and
2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its manufacturing jobs
between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33 percent drop in the
United States. "
Yes the U.S. and Germany have a similar
pattern. So what.
Why Factory Jobs Are Shrinking Everywhere
by Charles Kenny
April 28, 2014, 1:16 PM EDT
A report from the Boston Consulting Group last week
suggested the U.S. had become the second-most-competitive
manufacturing location among the 25 largest manufacturing
exporters worldwide. While that news is welcome, most of the
lost U.S. manufacturing jobs in recent decades aren't coming
back. In 1970, more than a quarter of U.S. employees worked
in manufacturing. By 2010, only one in 10 did.
The growth in imports from China had a role in that
decline–contributing, perhaps, to as much as one-quarter of
the employment drop-off from 1991 to 2007, according to an
analysis by David Autor and colleagues at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. But the U.S. jobs slide began well
before China's rise as a manufacturing power. And
manufacturing employment is falling almost everywhere,
including in China. The phenomenon is driven by technology,
and there's reason to think developing countries are going to
follow a different path to wealth than the U.S. did-one that
involves a lot more jobs in the services sector.
Pretty much every economy around the world has a low or
declining share of manufacturing jobs. According to OECD
data, the U.K. and Australia have seen their share of
manufacturing drop by around two-thirds since 1971. Germany's
share halved, and manufacturing's contribution to gross
domestic product there fell from 30 percent in 1980 to 22
percent today. In South Korea, a late industrializer and
exemplar of miracle growth, the manufacturing share of
employment rose from 13 percent in 1970 to 28 percent in
1991; it's fallen to 17 percent today.
Pretty superficial article, but some points are interesting. Especially the fact that the collapse of neoliberalism
like collapse of Bolshevism is connected with its inability to raise the standard of living of population in major Western
countries, despite looting of the USSR and Middle eastern countries since 1991. Spoils of victory in the Cold War never got to
common people. All was appropriated by greedy "New Class" of neoliberal oligarchs.
The same was true with Bolshevism in the USSR. The communist ideology was dead after WWII when it became clear that
"proletariat" is not a new class destined to take over and the "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered. Collapse happened
in 45 years since the end of WWII. Neoliberal ideology was dead in 2008. It would be interesting to see if neoliberalism
as a social system survives past 2050.
The level of degeneration of the USA elite probably exceeds the level of degeneration of Nomenklatura even now.
Notable quotes:
"... A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level. ..."
"... As a result, the traditional liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists of external protectionism and internal liberalisation ..."
"... Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real incomes in a generation. ..."
"... The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450 (£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc of GDP." ..."
"... "British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote against globalisation much more than immigration " ..."
"... As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left. Why? Often globalization impacts. ..."
"... The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The unfortunate host will eventually die. ..."
"... "negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public services" ..."
"... he ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people. ..."
"... One of the things we must do in Russia is never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a better future. ..."
"... "If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~ Michael Hudson ..."
"... I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them. ..."
The more a local economy has been negatively affected by the two shocks, the more its
electors have shifted towards the radical right and its policy packages. These packages
typically combine the retrenchment against international openness and the liberalisation of the
internal market and more convincingly address the demand for protection by an electorate that,
after the austerity following the Crisis, no longer trusts alternatives based on more liberal
stances on foreign relations and the parallel promise of a stronger welfare state.
A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is
that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical
vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate
has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the
lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level.
On the one hand, despite some progress in curtailing 'tax havens' in recent years, there has
never been as much wealth in tax havens as there is today (Zucman 2015). This is seen as unfair
because, if public goods and services (including those required to help the transition to a
'green economy') have to be provided in the regions where such hidden wealth comes from, lost
tax revenues have to be compensated for by higher taxes on law-abiding households.
On the other hand, fairness is also undermined by dwindling social mobility. In the last
decades, social mobility has slowed down across large parts of the industrialised world (OECD
2018), both within and between generations. Social mobility varies greatly across regions
within countries, correlates positively with economic activity, education, and social capital,
and negatively with inequality (Güell at al. 2018). Renewed migration from the South to
the North of Europe after the Crisis (Van Mol and de Valk 2016) is a testimony of the widening
relative lack of opportunities in the places that have suffered the most from competition from
low-wage countries.
Concluding Remarks
Globalisation has come accompanied by the Great Convergence between countries around the
world but also the Great Divergence between regions within several industrialised countries.
The same holds within the EU. In recent years, redistributive policies have had only a very
limited impact in terms of reversing growing regional inequality.
As a result, the traditional
liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with
the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists
of external protectionism and internal liberalisation.
This is both inefficient and unlikely to
lead to more regional convergence. What the political and policy debate in Europe is arguably
missing is a clearer focus on two of the main underlying causes of peoples' growing distrust in
national and international institutions: fiscal fairness and social mobility.
Right. It would be better to say "the traditional New Deal liberal package " has not lost
its appeal, it was killed off bit by bit starting with NAFTA. From a 2016 Thomas Frank essay
in Salon:
That appeal to [educated credentialed] class unity gives a hint of what Clintonism was
all about. To owners and shareholders, who would see labor costs go down as they took
advantage of unorganized Mexican labor and lax Mexican environmental enforcement, NAFTA held
fantastic promise. To American workers, it threatened to send their power, and hence their
wages, straight down the chute. To the mass of the professional-managerial class, people who
weren't directly threatened by the treaty, holding an opinion on NAFTA was a matter of
deferring to the correct experts -- economists in this case, 283 of whom had signed a
statement declaring the treaty "will be a net positive for the United States, both in terms
of employment creation and overall economic growth."
The predictions of people who opposed the agreement turned out to be far closer to what
eventually came to pass than did the rosy scenarios of those 283 economists and the
victorious President Clinton. NAFTA was supposed to encourage U.S. exports to Mexico; the
opposite is what happened, and in a huge way. NAFTA was supposed to increase employment in
the U.S.; a study from 2010 counts almost 700,000 jobs lost in America thanks to the treaty.
And, as feared, the agreement gave one class in America enormous leverage over the other:
employers now routinely threaten to move their operations to Mexico if their workers
organize. A surprisingly large number of them -- far more than in the pre-NAFTA days -- have
actually made good on the threat.
Twenty years later, the broader class divide over the subject persists as well.
According to a 2014 survey of attitudes toward NAFTA after two decades, public opinion
remains split. But among people with professional degrees -- which is to say, the liberal
class -- the positive view remains the default. Knowing that free-trade treaties are always
for the best -- even when they empirically are not -- seems to have become for the
well-graduated a badge of belonging.
The only internal redistribution that's happened in the past 25 – 30 yearsis from
the bottom 80% to the top 10% and especially to the top 1/10th of 1 %.
Not hard to imagine why the current internal redistribution model has lost its appeal with
the electorate.
I think there are two different globalizations that people are responding to.
1. Their jobs go away to somewhere in the globe that has lower wages, lower labor
protections, and lower environmental protections. So their community largely stays the same
but with dwindling job prospects and people slowly moving away.
2. The world comes to their community where they see immigrants (legal, illegal, refugees)
coming in and are willing to work harder for less, as well as having different appearance,
languages, religion, and customs. North America has always had this as we are built on
immigration. Europe is much more focused on terroire. If somebody or something has only been
there for a century, they are new.
If you combine both in a community, you have lit a stick of dynamite as the locals feel
trapped with no way out. Then you get Brexit and Trump. In the US, many jobs were sent
overseas and so new people coming in are viewed as competitors and agents of change instead
of just new hired help. The same happened in Britain. In mainland Europe with less inequality
and more job protection, it is more of just being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of
newcomers in a society that does not prize that at all.
I saw the warning signs when Golden Dawn appeared in Greece
The liberals said it was just a one off, as they always do, until it isn't.
How did successful Germany turn into a country where extremism would flourish?
The Hartz IV reforms created the economic hardship that causes extremism to flourish.
"Germany is turning to soft nationalism. People on low incomes are voting against authority
because the consensus on equality and justice has broken down. It is the same pattern across
Europe," said Ashoka Mody, a former bail-out chief for the International Monetary Fund in
Europe.
Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real
incomes in a generation. The Hartz IV reforms in 2003 and 2004 made it easier to fire
workers, leading to wage compression as companies threatened to move plants to Eastern
Europe.
The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450
(£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though
the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc
of GDP."
This is a successful European country, imagine what the others look like.
"British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote
against globalisation much more than immigration "
As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were
immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left.
Why? Often globalization impacts.
Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment, with
no answers. More "I can't believe people are sick to death of experts of dubious skills but
networking "
What it is just admitted that a system that can only work great for 20% of any given
population if they are born in the right region with the right last name just simply not work
except as an exercise in extraction?
And about the EU as if it could never be taken over by bigger authoritatians than the ones
already populating it.
Then see how much those who think it is some forever bastion of liberalism over sovereignity
likes it .
"Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment,
with no answers."
Usually it involves replacing the establishment or creating an internal threat to
reinstate compliance in the establish (Strauss and Howe).
Strategies for initiate the former may be impossible in this era where the deep state can
read your thoughts through digital media so you would like it would trend to the latter.
Mmmmm, yes, migration, globalisation and such like.
But, unregulated migration into an established environment, say a country, say, UK, on one
hand furthers profits to those benefiting from low labour wages (mainly, friends of people
working for governments), but on the other leads to creation of parallel societies, where the
incoming population brings along the society they strived to escape from. The Don calls these
sh***hole societies. Why bring the f***ing thing here, why not leave it where you escaped
from.
But the real betrayal of the native population happens when all those unregulated migrants
are afforded immediate right to social security, full access to NHS and other aspects of
state support, services that they have not paid one penny in support before accessing that
particular government funded trough. And then the parasitic growth of their "family and
extended family" comes along under the banner of "human rights".
This is the damnation of the whole of Western Civilisation which had been hollowed out
from within by the most devious layer of parasitic growth, the government apparatus. The
people we pay for under the auspices that they are doing some work for us, are enforcing
things that treat the income generators, the tax paying society as serfs whose primary
function in life is to support the parasites (immigrants) and parasite enablers
(government).
The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being
parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The
unfortunate host will eventually die.
Understanding of this concept is most certainly within mental capabilities of all those
employed as the "governing classes " that we are paying for through our taxes.
Until such time when legislation is enacted that each and every individual member of
"government classes " is made to pay, on an indemnity basis, through financial damages,
forced labour, organs stripping or custodial penalties, for every penny (or cent, sorry,
yanks), of damage they inflict on us taxpayers, we are all just barking.
This piece does an admirable job conflating globalisation and the ills caused by the
neoliberal capture of social democratic parties/leaders. Did people just happen to lose hope,
or were they actively betrayed? We are left to guess.
"negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent
unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public
services"
Note that these ills could also be laid at the feet of the austerity movement, and the
elimination/privatisation of National Industrial Policy, both cornerstones of the neoliberal
infestation.
Not only is globalization not new, all of the issues that come with it are old news.
All of it.
Part of the problem is that the global economic order is still in service to the same old
same old. They have to rebrand every so often to keep the comfortable even more comfortable.
Those tasked with keeping the comfortable more comfortable have to present this crap as "new
ideas" for their own careerism or actually do not realize they haven't espoused a new idea in
500 years.
Putin's recent interview with Financial Times editor offers a clear-eyed perspective on
our changing global structure:
"What is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump phenomenon, as you said,
in the US? What is happening in Europe as well? The ruling elites have broken away from the
people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the
overwhelming majority of the people.
Of course, we must always bear this in mind. One of the things we must do in Russia is
never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to
create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a
better future.
You know, it seems to me that purely liberal or purely traditional ideas have never
existed. Probably, they did once exist in the history of humankind, but everything very
quickly ends in a deadlock if there is no diversity. Everything starts to become extreme one
way or another.
Various ideas and various opinions should have a chance to exist and manifest themselves,
but at the same time interests of the general public, those millions of people and their
lives, should never be forgotten. This is something that should not be overlooked.
Then, it seems to me, we would be able to avoid major political upheavals and troubles.
This applies to the liberal idea as well. It does not mean (I think, this is ceasing to be a
dominating factor) that it must be immediately destroyed. This point of view, this position
should also be treated with respect.
They cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do
over the recent decades. Diktat can be seen everywhere: both in the media and in real life.
It is deemed unbecoming even to mention some topics. But why?
For this reason, I am not a fan of quickly shutting, tying, closing, disbanding
everything, arresting everybody or dispersing everybody. Of course, not. The liberal idea
cannot be destroyed either; it has the right to exist and it should even be supported in some
things. But you should not think that it has the right to be the absolute dominating factor.
That is the point. Please." ~ Vladmir Putin
He's talking about the end of neoliberalism, the economic fascism that has gripped the
world for over 40 years:
"If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you
cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago
School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE
(finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~
Michael Hudson
Let's get back to using fiscal policy for public purpose again, to granting nations their
right to self-determination and stopping the latest desperate neoliberal attempt to change
international norms by installing fascist dictators (while pretending they are different) in
order to move the world backwards to a time when "efforts to institutionalize standards of
human and civil rights were seen as impingements on sovereignty, back to the days when no one
gave a second thought to oppressed peoples."
Very interesting article, and even more interesting conversation! There is a type of
argument that very accurately points out some ills that need addressing, and then goes on to
spout venom on the only system that might be able to address those ills.
It may be that the
governing classes are making life easy for themselves. How to address that is the hard and
difficult issue. Most of the protection of the small people comes from government.
Healthcare, schools, roads, water etc.(I'm in scandinavia).
If the government crumbles, the
small people have to leave. The most dreadful tyranny is better than a failed state with
warring factions.
The only viable way forward is to somehow improve the system while it is
(still) running. But this discussion I do not see anywhere.
If the discussion does not
happen, there will not be any suggestions for improvement, so everything stays the same.
Change is inevitable – it what state it will catch us is the important thing. A cashier
at a Catalonian family vineyard told me the future is local and global: the next level from
Catalonia will be EU. What are the steps needed to go there?
Same old, Same old. Government is self-corrupting and is loath to change. People had
enough July fourth 1776.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."
FWIW: The fireworks we watch every Fourth of July holiday are symbolic!!!!
The cashier seems to be envisioning a neoliberal paradise where the nation-state no longer
exists. But who, then, collects the taxes that will pay for infrastructure, healthcare,
education, public housing, and unemployment insurance? The European Parliament?
Will Germans
and Finns be willing to pay high taxes in order to pay for those services for Greeks and
Spaniards?
Look at the unemployment rate in Greece the Germans would simply say that the
Greeks are lazy parasites and don't want to work (rather than understand that the economic
conditions don't allow for job creation), and they would vote for MEPs that vote to cut taxes
and welfare programs.
But maybe this was the plan all along you create this neoliberal paradise, and slowly but
surely, people will dismantle all but the bare bones of the welfare state.
I believe that one of the fundamental flaws in the logic behind the EU is this assumption
of mobility. Proponents of the EU imagine society to be how it is described in economics
textbooks: a bunch of individual actors seeking to maximize their incomes that don't seem to
exist in any geographic context. The reality is that people are born into families and
communities that speak a language. Most of them probably don't want to just pack up all of
their things, relocate, and leave their family and home behind every time they get a new job.
People throughout history have always had a very strong connection to the land on which they
were raised and the society into which they were brought up; more accurately, for most of
human history, this formed the entire existence, the entire universe, of most people
(excluding certain oppressed groups, such as slaves or the conquered).
Human beings are not able to move as freely as capital. While euros in Greece can be sent
to and used instantly in Germany, it is not so easy for a Greek person to leave the society
that their ancestors have lived in for thousands of years and move to a new country with a
new culture and language. For privileged people that get to travel, this doesn't sound so
bad, but for someone whose family has lived in the same place for centuries and never learned
to speak another language, this experience would be extremely difficult. For many people over
the age of 25, it might not even be a life worth living.
In the past, economic difficulties would lead to a depreciation of a nation's currency and
inflation. But within the current structure of the Eurozone, it results in deflation as euros
escape to the core countries (mainly Germany) and unemployment. Southern Europeans are
expected to leave everything they have ever known behind and move to the countries where
there is work, like Germany or Holland. Maybe for a well-educated worldly 18 year old, that's
not so bad, but what about a newly laid-off working class 35 year-old with a wife and kids
and no college degree? He's supposed to just pick up his family and leave his parents and
relatives behind, learn German, and spend the rest of his life and Germany? His kids now have
to be German? Would he even be able to get a job there, anyway? Doing what? And how is he
supposed to stop this from happening, how is he supposed to organize politically to keep jobs
at home? The Greek government can hardly do anything because the IMF, ECB, and European
Commission (all unelected officials) call the shots and don't give them any fiscal breathing
room (and we saw what happened the last time voters tried to assert their autonomy in the
bailout deal referendum), and the European Parliament doesn't have a serious budget to
actually do anything.
I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the
Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them.
Over the last two years, a different, in some ways unrecognizable Larry Summers has been appearing in newspaper editorial pages.
More circumspect in tone, this humbler Summers has been arguing that economic opportunities in the developing world are slowing,
and that the already rich economies are finding it hard to get out of the crisis. Barring some kind of breakthrough, Summers says,
an era of slow growth is here to stay.
In Summers's recent writings, this sombre conclusion has often been paired with a surprising political goal: advocating for a
"responsible nationalism". Now he argues that politicians must recognise that "the basic responsibility of government is to maximise
the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good".
One curious thing about the pro-globalisation consensus of the 1990s and 2000s, and its collapse in recent years, is how closely
the cycle resembles a previous era. Pursuing free trade has always produced displacement and inequality – and political chaos, populism
and retrenchment to go with it. Every time the social consequences of free trade are overlooked, political backlash follows. But
free trade is only one of many forms that economic integration can take. History seems to suggest, however, that it might be the
most destabilising one.
... ... ...
The international systems that chastened figures such as Keynes helped produce in the next few years – especially the Bretton
Woods agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) – set the terms under which the new wave of globalisation
would take place.
The key to the system's viability, in Rodrik's view, was its flexibility – something absent from contemporary globalisation,
with its one-size-fits-all model of capitalism. Bretton Woods stabilised exchange rates by pegging the dollar loosely to gold, and
other currencies to the dollar. Gatt consisted of rules governing free trade – negotiated by participating countries in a series
of multinational "rounds" – that left many areas of the world economy, such as agriculture, untouched or unaddressed. "Gatt's purpose
was never to maximise free trade," Rodrik writes. "It was to achieve the maximum amount of trade compatible with different nations
doing their own thing. In that respect, the institution proved spectacularly successful."
Partly because Gatt was not always dogmatic about free trade, it allowed most countries to figure out their own economic objectives,
within a somewhat international ambit. When nations contravened the agreement's terms on specific areas of national interest, they
found that it "contained loopholes wide enough for an elephant to pass", in Rodrik's words. If a nation wanted to protect its steel
industry, for example, it could claim "injury" under the rules of Gatt and raise tariffs to discourage steel imports: "an abomination
from the standpoint of free trade". These were useful for countries that were recovering from the war and needed to build up their
own industries via tariffs – duties imposed on particular imports. Meanwhile, from 1948 to 1990, world trade grew at an annual average
of nearly 7% – faster than the post-communist years, which we think of as the high point of globalisation. "If there was a golden
era of globalisation," Rodrik has written, "this was it."
Gatt, however, failed to cover many of the countries in the developing world. These countries eventually created their own system,
the United Nations conference on trade and development (UNCTAD). Under this rubric, many countries – especially in Latin America,
the Middle East, Africa and Asia – adopted a policy of protecting homegrown industries by replacing imports with domestically produced
goods. It worked poorly in some places – India and Argentina, for example, where the trade barriers were too high, resulting in
factories that cost more to set up than the value of the goods they produced – but remarkably well in others, such as east Asia,
much of Latin America and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where homegrown industries did spring up. Though many later economists and
commentators would dismiss the achievements of this model, it theoretically fit Larry Summers's recent rubric on globalisation:
"the basic responsibility of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global
good."
The critical turning point – away from this system of trade balanced against national protections – came in the 1980s. Flagging
growth and high inflation in the west, along with growing competition from Japan, opened the way for a political transformation.
The elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were seminal, putting free-market radicals in charge of two of the world's
five biggest economies and ushering in an era of "hyperglobalisation". In the new political climate, economies with large public
sectors and strong governments within the global capitalist system were no longer seen as aids to the system's functioning, but
impediments to it.
Not only did these ideologies take hold in the US and the UK; they seized international institutions as well. Gatt renamed itself
as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the new rules the body negotiated began to cut more deeply into national policies. Its
international trade rules sometimes undermined national legislation. The WTO's appellate court intervened relentlessly in member
nations' tax, environmental and regulatory policies, including those of the United States: the US's fuel emissions standards were
judged to discriminate against imported gasoline, and its
ban on imported shrimp caught without turtle-excluding
devices was overturned. If national health and safety regulations were stricter than WTO rules necessitated, they could only
remain in place if they were shown to have "scientific justification".
The purest version of hyperglobalisation was tried out in Latin America in the 1980s. Known as the "Washington consensus", this
model usually involved loans from the IMF that were contingent on those countries lowering trade barriers and privatising many of
their nationally held industries. Well into the 1990s, economists were proclaiming the indisputable benefits of openness. In an
influential 1995 paper, Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner wrote: "We find no cases to support the frequent worry that a country might
open and yet fail to grow."
But the Washington consensus was bad for business: most countries did worse than before. Growth faltered, and citizens across
Latin America revolted against attempted privatisations of water and gas. In Argentina, which followed the Washington consensus
to the letter, a grave crisis resulted in
2002 , precipitating an economic collapse and massive street protests that forced out the government that had pursued privatising
reforms. Argentina's revolt presaged a left-populist upsurge across the continent: from 1999 to 2007, leftwing leaders and parties
took power in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, all of them campaigning against the Washington consensus on globalisation.
These revolts were a preview of the backlash of today.
Rodrik – perhaps the contemporary economist whose views have been most amply vindicated by recent events – was himself a beneficiary
of protectionism in Turkey. His father's ballpoint pen company was sheltered under tariffs, and achieved enough success to allow
Rodrik to attend Harvard in the 1970s as an undergraduate. This personal understanding of the mixed nature of economic success may
be one of the reasons why his work runs against the broad consensus of mainstream economics writing on globalisation.
"I never felt that my ideas were out of the mainstream," Rodrik told me recently. Instead, it was that the mainstream had lost
touch with the diversity of opinions and methods that already existed within economics. "The economics profession is strange in
that the more you move away from the seminar room to the public domain, the more the nuances get lost, especially on issues of trade."
He lamented the fact that while, in the classroom, the models of trade discuss losers and winners, and, as a result, the necessity
of policies of redistribution, in practice, an "arrogance and hubris" had led many economists to ignore these implications. "Rather
than speaking truth to power, so to speak, many economists became cheerleaders for globalisation."
In his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox
, Rodrik concluded that "we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalisation." The
results of the 2016 elections and referendums provide ample testimony of the justness of the thesis, with millions voting to push
back, for better or for worse, against the campaigns and institutions that promised more globalisation. "I'm not at all surprised
by the backlash," Rodrik told me. "Really, nobody should have been surprised."
But what, in any case, would "more globalisation" look like? For the same economists and writers who have started to rethink
their commitments to greater integration, it doesn't mean quite what it did in the early 2000s. It's not only the discourse that's
changed: globalisation itself has changed, developing into a more chaotic and unequal system than many economists predicted. The
benefits of globalisation have been largely concentrated in a handful of Asian countries. And even in those countries, the good
times may be running out.
Statistics from Global Inequality
, a 2016 book by the development economist Branko Milanović, indicate that in relative terms the greatest benefits of globalisation
have accrued to a rising "emerging middle class", based preponderantly in China. But the cons are there, too: in absolute terms,
the largest gains have gone to what is commonly called "the 1%" – half of whom are based in the US. Economist Richard Baldwin has
shown in his recent book, The Great Convergence, that nearly all of the gains from globalisation have been concentrated in six countries.
Barring some political catastrophe, in which rightwing populism continued to gain, and in which globalisation would be the least
of our problems – Wolf admitted that he was "not at all sure" that this could be ruled out – globalisation was always going to slow;
in fact, it already has. One reason, says Wolf, was that "a very, very large proportion of the gains from globalisation – by no
means all – have been exploited. We have a more open world economy to trade than we've ever had before." Citing The Great Convergence,
Wolf noted that supply chains have already expanded, and that future developments, such as automation and the use of robots, looked
to undermine the promise of a growing industrial workforce. Today, the political priorities were less about trade and more about
the challenge of retraining workers , as technology renders old jobs obsolete and transforms the world of work.
Rodrik, too, believes that globalisation, whether reduced or increased, is unlikely to produce the kind of economic effects it
once did. For him, this slowdown has something to do with what he calls "premature deindustrialisation". In the past, the simplest
model of globalisation suggested that rich countries would gradually become "service economies", while emerging economies picked
up the industrial burden. Yet recent statistics show the world as a whole is deindustrialising. Countries that one would have expected
to have more industrial potential are going through the stages of automation more quickly than previously developed countries did,
and thereby failing to develop the broad industrial workforce seen as a key to shared prosperity.
For both Rodrik and Wolf, the political reaction to globalisation bore possibilities of deep uncertainty. "I really have found
it very difficult to decide whether what we're living through is a blip, or a fundamental and profound transformation of the world
– at least as significant as the one that brought about the first world war and the Russian revolution," Wolf told me. He cited
his agreement with economists such as Summers that shifting away from the earlier emphasis on globalisation had now become a political
priority; that to pursue still greater liberalisation was like showing "a red rag to a bull" in terms of what it might do to the
already compromised political stability of the western world.
Rodrik pointed to a belated emphasis, both among political figures and economists, on the necessity of compensating those displaced
by globalisation with retraining and more robust welfare states. But pro-free-traders had a history of cutting compensation: Bill
Clinton passed Nafta, but failed to expand safety nets. "The issue is that the people are rightly not trusting the centrists who
are now promising compensation," Rodrik said. "One reason that Hillary Clinton didn't get any traction with those people is that
she didn't have any credibility."
Rodrik felt that economics commentary failed to register the gravity of the situation: that there were increasingly few avenues
for global growth, and that much of the damage done by globalisation – economic and political – is irreversible. "There is a sense
that we're at a turning point," he said. "There's a lot more thinking about what can be done. There's a renewed emphasis on compensation
– which, you know, I think has come rather late."
As Noam Chomsky
says, the term globalisation has been appropriated by a narrow sector of power and privilege to
refer to their version of international integration and it makes sense for them to own the term
because anyone who is opposed to their version becomes anti-globalisation -- someone who is
primitive and wants to go back to the stone age and that everyone likes international integration
but not the investor rights version of it.
In reality globalization was a politically correct term for neocolonialism
Notable quotes:
"... In finance, the change was marked by a fundamental shift in governments' attitudes away from managing capital flows and toward liberalization ..."
Globalization is in trouble. A populist backlash, personified by U.S. President Donald
Trump, is in full swing. A simmering trade war
between China and the United States could easily boil over. Countries across Europe are
shutting their borders to immigrants. Even globalization's biggest boosters now concede that it
has produced lopsided benefits and that something
will have to change .
Today's woes have their roots in the 1990s, when policymakers set the world on its current,
hyperglobalist path, requiring domestic economies to be put in the service of the world economy
instead of the other way around. In trade, the transformation was signaled by the creation of
the World Trade Organization, in 1995. The WTO not only made it harder for countries to shield
themselves from international competition but also reached into policy areas that international
trade rules had not previously touched: agriculture, services, intellectual property,
industrial policy, and health and sanitary regulations. Even more ambitious regional trade
deals, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, took off around the same time.
In finance, the change was marked by a fundamental shift in governments' attitudes away from
managing capital flows and toward liberalization. Pushed by the United States and global
organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, countries freed up vast quantities of short-term finance to slosh
across borders in search of higher returns.
At the time, these changes seemed to be based on sound economics. Openness to trade would
lead economies to allocate their resources to where they would be the most productive. Capital
would flow from the countries where it was plentiful to the countries where it was needed. More
trade and freer finance would unleash private investment and fuel global economic growth.
But
these new arrangements came with risks that the hyperglobalists did not foresee, although
economic theory could have predicted the downside to globalization just as well as it did the
upside.
"... The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance. They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following Margaret Thatcher's lead. ..."
"... Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. ..."
"... But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations, councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and apathetic insouciance. ..."
"... With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes! ..."
This is a very good article on UK politics, but I would have put more emphasis on the
background. Where we are today has everything to do with how we got here.
The UK has this basic left/right split (Labour/Conservative) reaching far back into its
class based history. Sad to say, but within 5 seconds a British person can determine the
class of the person they are dealing with (working/ middle/ upper) and act accordingly
– referencing their own social background.
Margaret Thatcher was a lower middle class grocer's daughter who gained a rare place at
Oxford University (on her own high intellectual merits), and took on the industrial wreckers
of the radical left (Arthur Scargill etc.). She consolidated her power with the failure of
the 1984-85 Miner's Strike. She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless
and open to the talents, adopting free market Neoliberalism along with Ronald Reagan. A large
section of the aspirational working class went for this (many already had middle class
salaries) and wanted that at least their children could join the middle class through the
university system.
The key point, is that this happened in the 1980's – 90's. Vast profit possibilities
were opening up through digitalization, corporate outsourcing, globalization and the
internet. The globalists urgently wanted that money, and had to have political compliance.
They found it in Neoliberalism and hijacked both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party,
creating "New Labour" (leader Tony Blair) through classless "modernization" following
Margaret Thatcher's lead.
The story now, is that the UK public realize that the Globalist/Zionist/SJW/Open
Frontiers/ Neoliberal crowd are not their friends . So they (the public) are backtracking
fast to find solid ground. In practice this means 1) Leave the Neoliberal/Globalist EU (which
has also been hijacked) using Brexit 2) Recover the traditional Socialist Labour Party of
working people through Jeremy Corbyn 3) Recover the traditional Conservative Party ( Britain
First) through Nigel Farage and his Brexit movement.
Hence the current and growing gulf that is separating the British public from its
Zio-Globalist elite + their media propagandists (BBC, Guardian etc.).
She introduced a new kind of Conservatism that was more classless …
Or just plain anti-working class.
It was actually Thatcher who started the neo-liberal revolution in Britain. To the extent
that she refused to finish it, the elites had Tony Blair in the wings waiting to go.
Great blast by Jonathan Cook – I feel as if he has read my thoughts about the
political system keeping the proles in an Orwellian state of serfdom for plunder and abuse
under the guise of “democracy” and “freedom”. Under this system if
anyone steps out of line is indeed sidelined for the “anti-semitic” treatment,
demonized, vilified and, virtually hanged and quartered on the public square of the
mendacious media.
In the good old days, when there was a militant working class and revolting (!) unionism,
we would get together at meetings, organize protests and strikes and confront bosses and
officialdom. There was camaraderie, solidarity, loyalty and confident defiance that we were
fighting for a better world for ourselves and our children – and also for people less
fortunate than us in other countries.
But the ideas of the Chicago School in cohorts with the Frankfurters and Tavistockers were
already undermining our hopeful vision of the world while the think tanks at the foundations,
councils and institutes were flooding the academies with the doctrines of hardhead
uncompromising Capitalism to suck the blood off the proles into anaemic immiseration and
apathetic insouciance.
... ... ... .
With the working class defeated and gone, where is the spirit of resistance to spring
from? Not from the selfishness of the new generation of smartphone addicts whose world has
shrunk to the atomic MEism and who refuse to open their eyes to what is staring in their
face: debt slavery, for life. Maybe the French can do it again. Allez Gilets Jaunes!
@Miro23
ic get pissed off and vote in the conservatives who then privatise everything. And this game
continues on and on. The British public are literally headless chickens running around not
knowing what on earth is going on. They’re not interested in getting to the bottom of
why society is the way it is. They’re all too comfortable with their mortgages, cars,
holidays twice a year, mobile phones, TV shows and football.
When all of this disappears,
then certainly, they will start asking questions, but when that time comes they will be
utterly powerless to do anything, as a minority in their own land. Greater Israel will be
built when that time comes.
No one at the time had much idea about Neoliberalism and none at all about Globalization.
This was all in the future.
And it was the British working class who were really cutting their own throats, by
wrecking British industry (their future employment), with constant political radicalism and
strikes.
Globalization is simply a neoliberal economic substitute for colonialism.
Neoliberals contrary to popular opinion do not believe in self-regulating markets as
autonomous entities. They do not see democracy as necessary for capitalism.
The neoliberal globalist world is not a borderless market without nations but a doubled
world (economic -global and social- national) . The global economic world is kept safe from
democratic national demands for social justice and equality, and in return each nation enjoys
cultural freedom.
Neoliberals see democracy as a real problem. Democracy means the unwashed masses can
threaten the so called market economy (in fact manipulated and protected markets) with worker
demands for living wages and equality and consumer demands for competitive pricing and safe
products. Controlling both parties with money prevents that.
In fact, neoliberal thinking is comparable to that of John Maynard Keynes in one respect :
"the market does not and cannot take care of itself".
The neoliberal project did not liberate markets so much as protect them by protecting
capitalism against the threat of democracy and to reorder the world where borders provide a
captive market
Neoliberals insulate the markets by providing safe harbor for capital, free from fear of
infringement by policies of progressive taxation or redistribution. They do this by
redesigning government, laws, and other institutions to protect the market.
For example the stock market is propped up by the Feds purchases of futures, replacing the
plunge protection teams intervention at an even more extreme level. Manipulation of economic
statistics by the BLS also serve a similar purpose.
Another example is getting government to accept monopoly capitalism over competitive
capitalism and have appointed judges who believe illegal collusion is nothing more than
understandable and legal "conscious parallelism"
Now it seems to me the Koch-Soros think tank is an attempt to unify the neoliberal
globalist forces which represent factions from international greenies to nationalist
protectionists . In other words to repackage and rename neoliberal globalism while keeping
its essence. Be interesting to see what they come up with.
As for China opening to private international finance. They already did that but this
takes it to a new level. Like I said. Fake wrestling. This was one of the demands in the
trade negotiations by Trump. Why take one of your chips off the table if the game is for
real?
China was Made in USA (includes the City of London) like the EU and Putins neoliberal
Russia.
One day they will get around telling us they are all buddies, or maybe not. I suspect they
have a lot of laughs playing us like they do.
I could be wrong but this is more interesting than the official and semi official
narratives.
"... if the US ever held unipolar control in reality it was briefly during the period after the downfall of the USSR and up until the conquest of Iraq. ..."
"... An economic system, of which the financial system is a part of, is one of the fundamental structures of any society. Societies in today's world are defined at the sovereign state level, and the economic systems are defined by the governments of these states ..."
"... 'Globalism' as discussed in these blogs, in opposition to 'multi-polarity' is not about global commerce, but rather about an effort by a certain group of wealthy elites, primarily centered in London and New York, and commonly referred to as 'Globalists' to transfer the authority for the definition and control of economic systems from sovereign states to a set of international institutions under their control. ..."
"... In doing so they strip the sovereignty from sovereign states, as as already happened with the EU, and create a global dictatorship, under the control of the 'Globalists' and completely isolated from any democratic oversight. A fascist project in the purest sense of fascism. ..."
"... The 'Multi-polar' group of nations are those nations who oppose this fascist project and who are working to maintain and restore the sovereignty of nations. ..."
Stating "globalism" is antithetical to "multipolarity" is a non-sequitor.
Globalism is the financial structure (or "system" if you will) through which capitalist
enterprises function. This is complex of course and includes capital markets, corporations,
multinational corporations, currency markets, commodities markets, trading agreements.
Politicians intervene in the functioning of globalism so there is seldom if ever anything
like a globalism free of political influence.
OTOH, "multipolarity" has no structure that I can see. It is an empty vessel, purely a
political, statist-inspired idea (whereas globalism is a "thing" which contains
political and economic ideas of course but those ideas may or may not be statist in concept
depending on the context) which can mean anything to anyone at any point in time.
I guess I would say the term is purely Orwellian. Thus, without reading anything other
than James's comment I would guess the author's idea is either nonsensical or propagandistic
in nature.
For me, the world became "multipolar" the minute the US invaded Iraq in 2003. The idea
that the US wishes to maintain its "unipolar" leadership of the world may be true in the
wishful sense of some neocons, however if the US ever held unipolar control in reality it
was briefly during the period after the downfall of the USSR and up until the conquest of
Iraq.
Today, I view the world as both multipolar and globalist. While many of the political and
economic tensions we see result from the disconnects between national political and global
economic conditions, I think we must admit if we are honest that many of the more recent
tensions are simply the result of Trump's presidency, which has the intended affect of being
"a bull in the china shop" of the globalist system.
This is not necessarily a bad thing in theory. Sadly, however, Trump is a geopolitical and
foreign policy moron who doesn't know what he is doing beyond enriching himself and creating
daily fake news headlines in hopes of being re-elected on behalf of the same global elites he
playacts at combatting for his worshipful audience of true believers.
'Globalism is the financial structure (or "system" if you will) through which capitalist
enterprises function.'
What B.S.!!
An economic system, of which the financial system is a part of, is one of the
fundamental structures of any society. Societies in today's world are defined at the
sovereign state level, and the economic systems are defined by the governments of these
states , which are supposed to function on behalf of the population of each state, and
in democratic states, are also supposed to be under the control of the overall population
through their democratic institutions. International institutions are there to coordinate
commerce between the different economic systems of sovereign states.
'Globalism' as discussed in these blogs, in opposition to 'multi-polarity' is not
about global commerce, but rather about an effort by a certain group of wealthy elites,
primarily centered in London and New York, and commonly referred to as 'Globalists' to
transfer the authority for the definition and control of economic systems from sovereign
states to a set of international institutions under their control.
In doing so they strip the sovereignty from sovereign states, as as already happened
with the EU, and create a global dictatorship, under the control of the 'Globalists' and
completely isolated from any democratic oversight. A fascist project in the purest sense of
fascism.
The 'Multi-polar' group of nations are those nations who oppose this fascist project
and who are working to maintain and restore the sovereignty of nations.
@ donkeytale 15
I think the world has always been multipolar, the differences that give the definition
coming to (being presented to) the forefront, or being dissimilated, according to choice and
circumstance. The globalist direction aims to interweave or merge these differences (cultural
and historic, religion, philosophy and so on), or at least bring them under a common control.
So the idea that multipolarity represents anything more than increased recognition of various
regional power as opposed to recognition of one regional power (say western) as more visible,
is not much more than an indication of how global policy will be conducted, i.e. with an
emphasis on regional responsibility.
Recent US policy is not aimed at destroying the globalist order, it is a result of the
failure of one format of the globalist order, where the global financial order no longer
fitted into national or regional economic sense. This was the gfc, and there is simply no way
to continue the flow of trade and finance as it existed for the previous decades. The easing
of rates across the globe is paliative, it is no solution, you only have to look at national
debt levels to understand this, or in Eurozone try target2 differences. The world is now
partly funded by negative yielding debt. All of this works contrary to capitalist (in its
basic honest philosophy) understanding. In short "something" is going to happen to readjust
this circumstance, planned or otherwise. I have watched how in EU the single currency has
been used to takeover the traditional national hierarchies (banking, political and to a
degree social), but we don't have that sort of framework accepted at global level, only
various currency pegs, bilateral arrangements and so on. The IMF and sdr is not much liked.
What I have noted is virtual central bank currency is being promoted in several ways, be it
the bis just announcing it may become a necessity face to cryptocurrency or similar (with a
caveat of harmonising monetary policy) , EU organising a parallel payment system that avoids
commercial banks, even Instex is along these lines. Where the US and some others truly stand
with regard to this is a different question, as for now it (et al) still enjoy a financial
hegemony that is both organised and profitable. Interesting times, I just hope that a major
event is not the catalyst for reform, that the various parties can agree to withdraw to more
localised structure and agreement if any grand plans meet the resistance or failure that is
already partly visible. I doubt that will be allowed though, by the time people really want
to take part, there won't be much option left and circumstance will already be already
confused and conflictive.
@31 donkeytale.. well, if the usa didn't commit as much paper money as it does to the
military complex it runs, i suppose the financial complex where the us$ can be printed ad
nauseam might come into question.. the sooner oil isn't pegged to the us$ and etc. etc.
happens, the better off the world will be... and, i don't blame the usa people for this..
they are just being used as i see it - much the same here in canada with our politicians
thinking the prudent thing to do is to support the status quo.. the problem is the status quo
can only go on for so long, before a change inevitably happens...
as for swift - they went along with usa sanctions back in 2011 on iran, but then it was
brought to court in europe and overturned... but again - they are back in the same place
bowing down to usa exceptionalism... call it what you want.. another system needs to get made
if this one that exists is beholden to a special interest group - usa-uk-europe, where others
are 2nd rate citizens of the world... same deal imf... these world financial institutions
need to be changed to reflect the changes that are taking place... the voting rights of the
developed countries are skewed to favour the ones who have been raping and pillaging africa,
and etc. etc.. you may not think it matters, but i personally do.. and i don't blame the usa
for it..but they are being used as a conduit to further an agenda which is very unbalanced
and unfriendly to the world as i see it..
I am afraid that I cannot agree with much of what you said.
Dictatorship, as a governance system, has always failed, and will always fail. The
'Globalists' who grabbed power, and imposed an effective oligarchic dictatorship, in the U.S.
in 1980 and the EU since 1990, have clearly demonstrated this fact through the destruction of
the economies of the U.S. and much of Europe and the impoverishment of their populations. And
since 2001, they have used the U.S. and British military and intelligence services and NATO
as their personal bludgeon in order to force the submission of any state that did not
voluntarily submit to their project of a 'Global' dictatorship.
Resistance to this 'Globalist' project is at the root of almost all conflicts in the world
today. The 'Multi-Polar' nations resisting the 'Globalists', in Ukraine, Syria, North Korea,
Venezuela, etc. is one front in this resistance. The other front is the resistance of
'Nationalists' (such as Trump, the Brexiteers, the Yellow Vests, and populists across Europe)
to the 'Globalists.
The Trump Presidency is not the cause of tensions in the world today, as you suggest, but
rather the symptom. Trump understands that without an industrial base, the U.S. is condemned
to becoming the 'India' of the Americas'. The central theme of his actions is to restore the
U.S. industrial base and U.S. sovereignty, which have largely been destroyed by the
'Globalists' and their 'Deep State' machine over the past 40 years. The 'Globalists' need
only the U.S. military and intelligence services, and care nothing for its population and
less for its sovereignty, and thus are fighting Trump every step of the way.
Trump may be coarse and a buffoon, and he may be completely wrong in carrying Israel's
water with respect to Iran, but he is just about the only American politician that I see that
is working on behalf of the U.S. population rather than on behalf of the 'Globalists'.
Reversing the 'Globalization' that has savaged the U.S. and Europe over the past several
decades will not come easily, nor without pain and tensions, and winners and losers. However
failure to do so guarantees the likely rapid and long term decline and impoverishment of all
populations under 'Globalist' control.
dh-mtl @29 explained it well, I thought, but some still don't seem to get it.
It is the difference between the UN, which has a law-based charter which upholds the national
sovereignty of each nation and forbids aggression against any sovereign country, and
the WTO, which is a rules-based agreement which forbids any national government to pass laws
which interfere in the profits of corporations.
Globalism is the project in which capital has complete freedom to do as it will, while humans
and national governments are forbidden such freedom.
Putin and Lavrov frequently point to the difference between international law, which they
support, and the "rules-based order" which the US and its partners-in-crime support, in which
the rules are used to destroy sovereign countries and enrich the multi-national corporations
which strip the planet at will, and go to the cheapest labor countries, with no environmental
laws, for their global production lines.
A multi-polar world is one with many sovereign countries, ruled by international law,
respected by all, with peaceful relations between all countries.
Globalism is when corporations rule the world, and we continue on the path of destruction of
all the natural wealth of the world in the turning of nature into commodities and then
trash.
@ wagelaborer who wrote
"
Globalism is the project in which capital has complete freedom to do as it will, while humans
and national governments are forbidden such freedom.
"
Perfectly stated!
I appreciate you, dh-mtl, bevin and others responding to donkeytale. I have not read the
comment because donkeytale is on bypass for me but it is nice to read other commenters taking
on donkeytale BS for others to see....thanks
Sorry if I need to pick your resopnse to donkeytale apart but there are a lot of
inconsistencies in your argument.
The 'Globalists' who grabbed power, and imposed an effective oligarchic dictatorship, in
the U.S. in 1980 and the EU since 1990, have clearly demonstrated this fact through the
destruction of the economies of the U.S. and much of Europe and the impoverishment of their
populations.
You seem to imply that the 'globalists' (illuminati, Zionist bankers etc., etc.) did not
exist or had power before the 1980s, which could not be further from the truth. There are
several reasons why neo-liberalism took hold in the 1980s, creating the economic narrative
and agenda of today, none of which, are related to some kind of power grab by people that did
not hold any power beforehand. The threat of the cold war was waning in the 1980s and elites
felt less pressured by local populations potentially becoming 'too' sympathetic to communism
anymore. So they began rolling back social policies implemented in the post-war years to
counter communism's appeal. Computer technology going mainstream, creating all sorts of
economic spillovers to be harnessed by increased open and international trade was another
reason, there were many more. But the people you call 'globalists' controlled matters much,
much earlier than the 1980s.
The other front is the resistance of 'Nationalists' (such as Trump, the Brexiteers, the
Yellow Vests, and populists across Europe) to the 'Globalists.
If there truly were such politicians as 'nationalists' who somehow only hold the best
interest of their native people at heart, then why is that most European populists cosy up to
Israel? None of them have tried to reclaim control over their Central Banks and in the case
of i.e. Italy, do they try to break free from the Euro? Why are Polish nationalists rabidly
supporting the build up of US arms on their territory? I think it is about time to see beyond
this silly dichotomy of 'Globalist' vs 'Nationalist', at least while these Nationalists do
nothing substantial to actually help their lot and further squeeze the lower classes of their
countries in good neo-liberal fashion, same as their Globalist political 'opponents' they
claim to oppose.
Trump may be coarse and a buffoon, and he may be completely wrong in carrying Israel's
water with respect to Iran, but he is just about the only American politician that I see
that is working on behalf of the U.S. population rather than on behalf of the 'Globalists'.
So you admit that Trump is essentially a controlled zionist buffoon but at the same time
he is working towards restoring US sovereignty on behalf of the people? You mean he worked
for the US people when he lowered taxes for the rich even further, creating an ever larger US
public debt, and throwing Americans further into debt servitude of private finance? Or do you
mean his still open promise to invest large sums in the US crumbling infrastructure? Oh
right, he has instead opted to increase defence spending to combat the US many imaginary
enemies around the globe.
Look, I agree with you that global neo-liberalism is bad for the vast majority of people
on this planet but don't go looking for help from false prophets, such as Trump or other
'nationalists', you will only find yourself completely disappointed before long.
donkeytale , Jun 30, 2019 6:48:21 PM |
58dh-mtl , Jun 30, 2019 6:50:23 PM |
59
@50 Alexander P
Response to a few of your criticisms.
1. You say 'You seem to imply that the 'globalists' (illuminati, Zionist bankers etc.,
etc.) did not exist or had power before the 1980s'.
Not at all. They lost power from the mid-1930s to 1980. They regained power with Reagan,
followed by Clinton, W, and Obama. You only need to look at any graph that shows when income
inequality in the U.S. began to ramp up. The date is clear - 1980.
2. You say. 'If there truly were such politicians as 'nationalists' who somehow only hold
the best interest of their native people at heart'.
I didn't say that these 'Nationalists' or 'Populists' hold the best interests of their
native peoples at heart. Usually they are only interested in what they see as best for
themselves. But there is no doubt that they are resisting the 'Globalists' push to strip
their countries of their sovereignty, to transfer their wealth to the 'Globalist' elites, to
transfer their industries to wherever labor is the cheapest. I said that this was a 'second
front' against the 'Globalists'. And there is no doubt, from the fight that the 'Globalists'
are waging against Trump, 'Brexit' and populists and nationalists across Europe, that the
'Globalists' take this 'front' seriously.
3. You say. 'don't go looking for help from false prophets, such as Trump'.
You are right. It is unlikely that Trump will be able to 'Make America Great Again'. At
best he may be able to break the 'Globalists' hold on power in the U.S. However, this is a
necessary first step if the U.S. is ever to recover wealth and power that it had during the
middle of the last century, but which today is rapidly evaporating.
I agree with Alexander P that nationalist and populist presentation is often either
controlled opposition or a method of splintering and isolating influence. That is not to say
there are a lot of public in many countries who are sincere in their sentiment.
Sorry no link, recent :
"As he arrived at the Kempinski hotel lobby last December, journalists scuffled with
bodyguards as they tried to get their microphones and cameras close. Despite being jostled,
Zanganeh remained calm and waited to deliver a simple message: Iran can’t participate
in OPEC’s production cuts as long as it remains under U.S. sanctions and won’t
allow other members to steal its rightful market share."
I.E. approval for continued reduced opec oil supply to support prices depends on Iran (?),
lower prices otherwise affecting all other producers, and/or Iran is making the case that
sanctions are a theft of market share by other producers. The latter has been a part of the
cause of hostility in the gulf.
In Germany
"The 2018 report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Germany
(Bundesmat fur Verfassungsschutz, BfV), which was released on June 27, 2019 by the Federal
Minister of the Interior, Horst Seehofer and Thomas Haldenwang, head of the organization,
examines the activities of the intelligence services of the Iranian regime in Germany....
The BfV annual report states: "The central task of the Iranian intelligence services is to
spy against opposition movements and confront these movements. In this regard, evidences of
state-sponsored terrorism in Europe, which originates in Iran, have intensified during 2018."
" etc
is being used by ncr (the article source) to the effect of calling for closure of the
Iranian embassy. That aside, the report does show Germany is moving towards, or is willing
to, apply pressure on Iran now. France has also given indication that it is not fully behind
Iran (reprimand and warning on not respecting jcpoa etc.)
You are correct to say inequality began rising again in 1980; however, the rise must be
attributed to Carter and Volker--Reagan just continued the process. It seemed odd the GHW
Bush initially opposed it as "Voodoo Economics" but readily championed it all as VEEP, making
it just a political posture in the nomination race.
Thanks for the excellent response. One thing I failed to take into account is the
difference between the EU and the US financial systems so thanks for that corrective
explanation.
The Euro represents the biggest failure of the EU from where I sit. Centralised control of
the currency and banking systems is a grave error in that construct and the "European
Parliament" just seems too silly for me to even contemplate, although I'm sure there is some
logical explanation for its existence that I'm missing.
And you bet, I'm also sure the day of reckoning for the global debt overload is fast
approaching. What I don't understand is how one form of capitalism (neoliberal) versus
another (state managed) makes any difference in how this debt overload developed. China, for
instance, has used similar stimulus methods more frequently even than the US since 2008 to
keep its economic growth chugging along and certainly way more than the EU, which under
stimulated its own economy in response to the recession.
IMHO, Brexit is a forced over the top politicised reaction to this conservative German-led
response in light of the fact the UK kept its own currency and banking systems separate and
had the means to provide stimulus but didn't under the Tory buffoons in charge.
Grexit made much more sense to me than Brexit for many reasons. I was dismayed when the
Greek people failed in their courage after voting in Syriza follow through and tell the
Germans to take the Euro and their debt and put it where the sun don't shine.
What I believe people are tending to forget or overlook, such as wagelabourer @ 48 and
dh-mtl elsewhere, that while these postwar international re-orderings such as NATO, the UN
and the EU are nowhere near perfect, they are also not purely NWO conspiratorial constructs.
Rather they were created for a very specific purpose stemming from a lesson of history which
seems to have been rather easily tossed aside because of the relative success of these same
institutions: that is, clashing nationalisms inevitably lead to major conflict and
devastating wars, especially among the major imperialist states.
" -- seems to me a very complicated explanation for: If a country doesn't produce what it
consumes Such a country is entirely F ed!"
This is totally NOT what I said, so I'll restate my point differently.
IF people (localists, sovereignists etc.) really wanted less globalisation, without global
supply chains, etc., then it would be possible, at a price (in terms of productivity).
BUT in reality localists, sovereignists etc. don't really want de-globalisation for the sake
of it, they mostly want to increase exports and decrease imports, and in fact these localists
desires are stronger in countries (USA, UK) that are big net importers, and therefore think
they are losing in the globalisation race.
The reason localists want to increase exports and decrease imports is that it is a form of
mercantilism: if exports increase and imports decrease, there are more jobs and
contemporaneously there are also more profits for businesses, so it's natural that countries
want to import less and export more.
BUT exports are a zero sum game, so while this or that country can have some advantages by
being a net exporter, this automatically means that some other country becomes a net importer,
so onne can't solve the problem of unemployment by having everyone being net exporters (as
Krugman once joked by having everyone export to Mars).
So the big plan of localists cannot work in aggregate, if it works for one country it
creates a problem for another country. This is a really big problem that will cause increasing
international tensions.
We are seeing this dinamic, IMHO, in the Brexit negotiations, where in my opinion many
brexiters had mercantilist hopes, but of course the EU will not accept an accord that makes it
easy for the UK to play mercantilist.
I'll add that I think that Brexiters don't really realise that they are mercantilists,
but if you look at the demands and hopes of many Brexiters this is their "revealed
preference".
This is also a problem because apparently many people (not only the Brexiters, see also
EU's policies towards Greece) don't really realise what's the endgame for the policies they are
rooting for, it seems more like a socially unconscious tendency, so it is difficult to have a
rational argument with someone that doesn't really understand what he wants and what he is in
practice trying to do.
The reason that every country is trying to play mercantilist is that in most countries
inequality rose in the last decades, which creates a tendency towards underconsumption, that
must be countered through one of these 3 channels: (1) Government deficits; (2) Easy money
finance and increased levels of financial leverage; (3) net exports.
The first two channels lead to higher debt levels, the third apparently doesn't but, as
on the other side of net exports there has to be a net importer, in reality it still relies on
an increase in debt levels, only it is an increase in debt levels by someone else (sometimes
known as the net exporter -- "vendor-financing" the net importer)
The increase in leverage goes hand in hand with an increase of the value of capital assets
VS GDP, that is an increase of the wealth to income ratio.
So ultimately the increased level of inequality inside countries (as opposed to economic
inequality between countries, that is falling) leads to a world where both debt levels and
asset prices grow more than proportionally to GDP, hence speculative behaviour, and an economy
that is addicted to the increase of debt levels, either at home or abroad (in the case of net
exporting countries).
The countries that seriously want to become net exporters have to depress internal
consumption, which makes the problem worse at a world level. The countries like the USA, where
internal consumption is too much a big share of the pie relative to what the USA could gain by
exports, are forced to the internal debt route, and so are more likely to become net
importers.
However, in this situation where everyone acts mercantilist, by necessity someone will end
up a net importer because import/export is a zero sum game, so it doesn't really make sense to
blame this or that attitude of, for example, Americans for they being net importers: they are
forced into it because otherwise they would be in perma-depression.
“But it is unquestionably and unarguably true that American conflict (which may or may
not be of a military nature) with a rising China is literally inevitable”
As long as the US Casino -(”the stock market”) will react unfavourable to a
(real) American-Chinese conflict – there will be no (real) American-Chinese conflict
–
(just the games which are going on currently) – and just never forget – all of my
Chinese friends are really ”tough gamblers”.
“As long as the US Casino -(”the stock market”) will react unfavourable
to a (real) American-Chinese conflict – there will be no (real) American-Chinese
conflict “
Crash, then conflict?
One possibility is a US market crash entirely due to domestic shenanigans, followed by
demagogue blaming it all on “Chiner.”
The first explicit reaction against globalization to gain
popular attention was the Battle of Seattle in 1999
Why not the Zapatista uprising in 1994? It was explicitly against Nafta and neoliberalism.
The 1997 Asian financial crisis also triggered a very strong reaction against the US centered
globalized financial system, its hedge funds, and the IMF.
the neoliberal ideology on which it rested, didn't face any serious challenge until the
Global Financial Crisis of 2008
In 2003, the unified challenge of the poorer countries was so serious that it the collapsed
the WTO talks to the point that it has never recovered. 2008 was simply catastrophic.
More than globalization being challenged, I think it is US hegemony. Trump is definitely
uniting its challengers with his media circus in Venezuela, disruptive tariff threats against
Mexico, and the blacklisting of Huawei.
Likbez 06.09.19 at 11:38 pm (no link)
Trump election in 2016 was in essence a rejection of neoliberal globalization by the
American electorate which showed the USA neoliberal establishment the middle finger. That's
probably why Russiagate hysteria was launched to create a smoke screen and patch the
cracks.
The same is probably true about Brexit. That's also explains Great Britain prominent role
in pushing anti-Russia hysteria.
I think the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 (along with the collapse of financial
markets) mortally wounded "classic" neoliberal globalization. That's why we see the
conversion of classic neoliberalism into Trump's "national neoliberalism" which rejects
"classic" neoliberal globalization based on multinational treaties like WTO.
As the result of crisis of neoliberal ideology we see re-emergence of far-right on the
political scene. We might also see the emergence of hostile to each other trading blocks
(China Russia Turkey Iran; possibly plus Brazil and India ) vs G7. History repeats
I suspect that the USA neoliberal elite (financial oligarchy and MIC) views the current
trade war with China as the key chance to revitalize Cold War schemes and strategically
organize US economic, foreign and security policies around them. It looks like this strategic
arrangement is very similar to the suppression of the USSR economic development during the
Cold War.
The tragedy is that Trump administration is launching the conflict with China, while
simultaneously antagonizing Russia, attacking EU and undermining elements of the postwar
world order which propelled the USA to its current hegemonic position.
"... The Wall Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain. In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used." ..."
There is a story about an enthusiastic American who took a phlegmatic English friend to see the Niagara Falls.
"Isn't that amazing?" exclaimed the American. "Look at that vast mass of water dashing over that enormous cliff!"
"But what,"
asked the Englishman, "is to stop it?"
My father,
Claud Cockburn, used to tell this fable to illustrate what, as a reporter in New York on the first day of the Wall Street
Crash on 24 October 1929, it was like to watch a great and unstoppable disaster taking place.
I thought
about my father's account of the mood on that day in New York as
Theresa
May
announced her departure as prime minister, the latest milestone – but an important one – in the implosion of British
politics in the age of
Brexit
.
Everybody with their feet on the ground has a sense of unavoidable disaster up ahead but no idea of how to avert it; least
of all May's likely successors with their buckets of snake oil about defying the EU and uniting the nation.
It is a mistake to put all the blame on the politicians. I have spent the last six months travelling around Britain,
visiting places from Dover to Belfast, where it is clear that parliament is only reflecting real fault lines in British
society. Brexit may have envenomed and widened these divisions, but it did not create them and it is tens of millions of
people who differ radically in their opinions, not just an incompetent and malign elite.
Even so, May
was precisely the wrong political personality to try to cope with the Brexit crisis: not stupid herself, she has a
single-minded determination amounting to tunnel vision that is akin to stupidity. Her lauding of consensus in her
valedictory speech announcing her resignation was a bit rich after three years of rejecting compromise until faced with
imminent defeat.
Charging
ahead regardless only works for those who are stronger than all obstacles, which was certainly not the case in Westminster
and Brussels. Only those holding all the trump cards can ignore the other players at the table. This should have been
blindingly clear from the day May moved into Downing Street after a referendum that showed British voters to be split down
the middle, something made even more obvious when she lost her parliamentary majority in 2017. But, for all her tributes to
the virtues of compromise today, she relied on the votes of MPs from the sectarian Protestant DUP in Northern Ireland, a
place which had strongly voted to remain in the EU.
Her
miscalculations in negotiating with the EU were equally gross. The belief that Britain could cherry pick what it wanted from
its relationship with Europe was always wishful thinking unless the other 27 EU states were disunited. It is always in the
interests of the members of a club to make sure that those who leave have a worse time outside than in.
The balance
of power was against Britain and this is not going to change, though
Boris
Johnson
and Dominic Raab might pretend that what has been lacking is sufficient willpower or belief in Brexit as a sort
of religious faith. These are dangerous delusions, enabling Nigel Farage to sell the idea of "betrayal" and being "stabbed
in the back" just like German right-wing politicians after 1918.
Accusations
of treachery might be an easy sell in Britain because it is so steeped in myths of self-sufficiency, fostered by
self-congratulatory films and books about British prowess in the Second World War. More recent British military failures in
Iraq and Afghanistan either never made it on to the national news agenda or are treated as irrelevant bits of ancient
history. The devastating Chilcot report on Britain in the Iraq War received insufficient notice because its publication
coincided with the referendum in 2016.
Brexiters
who claim to be leading Britain on to a global stage are extraordinarily parochial in their views of the outside world. The
only realistic role for Britain in a post-Brexit world will be, as ever, a more humble spear carrier for Trump's America. In
this sense, it is appropriate that the Trump state visit should so neatly coincide with May's departure and the triumphant
emergence of Trump's favourite British politicians, Johnson and Farage.
Just how
decisive is the current success of the Brexiters likely to be? Their opponents say encouragingly that they have promised
what they cannot deliver in terms of greater prosperity so they are bound to come unstuck. But belief in such a comforting
scenario is the height of naivety because the world is full of politicians who have failed to deliver the promises that got
them elected, but find some other unsavoury gambit to keep power by exacerbating foreign threats, as in India, or locking up
critics, as in Turkey.
Britain is
entering a period of permanent crisis not seen since the 17
th
century.
Brexit was a symptom as well as a cause of divisions. The gap between the rich and the poor, the householder and the tenant,
the educated and the uneducated, the old and the young, has grown wider and wider. Brexit became the great vent through
which grievances that had nothing to with Brussels bubbled. The EU is blamed for all the sins of de-industrialisation,
privatisation and globalisation and, if it did not create them, then it did not do enough to alleviate their impact.
The
proponents of Leave show no sign of having learned anything over the last three years, but they do not have to because they
can say that the rewards of Brexit lie in a sun-lit future. Remainers have done worse because they are claiming that the
rewards of the membership of the EU are plenteous and already with us. "If you wish to see its monument, look around you,"
they seem to say. This is a dangerous argument: why should anybody from ex-miners in the Welsh Valleys to former car workers
in Birmingham or men who once worked on Dover docks endorse what has happened to them while Britain has been in the EU? Why
should they worry about a rise or fall in the GDP when they never felt it was their GDP in the first place?
May is
getting a sympathy vote for her final lachrymose performance, but it is undeserved. Right up to the end there was a
startling gap between her words and deeds. The most obvious contradiction was her proclaimed belief that "life depends on
compromise". But it also turns out that "proper funding for mental health" was at the heart of her NHS long term plan,
though hospital wards for the mentally ill continue to close and patients deep in psychosis are dispatched to the other end
of the country.
The Wall
Street Crash in 1929 exposed the fragility and rottenness of much in the United States. Brexit may do the same in Britain.
In New York 90 years ago, my father only truly appreciated how bad the situation really was when his boss said to him in a
low voice: "Remember, when we are writing this story, the word 'panic' is not to be used."
It is unclear whether May really wanted to implement Brexit deal but at least she negotiated several EU offers. It was UK
Parliament that rejects the offers.
I think May claim to fame might be not her failure in Brexit negotiation, but orchestration of infamous Skripals poisoning
false flag and the bout of Russophobia, as well as her attempt to interfere with the 2016 elections in the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... History will not be kind to Theresa May. By the standards she forthrightly set herself at the outset of her premiership, she has been a dismal failure. ..."
"... she became, in George Osborne's devastating phrase, "a dead woman walking". ..."
"... a political nonentity of such crushing mediocrity and insignificance that even when standing in direct sunlight she casts no shadow. A third-rate office manager elevated light years beyond her intellectual capacity, professional capabilities and pay grade. A national embarrassment and global laughing stock ..."
"... When May was elected Tory leader and hence prime minister, the field of choice was notable for its lightweight uniformity. ..."
"... the quality of leadership of the party has been modest at best for years. Among Tory leaders since the war, only Margaret Thatcher has managed to catch the climate of her time and impose her personality on a discernible period, however much one may deplore that climate and that period. ..."
"... What is striking about Conservative politics is that those who wish to hold onto power and wealth for their own class and who have the ambition and talent and imagination to make a difference do not go into politics. They become entrepreneurs, traders, speculators. There is too much regulation and self-abnegation in politics for such people. Look back over the leadership of the Tory party and you get to Harold Macmillan before you encounter anyone who came from a (brief) career in business. ..."
"... We are now told that she is "a patriot" – the last refuge of a political scoundrel – and that she has "tried her best", which was clearly grossly inadequate to the task ..."
"... The wars are over for Britain. Become a global reliable trading nation that honors contracts and business ties, the very elements that made Britain Great. It sure has not been the Wars especially the poodle wars. You laugh at May's tears and under performance but you may as well be looking at yourselves. ..."
"... Why should Britain be holding Venezuela Gold on behalf of Donald Trump? There is no yield in this, there is no value but a soiled reputation as an unreliable trader. Banks in Britain should be honest dealers not playing politics with contracts. ..."
"... It's not clear that all MI5/MI6 operatives are remainers. I suspect they are as divided as everyone else. The gang who attacked Trump simply did it because it was business and not personal. They even outsourced to Steele because they thought it might be cheaper. Outsourcing is perceived as cool in government circles and makes people feel good about themselves. It's the deep state offering value for money. ..."
"... May has done precisely what she was tasked to do by the Establishment: First to "negotiate" a Withdrawal deal that "Only the loser of a major war would agree to" after wasting two years, then do everything else possible to delay Brexit as long as possible and water it down to the point that the UK would even with a "delivered Brexit" still essentially be bound to the EU indefinitely. ..."
"... The final irony here is that it is ultimately only Parliament's duplicity and treachery, in spite of the fact that Parliament desperately wanted to ensure the UK "Remain", which has prevented her and the Globalists from achieving their goals through what they believed to be a process of "subtle subterfuge". ..."
"... She will indeed go down in history as a footnote of no significance or perhaps as the PM who showed the greatest betrayal of the British people on behalf of the Establishment ..."
History will not be kind to Theresa May. By the standards she forthrightly set herself
at the outset of her premiership, she has been a dismal failure. She proposed that,
contrary to most impartial expectation, she would be a socially liberal prime minister who
would strive to relieve the economic pressure on the poorest members of British society (the
briefly famous "just about managing"), but the only small concessions towards the relief of
poverty that have been wrung from her government have done nothing to reduce the incidence of
homelessness, food banks and wage rates that undershoot the demands made by private landlords,
services starved of funds and price rises.
And that's without even mentioning Brexit.
Following the self-inflicted disaster of the 2017 general election, in which May utterly
failed to project herself with any conviction as "strong and stable", she became, in George
Osborne's devastating phrase, "a dead woman walking".
That campaign was the most complacent, least effective ever fought by a major political
party in Britain, and the only explanation for the media's astonishment at the result can be
that editors and columnists had so convinced themselves that they had rendered Jeremy Corbyn,
in their description of choice, "unelectable" that they could see no outcome other than a
thumping Tory victory. What they could not see was that Corbyn is an inspired and inspiring
campaigner, while May is as dull as ditchwater.
The social media commentator Aidan Daley summed her up admirably: "Mayvis: a political
nonentity of such crushing mediocrity and insignificance that even when standing in direct
sunlight she casts no shadow. A third-rate office manager elevated light years beyond her
intellectual capacity, professional capabilities and pay grade. A national embarrassment and
global laughing stock ".
This unsparing but unarguable buttonholing raises a historical problem for the Conservative
Party that shows no sign of quick resolution. When May was elected Tory leader and hence
prime minister, the field of choice was notable for its lightweight uniformity. Given the
length of her cabinet experience, May clearly outshone her rivals, if not in charisma (a
quality conspicuously lacking from the field). But the quality of leadership of the party
has been modest at best for years. Among Tory leaders since the war, only Margaret Thatcher has
managed to catch the climate of her time and impose her personality on a discernible period,
however much one may deplore that climate and that period.
What is striking about Conservative politics is that those who wish to hold onto power
and wealth for their own class and who have the ambition and talent and imagination to make a
difference do not go into politics. They become entrepreneurs, traders, speculators. There is
too much regulation and self-abnegation in politics for such people. Look back over the
leadership of the Tory party and you get to Harold Macmillan before you encounter anyone who
came from a (brief) career in business.
Comparing May with Thatcher and Macmillan is instructive.
May has failed to create any sort of arresting public persona for herself. Aside from the
tiresome bromide "Brexit means Brexit", she has turned no phrase that immediately summons her
to mind. Who could essay her political philosophy, other than hanging on grimly against
insuperable odds and paying heed to no advice?
She has no imagination, no resourcefulness, no wit and no management skills. When pressed,
she retreats to prepared responses, regardless of their irrelevance to the question in hand.
We are now told that she is "a patriot" – the last refuge of a political scoundrel
– and that she has "tried her best", which was clearly grossly inadequate to the
task .
The mainstream media will be eternally grateful to her for betraying emotion at the end of
her resignation statement, thereby providing the "human interest" angle that cements the moment
in history and will be trotted out in every story about the May premiership for ever after,
much like Thatcher's tear-stained face in the back of the limo as it pulled away from Downing
Street for the last time. Whether this emotion sits appropriately with the "dignity" that her
admirers are rushing to credit to her is a question for others to ponder.
Attention now turns to her successor. Vast though the field is, it is again notable for its
lightweight nature. Smart money will be on Rory Stewart, already a media darling and a
politician unusually capable of sounding thoughtful and candid. He also has the advantage of
having led a colourful pre-politics life, thereby bringing instincts to his politics from
beyond the confines of career consultants and spads. But most speculation centres on Boris
Johnson, despite the high level of suspicion that he generates among Tory MPs. He is said to be
enthusiastically supported at the grassroots.
In this as in other aspects, he brings to mind Donald Trump. If Rory Stewart would offer a
safe pair of hands, Johnson would suggest a Trump-like level of gaffes and embarrassments,
thrills and spills.
Britain's Chief problem is that it has become a US poodle for nothing. Essentially
insolvent and small Britain indulges in middle East Wars and US Sanctions and Boycotts. What
do they get in return? Nothing at all.
This is a giant hangover from WWII. It wasn't enough that WWII destroyed Britain, the US
had to take advantage of it in the Anglo American loan and Bretton Woods.
Anyone that has studied WWII knows it was the Russians that killed Germany, not the US and
most certainly not Britain, though cracking the Enigma was certainly useful. But it was Brute
force of the Russians a KURSK that laid waste to Germany.
The US came out of the War essentially unscathed. Britain was bombed out rubble. The US
took full advantage with hard terms in their Anglo American Loan.
The relationship of the US to Britain is more like Abusive parent to abused child. It is
anything but equals. The US only calls on Britain for British Intelligence, or military
support to do something stupid like engage in the Iraq war. The poodle does as told.
ARM was founded in Britain. Now sold to Softbank in Japan. It was the INTEL giant killer.
Had Britain not been a poodle to the US, this one company would have been a driving force in
5G. But the Abusive parent, essentially told the Brits who could and could not associate with
ARM. Now in an even more abused poodle Japan, the world's most emasculated nation. Brits take
their marching order from Donald Trump a bloody moron.
The Tide is out on the British Empire. It is irrelevant at this point what happens with
Brexit. Stall long enough and nobody will care. Instead of branching out and leading in 5G,
they are following their abused parent into the dark ages.
Britain should be making its own deals with China while the US is foundering under Turmp.
Some businesses are such as Rolls Royce that is offering a Rolls Royce jet engine plant to
forward China's local and narrowbody jets. Britain can come in and be a reliable partner with
Huawei and get access to the largest markets in global history China and Asia. Instead the
Gov. wants the UK to be just a US poodle lucky to get a few scraps.
Protectionism can NEVER work in Britain. The Isles NEED TRADE. They cannot survive without
out it. Yet here they are with their brilliant engineering taking orders from Donald Trump
the idiots idiot.
May was just a symptom of the Poodle problem. Do as told, show no spine and live in the
shadow of the USA abuser parent. That is why NO PM in the UK casts a shadow. They are under
the oppressive shadow of the US. Taking orders, Killing off British soldiers for nothing.
The wars are over for Britain. Become a global reliable trading nation that honors
contracts and business ties, the very elements that made Britain Great. It sure has not been
the Wars especially the poodle wars. You laugh at May's tears and under performance but you
may as well be looking at yourselves.
Brexit under the shadow of the USA just strengthens the choke chain in Trump's insane
hand. You become dependent on an unreliable country with the most unreliable administration
in US History. As they do now, they dictate where you may trade and to whom you may sell your
products... and you go along with it like an obedient abused child seeking approval of the
Parent Abuser.
Get some spine and break ties with the USA that are carrying you into the abyss. Why
should Britain be holding Venezuela Gold on behalf of Donald Trump? There is no yield in
this, there is no value but a soiled reputation as an unreliable trader. Banks in Britain
should be honest dealers not playing politics with contracts. Every country in the world is
looking at this British poodle conduct. No country wants to deal with a poodle that refuses
to return assets or that weaponizes Trade. You are cutting your throats for any future global
investment FOR NOTHING!
It's not clear that all MI5/MI6 operatives are remainers. I suspect they are as divided as
everyone else. The gang who attacked Trump simply did it because it was business and not
personal. They even outsourced to Steele because they thought it might be cheaper.
Outsourcing is perceived as cool in government circles and makes people feel good about
themselves. It's the deep state offering value for money.
May achieved what she set out to do being a BREMAINER from the outset.
To block, stall and prevent at all costs BREXIT.
As a BREXIT supporter thank you May because you created a new party in the process as an
alternative to the fake" Conservative BREXIT party" and the EU Labour Custom Union slaves". I
swear Labour = Democrats in the US and their belief in social slavery to them.
When can we get them EU election figures ... as this is going to be such fun if the BREXIT
party manages to achieve an overwhelming vote it is like a 2nd referendum on the previous
referendum. ... Fingers crossed here though because you just know MI5 / MI6 and all the other
mercenaries are going to be ballot stuffing like **** and with no exit polls to prevent the
electoral fraud they will be carrying out on the orders of their paymasters.
Spare the tears, **** you got exactly what you deserved for your betrayal of British
democracy whilst constantly lying and pretending to support both UK AND US values.
May has done precisely what she was tasked to do by the Establishment: First to
"negotiate" a Withdrawal deal that "Only the loser of a major war would agree to" after
wasting two years, then do everything else possible to delay Brexit as long as possible and
water it down to the point that the UK would even with a "delivered Brexit" still essentially
be bound to the EU indefinitely.
The final irony here is that it is ultimately only Parliament's duplicity and treachery,
in spite of the fact that Parliament desperately wanted to ensure the UK "Remain", which has
prevented her and the Globalists from achieving their goals through what they believed to be
a process of "subtle subterfuge".
The ONLY way forward now is a "Hard" Brexit because Parliament has rejected everything
else, it is still the legal default position which does NOT legally require approval by
Parliament and it restores the negotiating position with the EU that May deliberately pissed
away over two years. And the lesson here to other countries wanting to get out of the
clutches of Brussels is this; If you want to leave the EU, JUST LEAVE. Let the Bureaucrats
work out the details later; they aren't that important.
She will indeed go down in history as a footnote of no significance or perhaps as the PM
who showed the greatest betrayal of the British people on behalf of the Establishment
**** off and go away to enjoy the corrupt benefits of your service to the Globalists until
you RIP.
May fits in with the other Prime Ministers of the Paedoph Isles:
"Rules which bar sex offenders from working with children are 'unfair' and even convicted
paedophiles should have the right to adopt, a leading legal academic has said."
Scripals's poisoning connected Prime Minister soon will be gone for good.
Novichok has lasting effects on British PM ;-) Now it will be much easier to investigate her role in spying on Trump,
British government role in creation of Steele dossier, and in launching neo-McCarthyism campaign against Russia (aka
Russiagate).
Notable quotes:
"... During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes. ..."
"... Crying May. What a Loser. Plus, she may have well co-conspired against Trump. ..."
May, the second - but certainly not the last - female prime minister in the UK, will
abandon her supremely unpopular withdrawal agreement instead of trying to force it through
the Commons for the fourth time. May's decision to call for a fourth vote on the withdrawal
agreement, this time packaging it in a bill that could have opened to door to a second
confirmatory referendum, was more than her fellow conservatives could tolerate. One of her
top cabinet ministers resigned and Graham Brady, the leader of the Tory backbenchers,
effectively forced May out by rounding up the votes for a rule change that would have allowed
MPs to oust her.
During her tumultuous tenure as PM, May survived two no-confidence votes.
Though May will stay on as caretaker until a new leader can be chosen, the race to succeed
May begins now...odds are that a 'Brexiteer' will fill the role. Whatever happens, the
contest should take a few weeks, and afterwards May will be on her way back to
Maidenhead.
"It is and will always remain a deep regret for me that I was not able to deliver
Brexit...I was not able to reach a consensus...that job will now fall to my successor," May
said.
Between now and May's resignation, May still has work to do: President Trump will travel
to the UK for a state visit, while Europe will also celebrate the 75th anniversary of
D-Day.
It's fitting that May touted the virtues of her moderate approach to governance during her
resignation speech, considering that her attempts to chart a middle path through Brexit ended
up alienating hard-core Brexiteers and remainers alike. Her fate was effectively sealed
nearly two years ago, after she called for a general election that cost the Tories their
majority in Parliament and emboldened Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
The pound's reaction was relatively muted, as May's decision to step down had been
telegraphed well in advance.
She didn't cry for syrians when she declared bombing Syria and using the firm her
husband is involved in,. They made billion, and she didn't cry over her makeover afterwards
new hair clothes and big jewels and cuddles with her husband in the media.
Many women in esteemed positions are just affirmative action or window dressing to
placate the masses with supposed maternal love but they end up being wicked as heck.
Perhaps, but it's worse than that:
They are part of the Divide & Conquer strategy, while (((Global-lusts))) are
plundering the Wealth Of Nations and taking over the real reigns of power.
Americants are easily distracted or fooled.
ps. "...wicked as heck." Wicked? Heck? What's up with the careful avoidance of "cuss
words"? It's ok, you're safe... No "ladies or preachers" (bitches or scammers) nearby. And
the Tylers or NSA won't rat you out.
"... there is not likely to be much that historians will be able to find to cast her as anything other than relentless and exceptionally unimaginative, except in her idiot-savant genius at political maneuvering. ..."
"... the EU elections are being viewed as a second referendum on Brexit as well as a test of populist parties in general ..."
"... It turns out that Margaret Thatcher was wrong. There is such a thing as society. It is that which forms the bonds not only between people themselves but those who are supposed to run the country. ..."
"... I am pessimistic. She will never resign on her own volition. The Tories have no way of forcing her to resign. ..."
So whoever chose to be Prime Minister and set the Brexit time bomb ticking (which would have to have
happened at some point, although May's rush to send in the Article 50 notice was one of her major mistakes)
would be destined to preside over a colossal mess. However, the distinguishing feature of May's time in No.
10, her astonishing ability to take pain and fight off challenges, was enabled by the Fixed Term Parliaments
Act, which made it far more difficult to dissolve Parliament. Under the old rules, May would have been gone
long ago. But the result may have been a series of coalition governments, or alternatively, a coalition that
couldn't agree on anything regarding Brexit while that clock was ticking.
Even though I do feel a bit of sympathy for May, the flip side is that her record at Home Office,
particularly with the Windrush scandal, means there is not likely to be much that historians will be able to
find to cast her as anything other than relentless and exceptionally unimaginative, except in her
idiot-savant genius at political maneuvering.
It was vlade who I believe typed her out as the sort of
manager who won't change course even when circumstances make clearer that a revision in plans is necessary.
Of course, May did in the end, witness her getting to a deal with the EU, but only after beating her head
against the wall for many months.
I imagine May's one hope for near term solace is if Boris is indeed the next prime minister. Even she
will benefit from being compared to him.
That's immaterial. Boris is exactly like Trump, he lies and lies and lies, and even when caught out
lying, he simply does not care and carries on lying.
As for Leadsom saying a second referendum would be 'dangerously divisive', what planet is she on? The
first referendum has proved incredibly dangerously divisive. To the extent, I doubt there can ever be
any general acceptance of either leave or stay, whichever happens.
If turnout is high, and Farage polls > than LD+SNP+GREEN+TIG, it could be seen as a strong signal
for no deal. Low turnout means little.
High turnout + result can mean something. But what exactly depends on the result. Even then, high
turnout with Farage winning (even getting less votes than remain) could easily generate some pro
no-deal headlines.
Best pro-remain result (but IMO extremely highly unlikely) would be high turnout (>50%), Farage +/-
same as LD (say even with LD second but only by a few points), but significantly less than
LD+G+SNP+TIG.
Thank you vlade! We will have to wait until Sunday. The results will be interesting anyway. This
are not routine post-dem elections anymore. It migth mark the end of the end of history
hahahahahah!
I know this is anecdotal, but many of my European friends would like the Brits to stay in the
EU. However, as vlade mentions, the EU elections are being viewed as a second referendum on
Brexit as well as a test of populist parties in general. If the populist gains are weak in the EU
elections and the Farage clique receives a mandate for hard Brexit, it is possible that the EU will
severely punish the UK. Many European citizens want the Brits to stay, but are tired of their
whinging and the anti-european propaganda being vomited forth by the UK tabloid press. Assaults on
EU citizens speaking European languages are becoming all too common. If Farage is elected with a
big turnout, EU citizens will demand punishment.
There is no mandate granted by the EU elections, because there is no method a small EU
splinter faction (Farage's Faction, large only in his imagination) can achieve anything against
the "we are in the EU to stay" majority in the European Parliament.
The Farage Faction in the EU parliament, will be less effective that the Lone Libertarian
Senator in the US Senate, who is only there to demonstrate that the Republican Party are no
completely crazy, and do have one of two realistic policies.
1. No GE, May for Ever, Brext limbo, EU Membership continues until the UK stops paying the EU, or
the people over 50 die and the young eliminate this circus.
2. The Labor, Green, Scot's Nat's, and LibDems form a collision (intended) Government, and continue
(1).
Parliament has clearly demonstrated the wishes of the British people: No to the EU, No to the EU EU
dictated withdrawal agreement (aka the MAY (Make Everybody Yell in pain) agreement, and No Crash out
(No British 2 fingered salute, equivalent to the US 1 fingered salute)*
What remains is Limbo, without flexibility – Remain but with Denial, and a change from a Badly
Managed County, to a Badly Managed Country by a different set of Clowns.
As Maggie Thatched remarked: There Is No Alternative.
* The UK uses a two fingered salute, because British Men can consider two things at the same time,
Beer and Women, unlike the French (Hereditary Enemies) who can only consider one thing at a time.
**Just to clarify – British men can CONSIDER two things at the same time. Actually performing two
things at the same time runs into the standard limitations of the Male Brain.
And to think that it was only yesterday that yet another Brexit date went by. That was the one agreed to
in March where the EU agreed to delay Brexit until May 22nd if British MPs back Prime Minister Theresa May's
deal. The idea was that any later and a resentful UK would be taking part in the EU elections. Well, that
didn't work out for anybody.
It turns out that Margaret Thatcher was wrong. There is such a thing as society. It is that which forms the
bonds not only between people themselves but those who are supposed to run the country. The UK has cut those
bonds and the results are so bad that the United Nations has come out with a report (
https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/39/Add.1
)
saying that they have created a "harsh and uncaring" environment for people, that '14 million UK residents
live in poverty, and that some 1.5 million of them were unable to afford basic essentials in 2017.' No
wonder people feel little connection between themselves and those running the country
I was just listening to the news and it sounds like May was making all sorts of concessions in the deal that
she was working on without consulting anybody else in government. There are so many people leaving her side
now, that she may be the last person left standing in government. She is still clinging onto power but her
own party members are busy stomping on her fingertips as a tipping point has been reached. Labour does not
seem to be gaining by this either as they are bleeding votes to other parties due to their own Brexit
position. This is going to get ugly when it comes time to choose a new leader. Prime Minister Nigel Farage
anybody?
Yaargh for the "No Sex Please" reference!
Plus, "skidmarks" is a common reference of an insulting nature here Down South. Kudos!
The infamous joke ends with; " and the dude had skidmarks on the front of his drawers!"
So, 'skidmarks' is all too likely a result from the upcoming EU elections.
I am pessimistic. She will never resign on her own volition. The Tories have no way of forcing her to
resign. There is nothing they can offer to trade with her in return for her resigning because she won't
listen, ever, to anyone so she simply won't hear the offer being made over the din of her own droning.
Maybe The Queen can legally send some heavy-booted people over to physically drag her out of parliament?
AFAIK, the 1922 Committee
can
change the rules to allow her to be challenged. The issue –
just as with Trump – is that dealing with someone who breaks the informal consensus by breaking the
formal consensus (changing the rules, even if it is just "for a special case") is not necessarily easy or
sure to lead to the desired outcome (what if the special vote fails to oust May? Will the next leader be
challenged early, too?).
After all, if the 12-month grace period has been set aside once, it can surely be done again, and no
presumptive Tory PM is interested in being more restrained by the committee (for both noble and ignoble
reasons, I'm sure, though I suspect the ratio to be tilted in the latter direction).
But she's the Queen's prime minister. Doesn't matter if she's not leader of her party. Or does it?
There have been mixed rumours on HM's views on the EU, which I suppose shows her subtlety. But if she
is subtle, HM will find a way not to get involved.
I hadn't considered that! What if May is summoned by the chief whip and suspended, just like
Heseltine when he declared he was going to vote for the Lib Dems? Can she dismiss the chief whip
with a click of her fingers? L'etat, c'est moi.
I've no idea about the formal route for expulsion from the party, but it seems Widdecombe was
subjected to the rules when she declared for Whatever Nigel's Having.
Now I have a mental image of a barricaded Theresa May taking to the airwaves and calling upon
the military to come to her aid by suppressing her own party in the name of the Queen.
It's important to remember (and too easily forgotten) that the challenge to May's position is as leader
of the Conservative party, not as Prime Minister. Of course historically the two have been coterminous, but
they don't absolutely have to be. Normally, what happens is that a PM's political missteps result in forced
resignation or a leadership challenge, and the winner of the ensuing competition becomes PM. Eden resigned
after Suez, Heath was forced out after losing the 1974 election etc. But both of these cases (and indeed
Thatcher in 1990) were rather like sacking the managing director of an unsuccessful company. The Tory Party
wanted to get back in power, or make sure it stayed there, and internal political and personal divisions
didn't matter that much. (The Tory Party was more Thatcherite in 1990 than it was in 1975 when she took
over: it was simply that the party didn't think it could win another election with her in charge.)
What we have now is different. Not only has May made a disastrous mess of Brexit, she has also had to manage
a bitterly divided party, full of people who hate each other and have completely irreconcilable political
views and agendas. Whilst there have been Cabinets before with warring cliques, and PMs struggling to manage
divided parties, I don't think there has ever been a situation like this, where the two are lethally
combined, and the incumbent PM is not capable of dealing with either. It's possible to imagine another
leader having done a better job in managing the politics and diplomacy of Brexit: it's hard to imagine
anyone doing it worse. But it is also hard to imagine anyone else having done a less bad job of keeping a
violently fractious party together.
Paradoxically, May's actual performance under both headings has had little impact on the strength of her
position. It seems to be acknowledged that she has been as a disaster as PM, but the problem is that getting
rid of her is not a solution. Indeed, it would probably make the situation worse, and destroy the Tory Party
completely, which is why she is still where she is. I don't think even those who want to get rid of her most
fervently believe that doing so would unite the party or make it more electable. It's all about personal and
political agendas. Far from resolving the crisis, her departure, which can't now long be delayed, will only
exacerbate it: the first time this has happened, I think, in modern British history.
Under all the normal rules of politics, May would have been gone months, if not years, ago. That's not in
dispute. But in the past there were heavyweight challengers already waiting to take over from the PM of the
day, and parties (especially the Tories) would rally round a new leader to stay in power or have a better
chance of taking it. It's an index of how completely the Tory Party has been destroyed by Thatcher and her
successors, that it's a talent-free zone made up of people who would happily destroy a party, a government
and perhaps a country, out of ambition and jealousy. The situation now resembles the last days of a weak and
discredited monarch, with no apparent successor and courtiers manoeuvring for advantage. Historically, that
usually led to a civil war of some kind, and I expect that,
mutatis mutandis
, that's what we're in
for now.
I think your last two lines are highly significant. I've been trying to get my head around how it is
that Johnson has suddenly become the favourite to become PM, when he is supposedly almost universally
loathed within the party hierarchy and seemed to have blown what little chance he had last year. But it
is, as you say, more like the lethal jostling when a monarch is dying without a successor – half the
people around are trying to manoeuvre for the crown, the other half are trying to make sure they don't
lose their head if the 'wrong' person gets selected. It has nothing to do with regular democratic
politics anymore.
Whatever else, it will make the next Tory party conference rather entertaining viewing now that GoT is
over.
For forty years now the economic and political philosophy of Milton Friedman has dominated and guided
politics in the UK and the US. Reading some of his most famous quotes makes clear why it has all ended so
badly, failed so spectacularly. As long as enough of the old system held on to keep things working the
con continued. That's over now, even if the current crop of "talent-free people who would happily
destroy a party, a government and perhaps a country, out of ambition and jealousy. " don't realize it's
over.
I'm afraid I have absolutely zero sympathy for May, Yves. Apart from the Windrush scandal, she has always
been absolutely horrific on civil liberties. And let's not forget she has approved the sales of arms to the
Saudis for their genocide in Yemen. As a believer in Scottish independence, however, if she enables a second
referendum in Scotland, that would be one accomplishment, though not an intended one for her!
As someone who shares her physical clumsiness, I used to feel quite sorry for her when she was on the
receiving end of so much abuse, she seemed to me to be admirable in the way she had made her way through
such a pit of vipers to get to the top. But I think the cumulative evidence now is that, quite simply,
she is a genuinely hateful person – she's been responsible for too many genuinely horrible policies, many
of which were promoted solely for her personal ambition. There are many, many more people deserving of
sympathy.
Suggestion: watch carefully what happens to May when she finally leaves office (as the surgeons say, all
bleeding stops eventually). Will May sink into a shabby retirement? Or will she be quietly feted by the big
banks, put on the boards of directors of various companies, end up a multi-millionaire etc., like Tony Blair
was?
In other words: was May merely stupid, or was she a useful agent of chaos? Follow the money, and
eventually, we will know.
Now I'm all for changing one's mind when the facts change/emerge – as I did – from a BrExiter ( aka a
kick up the arse to the EU ( for Greece ) and the UK establishment ) to 2nd referendum/remain as the
complexities, particularly the N.I. / Eire border aspect, came into focus – but this continual changes in
positions by ALL sort of main-party politicians amazes me – when you compromise and STILL fail to deliver,
its truly hapless, inept.
As the Belfast Telegraph put it ( back in March at that ! ):
The repeated failure to make Brexit less of a shambles suggests that politicians on all sides share
that lack of conviction in their own judgment.
What's more terrifying still is that it increasingly looks as if they are right to think so little of
their own abilities.
The terrifying thing is this is only the first stage.
Paradoxically, as the mess unfolds, my regular conversations and emails with Brit family and friends, all
always politically engaged, this is mygen, nextgen, + nextgen+1 are less and less about it. They are all
just getting on with their daily lives. I'm perhaps more animated about this than they are ! Just yesterday,
all we talked about was our booking for a 4 day narrow-boat/canal boat trip and how excited the nextgen+1
are. So there is that, I suppose.
I completely agree and fervently hope that Brexit is the end of Thatcherism in the UK. We want to return
to government of the people, by the people, etc., and not this constant flow of concessions to merchants
that the moneymen in parliament enact to profit from. It has never yet been the case that electors in UK
vote for companies – that's just the Tories working their insidious evil through the Chambers of Commerce –
off with their heads. Back to Keynes and caring government.
When you hear the same cue words you know exactly where it comes from.
Peace as its goal through staged wars ( undeclared since WW11).
"
February 9, 1950 -- The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee introduces Senate Concurrent
Resolution 66 which begins:
"Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the
United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution."
The resolution was first introduced in the Senate on September 13, 1949 by Senator Glen
Taylor (D-Idaho). Senator Alexander Wiley (R-Wisconsin) called it "a consummation devoutly to
be wished for" and said, "I understand your proposition is either change the United Nations,
or change or create, by a separate convention, a world order." Senator Taylor later
stated:
"We would have to sacrifice considerable sovereignty to the world organization to enable
them to levy taxes in their own right to support themselves."
Me**** the problem with this draft of war plan is that if you are pointing fingers of a
" Presidential coup" at home and expect the Treasonous culprits to do time, you can't
purpose the same scheme in a foreign country without reprecusions.
And I think that is the Traitors in the White House plan to save their slimy asses....
Expose the undeclared coup through media ( weaponized as usual) and bring down Barrs
attempts to clean up our own swamp.
As commander in chief Trump has a n op problem.
Whoever inititated this because of ecconomic warefare ( bankers... How the web catches
you at every corner) both at home ( USA) and world.
War, undeclared, declared, either way and use universal peace as goal equals profits for
the war machine and depopulation for the world.
Win win situation for the original planers of one world govetnment.
You remember Dulles don't you ( Dulles airport).
New plan same as the old plan:
April 12, 1952 -- John Foster Dulles, later to become Secretary of State, says in a
speech to the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky, that "treaty laws can
override the Constitution." He says treaties can take power away from Congress and give
them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal
Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the
people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.
A Senate amendment, proposed by GOP Senator John Bricker, would have provided that no
treaty could supersede the Constitution, but it fails to pass by one vote."
This is an interesting but probably way too simplistic view. The USA as a neoliberal
superpower can't change its course. It now depends and it turn needs to support all the
neoliberal empire superstructure no matter what. Or vanish as en empire. Which is not in
Washington and MIC or Wall Street interests.
So "Empire Uber Alles" is the current policy which will remain in place. Even a slight
deviation triggers the reaction of the imperial caste (Mueller witch hunt is one example,
although I do not understand why it lasted so long, as Trump folded almost instantly and became
just Bush III with the same set of neocons driving the USA foreign policy )
The internal logic of neoliberal empire is globalization -- enforcing opening of internal
markets of other countries for the US multinationals and banks. So the conflict with the
"nationalist" (as as neocon slur them "autocratic") states, which does not want to became the USA
vassals ( like the Russia and China ) is not the anomaly, but the logical consequence of the USA
status and pretenses as imperial center. Putin tried to establish some kind of détente
several time. He failed: "Carnage needs to be destroyed" is the only possible attitude and it
naturally created strong defensive reaction which in turn strains the USA resources.
Meantime the standard of living of workers and middle class dropped. While most of the drop
is attributable to neoliberalism redistribution of wealth up, part of it is probably is
attributable to the imperial status of the USA.
The USA neoliberal elite after 1991 became completely detached from reality (aka infected
with imperil hubris) and we have what we have.
Those 700 billions that went to Pentagon speak for themselves.
And in turn create the caste of imperial servants that are strongly interested in maintaining
the status quo and quite capable to cut short any attempts to change it. The dominance of neocons
(who are essentially lobbyists of MIC) in the Department of State is a nice illustration of this
mouse trap.
So the core reason of the USA current neocon foreign policy is demands and internal dynamics
of neoliberal globalization and MIC.
In other words, as Dani Rodik said "...today's Sino-American impasse is rooted in
"hyper-globalism," under which countries must open their economies to foreign companies,
regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies or social models."
The American foreign policy Blob's latest worry is that Venezuela's radical leftist
government is
reaching out to the Middle East for support against growing pressure from Washington.
Specifically, President Nicolás Maduro is reportedly trying to establish extensive
political and financial links with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his ally in Lebanon,
Hezbollah . The
latter has repeatedly condemned
U.S. policy towards Maduro , and already appears to have
shadowy economic ties to Caracas. There are indications that Maduro's regime may be
utilizing Hezbollah to launder funds from the illegal drug trade.
Washington's fear is that lurking behind an Assad-Hezbollah-Maduro alliance is America's
arch-nemesis, Iran, which has close relations with both Assad and Hezbollah. Tehran's apparent
objective would be to strengthen the Venezuelan regime, boost anti-U.S. sentiment in the
Western Hemisphere, and perhaps acquire some laundered money
from a joint Maduro-Hezbollah operation to ease the pain of U.S. economic sanctions
re-imposed following the Trump administration's repudiation of the nuclear deal.
Although Iran, Assad, and Hezbollah remain primarily concerned with developments in their
own region, the fear that they want to undermine Washington's power in its own backyard is not
unfounded. But U.S. leaders should ask themselves why such diverse factions would coalesce
behind that objective.
Advertisement
It is hardly the only example of this to emerge in recent years, and the principal cause
appears to be Washington's own excessively belligerent policies. That approach is driving
together regimes that have little in common except the need to resist U.S. pressure.
Washington's menacing posture undermines rather than enhances American security, and especially
in one case -- provoking an expanding entente between Russia and China -- it poses a grave
danger.
The current flirtation between Caracas and anti-American factions in the Middle East is not
the first time that American leaders have worried about collaboration among heterogeneous
adversaries. U.S. intelligence agencies and much of the foreign policy community warned for
years about cooperation between Iran
and North Korea over
both nuclear and ballistic missiletechnology
. During the Cold War, a succession of U.S. administrations expressed frustration and anger at
the de facto alliance between the totalitarian Soviet Union and democratic India. Yet the
underlying cause for that association was not hard to fathom. Both countries opposed U.S.
global primacy. India was especially uneasy about Washington's knee-jerk diplomatic and military support for
Pakistan , despite that country's history of dictatorial rule and aggression.
Alienating India was a profoundly unwise policy. So, too, has been Washington's longstanding
obsession with weakening and isolating Iran and North Korea. Those two countries have almost
nothing in common, ideologically, politically, geographically, or economically. One is a weird
East Asian regime based on dynastic Stalinism, while the other is a reactionary Middle East
Muslim theocracy. Without the incentive that unrelenting U.S. hostility provides, there is
little reason to believe that Tehran and Pyongyang would be allies. But Washington's vehemently
anti-nuclear policy towards both regimes, and the brutal economic sanctions that followed, have
helped cement a de facto alliance between two very strange bedfellows.
Iranian and North Korean leaders have apparently reached the logical conclusion that the
best way to discourage U.S. leaders from considering forcible regime change towards either of
their countries was to cooperate in strengthening their respective nuclear and missile
programs. Washington's
regime change wars , which ousted Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Moammar Gaddafi -- and
the unsuccessful attempt to overthrow Syria's Assad -- reinforced such fears.
The most worrisome and potentially deadly case in which abrasive U.S. behavior has driven
together two unlikely allies is the deepening relationship between Russia and China.
Washington's
"freedom of navigation" patrols in the South China Sea have antagonized Beijing, which has
extensive territorial claims in and around that body of water. Chinese protests have grown in
both number and intensity. Bilateral relations have also deteriorated because of Beijing's
increasingly aggressive posture toward Taiwan and
Washington's growing support for the island's de facto independence. The ongoing trade war
between the United States and China has only added to the animosity. Chinese leaders see
American policy as evidence of Washington's determination to continue
its status of primacy in East Asia, and they seek ways to undermine it.
Russia's grievances against the United States are even more pronounced. The expansion of
NATO to the borders of the Russian Federation, Washington's repeated trampling of Russian
interests in the Balkans and the Middle East, the imposition of economic sanctions in response
to the Crimea incident, the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear
Forces treaty,
U.S. arms sales to Ukraine , and other provocations have led to a new
cold war . Russia has moved to increase diplomatic,
economic, and even military cooperation with China. Beijing and Moscow appear to be
coordinating
policies on an array of issues,
complicating Washington's options .
Close cooperation between Russia and China is all the more remarkable given the extent of
their bitterly competing interests in Central Asia and elsewhere. A mutual fear of and anger
toward the United States, however, seems to have overshadowed such potential quarrels -- at
least for now.
There even appears to be a "grand collusion" of multiple U.S. adversaries forming. Both
Russia and China are increasing their economic links with
Venezuela , and Russia's military involvement with the Maduro regime is also on the rise.
Last month, Moscow dispatched two nuclear-capable bombers to Caracas
along with approximately 100 military personnel. The latter contingent's mission was to
repair and refurbish Venezuela's air defense system in light of Washington's menacing rhetoric.
That move drew a
sharp response from President Trump.
Moscow's policy toward the Assad government, Tehran, and Hezbollah has also become more
active and supportive. Indeed, Russia's military intervention in Syria, beginning in 2015, was
a
crucial factor in tilting the war in favor of Assad's forces, which have now regained
control over most of Syria. Washington is thus witnessing Russia getting behind two of its
major adversaries: Venezuela and an Iran-led coalition in the Middle East.
This is a classic example of
balancing behavior on the part of countries worried about a stronger power that pursues
aggression. Historically, weaker competitors face a choice when confronting such a power:
bandwagon or attempt to balance against that would-be hegemon. Some very weak nations may
have little choice but to cower and accept dependent status, but most midsize powers (and even
some small ones) will choose the path of defiance. As part of that balancing strategy, they
tend to seek any allies that might prove useful, regardless of differences. When the perceived
threat is great enough, such factors are ignored or submerged. The United States and Britain
did so when they formed the Grand Alliance with the totalitarian Soviet Union in World War II
to defeat Nazi Germany. Indeed, the American revolutionaries made common cause with two
reactionary autocracies, France and Spain, to win independence from Britain.
The current U.S. policy has produced an array of unpleasant results, and cries out for
reassessment. Washington has created needless grief for itself. It entails considerable
ineptitude to foster collaboration between Iran and North Korea, to say nothing of adding
Assad's secular government and Maduro's quasi-communist regime to the mix. Even worse are the
policy blunders that have driven Russia to support such motley clients and forge ever-closer
economic and military links with a natural rival like China. It is extremely unwise for any
country, even a superpower, to multiply the number of its adversaries needlessly and drive them
together into a common front. Yet that is the blunder the United States is busily
committing.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at , is the author of 12 books and more than 800 articles. His latest book
is Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements (2019).
"I never thought I'd be saying this, but if the Soviet Union still existed, the United States
would not dare to do what it is doing now" – said to me by an anti-Communist Romanian
who had fled Romania when it was still Communist ruled. We were attending a demonstration
against the Clinton air war which was the final death blow to Yugoslavia.
The emergence of a powerful anti-American world coalition is a good thing; US world
hegemony has been good neither for the US nor for the world. The main danger is that the US,
seeing its power slip away, will resort to all out war, even nuclear war. I pray that the US
rulers are at least sane even if they are quite evil and over-bearing.
Current US foreign policy, set by the White House and Commander-in-Chief, reflects the beliefs
of the Deplorables who put Trump into office: sadly, most of these dupes believe the myth of
American Exceptionalism [copyright Sarah Palin]. The nexus of confusing social media and
reality TV with genuine reality, and 1950s Hollywood jingoism, has them waiting for a crisis
[possibly a gay Star Wars/Kardashian-type monster] that can only be saved before the final
commercial by their 'Hero'.
Hello,
Let's see here.
It's gotten to the point where the great United States is ruled by Trump and the strangest of
people, like freak Bolton and Pompeo and the Presidents son in law?
Are the voters nuts? The lousy choices of war mongers Hillary and Trump?
Look at the foreign leaders in the pictures.
Then look at the nasty hate filled, historically ignorant bums I named above.
The difference?
They, the leaders of those four nations threaten no one and no other nation, but clown Trump
and his advisers do every day.
Take away any power from Trump and his advisers, yeah, wishful thinking, I know, and read a
book by Noam Chomsky or an article or three by Bernie Sanders and maybe you will see what a
circus the white house is, of this nation. Ironically, America has never been LESS great. What
a damn crying shame, know what I mean?
There is a diverse coalition of weaker countries opposing the U.S. because
A. Each have been the target of regime change and figure they they better pool their resources
and help each other when they can 'the axis of resistance'.
or
B. The wolves are waiting at the wood's edge just waiting to humiliate the United States, the
last flickering light of all that is good.
Well since we are a nation of narcissists we believe B because we cannot fathom that other
countries act in their own interests.
This slur "authoritarian state" is now peddled by neocons as synonym for the "countries we do not like"
This neocons in not very inventive... We already saw this line from Robert Kagan, who
actually is a better writer. This neocon/neolib pressitute can't even use proper terms such as
"neoliberalism" and "Washington consensus"
And slide to far-right nationalism and neo-fascism is direct result of neoliberalism
dominance for the last 40 years (since Carter) and sliding of the standard of living of workers
and the middle class.
Notable quotes:
"... Both countries have touted the virtues of their systems, while arguing that Western values are a source of decadence, amorality and disorder in the Western world. ..."
As international rivalry intensifies, the core strategic task for the U.S.-led democratic
community is to contain the geopolitical influence and political disruption caused by
authoritarian great powers, namely China and Russia. Yet that task is made all the harder
because illiberalism -- and sympathy for those illiberal powers -- is simultaneously surging
among key actors on the political right. If the U.S. and its allies are to succeed in the great
global rivalry of the 21st century, the right must confront the threat of illiberalism within
its ranks -- just as the left did during a previous twilight struggle in the 20th century.
... ... ...
This time, the threat is not expansionist communism, but a combination of autocracy and
geopolitical revisionism. China has been moving toward a dystopian future of high-tech
authoritarianism, as it pushes for greater power and influence overseas. Putin's Russia has
consolidated an illiberal oligarchy, while using information warfare, political meddling and
other tools to subvert liberal democracies in Europe, the U.S. and beyond.
Both countries have touted the virtues of their systems, while arguing that Western
values are a source of decadence, amorality and disorder in the Western world.
... ... ...
It is not for nothing that the political scientist Marc Plattner has
written that the gravest threat to liberal democracy today is “that it will end up
being abandoned by substantial segments of the right.” And even in the U.S., there are
alarming signs that conservative commitment to the norms of liberal democracy is under
strain.
Communism was not a threat, but actually benefited the world in many ways.
It was communism that put pressure on capitalism to provide labor a fair share of wealth and
income. As soon as Soviet communism collapsed, capitalism returned to its avaricious roots,
resulting in stagnant wages for the working class. And the pauperization of the working class
in recent decades is the cause for the current revolt against liberal capitalism.
So it was the competition from communism that was helping capitalism to stay healthy. Without
it capitalism has degenerated into a Dickensian dystopia. We should therefore welcome any
alternative socio-economic models to liberal capitalism.
It was communism that put pressure on capitalism to provide labor a fair
share of wealth and income. As soon as Soviet communism collapsed,
capitalism returned to
Thats a great point Che.
I have never ever looked at it from that angle.
Interesting.
Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, who has long been a leading conservative
intellectual, warns that this disillusion with liberal democracy “is clearly present
among American conservatives, and not just among the ‘alt-right.’
Honest and real conservatives are far and fewer in today's MAGA/tea party infested GOP.
Forget career politicians like Ted Cruz or McConnell, even the previously decent conservative
think tanks/pundits like from NR or Erik Erickson or others have all given up on any
principles and just bow at the altar of Trump now.
No they haven’t, Trump decided to put McConnell in charge so of course the
#neverTrumpers like the McConnell presidency...which consists of appointing Republican judges
at record pace and little else.
The biggest need is to resist holy warriors like Hal Brands who want to destroy the world
if it resists their version of revealed truth. They are the biggest threat to the human
future. The United States has to learn to live in a world that it cannot control. The
American goal should be to work towards a constructive human future not some kind of holy war
to impose American control on the rest of the world. The United States is the biggest
military spender. In recent history, It has been the world's global aggressor.
It has an
history of wars that have made little difference whether America won or lost them. Perhaps
the United States could succeed with some kind of genocide that wiped out all of the parts of
the world that refuse to accept American supremacy. But, short of that kind of disgrace, the
United States is not going to succeed in achieving any meaningful goal through war. As long
as America does not destroy the world, the future is going to be determined by economic
competition and the destinies that the people of different parts of the world choose for
themselves.
I had wondered if it was noticed the Liberalism was dying. The world has turned hard
right, with all the anger, nationalism, do-as-I-say, and social intolerance.
I don't even the children of today.
I might suggest that liberals themselves are destroying their freedoms with illogical
illiberal liberalism.
YOU can't do that, say that, act like that, think like that...no no no...we must act and
be correct, nice, polite, all forgiving and never critical.
Huh?
The freedoms that so many of us marched for, fought for, voted for, sang about (thank gawd
the music still lives), got bloody for, even died for, are slipping away quicker than you can
say me, me, me...it's all about me.
Maybe...small maybe...our youth can once again awaken America and the world's conscience.
Maybe? Maybe not!
Wha? It seems our LIttle Cultural Revolution is just warming up. Wait till AOC et al are
all growed up.
"This is a moment when the “free world” needs to be strong and united."
Is this the same "free" world that jails grandmothers over contested historical views?
That has reneged on free speech?
Thanks to a truly ethnomasochistic immigration policy, I assure you that this will not
happen. The West will be lucky if squeaks through this period without a civil war.
"... Today's Sino-American impasse is rooted in "hyper-globalism," under which countries must open their economies to foreign companies, regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies or social models. But a global trade regime that cannot accommodate the world's largest trading economy is a regime in urgent need of repair. ..."
"... Today's impasse between the US and China is rooted in the faulty economic paradigm I have called "hyper-globalism," under which countries must open their economies to foreign companies maximally, regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies or social models. This requires that national economic models – the domestic rules governing markets –converge considerably. Without such convergence, national regulations and standards will appear to impede market access. They are treated as "non-tariff trade barriers" in the language of trade economists and lawyers. ..."
Today's Sino-American impasse is rooted in "hyper-globalism," under which countries must open their economies to
foreign companies, regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies or social models. But a global trade regime that cannot
accommodate the world's largest trading economy is a regime in urgent need of repair.
CAMBRIDGE – The world economy desperately needs a plan for "peaceful coexistence" between the United States and China. Both sides
need to accept the other's right to develop under its own terms. The US must not try to reshape the Chinese economy in its image
of a capitalist market economy, and China must recognize America's concerns regarding employment and technology leakages, and accept
the occasional limits on access to US markets implied by these concerns.
The term "peaceful coexistence" evokes the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev understood
that the communist doctrine of eternal conflict between socialist and capitalist systems had outlived its usefulness. The US and
other Western countries would not be ripe for communist revolutions anytime soon, and they were unlikely to dislodge the Communist
regimes in the Soviet bloc. Communist and capitalist regimes had to live side by side.
Peaceful coexistence during the Cold War may not have looked pretty; there was plenty of friction, with each side sponsoring its
own set of proxies in a battle for global influence. But it was successful in preventing direct military conflict between two superpowers
armed to the hilt with nuclear weapons. Similarly, peaceful economic coexistence between the US and China is the only way
to prevent costly trade wars between the world's two economic giants
Today's impasse between the US and China is rooted in the faulty economic paradigm I have
called "hyper-globalism," under
which countries must open their economies to foreign companies maximally, regardless of the consequences for their growth strategies
or social models. This requires that national economic models – the domestic rules governing markets –converge considerably. Without
such convergence, national regulations and standards will appear to impede market access. They are treated as "non-tariff trade barriers"
in the language of trade economists and lawyers.
Thus, the main US complaint against China is that Chinese industrial policies make it difficult for US companies to do business
there. Credit subsidies keep state companies afloat and allow them to overproduce. Intellectual property rules make it easier for
copyrights and patents to be overridden and new technologies to be copied by competitors. Technology-transfer requirements force
foreign investors into joint ventures with domestic firms. Restrictive regulations prevent US financial firms from serving Chinese
customers. President Donald Trump is apparently ready to carry out his threat of slapping additional punitive tariffs on $200 billion
of Chinese exports if China does not yield to US demands in these areas.
For its part, China has little patience for arguments that its exports have been responsible for significant whiplash in US labor
markets or that some of its firms are stealing technological secrets. It would like the US to remain open to Chinese exports and
investment. Yet China's own opening to world trade was carefully managed and sequenced, to avoid adverse impacts on employment and
technological progress.
Peaceful coexistence would require that US and China allow each other greater policy space, with international economic integration
yielding priority to domestic economic and social objectives in both countries (as well as in others). China would have a free hand
to conduct its industrial policies and financial regulations, in order to build a market economy with distinctive Chinese characteristics.
The US would be free to protect its labor markets from
social dumping and to exercise greater oversight over Chinese investments that threaten technological or national security objectives.
The objection that such an approach would open the floodgates of protectionism, bringing world trade to a halt, is based on a
misunderstanding of what drives open trade policies. As the principle of comparative advantage indicates, countries trade because
it is in their own interest. When they undertake policies that restrict trade, it is either because they reap compensating benefits
elsewhere or because of domestic political failures (for example, an inability to compensate the losers).
In the first instance, freer trade is not warranted because it would leave society worse off. In the second case, freer trade
may be warranted, but only to the extent that the political failure is addressed (and compensation is provided). International agreements
and trade partners cannot reliably discriminate between these two cases. And even if they could, it is not clear they can provide
the adequate remedy (enable compensation, to continue the example) or avoid additional political problems (capture by other special
interests such as big banks or multinational firms).
Consider China in this light. Many analysts believe that China's industrial policies have played a key role in its transformation
into an economic powerhouse. If so, it would be neither in China's interests, nor in the interest of the world economy, to curb such
practices. Alternatively, it could be that these policies are economically harmful on balance, as others have argued. Even in that
case, however, the bulk of the costs are borne by the Chinese themselves. Either way, it makes little sense to empower trade negotiators
– and the special interests lurking behind them – to resolve fundamental questions of economic policy on which there is little agreement
even among economists.
Those who worry about the slippery slope of protectionism should take heart from the experience under the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade prior to the establishment of the World Trade Organization. Under the GATT regime, countries had much greater freedom
to pursue their own economic strategies. Trade rules were both weaker and less encompassing. Yet world trade expanded (relative to
global output) at a more rapid clip in the three and a half decades after World War II than it has under the post-1990 hyper-globalist
regime. Similarly, one can make a convincing case that, thanks to its unorthodox growth policies, China today is a larger market
for foreign exporters and investors than if it had stuck to WTO-compliant policies.
Finally, some may say that these considerations are irrelevant, because China has acceded to the WTO and must play by its rules.
But China's entry into the WTO was predicated on the idea that it had become a Western-style market economy, or would become one
soon. This has not happened, and there is no good reason to expect that it will (or should). A mistake cannot be fixed by compounding
it.
A global trade regime that cannot accommodate the world's largest trading economy – China – is a regime in urgent need of repair.
"... "The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this is what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is no more viewed as a perfect model for all. Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov said. ..."
"... "The US and its allies are trying to impose their approaches on others," Lavrov noted. ..."
"... "They are guided by a clear desire to preserve their centuries-long dominance in global affairs although from the economic and financial standpoint, the US – alone or with its allies – can no longer resolve all global economic and political issues," he said. ..."
"... "In order to preserve their dominance and recover their indisputable authority, they use blackmail and pressure. They don't hesitate to blatantly interfere in the affairs of sovereign states." ..."
"... Agree with the assessment other than the claim the US has had centuries long global dominance, or even influence. ..."
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared today that the Western, liberal model of society is dying, and a new world order
is taking its place.
Lavrov made the comments at his annual meeting with students and professors at the Foreign Ministry's Diplomatic Academy, reported
Russian state news agency TASS.
"The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this
is what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is
no more viewed as a perfect model for all. Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov
said.
According to him, global development is guided "by processes aimed at boosting multipolarity and what we call a polycentric world
order."
"Clearly, multipolarity and the emergence of new centers of power in every way requires efforts to maintain global stability
and search for a balance of interests and compromises, so diplomacy should play a leading role here," Lavrov went on to say.
"Particularly because there are a lot of issues that require generally acceptable solutions."
These include regional conflicts, international terrorism, food security and environmental protection. This is why we believe
that only diplomacy can help make agreements and reach sustainable decisions that will be accepted by all.
"The US and its allies are trying to impose their approaches on others," Lavrov noted.
"They are guided by a clear desire to preserve their centuries-long dominance in global affairs although from the economic
and financial standpoint, the US – alone or with its allies – can no longer resolve all global economic and political issues,"
he said.
"In order to preserve their dominance and recover their indisputable authority, they use blackmail and pressure. They don't
hesitate to blatantly interfere in the affairs of sovereign states."
Perry Colace
When I was a kid, the Soviet Union was the enemy. Now Russia (with an economy, population, military and world influence the
fraction of the United States) seems to be one of the few places in the world that makes any bit of sense and ACTUALLY cares a
little bit about its culture and people.
Fluff The Cat
"The Western liberal model of development, which particularly stipulates a partial loss of national sovereignty – this is
what our Western colleagues aimed at when they invented what they called globalization – is losing its attractiveness and is
no more viewed as a perfect model for all.Moreover, many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov
said.
A Judaic-Masonic world order is the end goal. It entails the complete loss of sovereignty for all Western nations and the slow
genocide of white Christians via miscegnation and displacement by third-worlders.
lnardozi
I can't think of a man more American than Putin.
Sell the bases, come home, stop bothering others and trying to run world affairs.
Then we can spend a nice nice century or so rebuilding our infrastructure and trimming our out-of-control federal government.
The clue is right there in the name - the united STATES of America. A state is a sovereign country with its own laws - except
for those powers enumerated in the Constitution which the federal government should have.
That's the whole point - competition in government. You don't like the state you're in - you're guaranteed the choice of 49
others, along with all your possessions.
notfeelinthebern
Agree with the assessment other than the claim the US has had centuries long global dominance, or even influence.
johnnycanuck
Western global dominance, US took over from the British Empire with the assistance of the banksters class. It's all there in
the history books, you just need to spend time
consider me gone
As much as I hate to say it, this was Winston Churchill's idea. Even as the war was just starting, he was a major advocate
for the West controlling the globe after WWII.
But I'll bet he had no idea that the West would abandon traditional Western values in the process. He wouldn't watch TV and
predicted it would turn society into unthinking idiots. He nailed that one anyhow.
The Alliance
"...many people in the very western countries are skeptical about it," Lavrov said.
Skeptical?
I, for one, would show up early and highly motivated to march against, and to destroy, these treasonous, malevolent, collectivist
Globalists.
The Globalists within the United States government are traitors--traitors, by definition. They have declared war on our republic.
CDN_Rebel
Russia works because they have a ruthless tyrant who happens to be incredibly competent. That same system with a weak ruler
will collapse entirely in a matter of months. I like Putin, but he needs to groom an ironfisted successor pronto.
As for the chows - they need to print half a trillion a month to stay afloat and that's your model?
The west is only fucked because the sleeping masses refuse to acknowledge that Marxists have undermined our institutions...
It would take only a few years to scrub these subversive ***** from our society if we had the balls to do it
johnnycanuck
yadda yadda yadda.. marxists, subversives, commies, all the catch phrases of ye old Joe McCarthy. Russia works because Russians
have a history of enduring adversity. Unlike Americans.
Moribundus
It is eventually end of era of western imperialism, era that lasted 900 years. Game is over
"... Trump's failure here is his alone. Closing the border could be accomplished with a simple executive order. It has happened before: Reagan ordered the closing of the border when DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena was murdered on assignment in Mexico in 1985, for instance. ..."
"... Trump's empty threats over the past two years have had real-world consequences, prompting waves of migrants trying to sneak into the country while they still have the chance. His recent move to cut all foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador is another empty gesture that will probably have similar consequences. The funds directed to those countries were used for programs that provided citizens with incentives not to migrate elsewhere. (The situation was not ideal from an isolationist point of view, but a wiser man would have built the wall before cutting off the aid.) ..."
"... Trump's betrayal of American workers is perhaps best encapsulated by the fact that one of the members of the advisory board of his National Council for the American Worker (which claims to "enhance employment opportunities for Americans of all ages") is the CEO of IBM, a company that has expressed a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders in its job postings. ..."
"... There are more former Goldman Sachs employees in the Trump White House than in the Obama and Bush administrations combined. ..."
"... It is hard to escape the conclusion that Trump is not actually interested in curbing immigration and reversing America's demographic decline. He is a con artist and a coward who is willing to betray millions of white Americans so that he can remain in the good graces of establishment neoconservatives ..."
"... As Ann Coulter has put it, "He's like a waiter who compliments us for ordering the hamburger, but keeps bringing us fish. The hamburger is our signature dish, juicy and grilled to perfection, you've made a brilliant choice . . . now here's your salmon. " ..."
"... Third, he put an end to American funding for Palestinians. This coincided with the passing of a bill that codified a $38 billion, ten-year foreign aid package for Israel. Trump also authorized an act allocating an additional $550 million toward US-Israel missile and tunnel defense cooperation. ..."
"... Trump's track record on Israel shows that he is capable of exercising agency and getting things done. But he has failed to address the most pressing issue that America currently faces: mass immigration and the displacement of white Americans. The most credible explanation for his incompetence is that he has no intention of delivering on his promises. There is no "Plan," no 4-D chess game. The sooner white Americans realize this, the better. ..."
"... We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more" ..."
"Unlike other presidents, I keep my promises," Trump boasted in a
speech delivered on Saturday to the Republican Jewish Congress
at a luxury hotel in Las Vegas. Many in the audience wore red yarmulkes emblazoned with his name. In his speech, Trump condemned
Democrats for allowing "the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism to take root in their party" and emphasized his loyalty to Israel.
Trump has kept some of his promises. So far, he has kept every promise that he made to the Jewish community. Yet he has reneged
on his promises to white America – the promises that got him elected in the first place. It is a betrayal of the highest order: millions
of white Americans placed their hopes in Trump and wholeheartedly believed that he would be the one to make America great again.
They were willing to endure social ostracism and imperil their livelihoods by supporting him. In return, Trump has turned his back
on them and rendered his promises void.
The most recent example of this is Trump's failure to keep his promise to close the border. On March 29, Trump threatened to close
the border if Mexico did not stop all illegal immigration into the US. This would likely have been a highly effective measure given
Mexico's dependence on cross-border trade. Five days later, he suddenly retracted this threat and said that he would give Mexico
a " one-year warning
" before taking drastic action. He further claimed that closing the border would not be necessary and that he planned to establish
a twenty-five percent
tariff on cars
entering the US instead.
Trump's failure here is his alone. Closing the border could be accomplished with a simple executive order. It has happened
before: Reagan ordered the closing of the border when DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena was murdered on assignment in Mexico in 1985,
for instance.
Trump's empty threats over the past two years have had real-world consequences, prompting waves of migrants trying to sneak
into the country while they still have the chance. His recent move to cut all foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador
is another empty gesture that will probably have similar consequences. The funds directed to those countries were used for programs
that provided citizens with incentives not to migrate elsewhere. (The situation was not ideal from an isolationist point of view,
but a wiser man would have built the wall before cutting off the aid.)
The past two years have seen a surge in illegal immigration without precedent in the past decade. Since late December, the Department
of Homeland Security has released 125,565 illegal aliens into the country. In the past two weeks alone,
6,000 have been admitted. According to current projections, 2019 will witness around 500,000 to 775,000 border crossings. Additionally,
about 630,000 illegal aliens will be added to the population after having overstayed their visas. By the end of the year,
more than one million illegal aliens will have been added to the population:
These projections put the number of illegal aliens added to the U.S. population at around one to 1.5 million, on top of the
11 to
22 million illegal aliens who are already living across the country. This finding does not factor in the illegal aliens who
will be deported, die over the next year, or leave the U.S. of their own will. As DHS data has revealed, once border crossers
and illegal aliens are released into the country, the overwhelming majority are never deported.
In February, Trump signed a
bill allowing the DHS
secretary to add another 69,320 spots to the current H-2B cap of 66,000. On March 29, DHS began this process by announcing that it
would issue an additional
30,000 H-2B visas this year. The H-2B visa program allows foreign workers to come to the US and work in non-agricultural occupations.
Unlike the H-1B program, a Bachelor's degree is not required; most H-2B workers are employed in construction, maintenance, landscaping,
and so on. The demographic most affected by the expansion of the H-2B program will be unemployed working-class Americans. This flies
in the face of Trump's promise to protect American workers and stop importing foreigners.
Trump has indicated that he has plans to expand the H-1B visa program as well. "We want to encourage talented and highly skilled
people to pursue career options in the U.S.," he said in a
tweet in January.
Trump's betrayal of American workers is perhaps best encapsulated by the fact that one of the members of the advisory board
of his National Council for the American Worker
(which claims to "enhance employment opportunities for Americans of all ages") is the CEO of IBM, a company that has
expressed a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders
in its job postings.
Trump has been working on legal immigration with Jared Kushner, who has quietly been crafting a
plan to grant
citizenship to more "low- and high-skilled workers, as well as permanent and temporary workers" (so, just about everyone). Kushner's
plan proves the folly of the typical Republican line that legal immigration is fine and that only illegal immigration should be opposed.
Under his plan, thousands of illegal aliens will become "legal" with the stroke of a pen.
There is a paucity of anti-immigration hardliners in Trump's inner circle (though Stephen Miller is a notable exception). Trump
has surrounded himself with moderates: the Kushners, Mick Mulvaney, Alex Acosta, and others. There are more former Goldman Sachs
employees in the Trump White House than in the Obama and Bush administrations combined.
The new DHS secretary, Kevin McAleenan, who was appointed yesterday following Kirstjen Nielsen's resignation, is a middle-of-the-road
law enforcement official who served under Obama and Bush and is responsible for the revival of the "
catch-and-release " policy, whereby
illegal aliens are released upon being apprehended. It was reported last week that Trump was thinking of appointing either Kris Kobach
or Ken Cuccinelli to a position of prominence (as an "
immigration czar "),
but this appears to have been another lie.
Trump's failure to deliver on his promises cannot be chalked up to congressional obstruction. Congress. As Kobach said in a recent
interview , "It's not like we're powerless and it's not like we have to wait for Congress to do something. . . . No, we can actually
solve the immediate crisis without Congress acting." Solving the border crisis would simply demand "leadership in the executive branch
willing to act decisively." Kobach recently outlined an intelligent
three-point plan that Trump could implement:
Publish the final version of the regulation that would supersede the Flores Settlement. The initial regulation was
published by the Department of Homeland
Security in September 2018. DHS could have published the final regulation in December. Inexplicably, DHS has dragged its feet. Finalizing
that regulation would allow the United States to detain entire families together, and it would stop illegal aliens from exploiting
children as get-out-of-jail free cards. Set up processing centers at the border to house the migrants and hold the hearings in one
place. The Department of Justice should deploy dozens of immigration judges to hear the asylum claims at the border without releasing
the migrants into the country. FEMA already owns
thousands of travel trailers and mobile homes that it has used to address past hurricane disasters. Instead of selling them (which
FEMA is currently doing), FEMA should ship them to the processing centers to provide comfortable housing for the migrants. In addition,
a fleet of passenger planes should deployed to the processing centers. Anyone who fails in his or her asylum claim, or who is not
seeking asylum and is inadmissible, should be flown home immediately. It would be possible to fly most migrants home within a few
weeks of their arrival. Word would get out quickly in their home countries that entry into the United States is not as easy as advertised.
The incentive to join future caravans would dissipate quickly. Publish a proposed Treasury regulation that prohibits the sending
home of remittances by people who cannot document lawful presence in the United States. This will hit Mexico in the pocketbook: Mexico
typically brings in well over $20 billion a year in
remittances , raking in
more than $26 billion in 2017. Then, tell the government of Mexico that we will finalize the Treasury regulation unless they do two
things to help us address the border crisis: (1) Mexico immediately signs a "safe third country agreement" similar to our agreement
with Canada. This would require asylum applicants to file their asylum application in the first safe country they set foot in (so
applicants in the caravans from Central America would have to seek asylum in Mexico, rather than Canada); and (2) Mexico chips in
$5 billion to help us build the wall. The threat of ending remittances from illegal aliens is a far more powerful one than threatening
to close the border. Ending such remittances doesn't hurt the U.S. economy; indeed, it helps the economy by making it more likely
that such capital will be spent and circulate in our own country. We can follow through easily if Mexico doesn't cooperate.
It would not be all that difficult for Trump to implement these proposals. Kobach still has faith in Trump, but his assessment
of him appears increasingly to be too generous. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Trump is not actually interested in
curbing immigration and reversing America's demographic decline. He is a con artist and a coward who is willing to betray millions
of white Americans so that he can remain in the good graces of establishment neoconservatives . At the same time, he wants to
maintain the illusion that he cares about his base.
As Ann Coulter has put it, "He's like a waiter who compliments us for ordering the hamburger, but keeps bringing us fish.
The hamburger is our signature dish, juicy and grilled to perfection, you've made a brilliant choice . . . now here's your salmon.
"
Nearly everything Trump has done in the name of restricting immigration has turned out to be an empty gesture and mere theatrics:
threatening to close the border, offering protections to "Dreamers" in exchange for funding for the ever-elusive wall, threatening
to end the "anchor baby" phenomenon with an executive order (which never came to pass), cutting off aid to Central American countries,
claiming that he will appoint an "immigration czar" (and then proceeding to appoint McAleenan instead of Kobach as DHS secretary),
and on and on.
While Trump has failed to keep the promises that got him elected, he has fulfilled a number of major promises that he made to
Israel and the Jewish community.
First, he moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump claimed that the move would only cost $200,000, but in
reality it will end up being more than
$20 million . The construction
of the embassy also led to a series of bloody protests; it is located in East Jerusalem, which is generally acknowledged to be Palestinian
territory.
Second, he pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal. Netanyahu
claimed on Israeli TV that Israel was responsible for convincing him to exit the deal and reimpose sanctions on Iran. (Both Trump
and Netanyahu falsely alleged that Iran lied about the extent of its nuclear program; meanwhile, Israel's large arsenal of chemical
and biological weapons has escaped mention.) Third, he put an end to American funding for Palestinians. This coincided with the
passing of a
bill that codified a $38 billion, ten-year foreign aid package for Israel. Trump also authorized an act allocating an additional
$550 million toward US-Israel missile and tunnel defense cooperation.
Fourth, he recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights (in defiance of the rest of the world, which recognizes the
Golan Heights as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation). Trump's Golan Heights proclamation was issued on March 21 and was celebrated
by Israel. Trump's track record on Israel shows that he is capable of exercising agency and getting things done. But he has failed
to address the most pressing issue that America currently faces: mass immigration and the displacement of white Americans. The most
credible explanation for his incompetence is that he has no intention of delivering on his promises. There is no "Plan," no 4-D chess
game. The sooner white Americans realize this, the better.
If you haven't picked up a copy of Vicky Ward's book, Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story
of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump , you really should.
I haven't read Mr. Graham's essay yet, but I thought those two links would fit in nicely. I stay in a low boil, like it is,
and having plodded through both those reviews, I can't stand reading too much on this topic at once.
Something's gotta give. Or are the brainless goy just going to let themselves be led off a cliff?
Oh, yes. There's an interview with Ward on
BookTV .
Yep. Trump's a lying POS pond scum like the rest of the DC swamp that he said he was going to drain, turns out he is one of them
all along. We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more. He needs to change his campaign slogan to MIGA, Make Israel
Great Again, that was the plan of his handlers all along.
What I want to know is, who are those idiots who still keep showing up at his rallies? Are they really that dumb?
Even Sanders came out and said we can't have open borders. I've also heard him said back in 2015 that the H1b visa program
is a replacement program for American workers. If he grows a pair and reverts back to that stance, teams up with Tulsi Gabbard,
I'll vote for them 2020. Fuck Trump! Time for him and his whole treasonous rat family to move to Israel where they belong.
His "implicitly white" supporters would have abandoned him in droves, not wanting to be associated with a racist, thus pointing
up the weakness of implicit whiteness as a survival strategy. And is it actually a survival strategy? A closer look at it makes
me think it's more of a racial self-extermination strategy. After all, what kind of a survival strategy is it that can't even
admit its goals to itself? And it's exactly this refusal of whites to explicitly state that they collectively want to continue
to exist as a race that is the greatest impediment to their doing so. It's an interesting problem with no easy solution. How
do you restore the will to live to a race that seems to have lost it? And not only lost its will to live, but actually prides
itself on doing so? Accordingly, this "betrayal" isn't a betrayal at all. It's what American whites voted for and want. Giving
their country away and accepting their own demographic demise is proof of their virtue; proof of their Christian love for all
mankind.
You are definitely onto something here.
Still, I feel it's not that deep and complicated. It could be that they simply don't believe that the danger is closing in.
Boils down to wrong judgment. People who haven't had the need to think hard about serious things tend to develop that weakness.
I guess that boils down to "good times make weak men."
Hard times are coming and they'll make hard men.
The catch is simple: will be enough of them in time ?
Switching to the Democrats is no solution. The DNC has proven itself to be a criminal organization through sabotaging Sander's
campaign and then being instrumental in creating Russophobia, in collusion with Obama, the CIA, the FBI, and the DoJ. The DNC
has rules in place stating that super delegates – elitists aligned with the DNC – can vote if one nominee does not win on the
first ballot at the National Convention.
Because we have a HUGE number of hats in the Democratic ring, the chances that the nomination
will not be decided on a first vote are extremely high, with the result being that the Democratic nominee is not going to be decided
by voters in the primaries but by super delegates, i.e., the elitists and plutocrats.
Democracy exists when we vote to support
candidates chosen by the elites for the elites; when we stop doing that, the elites turn on democracy. It is a sham; we will have
a choice in 2020: between Pepsi and Coke. You are free to choose which one you prefer, because you live in a democracy. For more
on the rigging of the democratic primaries for 2020, see
Since the 1971 floating of the US dollar onto the global markets, and 1973 creation of the
Petro dollar, the world has experienced a consistent collapse of productive manufacturing jobs,
infrastructure investment, long term planning on the one hand and a simultaneous increase of
de-regulation, short term speculation, financial services, and low wage retail jobs. During
this post 1971 process of decline, debt slavery became a norm both in developed countries and
developing sector nations alike, while outsourcing caused the castration of national
sovereignty and an ever greater reliance on "cheap labor" and "cheap resources" from abroad. It
was even called the
"controlled disintegration" policy of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in 1978 as he
was preparing to raise interest rates to levels that made it impossible for a majority of small
and medium agro-industrial enterprises to compete against corporate monoliths. The most
concrete model of this collapse was unveiled to the world in 1996 by the late American
economist Lyndon LaRouche known as the Triple Curve Collapse Function.
Some have called this collapse "a failure of globalization". Executive Intelligence Review's
Dennis Small has
repeatedly stated over many years that this is characterization is false. Globalization
should rather be seen as a complete success- in that when looked at from a top down
perspective, it becomes increasingly clear that the architects of this policy achieved exactly
what they set out to do. That intention was to impose an artificial closed/zero-sum game
paradigm upon a species whose distinguishing characteristic is its creative reason and capacity
constantly grow and self-perfect both on the surface of the earth and beyond. A primary figure
in the oligarchy's tool box of sociopathic agents who shaped this program for depopulation and
zero sum thinking over the years is a Canadian-born operative by the name of Maurice Strong.
Although having died in 2015, Strong's life and legacy are worth revisiting as it provides the
modern reader a powerful, albeit ugly insight into the methods and actions of the British-Deep
State agenda that so mis-shaped world history through the latter half of the 20 th
century.
While this exercise will have value for all truth seekers, this story should carry
additional weight for Canadians currently witnessing
their own government collapsing under the weight of the contradictions built into a system
which Strong led in shaping (i.e.: the need for nuclear and industrial productive potential
embodied by SNC Lavalin and the obedience to a "green" post-industrial paradigm antagonistic to
such productive capacity).
Journalist Elaine Dewar's groundbreaking 1994 book "Cloak of Green" which every
truth-seeker should read, dealt rigorously with Strong's role as a recruit of Rockefeller
assets in the 1950s, an oil baron, vice president of Power Corporation by 30, Liberal Party
controller, Privy Councilor, and founder of Canada's neo-colonial external aid policy towards
Africa which tied Africa into IMF debt slaves, we will focus here on the role Strong has played
since 1968 in subverting the anti-entropic potential of both his native Canada and the world at
large. It was through this post-1968 role that Strong performed his most valued work for the
genocidal agenda of his British masters who seek to reduce the world population to a "carrying capacity"
of less than a billion .
RIO and Global Governance
In 1992, Maurice Strong had been assigned to head the second Earth Summit (the first having
been the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment also chaired by Strong). The Rio
Summit had established a new era in the consolidation of NGOs and corporations under the
genocidal green agenda of controlled starvation masquerading behind the dogma of
"sustainability'. This doctrine was formalized with Agenda 21 and the Earth
Charter , which Strong co-authored with his collaborated Jim Macneil during the 1990s. At
the opening of the Rio Summit, Strong announced that industrialized countries had "developed
and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced
our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and
convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and
suburban housing- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to
environmentally damaging consumption patterns."
"The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of
international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the
new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the
reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is
simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states,
however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security."
Two years earlier, Strong gave an interview
wherein he described a "fiction book" he was fantasizing about writing which he described in
the following manner:
" What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the
Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich
countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they
do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So,
in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that
about?"
When this statement is held up parallel to this man's peculiar life, we quickly come to see
that the barrier between reality and fiction is more than a little blurry.
The Destruction of Nuclear Power
It is vital to examine Strong's role in crippling Canada's potential to make use of nuclear
power, one of the greatest beacons of hope mankind has ever had to break out of the current
"fixed" boundaries to humanity's development. Indeed, the controlled use of the atom, along
with the necessary discovery of new universal principles associated with this endeavor, have
always represented one of the greatest strategic threats to the oligarchic system, which
depends on a closed system of fixed resources in order to both manage current populations and
justify global governance under "objective" frameworks of logic. Fission and fusion processes
exist on a level far beyond those fixed parameters that assume the earth's "carrying capacity"
is no greater than the 2 billion souls envisioned by today's London-centered oligarchy. If
mankind were to recognize his unique creative potential to continuously transcend his
limitations by discovering and creating new resources, no empire could long exist. With Canada
as the second nation to have civilian nuclear power, and a frontier science culture in physics
and chemistry, the need to destroy this potential in the mind of the British Deep State of
Canada was great indeed.
To get a better sense of the anti-nuclear role Strong has played in Canadian science policy,
we must actually go back once again to Strong's reign at the Department of External Aid in
1966.
Humanity's trend towards utilizing ever more dense forms of fire was always driven by a
commitment to scientific and technological progress. The realization that this process drives
the increase of human potential population density (both in quantity and quality of life) was
recognized at the turn of the 20th century and serves as the foundation for American economist
Lyndon LaRouche's method of economic forecasting. The graph above features American per capita
access to energy and the post-1975 sabotage of the expected transition to nuclear fission and
fusion
Technological Apartheid for Africa
A key reason that Strong had been brought into Canada's Civil Service to head up the
External Aid office in 1966 was to sabotage the international efforts leading scientists and
statesmen had achieved in making Canada an exporter of its original CANDU reactors. Since 1955,
leading patriots within Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. (AECL) and the National Research Council such
as C.D. Howe and his collaborator C.W. Mackenzie, ensured that the export of advanced nuclear
technology was made available to developing countries such as India and Pakistan. In Canada
this policy was advanced vigorously by Prime
Minister John Diefenbaker, who also saw atomic power as the key to world peace.
The banners under which this advanced technology transfer occurred were both the Columbo Plan and President
Dwight Eisenhower's
Atoms for Peace . This progressive approach to international development defined "external
aid" not around IMF conditionalities, or simply money for its own sake, but rather as the
transfer of the most advanced science and technology to poor countries with the explicit
intention that all nations would attain true sovereignty. This is the model that China has
adopted today under the
Belt and Road Initiative.
When Strong got to work in External Aid, and later formed the Canadian International
Development Agency, Canada's relationship to "LDCs" (lesser developed countries) became reduced
to advancing "appropriate technologies" under the framework of monetarism and a perverse form
of systems analysis. After JFK's assassination, a parallel operation was conducted in America's
USAid. No technology or advanced infrastructure policy necessary for the independence of former
colonies were permitted under this precursor to what later became known as "sustainability" and
"zero growth". Under Strong's influence, Canada's role became perverted into inducing LDCs to
become obedient to IMF/World Bank "conditionalities" and the reforms of their bureaucracies
demanded by the OECD in order to receive money. Both in Canada and in developing countries,
Strong was among the key agents who oversaw the implementation of the OECD's strategy of
"closed systems analysis" for national policy management.
Petrol and Pandas
In his role as President of Petro Canada (1976-78), Strong endorsed the national call to create a nuclear moratorium for
Canada which had been carried out by the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility in
1977. This document not only demanded an immediate halt to the continuation of all reactors
then under construction, but also made the sophistical argument that more jobs could be created
if "ecologically friendly" energy sources and conservation methods were developed instead of
nuclear and fossil fuels. Strange desires coming from an oil executive, but not so strange
considering Strong's 1978-1981 role as Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), an
organization founded by the British and Dutch monarchies as a Royal Dutch Shell initiative in
1963. Strong was Vice President during the same interval that WWF co-founder Prince Philip was
its President.
In 1971, while still heading up the External Aid Department, Strong was a founding member of
the 1001 Club, which was an elite international organization created by Prince Bernhard of the
Netherlands created to finance the emerging green agenda for world governance. The 1001 Club
worked in tandem with Prince Bernhard's other secretive club known as the "Bilderberg Group"
which he founded in 1954. In this position, Strong helped to recruit 80 Canadian "initiates" to
this elite society otherwise known as "Strong's Kindergarten", the most prominent being Lord
Conrad Black, Barrick Gold's Peter Munk (1927-2018) and Permindex's late Sir Louis Mortimer
Bloomfield (1906-1984). As documented elsewhere, the latter was discovered to be at the heart
of the plot to
assassinate President John F. Kennedy by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.
Strong Decapitates Ontario Nuclear Energy
By 1992, Strong had completed his role heading the Rio Earth Summit in Brazil and had
returned to his native land to attempt to finalize the dismantling of Canada's nuclear program
in his new assignment as President of Ontario Hydro, a position he held from 1992 to 1995 under
the formal invitation of Bob Rae, then-NDP Premier of Ontario and brother of Power Corp.'s John
Rae. Bob Rae later served as the leader of the Liberal Party from 2011-2013 in preparation for
Justin Trudeau's appointment to become the party's new figurehead in April of 2013.
Strong was brought in to this position at the time that Ontario had the most ambitious
nuclear program in North America and was proving to be a thorn in the side of the zero-growth
agenda demanded by the British Empire. The completion of the massive Darlington system in
Ontario had demonstrated what successful long-term science planning could accomplish, although
the utility found itself running far over budget. The budgetary problems (which occurred during
a deep recession in 1992) were used by Strong to "restructure" the provincial energy
utility.
The "remedies" chosen by Strong to solve Ontario Hydro's financial woes involved immediately
canceling all new planned nuclear energy development, firing 8 of the 14 directors, and
downsizing the utility by laying off 14 000 employees, many of whom were the most specialized
and experienced nuclear technicians in Canada.
Before leaving his post in 1995 with the fall of Bob Rae's government, Strong ensured that
his work would continue with his replacement Jim MacNeill who headed Ontario Hydro from 1994 to
1997. MacNeill was co-architect of both the Earth Charter and the genocidal Agenda 21 during
the Rio Summit and a long time Deep State agent. Under MacNeill, Strong's mandate to
unnecessarily shut down eight reactors for refurbishment and one permanently was effected in
1997, while Ontario Hydro itself was broken up into three separate entities. With the
irreparable loss of specialized manpower and skills Strong and MacNeill left Ontario Hydro and
AECL mortally wounded for years to come.
Surprising all observers, AECL and the Ontario utilities were able to remobilize their
remaining forces to pull together the successful refurbishment of all reactors– the last
of which came back online in October 2012. While Canada's moratorium on nuclear power
continued, with SNC Lavelin's 2011 takeover, an approach for cooperation on international
nuclear construction in
partnership with China began in July 2014, much to Strong's chagrin.
Strong's Failed Attempt to Infiltrate China
For much of the 21 st century, Strong's talents were put to use in an attempt to
subvert the aspirations of Asian development, and of a Eurasian alliance formed around the
driving economic grand design of the emerging Belt and Road Initiative. Strong was deployed to
Beijing University where he acted as Honorary Professor and Chairman of its Environmental
Foundation and Chairman of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Research on Security and
Sustainability for Northwest Asia.
In the face of the meltdown of the Trans-Atlantic economy, the Chinese have successfully
resisted the Green New Deal agenda that demanded the submission of their national sovereignty
to the "New World Order" of zero-growth and depopulation. In spite of this pressure, a powerful
tradition of Confucianism and its commitment to progress has demonstrated its powerful
influence in the various branches of the Chinese establishment who see China's only hope for
survival located in its strategic partnership with Russia and long term mega projects to lift
its people out of poverty and into the 22nd Century. This was made fully clear when China
rejected the "special relationship" with Canada in December 2017 .
Speaking of the importance of the Belt and Road Initiative which had combined with the
Eurasian Economic Union and BRICS, President Xi Jinping stated in 2017: "We should foster a
new type of international relations featuring win-win cooperation; and we should forge
partnerships of dialogue with no confrontation and of friendship rather than alliance. All
countries should respect each other's sovereignty, dignity and territorial integrity, each
other's development paths and social systems, and each other's core interests and major
concerns In pursuing the Belt and Road Initiative, we will not resort to outdated geopolitical
maneuvering. What we hope to achieve is a new model of win-win cooperation. We have no
intention to form a small group detrimental to stability, what we hope to create is a big
family of harmonious co-existence."
The Belt and
Road Initiative has arisen as a true opposition to the bipolar insanity of western right
wing militarism/monetarism on the one side and left wing depopulation under "
Green New Deals " on the other. Trillions of dollars of credit in great infrastructure
projects across Eurasia, Africa and Latin America have resulted in the greatest burst of
cultural optimism, productivity and if the population and leadership of the west act with the
proper passion and wisdom, there is a very good opportunity to rid humanity of the legacy of
Maurice Strong.
"... I don't see how nations- or states- can develop other than with a mercantilist mindset. Doesn't the failure of globalization demand a return to mercantilist methods in order to have a functioning society in the modern, technological world? ..."
"... From my limited and naive understanding of history, it seems to me that the opportunity for peaceful coexistence on the planet is consistently being squandered by Western nations -- particularly the US. ..."
The European multinational is following a trend started by Boeing, which
recently opened a new completion plant in China. On the face of it, the decision by the two
companies (which dominate the civilian aviation market) makes sense: build where your biggest
customer lives, especially as China does not yet have a fully homegrown civil aviation industry
ready to compete globally. The benefits are many, including the goodwill and esteem of the
country that would be buying these planes. In the long term, however, that might prove to be a
costly miscalculation. Based on its recent history ( here and
here ), it
won't take long for China to catch up and largely displace both companies domestically in
Beijing's home aviation market, as well as seizing a large chunk of the corporate duopoly's
global market share. Airbus and Boeing could therefore be making short-term decisions with
negative long-term consequences for their future profitability.
Given China's formidable economic advancement, none of this should come as a surprise to
either Airbus or Boeing. Nor should it shock Western governments. The problem is that everybody
has historically been guided by the naïve assumption that simply admitting China to
organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) would induce Beijing to, in
the words of Philip Pan , "eventually bend to what were considered the established rules of
modernization: Prosperity would fuel popular demands for political freedom and bring China into
the fold of democratic nations. Or the Chinese economy would falter under the weight of
authoritarian rule and bureaucratic rot." China has unquestionably modernized, but its
politically illiberal, dirigiste polity has, if anything, massively
moved in the opposite direction, strengthened by that very modernization process that has done
anything but falter. Furthermore, the country has many aims and goals that are antithetical to
the long-term prosperity of Western companies and economies (as the European Union is
beginning to recognize ).
Boeing and Airbus might simply become the latest Western sacrificial lambs. Beijing has
explicitly targeted wide-bodied aircrafts as one of its 10 new priority sectors for import
substitution in its " Made in China
2025 " document, so whatever short-term gains Airbus and Boeing receive in terms of
securing additional orders from China could well be undermined longer-term. The resultant
technology transfers and lower labor costs will almost certainly give Beijing a quantum leap
toward competing directly and ultimately displacing both companies. Given the merger with
McDonnell Douglas, Boeing will continue its march toward effectively becoming a branch of the
U.S. Department of Defense, as its civilian market share crashes, but Airbus doesn't really
have the luxury of a military alternative, given the relative paucity of European defense
expenditures.
As if Boeing needed any further problems, the 737 fiasco represents the latest in a series
of setbacks for the company. Boeing's 737 global recall, coming on the heels of the initial
launch problems of the 787 Dreamliner some six years ago (where the " demoduralization " of
production meant that Boeing "could not fully account for stress transmission and loading at
the system level," as Gary Pisano and Willy Shih write ), together
illustrate the dangers of spreading manufacturing too far across the globe: Engineers,
notes CUNY fellow Jon Rynn , "need
to 'kick the tires' of the new production processes they design. So while a market may be
global, production and the growth of production take place most efficiently" in relatively
close geographic quarters.
American companies such as Boeing consistently underestimate the value of closely
integrating R&D and manufacturing, while underplaying the risks of separating them (
as
recent events have demonstrated again to the company's cost ). By deciding to expand its
A330 production in China, Airbus looks poised to repeat Boeing's error, a potential
miscalculation that most European Union companies have hitherto largely avoided, because the EU
has prioritized domestic manufacturing/discouraged offshoring more than its U.S. counterparts
(in regard to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs attributable to China, the American
Economic Review paper by Justin R. Pierce and Peter K. Schott specifically notes that there
was "no similar reaction in the European Union, where policy did not change").
Beijing itself has historically balanced its purchases from both major civil aviation
manufacturers to ensure that it does not rely too heavily on one aircraft supplier, which means
that Airbus will likely benefit from the void created by the 737 recall. All the more reason
why the European conglomerate should be wary of following the pied piper-like expansion into
China. (The 737 recall also complicates resolution of the U.S.-China trade conflict, which had
appeared closer to resolution in light of Beijing's proposal to buy an additional $1.2tn in
U.S. exports over six years. Boeing aircraft purchases featured heavily on Beijing's shopping
list.)
But the longer-term challenges relate to China's economic development path and its
corresponding move up the high-tech curve, which have largely been characterized by
mercantilist policies of protection and heavy government subsidy. In this regard, the Chinese
state has followed a national development strategy first outlined in the
mid-19th century by the German economist Friedrich List , who argued that the national
government should play a crucial role in promoting, guiding, and regulating the process of
national economic advancement.
Protectionism, List argued, should play a role here as well during the country's "catch up"
phase of technological development. List wrote the analysis against a historic backdrop where
Germany was beginning to challenge the dominant economic power of its time, the United Kingdom.
So the defenders of Beijing might well point to his work to show that there is nothing new
about using the state as a principal instrument to accelerate economic development and
innovation.
However, List was analyzing two capitalist economies operating within the context of a
19th-century gold standard global financial system, which invariably circumscribed the scope of
state involvement (the finite availability of gold reserves limiting fiscal policy options). By
contrast, today the global economy operates under a fiat currency system, and what therefore
distinguishes China's economic domestic development from its 19th century predecessors is the
sheer scale of fiscal resources it can deploy in the furtherance of its economic (and military)
objectives. Some of these objectives might not be so benign to the West
longer-term.
Which points to another consideration for the West: for all of its supposed embrace of
capitalism, China is still primarily a state-dominated economy, which eschews the disciplines
of a free market economy. This means it has the capacity (and ideological predisposition) to
use the national fiscal policy as a loss leader, absorbing losses well beyond what would be
tolerated in an economy dominated by private enterprise (private companies, of course, can go
bust). Beijing underwrites its designated national champions by relying on a combination of
subsidies (some disguised, as they flow through state-backed investment funds and the financial
sectors) and "Buy China" preferences to develop Chinese products, even though these policies
are contrary to the rules of WTO membership, which China eagerly joined in 2001. As the
economist Brad Setser argues
, "various parts of the Chinese state compete, absorb losses, and then
consolidat[e] around the successful firms. Other countries [might] worry about the
[scale of the cumulative] losses," notes Setser, but not the Chinese government, which simply
socializes the losses at the national level, and writes them off.
In this regard, Boeing and Airbus would do well to consider China's experience in the solar
industry. Designating this as another strategic sector for growth in the 1990s, Chinese solar
companies, with the explicit backstop of the state, ultimately raised enough funding via debt
to build sufficient solar capacity for the world three times over. The overinvestment
ultimately killed the cash flows of major Western competitors and knocked them out of the
business, leaving the market free for China to dominate. Commenting on the trend, Scientific
American highlighted
that "between 2008 and 2013, China's fledgling solar-electric panel industry dropped world
prices by 80 percent, a stunning achievement in a fiercely competitive high-tech market. China
had leapfrogged from nursing a tiny, rural-oriented solar program in the 1990s to become the
globe's leader in what may soon be the world's largest renewable energy source."
Here was a classic case of state-guided/supported commercial companies receiving benefits
that went far beyond anything in, say, Korea or Taiwan, or even Japan in the earlier part of
their development. Now this trend is manifesting itself across the entire spectrum of the
Chinese guided economy, including agricultural equipment, industrial machinery,
telecommunications, AI, computer chips, and civil aviation. In another disturbing parallel that
Boeing and Airbus would do well to consider, "[t]he timeline of China's rise began in the late
1990s when Germany, overwhelmed by the domestic response to a government incentive program to
promote rooftop solar panels, provided the capital, technology and experts to lure China into
making solar panels to meet the German demand," according
to Scientific American . Much like the German solar companies, which shipped valuable
manufacturing and technological expertise to China, to sustain demand, Boeing and Airbus could
well be signing their economic death warrants by agreeing to offshore increasing amounts of
production in China to sustain their global market shares (aided and abetted by their more
market-oriented governments, which frown on the idea of national industrial policy).
The same thing is happening in wind power in China, which is expected to see offshore wind
capacity grow from 2 gigawatts last year to 31 gigawatts in the next decade. China's expansion
here has already forced Siemens and Gamesa to merge to cope with the rising competitive
challenge. As far as aviation itself goes, Setser
makes the point that "China may cut into the United States' future exports by building its
own competitor to the 737 and also cut into Europe's future exports if Airbus decides to build
the A330 in China and China buys
'Made in China' Rolls-Royce engines for the C929 and the A330." Even if this allows the
duopoly to maintain its dominance in global civil aviation, it is hard to see how shifting
manufacturing production of aircraft components to China to get orders constitutes a "win" for
the U.S. or European workers who are already being displaced. And Boeing's
weak-kneed response to the 737 crisis will likely exacerbate the company's problems going
forward.
The bottom line is that both Western governments and Western corporations have persistently
underestimated the power of China's economic development model, and the corresponding economic
threat that it poses to the West's own affluence. The usual criticism leveled against the
Chinese growth model is that a country that subsidizes its industries ends up with inefficient
industries, because heavily protected local firms are shielded from global competition,
ultimately leaving the country that resorts to protectionism with inferior products. The idea
of national champions, built up via state dirigisme, according to classic liberal economic
doctrine, ultimately ensures that economic efficiency and commercial considerations get
squeezed out. Rent-seeking and corruption become institutionalized, goes the argument, so these
national champions ultimately will not be able to compete in the global marketplace. That was
certainly the assumption of Milton Friedman, who called the
Chinese Communist Party's state-driven strategy "an open invitation to corruption and
inefficiency." By contrast, according to Defense and the National Interest , the governing
assumptions of capitalist economies is that "[t]he discipline of the 'marketplace,'" not the
state, is better suited to choose winners and knock out losers "who cannot offer the prices or
quality or features of their competitors."
China represents the ultimate repudiation of these seemingly ironclad economic laws. The
country's success has come across a slew of industries: clean tech, notably wind and solar
power, internet companies (despite overwhelming censorship, China has corporate behemoths, such
as Alibaba, or Baidu, which rival Google in scale and scope), and more recently, in the
telecommunications sector (where Huawei has clearly benefited from "Buy China" preferences
created by the state via its state-owned telecommunications enterprises and now is considered
to be the global leader in 5G telephony). In practice, therefore, there is no reason why the
same model cannot work with regard to civil aviation even as Airbus and Boeing eagerly provide
the rope with which they may hang their respective companies in the future.
Designating this as another strategic sector for growth in the 1990s, Chinese solar
companies, with the explicit backstop of the state, ultimately raised enough funding via
debt to build sufficient solar capacity for the world three times over.
I'm confused. Why should it matter that they raised funding via debt? It kinda reads like
Auerback feels this should shock us, or make us think China is "cheating" or somesuch. But
iirc there's a nice book by Mazzucato that proves something that Chomsky's been saying since
forever about the US (federal) govt. Now to be sure, the US govt tends to mainly simply give
away money, rather than extending loans, but..
Fiat economies have solidly proved that debt is just noise. Unless politicians use it as a
cudgel to kill good fiscal governance. I am confused about the use of the term "socializing
losses" here because what really seems to be happening is China is creating social value.
When our corporations are coddled and their externalized costs and losses are socialized we,
the tax payers, are the ones who suffer the austerity in order to keep the dollar "strong"
and etc. I'll never forgive this country for allowing our corporations to murder American
labor in the 80s and hot-foot it off to China to make their profit. Now that was definitely
socializing losses – in fact it was socializing losses in advance. I don't think we
will ever recover from that little episode of free marketeering. China might be scary because
they are so very powerful, pragmatic and adaptable. But they are no more "illiberal" than we
are. It's time to set some standards.
Just to point out that Airbus has had an assembly plant in Tianjin in China since 2010. I
recall reading a few years ago that Airbus found costs were so high because of a shortage of
the right workers it would actually have been cheaper to make them in France. Airbus also
assemble aircraft in the US for precisely the same reason – to get a manufacturing
'foothold' in important markets to prevent mercantilist retaliation.
But as the article says, many a manufacturer has found to their cost that the Chinese
simply don't play fair, they will extract every bit of information they can from those plants
and use it for their new Comac aircraft (which so far are not very impressive, nobody wants
to buy them).
You may consider that chinese don't play fair, it also migth be considered that Airbus
strategy is just another way of economic colonization and to prevent the surge of new
competitors maintaining the duopoly. Is it fair?
Given the recent drift of political geostrategy leaded by the US in which anything is
"fair" to defend particular interests, my opinion is that China interest on developing their
own airplane industry is not only fair but very reasonable. One wonders when the US will put
in place another arbitrary ban.
I don't see how nations- or states- can develop other than with a mercantilist mindset.
Doesn't the failure of globalization demand a return to mercantilist methods in order to have
a functioning society in the modern, technological world?
The argument that globalization has not failed is tested by growing social tensions and
inequality around the world. A return to mercantilism, or a version thereof seems logical.
Thriving internal markets linked to strong alliances seem to offer a path into the future
that is workable. Peaceful nations trading among themselves. Over time, resource issues can
be worked out peacefully. The competition will be over functioning economies, not world
domination. But to get there, nations have to have both security and technical ability.
Should the Chinese or the Russians be trusted to bring about a positive transformation in
world society? Time will tell. I would hope so.
From my limited and naive understanding of history, it seems to me that the opportunity
for peaceful coexistence on the planet is consistently being squandered by Western nations --
particularly the US.
If a functioning world government is not possible, than the next best thing would be
functioning national governments that set standards and economic policy that benefited the
majority of citizens, not just the elite. It seems the truly intelligent, and wise ones see
this.
If a functioning world government is not possible, than the next best thing would be
functioning national governments that set standards and economic policy that benefited the
majority of citizens, not just the elite. It seems the truly intelligent, and wise ones see
this.
This is what we had under the Bretton Woods system from appoximately 1945 to 1973.
Moderate free trade with each country setting its own goals, policies, and standards, yet
being connected economically to other countries. An intermediate level between full
mercantilist protectionism and completely open free trade and unrestricted currency flows. It
was replaced by neoliberalism's goal of open borders with unrestricted free trade, currency
flows, and labor.
Yes, but a return seems inevitable. If not, serfdom and peasantry brought back due to
excessive crapification of production and rent seeking by a global oligarchy is in our
future.
Native populations would gladly buy less advanced goods and services if produced locally
and offered secured jobs and livelihoods. Made in China, Made in USA, Made in Russia- makes
perfect sense. Supplying the world through monopolistic corporations is only feasible if not
weaponized. But that is the path not taken.
If you ask a neoliberal what the end game would look like, and they are forced to answer,
most people would be horrified by the answer.
Brexit is a good analogy. The transition could be a managed affair with less pain to go
around, or a crash out.
In the end, saner heads will prevail if only for growing grass roots efforts to create a
fairer economy and necessity.
US forced UK to break and give up jet turbine, Radar, and many other technologies.
Philips, Dutch under Nazi occupation, had all it's patents abrogated and USA assets seized
and never returned. WW 2 made USA a world power not just from being isolated from war but
because USA stole everything and everyone of any value.
Blame the United States for many things, but realize that technology like radar and jet
turbines were extremely important during the Second World War.
During a major war everything is open to theft, or even just being given away, by everyone
as merely surviving becomes more important than any other concern by the various states.
There are also the large businesses that often, very illegally and even treasonously,
continue to do business with their country's enemies. Those businesses just get nasty words
usually and keep their profits (of course).
Examples of both are the Polish and French work on the German Enigma encryption system
given to the British, the Soviet theft and reverse engineering of American technology, IBM's
leasing and maintaining its punchcard machines (census records used in Holocaust) Ford's
manufacturing and maintaining its vehicles and Standard Oil's running its refineries in, and
shipping when possible oil, into Europe for the Nazis, the Nazis stold from everyone
(technology in armored vehicles, artillery, radar, radio) likewise the Japanese who also got
technology from the Nazis. And everyone stold from the Germans.
The only reason the United States got to take full use of what it got was because it's
universities, businesses, and factories were all intact afterwards.
Nobody wants to buy them now but in a few years they will just like cars from S. Korea
were looked upon as inferior to Japanese ones but now they they're deemed to be just as good
and better value for the money.
When I worked there, it seemed that Boeing was always on the cutting edge of bad corporate
ideas. So it's baffling to me that it's taken them so long to have their guts carved out by
China. I mean, the peer pressure at the corporate country club I infer is rather intense. But
I appreciate it as my pension from them is now in a seaparate autonomous account. That is no
guarantee it will be truly insulated but it helps.
I have worked in the electronics industry in Northern California for many years and
watched the outsourcing of manufacturing and some design overseas.
I believe that many in the industry have realized that moving manufacturing and design
overseas has helped to create some very worthy competitors.
Some years ago, I was told of a company that wanted a low end product for an existing
product line.
The company negotiated with a Chinese company and rebranded one of their inexpensive
products, but only after the Chinese company was told of design changes/improvements.
As I was told, the USA company realized they had helped bring a competitor up the learning
curve and would not do it again.
I remember reading that the telecom companies also went into China with assembly plants
and found they did not see the revenue they projected because they "trained new competition"
that opened their own facilities.
Probably there will be considerable lower-level resistance inside Boeing to moving
assembly/design to China, but the "big picture" executives will rule the day.
People will get with the program, as one technician who was being laid off about 20 years
ago related to me. "They told me I could leave that day, or get more pay by training my
overseas replacement for two weeks."
People will get with the program, as one technician who was being laid off about 20
years ago related to me. "They told me I could leave that day, or get more pay by training
my overseas replacement for two weeks."
This has been happening in the United States since the 80s. I am surprised we have
workers, knowledge, or equipment left to be stolen, sold, given away, or thrown away for our
Blessed Elites' God Mamon.
I expect the Chinese to be fools as, for a very old civilization, they are surprisingly
parochial and shortsighted, but seeing my fellow Americans throwing everyone else, including
most Americans, into the compost pile because "greed, for lack of a better word, is good"
makes me want to drink.
Once you impoverish and enrage the population of a nation as large as the United States
what does anyone expect to happen? To everyone else?
This was made possible by keeping the decision secret from the targeted technician(s)
until the last moment before implementation. If the company had told these technicians
several years ahead of time that " in several years time we will give you the choice of
leaving immediately or working for two weeks to train the overseas replacement we will
replace you with" . . . . that the technician(s) in question would have saved up two weeks
worth of living expenses so as to be able to surprise the company with their own last-second
refusal to train the replacement for two weeks pay when the time came.
Which is why the company never told these technicians about this "train your replacement"
plan several years in advance. I sincerely hope this technician was able to withhold certain
key information from his trainee. Even better would be if he had been able to give his new
trainee certain subtle dis-information and dis-training would which lead to downstream decay
in the foreign replacements' performance sometime after the replacement was made. Hopefully
to the detriment of the company which pulled that stunt.
I had to do it twice. I trained my Indian replacement for my world-leader high-tech
employer.
Ten years later, trained my Chinese replacement for my other world-leader employer.
Other countries [might] worry about the [scale of the cumulative] losses," notes Setser,
but not the Chinese government, which simply socializes the losses at the national level,
and writes them off.
Auerback's entirely right on this. But I disagree completely: Boeing and Airbus
should sign suicide pacts. The capitalists are selling China the rope to hang them
with – and please, China, do hang them! While you're at it, keep developing the green
tech the species needs to survive.
"Considering" a move overseas sounds like an indirect way of asking for more special
treatment in the two companies' respective home markets. Which they will probably need
– the market for airliners might be overextended even without the Boeing fiasco.
It is not "Boeing" and "Airbus" as such which are making these decisions. It is actual
human executive persons inside offices in buildings called "Boeing" and "Airbus" who are
making these decisions.
In the current Forced Free Trade environment, if those executives making those decisions
will make more personal money with in order to retire richer with by relocating the bussiness
to China, they will relocate the bussiness to China. If it goes extinct after they have taken
their personal money and run; it is no longer their problem to care about. So they won't care
about it.
My main take-away from Marshall's post is that China is harnessing the power of fiat money
to develop its economy. Why shouldn't all countries do that? It seems to me ideological
blinders are preventing it except perhaps in military expenditures in the U.S. All caveats
regarding human rights, inequality, corruption, environment, etc., apply of course.
Airbus has plant in Tianjin since 2010. The information that China managed to extract from
it did not make the COMAC C919 a competitive aircraft.
So, Airbus and Boeing may think now that the risks of setting a plant in China are less
than expected.
Civil aviation is a particular industry. There is a lot of know-how in the design offices
and in the supply chains. This know-how cannot be copied from a manufacturing plant.
Same thing with the conventional auto industry, however, it's a totally different story
with high speed rail, ship-building, and telecommunications, for which China has caught up.
China's electric vehicle industry also seems promising. I think Comac's ARJ21 and C919 are
good enough to be competitive on China's domestic market.
It is also the publicly-held stock company model, whereby management and boards compute
risk/reward far out enough to match their personal enrichment deadlines, no more.
Neoliberals concentrate on the next quarter's earnings; these companies are pr0bably
eyeing the cheaper labor in the plants in China. I can see that as their main incentive.
Combine the insights of this post with MMT and you have a winner. With a few
qualifications:
1. success (wealth creation?) should be measured by the ability of the nation, with perhaps a
few of its closets friends, to support and defend itself – NOT by how fast the number
of zeros in the financial portfolios of its citizens grows;
2. nor should it be measured by how (temporarily?) cheaply Western consumers can continue the
consumption of the cars, televisions, etc that powers the growth of those portfolios.
Auerbac's choice of the future for the Western airline industry as a potential object of
concern is, however, interesting. It suggests he hasn't been reading Naked Capitalism's
warnings about that industry's planet-killing potential.
I'm catching up on NC post reading this morning and had just finished the post from
earlier this week, "Work of the Past " before I read this one. Autour's study of the widening
wage gap increases between workers with low and high education levels, which, as commenters
there pointed out, were seen as almost natural phenomena, no agency involved, segues nicely
into this post. And, resulted in my thinking about the rise of so-called 'toxic
masculinity.'
When I moved to Long Beach, California in the '80's, I lived just a few miles from the
then-thriving McDonnell-Douglas assembly plant. Driving by, you could see the end product
planes, still an unpainted dull metallic gray, sitting in a row on the tarmac. Crews would
then paint on the distinctive livery of the purchasing airline and the new plane, in glowing
color, would be rolled out. The CEO of the airline would arrive, have his tie cut off (don't
ask!) and take delivery of the new plane in a ceremony that involved the proud workers.
For a short time, I worked there, hiring training pilots. The esprit-de-corps in
the plant was infectious. People were immensely proud to be working there and had a vested
interest in each plane as it rolled off the assembly line. (There was a growing concern with
workers going out for Friday lunch and never coming back; or returning and then falling
asleep inside the wings or engine cowlings, but that was at the end, when workers knew the
company was contracting.)
I was there when the company sold plants in San Diego and older guys with years of
experience came up to Long Beach to work as temporary contractors. Then the LB plant
closed.
All those employees, mainly white males, who had good jobs, worked hard, crafting a
product they were proud of, that flew all over the world (spewing carbon dioxide, but that's
another tale), owned a nice little house, took family vacations, cut adrift.
Our nation's lack of an industrial policy not only strips workers of their jobs, their
sources of income and their pensions, but takes away their dignity, their reason for getting
up in the morning. It strips away the bonds they have forged with their co-workers and
smashes the pride they had in their product. It emasculates them. And, what is left becomes
poisoned and toxic, turns to hate and despair.
We do have an industrial policy – go to war for the oil companies to name one
objective. Our government concludes pacts to force other countries to buy our grain, pharma,
planes, medical equipment etc. etc.
Unfortunately, this plicy do not translate into manufacturing in this countries because these
companies chase cheap labor elsewhere around the world.
China is still primarily a state-dominated economy, which eschews the disciplines of a
free market economy.
This is the most hilarious quote I think I have ever seen on Naked Capitalism.
If your competitor's strategy is having them eat your lunch, rather than criticize that
strategy, maybe you might consider learning a thing or two from it.
One assumes that the CEOs of these companies making these decisions actually care about
the future of the company, the future of their country. They don't. They care about getting
rich. They live in a different world than the rest of us. End of story.
China is doing what Japan did with automobiles and consumer electronics after WW2.
Toyota was once warehouse with a dormitory, and the workers found out if they were going to
work today by looking out the window to see if there was smoke coming from the warehouse
chimney.
And I am glad it happened, my 1995 Toyota Tacoma is better and cheaper than anything made in
USA. Also true for my 2004 Mazda3.
The contributors to this blog seem to have no regard for USA consumers.
Yes my local clothing store closed down long ago, but they never had my size pants anyway.
Walmart does, Costco does, and for far less $.
Do you really think that Boeing deserves our support? Do you really think they have acted
responsibly?
I think Boeing is just another oligarch, like VW, that will do anything to increase
profits.
"Yes my local clothing store closed down long ago, but they never had my size pants
anyway. Walmart does, Costco does, and for far less $."
You must be both not so old and not so tall. I'm both. Nike used to make XL t-shirts that
fit me, but now its XXLs are too small. I have one Nike t-shirt from at least thirty years
ago and it fits perfectly, so my body isn't what changed.
And if you don't realize that Walmart quality is far below what one would have found in US
clothing stores thirty years ago, there's nothing more to say.
Walmart and Amazon sell the same socks, t shirts, and pants.
And so does Hanes if you order direct online.
I don't think any of them are made in USA.
I used to buy fine cotton t shirts made in L.A (CA)
They are no longer in business because they cost $20, and Hanes now sells for $5 online.
Walmart quality varies, so do their prices.
I know what I want, and am glad to buy it for less anywhere that sells it.
Most of the CEOs don't care about the worker that works for them.
They largely see them as something to exploit so that they can get their big stock options
bonus. Boeing is no different, nor is Airbus.
From the CEO's point of view, they outsource, they transfer technology, and for a few
years, the profits will be good. Then when the full extent of the failure becomes apparent,
they will be gone anyways, having cashed in on their stock options and a new CEO will be
there to take the fall.
It's the MBA culture run amok and it has been responsible for a large amount of the damage
done to the middle classes of the Western world. They are creating future competitors and
destroying their own communities.
A while back, Eamonn Fingleton noted this problem – only for Japan.
The Chinese have long wanted to develop their own domestic aerospace industry. An example
of one area that China needs to master is the jet turbine blade manufacturing. It's an
extremely difficult part of making a competent aircraft, as higher inlet temperatures mean
more efficient aircraft.
The difference is that China takes a more long term view of what is in the best interest
of their nation, however flawed and corrupt the CCP may be. The US ruling oligarchs are a
naked kleptocracy that milk their population.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, that depends upon the definition of "modernized." China will
always be the preeminent communist country, but Deng and others realized that China could
earn big bucks by playing a capitalist game, as long as Chinese businessmen do not interfere
with the government.
Airbus and Boeing are merely the latest suckers to believe that China will ever change.
Der Spiegel noted years ago that Chinese engineers were videotaped in the middle of the night
taking measurements of Germany's Transrapid train. Today China has the best technology from
all major train manufacturers, with short-sighted entities such as the state of California
seriously considering buying Chinese trains (before the new governor canceled the project, of
course).
The aircraft horse has already left the barn. China's C919 is a 737 clone which will allow
China to stop buying smaller airliners, with many countries naively buying it to save money.
Obtaining Airbus and Boeing technology will allow China to do the same for larger
airliners.
If you want a real laugh, read the articles written by libertarians about how Americans
will always be more productive than Chinese, so allowing China into the WTO and giving it
PNTR will not hurt us in the long run.
The basic problem in the West is that the neo-liberal ideology has merged with human greed
to form an economic/political system that is divorced from reality. At least the Party in
China has Russia as an example and must deal with the real world to stay in power less they
lose their mandate to rule. America has its exceptionalism. China has its chauvinism. My
opinion is that the iPhone sales cratered there for one reason; Trump's trade war. Boeing's
boneheaded decision to add a fatally flawed fly-by-wire system to the 737 Max without telling
anyone and with no training deserves prison time for Chicago executives for manslaughter.
They won't go to jail and the last manufacturing American led industry will die away.
Mid-America is a colony to global oligarchs and their bi-coastal lackeys. The only way to
turn our fate around is to restore democracy and government by and for the people.
"... Why Brexit gained a majority isn't hard to fathom --Tory and Blairite neoliberal austerity have ruined the British nation to please the City of London pirates. ..."
"... To an outsider it seemed that the vast majority of the elites in the UK did not want to leave the EU (why not, it is working great for them). That includes the leaders of the Conservative Party. May did not want to 'leave', so she carried out a totally incompetent negotiation and came back with a bad agreement, in the hope that would lead ... somehow, to Britain remaining in the EU. ..."
"... One thing Britain has going for it, is that they did not adopt the Euro. That was possibly the smartest decision made by a British government and people in the last 60 years. I'm pretty sure Britain can survive without the EU. They might do even better if they ditched the Russo-, Sino-phobia. ..."
Theresa May has said she "sincerely hopes" the UK will leave the EU with a deal and she
is still "working on" ensuring Parliament's agreement.
Arriving in Brussels, she said that she had "personal regret" over her request to
delay Brexit, but said it will allow time for MPs to make a "final choice".
At the EU summit the PM spoke to the other 27 leaders to try to get their backing for
a delay beyond 29 March.
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn said his talks in Brussels were "very constructive".
BBC Brussels correspondent Adam Fleming said Mrs May spoke to EU leaders for 90
minutes and was asked several times what her contingency plans were if she lost the third
"meaningful vote" on her deal in Parliament.
French President Emmanuel Macron has warned that if MPs vote down Mrs May's EU
withdrawal agreement next week, the UK will leave without a deal.
May asked the EU to move the hard coded March 29 Brexit date to June 30. She may be
given May 23, the day of EU elections, as a compromise but only if her deal passes the
British parliament.
A no-deal crash out on March 29 would create utter chaos for months. It would be
catastrophic for Britain's economy.
May's withdrawal agreement was already voted down twice. If it comes to a third vote in
parliament it is very likely to fail again.
We've been more pessimistic than most commentators about the likelihood of the UK
escaping the default of a no-deal Brexit. We may not have been pessimistic enough.
There is still the possibility that May takes a 180 degree turn, but that would be the
end of her career and likely also the end of the Conservative Party:
Now there is a popular push for an Article 50 revocation, with a petition already at over
400,000 signatures as of this hour. But as we'll discuss, May would have to do a complete
reversal to revoke Article 50, which is within her power, not just a Prime Minister, but
also implementing the motion by Parliament rejecting a no-deal Brexit.
Article 50 is the part of the British withdrawal law that governs the Brexit process. If
May revokes it, there is little chance that another Brexit attempt will ever be made. The
majority that voted to leave the EU will have been betrayed.
An analysis by the BBC Europe editor says that the "Leaders want to avoid
no-deal Brexit":
[W]hile EU leaders have ruled out re-opening the Brexit withdrawal agreement and the
"backstop" text, you can bet they'll discuss a longer Brexit delay at their summit today.
This is, in my view, a misjudgment.
Yes, under normal circumstances and with a competent and trustworthy negotiation partner
on the British side, ways would be found to fudge the issue and to avoid a Brexit in all
but its name. That is why I predicted long ago that Brexit was not gonna happen
.
But May has really done everything to affront the other side of the table. She did not
stick to commitments she had given, delivered papers too late to properly discuss them, and
came to emergency summits called on her behalf without anything new to offer.
Matthew Parris, a conservative political commentator in London who originally favored
May, now remarks
of her:
"She is mean. She is rude. She is cruel. She is stupid. I have heard that from almost
everyone who has dealt with her," Parris says. He said he had never expected this much
hatred, "and that is not a word I use lightly."
The leaders of other EU countries also have had it with here. The voters on the
continent do not care about Britain. There will be no punishment for Merkel or Macron for
letting Britain crash out.
The EU will survive without the United Kingdom. With a no-deal Brexit the United Kingdom
is likely to fall apart. Within a few years North Ireland would join the Irish Republic,
peacefully one hopes, and Scotland would vote to leave.
A bit of hope may still rest in this one line in the BBC report which it leaves
unexplained:
Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn said his talks in Brussels were "very constructive".
Is there a EU deal being made with the opposition leader and behind Theresa May's
back?
Given that she is the Prime Minister how would that work out?
B I think it should be
understood that the British people voted to Leave.
We want out.
We want our sovereignty back.
Our democracy back
The right to govern ourselves again - a 800 year tradition..
Article 50 was always a trap.
It should have been done by the repealing of the 1972 act which took us in.
As Gerard Batten - a brilliant strategist who actually masterminded the UKIP campaign to
get a referendum and win - has written in length on how it could and should have been
done.
We British voted to leave.
Not get stitched up in a May deal which means we never can.
Leave means leave.
Whatever the cost - a no deal is fine with most of us.
Whatever it takes we expect to leave on March 29th as promised by the British Prime
Minister 108 times in the House of Commons.
Leave March 29th or
I have MY yellow vest waiting.
b is being very unfair to May, as is everyone in the MSM. I don't know why some non-Brits
are taking this so personally. (I'm not from the UK myself)
May undertook efforts to enforce the vote and leave EU. EU proceeds to offer deals which
are essentially meaningless and mean the UK is defacto still in the EU. In general EU
officials carry themselves appallingly in public comments despite May being quite
neutral.
Eventually May reaches some kind of deal and puts it before parliament. Despite being as
unobjectionable as possible to those who'd rather not leave the EU, whilst still being a
deal which allows the UK to leave the EU in forms other than name only, parliament continue
to vote down any and all deals and generally act in petty ways to disrupt May's government.
Parliament then proceeds to autistically screech about a no-deal Brexit despite they,
themselves deliberately voting down every deal May brought them and trying to oust her in
no-confidence votes in order to generate exactly the 'chaos', they constantly wail about.
Now the speaker is acting in the most insanely ways to damage the legitimacy of parliament
too.
Dealing with internal schisms relating to Europe has brought down more determined Tory
leaders than May. I'm not sure why she is specially being given the blame. I find it hard
to see any of her actions as being problematic. She seems to genuinely have got on with
trying to enforce Brexit. *Larry David shrug*
Reality is this was about freedom of movement and I think most other European countries
other than Ireland don't understand why this is an issue because they had a tiny fraction
of the intra-EU immigration that Britain and Ireland have been going through the last 10
years. (Because every EU country but them and Denmark put in place a 5 year moratorium on
recognising the new states freedom of movement, leaving the UK and Ireland to receive the
full whack, transforming their labour economies massively) It's truly staggering in number
and dwarfed other forms of immigration during that period. It was also characterised by
it's highly unskilled nature.
Corbyn, for his part, does understand the issue and has
spoken out about the burden of so much unskilled labour from the EU in the past.
Emily, you are on the money there.
We the great unwashed are not happy with our representatives in Parliament who seem to
think that this is a normal Law where they were elected to vote on their conscience. It is
not, there are voting to implement a clear instruction to action Brexit.
When we voted there was no discussion of staying half in like May's deal, we wanted out
regardless of any chaos as forecast in Project Fear at the time.
A problem we have is that the entire MSM is behind May's deal. There is no, no
discussion on the benefits of a clean break.
If we clean Brexit then those countries with their nose in the EU trough will have to
agree between themselves who gets what share of the cuts as the £1B a month cashflow
that the UK gives them stops, starting immediately. That they don't seem to have started
those discussions yet leads me to believe that they have no intention of allowing a clean
break. We should expect that there will be some kind of last minute offer by the EU.
It would take a lot more courage than has been showed to date by them for MPs, whose
votes are public, to go against the Brexit Referendum and kill Brexit. Bluntly, many of
them, of all Parties, would be signing their own job resignations.
Good god, this Brexit soap opera never ends, does it? It just keeps dragging on,
endlessly....another vote...another extension...another meeting with Brussels heads, etc.
And it's so fucking confusing! First they have the referendum to do the total
Brexit–and it passes! But instead of doing what the voter's voted for, the PMs and
MPs keep fucking about, trying to undo the vote results....soft Brexit w/cheese....med soft
Brexit with trade bennies....no hard Brexit pleeze.
Holy fuck, the entire thing is
quintessentially British! No humans on the planet surface quibble, nit-pick and natter on
like the Brits. They are the hands-down masters of hen-peckery. Nobody comes close. This
whole Brexit fiasco is a fine example of their character. Don't get me wrong I really like
the Brits in general for their gregariousness and tendency to party and drink excessively.
But back to Brexit: they should do the hard Brexit. Seriously. Just get the fuck out of the
EU. It's what the majority of Brits want.
They don't want the refugees.. they obviously
don't want to be a team player and follow all the EU requirements and laws. So bite the
bullet and get OUT. Life goes on, give it a go with no EU association. And so what if N.
Ireland goes with Ireland? It should anyways!
They took it from them way back when. If
Scotland leaves, good for them. And Wales too! We're witnessing the incredible shrinking
UK, and it is indeed a most satisfying spectacle :-)
It is inconceivable now that there would be an extension, that there would be a revoking by
May of article 50, or simply that there would not be a no deal crash-out.
I draw a comparison between Ukraine's folly delusion that they can join the EU and ditch
Russia and live well, with the UK's folly that they can leave the EU and have other
options. It reminds me of the quip we used to hear as we visited the UK from Europe:
"There's fog over the Channel. The Continent is isolated."
The UK has to deal with Europe. A WTO deal is also a deal, be it a very bad one which will
set in motion lots of tariff-tit-for-tat punishing. Europe is just the bigger entity; it
does not need the UK. The UK has the EU as its main trading partner - but not only that;
all of its trade pacts with other countries have been through the EU. Not only do they have
to, in the end, negotiate a deal with the EU from scratch; they have to do so also with all
the other countries.
It's folly; most of it is based on psychology of loss of sovereignty and pure racism.
Ukraine has to deal with Russia. It chose not to, to exacerbate relations; it is now
suffering the consequences. The UK's fate is likely not as abject as Ukraine's was and is;
however it will likely also fall apart. Will London's financial centre identity also fall
apart? Not likely - but it will become even more of a money-laundering hole than it was to
date. Look for less values, not more; less transparency, more bribery, as the London trade
crowd tries to preserve their life quality.
Look for even more of death knell absurdities by MI6 - the chemical sagas in Syria and
Skripal are but a way to somehow squeeze some kind of foreign policy NATO lead position out
for the UK while in actual fact their leverage into the EU has dissipated. I applaud the
demise of the British aristocracy; it will be for Corbyn to rebuild the country and likely
to do so with much more of a mandate after this debacle has been spinning the trough for
months.
Globalization, fake interdependency really just abject dependency, food insecurity,
abdication of sovereignty, double standards for who is and isn't allowed to run corporate
welfare states and set up barriers and dump, yup, globalization's got it all.
As every British faction is demonstrating with their dithering and equivocations, their
attitude toward the EU is: Can't live with it, can't live without it.
(Well, the fake "left" are just can't-live-without-it, since they abdicated what was
supposed to be their anti-globalization role from day one of the Brexit saga.)
Brexit sure has made a lot of people who talk a good game show their cards. I was
cheering it on from day one, because the EU needs to be broken up completely and here's a
start. The break-up of the UK also would be a fine thing.
Poor Britannia,,, From world power to Globalist Serfs. Yes the sun never set on the Empire.
Now the only sun they see is what the EU allows. Their demographics so messed up they'll be
a 3rd world country soon if not already. The stiff upper lip Brit is now limp,,, in every
category.
No I'm not laughing,,, My country, the US of A, has the same destination dialed in, just
a slightly different route. We're porpoising like the 737 MAX without the safety option,
soon we'll all be citizens of the World Corpgov. Joy!
Just finished reading the thread for the tweet linked @7 and it's full of animosity and
ultra hatred aimed at Corbyn showing how well the propagandists did their job.
"Here's something we can all agree on. British 'Democracy' is not fit for purpose. The
party system the method of election the relationship between people the legislature and the
executive is all now dysfunctional. Something has to give something has to change
#BrexitShambles"
From my perspective, George is correct. And as commentators reflect here, at bottom is a
longstanding Class War that's been in existence as long as the British state.
Eurocrats probably have scant needs to be super nice to EU. Politically, various countries
have some wishes, so as long as they follow that their lower parts remain fully clothed.
Practically, Brits are hard to please, preoccupied with winning some points against each
other. And realistically, can anything really bad happen to them? In the worst case, surely
US military will ferry some humanitarian help, perhaps dumping it at Irish border.
Britain in recent years has offered the most vivid example of genuinely disastrous
government.
First, David Cameron, likely the most incompetent Prime Minister in British history,
offers a vote to the public about remaining in the EU.
It was something he didn't need to do at all, and it came after forty years of being
part of EU. And, in such a huge and complex matter, not well-understood by the general
public, it makes little sense to hold a vote, especially coming at a time of considerable
public agitation over refugees and migration, a highly emotional topic where cool-headed
facts did not at all feature. If for some reason you insisted on a vote, it should only
have been held after, say, a one-year period of public education and discussion and debate.
It is a hugely consequential decision.
Leading up to the vote, he ran around flapping his arms and pretending to play
statesman, telling people he'd sure stay in the EU with the adjustments in terms he had
obtained from Brussels.
Then we have Theresa May spend a few years trying to sort out terms with the EU, making
quite a spectacle of herself on several occasions, as having cabinet ministers quit and
having votes against the government's position, as well as forming an alliance from hell to
stay in power.
Yet, the bottom line, as they say, remains clear: Britain will suffer in leaving the EU,
no matter under what set of terms.
And the EU itself, one of the world's largest economies, has been given a serious wound
at a time of other menacing economic and social problems, and that in a world with many
signs of weakness and instability.
May insists, bull-headedly, on going ahead with Brexit, yet so easily she could just
declare that she, as Prime Minister, now sees how much damage this is doing and will not
proceed, in the national interest. She could easily also hold a second vote, something
polls suggest would go the other way from the original vote.
But no, damn the torpedoes, we're going full-steam ahead.
Rational government? I think not. And it is just one portion of what we see in a number
of Western countries and around a number of important issues.
Oh well, maybe people can console themselves with, "At least it's not quite the vicious
lunatic government we see in the United States, rampaging through every country where it
finds anything it dislikes, threatening everyone with sanctions or sabotage or war, and, of
course, threatening the world's very stability."
Does anyone believe the world is going to survive this period and maintain its economic
and political and social health? I certainly don't.
This entire mess, start to finish, is a botched attempt to hold the Tory party together.
The welfare of the British people no longer has any importance whatsoever to the Tories.
There are 55 million British subjects ( By law we are not citizens of our country but
subjects of the British Monarch ) of working age and 17.4 million voted to leave. That's
not a majority. And the Brexiteers insist having been allowed to vote once we can never
vote again.
Austerity is punishing the innocent for economic crimes committed by a small elite and
millions who voted to leave did so to strike back at them. We, as a people, are dimly aware
in an unfocused way that we have been swindled and cheated by a smug elite for decades.
How ironic then that it is an unprincipled lazy oaf like Boris Johnson (A man fired twice
for lying to his boss) and a weaponised banker like Rees-Mogg who are deciding our
futures.
My country is breaking up.
Whats left will be a small, weak, disliked and untrusted remnant. Wide open to exploitation
by other powers, State and non State.
I think you are being too kind to May. The 255 page deal she presented to the Cabinet
last August I think, has barely changed since then. What has happened is the 16 or so
really nasty clauses in it have become hidden under the Irish Question. It looked for a
while as we were being swept towards agreeing the May deal if only the EU would agree a
form of words on the Irish backstop, ignoring the other issues. Then Bercow stopped that by
saying that Parliament couldn't keep voting on the same measure until it passed, a
favourite EU tactic (you will vote until you vote the right way).
I suspect that the EU may indeed change the backstop words and it will pass, but there
are increasing reasons why they won't.
Yesterday in Dutch elections a populist party did very well indeed, this does not bode
well for the established order in the EU elections on the 23rd May.
The EU really needs the
period of chaos that will start after a clean Brexit to scare the European electorates into
voting conservatively, forcefully making the point that if this was happening to a country
the size of the UK, God help them if they wanted to do the same.
b, I disagree with your comment "A no-deal crash out on March 29 would create utter chaos
for months. It would be catastrophic for Britain's economy". The plan to go zero
tariff/keep EU regulations in place will negate a good proportion of the issues and may
force the EU to do the same, at least until the new Commission is in place until the
Autumn.
My reasoning on this is with zero tariff there will be no halt to EU trucks coming
into the UK to deliver product and produce. The problem will be when those trucks, plus
Irish trucks and UK trucks head back or to the EU. If they put up barriers there will be
huge outbound queues towards Dover. This will cause huge economic outcries across the EU
putting big pressure on politicians to sort it.
We need to remember that EU agricultural producers had a dry run of this five years ago
when Russia shut their borders overnight to EU produce with lorries with perishables on
board with nowhere to go. That cost billions of Euros and I doubt the Dutch and Spaniards
in particular want that to happen again.
Incidentally, zero tariff will have little financial effect on the UK as the revenue from
external tariffs goes straight to the EU funds, not the countries.
Once a decision is made and we are not going to gift our ace , £39B, away the UK
gets to be in a much stronger position, especially as this time we might have a decent
negotiating team in place as they will not be trying to 'remain but not remain' as we will
be out.
We will also be able to re-connect with suppliers in the Commonwealth. Be good to get
New Zealand butter again.
Theresa May is a remainer and I still think she's playing 4D chess (with the objective of
imploding Brexit from within while making it look like an accident). Was the Conservative
Party so unified around Brexit, she wouldn't be PM: it would be Leadsom, Johnson or many
other brexiter bigwigs already in position of power in the Party.
The EU would survive without the UK, but that would be a huge downgrade and a definitive
strategic defeat. When the EU was created in the 1990s, expectations were big: it was
expected to supplant the USSR as the USA's rival, with realistic chances of surpassing the
Americans in the near future.
When the Euro was created in 2000, many pundits believed it
would supplant the US Dollar as the world standard fiat currency. The hype was huge.
That ended. After the creation of the EZ, the economies of the EU began to diverge
instead of converge: the poorer members begun to be poorer; the richer, richer. After 2008,
the EU's economy essentially went full Japan and stagnated. It is only a matter of time
before it begins to recede.
If the UK exits, the EU will devolve into a mere Carolingian project, with much humbler
goals.
In his tweets, Corbyn says he's laid out Labour's alternative plan which is described in
the short vid at the link above. Elsewhere I saw a figure citing 63% of Britons voted for
Brexit, which is consistent with what Craig Murray's said about the voting share between
Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland--all of whom cast majorities for Remain.
Corbyn's in a pickle since he's trying to abide the will of Britain's voting public
despite knowing Remain is better for the overall British interest. Why Brexit gained a
majority isn't hard to fathom --Tory and Blairite neoliberal austerity have ruined the
British nation to please the City of London pirates.
May appears to favor the hard fall out
of spite for the opposing constituency, which many see as her channeling Thatcher's ghost.
And the only reason May's government remains is through the Blairite 5th column's treason.
IMO, Corbyn's terms are probably acceptable to the EU; but the EU doesn't want to see him
in charge of England as his domestic plan goes against EU neoliberalism.
The ball's back in Parliament's court, so we'll need to await events there.
I have one honest question about Brexit. Why is the following quote true?
A no-deal crash out on March 29 would create utter chaos for months. It would be
catastrophic for Britain's economy.
I have been trying for months to understand the mechanism by which this catastrophe will
occur, and I cannot find an explanation anywhere. I find only people asserting that it will
be so. They may be right, but its not clear to me why.
From a naive point of view, consider that other countries trade with the EU and don't
suffer from a catastrophe. So why can't the UK?
NZ trades with the EU and as far as I can tell they're not living in "utter chaos".
What is it exactly that will create "utter chaos"? If someone knows I'd be very
grateful to find out.
I am not a Brit. I was interested to read Emily's comment. To an outsider it seemed that
the vast majority of the elites in the UK did not want to leave the EU (why not, it is
working great for them). That includes the leaders of the Conservative Party. May did not
want to 'leave', so she carried out a totally incompetent negotiation and came back with a
bad agreement, in the hope that would lead ... somehow, to Britain remaining in the EU.
Leaving the EU and relying on WTO rules for trade would be messy, but mostly because no
plans have been made, even with 2 years to carry them out. How is a private company in the
UK going to make provision for the future, when they have no idea what that future would
be? To end up in a state where the only remaining option is a complete break, with no
planning is criminal incompetence. (Aside: May's ridiculous Skripal fiasco was a pretty
good demonstration to the outside World of her low ability.)
One thing Britain has going for it, is that they did not adopt the Euro. That was
possibly the smartest decision made by a British government and people in the last 60
years. I'm pretty sure Britain can survive without the EU. They might do even better if
they ditched the Russo-, Sino-phobia.
I'm surprised there's no mention of the 22nd May as the date of the extension deadline ...
really? ... the day before the EU elections? Clearly designed as a cynical safeguard
against a flood of euroskeptics entering the EU political scene.
Here's hoping it backfires horrendously on the EU.
What is it exactly that will create "utter chaos"? If someone knows I'd be very
grateful to find out.
__________________________________________
It's one of those self-inflating, self-confirming propositions; if there's a critical
mass of Chicken Littles chirping with hysterical terror, the chaos becomes a fait
accompli .
Alternatively, one may ask if the dread post-Brexit "utter chaos" is distinguishable
from the abiding, and escalating, utter chaos of the UK's government.
It's interesting that all parties are unable to cope with Brexit becoming a Gordian
Knot, insist that cutting it is simply too catastrophic, and so instead devise approaches
to simply make it go away-- either by infinitely kicking it down the road, or officially
declaring that it was a misadventure that never should've happened in the first place.
I'll turn 64 next month, but since I'll never be a Sensible Adult I'm offended by the
tendency of Sensible Adults to impatiently and bumptiously wave off the legitimacy of the
referendum; I presume they expect that if Brexit is formally nullified by further
chicanery, the childlike pro-Brexit idiots weary of being ridden over by the EU Trojan
Horse will simply accept that it was a fool's choice in the first place.
Meanwhile, the UK government consistently defers to the EU to dictate the terms
and conditions for withdrawal. It appears to be unclear on the concept of unilaterally
pulling itself out from under Brussels' talons.
So now we see a spectacle that combines "Groundhog Day" with "Oliver Twist in Hell": the
odious zombie-PM May peripatetically crawling to Brussels with her begging bowl, asking,
"Please, sirs, may I have less ?"
Such deluded analysis. If the EU tried to play on internal divisions to destroy a nuclear
armed power it would just bring defeat and absolute destruction on itself (ie the
German-French oligarchy) just like in the 20th century. The EU isn't a cohesive entity
outside the German-French oligarchy. France could be out of the German choke hold any day.
Italy is close to moving out of the EU control. The ex-Socialists states in the East will
take any German money, or trade deal that benefits them, but would as soon turn on Germany
on a geo-strategic level. London, with US help, will take on any attempt at German
continental empire building like anytime in the last centuries. Germany allying with Russia
or China against the Atlantic Powers would just make it even easier to split Europe and
bring its doom.
"She is mean. She is rude. She is cruel. She is stupid.
Quite an indictment! From the very beginning I've had no idea at all about what's going
on in the UK. I hope the ordinary people there survive whatever it is that's happening, and
the fallout doesn't spread to other countries.
I May manages to pull-off a hard Brexit it will be much to her credit.
Any company not making preparations deserves the outcome.
EU is an black hole of non sovereignty.
If Ireland and Scotland an Wales should wish to seperate from England, why is that a
problem for England?
Seems quaint to believe the Brits ran an empire ... on the other hand, the Brit 1% highly
favor the status quo. That is a majority in western countries.
George Galloway in the video I was barred from posting said the "Brexit Crash" is nothing
more than Remain Media propaganda/hyperbole. Indeed, remaining within EU prohibits
any UK government from nationalizing anything, such as renationalizing British Rail, or
from favoring any national industry over those located offshore. Why? Because the EU's a
Neoliberal project that's aimed at eliminating such socialistic attributes from ALL
European economies, and is why Benn and UK Labour opposed entering the EU from the
beginning. Galloway also talks about how Brexit created a schism within the Tories as
traditional British nationalists have also always opposed entering the EU.
Indeed, Brexit allows the current campaign by Corbyn's Labour to move forward unhindered
by EU rules and is very much to England's benefit. A Yandex search using Galloway Brexit
chaos brings up the video I mention into top place. It's only ten minutes long and very
much worth the time spent.
Leaving the EU doesn't have to be catastrophic for the UK, but leaving without a deal
necessarily would be. If the UK really does crash out with no deal next week, it instantly
becomes a third country that has no trade deals with the EU at all. Other countries that
trade with the EU do so within a framework of pre-existing agreements. The US and Japan
each have between 20 and 50 such trade agreements with the EU, for example (I can't be
bothered to look up the exact numbers). New Zealand is not in utter chaos because it has
had trade agreements with the EU since the very beginning, and so on.
No deal means no deal. It means roll-on/roll-off ferry traffic between UK and EU ports
grinds to a halt because every single lorry that could previously drive straight off the
ferry and onto the roads now has to be carefully inspected. The ports simply have no
capacity to do this because there is supposed to be freedom of movement and no inspections.
EU ports would become totally gridlocked within hours, and new ferries would be unable to
load or unload. The UK would have to stop exports to the EU completely to keep the ports
clear for incoming traffic (which could still go through uninspected because the UK could
waive its usual import checks to deal with the emergency).
This would continue, with massive economic damage, until new trade deals were agreed,
which could take months or even years. That is just one small example that I've tried to
keep simple.
Is Donald Trump
starting to look like a softie on the trade conflict with China compared to sections of the U.S. business and political
elite?
Dorian
Bon
explains the background.
WHEN DONALD Trump
launched
his
trade war on China
last spring, he had to drag the U.S. political and business establishment along with him.
Most elected
officials in both parties and a large majority of corporate execs cringed at the thought of a protracted trade war that
would disturb the ordinary flow of profits and investments between the world's two largest economies.
Now, as Trump and
his team seek a negotiated settlement with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump finds himself in the opposite position --
facing bipartisan pressures not to back down or compromise in any U.S.-China trade deal.
Even Trump's own
trade negotiator Bob Lighthizer -- who helped bend Japanese auto companies to the will of the Reagan administration in the
mid-1980s -- has
grown
frustrated with the president
, wanting him to take a harder line on Chinese telecom giant Huawei and keep the threat of
further tariff increases on the table.
Donald Trump and Xi Jinping meet during the 2018 G20 Summit in Buenos Aires
The context for this
strange turnabout is the new common sense across the political spectrum: the idea that China poses a threat to U.S. jobs,
security and technological dominance.
Trump's advisers
fully expect the eventual Democratic nominee in 2020 to try to outflank him to the right on China and the defense of U.S.
manufacturing. And the political competition over anti-Chinese toughness could very well throw a wrench into the continuing
bilateral negotiations with China.
Even big American
capital -- which, outside of the steel industry, has been almost universally opposed to Trump's tariffs -- is warming to the
administration's more aggressive stance toward China.
Most U.S. CEOs are
still hostile to the use of tariffs as an economic weapon, especially against their North American and European trading
partners. But they also have serious concerns about the rapid development of Chinese high-tech manufacturing, the transfer
-- by contract and by coercion -- of U.S. technologies to Chinese firms, and investment restrictions for U.S. companies in
China.
Somewhat to their
surprise, Corporate America sees Trump forcing Xi's hand on these issues more effectively than Barack Obama or George W.
Bush before him.
Josh Bolten,
president of the Business Roundtable -- an association of the U.S.'s largest companies, collectively worth $8 trillion and
employing 15 million workers --
put
it this way
during a recent interview with Washington trade experts Scott Miller and Bill Reinsch on their podcast
The
Trade Guys
:
The CEOs of the
Business Roundtable have found themselves in agreement...with the Trump administration on most of the objectives of the
very aggressive posture that the administration has taken with respect to China.
As both of you
also know, that is an evolution...of the business community's position. The Roundtable doesn't speak for the whole
business community, but I think there has been an evolution throughout the business community on this. And that is that
the posture of waiting for democratic, market-oriented capitalism gravity to have its effect on the Chinese has proven
not to be a viable approach.
Bolten went on to
lament the defeat of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) -- a major Obama-era economic agreement that Trump opposed on the
campaign trail and terminated once he took office -- as a missed opportunity to contain China's rise and secure crucial
markets where U.S. and Chinese companies are in direct competition.
Bolten and most of
the U.S. ruling class see -- somewhat in contrast to Trump -- the strengthening of a multilateral alliance of Western and
pro-Western countries as the best strategy to counter the threat of a growing Chinese rival.
But Bolten is
unambiguous and Trump-sounding about the goal of the strategy. "All of our interests are actually consistent with each
other in confronting the threat that an economically hegemonic China poses for the entire world," he explained.
HEARING A leading
representative of the American corporate elite talk about the threat of Chinese economic hegemony on "the entire world" is
alarming to say the least -- and demonstrates that Trump doesn't have a monopoly on anti-China discourse by any stretch of
the imagination.
That isn't to
underplay the serious disagreements over strategy between the Trump administration and most of the U.S. business world.
Many corporate
leaders are concerned about the fact that Trump is simultaneously in tense trade negotiations with the European Union and
brandishing
the threat of tariffs on car imports
(primarily impacting Germany and Japan), a move which virtually every single
American auto-company angrily opposes.
And they appear to
be signing on only half-heartedly to Trump's renegotiated NAFTA, now dubbed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement -- which
contains some attractive updates on digital trade (mostly lifted from the TPP, ironically enough), but is broadly seen as a
step backwards for corporate profits and preferable only to a collapse of NAFTA altogether.
These raise question
for U.S. corporate rulers: If Trump is so concerned with the Chinese threat, why doesn't he focus his fire in that
direction, instead of toward allies?
This will be the
line of attack against Trump from much of the political and corporate establishment, including those who are Democrats or
support them, moving forward into the new election cycle.
To Trump and his
team, however, trade disputes and negotiations with Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Japan and China are all so many
elements of a larger plan to keep as much of global industry as possible within the continental U.S.
For the largest
American companies -- which have positioned themselves at the technological peak of a globalized network of supply chains,
markets and investments -- Trump's economic nationalism poses an opportunity to challenge China, but new problems in
relation to the rest of the world.
The biggest CEOs and
industry lobbies are still figuring out a response.
THE REVERBERATIONS
of the U.S.-China trade war have been felt across the corporate world, perhaps nowhere more starkly than in
telecommunications.
As geopolitical
tensions between the U.S. and China have deepened, telecom companies and state governments have been preparing for the
highly anticipated rollout of 5G cellular networks. 5G, or fifth generation, technology is expected to speed up data flows
(and increase data volumes) across cell phone and other digital communication systems.
Many analysts
predict the degree of change brought on by 5G will be similar to that of the 3G and 4G evolutions, which underpinned the
smartphone boom. This time around, however, most eyes are trained on what the new networks will mean for digitized and
computerized manufacturing, commerce and transportation more broadly.
For the leadership
of both main U.S. political parties, the excitement around 5G has been muted by hostility toward the world's largest
telecom equipment supplier (and second largest cell phone seller), the Chinese corporation Huawei.
With $7.55 billion
in profits in 2017 and the most cost-competitive telecom equipment in the world, Huawei has been widely predicted to be one
of the main beneficiaries of the 5G expansion.
But Congress has
been on an offensive against the company
since
2012
, and the Trump administration has escalated the attacks.
Trump has gone on a
global campaign with broad bipartisan support to persuade allied states to ban Huawei entirely from their domestic markets.
He has also planned to issue an executive order to bar the company from the U.S. economy as well, though he seems to have
now turned this threat into a bargaining chip in his dealmaking with Xi and China.
The justification
for bans is that Huawei could use its access to the cellular networks it builds overseas to spy on foreign governments. The
extraordinary hypocrisy of this claim coming from the main surveillance power in world history has not been lost on most
people following the debate.
Meanwhile, Trump
instructed the Canadian government to arrest and extradite Huawei's Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, daughter of
Huawei founder and President Ren Zhengfei, during a routine visit to Vancouver. The charges against Wanzhou stemmed from
alleged violations of U.S. sanctions on Iran.
Wanzhou's
extradition hearing
began this week and could drag on for months.
Wanzhou's arrest
could also be used as a bargaining chip by Trump, though most of Trump's staff is reticent to bring a separate legal
proceeding into a trade agreement for fear of discrediting the courts.
PART OF what is so
striking about the case of Huawei and 5G is how it flatly contradicts the whole logic of the current neoliberal world order
of free markets and free trade.
According to the
propaganda, under neoliberalism, any buyer should be allowed to make their purchases from any company that offers the best
products for the lowest prices. For many buyers, including national governments, that company is clearly Huawei.
Now, however, the
U.S. state is attempting to restrict the field and eliminate the Chinese option from the market. In other words, what we're
witnessing in this crucial sector of the global economy is an open attempt by the world's most powerful state to create
trade blocs in telecommunications that shut out one of China's most prominent companies.
While both
Republicans and Democrats in Congress are rallying behind the attacks on Huawei, the response from the U.S. and European
information technology industries has been much more conflicted.
The main lobby for
telecom and technology companies in the U.S., the Information Technology Industry Council, has been clamoring for Trump to
strike a deal with Xi and drop the tariffs. Chuck Robbins, CEO of the largest American telecom equipment maker, Cisco
Systems, insists Trump's tariffs and sanctions are unnecessary.
"We don't need
anything else to beat these guys or to beat any of our competition in the marketplace,"
Robbins
said in February
. Huawei competitors Ericsson and Nokia -- multinational companies based in Sweden and Finland,
respectively -- have claimed that
they're
ready to supply Europe's 5G infrastructures
in the event of a Huawei ban, indicating they may have some sympathy with
Trump's efforts.
AS OF now, the Trump
administration's campaign to block Huawei from the world's markets has had mixed results. Both
British
and
German
intelligence
agencies are leaning toward accepting Huawei as a legitimate business partner, as is the
French
Senate
.
In the Czech
Republic,
a
conflict has emerged
pitting President Miloš Zeman, who wants to strengthen ties with China, and the Czech
cybersecurity agency, which has labeled Huawei a threat to national security. Debates on the same topic are also underway
in
Italy
and
Canada
.
Australia's Foreign
Minister Marise Payne, staking out the most extreme anti-Huawei position, has
fully
embraced Trump's ban
and vowed to maintain it, even if Trump himself backs away from his current position. New
Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, on other the hand,
rejected
the idea of a blanket ban
.
Despite ongoing
China-India tensions, the offer of cheap telecommunications equipment to expand India's cellular infrastructure seems too
attractive for Modi and his business allies to decline. The fact that the Trump administration is simultaneously
weighing
raising tariffs and restrictions
on Indian products is certainly not helping to convince Modi to further antagonize
Beijing.
However unsuccessful
the Trump White House has been in forcing the hand of other states, the president and congressional leaders are well aware
of the economic leverage they have against key Chinese companies.
Last year, the Trump
administration brought China's second telecom corporation, ZTE, to the brink of collapse when he issued
a
temporary ban on trade
between the company and American suppliers. ZTE is totally dependent on U.S. imports of advanced
communications equipment and might have been destroyed if Trump had not chosen to lift the ban before entering negotiations
with Xi.
Similar bans by the
Trump administration have nearly brought down the Chinese state-owned chipmaking company Fujian Jinhua, which has announced
it will have to
cease
production altogether in March
if it cannot buy more imports of crucial American equipment.
WITH ALL of these
variables at play, the next year in the U.S.-China economic relationship is impossible to predict.
The financial costs
of unraveling one of the largest state-to-state commercial relationships in modern history may prove too high for either
side to escalate the 2018-19 trade conflict any further, especially as the global economy passes the high point of the
business cycle and heads toward
another
likely recession
.
The two heads of
state plan to meet at the end of March, possibly at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, to sign a trade agreement.
For Trump to sell
the deal to an increasingly hawkish Congress, he will have to demonstrate "progress" on the goals he articulated at the
outset of the trade war: more Chinese purchases of American products, stronger intellectual property safeguards for U.S.
corporations and less state subsidies for Chinese companies. It remains to be seen whether Trump will decide to incorporate
a compromise on Huawei into the deal.
Whatever the outcome
of this round of negotiations -- and it is still possible that they could fall apart -- what is unfolding today is
undoubtedly just the first act in a long and tempestuous drama.
China is clearly a
growing geopolitical rival to the U.S., and Chinese corporations are quickly developing the capacity to compete with their
U.S. counterparts on a global scale in the most advanced areas of high-tech manufacturing.
This means that many
more economic confrontations between the two states are inevitable. And as politicians on both sides of the aisle have made
abundantly clear, Trump will not be the last president to stoke tensions with China.
Then there is the
question of how the perspectives of the largest American businesses will change as this conflict develops.
Josh Bolten, the
Business Roundtable president, claims that the CEOs he represents have been through an "evolution" in their views that
brings them closer to Trump's "aggressive posture" toward China. Yet at the same time, there continues to be near-universal
opposition to tariffs and trade wars within these elite strata.
So what kind of
"aggressive posture" do these leading American capitalists hope to adopt? With more money and power concentrated in their
hands than any other ruling class in the world, the stance that these elites take toward U.S.-China relations will be very
important.
If the American 1
Percent drifts any further toward the rising economic nationalism articulated by their political representatives in
Washington, future flare-ups between the two countries may be a great deal worse.
RT correspondent Eisa Ali reports on the latest Brexit drama in the UK Parliament. Then,
economist and founder of Democracy at Work Richard Wolff joins Rick Sanchez to discuss, arguing
that the Brexit debate constitutes "an endless struggle about what doesn't matter" and that
whether the British are "in" or "out" of Europe is an irrelevant distraction from the problems
really faced by the UK.
A couple of points he makes in passing surprised me:
1) "It's why they are using the non-issue of the Irish border ..." Is it really a non-issue,
and why? Surely it is a big issue, and intrinsically explosive? Maybe I am missing something
there.
2) "The Labour party is squealing out of both sides of its mouth trying to get themselves
out of the corner they've painted themselves into. Because they can read the polls. And what
was a solid Labour lead in the winter has become a solid Tory lead in the Spring." Is it really
so that that huge Labour lead has been turned into - of all things - a Tory lead? Horror
of horrors. If true, the present day Brits are unfathomable. And what about the first part of
that citation - what about turning it around and expressing it in terms of the reality, which
is that the Labour Party consists of two wholly different, wholly contradictory, and wholly
ireconcilable parts, namely the socialist majority standing behind Corbyn and the lying fascist
corporatist right-wing 5th columnists whose sole objective is to sabotage the previous group in
every manner possible. Would perhaps a better statement be that the difference between these
two groups is being made more explicit than ever (which, I would have thought, would only
increase Corbyn's support not decrease it)? Or is that just my wishful thinking and the UK
masses are being successfully hoodwinked by the propaganda of the 2nd group as spouted by the
MSM?
Comments on those two issues anyone, from those closer to the action? (Comments from Bevin
would be especially gratefully read!)
Posted by: BM | Mar 16, 2019 9:58:53 AM |
172 ... ... ...
The other most ridiculous thing, probably moreso when you think about this Monty
Pythonesque British escapade into hillarity is the fact such grand sweeping measures are
allowed on a simple majority vote of the populace, thus ensuring approximately half the
population will detest the result no matter what.
Say what you will about the US of A-holes, and I admit nearly all of what you say is true
(except of course for the oft repeated mis-trope that Trump = US in all his venal stupidity.
No, he only represents roughly 35%...and true that is egregious enough...) at least in the US
such grand sweeping measures able to be put to a vote to the nation as a whole (iow, amending
the Constitution) either require super majority of state legislatures or a super majourity of
Congress criminals to pass.
The fact an entire nation of blooming idiots in England are where they are today is insanely
larfably and udderly absurd. Also, infotaining.
And to think Theresa May is the headliner fronting this comedy act for the ages.
All this inspired of course by the equally ridiculous US president and his chief strategist
the completely nutz Bannon.
... ... ...
Posted by: donkeytale | Mar 16, 2019 10:49:56 AM |
173@ bevin | Mar 15, 2019 3:45:05 PM; Jen | Mar 15, 2019 3:49:59 PM; mourning dove |
Mar 15, 2019 3:59:32 PM
Posted by: ex-SA | Mar 16, 2019 9:18:03 AM | 171
A few half-baked thoughts on this: it seems to me both sides of this argument have some
merits. On the one side I am inclined to agree with ex-SA that the working classes in the
colonising countries have had by and large a pretty cushy life since after the 2nd World War
when compared to the disenfranchised of the colonised countries, both before and after
(ostensible but not really real) decolonisation.
The brutality of neoliberalism and austerity on working people in the rich nations (but
arguably even more so on those in poor nations!) does not in my view very seriously detract
from that argument.
One thing that does arguably somewhat detract from the above argument is that when viewed in
non-materialistic terms, those living in the so-called rich countries often have markedly
meaningless and miserable lives compared to many poor people living in materially poor
countries (extreme destitution obviously aside) - in other words they are miserably
unhappy.
Many people in Germany, for example, earn relatively high wages, most of which they spend on
very high housing costs (and energy costs etc) - often alone, and spend the rest of their
income on highly processed food from supermarkets that costs a multiple of what the simple
basic local foodstuffs that were eaten in former times would cost (and still could if you know
how to live more meaningfully); and meanwhile their life is spiritually frozen and devoid of
worthwhile meaning.
In contrast, often people living materially poor lives in undeveloped and in materialist
terms extremely poor countries, but living much closer to nature and with much warmer intra-
and inter-familial relations in extended families, and have a philosophy of life that is less
exclusively materialist and much more conducive to spiritual well-being. I would argue however
that this aspect is largely tangental to the issue of winners and losers of colonialism.
I agree with Bevin @ 131's point about the destitution of the British working classes prior
to the first world war, but what about post-1960's? I don't really see that the lifestyles of
the worst victims of austerity today are comparable to the lifestyles of the poor in the 18th
or 19th century? I think the lives of even the poorest of the poor (excluding probably the
homeless) in the West are massively subsidised by the spoils of the (ongoing) rape of the
colonised countries.
The entire expectations of people in the West - including the poor - are based on
assumptions of entitlement to things which are critically dependent on the rape and theft of
the resources of the colonised countries. Look at the extraordinarily privileged living
standards of ordinary working people in Belgium today, as an extreme example!
It is always interesting to reflect that in former times the West was always viewed as the
poor part of the world, and the East as wealthy - and historically it is true that throughout
most of recorded history the East was extremely wealthy compared to the pauper West - the
current-day material wealth of the West relative to the East should be viewed as an
extraordinary anomaly! The first Westerners to visit the East marvelled at its phenomenal
wealth and envied it. That indeed was the primary cause of the Crusades - the paupers of the
West envied the riches of the East and drummed up pseudo-religious excuses to rape and pillage
whatever they could grab. It is not without reason that most of the economically poorest
countries in reacent times are precisely those countries with the most abundant valuable
natural resources.
"... Face it. Mass production of consumer electronics in the USA is almost non-existent. An entire important industry has been lost forever based on wage arbitrage. But even if there were not a 10:1 wage disparity, the skill level and work ethic of Americans is pathetic compared to the diligent Asian worker bees. Reality is a cruel mistress ..."
"... Russia just passed up the U.S. in grain exports. Their economy in real terms grows year on year. Russia has more natural wealth available to exploit than USA that includes lands rich in minerals, timber, water, etc. ..."
"... With regards to traitorous fifth column atlantacists and oligarchy, Russia's shock therapy (induced by the Harvard Boys) in the 90's helped Russian's figure out who the real enemy is. Putin has marginalized most of these ((Oligarchs)), and they longer are allowed to influence politics. Many have also been stripped of their ill gotten gains, for example the Rothschild gambit to grab Yukos and to own Russia was thwarted. Dollar debts were paid off, etc. ..."
"... The Western European based US economy is fast draining out (along with people of Western European descent) and the days of US world manufacturing leadership (1950's) are a distant memory. ..."
"... Maybe the takeaway from US/Chinese history is that the US needs its own Maoist style Cultural Revolution. Nothing short of US Maoism is needed to root out every aspect of the current rotten system and get a fresh start from zero. ..."
War, in this model, begins when the first shots are fired.
Well, think again in this new era of growing great-power struggle and competition.
It all war, all the time and another point to remember is that there is always a war between
the .001% and the rest of us.
Another thing is that we proles, peasants and peons should give some serious thought to
having the "elite" fight their own battles, on their "own" (though mostly stolen) shekels for
once. Read More Agree: foolisholdman Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Feb 15, 2019 Next Phase, Xi & Trump, Coordinate The Transition
US industrial production plunges, this doesn't mean that manufacturing jobs are not coming
back to the US this means the [CB] is deteriorating quickly as Trump brings back
manufacturing.
Feb 16, 2019 Pentagon Warns of Chinese Space Lasers | China News Headlines
A new Pentagon report says #China and Russia have developed #laser weapons to target US
satellites. Need a Space Force?
governing elites have developed other means of warfare -- economic, technological, and
covert -- to achieve such strategic objectives. Viewed this way, the United States is
already in close to full combat mode with respect to China.
Looked at this way, there are countless wars all the time as well as a huge gray area that
is debatable. I think there is merit in defining war as actual kinetic weapons firing in both
directions. Even then, there are gray areas, but at least they are minimized
"The time and investment required to rebuild/replace supply chains in a JIT world means
much of what's left of America's real economy would disappear within weeks.
American trade negotiators are apparently oblivious to this. I find that very weird."
Of course they're not oblivious, as you can see everytime the stock market goes down, some
US official came out to say a deal/talk is on the way. Both the negotiators and the market
know.
They're just betting on enough pressure will force China to surrender, like Japan did in
the 80s.
@Erebus In the distant past
there were at least 1000 PC Board manufacturers in the US .now there are only 2 or 3. Most US
PCB houses are actually a middleman with an iphone fronting for one of the many Chinese PCB
factories. You supply the Gerber Files and the payment, of course, and your finished PC
Boards come back by air the next day.
Now here is the kicker: our US PC Board supplier is
located in Illinois and owned by you guessed it Hindus. Half the staff are also Hindus. In
general, the Chinese PCBs are of higher quality than the Hindu .er US PCBs.
Face it. Mass
production of consumer electronics in the USA is almost non-existent. An entire important
industry has been lost forever based on wage arbitrage. But even if there were not a 10:1
wage disparity, the skill level and work ethic of Americans is pathetic compared to the
diligent Asian worker bees. Reality is a cruel mistress
Russia just passed up the U.S. in grain exports. Their economy in real terms grows year on
year. Russia has more natural wealth available to exploit than USA that includes lands rich
in minerals, timber, water, etc.
With regards to traitorous fifth column atlantacists and oligarchy, Russia's shock therapy
(induced by the Harvard Boys) in the 90's helped Russian's figure out who the real enemy is.
Putin has marginalized most of these ((Oligarchs)), and they longer are allowed to influence
politics. Many have also been stripped of their ill gotten gains, for example the Rothschild
gambit to grab Yukos and to own Russia was thwarted. Dollar debts were paid off, etc.
Russia could go further in their symphony of church and state, and copy Justinian
(Byzyantine empire) and prevent our (((friends))) from teaching in schools,bein control of
money, or in government.
With regards to China, they would be not be anywhere near where they are today if the West
had not actively transferred their patrimony in the form of transplanted industry and
knowledge.
China is only temporarily dependent on export of goods via their Eastern seaboard, but as
soon as belt and road opens up, she will pivot further toward Eurasia. If the U.S. factories
withdrew from China tomorrow, China already has our "knowledge" and will find markets in
Eurasia and raw materials in Africa, etc.
People need to stop whistling past the graveyard.
The atalantacist strategy has run its course, internal development of U.S. and linking up
with belt and road would be in America's best future interests. But, to do that requires
first acknowledging that money's true nature is law, and not private bank credit. Further,
the U.S. is being used as whore of Babylon, where her money is "Federal Reserve Notes" and
are international in character. The U.S is not sovereign. Deep state globalism does not
recognize national boundaries, or sovereignty.
@Alfa158 Alternatively, one
could examine a nations ability to rapidly expand their economy to meet wartime needs. In
this scenario, other factors such as access to raw materials come into play. In this
perspective, the equations would change dramatically.
I think there is merit in defining war as actual kinetic weapons firing
Why limit it to that? I'd say there's plenty of merit in the author's definition especially since it would tend
to shed some lights on the origins of major conflicts.
That US elites that are split on who to go after first compromised by going after both Russia
and China at the same time is a definition of insanity. The US doesn't have a chance in hell
of subduing or defeating the Russia/China alliance. The US is already checkmated. The more it
goes after some big win the worse will be its defeat.
So the question (for me) is not which side will win, the question is the scenario of the
decline of the US Empire. Someone here mentioned the EU turning East. At some point the EU
will decide that staying a US vassal is suicide and it will turn East. When that happens then
the virus of US insanity will turn inwards into itself.
The US has recently focused on South America by installing several fascist regimes and is
now trying to get Venezuela. But the US backed regimes are laying the groundwork for the next
wave of revolution soon to come. Wherever I look the US is its own worst enemy. The big
question is how much suffering before it ends.
@jacques
sheete The author's definition makes the term a purely rhetorical one tantamount to an
angry child saying "this means war!" to another angry child, or "The War on Drugs" or "The
Battle of the Sexes" etc.
Admittedly, this is all semantics, so have it your way if you want, as it is not worth the
time of further debate. As for me, I prefer to have terms as precise as possible.
Klare discovers the US crusade against China – 8 years after the Obama/Hillary "pivot"
to East Asia sending 2/3 of the US Navy there and putting together the TPP to excluded China.
As usual he is right on top of things.
And he begins with this gem: " "The media and many politicians continue to focus on
U.S.-Russian relations, in large part because of revelations of Moscow's meddling in the 2016
American presidential election and the ongoing Mueller investigation." Huh? Does he mean the
$4700 in Google ads or the $50,000 in Facebook ads traced to some alleged Russian sources? A
Russiagater from the start.
I remember some years ago before the shale revolution Klare was warning us about "peak oil."
I think we were supposed to have run out of it by now.
Klare is a hack who cycles things that any conscious person reading the newspapers would have
known long ago.
P.s. He says that Apple is the number one cell phone. No longer. He should improve his
Google search skills or his set of assumptions which have turned him into a Russiagater.
Huawei now sells more cell phones worldwide than Apple ( https://gearburn.com/2018/08/huawei-smartphone-sales-2018/
). And Huawei does this even though it is effectively excluded from the US market (You cannot
find it in stores) whereas Apple has unfettered access to the enormous Chinese market. You
find Huawei everywhere – from Italy to Tanzania. How would Apple fare if China stopped
purchases of its products? Not so well I am afraid.
Usa is at war against everyone , from China to Latinamerica , from Europe to India , from the
islamic world to Africa . Usa is even at war against its own citizens , at least against its
best citizens .
I don't think it's simple "Eastern" vs "Western" Europeans; my take is Protestants vs
Catholics vs Orthodox. In that order. The biggest difference is between Protestant and
Orthodox. Catholics are, sort of, in the middle.
Or, in practical terms, don't see much difference between Austrians and Slovenes.
That's for Europe.
When we speak of the culture war or the war on drugs or the war between the sexes or a trade
war we are misusing the word war.
War with China means exactly shooting and bombing and killing Chinese and American people.
Expanding the meaning of the word only makes it meaningless.
Admittedly, this is all semantics, so have it your way if you want, as it is not worth
the time of further debate. As for me, I prefer to have terms as precise as possible.
I agree on all four points.
However, if you didn't want a debate, or at least a response, then why did you bother
bringing it up? (That's a rhetorical question, since I neither expect nor really care what
the response would be; now I'm asking myself why I bothered !!!)
Russia under Putin is an exporter of non GMO grains where as the U.S. exports GMO grains
thatt the Chinese do not want as these GMO grains are a destuctive to humans and
animals.
I hope that's true. To Hell with that GMO crap!!! Anyone using it for farming ought to be forced to drink
glyphosate straight for breakfast.
As far as the war with China goes, we ain't seen nothing yet. It won't be pretty, especially
considering that the US is starting it with severe self-inflicted wounds.
Yes, and the ads were often absurd – one somehow featuring Yosemite Sam and gun rights
and another for a dildo, I believe. Great for click bait maybe but not real winners for a
campaign.
As the incomparable Jimmy Dore says on his show, which should be required watching for
everyone, if the Russians can swing an election with such modest resources against maybe $1-2
billion spent by the Donald and the Hillary together, then every candidate for offices high
and low should run not walk with $54,700 in hand to secure a cheap and easy victory from the
Russobots.
I don't think China stands the chance. As we all know diversity is strength and China is
mono-cultured rather than the obviously superior multi. So China will continue to decline,
while US goes from strength to strength thanks to its brilliant, brilliant multicultural
philosophy.
China was dumb enough to try real socialism, while obviously the fake one is the way to
go. You convince your domestic population of your humanitarian credentials – via the
phony socialism, plus you don't have to share a cent with them. How clever is that? Phony
socialism is the way to go – it eliminates the need for the real one.
At some point one must consider that this is all a fraud. In Washington Ocasio-Cortez and the
Democrats are proposing to eviscerate the US economy with their Green New Deal. While here we
find Washington launching a long term struggle for economic, political, and military
superiority over China.
As was once said in another context by an individual remembered in history, "What is
truth?" A question which either revealed his own puzzlement or was simply a rhetorical
dismissal of the question altogether. Likely both at the same time. One can be simply bemused
by the turn of events.
Is all this activity simply a song and dance to entertain, terrify, confuse, and amuse the
public while the real ordering of the world takes place behind closed doors? Put
Ocasio-Cortez together with the Pentagon and we have apparently a commitment by the US to
force the entire world to immolate itself. No state shall be superior to the US and the US
shall be a third world hellhole. Cui bono?
@joe
webb Russia and China are certainly not natural allies. However, deranged international
banditry of the US (called foreign policy in the DC bubble) literally forced them to ally
against a common threat: dying demented Empire.
As you call Chinese "Chinks", I suggest you stop using everything made in China, including
your clothes, footwear, tools, the light bulbs in your house, etc. Then, using your likely
made in China computer and certainly made in China mouse, come back and tell us how great
your life has become. Or you can stick to your principles of not using China-made stuff,
write a message on a piece of paper (warning: make sure that neither the paper nor the pen is
made in China), put it into a bottle, and throw it in the ocean. Be patient, and in a few
centuries you might get an answer.
In the halls of the Kremlin these days, it's all about China -- and whether or not
Moscow can convince Beijing to form an alliance against the West.
Russia's obsession with a potential alliance with China was already obvious at the
Valdai Discussion Club, an annual gathering of Russia's biggest foreign policy minds, in
2017.
At their next meeting, late last year, the idea seemed to move from the speculative to
something Russia wants to realize. And soon
Seen from Moscow, there is no resistance left to a new alliance led by China. And now
that Washington has imposed tariffs on Chinese exports, Russia hopes China will finally
understand that its problem is Washington, not Moscow.
In the past, the possibility of an alliance between the two countries had been hampered
by China's reluctance to jeopardize its relations with the U.S. But now that it has already
become a target, perhaps it will grow bolder. Every speaker at Valdai tried to push China
in that direction.
Another hurdle, reported in the journal Nature this week, is that China is cleaning up
its air pollution. That sounds great for pollution-weary Chinese citizens. But
climatologists point out that some of that air pollution had actually been cooling the
atmosphere, by blocking out solar radiation. Ironically, less air pollution from China
could mean more warming for the Earth.
@AnonFromTN Frankly, I
really don't give a damn about what you say. But do not use racial slurs FIRST. I use racial
slurs ONLY in RESPONSE to the comments that contain them, in retaliation. If you don't use
racial slurs, I wouldn't either.
@DB
Cooper DB,
Thanks for the PCB mfg video. Asian roboticized surface mount assembly plants are even more
impressive. At one time supplied specialized instrumentation to the FN factory in South
Carolina where the 50 cal machine guns are made, and received a tour. Crude by Asian
standards, but efficient in its own way. Base price on a 50 LMG at the time was $5k without
any of the extras: tripod, flash suppressor, water cooling, advanced night vision sights,
etc. Base price would be $10k by now. The US Guv does not allow this kind of production to go
offshore .but apparently cares not a jot about the production of consumer electronics, a
massive and growing worldwide market.
Have read the Chinese shops assemble $1000 I-pods for
as little as $5 each including parts sourcing, making domestic production here impractical.
Surprisingly, the Germans manage to produce high end electronics and their manufacturing
labor rates are even higher than North America. Says something about the skill and diligence
level of the US workforce ..where just passing a drug test and not having felonies or bad
credit is a major achievement.
@Anonymous Yes, it is quite
off putting, even though most of the article is quite sound. Possibly Klare was obliged to
add this bit of nonsense in order to get it published in TomDispatch but who knows.
@nsa
A good friend supplies hi-end PCBs to EU & RU electronics mfrs, particularly in DE.
Judging by the numbers I hear, hi-end electronics is still very much alive in Europe while
it's all but dead in NA.
It's a capital intensive business, and raw labour cost is a minor component in the total
cost of doing business. NA has put so many socio-political obstructions & regulatory
costs in the way that even at min wage it makes no business sense to locate there. I doubt it
would make sense even with free labour.
As Steve Jobs told Obama point blank, "Those jobs aren't coming back". NA's manufacturing
ecosystem (rather than mere infrastructure), which includes social-cultural aspects as well
as physical plant has been disappeared, and only dire necessity will build a new one. I
explicitly avoid the word "rebuild", as that train left the station years ago. NA still
"assembles" stuff, but it doesn't manufacture except on a small, niche scale.
Manufacturing is a difficult and very demanding business. 21st C manufacturing is not
simply an extension of the 20th's. It's a radically different hybrid of logistics, design
& production engineering, "smart" plant, and financial mgmt.
Not for the faint of heart. Much easier to flip burgers/houses/stocks/used
cars/derivatives/credit swaps/ until there's nothing left to flip.
Where a war begins – or ends – can be hard to define. Michael Klare is right,
'War' and 'peace' are not 'polar opposites'. We often look at wars in chronological
abstraction: the First World War started on the 28th July 1914. Or did it only become a
global war one week later when Great Britain declared war on Germany? The causes can be of
long duration. The decline of the Ottoman Empire, for which the other Great Powers were
positioning themselves to benefit, might have begun as far back as 1683 when the Turks were
defeated at the Battle of Vienna. It ultimately led to the events of 1914.
Great power rivalry has always led to wars; in the last hundred years world wars. Graham
Allison wrote that the US can 'avoid catastrophic war with China while protecting and
advancing American national interests' if it follows the lessons of the Cold War. History
shows that wars are caused by the clash of interests, that's always at some else's expense.
When core interests collide there is no alternative to war – however destructive. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
The real conflict is a cultural/ideological war in which liberal democracy tries to apply
its system worldwide under the delusion that egalitarianism, freedom, your definition of
rights, is universal.
China will never accept this. Russia is already fighting back. Nor does any developing
country look like they will ever truly embrace western values. It's gonna be SWPLs + WEIRDs
vs The Rest of Humanity.
The new Cold War will last much longer than any trade issue and conflict over values will
always be the underlying motivation, until the west either ends its universalist crusade, or
abolishes liberal democracy within its own borders.
I would be more sympathetic with Klare's fear of cold war with China if he could just assure
me that Chinese writers are equally able to voice concern with their own government's side of
the equation.
History shows that wars are caused by the clash of interests, that's always at some
else's expense. When core interests collide there is no alternative to war – however
destructive.
Pretty much, BUT, with one little difference re "some else's expense" now. M.A.D.
scenario.
Even limited exchange of thermonuclear M.I.R.V.s could affect everyone (even if somebody
can define that "limited" in the first place).
My take: we haven't developed, as species, along our capability for destruction.
Cheerful thought, I know.
Pepe Escobar says:
'US elites remain incapable of understanding China'
That's B.S., Pepe should've known better .
They dont 'misunderstand', they'r simply lying thru their teeth.
The following are all bald faced lies,
Classic bandits crying robbery.
Lawmaker: Chinese navy seeks to encircle US homeland
[bravo, This one really takes the cake !]
US Accuses China Of Preparing For World War III
US accuses China of trying to militarise and dominates space
USN have to patrol the SCS to protect FON for international shipping..
tip of an iceberg
Those who uttered such nonsense aint insane, stupid or cuz they 'misunderstand'
[sic] China. They know we know they'r telling bald faced lies
but that doesnt stop them lying with straight face .
This is the classic def of psychopaths:
people who'r utterly amoral, no sense of right or wrong, there's no such word as
embarrassment in their vocab.
Is it sheer coincidence that all the 5lies have been ruled by such breeds ?
Ask Ian Fleming's fundamental law of prob .
but why couldnt they produce one decent leader
in all of three hundred years.
5lies have more than their fair share of psychopaths no doubt, but surely not everybody is
like joe web and co., I know this for a fact. ?
Trouble is .
Washington DC is a veritable cesspool that
no decent man would want to dip his foot into it.
They might as well put it in the job requirement, 'Only psychopaths need apply '
Thats why in the DC cesspool, only the society's dregs rise up to the top.
A case of garbage in, garbage out .
A vicious circle that cant be fixed, except to be broken.
1) People from China PRC has as a people on the whole become quite disgusting. But please
exclude ppl from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibetans, Uyghurs etc. I confirm that PRC China people by
and large are now locusts of the world. I am one of them by birth. how did it happen? Deep
question for philosophers. It wasn't like this 60 years ago. some poisonous element entered
the veins of the collective, infected at least 70 percent. I worry for Russia due to its
inflated self confidence when dealing with PRC. Lake Baikal deal was almost sealed before it
got shelved. Still, using racial curses don't hurt anyone but yourself. All the big internet
advocates for Russia such as Orlov and Saker and Karlin don'tunderstand The Danger of China
PRC. If you understand then you have a responsibility to keep yourself décent and
respectable.
2) USA aside from its liberals and Zionist Jews etc. Has become a slowly stewing big asylum
for psychologically infantile and demented big babies. How did it happen again is a big
philosophical myth to me. Western Europe is sinking primarily because they came to resemble
the US. especially French and Brits and Spanish.
3) Russia is ruled by a few individuals with brains and maybe a bit of conscience but the
elite ruling class behave in such a way that one would conclude that they share the China PRC
virus, just not as advanced. Your basic Russian people are in a state of abject degradation
dejection, not changed all that much since 1990s. Only slightly ahead of the Ukrainians. If
one cares about Russia then shove aside 19th century naive romanticism and face reality.
4) A sustained and massive war by USA against China maybe the only miniscule chance
Greek/Christian civilization can be saved. Otherwise descend of history into thousand year
dark age. The latter is more likely due to advanced stage of brain dead disease gripping the
entire West.
If you have observed cities like Detroit or Greater Los Angeles than you know that "white
flight" as oppose to sycophancy is the end result of black or Hispanic populations reaching a
certain level. Whites leave and the US then has another internal third world like Detroit or
East LA.
It is a game of musical chairs where the white move into remote hinterlands, which develop
into suburbs or exurbs, then of course as these become population centers the blacks and
Hispanics enter them and the whites flee again.
What you will see is white flight from the US with the wealthiest whites simply moving to
other developed countries. The 1% would move to New Zealand or Tasmania.
The handicap for the USA in the confrontation is twofold its élite are in conflict
(and afraid, and contemptuous of) at least half of their own populace.
Plus, all the resources of all kinds directed to enterprises in the Middle East, subtracted
thusly from other enterprises.
Furthermore, there is the occasional bullying of Europe, and the continuous bullying of
Russia, yet more resource drains.
The USA spreads itself too thin, perhaps.
@peterAUS Chinese are
neither for money nor for ethnic power, Chinese is for 5 principles of peaceful coexistence,
treating all nations large and small as equal with respect.
Chinese believes we are now living in a rapidly changing world Peace, development,
cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our times. To keep up with the times,
we cannot have ourselves physically living in the 21st century, but with a mindset belonging
to the past stalled in the oldays of colonialism, and constrained by the zero-sum Cold War
mentality.
Chinese is determined to help the world to achieve harmony, peace and prosperity thru the
win-win approaches.
@Китайский
дурак 2) The riddle reads simply: democracy,
multiracialism, economic welfare (no-limit printing of currency made possible by uncontested
military "overmatch").
I lived in the Philippines and would chalk that up to fairly typical of a country run by
China since it is effectively controlled by a syndicate of Fujian family cartels.
First, you have a choke-hold on the economy and wages are depressed to near starvation
levels.
Second, Chinese will bring corruption to the nth degree by bribing whichever politician
will serve their own interests at the expense of the public.
Thirdly, those Chinese who cannot succeed in business will get into the drug trade and
China and Taiwan has created the Philippines drug war by making meth.
Fourth, there are fiery pogroms when the local population react with "burnouts" and
innocent Chinese are killed.
This is on the horizon in Africa. Probably.
In the West, Chinese were held in check by Jews and WASPS and to some degree by
Malaysians. I see Africa becoming like the Philippines once Chinese can become citizens
there, however.
@Biff The Romans create a
desert and call it peace; British Empire imitated Roman Empire, USA is born out of British
Empire; so only the White People particular the Anglo-Saxon is not ready for peace or
salvation. But rest of the world has been waiting for peace or salvation for a long long
time.
Chinese are neither for money nor for ethnic power, Chinese is for 5 principles of
peaceful coexistence, treating all nations large and small as equal with respect.
Peace, development, cooperation and mutual benefit have become the trend of our
times.
Chinese is determined to help the world to achieve harmony, peace and prosperity thru
the win-win approaches.
Three options here:
Preferably,you are just pulling our legs. Not bad attempt, actually. Got me for a second.
Most likely, you are simply working. Sloppy and crude but, well, "you get what you pay
for". 50 Cent Army. Retired but needing money. Sucks, a?
Crazy and the least probable, you really believe in all that. Ah, well
@jeff
stryker Obviously you are brain washed by the 'god-fearing' morally defunct evil
'Anglo-Saxon', blaming every of your own failure on the Chinese just like what the Americans
and their Five-Eyes partners are doing right now.
The Filippino, the Malay and all the SE Asia locals have the guns not the Chinese, if the
Chinese do not hand over their hard earned money they will use what their ex-colonial masters
taught them since Vasco da Gama discovered the East Indies, masscared the Chinese and took it
all. The Dutch, Spanish, English, Japanese and the American all have done it before in order
to colonized the East Indies.
Before WWII, the American is just one of the Western imperialists ravaged and wreaked
havoc of Asia with barbaric wars, illicit drugs like Opium, slavery, stealing, robbing,
looting, plundering, murdering, torturing, exploiting, polluting, culture genocide, 'pious'
fanaticism, unmatchable greed and extreme brutality. In fact it is hard to tell the
difference between the American and the unrepentant war criminal Japanese who is more lethal
and barbaric to Asians until the Pearl Harbour incident.
For over seventy years the US has dominated Asia, ravaging the continent with two major
wars in Korea and Indo-China with millions of casualties, and multiple counter-insurgency
interventions in Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Timor, Myanmar, Pakistan and
Afghanistan. The strategic goal has been to expand its military and political power, exploit
the economies and resources and encircle China.
USA is 10,000 miles away on the other side of the Pacific. USA is not an Asian nation, and
American is an alien to Asia. American is a toxin and a plague to Asian, They have done
enough damage to Asian already, they are not wanted, not invited and not loved in Asia, go
home Yankee.
@peterAUS You should know
the White man has some fallacies built into their culture, such as they believe that the
White man's words must be taken as given truth, only the White man can invent and the White
man can succeed, and the Whte man's culture is the final form of civilization.
The West (Europeans and their offshoots like the American, Aussie, etc.) is where is now,
because of those hundreds of millions of people all over the world who were robbed and
murdered, those who become victims of their very madness of colonialism and orientalism, of
the crusades and the slave and Opium trades. Cathedrals and palaces, museums and theatres,
train stations – all had been constructed on horrid foundations of bones and blood, and
amalgamated by tears.
The West squandered all the wealth they obtained thru stealing, looting and murdering
hundreds of millions of people all over the world in the scrabbling of a dog-eat-dog play
rough over the monopoly to plunder the rest of the world through two World Wars, one on the
edge of Armageddon, and on the verge of another Armageddon. It proves the West is incapable
of bringing peace and prosperity to the mankind because of their flawed culture, civilization
and religion. The chaos and suffering of the world in the last few hundreds of years under
the dominance the West proves they are a failure.
Human beings deserve better, we need to depart from the chaotic and harmful world order
and path established by the moronic West. China proposed a new way of life, a win-win
approach for the well-being of mankind like Belt-Road-Initiative to build and trade the world
into peace, harmony and prosperity. The West should not be the obstacle for achieving such
refreshing winner for all initiative. The West should embrace the new approach proposed by
China because the West will benefit from it. I call upon you, let go the old, obsolete,
failed and detrimental believe passed onto you by your colonialist forebears please, welcome
the new era.
As Steve Jobs told Obama point blank, "Those jobs aren't coming back". NA's
manufacturing ecosystem (rather than mere infrastructure), which includes social-cultural
aspects as well as physical plant has been disappeared, and only dire necessity will build
a new one. I explicitly avoid the word "rebuild", as that train left the station years ago.
NA still "assembles" stuff, but it doesn't manufacture except on a small, niche scale.
Manufacturing is a difficult and very demanding business. 21st C manufacturing is not
simply an extension of the 20th's. It's a radically different hybrid of logistics, design
& production engineering, "smart" plant, and financial mgmt.
Not for the faint of heart. Much easier to flip burgers/houses/stocks/used
cars/derivatives/credit swaps/ until there's nothing left to flip.
All true, leaving the question of what happens to North America before it reaches the
African street market economy (low tech, low investment, low trust, basic products, vibrant
and over each morning).
The Western European based US economy is fast draining out (along with people of Western
European descent) and the days of US world manufacturing leadership (1950's) are a distant
memory.
Maybe the takeaway from US/Chinese history is that the US needs its own Maoist style
Cultural Revolution. Nothing short of US Maoism is needed to root out every aspect of the
current rotten system and get a fresh start from zero.
If Chinese took over the world it would look like the Philippines.
Shabu labs everywhere? Corrupt politicians blowing away homeless squatters when some
Chinese guy wanted to build a shopping center or Chinese arsonists setting squats on fire?
Dictators living off wages Chinese don't want to pay exploited peasants?
No thanks, the whites don't want Chinese family cartels running our economies. We can see
the harm you have done in Burma, Philippines etc.
@jeff
stryker This Joe Wong is obviously a WuMao (professional trolls paid by Beijing to parrot
their government's pathological propaganda). Any mainland Chinese who can read will confirm
this fact. It is not worth your time to deal with folks like him.
@jeff
stryker Australians, Philippines, Singaporeans, Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Russians,
Italians, Japanese,Mongolians, Koreans, New Zealanders, a tiny anguished minority of mainland
Chinese themselves, everyone has gotten the mail, everyone has seen them on the streets,
everyone understood -- what a Beijing lorded world shall be like, coffee beans in the
morning. Americans are last in getting the news. Americans can be dim witted. Too many Nobel
winning economists and globalist bankers in America. And China is the gift of these white
people to the world.
@peterAUS thanks and if you
are a young man, congrats for your rationality. I am old, but probably have ten or 20 years
left, if not all those years real fit.
The young guys need to not fuc themselves up with regard to earning a living .keep your
mouth shut , sort of, and your name protected.
I hope a new generation of "White Nationalists" come along sans Hitlerism. Stay rational,
with just the facts M'am if you don't recall that line it was Dragnet and Detective Jack Webb
I think .you are young, Congrats.
Stick to the facts, keep your ego under control, keep a smile on your face .. Buddhist
wisdom to spread a little love around and it is essential for snaring a woman.
The Facts are with us. The Future is with us, including hard times, civil war, and so on.
The Sentimental Lie (Joseph Conrad) of race equality cannot stand for long.
@jeff
stryker Australian people nowadays are far less wrapped up in America than at any time
that I can remember but Australian politicians are just as bought and paid for as are those
in the US.
Australians generally are much more well travelled than most Americans and have been to
various places both in Asia and Europe, especially the UK. Despite having seen the longer
term results of "diversity" with their own eyes they overwhelmingly seem to think that things
will somehow work out differently in Australia. To even suggest that mass immigration from
the third world is a ticking time-bomb is to be branded a racist of the very worst kind.
"The best way for the US to win a war over China is not to outsource their labor
there."
Too bad you don't get to decide what "the best way for the US" is, no matter how many
times you vote America has owners, and the owners aren't the average Americans.
PS. Philippines is just the poor-man version of USA. Does the American capitalist class
have many concerns for their working class? The money class are all the same.
Your rant about Chinese of SE Asia is also quite similar with that of American Whites for
the Jews, or South African Blacks for the Whites, just only on economic side, not
politics.
Filipinos are nothing but semi retarded 85 IQ trying hard Americans, the vast majority who
are too stupid to copy the better parts of US high culture, and so ape and cargo cult the
trashiest and lowest of the low parts of US culture, or maybe low IQ Austronesians are just
prone to overall trashiness unless they are regulated by a somewhat draconian conservative
culture like Muslim Malays are.
@Китайский
дурак Perhaps some Russians like you are willing to live
under the Anglo-Saxon's dominance, submitted to Anglo-Saxon's zero-sum, beggar-thy-neighbour,
negative energy infested cult culture, and try to talk like them and walk like them, but not
everybody is like those feeble Russians. Other people has their long history, culture and
identity to protect. Please do not smear other people's integrity because you are lack of it.
If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs [surface-to- air
missiles]. They know we own their country. We own their airspace We dictate the way they
live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now . It's a good thing,
especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need.
Comments about the bombing of Iraq in the late 1990s, which he directed. Interview
Washington Post (August 30, 1999); quoted in Rogue State, William Blum, Common Courage Press,
2005, p. 159.
William Blum,
RIP
Somebody should do an autopsy on him !
In korea, a UN coaliton force , bristling with bombers, jet fighters, complete air
superiority.no less. Tanks, artilleries, carbines, couldnt subdue the PLA fighting with ww1
vintage rifles.
There is never any UN coalition force in Korea war. Its a illegal US led aggression, known
as Unified/United Command, in violating of UNSC charter. US deceived UN by using 'United
Command' in its letterhead when communicating. And then go ahead to lie shamelessly using UN
name.
By acting before the Security Council could act, the US was in violation of Article 2(7)
of the UN Charter which requires a Security Council action under Chapter VII before there
is any armed intervention into the internal affairs of another nation unless the arms are
used in self-defense. (See Article 51 of the UN Charter. The US armed intervention in Korea
was clearly not an act of self defense for the US.) Also the actions of the UN have come to
be referred to as the actions of the "United Nations Command"(UNC), but this designation is
not to be found in the June and July 1950 Security Council resolutions authorizing
participation in the Korean War. (3) What is the significance of the US using the UN in
these ways?
The current US military command in South Korea claims to wear three hats: Command of US
troops in South Korea, Combined Forces Command (US and South Korean troops), and "United
Nations Command" with responsibilities with respect to the Armistice. The United Nations,
however, has no role in the oversight or decision making processes of the "United Nations
Command". The US Government is in control of the "United Nations Command". The use by the
US of the designation "United Nations Command", however, creates and perpetuates the
misconception that the UN is in control of the actions and decisions taken by the US under
the "United Nations Command".
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (more commonly referred to as North Korea) has
called for disbanding the "United Nations Command"(UN Command). At a press conference held
at the United Nations on June 21, 2013, the North Korean Ambassador to the UN, Ambassador
Sin Son Ho argued that the actions of the US Government using the designation "United
Nations Command" are not under any form of control by the United Nations. (4) Since the UN
has no role in the decision making process of what the US does under the title of the
"United Nations Command", North Korea contends the US should cease its claim that it is
acting as the "United Nations Command".
Anyway, there is hardly a tree left in China and since 2006, China has been the world's
largest emitter of CO2 annually and though they pay lip service they accept no binding
target for reduction; quite the opposite.
Pls has slight decency to check before spewing nonsense.
According to Nasa, China has planted & expanded forest the size of Amazon,
contributing 1/4 of global greenery effort.
Its now working on massive irrigation projects in Tibet & Xinjiang, including dams
that will overshadow 3Gorges. These will convert arid Xinjiang into another green agriculture
pasture & food basket providing economic to it landlocked natives.
China's effort to roll back desertification is also very impressive, converting thousands
of hectares deserts into green forest using proprietary planting method.
It has built world most hydropower stations & dams in China, and help built in Asia,
Africa with grants & subsidized loan. Forefront in reusable energy, EV, solar.
And China is the staunchest supporter of CO2 emission control with solid actions, when US
write off Kyoto treaty in Paris as hoax.
what's about Spore that have 75% majority Chinese mainly come from Fujian too, HK,
Taiwan!? Do they fare well & very safe, or a shithole filled with drugs & crimes that
you projected to be?
And then compare with Chinese minority countries:
Msia with 25% Chinese contributing 70% economy, Indonesia 3% Chinese contributing 70%
economy.
Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Philippines, .
It seems that the more Chinese % a country has, the more its prosperous & safe, vice
versa. So Chinese is in fact the main economic & safety contributing factor, instead of
the other way round you painted.
If Chinese are indeed as evil as you make out to be, then China will be worst than India,
dysfunctional like Philippines, completely crimes & drugs infested like Mexico. Yet China
today is biggest growing economy in real ppp, and world safest country well surpassing nearly
all whites countries. No?
Vietnam tried to purge Chinese ethics under Ho Chih Min anti-China policy, ended paralyzed
its entire economy until Chinese were brought back to help. Today its still the Chinese
ethics controlling its majority economy & ruling elites.
Indonesia Prez Suharto slaughtered million of Chinese ethics under Yanks CIA instigation
to coup pro-China Prez Sukarno, and their economy suffered. Suharto later brought back
Chinese to run 70% of economy, while his cronies suck off remaining.
Malaysia Mahatir had forthright admonished his disgruntled Malays complaining about 20%
Chinese controlling 70% economy. He famously said Malays race by inheritance is lazy and bad
in economic, screwing up every gov granted projects & handouts. So let the skillful
Chinese take care of all business, and Malays can tax on them to make Malaysia prosperous.
All subsequent leaders follow that policy, and the result is continuous economy growth.
Myanmar purged Chinese after independent, immediately encountered dysfunction economy.
Today its still relying on Chinese ethic to support the main economy behind.
Thailand, Cambodia, Laos didn't purge Chinese ethics, and Chinese are similarly their main
economy contributors.
There is one common observation in all these countries, where ever Chinese live, they are
mostly law obedient, work diligently and eventually established in businesses contributing to
most prosperity.
Whereas in majority Catholics Philippines, are literally controlled by Vatican appointed
bishops, who forbid contraceptive & divorce, directly causing its explosive population,
leading to grave poverty & crimes. These bishops are also colluding with corrupted
politicians to dictate election outcome using their churh influence.
When pro-China Prez Duerte declared war on drugs with China help is achieving good result,
these West-appointed bishops are leading their followers in full force to oppose, all in syn
with West govs 'human rights'. Dont that smell fishy?
So will Philippines be better off without Chinese? Im not sure, just like whites, some
Chinese are also ruthless crimals. But your sweeping statements & allegation certainly is
fundamentally flawed.
But CIA has been plotting anti-Chinese ethic riots in Asean for a long time as part of
China containment plan. Previously Denk posted one article on this.
@TT
Your description of Malaysians as lazy and stupid is why Indonesians kill ethnic Chinese and
not some CIA plot. That's the thinking right there that motivates Malays to dislike ethnic
Chinese.
China did not help Duterte. China makes the drugs there or in Taiwan. Duterte pleaded with
them to stop sending shabu to the Philippines but China does not care and so Filipinos
continue to stagger around like zombies in their squats.
Philippines has the additional post-colonial curse of Mestizo half-breed Spanish
landowning and political class of "Hacienderos" while Malaysians are unified under Islam.
Since these Spanish-blooded elite are part-white, some of the blame for the problems in the
Philippines can be attributed to whites.
As for CIA containment plans, you'll probably say that the reason Singapore immigration
allowed so many Indians in was because the US government wanted to import a competitive
ethnic group to prevent Chinese in Singapore from controlling all of Southeast Asia.
"An emboldened China could someday match or even exceed U.S. power on a global scale, an
outcome American elites are determined to prevent at any cost."
They will fail. The United States, like Carthage, is doomed to lose its struggle for
dominance; too many things are running against it. Not only does China have the far larger
population, but consider the following factors that run in their favor:
1. Like the US, China has a highly advanced and productive agriculture industry, making
them all but immune to nation-killing food blockades.
2. China has an average IQ that may approach Japan's before it levels out; Japan is
insanely outsized in terms of competitiveness, mainly due to its intelligent, group-oriented
population, so imagine how much stronger China could be.
3. China is geographically situated in the heart of the world's economic engine, Asia.
This puts China in prime position to break out from US dominance and, potentially, even
surround the Americans by making their trading partners their vassals.
4. The US is located far away and in a fairly unimportant region of the world. It will be
difficult for the US to get reinforcements to the Asian theater in the advent of a conflict.
American allies know this, so they will be predisposed to making peace with the Chinese as
the power balance continues to shift in China's favor.
5. Universalist dogma outsourced to American satellites Australia and New Zealand will
eventually make both countries Chinese vassals. Sometime in this century both countries will
have majority Asian populations due to immigration. Polls have repeatedly shown that Asian
immigrants have positive feelings towards the Chinese, despite the propaganda efforts of the
Americans. Take a look at what the Israel Lobby has accomplished and imagine what a future
China Lobby in those countries will do. Also, there is virtually no way to stop this from
eventually happening as this diversity dogma is spouted by the US at the highest level and is
now deeply ingrained in its future Chinese satellites. Before the end of the century, the
Chinese will have naval bases in both countries and the US will have none.
6. China is free from the social-trust killing, national ethos-sapping political
divisiveness seen in the US – no feminism, no attacks on its majority Han population.
America, on the other hand, is beset with hundreds of hate hoaxes targeted at its most
important demographic, white males – the group that disproportionately dies in its
wars, invents its best technology, and exports the best elements of its culture. If there is
a military conflict between China and the United States ten years hence, expect the critical
white male demographic to sit it out.
7. The Chinese are deeply patriotic and nationalistic. The US has experienced an
unprecedented decline in patriotism according to polls; that trend will continue. Therefore,
there is little appetite in the US for confrontation. This as a hungry China chomps at the
bit to show everyone who "the real ruler of the world is", a concept I sometimes see floated
on their social media.
8. The US is rapidly losing cultural influence due to a diminished Hollywood. The last
several American tent poll films, for instance, have crashed in Asia. Meanwhile movies like
Alita: Battle Angel (adapted from a Japanese anime) have done well in that market while doing
not so well in the US (and coming under immense fire from SJW gatekeepers for portraying a
female as something other than a weirdo). This means that tastes are diverging between the
two markets, a trend the Chinese can exploit in the future due to shared tastes across the
region and American inability to make anything other than low-quality superhero movies.
Hollywood is also now pretty much incapable of making the kinds of movies Asians (and
Europeans) used to see – science fiction, fantasy, and action/adventure movies –
due to rampant anti-white male hate and an industry focused on other demographics. Gone are
the movies like Robocop, Aliens, Jurassic Park, Die Hard, The Terminator, The Lord of The
Rings, and the Matrix. Gone because the white guys who made them are aging out of the
industry (or changing genders) and now all Hollywood wants to make are infantile superhero
movies for the Idiocracy demographic.
And did you see the Oscars this year? What an embarrassment. They actually nominated Black
Panther for Best Picture. I can't imagine anyone in Asia cares. They couldn't even get a
host.
9. The Chinese are primed to dominate influential cultural industries like video games in
a way that the Americans cannot due to checklist diversity requirements and the many
anti-male gatekeepers within the industry.
The video game industry is now three times the size of Hollywood and much more influential
than Hollywood for the youth. When technology and budgets are not a limiting factor,
politically-incorrect nations like Japan dominate over large American corporations like
Microsoft. The American video game industry, led by Microsoft, has effectively zero influence
in Asian nations due to American corporate greed, developer laziness, checklist diversity,
feminism, and a short-sighted strategy of broadly targeting low quality material to low
quality people (stupid FPS games).
Microsoft has been crushed so badly by the Japanese that they are now putting their
software on the Nintendo Switch; they simply cannot compete on any level. Meanwhile, Chinese
cultural influencers grow in power. They await only a maturation in Chinese taste and a
forward-thinking export policy but it will come. China's Tencent already owns a significant
stake in Epic Games, a streaming platform that will compete with America's Steam for
dominance of the huge online market.
One day, China will dominate their inferior American competition just as the Japanese and
Koreans have done. This bodes very badly for the US in the future, especially when you stop
to consider that all movies may be CGI in the future. The Chinese market is still immature,
but when it does mature, it will dominate – games, movies, music everything.
10. Divisive rhetoric promoted by the American elite and aimed at white European-Americans
– an effort to suppress white group solidarity – will eventually drive a wedge
between Europe and America that the Chinese, through their Russian ally, can exploit. You
already see a bit of this in Germany's refusal to cancel their gas pipeline (Nordstream 2, if
I recall), and Italy's defiance of the Empire over Venezuela. When racist American
politicians like Kamala Harris begin stealing money from European Americans and handing it to
blacks through reparations schemes, expect the Europeans to start thinking twice about their
relationship with this country.
After Trump loses in 2020, European elites will celebrate but not for long. Over the
following decade, both the far left (for economic reasons) and the far right (for ethnic
reasons) may unite against the United States. That will be made all the easier once the
United States is no longer able to elect a competent European as president. Europe isn't
going to want to be ruled over by someone of a different ethnic group that hates their
own.
11. China is unified in a way the US never can be again. China is 90% Han Chinese. The US
gets more diverse and divided by the day. Therefore, the Chinese public is more resilient to
conflict with rivals.
12. China's political model is far superior to their American counterpart. The Americans,
for instance, elect incompetent leaders through national popularity contests; said leaders
then rule only for favored interests. China, on the other hand, is run by smart people for
the benefit of all Chinese – the nation-state.
13. China's economic model is far superior to the corrupt, inefficient American corporate
model. Whereas China is a meritocracy not beset with crippling diversity requirements and
feminism. Tellingly, whenever the two models have gone head-to-head, such as in Africa, the
Chinese have won by a large margin. I see nothing that will change that in the future as that
would require a wholesale rethinking in the US of their basic philosophies, both on the left
and the right and that is impossible at this point.
The US is a proposition nation, so dogma lies at the heart of civic life. The Chinese, in
contrast, are free to pick and chose from the best of each ideology and apply it where
warranted because they are a blood and soil nation – group interest comes first, not
allegiance to dogma. Everyone in the US is an extremist of some sort – socialist,
corporatist, environmentalist, etc. That's no way to run a government.
14. The US will soon lose the moral high ground. As the US devolves into a police state,
as it continues kicking dissidents off the internet and silencing whistle blowers (and
attacking nations like Iran and Venezuela), nations around the world will cease to see a
difference between the US and China. At that point, they my either go independent (perhaps in
alliance with India or Russia) or openly start to flirt with a Chinese alliance. After all,
what does it matter if both states are authoritarian? At least the Chinese don't have a
history of invading their competition.
15. The divided American public may not support more military spending over social service
spending; this likelihood will only increase in the future due to demographic changes. They
see that China has a competent single-payer medical program and will want the same for
themselves, not pay for missiles and guns for other people.
16. The US cannot pursue relationships with vital nations like Russia due its anti-male
and anti-European dogma, now infused into society at the highest levels. It will take decades
to erase that and by then it will be too late.
"Someone here mentioned the EU turning East. At some point the EU will decide that staying a
US vassal is suicide and it will turn East. When that happens then the virus of US insanity
will turn inwards into itself."
True. One day someone like Kamala Harris or Stacey Abrams will be president. Will Europe
want to be ruled by non-Europeans who hate Europeans, want to tear down their monuments, and
steal their money for reparations payments?
"The USA has lost strategic air superiority, as well as strategic brain power. I wonder
how the USA would look after a week of retaliatory aerospace strikes?"
Like New Orleans after Katrina – a breakdown in the social order as all the diverse
groups start fighting each other and shooting at rescue efforts because they're morons and
thieves.
"Open the USA borders wide open and encourage 1 billion South Aemricans, Africans, SE
Asians and South Asians into the USA is the fastest and easiest way to close the human
resource gap between the USA and China."
How exactly is an efficient democracy supposed to work in that instance? Seems like
dysfunction, low social trust, and corruption would reign. Besides, the Chinese population
will still be far more intelligent overall, so no gap will be closed. The US should have
focused on immigration from Europe and increasing its white birth rate back in the 1970s.
They'd be in a far stronger position now if they had done that then.
@Anon Which West European
nations willing to move to dysfunctional disUnited States filled with crimes &
unemployment en masse?
May be some poor cousins of East European. But they will soon find US is worst than their
country, no good jobs, homeless without affordable accommodation, crime infested, their
whites is actually marginalized by diversification, LGBT conflict with their WASP value. Most
will want go back soon.
So its left with only choice of finest selection of 1.3B poor Indians, Latino, South
Americans, Africans & ME refugees willing to go anywhere just to get out of their
countries shithole.
When they arrived, hundreds of millions whites, Chinese & Asians will flee like been
no tomorrow.
Here it go, United States of Asshole is founded. Pls handover all nukes to UNSC before
implementing lest been exchange for food or use for heating in winter.
@jeff
stryker Its Malaysia PM Mahatir who said Malays are inheritingly lazy. Im just quoting.
Do educate yourself about CIA & Muslim politicians instigated riots against ethnic
Chinese before writing off in ignorant.
Spore was shielded from all these info distorted with West msm propaganda. I had only
learned about these details from Indonesian Chinese friends whose family had suffered these
trauma. After some readings, also Indonesia under current Chinese ethnic President Jokowi,
did all these CIA-Muslims Generals collision genocides been publicized. How about you, where
you got yours?
China did not help Duterte. China makes the drugs there or in Taiwan. Duterte pleaded
with them to stop sending shabu to the Philippines but China does not care and so Filipinos
continue to stagger around like zombies in their squats.
Why did you say China didn't help Prez Duerte in drugs war, your Chinese philippino
mistress told you? Pls cite your evidence.
Its widely publicized in our msm, West msm that China gov working with Philippines police
to track & dry up many drugs supply, even donated rehab centers as part of long term
solution. So you mean all these West msm are lying to help China.
In your word, these shabu are make & sold by China gov? Or they are part of global
drug syndicates that operated in every countries including all West?
As for CIA containment plans, you'll probably say that the reason Singapore immigration
allowed so many Indians in was because the US government wanted to import a competitive
ethnic group to prevent Chinese in Singapore from controlling all of Southeast Asia.
Let these unequal US FTA & India CECA speak itself. These were shoved into our PM LEE
ass to screw SG, allowing unlimited Indians of all kinds & their families to live &
work in SG, with their mostly internationally unrecognized qualifications mandatory to be
accepted.
Also both US & India nationals enjoy tax free in property investment, while Sporeans
& all foreigners subjected to 3% + 7% + 7% tax regimes, literally giving them a 10~17%
profits upfront.
Indians as " competitive " ethnic group to suppress SG Chinese, you are joking or
seriously think Indians IQ80 & its education is superior to Sg Chinese IQ107 that rank
consistently Top in SAT, PISA & Olympiad?
These are the dredge of India, violent drunkard, not those US get. Numerous are caught
with fake certificates when they simply could not even do the most basic task, near
illiterate. A documentary show was make to investigate how widespread & complex is it in
India, even there are someone stationed to pick up call as reference to certify everything.
These including medical MD cert, aka fake Indian Drs that India Health Ministry condemn
openly been so rampant up to 80% of India Drs(that was posted in one of Unz old discussion
2yrs ago)
@Erebus If both US &
China go on full trade war 100% tariff, to the brim of stop trading, who do you think can
last longer?
As you said, in mere wks, US will be paralyzed with every shelves empty & factories
shut down. Emergency declared with imports from other sources with much chaos. Frustrated,
nation wide civil riots may ensue with states like California, Texas, demanding
independent.
Whereas for China its life as usual with some restructuring, since it can live without
yanks useless financial services, msm & few chips easily replaced by EU/Jp or live
without. Airbus will be happy to replace Boeing.
China total export to US is ~$500B, 50% are imported components, so $350B damage is passed
back to US $250B(total US export to China) & global suppliers $100B.
That make China actual impact only $150B, $4T reserved, it can theoretically offset the
trade loss for >20yrs, while continue to expand its domestic consumption, BRI & global
trade to fuel growth.
But the world will be in chaos to get double impact of a totally collapsed US $21T GDP
& China import cut. With all economies stunt, global financial mkt burst, consumption all
dive, US allies turning to China for leadership & trade, a WW3 look imminent as yank is
left with only one product – weapons!
But not to worry, it should be very short one in yelling, as no yanks want to die with
empty belly, nor there are $ to pump vessels & bombers or resources to prepare long war.
Military is quickly paralyzed with desertion, & split between seperated states. There go
51 disUnited states of America.
So China is indeed discussing with yanks from great strength. But with farsight, they
prefer to settle yanks brinkmanship in Chinese humble & peaceful way.
I hope China can drag on until US can no longer conceal its pain with fake data,
screamming out loudly for truce to sign China dictates trade agreement. China need to teach
yank a painful lesson to humble it once & for all, including a WTO style unequal treaty
that yank shoved down china throat.
For all the refugees the US creates in the Mideast, it doesn't except many of them. Most
Iraqi and Afghani refugees have no hope of entering the US; European countries that protested
the war in Iraq end up absorbing the human cost.
As for the CIA cooperating with Muslims in anti-Chinese anything, I am skeptical. My
feeling about Indonesia is that a 3% minority owning everything and displaying contempt for
the natives as lazy savages is enough fuel ethnic hatred and Chinese backing of Suharto
didn't help things.
Indians don't represent job competition for Singapore, they are simply a basic menace to
your society. And it is possible that the US government, not wanting to see Singapore become
a vassal state of China, wanted your country's population to become more well,
diversified.
If both US & China go on full trade war 100% tariff, to the brim of stop trading,
who do you think can last longer?
China would take a hit, but not greater than the whole world could be expected to take.
Probably quite a bit less.
There's little doubt in my mind that China is in a much stronger position to both survive
and to be in a position to take advantage of the world's eventual recovery. As you note
$4T reserved, it can theoretically offset the trade loss for >20yrs
It also has the world's widest and deepest industrial infrastructure.
It's not only the $4T and the infrastructure. China also has a lot of gold within its
domestic system, which it can mobilize to make purchases from the the rest of the world's
staggered economies. Approx 20kT, by some quite carefully done estimates. Mobilizing that
gold, of course, is where things get tricky. The world would be awash with useless dollars
and how all that liability gets unwound would cause a lot of Central Bankers and their govts
a lot of sleepless nights.
"Which West European nations willing to move to dysfunctional disUnited States filled with
crimes & unemployment en masse?"
Quite a number of Europeans would have moved to the US circa 1965 – 1990 with the
countries then demographics, which was the point being made in the comment. The US is a huge
country with lots of space. In 1980, virtually all Eastern Europeans would have been better
off in almost any place in the US over where they were. The US Ruling Class had the chance
but cast it aside for lesser and more divisive groups so they could win elections and stiff
their workers. Even the US now is a mostly a better place to live than virtually any place in
Eastern Europe, and quite a number of places in overcrowded Western Europe – now filled
with Muslim invaders, rising crime, higher unemployment than the US, and yearly riots.
@Erebus One TV celebrity
went on crusade to expose Monsanto GMO toxicity impact in food chain few yrs ago.
He visited US & collected clinical evidences of GMO cancer causing from several US
professors, publicized them online. These force China gov to investigate, and their clinical
test too revealed mice & animals fed with GMO have huge tumors growing all over
shortly.
China agriculture minister was investigated, found to hold lucrative high pay job in
Monsanto taking bribery, and blanket approved all untested Monsanto GMO seeds, grains &
weed killer. Even those used as domestic animals feed but banned for wild animals in US were
introduced into food chain. Some also passed off as non GMO to plant in vast land not
approved for GMO.
About 30% of China food chain & vast agriculture lands contaminated, no longer
productive. That agri minister got arrested. No sure what China gov is doing about it. But
Prez Xi is hailing organic food. Tibets & Xinjiang have mega irrigation projects on going
now, might be to open up new agri lands to offset.
@jeff
stryker Tonnes of evidences on CIA-Muslim generals instigated riots & massacre since
1965. You choose to see otherwise.
A trove of recently released declassified documents confirms that Washington's role in the
country's 1965 massacre was part of a bigger Cold War strategy. https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/543534/
I couldn't find one article published in one unz comment by Denk?, where West msm
interviewing Indonesia biggest opposition party. Their chiefs had audacity to brag how they
will instigate another massive anti-Chinese riots to win next election.
The jews are much more vicious & open in controlling US, but you won't see CIA staged
riots & protest against their jewish masters Aipac.
Thailand Chinese ethnic are holding most economy too, but their politicians elites been
Chinese don't instigate riot against own ethnic to meddle election.
US government, not wanting to see Singapore become a vassal state of China, wanted your
country's population to become more well, diversified.
Its not diversification, its complete indianized with Weapon of Mass Migration, by jews
controlled US to push back China influence. As China refused to let jews control them!!! Its
also happening for Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Mauritius now.
Its Top to bottom all indians now in SG, 9% Indians with India new migrants controlling
75% Chinese & 15% Malays. Since when Indians have turn so great well surpass all Chinese
capability, over a short span of 10yrs since Obama's new balance in Asia Pacific started. Its
a regime change, silent coup.
Starting from Indian Prez, Indian DPM(a ex-criminal for leaking state secret data, he was
highly touted as best future PM to test voter response, but a Chinese PM candidate was
eventually selected for coming election as voters brainwashing not yet complete), national
DBS bank CEO chairman Indian. Central bank MAS chief Indian. Law, Home Affair, Foreign
Minister all Indians. High court judges flooded Indians. Chief judge Indian. Top senior
counsels(equivalent to Queen Councils) many Indians. MPs also new india migrants. MSM
journalist & writers flooded Indians.
Some are India newly arrived Indians of no credential. Yet no msm reporting on that. Its
near complete regime change in stealth.
@Erebus In addition to the
herbicide and insecticide resistance some plants are modified to withstand prolonged dry
conditions, or to produce more of certain proteins or vitamins, or to increase yields.
The corn or maize we now have started from an indigenous plant in Central and South
America. Twenty plants would produce a tablespoon of grain. The native corn plant can still
be found. Over thousands of years these were bred for increased size and yields but probably
for other reasons as well like drought resistance. That's genetic modification over many
generations.
In this country the Food and Drug Admin. and Dept. of Agriculture have studied the
genetically modified plants extensively. Not that government agencies always get it right but
it would be interesting to see a real life example of these plants actually harming people,
or animals and insects. Sometimes the fear of Frankenfoods is related to a fear of lower cost
imports and a sop for the local farmers.
Having an interest in horticulture I produced greenhouse bedding plants for the most part.
One significant expense was pesticides. We took great pains to carefully watch the crops. If
the aphids, or other creatures, showed up we would strive to isolate the affected plants and
only treat the ones with aphids and some that were nearby. Lots of hours with a bright light
and magnifying glass. We didn't proactively apply these because of the expense. Sometimes an
entire greenhouse required several treatments and there goes much of the profit. On the other
hand refusing to use pesticides leads to total crop failures. Nobody applies pesticides if
there are no pests. Without pesticides the world population would be much smaller and the
remaining living people would know about famines.
In terms of space, most Europeans would immigrate to US cities. Chicago was popular with
Slavs, for instance. And of course Silicone Valley. Very few immigrants move to rural
wide-open areas. There is nothing to do there and Norwegians in 1990 were no longer
homesteading on the North Dakota plains.
By 1990, few Irish wanted to immigrated to Boston or Italians to New Jersey. Europe was
actually safer and more prosperous when I was young than the US.
Europeans prior to 1965 were attracted to the US middle-class standard of living and that
has shrunken precipitously.
The refugee crisis in Europe is relatively recent. As for unemployment, indeed this is
bad. But the social safety net is slightly better and there is less poverty overall in
Western Europe.
"Very few immigrants move to rural wide-open areas."
Sure, if you're talking Nevada or New Mexico desert. But there are areas considered
"rural" in the US that have relatively mid-sized cities nonetheless. Oklahoma City has a
population roughly equal to the population of Latvia's capital, for example. And I'm sure
that Eastern Europeans could have been coaxed to leave Europe for the US had America pursued
a deal with the Soviets – white South Africans, too. Certainly, this could have been
done with success post Soviet breakup. Some Western Europeans could also have been coaxed,
perhaps a few million, with the right financial incentives. Along with substantial efforts to
increase the native European birthrate and targeted, gender-imbalanced ~skills-based
immigration* from emerging market, high IQ countries, US demographics would be in a far
better place today. The country would be less divided and more rational on a global stage
(and probably friends with Russia, too).
*In other words, purposely encourage 2 to 1 female immigration from places like Korea and
China back when they were both poor and filled with people ready to emigrate and compliment
that with an equal but reversed ratio elsewhere (Vietnam, Laos). This forces interbreeding
and prevents formation of divisive ethnic communities, while also having the benefit of
harming your competitor's demographics down the road. Actor Keanu Reeves is something like
1/8th Japanese. But most people just think he's a white guy.
If that kind of policy had been adopted in 1965, along with my plan above (and a few other
things not mentioned), things would be better for the US now. The US would be overwhelmingly
white with a small admixture of smart Asian while leaving descendants who look European; the
kind of internecine racial strife we see now could have been avoided. However, that kind of
plan requires a competent, and rational, near-authoritarian to be in charge. As Fred Reed has
pointed out, that kind of plan is not capable in Western countries that choose their leaders
via popularity contest with a birthright citizenship voting base.
That's genetic modification over many generations.
One wonders how many fish genes made their way into corn over those generations, and how
they got in there.
it would be interesting to see a real life example of these plants actually harming
people, or animals and insects.
Pesticides of increasing toxicity are surely not good for insects. As for harming people,
I doubt we'd see any more harm than the fructose and aspartame etc, or the growth hormones
and rampant anti-biotic use in husbandry that those agencies approved have caused. Of course,
genetics is much more complex, and so who knows what will turn up in humans a few generations
from now.
Without pesticides the world population would be much smaller and the remaining living
people would know about famines.
I'm of the firm opinion that a smaller population would be a very, very good thing, and
we'll be seeing famines soon enough anyway, but on a scale that will dwarf all other
famines.
"Pesticides of increasing toxicity are surely not good for insects. As for harming people, I
doubt we'd see any more harm than the fructose and aspartame etc, or the growth hormones and
rampant anti-biotic use in husbandry that those agencies approved have caused. Of course,
genetics is much more complex, and so who knows what will turn up in humans a few generations
from now.'
The pests who feed on domesticated crops lived in nature before people were around. When
they stumble upon thousands of acres of corn or wheat they rapidly reproduce to exploit the
windfall. The pesticides will hopefully kill or drive off many of these insects but their
total number would probably be higher than in a pre-human environment. There is a balance of
power.
Utilizing the "precautionary principle" one could say any technical advance might have
some unanticipated detrimental effect in the near or distant future. Therefore let's stop all
new technology. For now we have the methods of physical science to guide us. These aren't
perfect but it's the best we have and more sensible than the precautionary principle, also
called the paralysis principle.
"..a smaller population would be a very, very good thing, and we'll be seeing famines soon
enough anyway, but on a scale that will dwarf all other famines.".
I'm hoping my family and I (and you) are not among the culled billions. Death by
starvation is not a pleasant way to go, so I've heard.
their total number would probably be higher than in a pre-human environment. There is a
balance of power.
Probably? Pre-human? Yours is the disingenuity of a pesticide salesman.
The insect world is in a massive die off, losing of ~75% its flying population over 3
decades, as attested by countless studies. The studies tell us what we already know. 40 yrs
ago, a 2 hr drive in the countryside at night meant 30 min spent scraping insects off your
windshield and headlights. Every lonely streetlight in the middle of nowhere had a cloud
around it. Screens to protect the radiator, or even the entire front of the car were sold by
every automotive shop and gas station. Seen one lately?
Utilizing the "precautionary principle" one could say any technical advance might have
some unanticipated detrimental effect in the near or distant future.
One could say it, and one would often be right for doing so. As the complexity of the
technological advance increases, so do its effects. Who considered 50 years ago that
pesticide use would devastate the insect world? Who knows with any level of certainty what
the effect of that will be on the ecosystem we live in? What we know is it ain't gonna likely
to be good, and may be devastating. They're now found in mother's milk with potential effects
we lack the tools and brain power to comprehend, never mind predict.
When it comes to playing with complex, chaotic systems that support our life on the
planet, humans are like a monkey with a hand-grenade. To borrow a phrase "If the planet's
ecosystem was simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand it. " Our
myopia & hubris will kill us, if our stupidity and belligerence doesn't do it first.
The insect "die off" is an interesting occurrence. Puerto Rico lost a large percentage of
insects while at the same time they decreased pesticide use by 80%. This die off is observed
in a limited number of regions of the world. It isn't known exactly what caused the drop in
insect population. Some say pesticides, others say climate change (the theory that explains
all things), are killing the bugs.
Pesticides have been overused in the past but there have been impressive improvements in
the technology which reduces the amounts required. There are herbicides and pesticides
designed with chemical half lives. These kill the weeds or pests then break down into
harmless components and in 10-14 days can no longer be detected in the field. Unfortunately
for some any improvements will require some kind of technology.
We are all going to die eventually, hopefully later rather than sooner.
In his highly acclaimed 2017 book, Destined for
War , Harvard professor Graham Allison assessed the likelihood that the United States
and China would one day find themselves at war. Comparing the U.S.-Chinese relationship to
great-power rivalries all the way back to the Peloponnesian War of the fifth century BC, he
concluded that the future risk of a conflagration was substantial. Like much current analysis
of U.S.-Chinese relations, however, he missed a crucial point: for all intents and purposes,
the United States and China are already at war with one another. Even if their present
slow-burn conflict may not produce the immediate devastation of a conventional hot war, its
long-term consequences could prove no less dire.
To suggest this means reassessing our understanding of what constitutes war. From Allison's
perspective (and that of so many others in Washington and elsewhere), "peace" and "war" stand
as polar opposites. One day, our soldiers are in their garrisons being trained and cleaning
their weapons; the next, they are called into action and sent onto a battlefield. War, in this
model, begins when the first shots are fired.
Well, think again in this new era of growing great-power struggle and competition. Today,
war means so much more than military combat and can take place even as the leaders of the
warring powers meet to negotiate and share
dry-aged steak and whipped potatoes (as Donald Trump and Xi Jinping did at Mar-a-Lago in 2017).
That is exactly where we are when it comes to Sino-American relations. Consider it war by
another name, or perhaps, to bring back a long-retired term, a burning new version of a cold
war.
Even before Donald Trump entered the Oval Office, the U.S. military and other branches of
government were already gearing up for a
long-term quasi-war, involving both growing economic and diplomatic pressure on China and a
buildup of military forces along that country's periphery. Since his arrival, such initiatives
have escalated into Cold War-style combat by another name,
with his administration committed to defeating China in a struggle for global economic,
technological, and military supremacy.
This includes the president's much-publicized "trade war" with China, aimed at hobbling that
country's future growth; a techno-war designed to prevent it from overtaking the U.S. in key
breakthrough areas of technology; a diplomatic war intended to isolate Beijing and frustrate
its grandiose plans for global outreach; a cyber war (largely hidden from public scrutiny); and
a range of military measures as well. This may not be war in the traditional sense of the term,
but for leaders on both sides, it has the feel of one.
Why China?
The media and many politicians continue to focus on U.S.-Russian relations, in large part
because of revelations of Moscow's meddling in the 2016 American presidential election and the
ongoing Mueller investigation. Behind the scenes, however, most senior military and foreign
policy officials in Washington view China, not Russia, as the country's principal adversary. In
eastern Ukraine, the Balkans, Syria, cyberspace, and in the area of nuclear weaponry, Russia
does indeed pose a variety of threats to Washington's goals and desires. Still, as an
economically hobbled petro-state, it lacks the kind of might that would allow it to truly
challenge this country's status as the world's dominant power. China is another story
altogether. With its vast economy, growing technological prowess, intercontinental "Belt and
Road" infrastructure project, and rapidly modernizing military, an emboldened China could
someday match or even exceed U.S. power on a global scale, an outcome American elites are
determined to prevent at any cost.
Washington's fears of a rising China were on full display in January with the release of the
2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, a synthesis of the views
of the Central Intelligence Agency and other members of that "community." Its conclusion: "We
assess that China's leaders will try to extend the country's global economic, political, and
military reach while using China's military capabilities and overseas infrastructure and energy
investments under the Belt and Road Initiative to diminish U.S. influence."
To counter such efforts, every branch of government is now expected to mobilize its
capabilities to bolster American -- and diminish Chinese -- power. In Pentagon documents, this
stance is summed up by the term "overmatch," which translates as the eternal preservation of
American global superiority vis-à-vis China (and all other potential rivals). "The
United States must retain overmatch," the administration's National
Security Strategy insists, and preserve a "combination of capabilities in sufficient scale
to prevent enemy success," while continuing to "shape the international environment to protect
our interests."
In other words, there can never be parity between the two countries. The only acceptable
status for China is as a distinctly lesser power. To ensure such an outcome, administration
officials insist, the U.S. must take action on a daily basis to contain or impede its rise.
In previous epochs, as Allison makes clear in his book, this equation -- a prevailing power
seeking to retain its dominant status and a rising power seeking to overcome its subordinate
one -- has almost always resulted in conventional conflict. In today's world, however, where
great-power armed combat could possibly end in a nuclear exchange and mutual annihilation,
direct military conflict is a distinctly unappealing option for all parties. Instead, governing
elites have developed other means of warfare -- economic, technological, and covert -- to
achieve such strategic objectives. Viewed this way, the United States is already in close to
full combat mode with respect to China.
Trade War
When it comes to the economy, the language betrays the reality all too clearly. The Trump
administration's economic struggle with China is regularly described, openly and without
qualification, as a "war." And there's no doubt that senior White House officials, beginning
with the president and his chief trade representative, Robert
Lighthizer , see it just that way: as a means of pulverizing the Chinese economy and so
curtailing that country's ability to compete with the United States in all other measures of
power.
Ostensibly, the aim of President Trump's May 2018 decision to impose $60 billion in tariffs
on Chinese imports ( increased
in September to $200 billion) was to rectify a trade imbalance between the two countries, while
protecting the American economy against what is described as China's malign behavior. Its trade
practices "plainly constitute a grave threat to the long-term health and prosperity of the
United States economy," as the president put it when
announcing the second round of tariffs.
An examination of the demands submitted to Chinese negotiators by the U.S. trade delegation
last May suggests, however, that Washington's primary intent hasn't been to rectify that trade
imbalance but to impede China's economic growth. Among the stipulations Beijing must acquiesce
to before receiving tariff relief, according to leaked documents
from U.S. negotiators that were spread on Chinese social media:
halting all government
subsidies to advanced manufacturing industries in its Made in China 2025 program, an endeavor
that covers 10 key economic sectors, including aircraft manufacturing, electric cars, robotics,
computer microchips, and artificial intelligence; accepting American restrictions on
investments in sensitive technologies without retaliating; opening up its service and
agricultural sectors -- areas where Chinese firms have an inherent advantage -- to full
American competition.
In fact, this should be considered a straightforward declaration of economic war.
Acquiescing to such demands would mean accepting a permanent subordinate status
vis-à-vis the United States in hopes of continuing a profitable trade relationship with
this country. "The list reads like the terms for a surrender rather than a basis for
negotiation," was the way Eswar
Prasad, an economics professor at Cornell University, accurately described these
developments.
Technological Warfare
As suggested by America's trade demands, Washington's intent is not only to hobble China's
economy today and tomorrow but for decades to come. This has led to an intense, far-ranging
campaign to deprive it of access to advanced technologies and to cripple its leading
technology firms.
Chinese leaders have long realized that, for their country to achieve economic and military
parity with the United States, they must master the cutting-edge technologies that will
dominate the twenty-first-century global economy, including artificial intelligence (AI),
fifth-generation (5G) telecommunications, electric vehicles, and nanotechnology. Not
surprisingly then, the government has invested in a major way in science and technology
education, subsidized research in pathbreaking fields, and helped launch promising startups,
among other such endeavors -- all in the very fashion that the Internet and other American
computer and aerospace innovations were originally financed and
encouraged by the Department of Defense.
Chinese companies have also demanded technology transfers when investing in or forging
industrial partnerships with foreign firms, a common practice in international development.
India, to cite a recent example of this phenomenon, expects
that significant technology transfers from American firms will be one outcome of its
agreed-upon purchases of advanced American weaponry.
In addition, Chinese firms have been accused of
stealing American technology through cybertheft, provoking widespread outrage in this country.
Realistically speaking, it's difficult for outside observers to determine to what degree
China's recent technological advances are the product of commonplace and legitimate investments
in science and technology and to what degree they're due to cyberespionage. Given Beijing's
massive investment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at the
graduate and post-graduate level, however, it's safe to assume that most of that country's
advances are the result of domestic efforts.
Certainly, given what's publicly known about Chinese cybertheft activities, it's reasonable
for American officials to apply pressure on Beijing to curb the practice. However, the Trump
administration's drive to blunt that country's technological progress is also aimed at
perfectly legitimate activities. For example, the White House seeks to ban Beijing's government
subsidies for progress on artificial intelligence at the same time that the Department of
Defense is
pouring billions of dollars into AI research at home. The administration is also acting to
block the Chinese acquisition of U.S. technology firms and of
exports of advanced components and know-how.
In an example of this technology war that's made
the headlines lately, Washington has been actively seeking to sabotage the efforts of
Huawei , one of China's most
prominent telecom firms, to gain leadership in the global deployment of 5G wireless
communications. Such wireless
systems are important in part because they will transmit colossal amounts of electronic
data at far faster rates than now conceivable, facilitating the introduction of self-driving
cars, widespread roboticization, and the universal application of AI.
Second only to Apple as the world's supplier of smartphones and a major producer of
telecommunications equipment, Huawei has sought to take the lead in the race for 5G adaptation
around the world. Fearing that this might give China an enormous advantage in the coming
decades, the Trump administration has tried to prevent that. In what is widely described as a "
tech
Cold War ," it has put enormous
pressure on both its Asian and European allies to bar the company from conducting business
in their countries, even as it sought the arrest in Canada of Huawei's chief financial officer,
Meng Wanzhou, and her extradition
to the U.S. on charges of tricking American banks into aiding Iranian firms (in violation of
Washington's sanctions on that country). Other attacks on Huawei are in the works, including a
potential
ban on the sales of its products in this country. Such moves are regularly described as
focused on boosting the security of both the United States and its allies by preventing the
Chinese government from using Huawei's telecom networks to steal military secrets. The real
reason -- barely disguised -- is simply to block China from gaining technological parity with
the United States.
Cyberwarfare
There would be much to write on this subject, if only it weren't still hidden in the shadows
of the growing conflict between the two countries. Not surprisingly, however, little
information is available on U.S.-Chinese cyberwarfare. All that can be said with confidence is
that an intense war is now being waged between the two countries in cyberspace. American
officials accuse
China of engaging in a broad-based cyber-assault on this country, involving both outright
cyberespionage to obtain military as well as corporate secrets and widespread political
meddling. "What the Russians are doing pales in comparison to what China is doing,"
said Vice President Mike Pence last October in a speech at the Hudson Institute, though --
typically on the subject -- he provided not a shred of evidence for his claim.
Not disclosed is what this country is doing to combat China in cyberspace. All that can be
known from available information is that this is a two-sided war in which the U.S. is
conducting
its own assaults. "The United States will impose swift and costly consequences on foreign
governments, criminals, and other actors who undertake significant malicious cyber activities,"
the 2017 National Security Strategy affirmed. What form these "consequences" have taken has yet
to be revealed, but there's little doubt that America's cyber warriors have been active in this
domain.
Diplomatic and Military Coercion
Completing the picture of America's ongoing war with China are the fierce pressures being
exerted on the diplomatic and military fronts to frustrate Beijing's geopolitical ambitions. To
advance those aspirations, China'sleadership is relying heavily on a much-touted
Belt and Road Initiative , a trillion-dollar plan to help fund and encourage the
construction of a vast new network of road, rail, port, and pipeline infrastructure across
Eurasia and into the Middle East and Africa. By financing -- and, in many cases, actually
building -- such infrastructure, Beijing hopes to bind the economies of a host of far-flung
nations ever closer to its own, while increasing its political influence across the Eurasian
mainland and Africa. As Beijing's leadership sees it, at least in terms of orienting the
planet's future economics, its role would be similar to that of the Marshall Plan that cemented
U.S. influence in Europe after World War II.
And given exactly that possibility, Washington has begun to actively seek to undermine the
Belt and Road wherever it can -- discouraging allies from participating, while stirring up
unease in countries like Malaysia and Ugandaover the enormous
debts to China they may end up with and the heavy-handed
manner in which that country's firms often carry out such overseas construction projects.
(For example, they typically bring in Chinese laborers to do most of the work, rather than
hiring and training locals.)
"China uses bribes, opaque agreements, and the strategic use of debt to hold states in
Africa captive to Beijing's wishes and demands," National Security Advisor John Bolton
claimed in a December speech on U.S. policy on that continent. "Its investment ventures are
riddled with corruption," he added, "and do not meet the same environmental or ethical
standards as U.S. developmental programs." Bolton promised that the Trump administration would
provide a superior alternative for African nations seeking development funds, but -- and this
is something of a pattern as well -- no such assistance has yet materialized.
In addition to diplomatic pushback, the administration has undertaken a series of
initiatives intended to isolate China militarily and limit its strategic options. In South
Asia, for example, Washington has abandoned its past position of maintaining rough parity in
its relations with India and Pakistan. In recent years, it's
swung sharply towards a strategic alliance with New Dehli, attempting to enlist it fully in
America's efforts to contain China and, presumably, in the process punishing Pakistan for its
increasingly enthusiastic role in the Belt and Road Initiative.
In the Western Pacific, the U.S. has stepped up its naval patrols and forged new
basing arrangements with local powers -- all with the aim of confining the Chinese military to
areas close to the mainland. In response, Beijing has sought to escape the grip of American
power by establishing miniature bases on Chinese-claimed islands in the South China Sea (or
even
constructing artificial islands to house bases there) -- moves widely condemned by the
hawks in Washington.
To demonstrate its ire at the effrontery of Beijing in the Pacific (
once known as an "American lake"), the White House has ordered an increased pace of
so-called freedom-of-navigation operations (FRONOPs). Navy warships regularly sail within
shooting range
of those very island bases, suggesting a U.S. willingness to employ military force to resist
future Chinese moves in the region (and also creating situations in which a misstep
could lead to a military incident that could lead well, anywhere).
In Washington, the warnings about Chinese military encroachment in the region are already
reaching a fever pitch. For instance, Admiral Philip Davidson, commander of U.S. forces in the
Pacific, described the
situation there in recent congressional testimony this way: "In short, China is now capable of
controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States."
A Long War of Attrition
As Admiral Davidson suggests, one possible outcome of the ongoing cold war with China could
be armed conflict of the traditional sort. Such an encounter, in turn, could escalate to the
nuclear level, resulting in mutual annihilation. A war involving only "conventional" forces
would itself undoubtedly be devastating and lead to widespread suffering, not to mention the
collapse of the global economy.
Even if a shooting war doesn't erupt, however, a long-term geopolitical war of attrition
between the U.S. and China will, in the end, have debilitating and possibly catastrophic
consequences for both sides. Take the trade war, for example. If that's not resolved soon in a
positive manner, continuing high U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports will severely curb Chinese
economic growth and so
weaken the world economy as a whole, punishing every nation on Earth, including this one.
High tariffs will also increase costs for American consumers and endanger
the prosperity and survival of many firms that rely on Chinese raw materials and
components.
This new brand of war will also ensure that already sky-high defense expenditures will
continue to rise, diverting funds from vital needs like education, health, infrastructure, and
the environment. Meanwhile, preparations for a future war with China have already become the
number one priority at the Pentagon, crowding out all other considerations. "While we're
focused on ongoing operations," acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan reportedly
told
his senior staff on his first day in office this January, "remember China, China, China."
Perhaps the greatest victim of this ongoing conflict will be planet Earth itself and all the
creatures, humans included, who inhabit it. As the world's top two emitters of climate-altering
greenhouse gases, the U.S. and China must work together to halt global warming or all of us are
doomed to a hellish future. With a war under way, even a non-shooting one, the chance for such
collaboration is essentially zero. The only way to save civilization is for the U.S. and China
to declare peace and focus together on human salvation.
Michael T. Klare, aTomDispatch
regular, is the five-college professor emeritus of peace and world security
studies at Hampshire College and a senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association. His
most recent book isThe Race for What's
Left. His next book, All Hell Breaking Loose: Climate Change, Global Chaos, and
American National Security , will be published in 2019.
The genuinely expert panelists could not articulate America's demands beyond the familiar
'level playing field' that America created by shackling China with uniquely humiliating
conditions before admitting it to the WTO.
Today, China generates 20% of global GDP (the US 15%), its imports and exports are in
balance, its currency fairly valued, its economy one third larger and growing three times
faster than America's and it produces essential technology that America needs and cannot
provide.
It is almost impossible to imagine a war scenario that the US could win, short of China
invading America.
Excellent article Mister Klare, but would like to raise a few quibbles.
1) As far as "economic" war, China has been fighting one for decades. It's called competing
and trying to do the best to improve your people's lot. The US is finally starting to fight
back but some of it's measures are inappropriate and/or ineffective.
2) As far as the US trying to confine the Chinese military to its own region, I really
haven't seen that the Chinese military is particularly interested in operation outside their
own region anyway. It seems to be focused on protecting China and its own neighborhood and
interests, and the Chinese aren't stupid enough to bleed away their wealth and blood in
distant misadventures.
3) I'd gotten the impression from the Deep State's rhetoric that they are much hotter on
fighting a shooting war with Russia than with China. In an extended struggle, as long as it
doesn't go nuclear, US chances are much better against a Russia whose economy is only a
fraction of China's.
Keynes says this, "All trade is only barter." The Wall Street/China Gambit is key to
understanding today. Clinton signed MFN trade status with China, screwing over NAFTA. Those
Zenith TV's that were supposed to be made in Mexico became Chinese made electronics.
Balanced trade was also thrown out the window, as Wall Street was in on the gambit. Trade
in goods was unbalanced, and America supplied dollars to China to make up the difference.
China then recycled those mercantile won dollars back to the U.S. to buy Tbills, helping keep
interest rates low, and acting as a prime variable in forming U.S. housing bubble. Returning
dollars then spun out into the American economy, so American's could buy more Chinese goods
from transplanted American factories.
The wall street China gambit turned mainstreet American's into Zeros, while wall street
became heroes.
Any discussion of China current economic status cannot overlook the role of Wall Street
exporting of jobs, to then get wage arbitrage. Immigrating third world people into America is
also a function of this "finance capitalism" as it wants wage arbitrage from third world
labor as well.
Finance Capitalism in turn is part of Zion and Atlantacism. International credit "banking"
will send its finance capital anywhere in the world to get the lowest price. In the case of
China, overhang of communist labor in the mid 90's was available to make things, and then
export Chinese made goods back to U.S. (at the China price.)
China still uses Atlantic doctrine, where raw materials come in by ship, and finished
goods with increment of production value add leave by ship. (Value add is key element to
making any economy thrive. Just extracting raw materials turns a country into Africa, witness
the attempt at turning Russia into an extraction economy in the 90's.)
Note difference in American policy in the 90's: Russia was to become extraction, and China
was to become value add. As Tucker Carlson says, America is run by a ship of fools.
For China, "Eurasia" beckons, and raw materials can be had from China's interior and via
overland routes. This then is a pivot away from London/Zion Atlantacism (finance capital) and
toward industrial capitalism.
In other words, both U.S. and the West have hoisted themselves on their own petard. People
that wax poetic about China's gains overlook this important mechanism of "gifting" of our
patrimony to China. It is very easy to copy or be a fast follower, it is beyond difficult to
invent and create.
Wall Street and greed gave away our patrimony, which was hard won over the ages in order to
make wage arbitrage today, and gave away the future.
China uses state banks, and also forgives debts lodged in their state banks. This is
actually one of the secret methods used to rope-a-dope on the west. The Chinese economy is
not debt laden, and what public debts there are, are lodged in a State Bank, where they can
be jubileed or ignored.
The U.S. and the West had better take a long hard look at finance capital method, which
uses only "price signals" to make economic decisions, as pricing is main vector from which
jobs were exported, and which China cleverly used to climb up its industrial curve. Sovereign
money/Industrial Capitalism IS the American System of Peshine Smith and Henry Clay.
Atlantacism/Zionism/Finance Capital is not American – the parasite jumped to the U.S.
from London.
China is wisely in control of its money power via its state banks and is pivoting away
from Atlantacism now that it has served its purpose. The belt and road routes are mostly
overland, with some coastal sea routes, and there isn't a thing sea power (((atlantacists)))
can do about it.
China has played the game well, but don't overlook the gifting of Western patrimony caused
by a false neo-liberal finance capital economic ideology, which blinds Western adherents.
@joe
webb Yeah, so America can topple China and go after Russia immediately afterwards? I
don't think the Russians are so stupid.
There is only 1 way Russia survives the 21st century without being broken up and ruined,
and that is allying itself with China. The same is true for China.
The only way China can survive intact is to ally itself with Russia.
Pretty simple stuff I am sure each country understands.
China's real economy, of course dwarfs that of the US'.
The author touches on a nuclear trade option China holds over the US that I see little
mention of elsewhere. High tariffs are one thing, but a closure of trade in components and
raw materials would do far more than
endanger the prosperity and survival of many firms that rely on Chinese raw materials
and components.
Should China block exports of everything other than finished goods to the US, almost every
US factory would close due to lack of parts and materials. The time and investment required
to rebuild/replace supply chains in a JIT world means much of what's left of America's real
economy would disappear within weeks.
What then?
Unlike Russia, the US is highly vulnerable to targeted sanctions. American trade
negotiators are apparently oblivious to this. I find that very weird.
author Klare said: "The media and many politicians continue to focus on U.S.-Russian
relations, in large part because of revelations of Moscow's meddling in the 2016 American
presidential election and the ongoing Mueller investigation."
– What "revelations"? "What meddling"?
– He tipped his hand right off the bat. Klare is just another run of the mill
Communist with a case of the Trump Derangement Syndrome, complete with Communism's favorite
scam, 'global warming'.
Klare said: "Ostensibly, the aim of President Trump's May 2018 decision to impose $60
billion in tariffs on Chinese imports (increased in September to $200 billion) was to rectify
a trade imbalance between the two countries "
– No, the aim is to encourage China to removes it vastly more & extreme tariffs
on US goods & services.
Klare said: " continuing high U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports will severely curb Chinese
economic growth and so weaken the world economy as a whole, punishing every nation on Earth,
including this one. High tariffs will also increase costs for American consumers and endanger
the prosperity and survival of many firms that rely on Chinese raw materials and
components."
– Nonsense, all China needs to do is remove it's many times over more severe
tariffs.
– If the US's lesser tariffs on Chinese goods / services 'hurt the US', then why
don't China's massive tariffs on US goods / services hurt China?
And to think some take this fraud, Klare, seriously.
The media and many politicians continue to focus on U.S.-Russian relations, in large
part because of revelations of Moscow's meddling in the 2016 American presidential election
and the ongoing Mueller investigation.
It's not the economy stupid. According to many "experts" on this site, since the US economy
and military expenditures are 10 times bigger than Russia's, it seems "logical" to those
experts that the US army is 10 times better. I would argue that not only is not 10 times
better, it's not even equal to Russia's army. Again, according to the same types of "experts"
Russia's economy is the size of Italy. Why don't then someone break the good news to Italy
and encourage them to go to war with Russia? Since their economies are equal – it seems
that Italy stands a fair chance of beating Russia, thus eliminating the need of the 10 times
superior army to fight them. The moronity on this site, man – it's unbelievable.
China is not suffering from massive degeneration as the US is. Instead of trying to prevent
China from becoming a leading nation of the world, why could the US not accept China's coming
prominence and concentrate on strengthening its own population ? Unlike the US, China is not
interested in "ruling the world", it is only interested in expanding its economy. For the
rest, it is dedicated to stability and cooperation. No threat to the world at all, except for
some compulsive hegemonists in the Pentagon.
This article is pure propaganda and as such is based upon lies, misconceptions and pure
fantasy.
If there already is a war it is all in the minds of Anericans, and they have already lost
that war because America needs allies and can only create enemies amongst people that were
its friends.
Europe will join with Russia as soon as it can get away from the US bully. That means
550million Europeans will join 160 million Russians. 710 million people with Russian
technology and Chinese investment (China already runs Btitain's North Sea gas), will produce
an economic power that will humiliate the USA at every turn.
All of South America wants to break with the US, the entire Orient hates the US. America is
actually doing to Africa what the US accuses Russia and China of doing.
If there really is a war between the US and China then the US has already lost it. The rest
of the world wants only one thing: the absolute collapse of the entire US. Everyone hates the
US. No one will ever support you US dictators and bullies 100%.
You stab everyone in the back sooner or later and your only interest is supporting the
fascist and racist Israel that is genociding the true Semites, the Palestinians.
I'm amazed Fred Unz publishes this sort of trash. It is unadulterated lies, brainless
stupidity and total hog wash. Pure drivel.
It is often said that, had the Western and Eastern Europeans formed a coalition rather
than fight WW I, they would still be dominant.
And if I had wings, I could fly to the moon.
The Eastern Europeans had never accepted the Western Enlightenment (still haven't), and to
have done so would have destabilized their family structure -- the deep structure of their
society -- exactly as it has finally destabilized ours, today. The nature of authority and
organization in Eastern Europe differed considerably from that of Western Europe. Their forms
of organization were different enough to make integration impossible, and perhaps to make
formation of a coalition impossible.
China's organizational forms, family structure, and and social assumptions in general
differ even more from the present day form of the Western Enlightenment than did those of
East Europe c.a. AD 1900.
It's at times like these we get to test the assumption that reason and fear of death can
lead to agreement on a modus vivendi.
I will never believe the Zionist controlled U.S. will go to war with China as long as one
U.S. company remains in China and damn near all the major U.S. companies are in business in
China, this is a ploy for the zionist controlled MIC to loot the America taxpayer!
I didnt read the article but I dont think china needs the US for anything they are well on
their way to be the dominant world power the US and ist zionist occupied government are
losers the zionists want never ending wars which stupid USA has done,,china and all the rest
will eventually dump the rothchild banking system and form its own which will in all likely
hood benefit more than the zionist one does
No mention of an ideological battle, and no wonder, as "the Chinks" et al have apparently
already won that one, as evidenced by the fact that the last US general election was merely
yet another idiotic, meaningless [ yet highly entertaining], cat fight over blue socialism
versus red socialism.
The US vs China trade war is just another power/domination battle scam between two
competing, wholly criminal orgs, both totally against anything ever resembling truly free
trade ..nothing more.
"The US and China must work together to halt global warming or all of us are doomed to a
hellish future." Really? If this doesn't prove this guy is a lefty shill, nothing does. Even
the clowns raking in grants and trying to impoverish everyone with higher taxes have seen the
light and have been saying "climate change" lately. Many scientists are now arguing that we
may be headed into a new cooling period rather than a "hellish" warming period that brought
us so much prosperity. This "global warming" religion with its hockey stick icons and polar
bear mythology is worse than the Heaven's Gate religion.
"The rest of the world wants only one thing: the absolute collapse of the entire US.
Everyone hates the US. No one will ever support you US dictators and bullies
100%. You stab everyone in the back sooner or later and your only interest is supporting
the fascist and racist Israel that is genociding the true Semites, the Palestinians."
Well yes. As history has shown, occupation and rule by Jahweh's Chosen People tends to
bring this fate down upon the host country.
Oh, for Pete's sake:
1. It will always be China+Russia vs. the US. The EU, site of WWIII, will just soil
itself.
2. The Debt Bubble US economy will collapse. At some point. Changes every calculation.
3. The US will devolve into a state of civil war. Of some sort. Paralyze the place.
Momentum is with China and Russia. The US is sliding into history's toilet.
Just give it a few more years. And the whole world sees and knows it. The whole world can
get along very well without the US. And would very much like that to be.
Global warming my azz! But the rest of it rings pretty true. If nukes arn't used, Russia and
China will win this war simply because they have the gold now and the US has spread its fiat
petro dollar all over the world which will come back big time to bite them. That is if China
and Russia are smart enough to go on a gold exchange standard.
since the US economy and military expenditures are 10 times bigger than Russia's, it
seems "logical" to those experts that the US army is 10 times better. I would argue that
not only is not 10 times better, it's not even equal to Russia's army.
I would argue the same.
Russia is a land power. This means using a land army and area denial. Russia does not need
to power project with a blue water Navy and she does not follow Atlantacist doctrine.
Atlantacist doctrine got its start when our (((friends))) evolved the method during the
Levantine Greek City State period, where our tribal friends would be stationed in various
entrepot cities ringing the Mediterranean. They would use their tribal connections to Launder
pirated goods, and to push their "international" usurious money type, which in those days was
silver. Simultaneously they were taking rents on their secret East/West mechanism, whereby
exchange rates between gold and silver were exploited. Gold was plentiful in India and Silver
more plentiful in the West, so the Caravan's took arbitrage on exchange rates as silver
drained east and gold drained west.
The U.S. inherited Atlanticist method after WW2. The U.S. is not an island economy like
England – it does not need to go around the world beating up others to then extract raw
materials. The U.S. is actually more like Russia in that U.S. can afford to have economic
autarky and be independent. The U.S. does not need to power project with a blue water navy,
despite the false narrative (((inheritance))) passed down to us, especially after WW2. Nobody
likes being punked with false narrative.
U.S. military expenditures are so heavy because of this tendency of finance capital to
search the world for gains, and this means posting overseas military bases, which in turn are
expensive to operate. Russia only has a "close in" defensive posture of area denial. This is
far less expensive than power projecting.
Also, GDP figures are misleading. In the U.S. if housing prices go up it reflects in GDP
growth, when in reality – the house didn't improve. GDP figures are lies. If finance
takes 50% cut of the economy, they are only pushing finance paper back and forth at each
other this is not the real economy, but it shows up in GDP because finance paper is an
"asset".
Russia's economy is much larger than their GDP, probably it is closer to Germany's in real
terms. Real terms = real economy = the making of goods and services.
China is not America's natural ally, Russia is. Atlantacist doctrine sold America's
patrimony to China for cheap, and then the ((international)) will just jump to another
host.
America has been parasitized by false doctrine and the output is thus that of an infected
brain – an output that is crazy. Finance plutocracy typically will not let go
willingly, but has to be removed forcefully.
Russia is a country of vodka drunks and Dubai prostitutes run by a syndicate of Israel
oligarchs and ex-KGB who kill their journalists in foreign countries.
China is dependent on outsourcing and if the US factories were to withdraw tomorrow the
Chinese economy would take a huge hit.
@Erebus The US is vulnerable
in so many other ways too, see how fast the store shelves empty just on the news of an
approaching big storm. Panic buying is rife and some people keep minimal food available at
home. I know people who have to stop at an ATM to get $20. All kinds of vital distribution of
food, water, power, fuel and more seems to pass through a myriad of often vulnerable
bottle-necks real or virtual. Easy targets for low cost, low tech sabotage teams I'd think.
I'm inclined to think also that this threatening hysteria possibly is a deep state psy-op
designed to prime Americans prior to the enactment of some sort of "democracy"
modifications.
America is the most powerful country solely because it has the most powerful economy in the
world, and that was in no small measure due to America's abundance of arable land, navigable
waterways, natural resources ect ect. . In a few decades China has rocketed close to US level
and is in a global hegemon trajectory solely on the quality and size of its population .
There is not much doubt about the outcome of any competition between China and the West,
especially as much of the profits of the ruling class in the West has come from offshoring
and investment in China and their economy of scale production suppressing labour's power in
the West. The Chinese and their Western collaborators will just wait Trump out. Trump is a
populist not a creature of the Deap State alarmed at China's rise. The leading strategists of
America's foreign policy establishment still don't realise what they are dealing with in
China.
Perhaps the greatest victim of this ongoing conflict will be planet Earth itself and all
the creatures, humans included, who inhabit it. As the world's top two emitters of
climate-altering greenhouse gases, the U.S. and China must work together to halt global
warming or all of us are doomed to a hellish future.
Better to reign in hell. Anyway, there is hardly a tree left in China and since 2006,
China has been the world's largest emitter of CO2 annually and though they pay lip
service they accept no binding target for reduction; quite the opposite.
Even if their present slow-burn conflict may not produce the immediate devastation of a
conventional hot war, its long-term consequences could prove no less dire.
The manufacturing should be done in the most advanced regions of Earth ie the West,
because that is where the technology and will exists to protect the environment. China is
trying to churn out cheaper goods and does not care what damage they do in cutting
environmental corners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_China
China still supports the "common but differentiated responsibilities" principle, which
holds that since China is still developing, its abilities and capacities to reduce
emissions are comparatively lower than developed countries'. Therefore, its emissions
should not be required to decrease over time, but rather should be encouraged to increase
less over time until industrialization is farther along and reductions are feasible
In other words the global environment is going to continue to be ripped apart like a car
in a wrecking yard by China. "Industrialization is farther along" is obviously Chinese speak
for "when China is able to dominate the world with enormous productive capacity and we do not
even have to pay lip service any more".
In today's world, however, where great-power armed combat could possibly end in a
nuclear exchange and mutual annihilation, direct military conflict is a distinctly
unappealing option for all parties. Instead, governing elites have developed other means of
warfare -- economic, technological, and covert -- to achieve such strategic objectives.
Viewed this way, the United States is already in close to full combat mode with respect to
China.
No, the appeal of a real war will increase precipitously for any clear loser in the
economic competition who has a rapidly declining military advantage (especially in
thermonuclear first strike capacity due to proximity fuses and sub location tech), and we all
know who that is going to be. A shooting war will come, and the sooner it comes the
better for the whole world. Reassuring Russia that it will not be subjected to the same
treatment by the West at some point in the future will be the main problem inhibiting the
coming military take down (and nuking if necessary) of China.
As to bringing in Hindoos and Pakis into to the America-China conflict with a singular
example of the demand for defense related technology transfer by the former
India is a mediocrity but Pakistan is a nightmare for all concerned, given that after
imbibing religious mumbo jumbo from moronic Arabs, with which havocs were created in
Afghanistan via neoconnish America, now they are fellating uncircumcised Chinese for crumbs
the ungodly Chinese will play the idiotic Pakis like a fiddle to the detriment of the
West!
Negotiations with Beijing to address structural economic reforms are taking place on
a track that's separate from the talks about the quantity of American products the Chinese may
agree to buy to reduce the U.S. trade deficit, one of the people briefed on the matter said.
The Chinese have offered to ramp up purchases of American goods by $1.2 trillion over six
years, according to the person. It's still unclear how Beijing would follow through on those
purchases if retaliatory tariffs remained in place and other trading barriers aren't removed, the
person added. China bought $130 billion in U.S. goods in 2017, according to U.S. figures.
After several rounds of face-to-face meetings between U.S. and Chinese officials since last
year, the sides are now in regular contact via phone and video-conference to hammer out the
details of a deal, according to the person.
The U.S. Trade Representative's office said Thursday it will publish a notice in the Federal
Register delaying the increase of tariffs on Chinese imports until further notice. Trump had
previously planned to raise tariffs on March 1, but on Sunday dropped the threat amid progress at
the negotiating table.
I'm watching CGTN ... Huawei are telling the Yanks that they can live without the USA
market and will NOT allow back doors in their phones; adding that banning Huawei in the US
will hurt US Huawei dealers more than it will hurt Huawei. The report also included an
Advertorial for the new Huawei folding smart phone. It looks like a 7" tablet when open and
folds down the centre with the screen on the OUTSIDE of the closed phone. It can download a 1
Gb movie in 3 (three) seconds and will cost $2600-00, making it the most expensive smartphone
on the market.
Sounds like a great big FU AmeriKKKa to me.
"... The U.S. fears that China will soon be able to compete with it in computer chip design and fabrication. It is trying to block China from building its own chip factories and Congress even wants to block chip exports to specific Chinese companies. It is race that the U.S. will lose. Technology and the means of producing it inevitably proliferate. ..."
For several centuries China had a monopoly on silk. It was exported along the silk road to
Persia and from there to Europe. Silk production was highly profitable. The export of silkworms
and their production method was prohibited. in the mid 6-th century two monks made their way
from Europe to China and found out how silk was produced. They reported back to the Byzantine
emperor Justitian I who induced them to secretly acquire silkworms and to smuggle them back
home. The monks managed to do that and soon thereafter the Chinese silk monopoly, and Persia's
monopoly of silk trade with Europe, were no
more .
The U.S. fears
that China will soon be able to compete with it in computer chip design and fabrication. It is
trying to block China from building its own chip factories and Congress even wants to block
chip exports to specific Chinese companies. It is race that the U.S. will lose. Technology
and the means of producing it inevitably proliferate.
The 5G mobile data networks will use new frequencies and algorithms to deliver gigabit data
streams from, to and between mobile devices. This will allow for completely new applications
like direct communication between (semi-)autonomous cars at any road crossing. Worldwide a
number of companies are working to provide 5G technology. That involves antennas, base
stations, new hard- and software in the periphery and in the core telecommunication systems.
Main providers of such systems are US companies like Motorola, Qualcomm and Cisco. Others are
Ericsson and Samsung. One of the largest one is the Chinese company Huawei.
Currently Huawei is the most advanced company in the 5G field. It started early and invested
huge sums into research and development for 5G technology. It owns some 15% of all relevant
patents. It is currently the only provider that can deliver an end-to-end solution for 5G
networks. As it serves the huge market of China it can produce on a large scale and sell its
equipment for less than other companies do. The other dominant telecommunication equipment
provider, including those in the United States, are lagging in 5G technology. They did not
invest early enough and are now late to deliver.
Instead of investing in faster development and better technology the U.S. is trying to block
Huawei from selling its goods. This hurts the development of other countries that want to
provide 5G networks to their people.
The US has long pressed its allies not to use Chinese equipment in their phone networks.
It falsely claims that Huawei equipment is a security threat.
Australia and New Zealand followed the US order and prohibited the use of Huawei equipment
in their 5G networks. The US also tried to press the big European countries to shun Huawei.
So far it failed. Germany resisted US pressure to not use Huawei stuff. It fears delays in 5G
deployment should it ban Huawei. Yesterday Britain also
pushed back :
The U.S. (and other countries, ahem Canada) have not presented any conclusive evidence that
Chinese telecom giant Huawei threatens their national security and are merely stirring fears
out of self-interest, a Chinese government spokeswoman said on Wednesday.
According to Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying, Huawei's critics are conjuring up
threats and misusing state power to "suppress the legitimate development rights and interests
of Chinese enterprises" and are "using political means to intervene in the economy."
Hua continued his slam of the US saying that "all countries should deal with relevant
matters in an objective, comprehensive, rational, and correct manner, rather than fabricating
excuses of all kinds for one's own pursuit of interest at the cost of others, which is quite
hypocritical, immoral, and unfair."
Needless to say, Hua's comments - coming just as US trade negotiators are in Beijing with
president Xi unexpectedly set to join the discussions - at a daily briefing were "some of the
sharpest yet" in the growing feud over Washington's drive to convince other nations to shut
Huawei out of their markets due to national security concerns, Reuters reported.
Huawei - the world's biggest supplier of network gear used by phone and internet companies
and the leaders in 5G technology - insists that it is independent and poses no threat to the
security of others, but has long been seen by some as a front for spying by the Chinese
military or security services. It's also why the United States, Australia, Japan and some other
governments have imposed curbs on use of Huawei technology, including smart phones.
US warnings about the risks of Chinese telecom technology come as governments are choosing
providers for the rollout of 5G wireless internet, where Huawei is among the global
leaders.
Escalating the growing boycott of Chinese telecom, on Tuesday in Poland, Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo repeated a warning that the United States may be forced to scale back certain
operations in Europe and elsewhere if countries continue to do business with Huawei. Pompeo
said the U.S. had strong concerns about Huawei's motives in Europe, especially in NATO and
European Union member states, as well as its business practices.
"We've made known the risks that are associated with that, risks to private information of
citizens of the country, risks that comes from having that technology installed in network
systems," he said.
The US has argued that under Chinese security laws companies such as Huawei or ZTE could be
compelled to hand over data or access to Chinese intelligence. However, Hua responded that such
concerns were based on provisions of China's national intelligence law that differ little from
similar legislation in other countries.
"It is an international practice to maintain national security with legislation and to
require organizations and individuals to cooperate with national intelligence work," Hua
said.
And, in the angriest retort to Washington yet, Hua accused the US of creating "conspiracy
theories" backed by nothing but hearsay, and that lacking solid evidence, the U . S. "keeps
making up crimes and churning out various threat theories."
"We believe that this is very hypocritical, unfair and immoral," she said. All nations, Hua
said, have an obligation to "abide by the market principle of free and fair competition and
truly safeguard the market environment of fairness, justice and non-discrimination."
"... lacking solid evidence ..." - evidence of what? That Huawei steals and copies
technology? I can't be the only current or former Cisco employee here. Anyone remember
watching a Huawei router boot a production IOS image? Building 8 in the first floor h/w lab?
We rolled the Huawei router over from the TME lab next door? Then the lawsuit and the
"settlement"? Trust no one but especially don't trust state controlled Chicoms.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
I don't care as much about Chinese or Russian backdoors (if they exist), I care more about
NSA backdoors since I live inside their fraudulent political, economic, and judicial regime
that services US elites.
The Chinese didn't steal tech, it was sold to them by US elites that made fortunes on it.
I don't blame the Chinese, I blame US elites that outsourced US jobs and industry to make a
buck (fortunes of bucks).
Read 'The Conspirators' by Al Martin. A hell of a read that has some gems on how Bush's,
Clinton's, and others made millions on selling tech to China along with real estate fraud,
stock swindles, and running narcotics and weapons. Congress critters were involved along with
the CIA, ONI, and US military. It still goes on. They love you going with the fear and hate
China narratives.
Huawei is the world's leader in 5G technology, but when US elites can't compete they play
dirty.
The other problem for the US is that Huawei won't allow NSA backdoors in their equipment.
Remember the Snowden revelations about Cisco router order shipments being redirected to be
modified for the NSA?
If you are a US citizen and live in the US and if US elites fraud that is plowing and
plundering the american people continues (and nothing suggests the people will stop it) then
nothing good will come from whatever elite narrative you decide to follow. US elites made a
bundle on outsourcing US jobs and industry to Asia, and now they are still insiders leading
the march to fear and hate China and Russia.
Read 'The Conspirators' by Al Martin on the Iran-Contra frauds run by powerful families in
the US to get a taste of what they do.
The U.S. (and other countries, ahem Canada) have not presented any conclusive evidence
that Chinese telecom giant Huawei threatens their national security and are merely stirring
fears out of self-interest, a Chinese government spokeswoman said on Wednesday.
I have to agree. Everything I needed to know about American perfidy, I learned from Edward
Snowden.
The US elites in Congress passed the laws to outsource US jobs and industry to Asia. They
were insiders that made fortunes on it. Senator Diane Feinstein and her husband are examples.
Now that the pickings are getting slim and China is going its own way those same elites are
beating the drum about the dangerous China (and Russia) and are rolling out Cold War v2.
So I agree with you but do not blame Asia for what was offered to them on a silver
platter. But I cannot agree with blocking all products from China which would result in price
inflation in the US on steroids. The cost of living (especially for the young) would drive
many into poverty. The US economy would crater into depression. So what to do? There are two
direction: (1) do as the US is currently doing: spend more on its military and cyber weapons
and threaten, bomb, kill to get other countries to let US corporations enter and dominate, or
(2) cut US military spending by 60%+ and plow money into the US infrastructure and
people.
It's one or the other and US elites are going with (1) which is the worst possible
direction. I had hope for Trump based on his stump speeches but the CIA and others saw it as
a direct threat to their geopolitical strategy regime and they engineered a coup and Trump
has folded. This is evident by his original nationalist campaign staff being replaced after
the election by neocon/neolib dead-enders. It would have been easy to cooperate with Russia
and China to integrate them into a world order of international agreements already in place
after Cold War v1. But US elites at heart are supremacists not willing to share the world
with others. There is one other big problem in the US: that its foreign policy is
substantially under the control of the UK, Israel, and Saudis (that in itself a big story). I
feel a lot like you do but see US elites putting all their efforts into a dead end.
No trade deal can dictate our relationship with China
By Lawrence H. Summers - Washington Post
As the United States and China continue to joust over trade and technology, the U.S.
policy debate contrasts two views of the primary problem.
A first view expressed often in President Trump's tweets locates the key issue in the
bilateral trade deficit that the United States chronically runs with China. On this theory of
the problem, a solution is relatively easy: The Chinese could rearrange their imports of
soybeans, fossil fuels and other products so more of them come from the United States, while
countries now supplying China could export instead to nations now importing from the United
States. This is what the Chinese keep offering since it means almost no real change in their
economy. Neither levels of employment, output or total trade deficits and surpluses are
likely to change much in either the United States or China.
A second view, held by more serious alarmists about the U.S.-China relationship, such as
U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer, emphasizes problematic Chinese practices in
key technological sectors. These range from theft of U.S. technologies to requirements that
U.S. firms wishing to do business in China -- chiefly in the development of key technologies,
such as artificial intelligence -- must form joint ventures with Chinese firms, especially
those with connections to the Chinese government.
Such technological alarmists in and out of the administration hold that we can wall off
U.S. technologies with sufficiently aggressive policies so China cannot steal them, or that
we can pressure China to the point where it will give up government efforts at industrial
leadership. Neither of these prospects is realistic.
In many ways, U.S. concerns over China and technology parallel concerns over the Soviet
Union in the post-Sputnik missile gap period just before President John F. Kennedy's election
in 1960. Or over Japan in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when it was often joked that "the
Cold War is over and Japan won."
When atomic weapons were our most sensitive military secret, their creation required
extensive sophisticated infrastructure. Yet the United States and Russia essentially had no
normal interchange, so we were able to maintain a lead of three or four years with respect to
both fission and fusion weapons.
Technology for artificial intelligence in development today, however, can be operated on
widely available equipment. And there are hundreds of thousands of Chinese citizens studying
in the United States or working for U.S. companies that develop such technology. Keeping U.S.
knowledge out of Chinese hands for substantial lengths of time is impracticable short of a
massive breaking of economic ties.
Nor is it likely for the Chinese government to halt its support of technology development.
How would the United States react if other countries demanded that we close down DARPA, the
Defense Department's advanced research agency, because it represented unfair competition? Or
if trading partners argued that U.S. support for private clean-energy companies, such as the
subsidies provided by the Obama administration, was an unfair trade practice? Much of our
current information technology and communications infrastructure comes directly or indirectly
out of Bell Labs, which was financed out of the profits of a government-regulated and
-protected monopoly. Would the United States have responded constructively to demands from
other countries to dismantle the Bell system?
A focus on resisting the Chinese economic threat will likely not only be ineffective but
may also be counterproductive if it diverts private and public energy from more productive
pursuits. I remember well from the early Clinton administration that the great symbol of
efforts to constrain unfair Japanese practices was Kodak's case against Fuji, the Japanese
photographic film company that attracted massive attention from Kodak's senior management and
U.S. policymakers. Perhaps if Kodak had instead focused on the digital photography ideas its
scientists had developed, it would still be a significant company.
Where we can mobilize international support, we should, of course, push China to live up
to its trade obligations and seek to modify rules in the World Trade Organization where they
do not cover problematic practices. But in reality, our competitive success over the next
generation will depend much more on what happens in our economy and society than at any
international negotiating table.
Will our national investment in applied scientific research continue to languish to the
point where even the most brilliant young scientists cannot get their first research grants
until they are in their 40s? Will public officials who surely know better continue to allow
creationism to be taught as serious science in U.S. public schools in a century with so much
progress in life sciences? Will public policy concern itself with the strength and
competitiveness of U.S. information technology companies as well as with their marketing
practices? Will a national effort be made to improve the dismal performance of U.S. students
at every level in international comparisons of mathematical and scientific achievement?
These questions and others like them, much more than any trade negotiation, will determine
how the United States competes over the next generation. The Russian and the Japanese
challenges pushed us forward as a nation in very constructive ways. So can the Chinese
challenge if we seize the opportunity it represents.
Lawrence Summers is a professor at and past president of Harvard University.
"... My 95 year old aunt here in NL lived thru the NAZI occupation. She said its sad that the nice decent Americans of 1945 have now become like the people we fought. ..."
The launch of INSTEX -- "Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges" -- by France, Germany, and the UK
this week
to allow "legitimate trade" with Iran, or rather effectively sidestep US sanctions and bypass SWIFT after Washington was able
to pressure the Belgium-based financial messaging service to cut off the access of Iranian banks last year, may be too little too
late to salvage the Iran nuclear deal .
Tehran will only immediately press that more than just the current "limited humanitarian" and medical goods can be purchased on
the system, in accordance with fulfilling the EU's end of the 2015 JCPOA -- something which EU officials have promised while saying
INSTEX will be "expansive" -- while European companies will likely continue to stay away for fear of retribution from Washington,
which has stated it's "closely following" reports of the payment vehicle while reiterating attempts to sidestep sanctions will "risk
severe consequences" .
As a couple of prominent Iranian academics
told Al Jazeera this week: "If [the mechanism] will permanently be restricted to solely humanitarian trade, it will be apparent
that Europe will have failed to live up to its end of the bargain for Iran ," said political analyst Mohammad Ali Shabani. And another,
Foad Izadi, professor at the University of Tehran, echoed what is a common sentiment among Iran's leaders: "I don't think the EU
is either willing or able to stand up to Trump's threat," and continued, "The EU is not taking the nuclear deal seriously and it's
not taking any action to prove to Iran otherwise... People are running out of patience."
But Iranian leadership
welcomed the new mechanism as merely a small first step: "It is a first step taken by the European side... We hope it will cover
all goods and items," Iranian Deputy FM Abbas Araqchi told state TV, referencing EU promises to stick to its end of the nuclear deal.
The European side also acknowledged it as a precondition to keeping the nuclear deal alive, which EU leaders sea as vital to their
security and strategic interests : "We're making clear that we didn't just talk about keeping the nuclear deal with Iran alive, but
now we're creating a possibility to conduct business transactions," German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
told reporters on
Thursday . "This is a precondition for us to meet the obligations we entered into in order to demand from Iran that it doesn't
begin military uranium enrichment," Maas said.
What is INSTEX?
A "special purpose vehicle" that will allow European businesses to trade with Iran, despite strict US sanctions.
According to media reports, INSTEX will be based in Paris and will be managed by German banking expert Per Fischer, a former
manager at Commerzbank. The UK will head the supervisory board.
The European side intends to use the channel initially only to sell food, medicine and medical devices in Iran. However,
it will be possible to expand it in the future. --
DW.com
Technically US sanctions allow some limited humanitarian trade and limited goods; however the White House's "maximum pressure"
campaign on Iran has still scared away European giants like Seimens, Maersk, Total, Daimler, Peugeot, Renault, and others.
This brings up the central question of whether skittish European countries will actually return to doing business with Iran, the
entire purpose on which the new mechanism rests. The dilemma was summarized at the start of this week by outspoken Iran hawk Sen.
Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who told the AP
"The choice is whether to do business with Iran or the United States." He warned, "I hope our European allies choose wisely."
Thus far a number of analysts and observers have remained far less optimistic than the European sponsors of INSTEX. One particular
interview with geopolitical analyst and journalist Luc Rivet, cited in Russian media, outlines
the likelihood for failure of the new payment
vehicle : "I don't know what companies will make use of that mechanism to sell to Iran," Rivet said, noting that countries still
consider it "dangerous" to be caught working with Iran.
Addressing the current restriction of INSTEX facilitating medical and pharmaceutical goods transactions, he continued:
Who produces this equipment? You think that Siemens will sell to Iran? Never, because they sell to America many other things
as well And Siemens is afraid of losing the American market.
No matter if a handful of companies resume or continue business with Iran he explained that an "incredible number of companies"
won't. He added: "It's much easier for Chinese and Russian companies to make deals with Iran. The Europeans are scared in an incredible
way. The companies are afraid by ricochet of being in the eye of the storm with the Americans."
He concluded, "That's very dangerous for European companies," and repeated, "I don't know anybody who will dare to go with this
Instex system."
And the New York Times in asking the same question --
But Will Anyone Use
It? -- concludes similarly that "given that most large companies have significant business in the United States, very few --
if any -- are likely to use the trading mechanism for fear of incurring Washington's wrath."
However, the test will be whether or not a steady trickle of small companies gives way to bigger companies. The NYT report
continues :
But the financial mechanism could make it easier for smaller companies with no exposure in the United States to trade with
Iran and could promote trade in medicine and food, which are not subject to sanctions. European diplomats say that, in the beginning,
the concentration will be on goods that are permitted by Washington, to avoid an early confrontation .
But much could also depend on just how fierce the White House reaction will be. If the past months' Trump administration rhetoric
is any indicator, it will keep large companies scared and on the sidelines.
Europe has had double the tariffs on American cars than we had for theirs. It's time for us to quadruple the tariff on European
cars, to make up for the tariff imbalance that Europe has taken advantage of for decades.
Before World War II the question was, "Who will stand up to the demands of Germany?" Now the question is, "Who will stand up
to the demands of the United States?" It is clear that as far as means and methods are concerned Washington flies the swastika.
History has come full circle.
The following quote from J. R. R. Tolkien makes the point, "Always after a defeat and a respite," says Gandalf, "the shadow
takes another shape and grows again." The irony of our times is that the shadow has moved from Germany to the US.
Consternation and craven refusal to confront the reality of our times is again in vogue. We are walking towards madness crying,
"Let the other fellow fix this!"
My 95 year old aunt here in NL lived thru the NAZI occupation. She said its sad that the nice decent Americans of 1945
have now become like the people we fought.
"... Sections of the Chinese regime responded belligerently to the accusations. An editorial in the state-owned Global Times ..."
"... The editorial asked: "Assuming China is so powerful that it has stolen technological information for over a decade that is supposedly worth over a trillion in intellectual property, as the US has indicated, then how is it that China still lags behind the US in so many fields, from chips to electric vehicles, and even aviation engines?" ..."
Further escalating its economic and strategic offensive to block China from ever
challenging its post-World War II hegemony, the US government yesterday unveiled its fifth
set of economic espionage charges against Chinese individuals since September.
As part of an internationally-coordinated operation, the US Justice Department on Thursday
published indictments of two Chinese men who had allegedly accessed confidential commercial
data from US government agencies and corporate computers in 12 countries for more than a
decade.
The announcement represents a major intensification of the US ruling class's confrontation
against China, amid a constant build-up of unsubstantiated allegations against Beijing by
both the Republican and Democrat wings of Washington's political establishment.
Via salacious allegations of "hacking" on a "vast scale," every effort is being made by
the ruling elite and its media mouthpieces to whip up anti-China hysteria.
The indictment's release was clearly politically timed. It was accompanied by a global
campaign by the US and its allies, accusing the Chinese government of an illegal cyber theft
operation to damage their economies and supplant the US as the world's "leading
superpower."
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen
immediately issued a statement accusing China of directing "a very real threat to the
economic competitiveness of companies in the United States and around the globe."
Within hours, US allies around the world put out matching statements, joined by
declarations of confected alarm by their own cyber-warfare and hacking agencies.
The Washington Post called it "an unprecedented mass effort to call out China for
its alleged malign acts." The coordination "represents a growing consensus that Beijing is
flouting international norms in its bid to become the world's predominant economic and
technological power."
The Australian government, the closest ally of the US in the Indo-Pacific region, was in
the forefront. Foreign Affairs Minister Marise Payne and Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton
explicitly accused the Chinese government and its Ministry of State Security (MSS) of being
responsible for "a global campaign of cyber-enabled commercial intellectual property
theft."
Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, called the Chinese
cyber campaign "shocking and outrageous." Such pronouncements, quickly emblazoned in media
headlines around the world, destroy any possibility of anything resembling a fair trial if
the two men, named as Zhu Hua and Zhang Shilong, are ever detained by US agencies and brought
before a court.
The charges themselves are vaguely defined. Federal prosecutors in Manhattan accused the
men of conspiracy to commit computer intrusions, wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.
Zhu and Zhang acted "in association with" the MSS, as part of a hacking squad supposedly
named "APT1o" or "Stone Panda," the indictment said.
FBI Director Christopher Wray called a news conference to issue another inflammatory
statement against China. Pointing to the real motivations behind the indictments, he
declared: "China's goal, simply put, is to replace the US as the world's leading superpower,
and they're using illegal methods to get there."
Coming from the head of the US internal intelligence agency, this further indicates the
kinds of discussions and planning underway within the highest echelons of the US political
and military-intelligence apparatus to prepare the country, ideologically and militarily, for
war against China.
Washington is determined to block President Xi Jinping's "Made in China 2025" program that
aims to ensure China is globally competitive in hi-tech sectors such as robotics and chip
manufacture, as well as Beijing's massive infrastructure plans, known as the Belt and Road
Initiative, to link China with Europe across Eurasia.
The US ruling class regards these Chinese ambitions as existential threats because, if
successful, they would undermine the strategic position of US imperialism globally, and the
economic dominance of key American corporations.
Yesterday's announcement seemed timed to fuel tensions between Washington and Beijing,
after the unprecedented December 1 arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of
Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, in Canada at the request of the US.
Last weekend, US Vice President Mike Pence again accused China of "intellectual property
theft." These provocations came just weeks after the US and Chinese administrations agreed to
talks aimed at resolving the tariff and trade war launched by US President Donald Trump.
The Trump administration is demanding structural changes to China's state-led economic
model, greater Chinese purchases of American farm and industrial products and a halt to
"coercive" joint-venture licensing terms. These demands would severely undermine the "Made in
China 2025" program.
Since September, US authorities have brought forward five sets of espionage allegations.
In late October, the Justice Department unsealed charges against 10 alleged Chinese spies
accused of conspiring to steal sensitive commercial secrets from US and European
companies.
Earlier in October, the US government disclosed another unprecedented operation, designed
to produce a show trial in America. It revealed that a Chinese citizen, accused of being an
intelligence official, had been arrested in Belgium and extradited on charges of
conspiring to commit "economic espionage" and steal trade secrets.
The extradition was announced days after the Pentagon released a 146-page document, titled
"Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain
Resiliency of the United States," which made clear Washington is preparing for a total war
effort against both China and Russia.
Trump, Pence and Wray then all declared China to be the greatest threat to America's
economic and military security. Trump accused China of interfering in the US mid-term
elections in a bid to remove him from office. In a speech, Pence said Beijing was directing
"its bureaucrats and businesses to obtain American intellectual property -- the foundation of
our economic leadership -- by any means necessary."
Whatever the truth of the spying allegations against Chinese citizens -- and that cannot
be assumed -- any such operations would hardly compare with the massive global intrigue,
hacking, regime-change and military operations directed by the US agencies, including the
National Security Agency (NSA) and its "Five Eyes" partners.
These have been exposed thoroughly by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange. Leaked documents published by
WikiLeaks revealed that the CIA has developed "more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans,
viruses and other 'weaponized' malware," allowing it to seize control of devices, including
Apple iPhones, Google's Android operating system, devices running Microsoft Windows, smart
TVs and possibly the control of cars and trucks.
In an attempt to broaden its offensive against China, the US government said that along
with the US and its Five Eyes partners, such as Britain, Canada and Australia, the countries
targeted by the alleged Chinese plot included France, Germany, Japan, Sweden and
Switzerland.
Chinese hackers allegedly penetrated managed services providers (MSPs) that provide
cybersecurity and information technology services to government agencies and major firms.
Finance, telecommunications, consumer electronics and medical companies were among those said
to be targeted, along with military and US National Aeronautics and Space Administration
laboratories.
Sections of the Chinese regime responded belligerently to the accusations. An editorial in
the state-owned Global Times branded them "hysterical" and a warning sign of a
"comprehensive" US attack on China.
The editorial asked: "Assuming China is so powerful that it has stolen technological
information for over a decade that is supposedly worth over a trillion in intellectual
property, as the US has indicated, then how is it that China still lags behind the US in so
many fields, from chips to electric vehicles, and even aviation engines?"
The Global Times declared that "instead of adhering to a low-profile strategy,
China must face these provocations and do more to safeguard national interests."
The promotion of Chinese economic and militarist nationalism by a mouthpiece of the
Beijing regime is just as reactionary as the nationalist xenophobia being stoked by the
ruling elite of American imperialism and its allies. The answer to the evermore open danger
of war is a unified struggle by the international working class to end the outmoded
capitalist profit system and nation-state divisions and establish a socialist society.
ANY rational person would think : a nation like USA TODAY which can name a different ENEMY
every other week is clearly SICK, led by sociopaths. China ? Russia, Iran, North Korea ?
Venezuela ? ( all fail to live up to the high moral standards of " OUR democracy " ?)
How are any of these countries a greater threat to YOU than the local Democratic or
Republican party hacks ?
If YOU think that so many people hate you , would it not make sense to ask if there is
perhaps something wrong with YOU ?
Since the US successfully convinced Canada to arrest Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of the
telecoms giant's founder, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and other US officials have insisted that
the Huawei issue is "separate" from trade talks with China. But it's becoming increasingly clear
that that's not really the case, and that the Chinese certainly don't agree.
On Monday, the US
filed a series of indictments against Huawei and Meng on allegations ranging from technology theft,
to obstruction of justice to bank fraud, the latest step in the US's push to drive the telecoms
giant and 5G leader out of Western markets - a campaign that has already yielded some success,
given that New Zealand and Australia have already banned Huawei equipment and European countries
including Germany and the Netherlands are considering similar steps.
But in its response to the charges, which likely foreshadow an outright ban from US markets for
Huawei and fellow Chinese telecoms giant ZTE, a spokesman in Beijing denied the charges against
Huawei and blamed them on political motivations, the
BBC
reported. The denial from Beijing is
ironic, considering that Huawei has countered accusations levied by the US that it cooperates with
Chinese by insisting that it is independent from the state.
At a briefing in Beijing, government spokesperson Geng Shuang said there were
"political motivations"
behind US attempts to
"smear and suppress certain
Chinese companies."
"We urge them to treat Chinese enterprises in a fair and just way."
The spokesman added that allegations of technology theft had already been settled back in 2014
during a civil case brought by T-Mobile, which had accused Huawei engineers of stealing 'Tappy', a
robot designed by the company to mimicked the movements of human fingers to test phones.
All told, the US laid out 23 charges against the company. During a press conference, FBI
Director Wray said Huawei posed a dual threat against the US - both economic and national
security-related.
In a statement from the company, Huawei said it was "disappointed to learn of the charges
brought against the company today," and added that it didn't commit "any of the asserted
violations" and that it "is not aware of any wrongdoing by Ms Meng."
Here's the full statement, courtesy of Bloomberg:
"Huawei is disappointed to learn of the charges brought against the company today.
After Ms. Meng's arrest, the Company sought an opportunity to discuss the Eastern District of
New York investigation with the Justice Department, but the request was rejected without
explanation.
The allegations in the Western District of Washington trade secret
indictment were already the subject of a civil suit that was settled by the parties after a
Seattle jury found neither damages nor willful and malicious conduct on the trade secret claim.
The Company denies that it or its subsidiary or affiliate have committed any of the asserted
violations of U.S. law set forth in each of the indictments, is not aware of any wrongdoing by
Ms. Meng, and believes the U.S. courts will ultimately reach the same conclusion."
Hu Xijin, the editor of the English-language Communist Party mouthpiece the Global Times
insinuated that the US's crackdown on Huawei has been motivated by the inability of US companies'
to compete with Huawei's 5G network technology...
The charges against Huawei follow a series of indictments brought by the DOJ against alleged
hackers and others accused of aiding Chinese intelligence services. Meanwhile, the US is expected
to formally lodge an extradition request for Meng by the end of the month.
Meanwhile, Huawei's CFO "should not be a hostage" in Sino-U.S. relations, her lawyer said on
Tuesday, after the United States announced criminal charges against herself and the Chinese firm
just days before crunch trade talks with Beijing.
Meng's lawyer Reid Weingarten, partner at Steptoe & Johnson, pointed to "complex" Sino-U.S.
relations. "
Our client, Sabrina Meng, should not be a pawn or a hostage in this
relationship.
Ms. Meng is an ethical and honorable businesswoman who has never spent a
second of her life plotting to violate any U.S. law, including the Iranian sanctions."
Though IP theft is one of the main allegations against Huawei, and also represents one of the
biggest sticking points in the ongoing trade spat with Beijing, we imagine that this won't in any
way impact the "very, very important" trade talks taking place in Washington this week.
With the US reportedly preparing to formally request the extradition of Huawei CFO Meng
Wanzhou following a series of indictments against Meng and the telecoms giant that her father
founded, her lawyers are stepping up their rhetoric, accusing the US of "hostage-taking" and
using Meng as a political "pawn".
According to
Reuters , Meng's lawyer said Tuesday that the Huawei's CFO "should not be a hostage" to
Sino-US relations. The remarks come ahead of trade talks between President Trump and a coterie
of his senior trade officials, with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He leading a delegation on the
Chinese side.
Her lawyer Reid Weingarten, partner at Steptoe & Johnson, pointed to "complex"
Sino-U.S. relations. "Our client, Sabrina Meng, should not be a pawn or a hostage in this
relationship. Ms. Meng is an ethical and honorable businesswoman who has never spent a second
of her life plotting to violate any U.S. law, including the Iranian sanctions." Huawei said
it had sought to discuss the charges with U.S. authorities "but the request was rejected
without explanation." It said it "denies that it or its subsidiary or affiliate have
committed any of the asserted violations" and "is not aware of any wrongdoing by Ms. Meng."
China's foreign ministry urged the United States drop the arrest warrant and end
"unreasonable suppression" of Chinese companies. Spokesman Geng Shuang also said China had
issued stern representations to both Canada and the United States after the U.S. formally
issued its extradition request for Meng.
Now that the charges have been filed, Canadian authorities have 30 days to decide whether
they will proceed with the request and refer the case to the Supreme Court in British Columbia,
where a hearing will be held. The whole process could take weeks or months.
Despite US officials' insistence that the charges against Huawei are "wholly separate" and
won't impact the trade talks, Reuters reported that it's almost inevitable that the US's
efforts against Huawei will factor into Beijing's calculus. And given President Trump's claim
that he would be willing to intervene in the case if it means striking a trade deal with China,
Beijing may expect that he might make good on this promise.
Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker said on Monday that the alleged criminal activity
at Huawei "goes back at least 10 years and goes all the way to the top of the company." Meng
has been accused of misleading banks about the relationship between Huawei and a subsidiary
that sought to sell goods in Iran.
The EU didn't impose austerity on the UK, its own government did. We don't have the euro, in
case you haven't noticed. The US is our top overseas buyer. If we want more of that, we'll
have to take something like TTIP or worse.
The EU was a voice for African, Caribbean and Pacific producers against US transnationals,
and offered favorable terms. We've weakened that voice.
Brexit makes us more dependent on the IMF, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup
and Morgan Stanley. They're not EU bodies.
Britain opposed EU democratisation for forty years by upholding national governments' veto
powers over proposals supported by elected MEPs.
You voted against everything you claim to uphold. Because it was a vote against
everything.
None of that's even the issue. Do you have an insight to offer beyond antipathy to the
EU?
"... Sedition is a crime and it is clear that the multiple seditious acts of II and IfS toward many countries and with their band of controlled journalists was a deliberate and planned activity. ..."
"... I don't expect any prosecutions but there is a chance of promotional impediments applying to some of those named. At least for the next month. Every named employee of II and IfS is an enemy of democracy and its people ..."
It should be pointed out that the Integrity Initiative recently claimed on Twitter that some of the documents leaked in batch
#4 were not theirs and had been misrepresented as part of the organisation.
It doesn't really matter, though: all that we know, anti-socialist shills writing propaganda on behalf of II (Nimmo, Cohen,
Reid-Ross) have confirmed their own roles, and the Twitter account was proven to have pushed out slanderous material on Jeremy
Corbyn.
Note that "misrepresented" could have referred to the inclusion of the Corbyn slide show document which was presented at but
created by the II.
This organisation and all of those part of it should be treated as enemies of the people, as they have attacked, disingenuously
and using smears,
-Yellow Vests
– Jill Stein
-Jeremy Corbyn
-George Galloway
-Seuams Milne
-German Left Party
-French Left Party
-French Communist Party
-Greek Communist Party
-Podemos
-Norwegian Red Party
-Norwegian Socialist Left Party
-Swedish Left Party
-Swedish Greens
-International Anti-NATO Groups
-Greyzone Project
-Julian Assange
-MintPressNews
Via
-Infiltrating Corbyn and Sanders campaigns
-Inserting propaganda anonymously into local media including the Daily Beast, Buzzfeed, The Times, the Guardian, and more
-Using social media to orchestrate hate and dismissal campaigns against those mentioned above
-Hosting events for collaboration between members
-Building online "clusters" to deploy and shape discourse in the media and elsewhere
By repeating or openly collaborating with:
-Ben Nimmo
-Oz Katergi
-Anne Applebaum
-Peter Pomerantsev
-Bellingcat
-Atlantic Council
-Carole Cadwalladr
-David Aaronovitch
-Center For A Stateless Society
-PropOrNot
-Alexander Reid-Ross
-Nick Cohen
-Michael Weiss
-Jamie Fly
-Jamie Kirchick
Directed by:
-Tory Government
-NATO
-Facebook
-German Multinationals
Sedition is a crime and it is clear that the multiple seditious acts of II and IfS toward
many countries and with their band of controlled journalists was a deliberate and planned activity.
I don't expect any prosecutions but there is a chance of promotional impediments applying to some of those named. At least
for the next month. Every named employee of II and IfS is an enemy of democracy and its people.
At this point, deja vu mind-set returns to teach a powerful lesson. Having once witnessed a
major historical reversal, one knows that historical determinism isan illusion -- opium for
people on the edge of a nervous breakdown.
Machiavelli insisted that surrender is a bad idea because we never know what surprises
fortune may have in store for us. In Machiavelli's view, there are "good times" and "bad times"
in politics, and the good ruler is not one who can fend off the "bad times" so much, as one who
has accumulated enough goodwill among citizens to help him ride out those bad times.
The argument of this short book is that European Union is going through a really bad time
today, torn apart by numerous crises that damage confidence in the future of the project among
citizens across the continent. So the disintegration of the union is one of the most likely
outcomes.
For A. Roy, a writer has the responsibility to take sides overtly.
In these violent diatribes, she tears the masks of the `missionaries to redeem the wretched'
and of those preaching privatization and globalization as the one and only solution for the
whole world's economic problems.
The hypocrisy of globalization
For A. Roy, globalization has nothing to do with the eradication of poverty. It will not pull
the Third World out of the stagnant morass of illiteracy, religious bigotry or
underdevelopment. In India, 70 % of the population still has no electricity and 30 % is still
illiterate.
Globalization means crudely and cruelly `Life is Profit'. `Its realm is raw capital, its
conquest emerging markets, its prayers profits, its borders limitless, its weapons
nuclear.'
Privatization (of agriculture, seeds, water supply, electricity, power plants, commodities,
telecommunications, knowledge) consists only in the transfer of productive public assets from
the State to private interests (transnational corporations).
The globalization's economic agenda `munches through the economies of poor countries like a
cloud of locusts.' One example: by hugely subsidizing their farm industries, the rich
countries put impoverished subsistence farmers in the Third World out of business and chase
them into the cities.
The hypocrisy of the war against terrorism
For A. Roy, the rich countries are the real worshippers of the cult of violence. They
manufacture and sell almost all the world's weapons and possess the largest stockpile of
weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, nuclear).
At the head of ICAT (The Coalition Against Terror) stays a country which spends mind-boggling
military budgets to fight a few bunches of manipulated terrorists created by the hegemon
himself. It committed `the most of genocides, ethnic cleansing, and human rights violations.
It sponsored, armed and financed untold numbers of dictators and supports military and
economic terrorism.' Its aim is full spectrum dominance.
But, as Paul Krugman remarked, the replacement of the Cold War issue by the (manipulated)
terrorism one as a justification for massive military spending was (and is) a very big
failure.
Arundhati Roy's bitter and angry texts are a must read for all those who want to
understand the world we live in.
Arundhati Roy bristles at being called a "writer-activist" (too much like sofa-bed, she
says), but the rest of us should be grateful that the author of "The God of Small Things" is
taking on the establishment, here and in India.
Part of Mrs. Roy's greatness is that she is not colored by the partisan debates that
influence the dialogue on issues such as globalization in America. She is an
equal-opportunity critic, taking on Clinton and Bush. Although other authors pledge no
allegiance to either side of the aisle, Roy has a fresh perspective, and has a take on
globalization that I haven't found in works by American authors.
This book is set up as a collection (a rather random collection) of several essays. The first
essay gives a wonderful perspective of globalization (ie. the expansion of American business
interests) from a foreign perspective. She examines the impact of the global economic
movement on the actual people being affected by it at the lowest level. She reveals the
influence of the privatization of the electric industry through the eyes of India's poorest
citizens.
The second essay goes in-depth into politics in India, primarily addressing the enormous
number of dams being built in the country, and the impacts (economic, environmental, social)
that they will have. Mrs. Roy explicitly recounts how Enron scammed the Indian government
into building new power generators, and how this will cost India hundreds of millions per
year while lining the pockets of American business interests.
Critics will say that "Power Politics" is devoid of hard facts and analysis, but there can be
no doubt that this book is worth a read. She may lack the economic background of Stiglitz,
but her passion and style, in addition to her ability to articulate the important issues in
the globalization debate in a readable manner, will be appreciated by anyone with an interest
in global economic expansion.
Voters around the world revolt against leaders who won't improve their lives.
Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post
that savaged Donald Trump's character and leadership. Romney's attack and Trump's response
Wednesday morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the
two men. It's even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican
nomination in 2020. We'll see.
But for now, Romney's piece is fascinating on its own terms. It's well-worth reading. It's a
window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.
Romney's main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive
leader. That's true, of course. But beneath the personal slights, Romney has a policy critique
of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian
civil war. Romney doesn't explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn't appear
to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We
know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.
Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington, and Romney is strongly on board with
those, too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year
ago.
That's not surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain
Capital. Bain Capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy: Take over an
existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt,
extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions.
Romney became fantastically rich doing this.
Meanwhile, a remarkable number of the companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the
private equity model. Our ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It's how they run the
country.
Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist
foreign policy as the "mainstream Republican" view. And he's right about that. For generations,
Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while
simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those
goals enthusiastically.
There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In
countries around the world -- France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others
-- voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a
decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you're watching is entire populations revolting
against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.
Something like this has been in happening in our country for three years. Donald Trump rode
a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political
revolution that he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are
destroying America? Those are open questions.
But they're less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest
of us will be gone, too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How
do we want our grandchildren to live? These are the only questions that matter.
The answer used to be obvious. The overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning
cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones,
or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They
haven't so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. And yet drug addiction and suicide
are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be
summed up in GDP is an idiot.
The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It's happiness.
There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence.
Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your
children. They're what our leaders should want for us, and would want if they cared.
But our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to
the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through.
They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can't solve our problems. They don't even
bother to understand our problems.
One of the biggest lies our leaders tell us that you can separate economics from everything
else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate. Family and faith and culture,
meanwhile, those are personal matters. Both parties believe this.
Members of our educated upper-middle-classes are now the backbone of the Democratic Party
who usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. In other words,
functionally libertarian. They don't care how you live, as long as the bills are paid and the
markets function. Somehow, they don't see a connection between people's personal lives and the
health of our economy, or for that matter, the country's ability to pay its bills. As far as
they're concerned, these are two totally separate categories.
Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to the debate from the opposite perspective, and yet
reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem, you'll hear them say, is that the
American family is collapsing. Nothing can be fixed before we fix that. Yet, like the
libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct.
The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They
refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy.
Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined.
Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies
possible. You can't separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this. Not anymore. The
evidence is now overwhelming. How do we know? Consider the inner cities.
Thirty years ago, conservatives looked at Detroit or Newark and many other places and were
horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor
neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock. Single mothers were the rule.
Crime and drugs and disorder became universal.
What caused this nightmare? Liberals didn't even want to acknowledge the question. They were
benefiting from the disaster, in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives, though, had a ready
explanation for inner-city dysfunction and it made sense: big government. Decades of
badly-designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what conservatives
called a "culture of poverty" that trapped people in generational decline.
There was truth in this. But it wasn't the whole story. How do we know? Because virtually
the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways,
rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.
This is striking because rural Americans wouldn't seem to have much in common with anyone
from the inner city. These groups have different cultures, different traditions and political
beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives,
mostly.
Yet, the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown
Baltimore in the 1980s: Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male unemployment. A
terrifying drug epidemic. Two different worlds. Similar outcomes. How did this happen? You'd
think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They
don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of
native-born Americans who are slipping behind.
But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here's a big part
of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but
disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many places were the schools
and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made
more than men.
Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after
study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them.
Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don't. Over big populations, this causes a drop
in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably
follow -- more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the
next generation.
This isn't speculation. This is not propaganda from the evangelicals. It's social science.
We know it's true. Rich people know it best of all. That's why they get married before they
have kids. That model works. But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in
America can afford.
And yet, and here's the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married
people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much
nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight
malaria in Congo. But working to raise men's wages in Dayton or Detroit? That's crazy.
This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our
mindless cultural leaders act like it's still 1961, and the biggest problem American families
face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or
Facebook executives.
For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it's more
virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own
kids.
Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our
first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is
one of America's biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich.
We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.
They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in
this game, and it shows.
What's remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn't question why Sandberg was
saying this. We didn't laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media
celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean
In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. Republicans
should say so.
They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all
commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can't possibly repay? Or
charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect
400 percent annual interest.
We're OK with that? We shouldn't be. Libertarians tell us that's how markets work --
consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it's also
disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans,
whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.
And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans, as our leaders should, if it
would break your heart to see them high all the time. Which they are. A huge number of our
kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that, because new
technology has made it odorless. But it's everywhere.
And that's not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana,
marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax-hungry politicians have legalized or
decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner now lobbies for the marijuana
industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. "Oh, but it's better for you than
alcohol," they tell us.
Maybe. Who cares? Talk about missing the point. Try having dinner with a 19-year-old who's
been smoking weed. The life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want
that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the
reason. Because they don't care about us.
When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don't even
try. They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities
based purely on how we look. There's nothing less fair than that, though our tax code comes
close.
Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate
as someone who's living off inherited money and doesn't work at all. We tax capital at half of
what we tax labor. It's a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.
In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He
paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners,
the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But
for everyone else, it's infuriating.
Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on
the principles of the free market. Please. It's based on laws that the Congress passed, laws
that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for
those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a
big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids
don't hate you. They hate each other.
That happens in countries, too. It's happening in ours, probably by design. Divided
countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are
getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special
treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive
country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own
profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you're old.
A country that listens to young people who don't live in Brooklyn. A country where you can
make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as
important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting
outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And
above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up in no place
special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that
actually cares about families, the building block of everything.
What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will
have to be Republicans. There's no option at this point.
But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a
religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool
to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do
not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys
families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Internalizing all this will not be easy for Republican leaders. They'll have to unlearn
decades of bumper sticker-talking points and corporate propaganda. They'll likely lose donors
in the process. They'll be criticized. Libertarians are sure to call any deviation from market
fundamentalism a form of socialism.
That's a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It doesn't work. It's what we should be working
desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a
group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that
protects normal people.
If you want to put America first, you've got to put its families first.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 2,
2019.
"... America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society." ..."
"... He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement." ..."
"... The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher wrote of Carlson's monologue, "A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president. ..."
"... The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke ..."
"... Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites -- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people." ..."
"... "What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?" ..."
"... Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald Trump, whose populist-lite presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it." ..."
"... Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative, thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment. ..."
"... Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax. ..."
"... "I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not." ..."
"... Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed." ..."
"... But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left. ..."
"... Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin. ..."
"... Hillbilly Elegy ..."
"... Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a function or raw nature." ..."
"All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God."
Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged
monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.
America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking
marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families
is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society."
He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate
the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement."
The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, "Republicans
have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars." More
broadly, though, Carlson's position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative
politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.
Moreover, in Carlson's words: "At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone too. The country will remain.
What kind of country will be it be then?"
The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher
wrote of Carlson's monologue,
"A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would
be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president." Other conservative commentators scoffed. Ben Shapiro wrote in
National Review that Carlson's monologue sounded far more like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren than, say, Ronald Reagan.
I spoke with Carlson by phone this week to discuss his monologue and its economic -- and cultural -- meaning. He agreed that his
monologue was reminiscent of Warren, referencing her 2003
bookThe Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke . "There were parts of the book that I disagree
with, of course," he told me. "But there are parts of it that are really important and true. And nobody wanted to have that conversation."
Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank
fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any
policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites
-- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people."
But whether or not he likes it, Carlson is an important voice in conservative politics. His show is among the
most-watched television programs in America. And his raising questions about market capitalism and the free market matters.
"What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put
these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?"
Populism on the right is gaining, again
Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald
Trump, whose populist-lite
presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless
you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it."
Populism is a rhetorical approach that separates "the people" from elites. In the
words of Cas
Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, it divides the country into "two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people
on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other." Populist rhetoric has a long history in American politics, serving as the focal
point of numerous presidential campaigns and powering William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic nomination for president in 1896.
Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative,
thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment.
When right-leaning pundit Ann Coulter
spoke with Breitbart Radio about Trump's Tuesday evening Oval Office address to the nation regarding border wall funding, she
said she wanted to hear him say something like, "You know, you say a lot of wild things on the campaign trail. I'm speaking to big
rallies. But I want to talk to America about a serious problem that is affecting the least among us, the working-class blue-collar
workers":
Coulter urged Trump to bring up overdose deaths from heroin in order to speak to the "working class" and to blame the fact
that working-class wages have stalled, if not fallen, in the last 20 years on immigration. She encouraged Trump to declare, "This
is a national emergency for the people who don't have lobbyists in Washington."
Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax.
These sentiments have even pitted popular Fox News hosts against each other.
Sean Hannity warned his audience that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's economic policies would mean that "the rich people
won't be buying boats that they like recreationally, they're not going to be taking expensive vacations anymore." But Carlson agreed
when I said his monologue was somewhat reminiscent of Ocasio-Cortez's
past comments on the economy , and how even a strong economy was still leaving working-class Americans behind.
"I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home
an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not."
Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent
a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that
labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and
figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed."
"I think populism is potentially really disruptive. What I'm saying is that populism is a symptom of something being wrong," he
told me. "Again, populism is a smoke alarm; do not ignore it."
But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current
state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are
its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson
railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation
of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left.
Carlson's argument that "market capitalism is not a religion" is of course old hat on the left, but it's also been bubbling on
the right for years now. When National Review writer Kevin Williamson
wrote
a 2016 op-ed about how rural whites "failed themselves," he faced a massive backlash in the Trumpier quarters of the right. And
these sentiments are becoming increasingly potent at a time when Americans can see both a booming stock market and perhaps their
own family members struggling to get by.
Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense
of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin.
At the Federalist, writer Kirk Jing
wrote of Carlson's
monologue, and a
response
to it by National Review columnist David French:
Our society is less French's America, the idea, and more Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth" (involving a very different
French). The lowest are stripped of even social dignity and deemed
unworthy of life . In Real America, wages are stagnant, life expectancy is crashing, people are fleeing the workforce, families
are crumbling, and trust in the institutions on top are at all-time lows. To French, holding any leaders of those institutions
responsible for their errors is "victimhood populism" ... The Right must do better if it seeks to govern a real America that exists
outside of its fantasies.
J.D. Vance, author of
Hillbilly Elegy
, wrote that the [neoliberal] economy's victories -- and praise for those wins from conservatives -- were largely meaningless
to white working-class Americans living in Ohio and Kentucky: "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago? Many would say, unequivocally, 'no.'"
Carlson's populism holds, in his view, bipartisan possibilities. In a follow-up email, I asked him why his monologue was aimed
at Republicans when many Democrats had long espoused the same criticisms of free market economics. "Fair question," he responded.
"I hope it's not just Republicans. But any response to the country's systemic problems will have to give priority to the concerns
of American citizens over the concerns of everyone else, just as you'd protect your own kids before the neighbor's kids."
Who is "they"?
And that's the point where Carlson and a host of others on the right who have begun to challenge the conservative movement's orthodoxy
on free markets -- people ranging from occasionally mendacious bomb-throwers like Coulter to writers like
Michael Brendan Dougherty -- separate
themselves from many of those making those exact same arguments on the left.
When Carlson talks about the "normal people" he wants to save from nefarious elites, he is talking, usually, about a specific
group of "normal people" -- white working-class Americans who are the "real" victims of capitalism, or marijuana legalization, or
immigration policies.
In this telling, white working-class Americans who once relied on a manufacturing economy that doesn't look the way it did in
1955 are the unwilling pawns of elites. It's not their fault that, in Carlson's view, marriage is inaccessible to them, or that marijuana
legalization means more teens are smoking weed (
this probably isn't true ). Someone,
or something, did this to them. In Carlson's view, it's the responsibility of politicians: Our economic situation, and the plight
of the white working class, is "the product of a series of conscious decisions that the Congress made."
The criticism of Carlson's monologue has largely focused on how he deviates from the free market capitalism that conservatives
believe is the solution to poverty, not the creator of poverty. To orthodox conservatives, poverty is the result of poor decision
making or a
lack of virtue that can't be solved by government programs or an anti-elite political platform -- and they say Carlson's argument
that elites are in some way responsible for dwindling marriage rates
doesn't make sense .
But in French's response to Carlson, he goes deeper, writing that to embrace Carlson's brand of populism is to support "victimhood
populism," one that makes white working-class Americans into the victims of an undefined "they:
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic cultural changes -- civil rights, women's
rights, a technological revolution as significant as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual
revolution, etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of what they are
doing to you .
And that was my biggest question about Carlson's monologue, and the flurry of responses to it, and support for it: When other
groups (say, black Americans) have pointed to systemic inequities within the economic system that have resulted in poverty and family
dysfunction, the response from many on the right has been, shall we say,
less than
enthusiastic .
Really, it comes down to when black people have problems, it's personal responsibility, but when white people have the same
problems, the system is messed up. Funny how that works!!
Yet white working-class poverty receives, from Carlson and others, far more sympathy. And conservatives are far more likely to
identify with a criticism of "elites" when they believe those elites are responsible for the
expansion of trans
rights or creeping secularism
than the wealthy and powerful people who are investing in
private prisons or an expansion
of the
militarization of police . Carlson's network, Fox News, and Carlson himself have frequently blasted leftist critics of market
capitalism and efforts to
fight
inequality .
I asked Carlson about this, as his show is frequently centered on the turmoils caused by "
demographic change
." He said that for decades, "conservatives just wrote [black economic struggles] off as a culture of poverty," a line he
includes in his monologue .
He added that regarding black poverty, "it's pretty easy when you've got 12 percent of the population going through something
to feel like, 'Well, there must be ... there's something wrong with that culture.' Which is actually a tricky thing to say because
it's in part true, but what you're missing, what I missed, what I think a lot of people missed, was that the economic system you're
living under affects your culture."
Carlson said that growing up in Washington, DC, and spending time in rural Maine, he didn't realize until recently that the same
poverty and decay he observed in the Washington of the 1980s was also taking place in rural (and majority-white) Maine. "I was thinking,
'Wait a second ... maybe when the jobs go away the culture changes,'" he told me, "And the reason I didn't think of it before was
because I was so blinded by this libertarian economic propaganda that I couldn't get past my own assumptions about economics." (For
the record, libertarians have
critiqued Carlson's
monologue as well.)
Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an
economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a
function or raw nature."
And clearly, our market economy isn't driven by God or nature, as the stock market soars and unemployment dips and yet even those
on the right are noticing lengthy periods of wage stagnation and dying little towns across the country. But what to do about those
dying little towns, and which dying towns we care about and which we don't, and, most importantly, whose fault it is that those towns
are dying in the first place -- those are all questions Carlson leaves to the viewer to answer.
If China Is Suffering So Much Because of Trump's Trade War, Why Is Its Surplus Up So
Much?
By Dean Baker
Donald Trump has made his tariffs against China and other countries a big part of his
agenda as president. He even went so far as to dub himself "Tariff Man" on Twitter.
The media have been quick to assume that Tariff Man is accomplishing his goals, especially
with regard to China. It is standard for news articles, like this one, to assert that China's
economy is suffering in large part because of Trump's tariffs.
In fact, through the first ten months of 2018 China's trade surplus * with the United
States on trade in goods has been $344.5 billion. This is up 11.5 percent from its surplus in
the same months last year.
The tariffs surely are having some effect, and China's surplus would almost certainly be
larger if they were not in place. But it is difficult to believe that China's $13.5 trillion
dollar economy (measured at exchange rate values) could be hurt all that much by somewhat
slower growth in its trade surplus with the United States. (For arithmetic fans, the surplus
is equal to 2.5 percent of China's GDP. We are talking about slower growth in this
surplus.)
It is worth noting that we will not be getting new trade data until the government
shutdown is over since the Census Bureau is one of the government agencies without funding
for fiscal year 2019.
I posted an NYT piece the other day
that described an automobile-headlight
manufacturer in Michigan who was struggling
to get LED bulbs from China, where they were
usually in plentiful supply, So, he was just
*trying* to stockpile some inventory.
Trump Has Promised to Bring Jobs Back. His Tariffs Threaten to Send Them Away.
By Peter S. Goodman
For EBW Electronics, the biggest hit has come through increased costs for components,
including transistors, resistors and capacitors. Across the breadth of the factory, workers
in blue lab coats slot these nibs of metal into circuit boards and then attach LED lights,
most of these items imported from China.
These components are produced at enormous scale in China. Even with tariffs on Chinese
imports, American factories have no incentive to make them, because profit margins are tiny,
and the costs are vast.
"Nobody in this country wants to make these things," said Mr. Steeby, the EBW president,
echoing a contention heard widely here.
The company has filed for exemptions from the tariffs, but has yet to hear back from the
federal government. And EBW has encountered stiff resistance in passing on the extra costs to
its customers, though it is obliged to continue delivering lights to major auto manufacturers
at agreed-upon prices, or pay fines for interfering with production.
"We're the monkey in the middle," said Mr. LeBlanc, the EBW chairman.
If Mr. Trump follows through on threats to raise tariffs to 25 percent, EBW and its 230
employees could face dire circumstances.
"At 25 percent, we are not making money," Mr. Steeby said. "There's a threat that you
cease to exist, or there's a threat that jobs move to Mexico."
In an era of anxiety over global competition, EBW has engaged Chinese suppliers to produce
a crucial commodity -- American paychecks. Now, Mr. Trump's tariffs have put jobs at
risk.
"There's no intelligence to the way this is being done," Mr. Steeby said. "The tariffs are
designed to hurt China, but they are being paid by American companies."
Of course, the Mr. Steeby, President of EBW Electronics, is without question, honest and
trustworthy. Like a boy scout, he would never lie. What he said should be taken as the gospel
truth, not a grain of salt.
I posted an NYT piece the other day
that described an automobile-headlight
manufacturer in Michigan who was struggling
to get LED bulbs from China, where they were
usually in plentiful supply, So, he was just
*trying* to stockpile some inventory.
[ There is no indication the company is stockpiling LED bulbs, and there is no indication
there is stockpiling as yet through the economy. ]
[ No, the matter is important, and I am correct and do not care to be baited.
This is no data showing that American companies are stockpiling. American companies have
long operated with minimal inventory and a change would be dramatic. ]
"... Britain must surely be in the running for many reasons: among others, the sheer disaster that is Theresa May's government (and the various clowns and thuggish goons that constitute her Cabinet), the Brexit mess, the Skripal poisoning circus, Britain's own collapse in controlling the propaganda narrative on Syria and the revelations about Integrity Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, and their ties to the British military establishment. ..."
If Syria wins the award for Country of the Year 2018, I'd hate to see who gets the Wooden
Spoon for 2018. There must be quite a few serious contenders for that prize!
Britain must surely be in the running for many reasons: among others, the sheer
disaster that is Theresa May's government (and the various clowns and thuggish goons that
constitute her Cabinet), the Brexit mess, the Skripal poisoning circus, Britain's own
collapse in controlling the propaganda narrative on Syria and the revelations about Integrity
Initiative and the Institute of Statecraft, and their ties to the British military
establishment.
After the US government elicited outrage from the Chinese due to its attempts to convince
its allies to bar the use of equipment made by telecoms supplier Huawei, President Trump is
apparently weighing whether to take another dramatic antagonistic step that could further
complicate trade negotiations less than two weeks before a US delegation is slated to head to
Beijing.
According to
Reuters , the White House is reportedly considering an executive order that would ban US
companies from using equipment made by Huawei and ZTE, claiming that both companies work "at
the behest of the US government" and that their equipment could be used to spy on US citizens.
The order would invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to order the Department
of Commerce to prohibit the purchase of equipment from telecoms manufacturers that could
threaten national security. Though it wouldn't explicitly name Huawei or ZTE, the ban would
arise from Commerce's interpretation. The IEEA allows the president the authority to regulate
commerce in the face of a national emergency. Back in August, Congress passed and Trump signed
a bill banning the use of ZTE and Huawei equipment by the US government and government
contractors. The executive order has reportedly been under consideration for eight months,
since around the time that the US nearly blocked US companies from selling parts to ZTE, which
sparked a mini-diplomatic crisis, which
ended with a deal allowing ZTE to survive, but pay a large fine.
The feud between the US and Huawei has obviously been escalating in recent months as the US
has embarked on an
"extraordinary influence campaign" to convince its allies to ban equipment made by both
companies, and the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in Canada has also blossomed into a
diplomatic crisis of sorts.
But the real reason issuing a ban on both companies' equipment is seen as a priority is
because Huawei's lead in the race to build 5G technology is making its products more appealing
to global telecoms providers. Rural telecoms providers in the US - those with fewer than
100,000 subscribers - are particularly reliant on equipment made by both companies. They've
expressed concerns that a ban would require them to rip out and scrap their equipment at an
immense cost.
Rural operators in the United States are among the biggest customers of Huawei and ZTE,
and fear the executive order would also require them to rip out existing Chinese-made
equipment without compensation. Industry officials are divided on whether the administration
could legally compel operators to do that.
While the big U.S. wireless companies have cut ties with Huawei in particular, small rural
carriers have relied on Huawei and ZTE switches and other equipment because they tend to be
less expensive.
The company is so central to small carriers that William Levy, vice president for sales of
Huawei Tech USA, is on the board of directors of the Rural Wireless Association.
The RWA represents carriers with fewer than 100,000 subscribers. It estimates that 25
percent of its members had Huawei or ZTE equipment in their networks, it said in a filing to
the Federal Communications Commission earlier this month.
As Sputnik
pointed out, the news of the possible ban followed questions from Defense Secretary Gavin
Williamson, who expressed serious concerns over the involvement of Huawei in Britain's 5G
network, suggesting that Beijing sometimes acted "in a malign way." But even if it loses access
to the US market, Huawei's global expansion and its leadership in the 5G space are expected to
continue to bolster profits and growth. Currently, Huawei sells equipment in 170 countries.
According to a statement from the company's rotating chairman, the company's full-year sales
are expected to increase 21% to $108.5 billion this year. The company has signed 26 contracts
globally to supply 5G equipment for commercial use, leaving it well ahead of its US rivals.
In his recent article "Averting
World Conflict with China" Ron Unz has come up with an intriguing suggestion for the Chinese
government to turn the tables on the December 1 st arrest of Meng Wanzhou in Canada.
Canada detained Mrs. Meng, CFO of the world's largest telecoms equipment manufacturer Huawei,
at the request of the United States so she could be extradited to New York to face charges that
she and her company had violated U.S. sanctions on Iran. The sanctions in question had been
imposed unilaterally by Washington and it is widely believed that the Trump Administration is
sending a signal that when the ban on purchasing oil from Iran comes into full effect in May
there will be no excuses accepted from any country that is unwilling to comply with the U.S.
government's demands. Washington will exercise universal jurisdiction over those who violate
its sanctions, meaning that foreign officials and heads of corporations that continue to deal
with Iran can be arrested when traveling internationally and will be extradited to be tried in
American courts.
There is, of course, a considerable downside to arresting a top executive of a leading
foreign corporation from a country that is a major U.S. trading partner and which also, inter
alia, holds a considerable portion of the U.S. national debt. Ron Unz has correctly noted the "
extraordinary gravity of this international incident and its potential for altering the course
of world history." One might add that Washington's demands that other nations adhere to its
sanctions on third countries opens up a Pandora's box whereby no traveling executives will be
considered safe from legal consequences when they do not adhere to policies being promoted by
the United States. Unz cites Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs as
describing it as "almost a U.S. declaration of war on China's business community." If
seizing and extraditing businessmen becomes the new normal those countries most affected will
inevitably retaliate in kind. China has already detained two traveling Canadians to pressure
Ottawa to release Mrs. Meng. Beijing is also contemplating some immediate retaliatory steps
against Washington to include American companies operating in China if she is extradited to the
U.S.
Ron Unz has suggested that Beijing might just want to execute a quid pro quo by pulling the
licenses of Sheldon Adelson's casinos operating in Macau, China and shutting them down, thereby
eliminating a major source of his revenue. Why go after an Israeli-American casino operator
rather than taking steps directly against the U.S. government? The answer is simple. Pressuring
Washington is complicated as there are many players involved and unlikely to produce any
positive results while Adelson
is the prime mover on much of the Trump foreign policy, though one hesitates to refer to it
as a policy at all.
Adelson is the world's leading diaspora Israel-firster and he has the ear of the president
of the United States, who reportedly speaks and meets with him regularly. And Adelson uses his
considerable financial resources to back up his words of wisdom. He is the fifteenth wealthiest man in America
with a reported fortune of $33 billion. He is the number one contributor to the GOP having
given $81 million in the last cycle. Admittedly that is chump change to him, but it is more
than enough to buy the money hungry and easily corruptible Republicans.
In a certain sense, Adelson has obtained control of the foreign policy of the political
party that now controls both the White House and the Senate, and his mission in life is to
advance Israeli interests. Among those interests is the continuous punishment of Iran, which
does not threaten the United States in any way, through employment of increasingly savage
sanctions and threats of violence, which brings us around to the arrest of Meng and the
complicity of Adelson in that process. Adelson's wholly owned talking head National Security
Adviser John Bolton reportedly had prior knowledge of the Canadian plans and may have actually
been complicit in their formulation. Adelson has also been the major force behind moving the
U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, has also convinced the Administration to stop its criticism of the
illegal Israeli settlements on Arab land and has been instrumental in cutting off all
humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. He prefers tough love when dealing with the Iranians,
advocating dropping
a nuclear bomb on Iran as a warning to the Mullahs of what more might be coming if they don't
comply with all the American and Israeli demands.
So much for peace that neoliberal globalization should supposedly bring...
Notable quotes:
"... We face a world of multiple wars some leading to direct global conflagrations and others that begin as regional conflicts but quickly spread to big power confrontations. ..."
"... In our times the US is the principal power in search of world domination through force and violence. Washington has targeted top level targets, namely China, Russia, Iran; secondary objectives Afghanistan, North and Central Africa, Caucuses and Latin America ..."
"... China is the prime enemy of the US for several economic, political and military reasons: China is the second largest economy in the world; its technology has challenged US supremacy it has built global economic networks reaching across three continents. China has replaced the US in overseas markets, investments and infrastructures. ..."
"... In response the US has resorted to a closed protectionist economy at home and an aggressive military led imperial economy abroad. ..."
"... The first line of attack are Chinese exports to the US and its vassals. Secondly, is the expansion of overseas bases in Asia. Thirdly, is the promotion of separatist clients in Hong Kong, Tibet and among the Uighurs. Fourthly, is the use of sanctions to bludgeon EU and Asian allies into joining the economic war against China. China has responded by expanding its military security, expanding its economic networks and increasing economic tariffs on US exports ..."
"... The US economic war has moved to a higher level by arresting and seizing a top executive of China's foremost technological company, Huawei. ..."
"... Each of the three strategic targets of the US are central to its drive for global dominance; dominating China leads to controlling Asia; regime change in Russia facilitates the total submission of Europe; and the demise of Iran facilitates the takeover of its oil market and US influence of Islamic world. As the US escalates its aggression and provocations we face the threat of a global nuclear war or at best a world economic breakdown. ..."
We face a world of multiple wars some
leading to direct global conflagrations and others that begin as regional conflicts but quickly spread to
big power confrontations.
We will proceed to identify 'great power'
confrontations and then proceed to discuss the stages of 'proxy' wars with world war consequences.
In our times the US is the principal
power in search of world domination through force and violence. Washington has targeted top level targets,
namely China, Russia, Iran; secondary objectives Afghanistan, North and Central Africa, Caucuses and Latin
America.
China is the prime enemy of the US for
several economic, political and military reasons: China is the second largest economy in the world; its
technology has challenged US supremacy it has built global economic networks reaching across three
continents. China has replaced the US in overseas markets, investments and infrastructures. China has built
an alternative socio-economic model which links state banks and planning to private sector priorities. On
all these counts the US has fallen behind and its future prospects are declining.
In response the US has resorted to a
closed protectionist economy at home and an aggressive military led imperial economy abroad. President Trump
has declared a
tariff
war on China; and multiple separatist and propaganda war; and aerial
and maritime encirclement of China's mainland
The first line of attack are Chinese
exports to the US and its vassals. Secondly, is the expansion of overseas bases in Asia. Thirdly, is the
promotion of separatist clients in Hong Kong, Tibet and among the Uighurs. Fourthly, is the use of sanctions
to bludgeon EU and Asian allies into joining the economic war against China. China has responded by
expanding its military security, expanding its economic networks and increasing economic tariffs on US
exports.
The US economic war has moved to a higher
level by arresting and seizing a top executive of China's foremost technological company, Huawei.
The White House has moved up the ladder
of aggression from sanctions to extortion to kidnapping. Provocation, is one step up from military
intimidation. The nuclear fuse has been lit.
Russia faces similar threats to its
domestic economy, its overseas allies, especially China and Iran as well as the US renunciation of
intermediate nuclear missile agreement
Iran faces oil sanctions, military
encirclement and attacks on proxy allies including in Yemen, Syria and the Gulf region Washington relies on
Saudi Arabia, Israel and paramilitary terrorist groups to apply military and economic pressure to undermine
Iran's economy and to impose a 'regime change'.
Each of the three strategic targets of
the US are central to its drive for global dominance; dominating China leads to controlling Asia; regime
change in Russia facilitates the total submission of Europe; and the demise of Iran facilitates the takeover
of its oil market and US influence of Islamic world. As the US escalates its aggression and provocations we
face the threat of a global nuclear war or at best a world economic breakdown.
Wars by Proxy
The US has targeted a second tier of
enemies, in Latin America, Asia and Africa.
In Latin America the US has waged
economic warfare against Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. More recently it has applied political and economic
pressure on Bolivia. To expand its dominance Washington has relied on its vassal allies, including Brazil,
Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Argentina and Paraguay as well as right-wing elites throughout the region
As in numerous other cases of regime
change Washington relies on corrupt judges to rule against President Morales, as well as US foundation
funded NGO's; dissident indigenous leaders and retired military officials. The US relies on local political
proxies to further US imperial goals is to give the appearance of a 'civil war' rather than gross US
intervention.
In fact, once the so-called 'dissidents'
or 'rebels' establish a foot hole, they 'invite' US military advisers, secure military aid and serve as
propaganda weapons against Russia, China or Iran – 'first tier' adversaries.
In recent years US proxy conflicts have
been a weapon of choice in the Kosovo separatist war against Serbia; the Ukraine coup of 2014 and war
against Eastern Ukraine; the Kurd take over of Northern Iraq and Syria; the US backed separatist Uighurs
attack in the Chinese province of Xinjiang.
The US has established 32 military bases
in Africa, to coordinate activities with local warlords and plutocrats. Their proxy wars are discarded as
local conflict between 'legitimate' regimes and Islamic terrorists, tribality and tyrants.
The objective of proxy wars are
threefold. They serve as 'feeders' into larger territorial wars
encircling
China, Russia
and Iran.
Secondly, proxy wars are 'testing
grounds' to measure the vulnerability and responsive capacity of the targeted strategic adversary, i.e.
Russia, China and Iran.
Thirdly, the proxy wars are 'low cost'
and 'low risk' attacks on strategic enemies. The lead up to a major confrontation by stealth.
Equally important 'proxy wars' serve as
propaganda tools, associating strategic adversaries as 'expansionist authoritarian' enemies of 'western
values'.
Conclusion
US empire builders engage in multiple
types of aggression directed at imposing a unipolar world. At the center are trade wars against China;
regional military conflicts with Russia and economic sanctions against Iran.
These large scale, long-term strategic
weapons are complemented by proxy wars, involving regional vassal states which are designed to erode the
economic bases of counting allies of anti-imperialist powers.
Hence, the US attacks China directly via
tariff wars and tries to sabotage its global "Belt and Road' infrastructure projects linking China with 82
counties.
Likewise, the US attacks Russian allies
in Syria via proxy wars, as it did with Iraq, Libya and the Ukraine.
Isolating strategic anti-imperial power
via regional wars, sets the stage for the 'final assault' – regime change by cop or nuclear war.
However, the US quest for world
domination has so far taken steps which have failed to isolate or weaken its strategic adversaries.
China moves forward with its global
infrastructure programs: the trade war has had little impact in isolating it from its principal markets.
Moreover, the US policy has increased China's role as a leading advocate of 'open trade' against President
Trump's protectionism.
ORDER IT NOW
Likewise, the tactics of encircling and
sanctioning Russia has deepened ties between Moscow and Beijing. The US has increased its nominal 'proxies'
in Latin America and Africa but they all depend on trade and investments from China. This is especially true
of agro-mineral exports to China.
Notwithstanding the limits of US power
and its failure to topple regimes, Washington has taken moves to compensate for its failures by escalating
the threats of a global war. It kidnaps Chinese economic leaders; it moves war ships off China's coast; it
allies with neo-fascist elites in the Ukraine. It threatens to bomb Iran. In other words the US political
leaders have embarked on adventurous policies always on the verge of igniting one, too, many nuclear fuses.
It is easy to imagine how a failed trade
war can lead to a nuclear war; a regional conflict can entail a greater war.
Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it
will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations; its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies
in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are
reasons to hope!
I disagree. The parasitic terror regime that runs washington believe they can win a nuclear war, i have no
hope left for peace. They need a culling of the "useless eaters", we are stealing the food out of their poor
frightened children`s mouths by existing.
Eric Zuesse wrote a decent article yesterday at the Saker blog about the US nuclear forces and its owners
wet dream.
"The U.S. Government's Plan Is to Conquer Russia by a Surprise Invasion"
The actions of nato/EU/UK/ISR/KSA etc certainly supports his article, at least in my opinion.
The US, and the West, by instigating wars elsewhere, and selling weapons to
those, destroy countries and prosperity abroad. Those living in target countries find themselves miserable,
with loss of everything. It is only natural that they may try to escape a living hell by emigrating to the
West.
People in the US and the West in general will not want mass immigration, and with good reason; but if you
were in a war torn country or an impoverished country (as a result of western "help") you would also attempt
to move away from the bombs, etc.
If the West left the rest of the world alone (in terms of their regimes and in terms of their weapons),
they might prosper and no longer need to run away from their home countries.
The sanctions and embargoes have failed in the past, when China was much weaker, so we can be quite
confident that they will fail again, and quickly, as this timeline suggests:
September 3, 2018
:
Huawei unveils Kirin 980 CPU, the world's first commercial 7nm system-on-chip (SoC) and the first to use
Cortex-A76 cores, dual neural processing units, Mali G76 GPU, a 1.4 Gbps LTE modem and supports faster RAM.
With 20 percent faster performance and 40 percent less power consumption compared to 10nm systems, it has
twice the performance of Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 and Apple's A11 while delivering noticeable battery life
improvement. Its Huawei-patented modem has the world's fastest Wi-Fi and its GPS receiver taps L5 frequency
to deliver 10cm. positioning.
September 5, 2018
. China's front-end fab capacity will account for 16 percent of the world's
semiconductor capacity this year, increasing to 20 percent by 2020.
September 15, 2018.
China controls one third of 5G patents and has twice as many installations
operating as the rest of the world combined.
September 21, 2018
. China has reached global technological parity and now has twelve of the
world's top fifty IC design houses (China's SMIC is fourth, Huawei's HiSilicon is seventh), and twenty-one
percent of global IC design revenues. Roger Luo, TSMC.
October 2, 2018
. Chinese research makes up 18.6 percent of global STEM peer-reviewed papers, ahead
of the US at 18 percent. "The fact that China's article output is now the largest is very significant. It's
been predicted for a while, but there was a view this was not likely to happen until 2025," said Michael
Mabe, head of STM.
October 14, 2018
. Huawei announces 7 nm Ascend 910 chipset for data centers, twice as powerful as
Nvidia's v100 and the first AI IP chip series to natively provide optimal TeraOPS per watt in all scenarios.
Available 2Q19.
October 7, 2018
: China becomes largest recipient of FDI in H1, attracting an estimated 70 billion
U.S. dollars, according to UNCTAD.
October 8, 2018:
Taiwan's Foxconn moves its major semiconductor maker and five integrated circuit
design companies to Jinan, China.
October 22, 2018
. China becomes world leader in venture capital, ahead of the US and almost twice
the rest of the world's $53.4 billion YTD. The Crunchbase report says the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the
world is undergoing a major transformation: it is now driven by China instead of the US.
Isolating strategic anti-imperial power via regional wars, sets the stage for the 'final assault' –
regime change by cop or nuclear war
good article.
Only idiot can believe that nuclear war can be won, IMHO. Elites aren't suicidal, oh no. On the contrary.
Can they make a mistake and cause that war, definitely.
Which brings us to the important part:
Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations;
its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers
and war makers lack popular support.
Agree, but, that's
exactly
the reason I disagree with:
There are reasons to hope!
No need to be pedantic, of course there is always a reason for hope.
But, I see it as
so
fertile ground for making
The MISTAKE
.
Can we prevent World War 3? I believe it will happen. The US economy is built on fragile foundations;
its elites are deeply divided. Its main allies in France and the UK are in deep crises. The war mongers
and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope!
It's when the elite war mongers' backs are up against the wall that they come up with a cleverly designed
false flag attack to rally public support for war. They are more dangerous now than ever.
Agree about Russia and China, however Iran needs to be viewed not as a play for oil or the Islamic crowd but
driven wholly and solely by Israel. Iran is not a threat to US in any context, only Israel.
question:
If the relatively small tariffs on Chinese goods amount to 'direct attacks on China', then what are the
massive tariffs by China on US goods?
The "Chess men" behind "The Wall Street Economy" have stated a few times that the only way to remain the
dominant economy is to first: convince rivals that resistance is futile, and second:
to atomize any
potential rival
(Ghaddaffi is a clear example).
Breaking up Russia has been on the to-do list for
decades, and I believe that the Chess Men have no idea what to do about containing China, and are clearly
flat-footed, and
desperate
kidnapping a Chinese business executive.
The Wall Street Economy depended on cheap Chinese labor it's own profits, and that was Ok until .?
Until the writing on the Wall became ledgible .
The smell of genuine fear is in the air.
" The war mongers and war makers lack popular support. There are reasons to hope! "
Is popular support
needed to get a people in a war mood ?
Both Pearl Harbour and Sept 11 demonstrate, in my opinion, that it is not very difficult to create a war
mood.
Yet, if another Sept 11 would do the trick, I wonder.
Sept 11 has been debated without without interruption since Sept 11.
After the 1946 USA Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour the USA government succeeded in preventing a
similar discussion.
Until now the west, Deep State, NATO, EU did not succeed in provoking Russia or China.
Each time they tried something, in my opinion they did this several times, Russia showed its military
superiority, at the same time taking care not to hurt public opinion in the west.
Is not it amazing that the morally miserable US, a "power in search of world domination through force and
violence," is officially governed by self-avowed pious X-tians. What kind of corruption among the high-level
clergy protects the satanists Pompeo, Bush, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Blair and such from excommunication?
"Washington does little to nothing to restore peace and help the devastated region to recover from the
long war, while its [US] airstrikes
continue to rack up civilian deaths
At the same time, the US
military presence at the Al-Tanf airbase and the "armed gangs" around it prevent refugees from returning
home."
– Nothing new. The multi-denominational Syria has been pounded by the US-supported "moderate" terrorists
(armed with US-provided arms and with UK-provided chemical weaponry) to satisfy the desires of
Israel-firsters, arm-dealers and the multitude of war-profiteers that have been fattening their pockets at
the US/UK taxpayers' expense.
"Timber Sycamore" [initiated by Obama] is the most important arms trafficking operation in History. It
involves at least 17 governments. The transfer of weapons, meant for jihadist organizations, is carried out
by Silk Way Airlines, a Azerbaïdjan public company of cargo planes."
@Godfree Roberts
Huawei can announce whatever, there are much more experienced adversaries(IBM, intel and ARM) who can`t beat
nV in computation, and especially in integration of silicon. Guess who`s running inference and computer
vision in all these car autopilots.
I think we could have an economic collapse like the Soviet Union had , or like Argentina had in 2001 with
the " corralito "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corralito
.
Being the complex and global society that we are , it would be a disaster , it would produce hunger ,
misery and all types of local wars .
"Notwithstanding the limits of US power and its failure to topple regimes "
Have to agree with that
statement. Seriously, wherein is this vaunted "superpower" that our American politicians always yap about?
All I've seen in my lifetime is our military getting its butt kicked in Cuba, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq,
Afghanistan. What, besides insanity and hubris, makes them think they could win anything much less a war
against Iran, China or Russia?
Mostly accurate, but 'closed protectionist society' ! Hardly. It's still very difficult to buy any
manufactured goods made in this country. Of course this is part of the World economic circle countries use
the US Dollar for all trade. They need dollars. We can print them and receive real goods in return. This has
been going around and around for decades. It may come to an end in the not-too-distant future, but it has a
lot of inertia.
@jilles dykstra
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship,
or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce
the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY
COUNTRY."
The only threat to patriotic Americans is Zionism which has ruled the U.S. since it took control over the
money supply and the taxes via the privately owned Zionist FED and IRS and has given America nothing to wars
and economic destruction since the FED and IRS were put in place by the Zionist banking kabal in 1913 and
both are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
The threat is not from China or Russia or Iran etc., the threat is from within
the U.S. government which is controlled in every facet by the Zionists and dual citizens and is as foreign
to the American people as if it were from MARS!
Until the American people wake up to the fact that we are slaves on a Zionist plantation and are used as
pawns in the Zionist goal of a satanic Zionist NWO and abolish the FED and IRS and break the chains of
slavery that the FED and IRS have place upon us, until then nothing will change and the wars and economic
destruction by the Zionist kabal will continue!
Read The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed and The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman and The
Protocols of Zion, to see the Zionist satanic NWO plan.
Lost me at Kurd takeover of northern Iraq/Syria. The Kurds have defacto owned those areas since 1991, and
earlier. Saddam gassing the Kurds didn't accomplish anything except for making himself a target, no Arab
lived in those areas, the Kurds would kill them.
Nov 28, 2018 Belt & Road Billionaire in Massive Bribery Scandal
The bribery trial of Dr. Patrick Ho, a
pitchman for a Chinese energy company, lifts the lid on how the Chinese regime relies on graft to cut Belt
and Road deals in its global push for economic and geopolitical dominance.
I agree with Bob Sykes' commentary over on Instapundit:
Well, our "anti-ISIS" model in eastern Syria consists of defending ISIS against attacks by the Syrian
government, allowing them to pump and export Syrian oil for their profit, arming them and allowing them
to recruit new fighters. I suppose that means we should be arming the Taliban.
ISIS was created by the CIA to fight against Assad. But they slipped the leash and became the fighting
force for the dissident Sunni Arabs all along the Euphrates Valley. We only began to oppose them when
their rebellion reached the outskirts of Baghdad, and even then the bulk of the fighting was done by
Iraq's Shias and Iran. Now we are transferring them, or many of them, into secure (for ISIS) areas of
Iraq.
The three U.S. presidents, six secretaries of defense and five chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff are, in fact, war criminals, in exactly the same sense that Hitler, Goebels, Goering, Himmler et
al. were war criminals.
Those presidents, secretaries and generals launched wars of aggression
against Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Libya, Yemen not one of which threatened us
in any way. They engineered coups d'état against two friendly governments, Egypt and Turkey.
Now the
fake American, anti-American neocons want to attack Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and even Russia and
China.
Green needs to get his head out of his arse. We, the US, are the great rogue terrorist state. We are
the evil empire. We are the chief source of death and destruction in the world. How many hundreds of
thousands of civilians have we murdered in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia? How many cities have
we bombed flat like Raqqa and Mosel. Putin is a saint compared to any US President.
Iran has always been at the center of the Great Game, the key square on the board to block
Eurasia.You must either control Afghanistan AND Pakistan or Iran.
With Pakistan now in the SCO, Iran is a US imperative.
Israels antipathy is secondary and a useful foil, not the primary motive.
Read MacKinder, the imperial power has changed, not the strategy.
How is it possible for anyone to write an article titled:
A World of Multiple Detonators of Global Wars
without mentioning the Principal Detonator of Global Wars?? The Elephant!
The United States of America is no longer a Sovereign Nation.
The Local Political Power Elite (C. Wright Mills term), serve, are Minions, of the Zionist Jewish
Financial Terrorist Initiators and Controllers of the Global New World Order.
I would express this point in stronger terms, but I have not yet finished my coffee. The "Mulitiple
Detonators" Petras discusses are useless unless Triggered by the Global Controllers.
A Slight Digression: maybe:
Petras may have written his exposé this way, understanding that he might safely avoid mention of the
anti-Semitic (they hate Palestinians and other Arabs – actual Semites), Zionist Land Thieves, because a
clueless Anarchist would appear and complete his article for him. If that is the case, I want half of the $
Unz is paying Petras for this article.
In Conclusion: and by the number###:
1. The American Power Elite and servile Politicians in America's Knesset in Washington DC, do not go to the
Bathroom, without permission from their Zionist Oligarch masters.
2. The American Gauleters, Quislings, (better known as Traitors), serve the Rothschild and other Foreign
Oligarchs. Recently, only 1, of 100 'Senators' demanded that there be a discussion of the Bill to send
another $35 Billion gift to the Zionist occupiers of Palestine. Poor
Senator Rand Paul
. How many ribs
of his remain to be broken?
We the American people, have one Senator. And he has a great father.
3. Textbooks, Entertainment from Hollywood (key to all mind control), even Dictionaries, have been
ruthlessly censored.
4.
Our elected Zionist slaves in Congress, and all State and local governing bodies, live in fear
of saying (accidentally), some truth, and ending up working at Walmart or 7-11, (if they are lucky).
5. Our young are effectively brainwashed in their schools; they have already been removed from their
parents.
6. Our politicians are bribed with our own tax money (re-routed by the Zionists AIPAC, etc.).
7.
The Zionist Entity has huge Financial Resources
. They should be giving us 'Financial $$ Aid,
not the other way around. Since NAFTA, we have entire cities & tons of infrastructure to rebuild.
Excuse me
: Girlfriend thinks I should go to work.
Petras, I just fleshed out your, otherwise, promising article. You must understand – that
the ethnic
cleansing – genocide, against the Palestinian Nation, by the Terrorist Zionist Oligarchs, is the greatest
single crime being committed on our Planet.
All other crimes stem from this one.
We Americans must Restore Our Republic!
John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, M L King, Malcolm X. John Lennon; we are late, but we are coming.
The threat is not from China or Russia or Iran etc., the threat is from within the U.S. government
which is controlled in every facet by the Zionists and dual citizens and is as foreign to the American
people as if it were from MARS!
One comment:
Until the American people wake up to the fact that we are slaves on a Zionist plantation and are used
as pawns in the Zionist goal of a satanic Zionist NWO and abolish the FED and IRS and break the chains of
slavery that the FED and IRS have place upon us, until then nothing will change and the wars and economic
destruction by the Zionist kabal will continue!
In order to accomplish the above
, we American Citizen Patriots – must Restore Our Republic – that,
with our Last Constitutional President,
John F. Kennedy,
was destroyed by the Zionist Oligarchs and
their American underling traitors, in a hail of bullets, on November 22, 1963.
@Miro23
" same sense that Hitler, Goebels, Goering, Himmler et al. were war criminals. "
Why were they war criminals ?
Because of the Neurenberg farce ?; farce according to the chairman of the USA Supreme Court in 1945:
Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme
Court Justices', New York, 1983
Churchill and Lindemann in fact murdered some two million German civilians, women, children, old men. Not a
crime ?
Churchill refused the May 1941 Rudolf Hess peace proposal, not a crime ?
FDR deliberately provoked Pearl Harbour, some 2700 casualties, his pretcxt for war, not a crime ?
900.000 German hunger deaths between the 1918 cease fire and Versailles, the British food blockade, not a
crime ?
Will these wild accusations ever stop ?
I am all for the mother of all wars; however, it isn't going to come anytime soon, nay, not in our lifetime
but when it does appear on the next century's horizon, it would be cathartic to all concerned. Rejoice!
Europe is realigning. England leaving Euro. French population is in upheaval. Eventually France will leave
the Euro also.Most of German tourists now are going to Croatia. Italy is loosing tourists.
Italy living standard is declining. Germany is being pushed inevitably toward cooperation with Russia. Only
supporter of Ukraine will remain USA. Ukraine will be only burden.
Brussels power will evaporate. NATO will remain only on paper and will cease to be reality.
.
This will be great step toward peace in the world.
US is treating its allies as used toilet paper.
Obviously Kashogi was sentenced to death for high treason in absence. The sentence was carried out on Saudi
Arabia's territory. So in reality it is nobody's business.
All hula-buu did happen because he was a reporter working for warmongering Zionist New york times.
@Durruti
I agree with you partly, especially when it comes to the US regarding Zionism and the power of the Israel
lobby to influence US foreign policy and even domestic policy.
But when it comes to Global governance, you have a somewhat narrow minded approach.
Most of the ills today that happen in the world, is driven by the NEW WORLD ORDER OF NEOLIBERAL
GLOBALIZATION.
Unrelated phenomena, such as the destruction in the Middle East (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria), the
destruction of Yugoslavia, the coup in Ukraine and the Greek economic catastrophe are a consequence of this
NWO expansion. NWO expansion is the phasing out of national sovereignty (through economic and/or military
violence) and its replacement by a kind of transnational sovereignty administered by a Transnational Elite.
This is the network of the elites mainly based in the G7 countries, which control the world economic and
political/ military institutions (WTO, IMF, World Bank, EU, European Central Bank, NATO, UN and so on), as
well as the global media that set the agenda of the 'world community'.
The US is an important part of this since it provides the Military Means to integrate countries that do not
"comply" with the NWO dictates.
The Zionists carry a lot of blame and are part of that drive for this NWO, but there are others, most of
them in the US and Europe.
Here's a good link to an article if you have time, with good info about NWO & Trasnational corporations
that are mainly to blame about all the worlds and misery in our world today.
@WHAT
back door Intel
,
embedded ARM
Open source Red Hat-IBM
Hummm?.
I am not so sure, Mr. What. Experience may not mean much to abused IAI consumers. even if IAI catches up
to the exponential fundamentals achieved by Huawei consumers might prefer back-door-free equipment and
Operating Systems.
Russian times reported a few weeks ago that Russia has a quite different new processor and an OS that
does not use any IAI stuff and is developing a backup Internet for Russians which it expects to expand
regionally,
"What we have then, are criminal syndicates masquerading as philanthropic enterprises
Norman Dodd, director of research for the (U.S.) REECE COMMITTEE in its attempt to investigate tax exempt
foundations, stated:
"The Foundation world is a coordinated, well-directed system, the purpose of which is to ensure that the
wealth of our country shall be used to divorce it from the ideas which brought it into being."
The Rothschilds rule the U.S. through the foundations, the Council on foreign Relations, and the Federal
Reserve System, with no serious challenges to their power. Expensive 'political campaigns' are routinely
conducted, with carefully screened candidates who are pledged to the program of the WORLD ORDER. Should they
deviate from the program, they would have an 'accident', be framed on a sex charge, or indicted on some
financial irregularity.
Senator Moynihan stated in his book, "Loyalties", "A British friend, wise in the ways of the world, put
it thus: "They are now on page 16 of the Plan." Moynihan prudently did not ask what page 17 would bring.
"Tavistock's pioneer work in behavioural science along Freudian lines of 'controlling' humans established
it as the world center of FOUNDATION ideology.
[MORE]
Its network extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Standford Research
Institute, Esalen, MIT, Hudson Institute, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, Centre of Strategic and International
Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept personnel are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand
and Mitre corporations.
(at the time of writing, 1992) Today the Tavistock Institute operates a $6 billion a year network
of foundations in the U.S., all of it funded by U.S. taxpayers' money. Ten major institutions are
under its direct control, with 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks which
originate many types of programs to increase the control of the WORLD ORDER over the American people.
The personnel of the FOUNDATIONS are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these
Tavistock controlled institutions.
A network of secret groups – the MONT PELERIN SOCIETY, TRILATERAL COMMISSION, DITCHLEY FOUNDATION,
and CLUB OF ROME is the conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network.
Tavistock Institute developed the mass brain-washing techniques which were first used
experimentally on AMERICAN prisoners of war in KOREA.
Its experiments in crowd control methods have been widely used on the American public, a
surreptitious but nevertheless outrageous assault on human freedom by modifying individual behaviour
through topical psychology.
A German refugee, Kurt Lewin, became director of Tavistock in 1932. He came to the U.S. in 1933 as
a 'refugee', the first of many infiltrators, and set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which
originated the propaganda campaign to turn the American public against Germany and involve the U.S. in
WWII.
In 1938, Roosevelt executed a secret agreement with Churchill which in effect ceded U.S.
sovereignty to England, because it agreed to let Special Operations Executive control U.S. policies.
To implement this agreement, Roosevelt sent General Donovan to London for indoctrination before
setting up the OSS (now the CIA) under the aegis of SOE-SIS. The entire OSS program, as well as the
CIA has always worked on guidelines set up by the Tavistock Institute.
Tavistock Institute originated the mass civilian bombing raids [against the German people] carried
out by [the ALL LIES] Roosevelt and Churchill as a clinical experiment in mass terror, keeping records
of the results as they watched the "guinea pigs" reacting under "controlled laboratory conditions".
All Tavistock and American foundation techniques have a single goal – to break down the
psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the WORLD
ORDER.
Any technique which helps to break down the family unit, and family inculcated principles of
religion, honor, patriotism and sexual behaviour, is used by the Tavistock scientists as weapons of
crowd control.
The methods of Freudian psychotherapy induce permanent mental illness in those who undergo this
treatment by destabilizing their character. The victim is then advised to 'establish new rituals of
personal interactions', that is, to indulge in brief sexual encounters which actually set the
participants adrift with no stable personal relationships in their lives – destroying their ability to
establish or maintain a family.
Tavistock Institute has developed such power in the U.S. that no one achieves prominence in any
field unless he has been trained in behavioural science at Tavistock or one of its subsidiaries.
Tavistock maintains 2 schools at Frankfort, birthplace of the Rothschilds, the FRANKFURT SCHOOL, and
the Sigmund Freud Institute.
The 'experiment' in compulsory racial integration in the U.S. was organized by Ronald Lippert of
the OSS (forerunner of CIA) and the American Jewish Congress, and director of child training at the
Commission on Community Relations.
The program was designed to break down the individual's sense of personal knowledge in his
identity, his racial heritage. Through the Stanford Research Institute, Tavistock controls the
National Education Association.
The Institute of Social Research at the Natl Training Lab brain washes the leading executives of
business and government.
Another prominent Tavistock operation is the WHARTON SCHOOL OF FINANCE.
A single common denominator identifies the common Tavistock strategy – the use of drugs such as the
infamous MK Ultra program of the CIA, directed by Dr Sidney Gottlieb, in which unsuspecting CIA
officials were given LSD and their reactions studied like guinea pigs, resulting in several deaths –
no one was ever indicted.
(Source of info: author Eustace Mullins "The World Order: Our Secret Rulers" 2nd ed. 1992. He
dedicated his book "to American patriots and their passion for liberty". note: No copyright
restrictions)
@Agent76
Excellent video. More people need to see this to understand how corrupt the China Totalitarian state works
behind the scenes along with the US as part of the Globalization NWO movement to enrich the few and
impoverish the rest of the world population.
"... The US rarely arrests senior businesspeople, US or foreign, for alleged crimes committed by their companies. Corporate managers are usually arrested for their alleged personal crimes (such as embezzlement, bribery or violence) rather than their company's alleged malfeasance. ..."
"... Meng is charged with violating US sanctions on Iran. Yet consider her arrest in the context of the large number of companies, US and non-US, that have violated US sanctions against Iran and other countries. ..."
"... The Trump administration is preparing actions this week to call out Beijing for what it says are China's continued efforts to steal American trade secrets and advanced technologies and to compromise sensitive government and corporate computers, according to U.S. officials. ..."
"... Multiple government agencies are expected to condemn China, citing a documented campaign of economic espionage and the alleged violation of a landmark 2015 pact to refrain from hacking for commercial gain ..."
"... Taken together, the announcements represent a major broadside against China over its mounting aggression against the West and its attempts to displace the United States as the world's leader in technology, officials said. ..."
"... The actions come amid mounting intelligence showing a sustained Chinese hacking effort devoted to acquiring sophisticated American technologies of all stripes. A number of agencies -- including the Justice, State, Treasury and Homeland Security departments -- have pushed for a newly aggressive U.S. response. A National Security Council committee coordinated the actions ..."
"... After three centuries of anglo-american imperialism the economic center of the world is moving back to the east . ..."
"... The U.S. is way too late to prevent this move. Its best and most profitable chance is not to challenge, but to accommodate it. That again would require to respect international laws and treaty obligations. The U.S. is not willing to do either. ..."
"... Nothing except a large scale war that results in the destruction of the industrial centers of east Asia, while keeping the U.S. and Europe save, could reverse the trend. Nuclear weapons on all sides and the principal of mutual assured destruction have made such a war unthinkable. What we are likely to see instead will be proxy conflicts in various other countries. ..."
"... The current U.S. strategy is to restrict China's access to foreign markets, advanced technologies, global banking and higher education. While that may for a moment slow down China's rise it will in the long run strengthen China even more. Instead of integrating into the world economy it will develop its own capacities and international systems. ..."
"... dh posted a link on the last thread to China banning import and sale of all iPhones in China (strange, I thought they were made in China? Must be exported and re-imported?). ..."
"... This is interesting. China hits a top US company manufacturing in China by granting an injunction in a case of one US company against another US company, in which one accuses the other of intellectual property theft. China was not expected to find in Qualcomm's favour, according to the article (perhaps in part because Apple manufactures in China therefore is a client of China, so it was expected China might favour Apple). If this decision was influenced by the arrest, the US can hardly point the finger at China! ..."
"... In my opinion, China should make these criminal actions of the US extremely painful indeed, and as quickly as possible ..."
"... With Trump's utterance, he also exposed how he/his government has abused Canada's extradition law for political purposes. Officially in this extradition procedure, the US now has 60 days to submit a complete extradition request which requires far more detail. Meng's court date is set for February. In any case, Canada's rubberstamping of extradition requests (90% are by the US) was already successfully challenged once in the Diab case with France, was criticized by Canada's Superior Court (extraditions are processed at the provincial judicial level), so Trudeau's hiding behind 'judicial process' is two-faced cowardliness. ..."
"... What's even more damning for the collective absolute stupidity of capitalist bigwigs is that I could see this coming more than 20 years ago, yet these idiots blindly charged as if short-term profits were all they wanted and would be enough to ensure their eternal dominance. ..."
"... What an empire does not control they destroy. ..."
"... The "own goal" was not outsourcing manufacturing to China but in not isolating China by bringing Russia into the Western fold. Instead, they kicked Russia while it was down via capitalist "Shock Doctrine" - hoping for total capitulation. Kissinger admits(*) this when, in his typical roundabout way, he says that no one anticipated Russia's ability to absorb pain. ..."
"... Does that moron Kissinger know nothing about WW2? That Kissinger projects an inability to absorb pain onto the Russians suggests that Kissinger knows the Americans have no ability to absorb pain themselves ..."
"... Maybe now Shell executives will be arrested for crimes against humanity in Nigeria. ..."
"... After all, as you stated, these maneuvers wrt Meng are emanating from John (I am the Eggman) Bolton's office and clearly evidence his trademarked hard-boiled belligerence which of course is heartily endorsed by Trump (as an "Art of the Deal" negotiating ploy by the master debater himself) who selected The Walrus in the first place. Or second place if you count Bolton's earlier appointment by that other intellectual giant of the GOP, GW Bush. ..."
"... "Kissinger admits(*) this when, in his typical roundabout way, he says that no one anticipated Russia's ability to absorb pain." Then Kissinger is a bigger fool than I thought. He's old enough to know about WWII, and previous wars as well. I mean, he did study the Napoleonic wars... ..."
"... She's not being accused of trading with Iran. She's being accused of bank fraud (providing false information to obtain a loan). ..."
"... The charges against Meng were brought by Richard P. Donoghue, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Donoghue was appointed as Interim United States Attorney for the Eastern District by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on January 3, 2018, and as Attorney on May 3, 2018. ..."
"... The bottom line is that the bar for extradition from Canada is extremely low, which should worry Ms Meng. ..."
"... The historical West is still violently opposed to the objective rise of a fairer and more democratic polycentric world order. Clinging to the principles of unipolarity, Washington and some other Western capitals appear unable to constructively interact with the new global centres of economic and political influence. A wide range of restrictions are applied to the dissenters, ranging from military force and unilateral economic sanctions to demonisation and mud-slinging in the spirit of the notorious "highly likely." There are many examples of this dirty game...This has seriously debased international law. Moreover, attempts have been made to replace the notion of law with a "rules-based order" the parameters of which will be determined by a select few. ..."
"... We are especially concerned about the activities of the US administration aimed at destroying the key international agreements. These include withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action known as the Iran nuclear deal, the declared intention to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), an open line for revising the settlement principles in the Middle East, as well as sabotaging the Minsk Agreements on overcoming the internal Ukrainian crisis. The trade wars that have been launched contrary to the WTO principles are rocking the global economic architecture, free trade and competition standards. The US establishment, blindly believing in the idea of their exceptionalism, continues to appoint rivals and adversaries, primarily among the countries that pursue an independent foreign policy. Everyone can see that Washington is a loose cannon, liable to act incongruously, including regarding Russia where any steps taken by US President Donald Trump to develop stable and normal channels of communication with Moscow on the biggest current problems are promptly blocked by those who want to continue or even strengthen the destructive approach to relations with Russia, which developed during the previous US administration. ..."
"... Overall, it looks as if the Americans and some of our other Western colleagues have forgotten the basics of diplomacy and the art of dialogue and consensus over the past 25 years. One result of this is the dangerous militarisation of the foreign policy thinking. As RIAC Director General Andrey Kortunov recently pointed out at a Valdai Discussion Club meeting, the Clausewitz formula can be changed to a mirror image, "Politics is a continuation of war by other means. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the U.S. ruling class cares more about the psychic gratification it derives from dominating the world. ..."
"... The prosecutor's case against Meng is fundamentally weak. For instance, there is no identification of a "co-conspirator", necessary to a charge of conspiracy. It does not seem to have been developed much beyond the information developed in the 2013 Reuters investigation. At least half of that relies on unnamed "former employees" and unnamed persons who claimed to have dealt with Skycom in Iran. ..."
The United States issued an arrest warrant against the chief financial officer and heir apparent of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou. At issue
is a six years old
alleged violation of sanctions against Iran. Mrs. Meng was arrested in Canada. She has been set free under a
stringent $10 million bail agreement . An extradition trial will follow in February or March.
It is unprecedented
that an officer of a large company is personally indicted for the alleged sanction violations by a subsidiary company:
The US rarely arrests senior businesspeople, US or foreign, for alleged crimes committed by their companies. Corporate managers
are usually arrested for their alleged personal crimes (such as embezzlement, bribery or violence) rather than their company's
alleged malfeasance.
... Meng is charged with violating US sanctions on Iran. Yet consider her arrest in the context of the large number of companies,
US and non-US, that have violated US sanctions against Iran and other countries. In 2011, for example, JPMorgan Chase paid
US$88.3 million in fines for violating US sanctions against Cuba, Iran and Sudan. Yet chief executive officer Jamie Dimon wasn't
grabbed off a plane and whisked into custody.
The U.S. indicted dozens of banks for violating its sanction regime. They had to pay
huge fines (pdf) but none of their officers were ever touched.
U.S. President Donald Trump told Reuters on Tuesday he would intervene in the U.S. Justice Department's case against Meng if it
would serve national security interests or help close a trade deal with China.
The arrest of Meng is but one part of a larger
political campaign against China directed out of the office of National Security Advisor John Bolton:
The Trump administration is preparing actions this week to call out Beijing for what it says are China's continued efforts
to steal American trade secrets and advanced technologies and to compromise sensitive government and corporate computers, according
to U.S. officials.
Multiple government agencies are expected to condemn China, citing a documented campaign of economic espionage and the
alleged violation of a landmark 2015 pact to refrain from hacking for commercial gain.
In typical propaganda style the U.S. media depict the Chinese as enemies:
Taken together, the announcements represent a major broadside against China over its mounting aggression against the West
and its attempts to displace the United States as the world's leader in technology, officials said.
...
The actions come amid mounting intelligence showing a sustained Chinese hacking effort devoted to acquiring sophisticated
American technologies of all stripes. A number of agencies -- including the Justice, State, Treasury and Homeland Security departments
-- have pushed for a newly aggressive U.S. response. A National Security Council committee coordinated the actions.
One wonders what those "mounting aggressions" are supposed to be. Is the U.S. not constantly spying and hacking for economic or
political gain?
Other reports today of alleged
Chinese hacking are
obviously part of the concerted anti-China campaign. As usual no evidence is presented for the vague allegations:
U.S. government investigators increasingly believe that Chinese state hackers were most likely responsible for the massive intrusion
reported last month into Marriott's Starwood chain hotel reservation system, a breach that exposed the private information and
travel details of as many as 500 million people, according to two people briefed on the government investigation.
These people cautioned that the investigation has not been completed, so definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. But the sweep
and tactics of the hack, which took place over four years before being discovered, prompted immediate speculation that it was
carried out by a national government.
The new anti-China campaign follows a
similar push of anti-Russian propaganda three month ago.
China has taken first countermeasures against Canada's hostage taking on behalf of the United States. It
detained Michael
Kovrig, a former Canadian diplomat who now
works for the International Crisis
Group. Beijing suggest that the ICG is
operating illegally in China :
"The relevant organization has violated Chinese laws because the relevant organization is not registered in China," Foreign Ministry
spokesman Lu Kang said at a press briefing Wednesday.
China sharply tightened its rules on NGOs operating in the country last year, ..
This will not be the sole Chinese measure against Canada for its role in enforcing extraterritorial U.S. sanctions.
The string of U.S. accusations and measures against China are partly to protect the market share of U.S. companies against better
and cheaper Chinese products and partly geopolitical. Neither has anything to do with protecting the international rule of law.
After three centuries of anglo-american imperialism the economic center of the world
is moving back
to the east .
The U.S. is way too late to prevent this move. Its best and most profitable chance is not to challenge, but to accommodate
it. That again would require to respect international laws and treaty obligations. The U.S. is not willing to do either.
Nothing except a large scale war that results in the destruction of the industrial centers of east Asia, while keeping the
U.S. and Europe save, could reverse the trend. Nuclear weapons on all sides and the principal of mutual assured destruction have
made such a war unthinkable. What we are likely to see instead will be proxy conflicts in various other countries.
The current U.S. strategy is to restrict China's access to foreign markets, advanced technologies, global banking and higher
education. While that may for a moment slow down China's rise it will in the long run strengthen China even more. Instead of integrating
into the world economy it will develop its own capacities and international systems.
The U.S. can temporarily hinder the telecommunication equipment provider Huawei by denying it access to U.S. designed chips. It
will probably do so. But that will only incentivize Huawei to start its own chip production. With a few years delay it will be back
and out-compete U.S. companies with even better and cheaper products.
It is typical for the current U.S. to seek short term advantage while disregarding the long term negative effects of its doing.
It is a major reason for China's rise and its future supremacy.
Posted by b on December 12, 2018 at 07:07 AM |
Permalink
Comments
next page " The reason she is violating trade sanctions against Iran is because Trump suspended the Iran Nuclear treaty.
How short-sighted is that?
Well, all these sanctions are pushing target countries to be self sufficient. That's wonderful. Us are pushing countries for a
better production and decrease itself. Smart.
the King Liar has spoken...the boss of the mafia group U$A... The Chinese will interpret this as a kidnapping for blackmail and
act accordingly...this can only get much worse...
dh posted a link on the last thread to China banning import and sale of all iPhones in China (strange, I thought they were
made in China? Must be exported and re-imported?). This concerns a patent dispute between US company Qualcomm and Apple,
over which Qualcomm sued Apple in Chinese courts. The existence of the action in the courts must predate the Meng arrest, but
the court decision to support Qualcomm could be influenced by the arrest.
This is interesting. China hits a top US company manufacturing in China by granting an injunction in a case of one US company
against another US company, in which one accuses the other of intellectual property theft. China was not expected to find in Qualcomm's
favour, according to the article (perhaps in part because Apple manufactures in China therefore is a client of China, so it was
expected China might favour Apple). If this decision was influenced by the arrest, the US can hardly point the finger at China!
It gets better: The Apple executive states in the article that they have stocks of all models in China and sales will not stop.
How can this be, if sales are banned? Surely China can then arrest several Apple executives in China for breaking the injunction?
Would depend of course on the terms of the injunction, of which the article gave no details.
In my opinion, China should make these criminal actions of the US extremely painful indeed, and as quickly as possible.
One person arrested in China is not enough - it should be 10 Americans arrested for 1 Chinese, plus 5 Canadians. China should
make sure the US and Canada understand that the ratio will stay constant if the US/Canada respond to the arrests in China. China
should also take extremely painful action against US telecomms companies in China to compensate for the campaign against Huawei
- it could include denying access to comms links, forcing US telcom communications to go through very expensive route, ceasing
negotiations for investment consortia in favour of non-US companies, etc. The difficulty to navigate, of course, is the risk of
inciting escalating actions against Huawei; but the Chinese will find excellent startegies I am sure.
It may be the case that the Huawei equipment is very, very secure, has much better performance. Soon, China will be the tech leader,
hence the panic. I have a snippet below, but peruse the article in full on the 5G landscape.
"Huawei has been pouring money into research on 5G wireless networks and patenting key technologies. The company has hired
many experts from abroad as well to decide the technical standards for the next generation of wireless communication technology.
As of early 2017, 10% of 1450 patents essential for 5G networks were in Chinese hands in which majority belongs to Huawei and
ZTE.
Huawei spent around $12 Billion on R&D in 2017, which was threefold of Ericsson's spending of $4.1 Billion. This year, according
to estimates, it will spend $800 million in 5G research and development alone.
The company wants to involve AI in 5G which according to them is a much more integral element of Huawei's 5G strategy. The
company also plans to launch a full range of Huawei commercial equipment including wireless access networks, core networks, and
devices.
Huawei has also revealed its hopes to launch smartphones ready for supporting 5G networks by 2019 and starting selling in the
mid-2019. The company is also said to be working on developing a brand-new chipset for 5G services.
Huawei and Vodafone made the 5G call using non-standalone 3GPP 5G-NR standard and sub 6 GHz spectrum. The two companies built
a 5G NR end-to-end test network for the trial and used 3.7GHz spectrum. They also used Huawei Radio Access Network and core network
equipment to support the test with microservice-centric architecture, control plane/user plane separation, and unified access
and network slicing technology.
Huawei also started manufacturing products that provide 5G services. In Mobile World Congress, Huawei launched its 5G customer-premises
equipment (CPE), the world's first commercial terminal device supporting 3GPP standard for 5G. Huawei used its self-developed
chipset Balong 5G01 – world's first commercial chipset supporting the 3GPP standard for 5G, with downlink speed up to 2.3 Gbps."
With Trump's utterance, he also exposed how he/his government has abused Canada's extradition law for political purposes.
Officially in this extradition procedure, the US now has 60 days to submit a complete extradition request which requires far more
detail. Meng's court date is set for February. In any case, Canada's rubberstamping of extradition requests (90% are by the US)
was already successfully challenged once in the Diab case with France, was criticized by Canada's Superior Court (extraditions
are processed at the provincial judicial level), so Trudeau's hiding behind 'judicial process' is two-faced cowardliness.
Canada needs to amend its extradition law, become much more stringent, and arm this law against the bullying and abusive southern
neighbor who prefers to lord its own laws over others than abide by any kind of international law.
We've been at war with Eurasia long enough. Time for Eastasia! The main question is whether Putin will remain Emmanuel Goldstein
or if someone Chinese will get the honor.
China is set to introduce maximum residue limits (MRLs) of 200 parts per billion (ppb) or lower for glyphosate in all imported
final food products and raw materials including grains, soybeans and other legumes before the end of 2019, according to Sustainable
Pulse sources.....
It is expected that China will now import more grains from Russia, where glyphosate is not widely used as a desiccant. This
also enables China to use glyphosate as a political tool in the current U.S. / China trade war, as food and raw material imports
from the U.S., which often contain high levels of the weedkiller, will be put under major pressure.
That'll hit Monsanto's Roundup pretty hard. Of course China doesn't really have any problem with glyphosate - it's long been
a major producer and exporter itself. So this is obviously a trade war action.
"It is typical for the current U.S. to seek short term advantage while disregarding the long term negative effects of its doing.
It is a major reason for China's rise and its future supremacy."
Well, the economic and industrial rise of China is the ultimate
proof of this. Instead of making sure China would have a limited and purely internal development and would never become such a
fearsome rival, Western (specially US) capitalist fools decided to outsource their production there, creating the monster they
feared and fear even more nowadays.
I've never seen such a ridiculous and brilliant own goal in any World Cup. What's even more damning for the collective
absolute stupidity of capitalist bigwigs is that I could see this coming more than 20 years ago, yet these idiots blindly charged
as if short-term profits were all they wanted and would be enough to ensure their eternal dominance.
I think it's pretty clear to China, Russia, India, and many others, that trading in dollars is a losing strategy. Thus the dollar
is very fast losing its position as the world reserve currency. The EU is not using dollars for Iran's oil. India is not using
dollars for its purchase of Russia's S-400.
It's not only US anti-China strategy; but the US insistence to be the hegemon; the
rest of the planet will not have it, period. The US is done dictating what the rest of the planet will do/follow... Bye, bye,
American pie............
BM @4 I'm not sure where Qualcomm stands in relation to China. It could be a bargaining chip...excuse the pun. The Apple ban applies
to the older iPhone 8 & 7 not the new Xs & Xr......but that may change. Apple is already having trouble selling phones in China
and the Huawei dispute won't help.
What is the legal basis for Meng's arrest? What Canadian law is she alleged to have violated? Or is American wish fulfillment
now part of Canadian jurisprudence?
As a non-American I've got half a mind to find a way to purchase some Iranian products and then send the US State Department an
e-mail telling them to suck it.
Fernando Martinez , Dec 12, 2018 10:11:44 AM |
link
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Dec 12, 2018 9:14:45 AM | 10
The "own goal" was not outsourcing manufacturing to China but in not isolating China by bringing Russia into the Western
fold. Instead, they kicked Russia while it was down via capitalist "Shock Doctrine" - hoping for total capitulation. Kissinger
admits(*) this when, in his typical roundabout way, he says that no one anticipated Russia's ability to absorb pain.
* In his lunch interview with the Financial Times this past summer.
"What is the legal basis for Meng's arrest? What Canadian law is she alleged to have violated? Or is American wish fulfillment
now part of Canadian jurisprudence?"
As I understand it, the USA and Canada have an extradition agreement, and corporate fraud is also a crime in Canada.
This idiocy seems certain to increase curiosity in Huawei products by telcos worldwide. Business managers use technical experts
to evaluate available technologies when contemplating upgrades to their systems. They're certainly not swayed by MSM spin doctors.
This issue could soon be overtaken by a brand new reality. China is planning to launch a worldwide free wifi internet service
based on more than 100 satellites, which could be interpreted as a Commie scheme to undermine the profitability of telcos.
Not clear exactly which officials said, "Taken together, the announcements represent a major broadside against China over its
mounting aggression against the West... The actions come amid mounting intelligence showing a sustained Chinese hacking effort..."
but do know it's very unusual to repeat a verb in consecutive sentences. Mantra alert! Mounting... mounting... mounting... hear
the drums of war.
he says that no one anticipated Russia's ability to absorb pain
Does that moron Kissinger know nothing about WW2? That Kissinger projects an inability to absorb pain onto the Russians
suggests that Kissinger knows the Americans have no ability to absorb pain themselves
China is planning to launch a worldwide free wifi internet service based on more than 100 satellites, which could be interpreted
as a Commie scheme to undermine the profitability of telcos
cool. digital nomadism
and growing your own food will be the ticket.
The story I heard was that it was a screw up. Mira Ricardel was fired because she pissed off Melania about airplane seats. She
was fired before inter-agency coordination for the arrest but after the warrant for the arrest was issued - the warrant was issued
back in August. That and the fact that Trudeau hates Trump explains this idiocy. Trudeau was left to weigh up the US request against
the poor timing of the US request from the US point of view. No one from the WH got back to the Canadians to ask them to wait.
So Justin decided to go ahead to screw Trump. Fun, no?
ralphieboy | Dec 12, 2018 10:52:25 AM | 18: corporate fraud is also a crime in Canada.
More specifically, she's accused of inducing banks to provide financing that was illegal due to US sanctions. It appears that
as Huawei CFO, she certified that her company doesn't trade with Iran despite the fact that Huawei has an Iran-based subsidiary
(SkyCom Tech).
Is this an example of "US short term strategical thinking" or "Trump's-as-per-usual (non) thinking?"
After all, as you stated, these maneuvers wrt Meng are emanating from John (I am the Eggman) Bolton's office and clearly
evidence his trademarked hard-boiled belligerence which of course is heartily endorsed by Trump (as an "Art of the Deal" negotiating
ploy by the master debater himself) who selected The Walrus in the first place. Or second place if you count Bolton's earlier
appointment by that other intellectual giant of the GOP, GW Bush.
Please, the US voted less for Trump to be our trade representative then even the British voted for their own ridiculous "alt-right"
trade adventure wildride, AKA "Brexit."
And we now have another pretty solid election behind us illustrating even further that Trump's worldview doesn't represent
most of the US. He represents only a dwindling "base" of mostly old white male reactionary racist very scared supporters whose
presence within the GOP has terrified the GOP toadies into supporting most everything Trump wants because he delivers judges and
tax cuts to the rich.
But again,
the majourity
of the toadies don't support Trump on China. He has them by their shriveled up balls is all.
That Kissinger projects an inability to absorb pain onto the Russians ...
This is a misreading. Kissinger is not projecting but explaining. Look at the Financial Times interview for more clarity. Also,
they didn't fail to consider WWII. They miscalculated. And then they doubled down (as the neocons always do).
Jackrabbit 17 "Kissinger admits(*) this when, in his typical roundabout way, he says that no one anticipated Russia's ability to absorb
pain." Then Kissinger is a bigger fool than I thought. He's old enough to know about WWII, and previous wars as well. I mean,
he did study the Napoleonic wars...
You have to remember, this was economic warfare, not military. And the USA/West were pretending to be helpful. IIRC, Yeltsin
was happy for this "help" too.
"The government and us are cut from the same cloth." Sam Giancana, former Mob boss from Chicago. Deep State, you say? No way,
Jose. More like the Gambino (Democrat's) and the Genovese (Republicans). You don't need "colors" to identify yourself as a gang
member. You can wear double breasted suits and have the same bad intentions as any member of the Crips, Bloods, Mafia or Mexican
Cartels. The US government is one great big Tammany Hall. Nothing has changed since the days of Boss Tweed. Instead of being centered
in New York, it's now in our nation's capital. Mah Rohn! Forget about it!
Fidelios Automata , Dec 12, 2018 12:22:34 PM |
link
This is beyond outrageous. US law is not the law of the world. The Chinese may trade with whomever they choose.
According to the above article, American firms set up foreign subsidiaries to do business with sanctioned countries. So if
SkyCom is an Iranian subsidiary, what can be Sabrina Meng Wanzhou's crime? Or even if SkyCom is a Hong Kong-based subsidiary?
The city-state effectively maintains its own laws and financial architecture, as part of one country, two systems.
It's a bit OT but this thing of Russia absorbing pain - to be fair, I always thought that producing Putin at the last moment was
really stretching survival to a fine thread. The neocons almost won there. The country was almost done for. It took a man whose
father nursed life back into his wife when medics figured she was done for...
Russia's ultimate salvation was way too close to the edge of the cliff for my taste.
Ya'll know how the Chinese finger trap works, yes? Instead of his fingers, Trump's got his whole head inside, and he's stuck real
good. There're only two ways out: Trump admits China can't be beaten so its better to join them or he cuts off his head to free
his body--both are essentially suicide, although the former is merely political instead of actual.
There is zero chance she gets deported to the US because doing so would mean a Canadian court blessing the idea that the US is
the sole legal authority of every thing on planet earth. There isn't a a judge in Canada that is goin g to sign off on the idea
that US law trumps Canadian law and international law in Canada.
There is a strange ambiguous nature to the post. It seems there is a reluctance to address the issues. It has long been
claimed that China has a tendency to copy or steal intellectual property. Most "I/P" is horse shit anyway - e.g. Apple and the
rounded corners. Apparently there has been some actual espionage, but that is probably pretty common its just that China has used
it to good advantage (if we accept that they have used it - as I do).
It is quite odd to to make such a fuss in the absence
of smoking gun - maybe Mueller is in need of something to investigate?
I am baffeled by the whole Iran thing and the nations in terror of U.S. sanctions. What is this "international law" of which
we speak? The implication is that because Mr Trump (Bolton) does not approve of a treaty that now Iran and RoW has violated a
law and are subject to sanction by the U.S.? I find it hard to comprehend.
This first paragraph from a today's Global Times op-ed nicely summarizes the 21st Century:
For a long time in the future, the international situation will evolve around the rise of China, the decline of the US and
the uncertain development level of Russia.
No arrests among the Israelis. None. The loyalty to Israel by Israel-firsters (and their corrupting influence on the US Congress)
overpowers any loyalty to the US.
But to arrest a woman because of the illegal economic sanctions against Iran (on Israelis' prodding) is fine for US "deciders"
Thanks for assembling those links. That is a good compilation. I was vaguely aware of those stories but had forgotten most
of the details. It is so true. And you didn't even get to the Jonathan Pollard betrayal!
thanks b! and thanks to the many informative comments.. i encourage others to read the jeffery sachs article in b's article near
the top under the word 'unprecedented"...
@23 john.. thanks.. i will take a look..
@24 harry.. thanks.. that is an interesting conjecture..
@38 jared.. larvov made some comments on the use of the term 'rule of law' which is different from 'international law'.. i
can't find the article from yesterday that i read on this, but essentially he is saying the usa wants to toss international law
and replace it with 'rule of law', or 'law based rules' and do away with international law, as international law is not working
in the usa's favour at this point..'rule of law' or 'law based rules' is something that a country can make up as it goes along..
the usa wants to drop international law essentially.. if i find larvov's comments, i will post them...
Here's the
legal mumbo-jumbo from B.C. which includes details on the charges against Meng. The poor banks were "victim banking institutions."
The investigation by U.S. authorities has revealed a conspiracy between and among Meng and other Huawei representatives to
misrepresent to numerous financial institutions. . . .The motivation for these misrepresentations stemmed from Huawei's need
to move money out of countries that are subject to U.S. or E.U. sanctions--such as Iran, Syria, or Sudan--through the international
banking system. At various times, both the U.S. and E.U. legal regimes have imposed sanctions that prohibit the provision of
U.S. or E.U. services to Iran, such as banking services....
Because Meng and other Huawei representatives misrepresented
to Financial Institution 1 and the other financial institutions about Huawei's relationship with Skycom, these victim banking
institutions were induced into carrying out transactions that they otherwise would not have completed. As a result, they violated
the banks' internal policies, potentially violated U.S. sanctions laws, and exposed the banks to the risk of fines and forfeiture.
.
Very accurate. Yes of course the smart move would have been to welcome China into a multi-polar world, but it is too late now,
and I doubt the US could ever have managed that. Trade war and probable actual war has been inevitable for some time. An alien
visiting earth would want to view every event through the prism of imminent US-China war.
Right now we see a US circling of
the wagons, with threats against outsiders. In particular Iran, NK and Russia are villified because the message is "look what
happens if you don't come in on our side". We think the casual slanders about these countries are just vulgar Americans, but they
are really calculated warnings to other countries.
The charges against Meng were brought by Richard P. Donoghue, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New
York. Donoghue was appointed as Interim United States Attorney for the Eastern District by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on January
3, 2018, and as Attorney on May 3, 2018.
Donoghue is one of five U.S. attorneys serving in a "working group" under the Justice Department's recently announced China
Initiative. Launched by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the China Initiative is a broad-based strategy designed to counter
Chinese economic espionage and a range of other national security threats. Donoghue has been leading an investigation of Huawei
since 2016 for possible violations of U.S. sanctions against Iran.
The Eastern District serves over eight million residents through its Criminal Division, with approximately 115 Assistant U.S.
Attorneys, and its Civil Division, with approximately 60 U.S.Attorneys. But what the heck, forget New Yorkers, Donoghue has bigger
fish to fry.
If one has an interest on seeing how the war-mongers visualize the US-China standoff, check out this
blog where I
regularly get roasted. (roasted bacon?)
Hmmm... following the downfall of the drunkard Yeltsin (the first miscalculation of the Empire, hubris strikes again), they
put their money on Medvedev, the 'Atanticist'. Bad move! Putin was the response. Nationalism bad? I don't think so, it's what
enabled Stalin to win WW2 and it enabled Putin to pull the country, but as said, only just! Phew.
70 years of isolating the Soviet Union meant that they really didn't have a handle on the Western propaganda machine. In the
80s the North Koreans made the same mistake.
A slight aside: I and a bunch of other journos, activists were invited to a wonderful slap up meal held at the N.Korean UN
delegation HQ in Manhattan. Food great but the video they showed horrendous! Imagine 1 1/2hrs of the Great Leader and endless
displays in stadiums waving flags in unison. They then asked us what we thought of it (that was the purpose of 12 course meal).
When they were told it would go down like a lead balloon, they just didn't get it. They lived in a different world, ditto the
Soviets.
BTW, the video was made for US consumption.
On the other hand, Verso brought out a book (I have it somewhere) on the aesthetics of East European cityscapes during the
Soviet period and lamented on the loss of individuality, following the fall of socialism and the rise of McDonaldism. How ironic.
And we though (were taught) that E. European design and architecture was drab!
MBA ideology, which is narrowly focused on the next quarter results, bottom line, and bonuses for executives has devastated /
destroyed industrial base of the 5 eyes!
I saw the discussion thread at that BreakingDefense.com post you linked to, and I must say you should seek help for that masochistic
tendency that drives you to post there and risk being savaged by armchair generals whose idea of military strategy comes from
playing wall-2-wall computer games.
I should think a better example from Ancient Greek history that we should heed, rather than Thucydides' Trap (discussions of
which use very selective examples to "prove" its premise) is Athens' military expedition to Syracuse to conquer the city and all
of Sicily in 415 BCE. How did that turn out for Athens?
September 3, 2018: Huawei unveils Kirin 980 CPU, the world's first commercial 7nm system-on-chip (SoC) and the first to
use Cortex-A76 cores, dual neural processing units, Mali G76 GPU, a 1.4 Gbps LTE modem and supports faster RAM. With 20 percent
faster performance and 40 percent less power consumption compared to 10nm systems, it has twice the performance of Qualcomm's
Snapdragon 845 and Apple's A11 while delivering noticeable battery life improvement. Its Huawei-patented modem has the world's
fastest Wi-Fi and its GPS receiver taps L5 frequency to deliver 10cm. positioning.
September 5, 2018. China's front-end fab capacity will account for 16 percent of the world's semiconductor capacity this
year, increasing to 20 percent by 2020.
September 15, 2018. China controls one third of 5G patents and has twice as many installations operating as the rest of
the world combined.
I should add that the US put China under total embargoes on food, ag equipment, finance, technology for 25 years during Maos'
tenure. Yet he grew the economy by 7.25% annually, doubled the population, its life expectancy and literacy during that time.
[email protected] there is any question whether Canadian courts will side with American laws you only need to google Qmar
Khadr to answer the question.
@46 don bacon.. thanks for the link.. in it admiral Davidson says "I see a fundamental divergence of values that leads to two
incomparable visions of the future. I think those two incomparable visions are between China and the rules-based international
order."
there is that ''rules-based international order'' quote again - which i was mentioning to @38 jared in my post @42..
what the fuck is ''rules-based international order'' supposed to mean? you mean like - ignore international law and replace it
with ''rule-basd international order''??
i agree with jen... don, you must be a bit of a masochist!
I definitely second Jen's remark about BreakingDefense. Reading that post was very distressing and I can imagine they would
roast you and many who follow and admire b. But, as the saying goes, it is also good to know "how the enemy" thinks. Or in this
case how our gov + thinks.
Canada's rubberstamping of extradition requests (90% are by the US)was already successfully challenged once in the Diab
case with France
Not exactly. Diab was arrested in 2008 and, after a long series of legal proceedings (ending with the refusal of the Canadian
Supreme Court to hear his appeal), finally extradited to France in 2014. The case against Diab was flimsy to nonexistent to begin
with, but "good enough" to meet Canadian standards. In spite of the continued insistence by French prosecutors that they had a
legitimate case, multiple judges disagreed and Diab was finally released earlier this year and allowed to return to Canada.
The bottom line is that the bar for extradition from Canada is extremely low, which should worry Ms Meng.
The way the U.S. seems intent on punishing Australian Assange for exposing U.S. secrets exhibits the same determination to apply
U.S. law to everyone all over the world.
20 November 201815:24
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks at the general meeting of the Russian International Affairs Council, Moscow, November
20, 2018
"The historical West is still violently opposed to the objective rise of a fairer and more democratic polycentric world
order. Clinging to the principles of unipolarity, Washington and some other Western capitals appear unable to constructively interact
with the new global centres of economic and political influence. A wide range of restrictions are applied to the dissenters, ranging
from military force and unilateral economic sanctions to demonisation and mud-slinging in the spirit of the notorious "highly
likely." There are many examples of this dirty game...This has seriously debased international law. Moreover, attempts have been
made to replace the notion of law with a "rules-based order" the parameters of which will be determined by a select few.
We are especially concerned about the activities of the US administration aimed at destroying the key international agreements.
These include withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action known as the Iran nuclear deal, the declared intention to
withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), an open line for revising the settlement principles in
the Middle East, as well as sabotaging the Minsk Agreements on overcoming the internal Ukrainian crisis. The trade wars that have
been launched contrary to the WTO principles are rocking the global economic architecture, free trade and competition standards.
The US establishment, blindly believing in the idea of their exceptionalism, continues to appoint rivals and adversaries, primarily
among the countries that pursue an independent foreign policy. Everyone can see that Washington is a loose cannon, liable to act
incongruously, including regarding Russia where any steps taken by US President Donald Trump to develop stable and normal channels
of communication with Moscow on the biggest current problems are promptly blocked by those who want to continue or even strengthen
the destructive approach to relations with Russia, which developed during the previous US administration.
Overall, it looks as if the Americans and some of our other Western colleagues have forgotten the basics of diplomacy and
the art of dialogue and consensus over the past 25 years. One result of this is the dangerous militarisation of the foreign policy
thinking. As RIAC Director General Andrey Kortunov recently pointed out at a Valdai Discussion Club meeting, the Clausewitz formula
can be changed to a mirror image, "Politics is a continuation of war by other means."
Russia is a consistent supporter of the development of international life based on the principles of the UN Charter. We are
a serious obstacle in the way of different destructive undertakings." etc
Considering the eventual results of the Peloponnesian War for all combatants, Thucydides' Trap turned out to be a trap for everyone.
They all would have been better off peacefully settling their differences. Same goes for World War One. And the same goes for
a declining U.S. facing a rising China.
What the U.S. should do is to negotiate with China a deal which recognizes the status of China as a superpower in return for
an economic relationship that preserves the U.S. standard of living.
Unfortunately, the U.S. ruling class cares more about the psychic gratification it derives from dominating the world.
@ 52 james
re: "rules-based international order"
This is widely and repeatedly used by the Pentagon; I've also seen it used by the Australia government (no surprise there from
a US puppet). Of course we know that it's a code-phrase for. . .let's not change the current US-dominated world disorder with
its US-led wars, assassinations and torture.
Other pet phrases, taken from my blog link above:
... revisionist great powers like China and Russia
... China's state-led, market-distorting economic model
... democratic, liberal values that draws us together with our allies and differentiates us from China."
@ 57 Loz
Russia's Lavrov is a smart guy and gets it right, as a realist, but I prefer Iran's Khamenei who always looks on the bright side.
. . .from a
speech
delivered on November 3, 2018, by Ayatollah Khamenei
. . . the US waged military wars and military actions,
. . .There has also been an economic war in this 40-year challenge
. . .They have waged a media war as well.
Well, there is an important truth which is sometimes not seen by some people: its dazzling clarity makes it go unnoticed. This
truth is a bright and shining one, which is the fact that in this 40-year challenge, the side which has been defeated represents
the US and the side which has achieved victory represents the Islamic Republic. --This is a very important truth. What is the
reason behind America's defeat? The reason for their defeat was that it was they who began the attack. It was they who initiated
corrupt actions. It was they who imposed sanctions, and it was they who launched a military attack, but they have not achieved
their goals. --This is the reason why the US has been defeated.
And he's right, Iran has defeated the US, which is why Washington is so down on Iran. The defeats have come in Iraq, and Syria,
and next in Afghanistan . . .plus in Iran itself, which has stood up to the greatest world power for forty years full of sanctions
and assaults, and thereby served as a model and inspiration for other countries large and small.
The prosecutor's case against Meng is fundamentally weak. For instance, there is no identification of a "co-conspirator",
necessary to a charge of conspiracy. It does not seem to have been developed much beyond the information developed in the 2013
Reuters investigation. At least half of that relies on unnamed "former employees" and unnamed persons who claimed to have dealt
with Skycom in Iran.
If these persons cannot be produced then all that evidence cannot rise above hearsay. The coincidences left to the prosecutors
to suggest a shell corporation should be then overwhelmed by the perfectly legal offshore documentation, which represents common
corporate practice worldwide. If the US courts still nail Huawei, the precedent could put all large businesses and business persons
everywhere at criminal risk for currently accepted practices.
The exit door could be a finding by the Canadian court, tacitly ok'ed by the Americans, that the case lacks merit and Meng
is freed sometime in the spring to a chorus of self-congratulatory hurrahs over "rule of law". If the intent was to damage the
Huawei brand in the West, then mission already accomplished.
here is our canuck foreign affairs minister Freeland using the term as well.. "It, I think, is quite obvious that it ought to
be incumbent on parties seeking an extradition from Canada, recognizing that Canada is a rule-of-law country, to ensure that any
extradition request is about ensuring that justice is done, is about ensuring that the rule of law is respected and is not politicized
or used for any other purpose," she said." https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-missing-person-questioned-1.4943591
last paragraph in that link is even better - here.. ""I think in the world today, where the rule of law is under threat in some
parts of the world, being a rule-of-law country is more important now than ever," Freeland said. "And what I can commit to for
Canadians, and for our partners around the world, is that Canada will very faithfully follow the rule of law."
My suggestion in the previous comments thread was noticed only by one (James) but I'm sure it still holds up well.
Huawei could undertake to pay Sabrina Meng's bail or at least her security detail when she has to leave her house. Huawei then
sends the amount paid to Beijing and Beijing charges Ottawa for the amount paid ... and includes interest payment for each and
every day that Ottawa declines to pay the principal.
Tit-4-tat actions against US companies, however desirable, might have unfortunate long-term consequences especially if elements
in the US Deep State are expecting them and are prepared for them.
Thanks for reposting Lavrov's acute observations, thus revealing that Russia and China already know the what and why of the
Outlaw US Empire's doings. Frankly, I was surprised nobody commented about my Monopoly Game analogy from yesterday which illustrates
the situation the Outlaw US Empire finds itself in thanks to its unilateral and exceptionalisms. Indeed, for its opponents, moves
made by the Outlaw US Empire can fairly well be anticipated and thus quickly countered. And thanks to the desire by most nations
for multilateralism, Russia and China find receptive audiences and ready allies in their campaign to neuter the international
outlaw bully.
A Must Remember: The USA has never wanted to subordinate itself to any rules other than its own that it can change whenever
it suits itself. The key evidence of this is that while the Senate was ratifying the UN Charter in late July of 1945, the Executive
branch was embarking on its terroristic Anti-Communist Crusade by arming and facilitating the infiltration of former Nazi SS and
Gestapo agents into the Soviet-held regions of Eastern Europe thereby violating the newly negotiated international system of law
and its own Constitution, and making itself THE primary International Outlaw Nation, which it proudly continues to be to this
day.
Great article and I would say that you are getting the political implications, the hypocrisy and the rest of it pretty much spot
on.
I'll add this just for the heck of it.
This case started a while back when ZTE narked out Huawei for using third party cutouts to avoid the sanctions. The ZTE case
was in England. Because Hauwei is not the legal owner of these chips or code it makes it "theft by conversion". Using banks to
launder the money is bank fraud as well.
What a lot of people are missing, legally, is that this is not the same at all as violating sanctions by selling your own products.
They do not own the chips or proprietary software in any legal sense. The chips and code are still owned by the parent company
that developed them, China has what amounts to a licensing agreement with the parent companies. If Weng had violated the sanctions
by transferring her own code and her own chips then it would be out of our jurisdiction. However, once they violated the terms
and conditions of the contract they not only have committed fraud they have committed theft by conversion of a US owned product
and they used US banks to launder the money. This is why she is actually being charged with fraud and not sanctions violations.
I'd bet that if they go full hardball she would be charged with Bank Fraud as well. That's the one that comes with the most prison
time.
In short, violating sanctions doesn't usually get you arrested because it doesn't also include theft, fraud although money
laundering gets them sometimes. But of course we also know that the rest of the article is pretty much correct. She was actually
arrested as part of the entire back and forth over trade and all the rest. Our government normally would not pick a top dog to
do jail time, so why now and why her? 5G and access to markets are a big part but so is a real concern over the constant pirating,
malware, spyware, backdoor access to the Chinese government to all the encryption they use, etc. etc.
I'm only adding my comments to remind people that the US actually does have a rock solid case against her company, so don't
be at all surprised if she isn't eventually charged unless Trump does something to stop it. They were caught red handed committing
fraud by using third party cut outs and lying to the banks involved as well. If the US really wants to push it they are within
their legal rights under our laws to do it. She essentially stole US property and laundered the proceeds with US banks. Go ahead
and try that yourself and see if you get away with it.
Transferring a product you do not own to a third party in violation of a contract is theft by conversion. It's the same as
if I recorded a football game and then sold it against their wishes and then laundered the money. It's not the violation of the
sanctions per se that will get her in trouble, it's transferring stolen property, fraud and money laundering that they are actually
holding over her head. If they want to, they can send her away for a long time and they know it. This could get really ugly.
Don That breakingdefence seems as broken as other neo-lib sites such as Lawyers, Guns and Money.
BTW, we are coming up for the sixtieth anniversary of the the Cuban revolutionaries kicking out the dictator Batista. Cuba,
which then went on to impose massive defeats on Reagan and Thatcher by bringing down their beloved (Reagan and Thatcher's, that
is) apartheid in South Africa. We are repeatedly told that it was Russian MiGs which it did but they were operated and flown by
Cubans, and if Castro hadn't sent them to defeat the apartheid state in Angola, it's doubtful the conservatives in the Soviet
Union would have done so. So, Cuba has been in the trenches for twenty years more than Iran and still appears to be undefeated.
Sorry, but the readers here seem to have no clue whatsoever about Putin's past.
Putin was part of the group under the St. Petersburg mayor - it was because of this that he was put in power as Yeltsin's 2nd
in command. And equally it was because of Putin's position under Yeltsin which made him acceptable to foreign powers as Russia's
new head.
Medvedev has always been an Atlanticist; much like the 1% in the US, his background is global technocracy which naturally gravitates
him toward the US. Having a close relative on Gazprom doesn't hurt either.
Point is, Putin didn't come out of nowhere nor was he a nobody.
That he is a very articulate and thoughtful leader - that was the only surprise.
China just ordered a boatload or more of soybeans and says they wont let this interfere with trade talks.
Just the way Trump likes to deal. Meng will work out of her expensive Vancouver home as hostage until a trade deal is done.
Then she gets released w/o extradition
How many US corporations are guilty of doing the same do ya think? As for industrial espionage, I have just one word--ECHELON.
There's an excellent reason why the Outlaw US Empire wants to change the rules of the game that it initially designed: It can
no longer win using them; indeed, it can be defeated by what it emplaced. Reminds me of an old Sting hit
Fortress Around Your Heart ; in fact, it's quite
apt.
"The pretext for her arrest is that Huawei has violated US sanctions against Iran. But the "sanctions" imposed on Iran by the
US recently are illegal under international law, that is under the UN Charter that stipulates that only the Security Council can
impose economic sanctions on a nation..... There is, therefore, no law that she or Huawei is violating. ....
(Trudeau stated) that this arbitrary arrest was not politically motivated ...... Article 2 of the Treaty (with the US) requires
that Canada can only act on such a request if, and only if, the offence alleged is also an offence by the laws of both contracting
parties. But the unilaterally imposed and illegal sanctions placed against Iran by the USA, are not punishable acts in Canada
and even in the USA the "sanctions" are illegal as the are in violation of the UN Charter.
Article 4 (1) of the Treaty states:
"Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:
(iii) When the offense in respect of which extradition is requested is of a political character, or the person whose extradition
is requested proves that the extradition request has been made for the purpose of trying to punish him (or her) for an offense
of the above-mentioned character.....
So, Prime Minister Trudeau cannot evade responsibility for this hostage taking, this arbitrary arrest and detention since his
government had to consider the US request and consider whether it was politically motivated. ....... It was a political arrest.
The rule of law in Canada has been suspended, at least in her case, and so can be in any case.
Trudeau's insinuation that extradition is a purely judicial process in Canada is simply wrong. The "International Assistance Group"
in the Department of Justice works actively with the requesting state against the person sought for extradition, and this can
be a hugely political process involved outright lies to the court, as the Diab case revealed. Extradition law in Canada is so
politicized that even when a judge commits someone for extradition, the matter is then referred to the Minister of Justice, who
has the ultimate say. All of this is to maintain Canadian political alliances at the expense of the rights of the accused. Extradition,
kidnapping and extraordinary rendition are almost indistinguishable in Canada.
@75 "Canadians should be angry about their nation being led by people whose loyalty is to Washington instead of to the Canadian
people whose interests they care nothing for."
So is Christopher Black suggesting Canada put Meng on a plane back to China and give Trump the finger? How would that be good
for the Canadian people?
Brad #69
She is being charged with bank fraud. That is why she is being threatened with up to 60 years in prison. But the attribution of
the cut out or shell company, Skycom, with Huawei is based on anecdotal evidence which can be effectively challengd. Alleging
that Meng herself knowingly conspired to make false representation is a huge stretch, and none of the evidence assembled comes
close to that. Also, the sanction violation involved less than $2 million of Hewlett Packard "gear", not high-end proprietary
tech.
Your opinion on this? How could China win a trade war since it is relying on its large trade surplus with the US? As Trump said,
trade-surplus countries suffer more in trade wars, as it is they who get hit with tariffs.
In Giant Trade War Concession, China Prepares To Replace "Made In China 2025"
Karlof1 I agree, it's damage control at this point in time.
And yeah they have wanted "total information awareness" for a while. I think that was the term they used in the "Project for
a new American Century" talking points wasn't it? They wanted to grab every bit of data produced in the entire world and store
it. TOTAL information awareness. And they published that plan right out in the open for everyone to read. Then they went right
ahead and built the facilities, infrastructure, hired all the people to man it and nobody did jack nothing to stop em either.
(dem terrorsts might get us if we complain too much)
Why we didn't run those neo-con fools out of town on a rail is beyond me but the reality is that people will put up with damn
near anything before they really demand change.
By the way which would you prefer, a phone with a backdoor by China or a backdoor by the US? Pretty lousy choice either way
if you ask me. I bet if Heuwei would give our "intel" agencies the backdoor key to their devices they would be just fine with
that as a "settlement".
"The US has increasingly been wielding its legal definitions and measures as if it is the world's judge and jury.
"In recent years, American lawmakers have created a slew of legal weapons, including the Magnitsky Act, the Global Magnitsky
Act, the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which give Washington the supposed power to penalize any country
it deems to be in breach of its national laws.
"The arbitrariness of US "justice" has got to the febrile point where Washington is threatening all nations, including its
supposed European allies, with legal punishment if they don't toe the line on its designated policy."
His conclusion:
"Washington's lawless pursuit of its nationalistic interests is turning the globe into a seething jungle of distrust and resentment.
The political chaos in Washington – where even the president is accused by domestic opponents of abusing democratic norms – is
fanning out to engulf the rest of the world.
"America's erstwhile claim of being the world's sheriff has taken on a macabre twist. Increasingly in the eyes of the world,
it is a renegade state which absurdly justifies its criminality with lofty claims of rule of law."
IMO, the world can do very well without the English-speaking nations of the Western Hemisphere. Containing them would be far
easier than Eurasia, even with bases strewn globally, for they must trade with the rest of the world to keep their current
standard of living whereas the rest of the world doesn't need to reciprocate. Yes, there's a very good reason why the USA called
its late 19th Century trade policy the Open Door--a policy that continues today. Trump seems to want autarky, so give it to him
by calling his massive bluff. Leave Uncle Scam sitting alone at his Monopoly Board masturbating while the rest of the world plays
Diplomacy and Go! Send an unmistakable message that he's the Bullying Misfit and shatter his exceptional ego. Hopefully if the
correct psychological approach is used, a planet devastating war can be avoided; but the latter cannot be feared when dealing
with the International Bully as it must be taught a lesson it will never forget.
@79 I'm not sure anybody will come out a clear winner....though Trump will claim victory for sure. A large order of soy beans
makes a nice gesture, so would buying a few airplanes from Boeing, but the Chinese still have a few red lines they won't cross.
All depends how hard Trump wants to push.
"Moreover, attempts have been made to replace the notion of law with a "rules-based order"
About time this was voiced publicly and Lavrov is the man to do it. It has been very noticeable over the last few years that
our western or five eyes "rule of law" narrative has been replaced by "rules based order" or so called "international norms".
@ james, in a snarky response to a warmonger at Breaking Defense, who misunderstood a previous james comment: --
. . ."thanks for yours as well.. usually the american trolls are always reminding others of how they abide by law, when in fact,
it is quite the opposite..."
...a classic put-down. kudos.
Thanks for your reply! I own the most fundamental of cell phones used for rudimentary texting and emergencies as I have no
need for further sophistication, and I had to be talked into buying that one! So, I'd prefer to have no backdoors anywhere near
my person at anytime and strive to establish that condition.
Indeed, this entire situation ought to bring governmental interference in citizen privacy to the fore so it can finally have
the debate it deserves--Constitutionally, the government is in violation, it knows it, but tries to circumvent Primary Law by
using the National Security canard. Should the citizen have an expectation of privacy within his/her own space or not? If not,
then the entire Bill of Rights is null and void.
@ 79 T
In Giant Trade War Concession, China Prepares To Replace "Made In China 2025"
The revised plan would play down China's bid to dominate manufacturing and be more open to participation by foreign companies,
these people said.
That's what the US has been complaining about, isn't it? The American manufacturers are invited in and then have to give up
all their trade secrets to be allowed to manufacture in China, until the locals take over with their newly acquired knowledge.
Regarding soybeans, China needs it to feed their hogs. Apparently Brazil didn't work out in the long term.
@Don, Thank you for the great brave job of posting on the out of realty redneck' site. A daily dose of reality comments should
really F*s the warmonger bastard' day.
I fail to see how exercising their sovereign right is giving Trump the finger, or bad for the Canadian people. However Canada
has basically become the US 51st state since NAFTA and the first Gulf War, so they follow orders
The new NAFTA will push up drug prices even more so they may soon join their brothers south of the border and enjoy declining
life expectancy due to unaffordable Drug prices
From ZeroHedge "Below we present some pertinent thoughts on the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou from former Fed Governor Larry
Lindsey and current head of the Lindsay Group."
.. Then along comes a story in the South China Morning Post about an October meeting with employees in which Meng said that
there are cases where, "the external rules are clear-cut and there's no contention, but the company is totally unable to comply
with in actual operations. In such cases, after a reasonable decision-making process, one may accept the risk of temporary non-compliance."
That statement is full of euphemisms, but it makes putting the corporate interest ahead of complying with the law the official
position of management. Put that in the context of a four-year anti-corruption campaign by Xi and a purge of top-level tech executives
who have gotten too big for their britches. In Xi's new world it may be one thing to have said that it was ok to put China's interests
first, but she is putting the corporate interests ahead of China's interests.
Also note that these comments were in quotes from an internal (and closed) Huawei meeting. How did the SCMP acquire these direct
quotes? The SCMP is one of the world's truly great papers, publishing candid news and commentary focused on getting to the truth
in a way that is only a distant memory in American newspapers. That said, it is also like Hong Kong – one nation, two systems.
If Beijing really wanted a story out, it would provide the sources and the reporters would do the rest. And if they really wanted
a story spiked it probably would be spiked. Those direct quotes obviously came from Chinese authorities and the story was printed
at a very inconvenient time for Meng – when she was protesting her innocence. Somebody in Beijing thinks Meng is a loose cannon.
Let's be a little conspiratorial or, more precisely, try and create a narrative that fits the facts. It arguably serves everyone's
interests for Ms. Meng to be taught a lesson. It is in Bolton's and the DoJ's interest to send a message that access to power
and connections does not buy you a get out of jail free card. It is in Xi's interest, or at least in the interests of major portions
of the Chinese government, to send a signal that even the extremely well-connected still have to toe the party line.
...The detention did not involve any surprises. The charges against Meng were leveled three months before her arrest. The market
reaction seemed to be based on the notion that this was a last-minute surprise. As for the Chinese, Xi and Company knows where
everyone is going and when. They certainly knew that Meng was traveling to Vancouver, that she had a warrant for her arrest outstanding,
and that Canada extradites to the U.S. They did nothing to warn her.
... Our conspiracy theory holds that she will be released when everyone thinks the lesson has been learned. America scores
a win in terms of signal value about enforcing Iran sanctions whether Meng spends two weeks, two months, or the rest of her life
behind bars. Xi will have signaled what he thinks about prioritizing corporate interests over national interests and bending regulations.
... One does not have to buy this conspiracy theory in all its detail to get at the essential truth that markets need to digest.
Meng's arrest is not going to affect the outcome of the trade talks. Xi (and China) have too much of a stake in this to let the
antics of a close friend's naughty daughter stand in the way of him getting what he wants. And once an example is made, America
also has too much to lose.
@88 "I fail to see how exercising their sovereign right is giving Trump the finger..."
ReallY? Then you haven't been watching Trump. He would go ballistic. He would probably renegotiate NAFTA ....again. He could
put thousands of Canadians out of work overnight if he felt like it.
@ 69 BS
". . .the US actually does have a rock solid case against her company,"
. . .to repeat from 43:
The investigation by U.S. authorities has revealed a conspiracy between and among Meng and other Huawei representatives to
misrepresent to numerous financial institutions. . . .The motivation for these misrepresentations stemmed from Huawei's need
to move money out of countries that are subject to U.S. or E.U. sanctions--such as Iran, Syria, or Sudan--through the international
banking system. At various times, both the U.S. and E.U. legal regimes have imposed sanctions that prohibit the provision of
U.S. or E.U. services to Iran, such as banking services....
Because Meng and other Huawei representatives misrepresented to Financial Institution 1 and the other financial institutions
about Huawei's relationship with Skycom, these victim banking institutions were induced into carrying out transactions that
they otherwise would not have completed. As a result, they violated the banks' internal policies, potentially violated U.S.
sanctions laws, and exposed the banks to the risk of fines and forfeiture.
So if Skycom belonged to Huawei, and the banks were "induced," there were problems --
1. violation of banks' internal policies
2. potentially violated US sanctions
3. exposed banks to US punishment
But if Skycom was an independent corporation the sanctions violations would have been okay? What am I missing. And why would the
US punish banks when they were knowingly duped.
" How could China win a trade war since it is relying on its large trade surplus with the US? As Trump said, trade-surplus
countries suffer more in trade wars, as it is they who get hit with tariffs."
Well, you do know tarrifs on imports are paid by the US importer and on to the consumer. China pays not a dime of US tarrifs
Now it could be hurt if US buyers could order from other countries. However, this is not an option for every import as there
are production capacity, quality and price constraints. In the short term orders to China would not be affected much since there
are not many good alternatives
China has some weapons of their own. US military required certain rate metals from China for weapons, China basically clothes
America and of course many electronics , furniture, tools and toys come from China. Witholding or taxing these exports is a weapon
they have yet to use.
Furthermore, much of the profits of US companies come from manufacturing or buying from China. Prices get marked up as much
as 10 times what China receives
18% of its exports go to US. With 20% of GDP based on exports that means US is responsible for 3.6% of Chinas GDP. Tarrifs
might affect 20% of exports meaning the hit on GDP would be 0.7%. With GDP growth over 6% they wont feel too much pain.
"hey do not own the chips or proprietary software in any legal sense. The chips and code are still owned by the parent company
that developed them, China has what amounts to a licensing agreement with the parent companies. If Weng had violated the sanctions
by transferring her own code and her own chips then it would be out of our jurisdiction. However, once they violated the terms
and conditions of the contract they not only have committed fraud they have committed theft by conversion of a US owned product
and they used US banks to launder the money. This is why she is actually being charged with fraud and not sanctions violations."
-
I've heard US government make this argument in courts before and historically US courts have generally agreed with it. However,
this legal argument ignores the huge practical consideration of this rule within the current international economic system (i.e.
the real world). Namely, for the last 70 years (post-WW2) the US has encouraged and promoted Liberal free market world economic
integration, that each country should focus on the specialization of their economies to produce a small number of goods at a low
production cost and then purchase all other goods they needed from other countries that specialized in that good (i.e. internal
economic self-sufficiency is bad). Generally people hear this and immediately think of how Germany specializes in mechanical engineering,
Japan specializes in high-tech computer and so on. However the realty in the world today is that is specialization goes much further
in that a single circuit board in a computer WILL contain transistors made in Korea, Inductors made in Japan, Capacitators made
in Taiwan, Transistors made in the US and then assembled in China. At each stage of the manufacturing / assembly process costs
are carefully analyzed to minimize costs based on the provider, transportation costs, etc... to produce the goods at the lowest
possible cost and maximize profits. This is what people call the Global Supply chain that has for the last 30 years underpinned
the entire world manufacturing economy. N(OTE: I'm not saying this is good or bad from a moral stance, merely that this is what
it is and the motive for it)
What the US is doing, by asserting that US law indefinitely applies to any component (including intellectual or financial)
that is made in or travels through the US and is then subsequently assembled or sold in a 3rd (or 4th or 5th or 6th....) country
that is subject to US sanctions is a direct attack on the Global Supply Chain economy and is extremely dangerous to standard of
living we've become accustom to in the Western world. Historically, when the US used sanctions like this against Cuba, North Korea,
Iran, China and the Soviet Union, these countries were relatively much weaker than the US and not integrated into the Western
World economy (nor were they well integrated with each other economically speaking), so the US was able to retard their economic
development. However after more than 40 years of increasing integration the Western world (US, Canada, Mexico, Europe) is totally
dependant on the Global Supply Chain, so now that the US is expanding their sanctions to everyone they are effectively sabotaging
their own economy and the economies of their allies/vassals. Conversely, the US rivals (Particularity Russia, China & Iran) are
become more economically integrated with each other and are already experienced with economic independence from the Western Market.
The two most likely outcomes from the US actions are 1) The non-western world becomes more integrated with each other and independent
of the Western market, effectively re-dividing the world like we saw during the Cold War, only now instead of Capitalist vs Socialist,
it will be Neo-Liberal Fascism vs National independence (i.e. a return to the pre-1914 concept of the state) 2) The Western World
will become more divided with their economies weakened as the US asserts more direct control over their vassals, impoverishing
their vassals' economies in order to consolidated wealth & power into their preferred elites who will ensure their control over
their vassal countries. As the quality of life of the average citizen declines and Western countries become more politically unstable
and economically stagnate, we may even see a "Prague Spring" type of event, where a Western government moves away from the US/NATO/EU
alliance only to suffer a US/NATO backed invasion similar to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
>> Well, you do know tarrifs on imports
>> are paid by the US importer and on to
>> the consumer. China pays not a dime of
>> US tarrifs
No, I don't know that. It depends.
If China's exporters have tiny margins and the consumer can afford to pay more, then yes.
If China's exporters have big margins and fear losing market share (not necessarily to domestic American manufacturers but
to other foreign manufacturers), they might choose to sell at a "lower but still profitable" price in order for the POS price
to remain nearly the same and for them to retain their market share.
>> With GDP growth over 6% they
>> wont feel too much pain.
Pft, I agree bigly there. (And thanks for doing the math.) Despite my prior post, I doubt China cares about "maintaining market
share" to ship real product to a nation that provides almost nothing but threats in payment.
>> we may even see a "Prague Spring" type
>> of event, where a Western government moves
>> away from the US/NATO/EU alliance only to
>> suffer a US/NATO backed invasion similar
>> to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia
>> in 1968.
As a small step in that direction, someone mentioned a few French "police" vehicles bore EU insignia.
"18% of its exports go to US. With 20% of GDP based on exports that means US is responsible for 3.6% of Chinas GDP. Tarrifs
might affect 20% of exports meaning the hit on GDP would be 0.7%. With GDP growth over 6% they wont feel too much pain."
This 18 - 19 percent export number is not true, as in does not take into account exports to the US via Hong Kong. This is only
mainland exports. But China also "exports" a lot to HK, and then these goods are exported to the rest of the world. So exports
to the US are more than 18 percent.
And the US is waging the trade war via other means, for example it is urging allies to drop China's IT companies. New Zealand
and Japan are dropping Huawei and ZTE. EU is warning too. No doubt there will be other US allies following. So costs for China
will be substantial.
Japan sets policy that will block Huawei and ZTE from public procurement as of April
China's trillion dollar Belt & Road Initiative will change everything, so why get hung up on the past. The BRI provides China
with an opportunity to use its considerable economic means to finance infrastructure projects around the world.
"... "In this case, it is clear the Chinese government wants to put maximum pressure on the Canadian government," Guy Saint-Jacques, the former Canadian ambassador to Beijing , said. Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland went on to criticize statements by US President Donald Trump, who said in an interview on Tuesday that he was ready to intervene in the Meng affair if it helped seal a trade deal with the world's second-largest economy. ..."
Her case has angered Beijing and shaken Canada's relations with China, which is embroiled in
a trade war with Washington.
"In this case, it is clear the Chinese government wants to put maximum pressure on the
Canadian government," Guy Saint-Jacques, the former
Canadian ambassador to Beijing , said. Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland went on to criticize statements by US President
Donald Trump, who said in an interview on Tuesday that he was ready to intervene in the Meng
affair if it helped seal a trade deal with the world's second-largest economy.
"Our extradition partners should not seek to politicize the extradition process or use it
for ends other than the pursuit of justice and following the rule of law," she said at a press
conference.
"... this is a clear sign that Canada no longer exists as an independent nation, but is a colony of the USA/Israeli empire. ..."
"... This story is not about an ultra-wealthy Chinese heiress enduring an odd adventure in Canada. This story is about a complete loss of Canadian sovereignty, because detaining this lady is outright insane. Canada was conquered without firing a shot! Welcome back to the royal empire run as a dictatorship. ..."
"... If only America focused its attention inward, on growth and stability, instead of transcendent American Imperialism then the world may stand a chance. ..."
"... Western positions on climate, neoliberalism, migration, in my opinion point into the same direction: critical thinking, almost gone. ..."
"... Defrauding the nation into "war of aggression" is the supreme crime one can commit against the American People. The "SUPREME CRIME"! ..."
"... Every "penny" belonging to each and every Neocon Oligarch who CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD US INTO ILLEGAL WAR should be forfeit until the debt from those wars is paid down .. IN FULL ! ..."
"... Canada may be the obvious criminal. But on consideration, isn't it rather like the low-level thug who carries out a criminal assignment on the orders of a gang boss? And isn't it the gang boss who is the real problem for society? ..."
"... and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face. ..."
As most readers know, I'm not a casual political blogger and I prefer producing lengthy research articles rather than chasing
the headlines of current events. But there are exceptions to every rule, and the looming danger of a direct worldwide clash with
China is one of them.
Consider the arrest last week of Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Huawei, the world's largest telecom equipment manufacturer. While flying
from Hong Kong to Mexico, Ms. Meng was changing planes in the Vancouver International Airport airport when she was suddenly detained
by the Canadian government on an August US warrant. Although now released on $10 million bail, she still faces extradition to a New
York City courtroom, where she could receive up to thirty years in federal prison for allegedly having conspired in 2010 to violate
America's unilateral economic trade sanctions against Iran.
Although our mainstream media outlets have certainly covered this important story, including front page articles in the New
York Times and the Wall Street Journal , I doubt most American readers fully recognize the extraordinary gravity of
this international incident and its potential for altering the course of world history. As one scholar noted, no event since America's
deliberate 1999 bombing of China's
embassy in Belgrade , which killed several Chinese diplomats, has so outraged both the Chinese government and its population.
Columbia's Jeffrey Sachs correctly
described it as "almost a US declaration of war on China's business community."
Such a reaction is hardly surprising. With annual revenue of $100 billion, Huawei ranks as the world's largest and most advanced
telecommunications equipment manufacturer as well as China's most internationally successful and prestigious company. Ms. Meng is
not only a longtime top executive there, but also the daughter of the company's founder, Ren Zhengfei, whose enormous entrepreneurial
success has established him as a Chinese national hero.
Her seizure on obscure American sanction violation charges while changing planes in a Canadian airport almost amounts to a kidnapping.
One journalist asked how Americans would react if China had seized Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook for violating Chinese law especially
if Sandberg were also the daughter of Steve Jobs.
Indeed, the closest analogy that comes to my mind is when Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia kidnapped the Prime Minister
of Lebanon earlier this year and held him hostage. Later he more successfully did the same with hundreds of his wealthiest Saudi
subjects, extorting something like $100 billion in ransom from their families before finally releasing them. Then he may have finally
over-reached himself when Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident, was killed and dismembered by a
bone-saw at the Saudi embassy in Turkey.
We should actually be a bit grateful to Prince Mohammed since without him America would clearly have the most insane government
anywhere in the world. As it stands, we're merely tied for first.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme World
Hegemon. As a result, local American courts have begun enforcing gigantic financial penalties against foreign countries and their
leading corporations, and I suspect that the rest of the world is tiring of this misbehavior. Perhaps such actions can still be taken
against the subservient vassal states of Europe, but by most objective measures, the size of China's real economy surpassed that
of the US several years ago and is now substantially
larger , while also still having a far higher rate of growth. Our totally dishonest mainstream media regularly obscures this
reality, but it remains true nonetheless.
Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and imprisoning one of its leading technology executives
reminds me of
a comment
I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current political elites:
Or to apply a far harsher biological metaphor, consider a poor canine infected with the rabies virus. The virus may have no
brain and its body-weight is probably less than one-millionth that of the host, but once it has seized control of the central
nervous system, the animal, big brain and all, becomes a helpless puppet.
Once friendly Fido runs around foaming at the mouth, barking at the sky, and trying to bite all the other animals it can reach.
Its friends and relatives are saddened by its plight but stay well clear, hoping to avoid infection before the inevitable happens,
and poor Fido finally collapses dead in a heap.
Normal countries like China naturally assume that other countries like the US will also behave in normal ways, and their dumbfounded
shock at Ms. Meng's seizure has surely delayed their effective response. In 1959, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Moscow and
famously engaged in a heated
"kitchen debate"
with Premier Nikita Khrushchev over the relative merits of Communism and Capitalism. What would have been the American reaction
if Nixon had been immediately arrested and given a ten year Gulag sentence for "anti-Soviet agitation"?
Since a natural reaction to international hostage-taking is retaliatory international hostage-taking, the newspapers have reported
that top American executives have decided to forego visits to China until the crisis is resolved. These days, General Motors sells
more cars in China than in the US, and China is also the manufacturing source of nearly all our iPhones, but Tim Cook, Mary Barra,
and their higher-ranking subordinates are unlikely to visit that country in the immediate future, nor would the top executives of
Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, and the leading Hollywood studios be willing to risk indefinite imprisonment.
Canada had arrested Ms. Meng on American orders, and this morning's newspapers reported that
a former Canadian diplomat
had suddenly been detained in China , presumably as a small bargaining-chip to encourage Ms. Meng's release. But I very much
doubt such measures will have much effect. Once we forgo traditional international practices and adopt the Law of the Jungle, it
becomes very important to recognize the true lines of power and control, and Canada is merely acting as an American political puppet
in this matter. Would threatening the puppet rather than the puppet-master be likely to have much effect?
Similarly, nearly all of America's leading technology executives are already quite hostile to the Trump Administration, and even
if it were possible, seizing one of them would hardly be likely to sway our political leadership. To a lesser extent, the same thing
is true about the overwhelming majority of America's top corporate leaders. They are not the individuals who call the shots in the
current White House.
Indeed, is President Trump himself anything more than a higher-level puppet in this very dangerous affair? World peace and American
national security interests are being sacrificed in order to harshly enforce the Israel Lobby's international sanctions campaign
against Iran, and we should hardly be surprised that the National Security Adviser John Bolton, one of America's most extreme pro-Israel
zealots,
had personally given the green light to the arrest. Meanwhile, there are credible reports that Trump himself remained entirely
unaware of these plans, and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President
Xi. Some have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.
But Bolton's apparent involvement underscores the central role of his longtime patron, multi-billionaire casino-magnate Sheldon
Adelson, whose enormous financial influence within Republican political circles has been overwhelmingly focused on pro-Israel policy
and hostility towards Iran, Israel's regional rival.
Although it is far from clear whether the very elderly Adelson played any direct personal role in Ms. Meng's arrest, he surely
must be viewed as the central figure in fostering the political climate that produced the current situation. Perhaps he should not
be described as the ultimate puppet-master behind our current clash with China, but any such political puppet-masters who do exist
are certainly operating at his immediate beck and call. In very literal terms, I suspect that if Adelson placed a single phone call
to the White House, the Trump Administration would order Canada to release Ms. Meng that same day.
Adelson's fortune of $33 billion ranks him as the
15th wealthiest man in America, and the bulk of his fortune is based on his ownership of extremely lucrative gambling casinos in
Macau, China . In effect, the Chinese government currently has its hands around the financial windpipe of the man ultimately responsible
for Ms. Meng's arrest and whose pro-Israel minions largely control American foreign policy. I very much doubt that they are fully
aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage.
Over the years, Adelson's Chinese Macau casinos have been involved
in all sorts of political bribery scandals
, and I suspect it would be very easy for the Chinese government to find reasonable grounds for immediately shutting them down, at
least on a temporary basis, with such an action having almost no negative repercussions to Chinese society or the bulk of the Chinese
population. How could the international community possibly complain about the Chinese government shutting down some of their own
local gambling casinos with a long public record of official bribery and other criminal activity? At worst, other gambling casino
magnates would become reluctant to invest future sums in establishing additional Chinese casinos, hardly a desperate threat to President
Xi's anti-corruption government.
I don't have a background in finance and I haven't bothered trying to guess the precise impact of a temporary shutdown of Adelson's
Chinese casinos, but it wouldn't surprise me if the resulting drop in the stock price of
Las Vegas Sands Corp would reduce Adelson's personal
net worth were by $5-10 billion within 24 hours, surely enough to get his immediate personal attention. Meanwhile, threats of a permanent
shutdown, perhaps extending to Chinese-influenced Singapore, might lead to the near-total destruction of Adelson's personal fortune,
and similar measures could also be applied as well to the casinos of all the other fanatically pro-Israel American billionaires,
who dominate the remainder of gambling in Chinese Macau.
The chain of political puppets responsible for Ms. Meng's sudden detention is certainly a complex and murky one. But the Chinese
government already possesses the absolute power of financial life-or-death over Sheldon Adelson, the man located at the very top
of that chain. If the Chinese leadership recognizes that power and takes effective steps, Ms. Meng will immediately be put on a plane
back home, carrying the deepest sort of international political apology. And future attacks against Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese
technology companies would not be repeated.
China actually holds a Royal Flush in this international political poker game. The only question is whether they will recognize
the value of their hand. I hope they do for the sake of America and the entire world.
This is no surprise. Anyone who follows political events knows that John Bolton is insane, so no surprise that he devised this
insane idea. The problem will be corrected within a week, and hopefully Bolton sent to an asylum.
However, this is a clear sign that Canada no longer exists as an independent nation, but is a colony of the USA/Israeli empire.
Canada provides soldiers for this empire in Afghanistan even today, and in Latvia. Most Canadians can't find that nation on a
map, but it's a tiny unimportant nation in the Baltic that NATO adsorbed as part of its plan for a new Cold War.
This story is not about an ultra-wealthy Chinese heiress enduring an odd adventure in Canada. This story is about a complete
loss of Canadian sovereignty, because detaining this lady is outright insane. Canada was conquered without firing a shot! Welcome
back to the royal empire run as a dictatorship.
I hope someone in China is reading this article. I would love to see Adelson and his cohorts go down in flames. This would fit
right in with China's current anti-corruption foray. Xi has a reputation for hanging corrupt officials. Shutting down Adelson's
casinos would be consistent with what Xi has been doing and increase his popularity, not least of all, right here in the US.
If only America focused its attention inward, on growth and stability, instead of transcendent American Imperialism then the world
may stand a chance. The future will suffer once China's debt traps collapse and like America it begins placing military globally.
America would be the one country who could work towards a Western future but this will never be the case. Better start learning
Mandarin lest we end up like the Uyghurs.
@Anonymous Use your
brain. The Chinese elite want to use the political clout that Adelson and the other big casino Jews have with the US government.
To gain lobby power from a proven expert, Shelly Adelson, they are willing to allow him to make the big bucks in Macao. They expect
quid pro quo.
The Chinese are pussies and will always back down. The U.S. laughed in their face after they bombed and killed them in Belgrade
and got crickets from the Chinamen. China can't project much power beyond its borders. They can't punch back. The Chinese (and
East Asians) are only part of the global business racket because they are efficient worker bees facilitating the global financial
system. They have no real control over the global market. And if they start to think they do they'll get a quick lesson. Like
they're getting with Meng, who is being treated like coolie prostitute. LMAO.
I always enjoy fresh writing from Mr. Unz. Clarity of thought is a fine thing to witness in language. It should be stated, America
is not in any danger.the empire is and is in terminal decline. As Asia's economic might grows in leaps ad bound, so does the empire
scramble to thwart losing its global grip.
As Fred Reed once pointed out, declining empires rarely go quietly. Will America's leadership gamble on a new war to prevent asia's
ascendancy?
I think it's possible.
But what do I know. As my father once said, "I'm just a pawn in a game."
To his credit he had the wherewithal to see that. Alas, most Americans are asleep.
The call for Ms. Meng's arrest had to come from the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. They enforce every thing related
to sanctions, which they claim is what Meng was arrested for– sale of phones and software to Iran.
But they also say they had been on her company's case since 2013 so their timing is rather suspect.
What else I don't understand is her company has research and offices in Germany, Sweden, the U.S., France, Italy, Russia, India,
China and Canada ..So if what they sold or attempted to sell to Iran wasn't outright 'stolen' intellectual property from the US
or even if it was why not transfer it to and or have it made in China or some country not signed onto the Iran sanctions and then
sell it to Iran. I haven't boned up on exactly what kinds of phone software they were selling but I think it has something to
do with being able to bypass NSA and others intercepts.
You are assuming Meng is not a sacrificial pawn in some larger game.
It would be priceless for Xi to shut down Adelson's operations in Macau for a few days or weeks, but I'm afraid Xi is very
much akin to Capitain Louis Renault in Casablanca , and after walking into a Macau casino and uttering the phrase, "I am
shocked- shocked- to find that gambling is going on in here!" might admit in the next breath, "I blow with the wind, and the prevailing
wind happens to be from Jerusalem."
Half a century or so propaganda like 'the USA policing the world' of course had effect.
Not realised is that in normal circumstances police is not an autonomous force, but has to act within a legal framework.
The illusion of this framework of course exists, human rights, democracy, whatever
She's out on bail. Agree that Bolton blindsided Trump. Trump is going to try to turn this into some sort of PR gesture when he
pardons her. No way he will let this mess up his trade deal. Which is beached until she exonerated.
What is true
of these stories of course cannot be known with certainty, but it is asserted that USA military technology is way behind China
and Russia.
Several examples exist, but of course, if these examples tell the truth, not sure.
PISA comparisons of levels of education world wide show how the west is intellectually behind the east.
Western positions on climate, neoliberalism, migration, in my opinion point into the same direction: critical thinking, almost
gone.
"I very much doubt that they are fully aware of this enormous, untapped source of political leverage".
I very much doubt whether that is the case. As far as I know, most Chinese people are distinguished by their intelligence,
thoroughness and diligence. What do the thousands of people employed by China's foreign ministry and its intelligence services
do all day, if they are unaware of such important facts?
However I also doubt if China's leaders are inclined to see matters in nearly such a black and white way as many Westerners.
Jewish people seem to get along very well in China and with the Chinese, which could be because both have high levels of intelligence,
culture, and subtlety. As well as being interested in money and enterprise.
It's certainly an interesting situation, and I too am waiting expectantly for the other shoe to drop.
Yes, whatever your bias is, China is a "normal" country. In the sense of being closer to the ideal than most countries – not of
being average.
You may bewail some of the "human rights" issues in China, although I believe they may be somewhat magnified for PR purposes.
But when did China last attack another country without provocation and murder hundreds of thousands of its citizens, level its
cities, or destroy the rule of law? (Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya )
The Chinese seem to be law-abiding, sensible, and strongly disposed to peace. Which is something the world needs a lot more
of right now.
@Dan Hayes "why hasn't
anyone before thought of it.. "
" WHY HASN'T ANYONE BEFORE THOUGHT OF IT !!"
You must be kidding me.
For over three years I have been issuing comment after comment after comment .Like a crazed wolf howling in a barren forest
.That the "number one" priority of the American people should be demanding the seizure of ALL the assets of Neocon oligarchic
class.
Why ?
Not because they are "oligarchs." ..or some might own "casinos" but because they "deliberately" Conspired to Defraud the American
People into illegal Wars of Aggression and have nearly bankrupted the nation in the process.
That's why.
And it is the worlds BEST REASON to seize the assets a thousand times better than "bribery charges." I have issued statement after statement to that affect ,on Unz Review, in the hope that at some point it might, at least subliminally,
catch on.
What I have witnessed over the past six years, is a lot of intelligent, thoughtful people "correctly diagnosing" the issues
which plague the nation But no one had any idea of what to do about it. I have been pointing out, that if people really want to do something about it then do whats RIGHT: Seize the assets of the defrauders.!
Of course we can. Of course we can Its the LAW! Defrauding the nation into "war of aggression" is the supreme crime one can commit against the American People. The "SUPREME CRIME"!
(If you don't think so, go ask your local Police Officer. He will tell you FLAT OUT ..it is the Worst crime "Conspiracy to Defraud
into Mass Murder! .Not good ! You can even ask him if there is a statute of limitations. He will probably say something like "
Yeah .When the Sun collapses!")
And they are GUILTY as charged There is no doubt , .. not anymore. We all know it and can "prove" it ! Every "penny" belonging to each and every Neocon Oligarch who CONSPIRED TO DEFRAUD US INTO ILLEGAL WAR should be forfeit until
the debt from those wars is paid down .. IN FULL !
The keys to the kingdom are right there, right in front of your noses. If you want to change things ."take action" the law is on YOUR side. We don't need China to do a damn thing ..We just need the American People to rise up,"apply the law" and take back their country
and its solvency.
Canada may be
the obvious criminal. But on consideration, isn't it rather like the low-level thug who carries out a criminal assignment on the
orders of a gang boss? And isn't it the gang boss who is the real problem for society?
An article with the identical take as Ron Unz, including the idea that China has its key lever via Sheldon Adelson's casinos,
was published on the Canadian
website of Henry Makow also noting that USA political king-maker Adelson, is a major force behind the anti-Iran obsessions
that partly grounded the arrest of Ms Meng, and so well-deserves consequences here...
In the Jeffrey Sachs article linked above, Sachs lists no less than 25 other companies which have been 'violating US sanctions'
and admitted guilt via paying of fines, but never suffered any executive arrests, including banks including JP Morgan Chase, Bank
of America, PayPal, Toronto-Dominion Bank, and Wells Fargo.
The principle against 'selective, arbitrary, and political prosecutions'
The principle that one state cannot take measures on the territory of another state by means of enforcement of national laws
- 'proportionality of law', which demands that penalty for any said 'crime' needs to be proportionate to the offence, and not
draconian, 'cruel and unusual' Ms Meng is threatened with decades in prison
This is also a significant humiliation of President Trump personally, his own advisors apparently colluding to render him powerless
and uninformed
The Meng case brings to mind the story of another sanctions-violating 'target' arrested at USA request, the great USA chess
master and non-Zionist Jew, Bobby Fischer (1943-2008).
Born in Chicago, Illinois, USA, Fischer impressed the world with his genius, but, like Ms Meng became criminally indicted by
the USA regime, for the 'crime' of playing chess in Yugoslavia when the Serb government was under USA 'sanctions'. Harassed across
the globe, Fischer was jailed in Japan in 2004-05 by embarrassed Japanese leaders, for this fake 'crime' which few people in the
world thought was wrong. Fischer had been using his celebrity voice to strongly criticise the USA & Israeli governments, making
him also a political target, much as Ms Meng is a political target due to her being a prominent citizen and quasi-princess of
China.
The Japanese, loath to be the instrument of Fischer's USA imprisonment, finally allowed Bobby to transit to Iceland where he
was given asylum and residency. Living not far from Iceland's NATO military base, Fischer became quickly and mysteriously struck
with disease, and Fischer died in Reykjavik, perhaps a victim of a CIA-Mossad-Nato assassination squad.
The Chinese government, I am told, directly understands the power and role of Sheldon Adelson here, and Chinese inspectors
are perhaps inside Adelson's Macau properties as you read this. Perhaps Chinese officials may show up soon in Adelson's casinos,
and repeat the line of actor Claude Rains' character in the 1942 film 'Casablanca' -
"I'm shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here!"
What we have to realize is that just as there is no real difference between Democrats and Republicans because they are both
owned by the same people, so must we realize that in reality there is little difference between the leaders of the worlds countries
because they are all owned by the same central banks. This is why Nate Rothschild famously stated "give me control of a countries
money supply, and I care not who makes its laws" . All the world's central banks are tied together by BIS, WB and IMF and
the US marines. This is the reason Syria, Libya, NK and Venezuela have been taken down: Rothchild central bank control.
So this Huaiwei arrest almost certainly has nothing to do with the "trade war", and is with certainly a hit by one side of
the Kabal against the other. Zionist Nationalists versus Chabad Lubbovitz perhaps?
Jared Kushner has been lying pretty low lately and recently was stripped of his security clearance. He was linked to Kissilev
the Russian ambassador, plus he was pushing Trump to help protect MBS in SA. I would bet that he is at the center of this storm.
I'm honestly shocked no one has stated the obvious: very, very few Americans would be likely to care if Sheryl Sandberg were arrested
on dubious charges in China. I cant say I would be one of those few people.
I also should note that the crown prince of KSA is Mohammad bin Salman. Salman is his father, the king. The crown prince is
Mohammad, son of (aka "bin") Salman.
@TheMediumIsTheMassage
In many ways China does deviate from international norms, but of course so does the United States. As Tom Welsh pointed out, Chinese
foreign policy is downright angelic compared to the US, even if you consider Tibet and Xinjiang to be illegitimately occupied
territories (an argument I'm sympathetic to). Perhaps China would act as belligerently as the US does if China were the sole global
superpower, but it's not, so it's fair to judge China favorably compared to the US.
@Craig Nelsen Trump
deserves it for hiring Bolton at all. Perhaps one might argue Trump was blackmailed into doing so but he doesn't seem to be acting
like a blackmailed man.
Mr. Unz, at no time since Ms. Wanzhou's arrest have I felt myself in a position to judge that this was a strategically unwise
or incautious act. It might be, but apparently I'm to be contrasted from so many of your readers, and you, simply for understanding
myself to have an inadequate handle on the facts to make the call. That would be true, that my handle on the facts would be inadequate,
even if I didn't have personal knowledge of Huawei's suspicious practices or their scale.
I worry that you don't seem to evidence the presence of someone trusted who will go toe to toe with you as Devil's Advocate.
Too often, on affairs of too great a consequence, you come across too strongly, when the data doesn't justify the confidence.
A confident error is still an error and Maimonides' advice on indecision notwithstanding, a confident error is a candidate for
hubris, the worst kind of error. All of this, of course, assumes you make these arguments in good faith because if not the calculus
changes mightily.
Too many of your readers evidence that they interpret this event and form an opinion of it based on nothing but this higher order
syllogism:
Because I distrust the US government
[or because I distrust those I believe to control the US government]
It follows that this was an unjustified act or else a dangerous strategic error
After this higher order syllogism is accepted without due critique, evidence is sought to justify it and no further consideration
of the possibilities is tallied.
At minimum you need to have run a permutation where you seriously consider that : it is well know to US operatives, if not
to US citizens, you, and your readers, that Huawei is actively, constantly and maliciously waging covert war on the USA. You should
at least consider this possibility. If true, this act may merely be a shot across the bow that notifies China of a readiness to
expose things China may not wished exposed, and might stop endangering US citizens, if it were made aware such things stand to
be exposed.
If that's true, not only are you a fishing trawler captain causing distraction with a loudspeaker yelling at the captain of
the destroyer that just fired the warning shot across the bow of a Chinese vessel that is likely covert PLA/N, but now you may
be positioning your trawler to block the destroyer.
Do you really have enough information to know this is wise? Do you really know as much as the destroyer captain?
I will be away today, in the off chance you reply and I don't immediately answer it is because I can't.
Superb, as always, Ron Unz!
For someone who says he has no background in economics you you put your finger dead center on the money nexus of this "puppet
run by another puppet controlled by another puppet dangling from the strings of a still bigger puppet" chain from hell.
I wish someone would read out the entire article, may be with photos of the culprits, on Youtube with subtitles in Chinese.
@Craig Nelsen Nobody
is suggesting that "the order" came from Bolton or that he could indeed give any such order. True his not telling Trump about
what was about to happen bears a sinister interpretation.
@TheMediumIsTheMassage
I think what he means by normal are countries whose leaders are interested in the well being of their nation and the people they
rule. No divided or corrupted loyalties to another nation.
By this standard the United States is clearly not a normal country.
One angle you did not mention, Cisco (U.S. company) of course until not too many years ago had a near-monopoly on the kind
of network systems Huawei is selling as number one now (actually, I did not know of Huawei's success there, thought of it as a
handset maker), that may be a factor here.
There are a few Chinese or U.S. people of that descent on this site, mainly PRC-sympathetic, it would be very amusing if they
were able to ignite a big discussion of your hypothetical reprisals
During the bombing of Belgrade a missile fell on the Chinese Embassy. A local tv reporter approached a Chinese Embassy official
and asked him. What are you going to do now? The answer was.
The Meng case brings to mind the story of another sanctions-violating 'target' arrested at USA request, the great USA chess
master and non-Zionist Jew, Bobby Fischer (1943-2008).
Fischer was another victim of Zionist controlled American imperialism. Yugoslavia, the child of Woodrow Wilson, became the
victim of the Imperialist war Against Russia. Russia's brother, and ally, Yugoslavia, was destroyed by the kind democrat gang
administration of Wm (that was not sex), Clinton.
Excellent article, and an ingenious suggestion regarding the Adelson casinos. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a casino
shutdown. Having worked in the marketing end of the casino industry myself, I can tell you the most coveted demographic lists
were always the Chinese players, words like fanatical and obsessive don't even come close to describing their penchant for gambling.
I could literally see casino shutdowns in China causing a national Gilet Jaune moment followed by the overthrow of the Communist
Party LOL.
I would definitely welcome seeing more Ron Unz articles on current topics.
@Carlton Meyer Any chance
this is Democrat, Deep State types at State and Justice manufacturing this cluster-f in order to make Trump look unaware? This
is a President that respects casinos. And business. If Bolton and Company pulled this from behind the scenes without Executive
knowledge or authorization, is that even legal? More treason? But given the circumstances, how does all this even GET to Iran,
hurt Iran at all? What was supposedly illegal was done in 2010. Are we certain bags of cash from the Chinese and Russians and
Iran weren't traveling about Democrat-ruled DC back then? Grabbing this chick helps the case against Iran? I'm at a loss as to
how.
And so the thought of a more local political benefit/purpose, stirring a diplomatic shit-storm on Trump's watch, something
he'd have to take responsibility for. To start a near war, sort of like the Bay of Pigs. Operatives, pulling tricks, writing checks
the President then has to cover, looking like an unelectable mook throughout.
I'm happy to give the AIPAC kiddies full credit, I just don't see the damage to Iran in all this. For crying out loud, we carted
$500 billion cash over to Iran under Obama's watch, what, 2013 or 2014ish? I don't know how we skip over THAT, to get to trade
shenanigans in 2010, also taking place under Obama's watch. What was Holder doing when he was AG after all, why no action then?
If it's Israeli-driven today, why wasn't Israel pushing Holder to take action against Huawei back in 2010?
@TheMediumIsTheMassage
How is the USA a "normal" country in any sense of the word? It once was truly great among the nations of the world but that ship
sailed looooong back.
We invade for fake "freedom", inject the poison of homo mania into nations that do not do the bidding of the homos and/or bend
to the will of the chosen ones, pretend it's all for some good cause then invite the survivors to displace the founding stock
of this country. You call that "normal"??
We are nothing more than a vehicle for every kind of degenerate (((loser))) with cash to use our men and women as their private
mercenaries. We spread filth around the place, destroy nations and proclaim ourselves as the peace-makers with the shrill voice
of a worn out street prostitute on kensingtion ave (philly).
We are like that hoe, living out the last days of her aids infested body, with a grudge on the world for something that was
completely of our (((own))) making. Philly might have been the birthplace of this country but camden is where we are all headed.
And looking at China, we are dysfunctional beyond repair. Of course we still have quite a few things the Chinese might want to
emulate (no the SJW versions but the read deal) but looking at our other maladies, they probably won't who'll blame them?
@Anon Yes it was s Portuguese
colony. Interesting that Persian traders including Jews were in Macau going back st least to 500 AD probably more.
Ron, have you sent this article to the Chinese ambassador in DC yet?
Strange that the Chinese let Adelson in. The Macau casinos have thrived for a long time. The Portuguese left valuable casinos
and the Chinese let the Jews in soon after the Portuguese left.
It makes sense that foreign casino operators would want to move into Macau, but why would China let foreigners in?
Could it be that one of the largest investors in China since the mid 1970s Richard Blum husband of Dianne Feinstein has something
to do with it??
She's as much the Senator representing China as a Senator representing California.
Another interesting aspect of all this is the "suicide" of Physics Professor Zhang Shoucheng at Stanford just a few hours after
Meng was arrested on Dec 1. According to reliable Chinese sources and widespread reporting on social media Zhang was the conduit
to China from Silicone Valley. He was richly rewarded by Chinese investment in his US companies. IMHO the Chinese understand the
role of Israel and Adelson in US politics but are cautious in going this far. The Chinese are taking the light touch approach
with Trump and his Adelson selected neocons. A Chinese businessman Guo WenGui with the highest connections to the Chinese elites
and security services has sought political asylum in the USA. On the internet he daily speaks to the Chinese diaspora (in Mandarin)
on the complex developments in Chinese official corruption. The NY Times has now started to take him seriously (good idea ) and
reports that he and Steve Bannon have formed an alliance to expose Chinese government activities. You can read all this in the
NY Times. Unz should translate Guo Wengui into English and publish his commentaries. In my analysis he is usually right about
China and has shown remarkable predictive powers. He knows how and what the Chinese think, where the bones are buried and what
comes next. He and Bannon plan to reveal the facts about the recent suicide in France of another prominent Chinese businessman
Wang Jian who was Chairman of Hainan Airlines parent company.
This article by Mr. Unz is a good example of why people should read and support the Unz Review. No one is better equipped to shed
light on otherwise unmentioned interests behind mainstream news events like this one.
Kudos for making a smart suggestion that no doubt will be heard by people who could carry it out.
Good article, but it is only scratching the surface.
Many things would be explained if somebody would find out what is the volume of US investment in China, and what percentage of
it is Jewish.
That would shed light why the rabid Jewish press in US so bestially attacking Trump, after Trump started to impose tariffs on
Chinese goods.
I do not know, but I could guess that Trump reached deep into Jewish profits.
We have no choice than wait what will happen to tariffs after Trump will be replaced.
@Carlton Meyer Canada
declared an end to participating in combat operations in Afghanistan in July 2011 and withdrew its combat forces, leaving a dwindling
number of advisors to Afghan forces. The last Canadian soldier departed Afghanistan in March 2014. You are spot on regarding Bolton's
certifiability.
Trump has been totally phagocyted by the Neo-Cons in the foreign policy. The two pillars of the neocons foreign policy are now
Saudi Arabia and Israel. Trump is benefitting from the neo-cons intelligence and their powerful financial network that he is convinced
would help in his reelection.
Once he is re-elected then he may decrease his reliance on them but for the next few years the jewish lobby will prevail in Trump's
foreign policy. Unless they are not able to protect Trump from falling under the democrats assaults or been eliminated from power,
they are on for more wars, more troubles and more deaths. History will place Trump near Bush junior as neo-cons puppets responsible
for the largest destruction of countries since WWII.
@Brabantian Interesting
that she was arrested in the Chinese colony of Vancouver BC. Maybe the Canadian government is asserting sovereignty over Vancouver
at long last.
That must have been frightening. There she was sitting in the VIP lounge surrounded by deferential airline clerks as usual
and suddenly she's under arrest.
Since the end of the Cold War, the American government has become increasingly delusional, regarding itself as the Supreme
World Hegemon.
More delusional than when in 1957 the US government gave Iran a nuclear reactor and weapons grade uranium? In his latter years
Khashoggi 's relative, the weapons dealer Adnan Khashoggi, much later mused on what the US was trying to achieve by giving Iran
vast amounts of armaments, when all it did was set off an arms race in the region. America then switched to Iraq as its cop on
the beat and gave them anything they asked for, and were placatory of Saddam when he started talking crazy. This was under the
US government least attentive to Israel. Yes things should be more balanced as Steven Walt suggests
Averting World Conflict with China, by Ron Unz - The Unz Review If it wants to create the conditions for a final settlement
of the Palestinian problem, then America should be more even handed but it must also be very cautious about Iran. We don't know
who will be in power there in the future and history shows that once those ME counties are given an inch they take a mile.
Saudi Arabia seems quite sensible, its liking for US gov bonds that even Americans think offer too low a rate of interest is
easily explained as payment for US protection. Killing Khashoggi that way was a dreadful moral and foreign policy mistake from
someone who is too young for the amount of authority he has been given, but the victim did not beg for death like more than a
few Uygurs are doing right now. The CIA agent China rounded up with the help of it's network of double agents in the US were doubtless
glad to have their interrogation terminated.
Some sweeteners from Adelson are likely in the Tsunami of dirty Chinese money, which are amusingly being laundered in Canadian
casinos. As Walt points out the Chinese elite want bolt holes and bank accounts in north America. By the way most of the ill gotten
gains are from sale of opiates such as fentanyl.
Targeting Sheldon Adelson's Chinese Casinos
Yes that will work, especially when added to what China is already doing in targeting farmers who supported Trump, so he is
definitely not going to be reelected now you have explained all this to them, and you are also opening up Harvard to their children,
which can only redound to the detriment of white gentiles. Deliberate pouring of the vials of wrath or just accidentally spilling
them? I am begining to wonder.
Thank you, Ron, for a clear-headed and insightful article.
There are however, two tiny infelicities, which I would not want for them to distract from the article's merit.
First, I think the Saudi Arabian Prince you are referring to is Prince Mohammed bin Salman, not "Prince Salman". "Prince
Mohammed" would be the abbreviated form of his name. "Bin" is of course the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew "ben" indicating paternity,
rather than a middle name, so "Salman" is not his surname. "Prince Salman" would refer to the current Saudi King before he was
King, rather than to the current Prince.
Second, maybe the hypothetical of China seizing Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook is not the best analogy since I, and I suspect
others who are aware of her key role in empowering and enriching a deceptive and parasitical industry, would not be terribly troubled
if China seized her. Indeed, we might consider it a public service. Admittedly, it is hard to find a good analogy for a prominent
female executive of a US national champion company since so many of our prominent companies are predatory rather than productive
and scorn their native country rather than serve it.
and Ms. Meng was seized on the same day that he was personally meeting on trade issues with Chinese President Xi. Some
have even suggested that the incident was a deliberate slap in Trump's face.
@Baxter"America
is not in any danger." America is in very great danger, but only from within.
Almost half of all millenials believe that Capitalism is evil and that the Socialism should be the guiding economic principle
of this nation. When you point out that it has failed for every nation in history that has tried it, notably the Soviet Union
and more recently Venezuela, they retort that it is because those countries "did it wrong" and that "we will do it right."
When you ask for specifics as what they "did wrong" that we will "do right" they stare at you wordlessly as if you
are the one who is an idiot.
It should also be pointed out that a vast majority of Democrats think that Ocasio-Cortez is brilliant and that we need more
legislators like her.
What if Ms. Meng, was giving Iranian dissidents phones and other equipment to undermine the Government of Iran, starting another
color revolution, that sucks in America and Israel? What if the Trump administration asked that this not be done in order to end
the endless "revolutions" that have been happening and bankrupting our country and threatening Israel? What if the sanctions are
benefiting Iran's government too? China was allowed to become so large at our expense when we opened up trade and moved businesses
over there, but this was to keep them from being too cozy with Soviet Russia, just ask Nixon.
Part of the Zionist plan for a Zionist NWO was laid by David Rockefeller when he sent Kissinger to China to open up Chinas slave
labor to the NWO types like Rockefeller and the Zionist controlled companies in the U.S. and part of the plan was the deindustrialization
of America thus bringing down the American standard of living while raising the standard of living in China.
I will never believe the fake disagreement between the Zionist controlled U.S. and the Chinese government as long as G.M and
Google and the other companies that have shut down their operations in the U.S. and opened operations in China, it is all a NWO
plan to bring down we Americans to third world status and then meld all of us into a Zionist satanic NWO.
The enemy is not at the gates, the enemy is in the government and its name is Zionism and the Zionist NWO!
"... Brexit can be considered as the rebuilding of the old nation state wall between England and the Continent. To an extent, this is a repudiation of the Globalist Movement, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Neo-Liberal Experiment. In it's essence, Trumps Wall is a repudiation of the NAFTA Consensus. The American 'deplorables' support it because they see it as a means of defending their livelihoods from those hordes of 'foreign' low wage workers. In both cases, it is a looking inwards. ..."
Brexit can be considered as the rebuilding of the old nation state wall between
England and the Continent. To an extent, this is a repudiation of the Globalist Movement, a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Neo-Liberal Experiment. In it's essence, Trumps Wall is a
repudiation of the NAFTA Consensus. The American 'deplorables' support it because they see it
as a means of defending their livelihoods from those hordes of 'foreign' low wage workers. In
both cases, it is a looking inwards.
Arguably, May is one of a generation of politicos in decline. Macron, (perhaps Merkel's
hope of having a posterity,) has caved. Merkel has seen the face of her political mortality
recently. May has her Pyrrhic victory.
The Clintons cannot even give tickets to their road show away. In all of these examples,
the replacements waiting in the wings are, to be charitable about it, underwhelming. Brexit
is but the opening act of a grand, worldwide crisis of governance.
How England muddles through this will be an object lesson for us all. We had better take
notes, because there will be a great testing later.
While the UK has rightly been the focus, I can't help wondering what the deeper feelings
are across Europe. It's very hard to gauge how much thought the rest of Europe is giving to
Brexit at this stage. The average punter seems very uninterested at this point, while a
growing number (from what I'm reading from other sources) just wish they'd get it over with
so the rest of Europe could be allowed to get on with its own internal concerns. I suspect
the rest of the EU economies most affected must be putting their 'crash-out' plans into
over-drive after this week's continuing escapades.
(Re: Sinn Féin. I was wondering if there was the remotest possibility that they
would cross their biggest line just to help a Tory government, and a particularly vile Tory
government from their standpoint. When speaking to veteran Belfast Republican during
negotiations on the GFA (Good Friday Agreement), their viewpoint was that nearly everything
could be negotiated but one thing was impossible: entering into a foreign London parliament.
Symbolically and practically, it was a step beyond the pale. I also noticed lately that a
couple of older Sinn Féin Republicans, who had to be persuaded into the negotiation
camp all those years ago, are again contemplating running for local government positions in
the North.)
Everything I've read indicates that the rest of Europe has simply given up on Brexit
– they are unwilling to expend any more energy or political capital on it. The leaders
have much bigger things on their plates than Brexit, and the general population have lost
interest – I'm told it rarely features much in reporting on the major media. I think
they'll grant an extension purely to facilitate another couple of months preparation for a
crash out, and thats it.
As for Sinn Fein, I get the feeling that after been caught on the hop by Brexit, they now
see a crash out as an opportunity. NI looks likely to suffer more than anywhere else if there
is a no-deal – there is hardly a business there that won't be devastated. But they are
caught between trying to show their soft face in the south and their hardliner face in the
North, and I think they are having difficulty deciding how to play it.
The British circus attracts interest and there is coverage on the motions and so on
treated as UK internal politics. May and the ultra-brexiteers get almost all the attention.
The only options mentioned are no deal and May's agreement.
" European diplomats in London watching the government's Brexit agony have conveyed a
mixture of despair, and almost ghoulish fascination, at the state of British politics, with
one saying it is as melodramatic as a telenovela, full of subplots, intrigue, tragedy and
betrayal
Although privately many diplomats would love Brexit to be reversed, and believe it could
mark a turning point against populism, there was also a wariness about the disruption of a
second referendum. One ambassador suggested the French realised that European parliamentary
election campaign of the French president, Emmanuel Macron, would be damaged by the sight of
furious British leave campaigners claiming they had been cheated of their democratic rights
by an arrogant elite who refused to listen: "What is happening in France is potentially
momentous. The social fabric is under threat, and this anger could spread across the
continent," the ambassador said, referring to the gilets jaunes protests ."
No-deal Brexit: Disruption at Dover 'could
last six months' BBC. I have trouble understanding why six months. The UK's customs IT
system won't be ready and there's no reason to think it will be ready even then. I could
see things getting less bad due to adaptations but "less bad" is not normal
The
Great Brexit Breakdown Wall Street Journal. Some parts I quibble with, but generally
good and includes useful historical detail.
"... It was Bolton who a week ago intentionally damaged U.S. relations with China. ..."
"... Meng Wanzhou is a daughter of the founder and main owner of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, and was groomed to be his successor. The company is extremely well regarded in China. It is one its jewel pieces and, with 170,000 employees and $100 billion in revenues, an important political actor. ..."
"... The arrest on December 1 happened while president Trump was negotiating with president Xi of China about trade relations. Trump did not know about the upcoming arrest but Bolton was informed of it ..."
"... It was a trap. The arrest is a public slap in the face of China and to Xi personally. It will not be left unanswered. Whatever Trump may have agreed upon with Xi is now worthless. John Bolton intentionally sabotaged the talks and the U.S. relations with China. ..."
"... Having read this in context with the comments (especially those by Denk and others) previous on this topic, I would ask if anyone can provide a time line of US clandestine negative (and sometimes fatal) actions against high level Chinese engineers and telecoms. Again, the above summary is outstanding. ..."
"... The terrifying aspect is Bolton, Pompeo - puppets both for shadow power players - have no constraints whatsoever, and obviously operate without any constraint or regard for our severely (cognitively and emotionally) challenged president ..."
"... The timing of this arrest - while Trump and Xi are dining and Sabrina Meng is on her way to the G-20 conference gives a loud message that Trump is serves at the pleasure of his neocon staff - and son in law, the latter being instrumental in the firing of Rex Tillerson, the hiring of Bolton, Pompeo and the impending firing of Gen. Kelly. ..."
"... Trump is a global front for a different approach to maintaining global hegemony but make no mistake, Trump is not fronting for you ..."
"... Arresting US business execs by China is a mistake that would be cheered by Bolton and Navarro. The provocation of arresting Meng is designed by the Trump team to provoke China to arrest US business leaders and thus destroy their direct investment into China. ..."
"... The enemy of China is not US businesses but rather the neocon dominated US govt. To impact this group, China needs to cut off their drug supply(their financing) thru no longer buying their USTs to finance and enable their massive military spending and financial aggression. ..."
"... Canada's role in this is shocking. It is all of a piece with the surrender to the USA in the Trade negotiations whereby, inter alia, Canada is not allowed to enter into Trade agreements with 'non-market' economies. The non-market formulation being code for unapproved by Uncle Sam. No doubt the Nazi Freeland is running this show. In this she is ably seconded by the 'opposition' Tories and the social fascist NDP which is as enthusiastic for war against China as it is for an attack on the Donbas. ..."
"... Those who talk about Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, etc. direct our attention to a shell game. They are all in on the scam. How better to say it? There is one party: the war party. Trump is a member of TEAM USA. US political maestros dance to the tune of the Deep State/neolibcon. ..."
"... With respect to Foreign Policy, how much real difference is there between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? They have all supported MIC, Israel, and expanding the Empire - aka Job #1 ..."
"... Bolton works for Adelson probably Pompeo does too. So Trump can't fire their crazy asses any time he chooses. ..."
"... Adelson has made millions with his gambling dens. In some ways it's a bit like what the East India Company did with opium. ..."
"... I think we can assume that the arrest was not an unwelcome surprise for Trump, or he would have reversed it. He knew, and accepts it. It's total asymmetric war on China. The arrest was on December 1. Trump twitter, Dec 7 China talks are going very well! here ..."
"... Does the fact that Huawei recently passed Apple for the number 2 phone sales have anything to do with this ..."
"... CNN: A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22, it was revealed at the hearing Friday here . She was arrested on December 1. Meng didn't know about this "issued warrant?" How does this 'system of laws' work, anyhow? Perhaps the warrant issue was classified secret, for US national security? ..."
"... The problem with Iran is (as was with Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and even Syria) that a country with an independent/non-aligned foreign policy has control of a large quantity of valuable natural resources for which there is a constant and relatively insatiable demand. If they cannot be controlled they they should be destroyed so they cannot pursue their own agenda and ignore the dictates of the west. China and Russia are this problem writ large, and they have nukes and a means of delivery to all corners of the globe... ..."
Neocons Sabotage Trump's Trade Talks - Huawei CFO Taken Hostage To Blackmail ChinaWilly2 , Dec 7, 2018 2:30:00
PM |
link
CNN reports that White House chief of staff John Kelly is
expected
to resign soon . There have been similar rumors before, but this time the news may actually be true. That is bad for Trump
and U.S. policies. Kerry is one a the few counterweights to national security advisor John Bolton. His replacement will likely
be whoever Bolton chooses. That will move control over Trump policies further into the hands of the neo-conservatives.
It was Bolton who a week ago intentionally damaged U.S. relations with China.
The U.S. Justice Department arranged for Canada to arrest the chief financial officer of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, over alleged
U.S. sanctions violations with regards to Iran. The case is not over the sanction Trump recently imposed, but over an alleged
collision with the sanction regime before the nuclear deal with Iran. The details are still unknown.
Meng Wanzhou is a daughter of the founder and main owner of Huawei, Ren Zhengfei, and was groomed to be his successor.
The company is extremely well regarded in China. It is one its jewel pieces and, with 170,000 employees and $100 billion in revenues,
an important political actor.
The arrest on December 1 happened while president Trump was negotiating with president Xi of China about trade relations.
Trump did not know about the upcoming arrest but
Bolton was informed of it:
While the Justice Department did brief the White House about the impending arrest, Mr. Trump was not told about it. And the
subject did not come up at the dinner with Mr. Xi. Mr. Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said on NPR that
he knew about the arrest in advance, ..
Bolton surely should have informed Trump before his dinner with Xi, in which Bolton took part, but he didn't.
It was a trap. The arrest is a public slap in the face of China and to Xi personally. It will not be left unanswered. Whatever
Trump may have agreed upon with Xi is now worthless. John Bolton intentionally sabotaged the talks and the U.S. relations with
China.
Posted by b at
02:00 PM |
Comments (76) - I almost starting to feel sorry for D.A.A.D. Trump.
- We have seen in the last years that the US has been (deliberately) ratcheting up tensions in the Far East. And the summit between
Trump & Kim Jung Un was a severe threat for that (deliberate) increase of tensions. But the US & european media have told their
readers/listener/watchers that China was to blame for the increase of tensions.
The death of Shoucheng Zhang, by falling from a building, supposedly due to depression, reminded me of an incident I had read
about years ago, of another scientist's death in 1953 in vaguely similar circumstances. I had forgotten the fellow's name but
I remembered the incident had something to do with the CIA and the administration of LSD so I used those two terms along with
"fall" and "window" and was able to dig up the details.
In 1953, CIA researcher Frank Olson was administered LSD without his consent by researchers working in the Project MK Ultra
program. Olson became severely depressed and resigned from the CIA. He was later found dead, apparently after falling out of a
motel building through a window, and his death was ruled a suicide. In the 1970s, his family ordered an autopsy and the autopsy
showed that Olson had died from head injury trauma before falling through the window. A CIA agent was found to have been staying
at the same motel in a separate room at the time Olson died. The family sued the US government and received $750,000 in compensation
and an apology from the CIA. https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2018/08/mkultra-conspiracy/
One wonders if Zhang's death had been, ahem, "arranged" according to that template. The description of Zhang from the Stanford
University News website's obituary that B linked to in his post does not sound like a profile of someone who suffered depression
on and off.
This has to be embarrassing as hell to Trump - he should be absolutely furious with Bolton and Pompeo. And all this for violating
sanctions on Iran? I feel like on crazy pills. We live in interesting times.
So, if Bolton sabotaged Trump's efforts to do some sort of deal with China, in whose interest is Bolton working. You'd think that
a trade deal with China would be good for the US. Is Bolton working against US interest.
If we accept the Globalist/Nationalist
framework, then does this not mean that Bolton is helping the nationalists against US interests. And what are the implications
of that.
Trump's rapid departure from Argentina may well have been motivated by receiving the information about the arrest after the well
hyped dinner. If that is the case, Bolton should have been fired on the spot. The lack of any statement about this affair from
Trump is curious. There may be an element of blackmail at play here too, related to Mueller's machinations ahead of the G20. A
malignancy is loose, no doubt.
Thank you for this excellent column. Having read this in context with the comments (especially those by Denk and others) previous
on this topic, I would ask if anyone can provide a time line of US clandestine negative (and sometimes fatal) actions against
high level Chinese engineers and telecoms. Again, the above summary is outstanding.
The terrifying aspect is Bolton, Pompeo - puppets both for shadow power players - have no constraints whatsoever, and obviously
operate without any constraint or regard for our severely (cognitively and emotionally) challenged president, as this report
makes clear.
The timing of this arrest - while Trump and Xi are dining and Sabrina Meng is on her way to the G-20 conference gives a
loud message that Trump is serves at the pleasure of his neocon staff - and son in law, the latter being instrumental in the firing
of Rex Tillerson, the hiring of Bolton, Pompeo and the impending firing of Gen. Kelly.
I can't believe that Trump did not know about the detention of Meng Wanzhou before hand. Trump is a TV actor and he is apprenticing
for a higher spot for himself and family is the elite pecking order.
While we might want to give Trump credit for being who
he is, the elite that fronted him know exactly what his style and penchants are. Trump is a global front for a different approach
to maintaining global hegemony but make no mistake, Trump is not fronting for you nor I
From the perspective of China, their most appropriate response in this complicated situation IMO, should be to accelerate their
gradual reduction of USTs.
All those articles about how China will hurt itself if it gradually sells down USTs are nonsense articles placed into the media
to throw off attention to what is already happening. Russia and Turkey have alrdy done it on a smaller scale, it's a no-brainer
that China can do it also. Why should China finance the US govt to wage war on itself?
If China and other countries gradually stop buying USTs, actual demand will collapse and many other holders will sell or reduce
likewise. Mnuchin is fantasizing when he says there will still be strong demand. Any demand will be from the US Treasury buying
its own USTs, like a dog licking its own rear quarters.
Arresting US business execs by China is a mistake that would be cheered by Bolton and Navarro. The provocation of arresting
Meng is designed by the Trump team to provoke China to arrest US business leaders and thus destroy their direct investment into
China.
The enemy of China is not US businesses but rather the neocon dominated US govt. To impact this group, China needs to cut
off their drug supply(their financing) thru no longer buying their USTs to finance and enable their massive military spending
and financial aggression.
How to do that without crashing the markets n decreasing China's own assets? Sell and reduce USTs gradually. And pretend
u r not doing it. Eventually the lack of buying will force the Fed to raise rates or force the US Treasury to buy its own USTs,
further debasing the US dollar.
In history, all empires fall this way, they keep on printing or taking out the silver content until their currency gets debased
into nothing, and nobody wants it.
Looks like Bolton wants war with China. I recall he was hired during the North Korea talks to add a bit of muscle and now Trump
is stuck with him whether he likes it or not.
Re. Meng....apparently she faces fraud charges related to the Skycom affair. Of course that is just what we're told. Who knows
what kind of pressure she will come under once they get her in the US.
1959, CIA disobeyed Pres Eisenhower's ban on further overflights of USSR until after his summit meeting with Khrushchev. Then
the U-2 was brought down over USSR and the live pilot captured. The US officially denied it happened.
The USSR cancelled the summit meeting.
At first, Eisenhower claimed to have no knowledge of the operation and was outraged when the truth revealed. UN Ambassador
Stevenson made a vehement speech at the UN denying it happened, followed immediately with USSR producing both the plane's wreckage
and its pilot.
Then USSR showed the pilot and wreckage was publicly displayed. Pilot F G Powers had safely bailed-out and was put on-trial
in Moscow, convicted and then allowed to return to the US.
Mission Accomplished! by the unelected leaders of the US [who were certain their man Nixon would be the next President, followed
by quick re-capture of Cuba and then war in Vietnam. Both those operations already directly involved Nixon, who was fully "in"
on The Bay of Pigs and, earlier, plans for US "support" of Saigon leaders in "South" Vietnam with whom he established communications
during his 1953 visit as Ike's new Vice-President.]
...that data on this is more shocking then i realized.. the death of prof zhang - apparent suicide, is bizarre here..
i agree that the usa has been taken over by small minded neo cons that would try to use meng wanzhou as leverage.. the fact
Bolton knew and Trump didn't.. i am not buying that, or Bolton is more manipulative then i realized.. they are all that stupid
though.. i hope Canada doesn't allow this, but under the wuss Justin Trudeau, i am not holding my breath..
@ 12 dh... wanted for ignoring us sanctions on iran from 2009 to 2014... what the fuck has that to do with canada?? is canada
now doing book keeping, and everything else for the usa? the usa can go fuck themselves.. if Canada wasn't a 2 bit vassal state,
that is what we would tell the usa..
Today is Dec.7, a day in 1941 that Pres. Roosevelt aptly called "A Day of Infamy," as the Japanese military attacked Pearl
Harbor.
We now know that the very top echelons of US government first correctly anticipated and then knew precisely when and how the
attack would occur. The 3,000 (+/-) GI's who were sacrificed were considered "acceptable losses." (The 3,000 civilians who were
sacrificed on 9/11 were also considered "acceptable losses.") "Infamy" is an accurate word for US .gov conduct.
(Pls, do not comment to this OT. Wait for the next open thread, if you must.)
Looks like Trump was out of the loop. Trudeau is mainly photo-op material only. This would have been Chrystia Freeland, the
Nazi grand-daughter's file.
In Australia - endless media trumpeting the closed door to Chinese telcos from Australia and New Zealand but one has to go out
of one's way to discover our neighbor Papua New GUINEA has continued using HuaHwei products albeit under U S pressure not to do
so
1/ "... the rise first of Communism and then of Islam as world forces opposing imperialism."
Has Islam, in fact, been in opposition
to imperialism? For the most part, as in India/Pakistan, it has been a very useful imperialist foil against nationalism and socialism.
There have been sincere and effective muslim campaigns against imperialism but equally there have been imperialist financed 'islamic'
campaigns against enemies of the Empire.
2/ Canada's role in this is shocking. It is all of a piece with the surrender to the USA in the Trade negotiations whereby,
inter alia, Canada is not allowed to enter into Trade agreements with 'non-market' economies. The non-market formulation being
code for unapproved by Uncle Sam. No doubt the Nazi Freeland is running this show. In this she is ably seconded by the 'opposition'
Tories and the social fascist NDP which is as enthusiastic for war against China as it is for an attack on the Donbas.
I used to be a member of this, once mildly socialist party. I am proud to say that I was expelled.
Washington has asked Ottawa to arrest Meng Wanzhou and to extradite her. The motive for the war undertaken by Washington against
Huawei is deep-rooted and spurious are the justifications.
The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications.
A number of governments and secret services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei materials,
and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications.
The covers/excuses for this war are theft of intellectual property or in the alternative, trade with Iran and North Korea,
and violating rules of competition by benefitting from national subsidies.
The Five Eyes is a system of electronic espionage by Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
They have begun to exclude Huawei from their auctions.
Those who talk about Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, Kelly, etc. direct our attention to a shell game. They are all in on the scam.
How better to say it? There is one party: the war party. Trump is a member of TEAM USA. US political maestros dance to the tune
of the Deep State/neolibcon.
Fine distinctions between senior US govt officials make me want to tear my hair out. In US
govt only whistle-blowers are white knights. Everyone else is engaging in good guy/bad guy bullshit and controlled opposition.
With respect to Foreign Policy, how much real difference is there between Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump? They have all
supported MIC, Israel, and expanding the Empire - aka Job #1.
- Bolton was appointed under pressure from one Sheldon Adelson, who was a (large) donor to the Trump campaign. In that regard,
it was (nearly) impossible for Trump to fire Bolton.
In terms of Frank Olsen, there is a very good six part documentary series on Netflix called "Wormwood". Most important are
the interviews with Olsen's son. His search for the truth took many years (too many years) and he finally uncovered the final
levels of deceit. Worth the time.
@14 ".. wanted for ignoring us sanctions on iran from 2009 to 2014... what the fuck has that to do with canada?? "
Absolutely nothing james. I suspect they are using that charge, rather than getting into 5G backdoor whatever, to make the
extradition process go faster. They don't want it to drag on for years.
Surely it's Bolton who must go. That was an enormous betrayal. The one thing that Trump had going for him was the performance
of the stock market. His neocon enemies in the form of Bolton, managed to strike two blows simultaneously; increase conflict with
China and tank the market.
Too many posters letting Trump off the hook here. He's a brilliant 4D chess master but at the same time he's also a vulnerable
naif who lets neocons, ziofascists and other hostile entities keep hijacking his administration for their own ends? Bit of a problem
there. You can't have it both ways.
Occam's Razor says the Trump administration's foreign policy, possibly with Russia as an exception, is run with the full approval
of Donald John Trump. He's no friend of China, remember, and Steve Bannon's plan to befriend Russia was designed to keep it from
partnering with China against the United States.
It's almost 2019 and like the Obots of 2010 it's time to accept that your man is a busted flush, a fraud, an American exceptionalist
through and through.
The "fraud" charge goes back to 2009/10, and concerns an alleged misrepresentation over the relationship between a company called
SkyComm and Huawei. The alleged sanction violation by SkyComm had nothing to do with Iran's nuclear or military programs, and
may not have even proceeded beyond a negotiation phase. The alleged "fraud", or misrepresentation, rests on a technical interpretation
of complicated interlocking corporate structures. The prosecutors and the defence will likely both be correct in their presentations,
as it is a muddle, but the well has already been poisoned by the now well-publicized accusations that Huawei is a Communist trojan
horse. It's very thin gruel to proceed with such a high profile arrest.
The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications.
A number of governments and secret services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei
materials, and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications.
And not only the governments and secret services, Huawei is widely popular all along EU amongst the common working class user
( which means millions and millions of users....) especially because of its advantageous price and great capabilities.... I myself
own a Huawei device, my friends own Huaweis....Glad to hear that "Five Eyes" can not spy on us....I am very fidel to marks/services
who do not deceive me, but after knowing this new "capability", I am thinking in keeping Huawei as my header mark....Just waiting
for them to launch the laptop "Five Eyes" waterproof and I will be throwing this old one to the trash bin....
@32,36
I wonder how Adelson would react to a Chinese boycott of his casinos in Macau and Singapore? A lot of his wealth has come from
Chinese gamblers. Given Adelson's connections to Bolton and Trump, it would seem like an obvious pressure point.
@38 lili... denk was discussing this on the open thread yesterday.. see his links @68 / 76 and etc
on this page.. no one is discussing
this..
@48 peter au.. it certainly appears that way.. funny thing how trump sold himself on a number of topics, but not that one..
meanwhile, i guess the loot from adelson is quite good... stick with me and you don't need any stickin russian oligarch.. what
is quite amazing is how blind the average amerikkkan is to all this.. they are still stuck on the mueller investigation which
has been running on empty for some time... they would never do an investigation on isreal, or zionists influence on us elections,
as it is too friggin' obvious for anyone looking... better to skip that and continue to serve israel.. thus the constant fixation
with iran..
or russia and china, as the case may be... the top 3 evil countries, according to obama, or was that north korea.. i guess trump
will have to revise it.. the usa is pathetic.. canada is not far behind..
Trump didn't know b/c the NYTimes said so?
I've got this bridge....
China's response may not be immediate, but it will come.
I'm reminded of the sudden death of Vice Adm. Scott Stearney, commander of the Navy's 5th Fleet, Persian Gulf, discovered inside
his home in Bahrain last weekend, a "suspected suicide."
Iran always gets even.
To those of us that understand that all/most of the politicians are working for the same team, it should be easy to see the good
cop/bad cop dynamic being used here.
If b thinks Trump is a good cop, as he presents him here (yes, b has written that he disagrees with all/most of what Trump
does) as do other commenters that post here, I would posit that "they" are being successful in working that meme at this time.
China will not back down and now will play hardball back, but in a globalist sense I expect them to continue to take the high
road as the West mires itself further in the muck of its religion of private finance.
Another commenter mentioned the strategy of China dumping its massive amount of US Treasuries. I think we are getting to that
moment and the response of the US is to default on whomever is holding its debt...............
and then the war we have been in for some time turns serious.
The problem the elite have is making the public have the fervor to slaughter themselves for the purpose of continuing a society
run by and only servicing the elite. I don't understand how they have managed all these centuries but here we are, a bit still
in the dark ages of a thousand years ago.
I think we can assume that the arrest was not an unwelcome surprise for Trump, or he would have reversed it. He knew, and
accepts it. It's total asymmetric war on China. The arrest was on December 1. Trump twitter, Dec 7 China talks are going
very well! here
This is a 100% neocon clusterfuck. It is vital to the success of Trump's Drain The Swamp strategy that The Swampers be given every
opportunity to put their anti-US influence on public display. At least now we know which weirdos are responsible for the US policy
of "Let's do SOMETHING, even it it's stupid."
I've been scouring the 'News' and the www for evidence that China agreed to uphold US sanctions on Iran to an extent that would
invite the US to punish China for disregarding US whims. No luck, so far.
What makes this story entertaining is that the US has not only surrendered its lead in Military Tech, from the Good Old Days,
but Computer and Communications Tech too. You have to be pretty desperate to admit a blunder of that magnitude, albeit obliquely,
as in this case.
Unlikely that few in Trump's cabinet or Senate Foreign Relations committee could even pass the physics section of a college entrance
exam, and have little idea what quantum encryption even is (Chinese published on it first a couple of years ago).
That presumption alone suggests Pompeo Bolton etc are just finger puppets ... which oligarch has all those cia contracts again?
They are in well over their heads. They can't even keep up with the Russians. They will likely get stung by Chinese scorpions
without even knowing what hit them!
Another 'unintended consequence' of the neocon gambit to embarrass Trump by by-passing him, will be renewed interest in something
Vlad said in one of Oliver Stone's Putin's Interviews.
In the context of Vlad's feelings about POTUS Trump, Vlad said words to the effect that it's too soon to say. Everyone knows
that AmeriKKKa has been run by the Permanent Bureaucracy (not the POTUS). A lot of people would have been 'too busy' to watch
the Putin Interviews but World Leaders, everywhere, would not have been among them. So as of December 1, 2018, that cat is well
and truly out of the bag and all eyes, as usual, are on Trump. Again.
CNN: A judge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a warrant for Meng's arrest on August 22,
it was revealed at the hearing Friday
here . She was arrested on December
1. Meng didn't know about this "issued warrant?" How does this 'system of laws' work, anyhow? Perhaps the warrant issue was classified
secret, for US national security?
Actually, I fear, it's a conspiracy of intel agencies, security advisors and courts to conduct domestic and foreign policy.
It's a non-elected "government" which elected politicians can't touch. For those that doubt it, check out this important interview
with intel whistleblowers Shipp, Binney and Kiriakou which describes Washington corruption is
here . (h/t Carlton Meyer)
Politicians can't touch this secret government lest their security clearances be removed.
@70
In the two-hour interview John Kiriakou points out that the intel agencies have their favorite courts. His delayed case, resurrected
by Obama, was heard by a court in eastern Virginia, which had a 98% conviction rate. They got him for a couple years in prison.
General Petraeus, however, who did much worse, had his case heard in a court in western Virginia, and he got probation. It appears
that the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York is good for anti-China warrants.
D B@70 I read that she was aware of the warrant and avoided traveling to the USA because of it as she had been doing to ?" visit
her son who was in school here"? but likely thought Canada safe. Wrong.
So China seems fearful to me - detaining the head of INTERPOL for instance and re-educating the Uyghurs en mass, plus the heavy
internet censorship. But they cannot disengage from the west economically without risking social upheaval. Nor can the US afford
to disengage from China for roughly the same reason (unlike Russia from whom the US gets rocket engines but little else they cannot
obtain from other sources).
In a few years time (2, or perhaps 3) both Russia and China will have deployed weapons that can deter anything but a full on
nuclear attack, and their military capability will continue to advance. US strategy seems to be to disrupt, slow, and sabotage
both to the extent it is able using economic and political weapons and military posturing. I don't believe it can catch up and
this creates extra danger - the longer it waits the greater the gap will be - economic and military. Many of the responses seem
borderline hysterical to me - not a good thing.
The problem with Iran is (as was with Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and even Syria) that a country with an independent/non-aligned
foreign policy has control of a large quantity of valuable natural resources for which there is a constant and relatively insatiable
demand. If they cannot be controlled they they should be destroyed so they cannot pursue their own agenda and ignore the dictates
of the west. China and Russia are this problem writ large, and they have nukes and a means of delivery to all corners of the globe...
This is about destruction of neoliberalism. Transnational financial elite under neoliberalism is above the law. the USA blatantly
breaches this convention now. And will pay the price.
This is Onion-style humor is no it : White House, Trudeau seek to distance themselves from Huawei move
Notable quotes:
"... The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the arrest could complicate efforts to reach a broader U.S.-China trade deal but would not necessarily damage the process. ..."
"... Meng's detention also raised concerns about potential retaliation from Beijing in Canada, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sought to distance himself from the arrest. ..."
Huawei Technologies Co Ltd's chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, the 46-year-old daughter of the company's founder, was detained
in Canada on Dec. 1, the same day Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping dined together at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires.
A White House official told Reuters Trump did not know about a U.S. request for her extradition from Canada before he met Xi and
agreed to a 90-day truce in the brewing trade war.
Meng's arrest during a stopover in Vancouver, announced by the Canadian authorities on Wednesday, pummeled stock markets already
nervous about tensions between the world's two largest economies on fears the move could derail the planned trade talks.
The arrest was made at Washington's request as part of a U.S. investigation of an alleged scheme to use the global banking system
to evade U.S. sanctions against Iran, according to people familiar with the probe.
Another U.S. official told Reuters that while it was a Justice Department matter and not orchestrated in advance by the White
House, the case could send a message that Washington is serious about what it sees as Beijing's violations of international trade
norms.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the arrest could complicate efforts to reach a broader
U.S.-China trade deal but would not necessarily damage the process.
Meng's detention also raised concerns about potential retaliation from Beijing in Canada, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
sought to distance himself from the arrest.
"The appropriate authorities took the decisions in this case without any political involvement or interference ... we were advised
by them with a few days' notice that this was in the works," Trudeau told reporters in Montreal in televised remarks.
I think that America's act against China borders on military aggression. The US is saying,
"Don't deal with any country that we're imposing sanctions on. We want to grab Iran's oil.
That's why we overthrew Mossedegh. That's why we installed the Shah and his police state. We
want Saudi Arabia's money, and they told us we have to support the Sunni against Shi'ites, so
our foreign policy is that of Saudi Arabia when it comes to the fate of who can and who
cannot trade with Iran. China must follow our orders or we will do everything we can to stop
its own development. It need only look at how we treated Iran to see what may be in store for
it."
This raises the Cold Wa to a new dimension.
Yes, guilty as charged. I expect a major challenge to the illegality of the Outlaw US
Empire's attempts at Extraterritoriality which has yet to be attempted but now must be done.
China has a very distinctive history regarding such treatment and will not let it pass. The
Trade War will escalate and the Empire's top tier of oligarchs will lose billions.
Blue peacock Walrus must be Boltonnnn! He just parrotted exactly the same bull about stolen
property except with the caveat that it's not the reason for her arrest!!! 😉😎
It's about doing business with Iran! F.U. AMERICA!
ARREST MBS INSTEAD, DAMN YOU EFFING HYPOCRITES! I can't get over Trudeau was a pasty to
this woman's arrest! THIS IS INSANE.
"... The incident shows that the US and some other countries that follow the US didn't abide by the bottom line of international law at all. From now on, we should reduce or cancel important people's visits to the US, Canada and some other countries like the UK, Australia and New Zealand. The warning applies to not only Chinese citizens, but also citizens of any other country. ..."
"... Given the extreme risks of the political struggle in the US, Chinese scientists and technological experts in the West, particularly in the UKUSA countries (the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) are advised to make some risk prevention arrangements for their own sake and the sake of their children. ..."
"... Unlike China's State-owned enterprises, Huawei is a genuine private firm. But the severe political discrimination and repulsion from the US reflect an undeniable fact - the political gap between China and the US and a few other Western nations is too wide to bridge. ..."
Avoided a knee-jerk response, did some chores, read some other items, then went looking for
English language Chinese reactions, like this one provided by Global
Times , which said several different things to different audiences, although toward its
bottom we find this:
" The incident shows that the US and some other countries that follow the US didn't
abide by the bottom line of international law at all. From now on, we should reduce or cancel
important people's visits to the US, Canada and some other countries like the UK, Australia
and New Zealand. The warning applies to not only Chinese citizens, but also citizens of any
other country.
" Given the extreme risks of the political struggle in the US, Chinese scientists and
technological experts in the West, particularly in the UKUSA countries (the US, UK, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand) are advised to make some risk prevention arrangements for their
own sake and the sake of their children. "
Global Times also published this editorial with its emphasis on the
entire affair being an attack on Huawei's competitiveness, although suddenly in the middle it
says this:
" Unlike China's State-owned enterprises, Huawei is a genuine private firm. But the
severe political discrimination and repulsion from the US reflect an undeniable fact - the
political gap between China and the US and a few other Western nations is too wide to
bridge. "
A bit of a bombshell that seems to contradict what came before and after, which is an
exploration of how "the political gap" can be narrowed. This line says:
"Meanwhile, China needs to ease its geopolitical and ideological tensions with the US and
the West through expanding its opening-up to the world."
Unfortunately, the Outlaw US Empire has no interest in "eas[ing] its geopolitical and
ideological tensions" with China, Russia or any other nation as its unelected helmsmen want
everything for themselves a la Monopoly winners, thus rendering Chinese attempts at
appeasement vacuous--Real Men want it all; sharing--Win-Win--is for wussies.
Export restrictions, and threats of restrictions, are thus probably not just about sanctions
-- they're about making life harder for the main competitors of US tech companies
But the
startling arrest in Canada of a Chinese telecom company executive should wake people up to
the fact that there's a second U.S.-China trade war going on -- a much more stealthy conflict,
fought with weapons much subtler and more devastating than tariffs. And the prize in that other
struggle is domination of the information-technology industry.
The arrested executive, Wanzhou Meng, is the chief financial officer of telecom-equipment
manufacturer Huawei Technologies Co. (and its founder's daughter). The official reason for her
arrest is that Huawei is suspected of selling technology to Iran, in violation of U.S.
sanctions. It's the second big Chinese tech company to be accused of breaching those sanctions
-- the first was ZTE Corp. in 2017. The U.S. punished ZTE by forbidding it from buying American
components -- most importantly, telecom chips made by U.S.-based Qualcomm Inc.
Those purchasing restrictions were eventually lifted after ZTE agreed to pay a fine, and it
seems certain that Huawei will also eventually escape severe punishment. But these episodes
highlight Chinese companies' dependence on critical U.S. technology. The U.S. still makes -- or
at least, designs -- the best computer chips in the world. China assembles lots of electronics,
but without those crucial inputs of U.S. technology, products made by companies such as Huawei
would be of much lower-quality.
Export restrictions, and threats of restrictions, are thus probably not just about sanctions
-- they're about making life harder for the main competitors of U.S. tech companies. Huawei
just passed Apple Inc. to become the world's second-largest smartphone maker by market share
(Samsung Electronics Co. is first). This marks a change for China, whose companies have long
been stuck doing low-value assembly while companies in rich countries do the high-value design,
marketing and component manufacturing. U.S. moves against Huawei and ZTE may be intended to
force China to remain a cheap supplier instead of a threatening competitor.
The subtle, far-sighted nature of this approach suggests that the impetus for the high-tech
trade war goes far beyond what Trump, with his focus on tariffs and old-line manufacturing
industries, would think of. It seems likely that U.S. tech companies, as well as the military
intelligence communities, are influencing policy here as well.
In fact, more systematic efforts to block Chinese access to U.S. components are in the
works. The Export Control Reform Act, passed this summer, increased regulatory oversight of
U.S. exports of "emerging" and "foundational" technologies deemed to have national-security
importance. Although national security is certainly a concern, it's generally hard to separate
high-tech industrial and corporate dominance from military dominance, so this too should be
seen as part of the trade war.
A second weapon in the high-tech trade war is investment restrictions. The Trump
administration has greatly expanded its power to block Chinese investments in U.S. technology
companies, through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. CFIUS has already
canceled a bunch of Chinese deals:
The goal of investment restrictions is to prevent Chinese companies from copying or stealing
American ideas and technologies. Chinese companies can buy American companies and transfer
their intellectual property overseas, or have their employees train their Chinese replacements.
Even minority stakes can allow a Chinese investor access to industrial secrets that would
otherwise be off-limits. By blocking these investors, the Trump administration hopes to
preserve U.S. technological dominance, at least for a little while longer.
Notably, the European Union is also moving to restrict Chinese investments. The fact that
Europe, which has opposed Trump's tariffs, is copying American investment restrictions, should
be a signal that the less-publicized high-tech trade war is actually the important one.
The high-tech trade war shows that for all the hoopla over manufacturing jobs, steel, autos
and tariffs, the real competition is in the tech sector. Losing the lead in the global
technology race means lower profits and a disappearing military advantage. But it also means
losing the powerful knowledge-industry clustering effects that have been an engine of U.S.
economic growth in the post-manufacturing age. Bluntly put, the U.S. can afford to lose its
lead in furniture manufacturing; it can't afford to lose its dominance in the tech sector.
The question is whether the high-tech trade war will succeed in keeping China in second
place. China has long wanted to catch up in semiconductor manufacturing, but export controls
will make that goal a necessity rather than an aspiration. And investment restrictions may spur
China to upgrade its own homegrown research and development capacity.
In other words, in the age when China and the U.S. were economically co-dependent, China
might have been content to accept lower profit margins and keep copying American technology
instead of developing its own. But with the coming of the high-tech trade war, that
co-dependency is coming to an end. Perhaps that was always inevitable, as China pressed forward
on the technological frontier. In any case, the Trump administration's recent moves against
Chinese tech -- and some similar moves by the EU -- should be seen as the first shots in a long
war.
(This story has been published from a wire agency feed without modifications to the text.
Only the headline has been changed)
This is 'eight nations alliance' [1] mark2 no less. The military encirclement of China is
in place, to be sprung if necessary. The trade war targets the entire Chinese high tech
industry, especially the Made in China 2030 proj. Huawei is the crown jewel of emerging
Chinese high tech, its rise is nothing less than astounding. In less than 30 years it has
displaced CISCO as the world's no 1 network supplier, presently gunning Samsung for top spot
in mobile phone preeminence.
It makes lots of people scare. [2]
They use false pretext to wage wars OF terror, now they use false pretext to launch a
trade war, hyping up Huawei's 'security risk'. But nsa has been 'monitoring' Huawei since
2007, even hacked into its Shenzhen HQ, to look for incriminating evidence of CCP
collaboration, it turned out naught. There'r absolutely No Evidence Huawei Spies on
Americans, [3]
Just like the lack of evidence didn't prevent fukus attack on 'terrorist' countries, it
sure doesn't stop Washington from mounting a frontal assault on Huawei. Huawei is currently
shut out of the 5lies markets plus SK, JP, courtesy of Washington. The 'battle' has extended
to the Pacifics isles,
where Washington/Oz joint force to arm twist Solomon isle to drop a undersea cable contract
with Huawei.
They tried that again with PNG, asking them to renege on their contract with Huawei, but
the PNG PM is made of sterner stuff, lecturing fukus on the importance of integrity and law,
no less.
hhhhh
When the Meng kidnap news broke, my jaw dropped in amazement, ....They'r really getting
really desperate now.
[2]
Huawei's U.S. competitors among those pushing for scrutiny of Chinese tech firm
It was long thought that we were the number-one economy and China just supplied cheap
labor,"
Guthrie said. "Now it is clear that China has lot to offer in terms of innovation and
Industrial policy and state investment, and now people are scared
Games in US intelligence agencies are one thing, but the fact that this arrest is a severe
blow, almost knockdown for neoliberalism is another.
From comments: "Spot on with your comment. As you point out, this event will cast a dark
shadow over executive travel for a long time to come, including those American executives who
will now be fearful of countermeasures."
Moreover, John Bolton is the sort who'd love to collect a high profile scalp like the arrest
of Meng, so it's credible that he would find a way to go ahead whether or not the China trade
negotiation team was on board.
Meng has her bail hearing in Vancouver today, so we will probably learn more about the
expected process and timetable.
Wondering why US dollars would ever be involved in transactions between a Chinese
supplier, a UK bank, and Iranian customers Assuming usage of correspondent banks in NYC?
Would also be a reason for where the indictment was filed.
The conspiracy theorist in me says that transactions are being routed through the US not
for any practical reason, or due to customer wishes, but only to expose them to US
jurisdiction for potential prosecution. An alternative to SWIFT is desperately needed
The FCPA is extremely expansive: a non U.S. company doing business in the U.S. must not do
business with Iran directly or indirectly if it knows or has reason to suspect the business
is related to Iran. So if they have the evidence it all looks like a slam dunk.
As to SWIFT, doesn't the U.S. have access to all SWIFT transactions, even those not
touching U.S. banks? They'd certainly have the Five Eyes SWIFT data.
Plus apparently the U.S. has (or had) access to Huawei's email traffic.
Not correspondent banks. HSBC has a New York branch, as does pretty much every foreign
bank with an international business. Dollar transactions clear though the US because no bank
is going to run intraday balances with other banks without the end of day settlement
ultimately being backstopped by the Fed. That means running over Fedwire.
Ah, thanks for the technical detail on why it would be cleared through the US. The Masters
of the Universe really are unwilling to take any risk unless it's socialized in some way.
Still curious why they would ever let it touch US jurisdiction, but I guess the details of
the case will eventually reveal that.
"The heart of the problem is that the Chinese firm uses a system of encryption that
prevents the NSA from intercepting its communications. A number of governments and secret
services in the non-Western world have begun to equip themselves exclusively with Huawei
materials, and are doing so to protect the confidentiality of their communications."
"The struggle centred around Huawei illustrates the way in which economic and military
preoccupations inter-connect. Already, many States have observed that Washington is so far
unable to decode this technology. Thus, as they did in Syria, they have entirely re-equipped
their Intelligence services with Huawei material, and forbid their civil servants to use any
others."
Taking into account this story from Syria the following dismissal, by China's Foreign
Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying of a report in The New York Times, could be understood
differently than it was initially
"China on Thursday denounced a U.S. newspaper report that it is listening to Donald
Trump's phone calls as "fake news," and suggested he exchange his iPhone for a cellphone made
by Chinese manufacturer Huawei".
in AP, 2018-10-26, "China denies spying on Trump's phone, suggests he use Huawei".
So I turned on the local TV network to see how the story would be spun to find out what
the official line would be. There was no mention of the fact in the story that Meng was just
not the CFO of Huawei but also the daughter – the daughter – of the founder. More
to the point, nearly every scene showing Meng was when she was on-stage with Putin somewhere
so there is your guilt by association right there. They even used close-ups of the two
together though the stage was full of people seated there.
Something else in that story that I noticed. It featured the last day of the G-20 when the
American and Chinese delegation were facing each other over a conference table. On the right
was Trump and a bit further down was John Bolton. Now Trump has said he had no idea that this
arrest was taking place but Bolton said that he know beforehand. Does it not seem strange
that Bolton would not have pulled Trump aside beforehand and said 'Hey boss, we are going to
do something never done before and arrest a high-level Chinese citizen which could blow up
your whole agreement. You know, just so you know.'
With this is mind, it may be fairer to say that this was more a case of 'Huawei's Meng
Targeted using US Bank Sanctions'. The pity is that the US Justice Department finds no
trouble with targeting a corporation nearly 7,000 miles away but just can't seem to target
Wall Street which is only about 200 miles away from their headquarters. And I am afraid that
I am not too impressed with that internal Huawei memo as probably most international
corporations want to know where they can push the envelope. Personally I would be more
interested on a memo from the Clinton Foundation listing the amounts needed to gain access
the SecState and how much could be purchased for that amount. Both memos would amount to the
same thing.
This is new this development. The US has targeted individuals with sanctions but for the
first time they are attempting the extraterritorial rendition of a foreign citizen in
connection with sanctions violations meaning extraterritorial jurisdiction which means that
American laws apply all over the world. Could you imagine if this became standard practice?
The chill it would put on executive travel? The possibilities of tit for tat arrests? US tech
execs have already been warned on China travel. Do they really want to go there? This is
nothing less that a US declaration of war on firms competing with US business interests like
they have done with Russia.
I would be also wary of this massive 'coincidence' in the timing of her arrest. The US
Justice Department would probably know Meng's travel schedule better that she would –
Bolton with his contacts would see to that. It may be that events in her calendar were
pre-arranged for her. The Justice Department has a long history of setting up people.
Canada's involvement is simply another member of the Five Eyes group doing active
participation. It has not escaped my notice that all the countries rejecting Huawe's 5G
technology – Australia, the UK, New Zealand – are also members of the Five Eyes.
Not looking good.
This is not a rendition. Meng's extradition is all being done by the book. She is still in
Canada, and will have a bail hearing today. She will have the opportunity to contest her
extradition in Canada. Assuming she loses, she then goes to the US to face charges.
And I'm not keen about the CT. A top Chinese tech company like Huawei which knows it's on
America's shit list would have a very well protected Intranet. The US does not have access to
Chinese telcoms to locate or steal the data of Chinese citizens. Get real.
I'm not sure I embrace the notion of all this being done by the book as much as you Yves.
After all, even charades can have the appearance of procedural compliance and the following
of by the book rules, in fact, perhaps the incentive to create the appearance of following
the rules is even more pronounced in a high profile case such as this. As to whether she will
have a fair opportunity to defend herself, this is a watershed moment for Canada and she's is
in the spotlight here and no matter which way it goes, the decision to extradite or not will
have irrevocable implications on her international relations.
This is not a rendition. Canada isn't the UK. It's not going to bend its court processes,
particularly since Chinese have become big investors in Canada and Trump has been
astonishingly rude to Trudeau. And it has an independent judiciary.
I was pretty unimpressed by Trudeau's pusillanimity. He tried to give the impression that
Canada was just an innocent bystander in this whole process. Get real. If there's an
extradition treaty, the US has to make a formal request to the Canadian government. The idea
that the PM wasn't consulted on this is nonsensical. Justin engaging in his own version of
"cakeism". Wants to stay on the good side of both Beijing and Washington, which is an
impossible thing to do. Trudeau is already on Trump's sh*t list, and I'm sure Xi is taking
his measure of the man as well. Probably not terribly impressed with him either.
I have family and friends in Canada. Trust me, Canadians would be REALLY pissed if they
thought that the Canadian judiciary was rolling over for Trump and Bolton.Trump is not making
Canadian friends by running around throwing tantrums over NAFTA given that US-Canada trade is
one of the most balanced trade relationships in the world with very little net trade deficit
for either side.
I think this is very much being done by the book. Is there a viable law that is not, by
itself, a human rights violation? Is there credible evidence that this person broke this law?
Those are the basic questions that will need to be answered in a Canadian court room to have
an extradition move forward.
Canadians want the big powers to have coherent rational laws and treaties related to trade
etc. and then follow them. They also want to have rational, coherent international plans on
addressing conflicts and have historically been very strong supporters of the UN and
routinely have blue helmet troops all around the world on peace-keeping missions. Canada can
do this safely because it has balanced relationships with most countries around the world. It
will not do these types of arrests and extraditions on a whim because that would upset
Canada's role in the world.
Judging from what I've read, the US are claiming she committed fraud by alleging that a
company, Skycom that allegedly did business with Iran was not separate from Huawei. Here's
the BBC's take:
"On Friday, US prosecutors told the Supreme Court of British Columbia that Ms Meng had
used a Huawei subsidiary called Skycom to evade sanctions on Iran between 2009 and 2014 .
Spot on with your comment. As you point out, this event will cast a dark shadow over
executive travel for a long time to come, including those American executives who will now be
fearful of countermeasures.
Whose laws, one might ask? The US says ITS laws rule the world. ISDS says corporate right
to profit (by their accounting methods that discount externalities to zero) outweighs ALL
national and local laws.
And having spent some years as a lawyer, and observing several different kinds of courts
in operation, I would dare to challenge the assertion that "courts have to follow rules."
Like they have done in the foreclosure mess, maybe? Like the shenanigans displayed via
Chicago's "Operation Greylord" prosecutions? Or in traffic courts in small towns in Flyover
Country? how about the US bankruptcy courts, where shall we say "bad decisions" are endemic?
Remember Julius Hoffman? how about Kimba Woods, who sua sponte curtailed Michael Milken's
jail term for his junk bond racket? Even FISA, of course?
Good luck with that. It's almost impossible in the US never to break the law in some way.
It just takes a cop or prosecutors motivated enough. I find it hard to believe it's not the
same in China, let alone Russia or the UK, to name a few.
This law school lecture is 45mins long but really fun (it's got 2.5 million views). You
should never talk to the police – one reason being that, as Lynne says, there are SO
many possible offences, that you can never be sure you are not guilty of
something .
"Sounds like a good reason for executives not to break laws "
Yeah, I remember when all those HSBC executives were arrested, tried and thrown in jail.
Good times The U.S. government really believes in the rule of law. Remember when the Chief
Executive was sent to prison for life for committing "the supreme war crime" and shredding
the U.S. Constitution?
Rules are for little people Meng isn't big enough to be unprosecutable apparently.
So the US DOJ, according to "people familiar with the matter", has been investigating
Huawei for at least two years. My math tells me this is roughly since the signing of the deal
between Iran and the P5+1 countries in 2016, a deal subsequently incorporated into
international law by the UN. Now a bank that has run a laundry service for dirty money is
suddenly thrust into victimhood and (with Uncle Sam's boot on its neck no doubt) is
"cooperating" with the investigation? You couldn't make this more surreal if you tried.
If this isn't the final act in peeling off the rose tinted glasses from countries that
still consider the US a trusted friend and loyal ally, one wonders how much more evidence
they need to see it for what it really is, a duplicitous, hypocritical, tyrannical
imperialist. The irony of this charade being undertaken by the department of "justice" makes
this even more egregious. Expect development of an alternative system to Swift to go into
overdrive after this.
The point isn't "Is the US acting legally/by the book in enforcing the law", it's "Why is
the US legally enforcing the law in this case and not the million other cases equally
deserving of enforcement?" When the law isn't enforced evenly, then the law just becomes a
cover story for dishing out and withholding punishment by authorities.
Very interesting-actually mystifying. The powers that are- from their
pronouncements,haven't a clue about modern money, and in that framework the benefits of the
reserve currency they print. Maybe they do, but why, for what appears a minimal foreign
corporate compliance offence, would we want China, Russia, and a host of others to find
enough cause to continue their effort on a replacement reserve? Why are we so hell bent on
militarising the dollar? Save it for really big fish. Sure, its extremely difficult under the
current political framework for the world to organise and opt away from our dollar , but the
stability and leadership America has offered since the end of ww11, maybe appears
diminishing. Given Trump just made a deal with Xi, at the same time his vip citizen was being
targeted- obviously kind of humiliating-,as well as the administration turning a blind eye to
the murderous soprano fiefdom of Saudi Arabia; from any rational standpoint prioritising
human rights over crooked bank compliance issues , this looks keystone cop like! Sure we only
have a little info, but it still smells of hypocritical, imperialistic, one hand doesnt know
what the other hand is doing idiots in charge. Mike Hudson sees nefarious purposes,maybe hes
a bit hawkish, but this just seems so obtuse given the g20 hand shakes. Going to be very
interesting watching China's response. Then again maybe this lady is a criminal.
" the US Justice Department finds no trouble with targeting a corporation nearly 7,000
miles away but just can't seem to target Wall Street which is only about 200 miles away from
their headquarters "
This.
Having power over others seems to be a standard condition of our species. How one uses or
abuses power reveals the inner nature of the one(s) wielding the power. There need not be a
conspiracy of the powerful, just a consensus of how power should be used so that the sum
total exercises of the powerful reveal where their interests intersect. The rest of us just
got get out of the way.
If one wants to know what interesting times look like, well, we have front row seats. And
its in 3-D.
I must admit that President Trump is doing a better job than former President Obama in
ramping up a new theatre of economic warfare across the globe. Former President Obama was
rather crude, what with his drones. I'm thinking we have to update von Clausewitz's dictum:
"War is the continuation of politics by other means." to something along the lines of
"Economics is a continuation of war by other means."
The USA polity is certainly making it up close and personal.
Indeed. The possibilities for China to retaliate are seemingly endless though they won't
have the long arm the U.S. has.
Perhaps China should respond by trying to arrest and indicting some of the Wall Street big
wigs Obama never indicted. I'm sure China could come up with reasons why fraud Wall Street
committed violated Chinese law and damaged China.
Of course, being an exporter to the U.S. I'm sure China would much rather this go away,
than to retaliate.
Very interesting-actually mystifying. The powers that are- from their
pronouncements,haven't a clue about modern money, and in that framework the benefits of the
reserve currency they print. Maybe they do, but why, for what appears a minimal foreign
corporate compliance offence, would we want China, Russia, and a host of others to find
enough cause to continue their effort on a replacement reserve? Why are we so hell bent on
militarising the dollar? Save it for really big fish. Sure, its extremely difficult under the
current political framework for the world to organise and opt away from our dollar , but the
stability and leadership America has offered since the end of ww11, maybe appears
diminishing. Given Trump just made a deal with Xi, at the same time his vip citizen was being
targeted- obviously kind of humiliating-,as well as the administration turning a blind eye to
the murderous soprano fiefdom of Saudi Arabia; from any rational standpoint prioritising
human rights over crooked bank compliance issues , this looks keystone cop like! Sure we only
have a little info, but it still smells of hypocritical, imperialistic, one hand doesnt know
what the other hand is doing idiots in charge. Mike Hudson sees nefarious purposes,maybe hes
a bit hawkish, but this just seems so obtuse given the g20 hand shakes. Going to be very
interesting watching China's response. Then again maybe this lady is a criminal.
Why are we so hell bent? The U.S. hyper power status started in 1991. This is a generation
where they knew nothing else, coming off 45 years where allies did what they were told.
Whether its throwing around terms such as "American exceptionalism" or "indispensable
nation", there is a religious fervor around the U.S. among American foreign policy
elites.
Then there is imperial rot. The tenures in the U.S. Senate are longer than the Soviet
Politburo. At a practical level the Bushes and Clintons (not exactly great people) have been
responsible for who gets promoted in Washington and who develops marketable connections since
1986 with Reagan's alzheimers kicking in big time if not longer.
In many places in the US, if I jaywalk, I am a criminal. What corporate executive is not a
criminal, given the mass of laws that apply (until said criminals can bribe the legislatures
into de-criminalizing the bad behaviors)? Not to mention persuading the executive branch to
not prosecute, for all kinds of "political" reasons? Ask Wells Fargo and the other Banksters
how that works. Selective or non-prosecution for me, "the full weight of the law," that
fraudulent notion, for thee, I guess. And none of that is in any way new.
Speaking of Chinese criminals, I would add an anecdote. I have not been able to find the
episode, but one of the formerly investigative programs (20-20 or 60 Minutes, I believe) took
part in a sting of a Chinese corp that sells counterfeit medicines. This was maybe 8-10 years
ago. A very pretty if somewhat English-challenged young woman met with a bunch, maybe 10, men
and women who she thought were buyers for distributors and Pharma corps in the US and I
believe Canada. This meeting took place in a West Coast S city as I recall.
She offered that her company produced counterfeit meds using "latest technology" that from
the shape and color and texture and markings of the pills and package inserts, right down to
the packaging, holograms and all, could not be distinguished from the original. The products
were touted as being biologically inactive and "safe." She averred that her company could
deliver any quantity, from cartons to container loads, at very reasonable and attractive
price.
But that is a little different case from what appears at this point (barring correction as
the "case" develops) from the Huawei matter.
Not easy for another entity to take over the reserve currency.
China Germany etc want a trade surplus with us, so they must accept and store dollars. Very
similarly. Many individuals want to save dollars because they don't trust their own currency.
And some countries actually use dollars as their currency.
So the desire to accept or save dollars in exchange for their goods means the dollar is the
reserve currency. This won't change until something else becomes more attractive to savers
and mercantilists.
I agree that "done by the book" is irrelevant here. Selective enforcement is the issue.
Wall Street crooks have committed greater sins yet none of them is really punished.
Anyone could have written an "internal memo" like that. Proving its authenticity is a
different matter. After all, the biggest "smoking gun" I have ever seen in my life was the
"evidence" of Iraqi WMD.
Another interesting aspect of the case is that as I suspected, it might be difficult to
prove that Huawei sold Iran some specific American technologies that still have valid patents
in effect.
I personally know IBM and others breached the US arms control export laws by exporting
Cryptography to Apartheid South Africa, and believe that Shell Oil has broken nearly all
environmental laws in the Niger Delta for decades.
Is this what happens when a government is sliding rapidly down the slope of loss of
legitimacy?' We become acutely aware of the selective enforcement of its laws; a situation
that our poor and black and brown citizens have known for decades.
We have even become aware that the laws themselves are not always enacted for the public
good, but for the enrichment of certain small segments of the population.
This is not a good place to be. I mean this state of mind, not the NC site, which, as
always, provides the opportunity for much thoughtful and creative discussion.
Don't forget that the US ambassador to Germany threatened secondary sanctions against
Germany if they went ahead with Nordstream2. Trump then walked that back. But as for this
latest move, we know that Bolton at least was informed of the impending arrest so it's fair
to say that such a sensitive action would not have happened without some form of White House
approval–even if it wasn't Trump himself. It's probably not a CT therefore to say that
there's more going on here than a prosecutor making a routine request. The administration
hawks are firing a shot over the bow of anyone who defies them on Iran (the place "real men"
go to). Given what we know about Bolton's Iran obsession it may not even have much to do with
China.
And this bully boy approach to the rest of the world isn't only coming from Trump's
neocons since sanctions bills are a bipartisan favorite of our Congress. Apparently being
bribed on domestic matters isn't enough (unless you consider foreign policy to only be about
MIC profits). Doing the bidding overseas actors and their supporters taps a whole other
vein.
Flights that over fly US airspace are required to submit their manifests and passenger
names are bounced against the National Crime Information Center databases by CBP.
I would venture that her flight overflew Alaskan airspace and that is how they found out
she was on board.
So the USA decided to take hostages ;-) The key rule of neoliberalism is the financial
oligarchy is untouchable. This is a gangster-style move which will greatly backfire.
Now Russian financial executives would think twice about visiting UK, Canada, New Zealand or
Australia. and that's money lost. Probably forever.
Appearing in court wearing a green jumpsuit and without handcuffs, Meng reportedly looked to
be in good spirits in a Vancouver courtroom where the prosecutions' case was detailed publicly
for the first time. Specifically, the US alleges that Meng helped conceal the company's true
relationship with a firm called Skycom, a subsidiary closely tied to its parent company as it
did business with Iran.
Meng used this deception to lure banks into facilitating transactions that violated US
sanctions, exposing them to possible fines. The prosecutor didn't name the banks, but US media
on Thursday reported that a federal monitor at
HSBC flagged a suspicious transaction involving Huawei to US authorities, according to
Bloomberg. Prosecutors also argued that Meng has avoided the US since learning about its probe
into possible sanctions violations committed by Huawei, and that she should be held in custody
because she's a flight risk whose bail could not be set high enough. Before Friday's hearing, a
publication ban prevented details about the charges facing Meng from being released. However,
that ban was lifted at the beginning of her hearing.
Meng was arrested in Vancouver on Saturday while on her way to Mexico, according to reports
in the Canadian
Press.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said Canada's ambassador in Beijing had
briefed the Chinese foreign ministry on Meng's arrest. The Chinese Embassy in Ottawa had
branded Meng's detention as a "serious violation of human rights" as senior Chinese officials
debate the
prospects for retaliation. Freeland said McCallum told the Chinese that Canada is simply
following its laws - echoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's claim that Meng's arrest was the
result of a legal process happening independent of politics.
Friday's hearing in Vancouver is just the start of a legal process that could end with Meng
being extradited to stand trial in the US. Even if prosecutors believe there is little doubt as
to Meng's guilt, the extradition process could take months or even years.
Anything involving Iran is inherently political. The US is abusing Interpol in no less
brazen fashion than Russia and China when seeking the extradition of dissidents. Canada
shouldn't accomodate this BS.
It has become all too easy for democracy to be turned on its head and popular nationalist
mandates, referenda and elections negated via instant political hypocrisy by leaders who show
their true colours only after the public vote. So it has been within the two-and-a-half year
unraveling of the UK Brexit referendum of 2016 that saw the subsequent negotiations now provide
the Brexit voter with only three possibilities. All are a loss for Britain.
One possibility, Brexit, is the result of Prime Minister, Theresa May's negotiations- the
"deal"- and currently exists in name only. Like the PM herself, the original concept of Brexit
may soon lie in the dust of an upcoming UK Parliament floor vote in exactly the same manner as
the failed attempt by the Greeks barely three years ago. One must remember that Greece on June
27, 2015 once voted to leave the EU as well and to renegotiate its EU existence as well in
their own "Grexit" referendum. Thanks to their own set of underhanded and treasonous
politicians, this did not go well for Greece. Looking at the Greek result, and understanding
divisive UK Conservative Party control that exists in the hearts of PMs on both sides of the
House of Commons, this new parliamentary vote is not looking good for Britain. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek! "deal" -- would thus reveal the life-long scars of their true
national allegiance gnawed into their backs by the lust of their masters in Brussels. Brexit:
Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
Ironically, like a cluster bomb of white phosphorous over a Syrian village, Cameron's Brexit
vote blew up spectacularly in his face. Two decades of ongoing political submission to the EU
by the Cons and "new" labour had them arrogantly misreading the minds of the UK
voter.
So on that incredible night, it happened. Prime Minister David Cameron the Cons New Labour
The Lib- Dems and even the UK Labour Party itself, were shocked to their core when the
unthinkable nightmare that could never happen, did happen . Brexit had passed by popular
vote!
David Cameron has been in hiding ever since.
After Brexit passed the same set of naïve UK voters assumed, strangely, that Brexit
would be finalized in their national interest as advertised. This belief had failed to
read
Article 50 - the provisos for leaving the EU- since, as much as it was mentioned, it was
very rarely linked or referenced by a quotation in any of the media punditry. However, an
article published four days after the night Brexit passed,
" A Brexit Lesson In Greek: Hopes and Votes Dashed on Parliamentary Floors," provided
anyone thus reading Article 50, which is only eight pages long and double-spaced, the info to
see clearly that this never before used EU by-law would be the only route to a UK exit.
Further, Article 50 showed that Brussels would control the outcome of exit negotiations along
with the other twenty-seven member nations and that effectively Ms May and her Tories
would be playing this game using the EU's ball and rules, while going one-on-twenty-seven
during the negotiations.
In the aftermath of Brexit, the real game began in earnest. The stakes: bigger than
ever.
Forgotten are the hypocritical defections of political expediency that saw Boris Johnson and
then Home Secretary Theresa May who were, until that very moment, both vociferously and very
publicly against the intent of Brexit. Suddenly they claimed to be pro- Brexit in their quest
to sleep in Cameron's now vacant bed at No. 10 Downing Street. Boris strategically dropped out
to hopefully see, Ms May, fall on her sword- a bit sooner. Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by
Brett Redmayne-Titley - The Unz Review
So, the plucky PM was left to convince the UK public, daily, as the negotiations moved on,
that "Brexit means Brexit!" A UK media that is as pro-EU as their PM chimed in to help
her sell distortions of proffered success at the negotiating table, while the rise of "old"
Labour, directed by Jeremy Corbyn, exposed her "soft" Brexit negotiations for the
litany of failures that ultimately equaled the "deal" that was strangely still called
"Brexit."
Too few, however, examined this reality once these political Chameleons changed their
colours just as soon as the very first results shockingly came in from Manchester in the wee
hours of the morning on that seemingly hopeful night so long ago: June 23, 2016. For thus would
begin a quiet, years-long defection of many more MPs than merely these two opportunists.
What the British people also failed to realize was that they and their Brexit victory would
also be faced with additional adversaries beyond the EU members: those from within their own
government. From newly appointed PM May to Boris Johnson, from the Conservative Party to the
New Labour sellouts within the Labour Party and the Friends of Israel , the
quiet internal political movement against Brexit began. As the House of Lords picked up their
phones, too, for very quiet private chats within House of Commons, their minions in the British
press began their work as well.
Brexit: Theresa May Goes Greek!, by Brett Redmayne-Titley -
The Unz Review
This article by Brett Redmayne is certainly right re the horrific sell-out by the Greek
government of Tsipras the other year, that has left the Greek citizenry in enduring political
despair the betrayal of Greek voters indeed a model for UK betrayal of Brexit voters
But Redmayne is likely very mistaken in the adulation of Jeremy Corbyn as the 'genuine
real deal' for British people
Ample evidence points to Corbyn as Trojan horse sell-out, as covered by UK researcher
Aangirfan on her blogs, the most recent of which was just vapourised by Google in their
censorship insanity
Jeremy Corbyn was a childhood neighbour of the Rothschilds in Wiltshire; with Jeremy's
father David Corbyn working for ultra-powerful Victor Rothschild on secret UK gov scientific
projects during World War 2
Jeremy Corbyn is tied to child violation scandals & child-crime convicted individuals
including Corbyn's Constituency Agent; Corbyn tragically ignoring multiple earnest complaints
from child abuse victims & whistleblowers over years, whilst "child abuse rings were
operating within all 12 of the borough's children's homes" in Corbyn's district not very
decent of him
And of course Corbyn significantly cucked to the Israel lobby in their demands for purge
of the Labour party alleged 'anti-semites'
The Trojan Horse 'fake opposition', or fake 'advocate for the people', is a very classic
game of the Powers That Be, and sadly Corbyn is likely yet one more fake 'hero'
My theory is, give "capitalism" and financial interests enough time, they will consume any
democracy. Meaning: the wealth flows upwards, giving the top class opportunity to influence
politics and the media, further improving their situation v.s. the rest, resulting in ever
stronger position – until they hold all the power. Controlling the media and therefore
the narrative, capable to destroy any and all opposition. Ministers and members of
parliaments, most bought and paid for one way or the other. Thankfully, the 1% or rather the
0.1% don't always agree so the picture can be a bit blurred.
You can guess what country inspired this "theory" of mine. The second on the list is
actually the U.K. If a real socialist becomes the prime minister of the U.K. I will be very
surprised. But Brexit is a black swan like they say in the financial sector, and they tend to
disrupt even the best of theories. Perhaps Corbin is genuine and will become prime minister!
I am not holding my breath.
However, if he is a real socialist like the article claims. And he becomes prime minister
of the U.K the situation will get really interesting. Not only from the EU side but more
importantly from U.K. best friend – the U.S. Uncle Sam will not be happy about this
development and doesn't hesitate to crush "bad ideas" he doesn't like.
Case in point – Ireland's financial crisis in 2009;
After massive expansion and spectacular housing bubble the Irish banks were in deep
trouble early into the crisis. The EU, ECB and the IMF (troika?) met with the Irish
government to discuss solutions. From memory – the question was how to save the Irish
banks? They were close to agreement that bondholders and even lenders to the Irish banks
should take a "haircut" and the debt load should be cut down to manageable levels so the
banks could survive (perhaps Michael Hudson style if you will). One short phone call from
the U.S Secretary of the treasury then – Timothy Geithner – to the troika-Irish
meeting ended these plans. He said: there will be no haircut! That was the end of it.
Ireland survived but it's reasonable to assume this "guideline" paved the road for the
Greece debacle.
I believe Mr. Geithner spoke on behalf of the financial power controlling – more or
less-our hemisphere. So if the good old socialist Corbin comes to power in the U.K. and
intends to really change something and thereby set examples for other nations – he is
taking this power head on. I think in case of "no deal" the U.K. will have it's back against
the wall and it's bargaining position against the EU will depend a LOT on U.S. response. With
socialist in power there will be no meaningful support from the U.S. the powers that be will
to their best to destroy Corbin as soon as possible.
My right wing friends can't understand the biggest issue of our times is class war. This
article mentions the "Panama papers" where great many corporations and wealthy individuals
(even politicians) in my country were exposed. They run their profits through offshore tax
havens while using public infrastructure (paid for by taxpayers) to make their money. It's
estimated that wealth amounting to 1,5 times our GDP is stored in these accounts!
There is absolutely no way to get it through my right wing friends thick skull that
off-shore accounts are tax frauds. Resulting in they paying higher taxes off their wages
because the big corporations and the rich don't pay anything. Nope. They simply hate taxes
(even if they get plenty back in services) and therefore all taxes are bad. Ergo tax evasions
by the 1% are fine – socialism or immigrants must be the root of our problems.
MIGA!
Come to think of it – few of them would survive the "law of the jungle" they so much
desire. And none of them would survive the "law of the jungle" if the rules are stacked
against them. Still, all their political energy is aimed against the ideas and people that
struggle against such reality.
I give up – I will never understand the right. No more than the pure bread
communist. Hopeless ideas!
" This is because the deal has a provision that would still keep the UK in the EU Customs
Union (the system setting common trade rules for all EU members) indefinitely. This is an
outrageous inclusion and betrayal of a real Brexit by Ms May since this one topic was the
most contentious in the debate during the ongoing negotiations because the Customs Union is
the tie to the EU that the original Brexit vote specifically sought to terminate. "
Here I stopped reading, maybe later more.
Nonsense.
What USA MSM told in the USA about what ordinary British people said, those who wanted to
leave the EU, I do not know, one of the most often heard reasons was immigration, especially
from E European countries, the EU 'free movement of people'.
"Real' Britons refusing to live in Poland.
EP member Verhofstadt so desperate that he asked on CNN help by Trump to keep this 'one of
the four EU freedoms'.
This free movement of course was meant to destroy the nation states
What Boris Johnson said, many things he said were true, stupid EU interference for example
with products made in Britain, for the home market, (he mentioned forty labels in one piece
of clothing), no opportunity to seek trade without EU interference.
There was irritation about EU interference 'they even make rules about vacuum cleaners', and,
already long ago, closure, EU rules, of village petrol pumps that had been there since the
first cars appeared in Britain, too dangerous.
In France nonsensical EU rules are simply ignored, such as countryside private sewer
installations.
But the idea that GB could leave, even without Brussels obstruction, the customs union,
just politicians, and other nitwits in economy, could have such ideas.
Figures are just in my head, too lazy to check.
But British export to what remains of the EU, some € 60 billion, French export to GB,
same order of magnitude, German export to GB, far over 100 billion.
Did anyone imagine that Merkel could afford closing down a not negligible part of Bayern car
industry, at he same time Bayern being the Land most opposed to Merkel, immigration ?
This Brexit in my view is just the beginning of the end of the illusion EU falling
apart.
In politics anything is connected with anything.
Britons, again in my opinion, voted to leave because of immigration, inside EU
immigration.
What GB will do with Marrakech, I do not know.
Marrakech reminds me of many measures that were ready to be implemented when the reason to
make these measures no longer existed.
Such as Dutch job guarantees when enterprises merged, these became law when when the merger
idiocy was over.
The negative aspects of immigration now are clear to many in the countries with the imagined
flesh pots, one way or another authorities will be obliged to stop immigration, but at that
very moment migration rules, not legally binding, are presented.
As a Belgian political commentator said on Belgian tv 'no communication is possible
between French politicians and French yellow coat demonstrators, they live in completely
different worlds'.
These different worlds began, to pinpoint a year, in 2005, when the negative referenda about
the EU were ignored. As Farrage reminded after the Brexit referendum, in EP, you said 'they
do not know what they're doing'
But now Macron and his cronies do not know what to do, now that police sympathises with
yellow coat demonstrators.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance
cultures manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
@Digital
Samizdat Corbyn, in my opinion one of the many not too bright socialists, who are caught
in their own ideological prison: worldwide socialism is globalisation, globalisation took
power away from politicians, and gave it to multinationals and banks.
@niceland The
expression class war is often used without realising what the issue is, same with tax
evasion.
The rich of course consume more, however, there is a limit to what one can consume, it takes
time to squander money.
So the end of the class war may make the rich poor, but alas the poor hardly richer.
About tax evasion, some economist, do not remember his name, did not read the article
attentively, analysed wealth in the world, and concluded that eight % of this wealth had
originated in evading taxes.
Over what period this evasion had taken place, do not remember this economist had reached a
conclusion, but anyone understands that ending tax evasion will not make all poor rich.
There is quite another aspect of class war, evading taxes, wealth inequality, that is
quite worrying: the political power money can yield.
Soros is at war with Hungary, his Open University must leave Hungary.
USA MSM furious, some basic human right, or rights, have been violated, many in Brussels
furious, the 226 Soros followers among them, I suppose.
But since when is it allowed, legally and/or morally, to try to change the culture of a
country, in this case by a foreigner, just by pumping money into a country ?
Soros advertises himself as a philantropist, the Hungarian majority sees him as some kind of
imperialist, I suppose.
For me THE interesting question remains 'how was it possible that the Renaissance cultures
manoevred themselves into the present mess ?'.
Well , I am reading " The occult renaissance church of Rome " by Michael Hoffman ,
Independent History and research . Coeur d`Alene , Idaho . http://www.RevisionistHistory.org
I saw about this book in this Unz web .
I used to think than the rot started with protestantism , but Hoffman says it started with
catholic Renaissance in Rome itself in the XV century , the Medici , the Popes , usury
This whole affair illustrates beautifully the real purpose of the sham laughingly known as
"representative democracy," namely, not to "empower" the public but to deprive it of
its power.
With modern means of communication, direct democracy would be technically feasible even in
large countries. Nevertheless, practically all "democratic" countries continue to delegate
all legislative powers to elected "representatives." These are nothing more than consenting
hostages of those with the real power, who control and at the same time hide behind those
"representatives." The more this becomes obvious, the lower the calibre of the people willing
to be used in this manner – hence, the current crop of mental gnomes and opportunist
shills in European politics.
I would only shout this rambling ignoramus a beer in the pub to stop his mouth for a while.
Some of his egregious errors have been noted. and Greece, anyway, is an irrelevance to the
critical decisions on Brexit.
Once Article 50 was invoked the game was over. All the trump cards were on the EU side.
Now we know that, even assuming Britain could muster a competent team to plan and negotiate
for Brexit that all the work of proving up the case and negotiating or preparing the ground
has to be done over years leading up to the triggering of Article 50. And that's assuming
that recent events leave you believing that the once great Britain is fit to be a sovereign
nation without adult supervision.
As it is one has to hope that Britain will not be constrained by the total humbug which
says that a 51 per cent vote of those choosing to vote in that very un British thing, a
referendum, is some sort of reason for not giving effect to a more up to date and better
informed view.
@Digital
Samizdat Hypothesis: The British masses would fare better without a privatized
government.
"Corbyn may prove to be real .. .. old-time Labour platform [leadership, capable to]..
return [political, social and financial] control back to the hands of the UK worker".. [but
the privateers will use the government itself and mass media to defeat such platforms and to
suppress labor with new laws and domestic armed warfare]. Why would a member of the British
masses allow [the Oligarch elite and the[ir] powerful business and foreign political
interests restrain democracy and waste the victims of privately owned automation revolution?
.. ..
[Corbyn's Labour platform challenges ] privatized capitalist because the PCs use the
British government to keep imprisoned in propaganda and suppressed in opportunity, the
masses. The privateers made wealthy by their monopolies, are using their resources to
maintain rule making and enforcement control (via the government) over the masses; such
privateers have looted the government, and taken by privatization a vast array of economic
monopolies that once belonged to the government. If the British government survives, the
Privateers (monopoly thieves) will continue to use the government to replace humanity, in
favor of corporate owned Robots and super capable algorithms.
Corbyn's threat to use government to represent the masses and to suppress or reduce
asymmetric power and wealth, and to provide sufficient for everyone extends to, and alerts
the masses in every capitalist dominated place in the world. He (Corbyn) is a very dangerous
man, so too was Jesus Christ."
There is a similar call in France, but it is not yet so well led.
Every working Dutch person is "owed" 50k euro from the bailout of Greece, not that Greece
will ever pay this back, and not as if Greece ever really got the money as it just went
straight to northern European banks to bail them out. Then we have the fiscal policy creating
more money by the day to stimulate the economy, which also doesn't reach the countries or
people just the banks. Then we have the flirting with East-European mobsters to pull them in
the EU sphere corrupting top EU bureaucrats. Then we have all of south Europe being extremely
unstable, including France, both its populations and its economy.
It's sad to see the British government doesn't see the disaster ahead, any price would be
cheaper then future forced EU integration. And especially at this point, the EU is so
unstable, that they can't go to war on the UK without also committing A kamikaze attack.
@Brabantian
Thank you for your comment and addition to my evaluation of Corbyn. I do agree with you that
Corbyn has yet to be tested for sincerity and effectiveness as PM, but he will likely get his
chance and only then will we and the Brits find out for sure. The main point I was hoping to
make was that: due to the perceived threat of Labour socialist reform under Corbyn, he has
been an ulterior motive in the negotiations and another reason that the EU wants PM May to
get her deal passed. Yes, I too am watching Corbyn with jaundiced optimism. Thank you.
I agree Jilles, and with many other of the commenters.
Read enough to see that the article has many errors of fact and perception. It is bad
enough to suspect *propaganda* , but Brett is clearly not at that level.
An important point that you hint at is that the Brits were violently and manipulatively
forced to accept mass immigration for many years.
Yet strangely, to say anything about it only became acceptable when some numbers of the
immigrants were fellow Europeans from within the EU, and most having some compatibility with
existing ethnicity and previous culture.
Even people living far away notice such forced false consciousness.
As for Corbyn, he is nothing like the old left of old Labour. He tries to convey that
image, it is a lie.
He may not be Blairite-Zio New Labour, and received some influence from the more heavily
Marxist old Labour figures, but he is very much a creature of the post-worst-of-1968 and
dirty hippy new left, Frankfurt School and all that crap, doubt that he has actually read
much of it, but he has internalised it through his formal and political education.
By the way, the best translation of the name of North Korea's ruling party is 'Labour
Party'. While it is a true fact, I intend nothing from it but a small laugh.
"Beijing is likely to react angrily to this latest arrest of a Chinese citizen in a third
country for violating U.S. law," Eurasia analysts wrote.
In fact, Global Times -- a hyper-nationalistic tabloid tied to the Chinese Communist Party
-- responded to the arrest by posting on Twitter a statement about trade war escalation it
attributed to an expert "close to the Chinese Ministry of Commerce."
"China should be fully prepared for an escalation in the #tradewar with the US, as the US
will not ease its stance on China, and the recent arrest of the senior executive of #Huawei is
a vivid example," said the statement, paired with a photo of opposing fists with Chinese and
American flags superimposed upon them.
U.S. President Donald Trump
and Chinese President Xi Jinping
met over a dinner during the G-20 summit in Argentina after months of increasing trade tensions
between the two countries. The U.S. has imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods,
while Beijing has retaliated with duties on $110 billion of U.S. goods.
The White House's latest round of tariffs on $200 billion goods was set to rise to 25
percent from 10 percent on Jan. 1, 2019, but Trump agreed at the G-20 meeting not to do so.
The catch is, however, that Xi and Trump must find resolution on "forced technology
transfer, intellectual property protection, non-tariff barriers, cyber intrusions and cyber
theft, services and agriculture" within 90 days, according to the White House press secretary's
statement.
That gives the leaders until early March -- past Christmas, New Year's and Chinese New Year
-- to find a way to keep tariffs from rising.
However, official online statements about Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's briefing on the
meeting did not discuss the technology transfers or the 90-day condition.
The timeframe and details on areas of disagreement also did not appear in online reports
from China's state news agency Xinhua , People's
Daily -- the official Communist Party paper -- and CGTN -- the
English-language version of state broadcaster CCTV.
The articles did note the U.S. and China agreed to work towards mutual benefits, and
generally indicated Beijing would increase purchases of U.S. goods. The state media also said
the two parties discussed North Korea denuclearization. The Chinese press also said Trump
upheld a "One-China Policy" regarding Taiwan -- something not mentioned in the White House
statement.
On top of that, Trump tweeted late Sunday evening that "China has agreed to reduce and
remove tariffs on cars coming into China from the U.S. Currently the tariff is 40%."
Prior to that Twitter post, there had not been any mention of such an agreement in Chinese
sources.
The arrest is related to violations of U.S. sanctions, a person familiar with the matter
said. Reuters was unable to determine the precise nature of the violations. Meng Wanzhou, who
is one of the vice chairs on the Chinese technology company's board and the daughter of company
founder Ren Zhengfei, was arrested on Dec. 1 and a court hearing has been set for Friday, a
Canadian Justice Department spokesman said.
The U.K.'s spy chief said that decisions still had to be made on China's role in building
Britain's 5G network.
... ... ...
Last week, New Zealand
banned Huawei from providing tech for its 5G rollout -- the third member of the Five Eyes
security alliance to do so. At the time, New Zealand's government said it had identified a
"significant network security risk."
Fellow members Australia and the U.S. have also excluded Chinese telecoms firms from
providing 5G equipment for their domestic networks, leaving Canada and the U.K. as the only
members not to rule out using the telecoms giant.
All three nations cited national security fears as the reason for excluding Chinese
companies from their 5G rollouts, with Younger's Australian counterpart
referring to them as "high-risk vendors."
... ... ...
Huawei and ZTE – another Chinese firm blocked from the U.S. 5G market – have
repeatedly denied that their involvement in the rollouts would give China's government access
to international networks. Warning to Russia China wasn't the only country raising
security questions for MI6. Younger told his audience the U.K. faced many adversaries who
regarded themselves as being in a state of "perpetual confrontation" with the nation --
including Russia.
"I urge Russia or any other state intent on subverting our way of life not to underestimate
our determination and our capabilities, or those of our allies," he said.
"I should emphasize that even as the Russian state seeks to destabilize us, we do not seek
to destabilize Russia. We do not seek an escalation. If we see a change in Russian behavior, we
will respond positively. But we will be implacable in defense of our people and our vital
interests."
BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - China and the United States have agreed to halt new tariffs as
both nations engage in trade talks with the goal of reaching an agreement within 90 days, the
White House said on Saturday after U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi
Jinping held high-stakes talks in Argentina.
Trump agreed not to boost tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods to 25 percent on Jan. 1
as previously announced, as China agreed to buy an unspecified but "very substantial" amount
of agricultural, energy, industrial and other products, the White House said. The White House
also said China "is open to approving the previously unapproved Qualcomm Inc <QCOM.O>
NXP <NXPI.O> deal should it again be presented."
The White House said that if agreement on trade issues including technology transfer,
intellectual property, non-tariff barriers, cyber theft and agriculture have not been reached
with China in 90 days that both parties agree that the 10 percent tariffs will be raised to
25 percent.
US allies in Europe and Asia did not expect to be treated like vassal states, at least not
openly. Succumbing to Trump's demands is an admission of being a lapdog.
US allies in Europe and Asia have no choice but to push back against Trump's bullying and
condescending stances. They are elected by their citizens to protect the countries' sovereignty
and interests, after all. Too, these leaders must save face and protect their legacies.
One of the first European leaders having the courage to defy Trump is French President
Emmanuel Macron, calling for the establishment of a European Union army independent of the US
to defend itself against Russia, China and possibly America itself. His proposal is supported
by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Asian allies, particularly India, also seem to have pushed back , buying Iranian oil whether
the US likes it or not.
Washington's attempt to revive the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprising itself and
soulmates Australia, India and Japan may be losing support. Instead of joining with the US to
contain China, India and Japan are seeking rapprochement with the Asian giant. Even "deputy
sheriff" Australia is apparently having second thoughts, as one of its states is
officially joining China's Belt and and Road Initiative.
In short, these three allies might finally realize that joining the US in containing China
is harmful to their national interests. Fighting that nuclear power on their own soil might not
be a good idea.
No country treats the US 'unfairly'
The fact of the matter is no country treats the US "unfairly" or is "eating its lunch." On
the contrary, it could be argued that it is the other way around.
Having emerged as the world's strongest nation during and after World War II, US foreign
policies have one goal: Shape the world to its image. That process began at the 1944 Bretton
Woods Conference, insisting on using the US dollar as the world reserve currency and writing
the trade rules. In this way, the US has accumulated a very powerful tool, printing as much
money as it wants without repercussions to itself. For example, when a country wants to cash
its US Treasury holdings, all America has to do is print more greenbacks.
To that end, the US is clearly "eating other countries' lunch." Indeed, a major reason the
US can afford to build so many weapons is that other countries are paying for them.
US
trade practices
On trade, the US in 1950 rejected the UK's proposal of forming an International Trade
Organization (ITO) modeled after the International Monetary Fund and World Bank because it
feared the ITO might have harmed American manufacturing. In its place, the US proposed and
succeeded in forming the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) framework to negotiate tariff rates on goods.
Being the world's most powerful economy and biggest trading nation at that time, the US
dominated the world trading system and wrote its rules. For example, it was the US that
invented and implemented non-tariff trade barriers such as anti-dumping duties and
national-security concerns to block imports. For example, the US imposed tariffs on Canadian,
EU, Mexican and other countries' steel and aluminum from entering its market for security
reasons.
It is laughable for the US to accuse Canada, the EU and Mexico of posing a national-security
threat. They are, in fact, America's most staunch allies.
US foreign direct investment
abroad
US companies bring with them ideas and technology (for which they charge exorbitant prices)
when investing in a foreign market such as China and elsewhere. The capital needed to build
factories is largely funded by the host country or other partners. For example, it is Taiwanese
and Japanese investors that built Foxconn factories in China to assemble American electronic
gadgets such as the iPad.
What's more, US companies charge huge prices for the products they make in China. According
to the Asian Development Bank and other research organizations, Chinese labor, for example,
receives a small percentage of the profits Apple takes in from gadgets it produces in China.
This lopsided profit distribution raises the question: Who is "eating whose
lunch?"
America has itself to blame
The US cannot blame China or any other country for its declining global influence and
dominance – America, particularly under Donald Trump, did that to itself. Chinese
President Xi Jinping, indeed, has advocated cooperation and dialogue as ways to defuse
conflicts and attain a better world.
No country has ever even hinted at attacking the US; it is after all the world's most
powerful nation, armed with enough conventional and nuclear weapons to blow up the world. The
"threats" are exaggerated or invented by US neoconservatives and vested interests to scare
Americans into supporting huge defense spending.
'Fake news' can only go so far
Using "fake news" to pressure countries into submission might work with those unable to
fight back, but could be extremely costly against powers such as China and Russia. For example,
Trump's escalating trade tensions with China are already adversely affecting the US economy, as
seen in falling GDP growth, decreasing stock prices, a huge agricultural inventory, and rising
poverty.
According to United Nations, the impoverished American population is being hit the hardest
under the Trump administration. The US Federal Reserve and others are projecting significant
economic decline in the foreseeable future if the trade war does not end.
One can only imagine what a nuclear war would bring.
Donald Trump is probably no less bullying than his predecessors (perhaps with the exception
of George W Bush), but he is more open about it. Bush's outburst, "You are either with us or
against us," earned America a bad reputation when he demanded that allies join him to invade
Iraq.
Trump has bullied or offended everyone, friends and foes alike. Unless he shifts gear, he
could alienate friends as well as foes, which could erode US geopolitical influence and
economic growth or might even bring the country down. He cannot threaten sovereign nations
without incurring huge costs to America.
I personally don't understand the French electorate on these matters. Macron in particular
did not promise anything other than to deliver more of the same policies, albeit with
more youth and more vigor, as a frank globalist. Who, exactly, was excited at his election but
is disappointed now? People with a short attention span or susceptibility to marketing
gimmicks, I assume.
It is hard to talk about the French media without getting a bit conspiratorial, at least, I
speak of "structural conspiracies." Macron's unabashed, "modernizing" globalism certainly
corresponds to the id of the French media-corporate elites and to top 20% of the
electorate, let us say, the talented fifth. He was able to break through the old French
two-party system, annihilating the Socialist Party and sidelining the conservatives. The media
certainly helped in this, preferring him to either the conservative François Fillon or
the civic nationalist Marine Le Pen.
However, the media have to a certain extent turned on Macron, perhaps because he
believes his "complex thoughts" cannot be grasped by
journalists with their admittedly limited cognitive abilities . Turn on the French radio
and you'll hear stories of how the so-called "Youth With Macron," whose twenty- and
thirty-somethings were invited onto all the talk shows just before Macron became a leading
candidate, were actually former Socialist party hacks with no grass roots. Astroturf. I could
have told you that.
Macron has made a number of what the media call "gaffes." When an old lady voiced concern
about the future of her pension,
he answered : "you don't have a right to complain." He has also done many things that
anyone with just a little sense of decorum will be disgusted by. The 40-year-old Macron, who
has a 65-year-old wife and claims not to be a homosexual, loves being photographed with sweaty
black bodies.
... ... ...
So there's that. But, in terms of policies, I cannot say that the people who supported
Macron have any right to complain. He is doing what he promised, that is to say, steaming full
straight ahead on the globalist course with, a bit more forthrightness and, he hopes,
competence than his Socialist or conservative predecessors.
Link
Bookmark In truth there are no solutions. There is nothing he can do to make the elitist and
gridlocked European Union more effective, nothing he can do to improve the "human capital" in
the Afro-Islamic banlieues , and not much he can do to improve the economy which the
French people would find acceptable. A bit more of labor flexibility here, a bit of a tax break
there, oh wait deficit's too big, a tax hike in some other area too, then. Six of one, half a
dozen in the other. Oh, and they've also passed
more censorship legislation to fight "fake news" and "election meddling" and other pathetic
excuses the media-political class across the West have come up with for their loss of control
over the Narrative.
Since the European Central Bank has been printing lending hundreds of billions of euros to
stimulate the Eurozone economy, France's economic performance has been decidedly mediocre, with
low growth, slowly declining unemployment, and no reduction in debt (currently at 98.7% of
GDP). Performance will presumably worsen if the ECB, as planned, phases out stimulus at the end
of this year.
There is a rather weird situation in terms of immigration and diversity. Everyone seems to
be aware of the hellscape of ethno-religious conflict which will thrive in the emerging
Afro-Islamic France of the future. Just recently at the commemoration of the Battle of Verdun,
an elderly French soldier asked Macron : "When will you kick out the illegal immigrants? .
. . Aren't we bringing in a Trojan Horse?"
More significant was the resignation of Gérard Collomb from his position as interior
minister last month to return to his old job as mayor of Lyon, which he apparently finds more
interesting. Collomb is a 71-year-old Socialist politician who has apparently awakened to the
problems of ethnic segregation and conflict. He said in his
farewell address :
I have been in all the neighborhoods, the neighborhoods of Marseille-North to Mirail in
Toulous, to the Parisian periphery, Corbeil, Aulnay, Sevran, the situation has deteriorated
greatly. We cannot continue to work on towns individually, there needs to be an overarching
vision to recreate social mixing. Because today we are living side by side, and I still say,
me, I fear that tomorrow we will live face-to-face [i.e. across a battle lines].
It is not clear how much Collomb tried to act upon these concerns as interior minister and
was frustrated. In any case, he dared to voice the same concerns to
the far-right magazine Valeurs Actuelles last February. He told them: "The relations
between people are very difficult, people don't want to live together" (using the term
vivre-ensemble , a common diversitarian slogan). He said immigration's responsibility
for this was "enormous" and agreed with the journalist that "France no longer needs
immigration." Collomb then virtually predicted civil war:
Communities in France are coming into conflict more and more and it is becoming very
violent . . . I would say that, within five years, the situation could become irreversible.
Yes, we have five or six years to avoid the worst. After that . . .
It's unclear why "the next five or six years" should be so critical. From one point of view,
the old France is already lost as about
a third of births are non-European and in particular
one fifth are Islamic . The patterns of life in much of France will therefore likely come
to reflect those of Africa and the Middle-East, including random violence and religious
fanaticism. Collomb seems to think "social mixing" would prevent this, but in fact, there has
been plenty of social and even genetic "mixing" in Brazil and Mexico, without this preventing
ethno-racial stratification and extreme levels of violence.
I'm afraid it's all more of the same in douce France , sweet France. On the current
path, Macron will be a one-termer like Sarkozy and Hollande were. Then again, the next
elections will be in three-and-a-half years, an eternity in democratic politics. In all
likelihood, this would be the Right's election to win, with a conservative anti-immigration
candidate. A few people of the mainstream Right are open to working with Le Pen's National
Rally and some have even defended the Identitarians. Then again, I could even imagine
Macron posing as a heroic opponent of (illegal . . .) immigration if he thought it could
help get him reelected. Watch this space . . .
How many immigrants from Africa come to Europe depends only on political will of Europeans. The
demography of African has nothing to do with it. Europe has means to stop immigration legal and
illegal. Macron talking about how many children are born in Africa is just another cop out.
A few months ago I claimed that Emmanuel Macron has/holds an ""Alt Right" worldview" due
to him having had interactions with an influential member of the French Protestant Huguenot
minority in France: http://www.unz.com/article/collateral-damage/#comment-1955020
[...] Macron : Germany is different from France. You are more Protestant, which results
in a significant difference. Through the church, through Catholicism, French society was
structured vertically, from top to bottom. I am convinced that it has remained so until
today. That might sound shocking to some – and don't worry, I don't see myself as a
king. But whether you like it or not, France's history is unique in Europe. Not to put too
fine a point on it, France is a country of regicidal monarchists. It is a paradox: The
French want to elect a king, but they would like to be able to overthrow him whenever they
want. The office of president is not a normal office – that is something one should
understand when one occupies it. You have to be prepared to be disparaged, insulted and
mocked – that is in the French nature. And: As president, you cannot have a desire to
be loved. Which is, of course, difficult because everybody wants to be loved. But in the end,
that's not important. What is important is serving the country and moving it forward.
Who, exactly, was excited at his election but is disappointed now? People with a short
attention span or susceptibility to marketing gimmicks, I assume.
Gold age of the USA (say 40 years from 1946 to approximately 1986 ) were an in some way an aberration caused by WWII. As soon
as Germany and Japan rebuilt themselves this era was over. And the collapse of the USSR in 1991 (or more correct Soviet
nomenklatura switching sides and adopting neoliberalism) only make the decline more gradual but did not reversed it. After
200 it was clear that neoliberalism is in trouble and in 2008 it was clear that ideology of neoliberalism is dead, much like
Bolshevism after 1945.
As the US ruling neoliberal elite adopted this ideology ad its flag, the USA faces the situation somewhat similar the USSR
faced in 70th. It needs its "Perestroika" but with weak leader at the helm like Gorbachov it can lead to the dissolution of
the state. Dismantling neoliberalism is not less dangerous then dismantling of Bolshevism. The level of brainwashing of both
population and the elite (and it looks like the USA elite is brainwashed to an amazing level, probably far exceed the level of
brainwashing of Soviet nomenklatura) prevents any constructive moves.
In a way, Neoliberalism probably acts as a mousetrap for the country, similar to the role of Bolshevism in the
USSR. Ideology of neoliberalism is dead, so what' next. Another war to patch the internal divisions ? That's probably
why Trump is so adamant about attacking Iran. Iran does not have nuclear weapons so this is in a way an ideal target.
Unlike, say, Russia. And such a war can serve the same political purpose. That's why many emigrants from the USSR view the current
level of divisions with the USA is a direct analog of divisions within the USSR in late 70th and 80th. Similarities are
clearly visible with naked eye.
Notable quotes:
"... t is well known that legendary American gangster Al Capone once said that 'Capitalism is the legitimate racket of the ruling class', - and I have commented on the links between organised crime and capitalist accumulation before on this blog, but I recently came across the following story from Claud Cockburn's autobiography, and decided to put it up on Histomat for you all. ..."
"... "Listen," he said, "don't get the idea I'm one of those goddam radicals. Don't get the idea I'm knocking the American system. The American system..." As though an invisible chairman had called upon him for a few words, he broke into an oration upon the theme. He praised freedom, enterprise and the pioneers. He spoke of "our heritage". He referred with contempuous disgust to Socialism and Anarchism. "My rackets," he repeated several times, "are run on strictly American lines and they're going to stay that way"...his vision of the American system began to excite him profoundly and now he was on his feet again, leaning across the desk like the chairman of a board meeting, his fingers plunged in the rose bowls. ..."
"... A month later in New York I was telling this story to Mr John Walter, minority owner of The Times . He asked me why I had not written the Capone interview for the paper. I explained that when I had come to put my notes together I saw that most of what Capone had said was in essence identical with what was being said in the leading articles of The Times itself, and I doubted whether the paper would be best pleased to find itself seeing eye to eye with the most notorious gangster in Chicago. Mr Walter, after a moment's wry reflection, admitted that probably my idea had been correct.' ..."
"... The biggest lie ever told is that American hegemony relies on American imperialism and warmongering. The opposite is true. America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs, not to protect or favor the American people. ..."
"... please mr. author don't give us more globalist dribble. We want our wealth back ..."
"... America the empire is just another oligarchic regime that other countries' populations rightly see as an example of what doesn't work ..."
"... It's the ruling capitalist Predator Class that has been demanding empire since McKinley was assassinated. That's the problem. ..."
"... And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? ..."
"... The US physical plant and equipment as well as infrastructure is in advanced stages of decay. Ditto for the labor force which has been pauperized and abused for decades by the Predator Class... ..."
"The only wealth you keep is wealth you have given away," said Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD),
last of the great Roman emperors. US President Donald Trump might know of another Italian,
Mario Puzo's Don Vito Corleone, and his memorable mumble : "I'm going to make him
an offer he can't refuse."
Forgetting such Aurelian and godfather codes is propelling the decline and fall of the
American empire.
Trump is making offers the world can refuse – by reshaping trade deals, dispensing
with American sops and forcing powerful corporations to return home, the US is regaining
economic wealth but relinquishing global power.
As the last leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Mikhail Gorbachev's
perestroika (restructuring) led to the breakup of its vast territory(22 million square
kilometers). Gorbachev's failed policies led to the dissolution of the USSR into Russia and
independent countries, and the end of a superpower.
Ironically, the success of Trump's policies will hasten the demise of the American empire:
the US regaining economic health but losing its insidious hold over the world.
This diminishing influence was highlighted when India and seven other countries geared up to
defy Washington's re-imposition of its unilateral, illegal sanctions against Iran, starting
Monday.
The US State Department granting "permission" on the weekend to the eight countries to buy
Iranian oil was akin to waving the green flag at a train that has already left the
station
The US State Department granting "permission" on the weekend to the eight countries to buy
Iranian oil was akin to waving the green flag at a train that has already left the station.
The law of cause and effect unavoidably delivers. The Roman Empire fell after wars of greed
and orgies of consumption. A similar nemesis, the genie of Gorbachev, stalks Pennsylvania
Avenue, with Trump unwittingly writing the last chapter of World War II: the epilogue of the
two rival superpowers that emerged from humanity's most terrible conflict.
The maverick 45th president of the United States may succeed at being an economic messiah to
his country, which has racked up a $21.6 trillion debt, but the fallout is the death of
American hegemony. These are the declining days of the last empire standing.
Emperors and mafia godfathers knew that wielding great influence means making payoffs.
Trump, however, is doing away with the sops, the glue that holds the American empire together,
and is making offers that he considers "fair" but instead is alienating the international
community– from badgering NATO and other countries to pay more for hosting the US legions
(800 military bases in 80 countries) to reducing US aid.
US aid to countries fell from $50 billion in fiscal year 2016, $37 billion in 2017 to $7.7
billion so far in 2018. A world less tied to American largesse and generous trade tarrifs can
more easily reject the "you are with us or against us" bullying doctrine of US presidents. In
the carrot and stick approach that largely passes as American foreign policy, the stick loses
power as the carrot vanishes.
Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) in The Godfather. Big payoffs needed for big influence. A
presidential lesson for Don Trump
More self-respecting leaders will have less tolerance for American hypocrisy, such as
sanctioning other countries for nuclear weapons while having the biggest nuclear arsenal on the
planet.
They will sneer more openly at the hysteria surrounding alleged interference in the 2016 US
presidential elections, pointing to Washington's violent record of global meddling. They will
cite examples of American hypocrisy such as its sponsorship of coups against elected leaders in
Latin America, the US Army's Project Camelot in 1964 targeting 22 countries for intervention
(including Iran, Turkey, Thailand, Malaysia), its support for bloodthirsty dictators, and its
destabilization of the Middle East with the destruction of Iraq and Libya.
Immigrant
cannon fodder
Trump's focus on the economy reduces the likelihood of him starting wars. By ending the
flood of illegal immigrants to save jobs for US citizens, he is also inadvertently reducing the
manpower for illegal wars. Non-citizen immigrants comprise about 5% of the US Army. For its
Iraq and Afghanistan wars, US army recruiters offered citizenship to lure illegal immigrants,
mostly Latinos.
Among the first US soldiers to die in the Iraq War was 22-year old illegal immigrant
Corporal Jose Antonio Gutierrez, an orphan from the streets of Guatemala City. He sneaked
across the Mexican border into the US six years before enlisting in exchange for American
citizenship.
On March 21, 2003, Gutierrez was killed by friendly fire near Umm Qasr, southern Iraq. The
coffin of this illegal immigrant was draped in the US flag, and he received American
citizenship – posthumously.
Trump policies targeting illegal immigration simultaneously reduces the availability of
cannon fodder for the illegal wars needed to maintain American hegemony.
Everything comes to an end, and so too will the last empire of our era.
The imperial American eagle flying into the sunset will see the dawn of an economically
healthier US that minds its own business, and increase hopes for a more equal, happier world
– thanks to the unintentional Gorbachev-2 in the White House.
I am sure that many of us are OK with ending American Empire. Both US citizens and other
countries don't want to fight un-necessary and un-ending wars. If Trump can do that, then he
is blessed.
See a pattern here? Raja Murthy, you sound like a pro-American Empire shill. 1964 Project
Camelot has nothing to do with the current administration. Raja, you forgot to wear your
satirical pants.
The idea and catchy hook of 2016 was Make America Great Again, not wasting lives and
resources on the American Empire. You point out the good things. Who might have a problem
with the end of the American Empire are Globalists. What is wrong with relinquishing global
power and not wasting lives and money?
"The only lives you keep is lives you've given away" That does not ring true. The only
lies you keep are the lies you've given away. What? You're not making any sense, dude. How
much American Empire are you vested in? Does it bother you if the Empire shrinks its death
grip on Asia or the rest of the world? Why don't you just say it: This is good! Hopefully
Trump's policies will prevent you from getting writers' cramp and being confusing--along with
the canon fodder. Or maybe you're worried about job security.
America is a super power, just like Russia. Just like England. However, whom the US
carries water for might change. Hope that's ok.
Trump is an empirial president, just like every other US president. In fact, that's what
the article is describing. MAGA depends upon imperialist domination. Trump and all of US
capitalism know that even if the brain-dead MAGA chumps don't.
Capitalism can't help but seek to rule the world. It is the result of pursuing
capitalism's all-important growth. If it's not US capitalism, it will be Chinese capitalism,
or Russian capitalism, or European capitalism that will rule the world.
The battle over global markets doesn't stop just because the US might decide not to play
anymore. Capitalism means that you're either the global power who is ******* the royal ****
out of everyone else, or you're the victim of being fucked up the *** by an imperialist
power.
The only thing which makes the US different from the rest of the world is its super
concentration of power, which in effect is a super concentration of corruption.
Another day and another ZeroHedge indictment of American capitalism.
And how refreshing that the article compares US capitalism to gangsterism. It's a most
appropriate comparison.
--------------------
Al Capone on Capitalism
It is well known that legendary American gangster Al Capone once said that 'Capitalism is the
legitimate racket of the ruling class', - and I have commented on the links between organised
crime and capitalist accumulation before
on this blog, but I recently came across the following story from Claud Cockburn's autobiography, and decided
to put it up on Histomat for you all.
In 1930, Cockburn, then a correspondent in America for the Times newspaper,
interviewed Al Capone at the Lexington Hotel in Chicago, when Capone was at the height of his
power. He recalls that except for 'the sub-machine gun...poking through the transom of a door
behind the desk, Capone's own room was nearly indistinguishable from that of, say, a "newly
arrived" Texan oil millionaire. Apart from the jowly young murderer on the far side of the
desk, what took the eye were a number of large, flattish, solid silver bowls upon the desk,
each filled with roses. They were nice to look at, and they had another purpose too, for
Capone when agitated stood up and dipped the tips of his fingers in the water in which
floated the roses.
I had been a little embarrassed as to how the interview was to be launched. Naturally the
nub of all such interviews is somehow to get round to the question "What makes you tick?" but
in the case of this millionaire killer the approach to this central question seemed mined
with dangerous impediments. However, on the way down to the Lexington Hotel I had had the
good fortune to see, I think in the Chicago Daily News , some statistics offered by an
insurance company which dealt with the average expectation of life of gangsters in Chicago. I
forget exactly what the average was, and also what the exact age of Capone at that time - I
think he was in his early thirties. The point was, however, that in any case he was four
years older than the upper limit considered by the insurance company to be the proper average
expectation of life for a Chicago gangster. This seemed to offer a more or less neutral and
academic line of approach, and after the ordinary greetings I asked Capone whether he had
read this piece of statistics in the paper. He said that he had. I asked him whether he
considered the estimate reasonably accurate. He said that he thought that the insurance
companies and the newspaper boys probably knew their stuff. "In that case", I asked him, "how
does it feel to be, say, four years over the age?"
He took the question quite seriously and spoke of the matter with neither more nor less
excitement or agitation than a man would who, let us say, had been asked whether he, as the
rear machine-gunner of a bomber, was aware of the average incidence of casualties in that
occupation. He apparently assumed that sooner or later he would be shot despite the elaborate
precautions which he regularly took. The idea that - as afterwards turned out to be the case
- he would be arrested by the Federal authorities for income-tax evasion had not, I think, at
that time so much as crossed his mind. And, after all, he said with a little bit of
corn-and-ham somewhere at the back of his throat, supposing he had not gone into this racket?
What would be have been doing? He would, he said, "have been selling newspapers barefoot on
the street in Brooklyn".
He stood as he spoke, cooling his finger-tips in the rose bowl in front of him. He sat
down again, brooding and sighing. Despite the ham-and-corn, what he said was probably true
and I said so, sympathetically. A little bit too sympathetically, as immediately emerged, for
as I spoke I saw him looking at me suspiciously, not to say censoriously. My remarks about
the harsh way the world treats barefoot boys in Brooklyn were interrupted by an urgent angry
waggle of his podgy hand.
"Listen," he said, "don't get the idea I'm one of those goddam radicals. Don't get the
idea I'm knocking the American system. The American system..." As though an invisible
chairman had called upon him for a few words, he broke into an oration upon the theme. He
praised freedom, enterprise and the pioneers. He spoke of "our heritage". He referred with
contempuous disgust to Socialism and Anarchism. "My rackets," he repeated several times, "are
run on strictly American lines and they're going to stay that way"...his vision of the
American system began to excite him profoundly and now he was on his feet again, leaning
across the desk like the chairman of a board meeting, his fingers plunged in the rose
bowls.
"This American system of ours," he shouted, "call it Americanism, call it Capitalism, call
it what you like, gives to each and every one of us a great opportunity if we only seize it
with both hands and make the most of it." He held out his hand towards me, the fingers
dripping a little, and stared at me sternly for a few seconds before reseating himself.
A month later in New York I was telling this story to Mr John Walter, minority owner of
The Times . He asked me why I had not written the Capone interview for the paper. I
explained that when I had come to put my notes together I saw that most of what Capone had
said was in essence identical with what was being said in the leading articles of The
Times itself, and I doubted whether the paper would be best pleased to find itself seeing
eye to eye with the most notorious gangster in Chicago. Mr Walter, after a moment's wry
reflection, admitted that probably my idea had been correct.'
This article was obviously written by someone who wants to maintain the status quo.
America would be much stronger if it were not trying to be an empire. The biggest lie ever
told is that American hegemony relies on American imperialism and warmongering. The opposite
is true. America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs, not to
protect or favor the American people.
I truly believe that "America First" is not selfish. America before it went full ******
was the beacon of freedom and success that other countries tried to emulate and that changed
the world for the better.
America the empire is just another oligarchic regime that other
countries' populations rightly see as an example of what doesn't work.
Empire is a contrivance, a vehicle for psychopathic powerlust. America was founded by
people who stood adamantly opposed to this. Here's hoping Trump holds their true spirit in
his heart.
If he doesn't, there's hundreds of millions of us who still do. We don't all live in
America...
America is weak precisely because it is trying so hard to project strength, because
anyone with half a brain knows that it is projecting strength to enrich oligarhcs [sic],
not to protect or favor the American people.
And who do you suppose are the forces which are funding US politicians and thus getting to
call their shots in foreign policy? Can you bring yourself to name them? Oligarchs...you're
FULL of ****. Who exactly pools all (((their))) money, makes sure the [s]elected officials
know (((who))) to not question and, instead, just bow down to them, who makes sure these
(((officials))) sign pledges for absolute commitment towards Israel--or in no uncertain
terms-- and know who will either sponsor them/or opposes them next time around?
JSBach1 called you a 'coward', for being EXACTLY LIKE THESE TRAITOROUS SPINELESS
VERMIN who simply just step outside just 'enough' the comfort zone to APPEAR 'real'. IMHO, I
concur with JSBach1 ...your're a coward indeed, when you should know better .....
shame you you indeed!
There is little evidence, Trump's propaganda aside (that he previously called Obama
dishonest for) that the US economy is improving. If anything, the exploding budget and trade
deficits indicate that the economy continues to weaken.
Correct. The US physical plant and equipment as well as infrastructure is in advanced
stages of decay. Ditto for the labor force which has been pauperized and abused for decades
by the Predator Class...
the US can't even raise an army... even if enough young (men) were
dumb enough to volunteer there just aren't enough fit, healthy and mentally acute recruits
out there.
"... As of today, the US is embargoing all Iranian energy exports and freezing Iran out of the US-dominated world financial system, so as to cripple the remainder of its trade and deny it access to machinery, spare parts and even basic foodstuffs and medicine. ..."
"... In doing so, American imperialism is once again acting as a law unto itself. The sanctions are patently illegal and under international law tantamount to a declaration of war. They violate the UN Security Council-backed 2015 Iran nuclear accord, or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) ..."
"... Financial Times ..."
"... Those developing the SPV are acutely conscious of this and have publicly declared that it is not Iran-specific. ..."
"... The strategists of US imperialism are also aware that the SPV is a challenge to more than the Trump administration's Iran policy. Writing in Foreign Affairs ..."
"... With its drive to crash Iran's economy and further impoverish its people, the Trump administration has let loose the dogs of war. Whatever the sanctions' impact, Washington has committed its prestige and power to bringing Tehran to heel and making the rest of the world complicit in its crimes. ..."
"... The danger of another catastrophic Mideast war thus looms ever larger, while the growing antagonism between Europe and America and descent of global inter-state relations into a madhouse of one against all is setting the stage ..."
Washington's imposition of sweeping new sanctions on Iran -- aimed at strangling its economy and precipitating regime change in
Tehran -- is roiling world geopolitics.
As of today, the US is embargoing all Iranian energy exports and freezing Iran out of the US-dominated world financial system,
so as to cripple the remainder of its trade and deny it access to machinery, spare parts and even basic foodstuffs and medicine.
In doing so, American imperialism is once again acting as a law unto itself. The sanctions are patently illegal and under
international law tantamount to a declaration of war. They violate the UN Security Council-backed 2015 Iran nuclear accord, or Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement that was negotiated at the behest of Washington and under its duress, including
war threats.
All the other parties to the JCPOA (Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the EU) and the International Atomic Energy Agency,
which is charged with verifying Iranian compliance, are adamant that Iran has fulfilled its obligations under the accord to the letter.
This includes dismantling much of its civil nuclear program and curtailing the rest.
Yet, having reneged on its support for the JCPOA, Washington is now wielding the club of secondary sanctions to compel the rest
of the world into joining its illegal embargo and abetting its regime-change offensive. Companies and countries that trade with Iran
or even trade with those that do will be excluded from the US market and subject to massive fines and other penalties. Similarly,
banks and shipping insurers that have any dealings with companies that trade with Iran or even with other financial institutions
that facilitate trade with Iran will be subject to punishing US secondary sanctions.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who like US President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran and ordered
military strikes on Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard forces in Syria, has hailed the US sanctions as "historic." Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates, two other US client states, are pledging to ramp up oil production to make up for the shortfalls caused
by Washington's embargoing of Iranian oil exports.
But America's economic war against Iran is not just exacerbating tensions in the Middle East. It is also roiling relations between
the US and the other great powers, especially Europe.
On Friday, the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany and European Union Foreign Policy Chief Frederica Mogherini issued
a statement reaffirming their support for the JCPOA and vowing to circumvent and defy the US sanctions. "It is our aim," they declared,
"to protect European economic operators engaged in legitimate business with Iran, in accordance with EU law and with UN Security
Council resolution 2231."
They declared their commitment to preserving "financial channels with" Iran, enabling it to continue exporting oil and gas, and
working with Russia, China and other countries "interested in supporting the JCPOA" to do so.
The statement emphasized the European powers' "unwavering collective resolve" to assert their right to "pursue legitimate trade"
and, toward that end, to proceed with the establishment of a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) that will enable European businesses and
those of other countries, including potentially Russia and China, to conduct trade with Iran using the euro or some other non-US
dollar medium of exchange, outside the US-dominated world financial system.
Friday's statement was in response to a series of menacing pronouncements from Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other
top administration officials earlier the same day. These fleshed out the new US sanctions and reiterated Washington's resolve to
crash Iran's economy and aggressively sanction any company or country that fails to fall into line with the US sanctions.
In reply to a question about the European SPV, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, said he had "no expectation" it will prove
to be a conduit for "significant" trade. "But if there are transactions that have the intent of evading our sanctions, we will aggressively
pursue our remedies."
Trump officials also served notice that they will sanction SWIFT, the Brussels-based network that facilitates secure inter-bank
communications, and the European bankers who comprise the majority of its directors if they do not expeditiously expel all Iranian
financial institutions from the network.
And in a step intended to demonstratively underscore Washington's disdain for the Europeans, the Trump administration included
no EU state among the eight countries that will be granted temporary waivers on the full application of the US embargo on oil imports.
Germany, Britain, France and the EU are no less rapacious than Washington. Europe's great powers are frantically rearming, have
helped spearhead NATO's war build-up against Russia. Over the past three decades they have waged numerous wars and neocolonial interventions
in the Middle East and North Africa, from Afghanistan and Libya to Mali.
But they resent and fear the consequences of the Trump administration's reckless and provocative offensive against Iran. They
resent it because Washington's scuttling of the nuclear deal has pulled the rug out from under European capital's plans to capture
a leading position in Iran's domestic market and exploit Iranian offers of massive oil and natural gas concessions. They fear it,
because the US confrontation with Iran threatens to ignite a war that would invariably set the entire Mideast ablaze, triggering
a new refugee crisis, a massive spike in oil prices and, last but not least, a repartition of the region under conditions where the
European powers as of yet lack the military means to independently determine the outcome.
To date, the Trump administration has taken a haughty, even cavalier, attitude to the European avowals of opposition to the US
sanctions. Trump and the other Iran war-hawks like Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton who lead the administration are
buoyed by the fact that numerous European businesses have voted with their feet and cut off ties with Iran, for fear of running afoul
of the US sanctions.
The Financial Times reported last week that due to fear of US reprisals, no European state has agreed to house the SPV,
which, according to the latest EU statements, will not even be operational until the new year.
The European difficulties and hesitations are real. But they also speak to the enormity and explosiveness of the geopolitical
shifts that are now underway.
Whilst European corporate leaders, whose focus is on maximizing market share and investor profit in the next few business quarters,
have bowed to the US sanctions threat, the political leaders, those charged with developing and implementing imperialist strategy,
have concluded that they must push back against Washington.
This is about Iran, but also about developing the means to prevent the US using unilateral sanctions to dictate Europe's foreign
policy, including potentially trying to thwart Nord Stream 2 (the pipeline project that will transport Russian natural gas to Germany
under the Baltic Sea and which Trump has repeatedly denounced.)
As Washington's ability to impose unilateral sanctions is bound up with the role of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency
and US domination of the world banking system, the European challenge to America's sanctions weapon necessarily involves a challenge
to these key elements of US global power.
The European imperialist powers are taking this road because they, like all the great powers, are locked in a frenzied struggle
for markets, profits and strategic advantage under conditions of a systemic breakdown of world capitalism. Finding themselves squeezed
between the rise of new powers and an America that is ever more reliant on war to counter the erosion of its economic might and that
is ruthlessly pursing its own interests at the expense of foe and ostensible friend alike, the Europeans, led by German imperialism,
are seeking to develop the economic and military means to assert their own predatory interests independently of, and when necessary
against, the United States.
Those developing the SPV are acutely conscious of this and have publicly declared that it is not Iran-specific.
Speaking last month, only a few weeks after European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker used his State of the EU address
to called for measures to ensure that the euro plays a greater global role, French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire declared the "crisis
with Iran" to be "a chance for Europe to have its own independent financial institutions, so we can trade with whomever we want."
The SPV, adds French Foreign Ministry spokesperson Agnes Von der Muhl, "aims to create an economic sovereignty tool for the European
Union that will protect European companies in the future from the effect of illegal extraterritorial sanctions."
The strategists of US imperialism are also aware that the SPV is a challenge to more than the Trump administration's Iran
policy. Writing in Foreign Affairs last month, former Obama administration official Elizabeth Rosenberg expressed grave
concerns that the Trump administration's unilateral sanctions are causing the EU to collaborate with Russia and China in defying
Washington, and are inciting a European challenge to US financial dominance. Under conditions where Russia and China are already
seeking to develop payments systems that bypass Western banks, and the future promises further challenges to dollar-supremacy and
the US-led global financial system, "it is worrying," laments Rosenberg, "that the United States is accelerating this trend."
With its drive to crash Iran's economy and further impoverish its people, the Trump administration has let loose the dogs
of war. Whatever the sanctions' impact, Washington has committed its prestige and power to bringing Tehran to heel and making the
rest of the world complicit in its crimes.
The danger of another catastrophic Mideast war thus looms ever larger, while the growing antagonism between Europe and America
and descent of global inter-state relations into a madhouse of one against all is setting the stage...
Each year I choose a book to be the Globalization Book of the Year, i.e., the "Globie". The prize is strictly honorific and does
not come with a check. But I do like to single out books that are particularly insightful about some aspect of globalization. Previous
winners are listed at the bottom.
This year's choice is
Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the Worldby
Adam Tooze of Yale University . Tooze, an historian, traces the events leading up to the crisis and the subsequent ten years.
He points out in the introduction that this account is different from one he may have written several years ago. At that time Barak
Obama had won re-election in 2012 on the basis of a slow but steady recovery in the U.S. Europe was further behind, but the emerging
markets were growing rapidly, due to the demand for their commodities from a steadily-growing China as well as capital inflows searching
for higher returns than those available in the advanced economies.
But the economic recovery has brought new challenges, which have swept aside established politicians and parties. Obama was succeeded
by Donald Trump, who promised to restore America to some form of past greatness. His policy agenda includes trade disputes with a
broad range of countries, and he is particularly eager to impose trade tariffs on China. The current meltdown in stock prices follows
a rise in interest rates normal at this stage of the business cycle but also is based on fears of the consequences of the trade measures.
Europe has its own discontents. In the United Kingdom, voters have approved leaving the European Union. The European Commission
has expressed its disapproval of the Italian government's fiscal plans. Several east European governments have voiced opposition
to the governance norms of the West European nations. Angela Merkel's decision to step down as head of her party leaves Europe without
its most respected leader.
All these events are outcomes of the crisis, which Tooze emphasizes was a trans-Atlantic event. European banks had purchased held
large amounts of U.S. mortgage-backed securities that they financed with borrowed dollars. When liquidity in the markets disappeared,
the European banks faced the challenge of financing their obligations. Tooze explains how the Federal Reserve supported the European
banks using swap lines with the European Central Bank and other central banks, as well as including the domestic subsidiaries of
the foreign banks in their liquidity support operations in the U.S. As a result, Tooze claims:
"What happened in the fall of 2008 was not the relativization of the dollar, but the reverse, a dramatic reassertion of the pivotal
role of America's central bank. Far from withering away, the Fed's response gave an entirely new dimension to the global dollar"
(Tooze, p. 219)
The focused policies of U.S. policymakers stood in sharp contrast to those of their European counterparts. Ireland and Spain had
to deal with their own banking crises following the collapse of their housing bubbles, and Portugal suffered from anemic growth.
But Greece's sovereign debt posed the largest challenge, and exposed the fault line in the Eurozone between those who believed that
such crises required a national response and those who looked for a broader European resolution. As a result, Greece lurched from
one lending program to another. The IMF was treated as a junior partner by the European governments that sought to evade facing the
consequences of Greek insolvency, and the Fund's reputation suffered new blows due to its involvement with the various rescue operations.The
ECB only demonstrated a firm commitment to its stabilizing role in July 2012, when its President Mario Draghi announced that "Within
our mandate, the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro."
China followed another route. The government there engaged in a surge of stimulus spending combined with expansionary monetary
policies. The result was continued growth that allowed the Chinese government to demonstrate its leadership capabilities at a time
when the U.S. was abandoning its obligations. But the ensuing credit boom was accompanied by a rise in private (mainly corporate)
lending that has left China with a total debt to GDP ratio of over 250%, a level usually followed by some form of financial collapse.
Chinese officials are well aware of the domestic challenge they face at the same time as their dispute with the U.S. intensifies.
Tooze demonstrates that the crisis has let loose a range of responses that continue to play out. He ends the book by pointing
to a similarity of recent events and those of 1914. He raises several questions: "How does a great moderation end? How do huge risks
build up that are little understood and barely controllable? How do great tectonic shifts in the global world order unload in sudden
earthquakes?" Ten years after a truly global crisis, we are still seeking answers to these questions.
"... Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism. ..."
"... Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors, Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal in the postwar world. ..."
"... "We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later, she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as "Merkel the Bold." ..."
"... The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics), she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim world might prove difficult. ..."
"... Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question. ..."
"... In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself. ..."
Drop of Light/Shutterstock Whatever her accomplishments
as pathbreaking female politician and respected leader of Europe's dominant economic power, Angela Merkel will go down in history
for her outburst of naivete over the issue of migration into Europe during the summer of 2015.
Her announcement on Monday that she will vacate the leadership of Germany's ruling center-right Christian Democrats marks
the culmination of what has been a slow denouement of Merkelism.
She had seen the vote share of her long dominant party shrink in one regional election after another. The rebuke given to her
last weekend in Hesse, containing the Frankfurt region with its booming economy, where she had campaigned extensively, was the final
straw. Her CDU's vote had declined 10 points since the previous election, their voters moving toward the further right (Alternative
fur Deutschland or AfD). Meanwhile, the further left Greens have made dramatic gains at the expense of Merkel's Social Democrat coalition
partners.
Long the emblematic figure of "Europe," hailed by the neoliberal Economist as the continent's moral voice, long the
dominant decider of its collective foreign and economic policies, Merkel will leave office with border fences being erected and disdain
for European political institutions at their highest pitch ever. In this sense, she failed as dramatically as her most famous predecessors,
Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Helmut Schmidt, and Helmut Kohl, succeeded in their efforts to make Germany both important and normal
in the postwar world.
One can acknowledge that while Merkel never admitted error for her multiculti summer fling (beyond wishing she had communicated
her goals better), she did manage to adjust her policies. By 2016, Germany under her watch was paying a healthy ransom to Turkey
to keep would-be migrants in camps and preventing them from sailing to Greece. Merkel's departure will make the battle to succeed
her one of the most watched political contests in Europe. She has turned migration into a central and quite divisive issue within
the CDU and Germany, and the party may decide that it has no choice but to accommodate, in one way or another, the voters who have
left them for the AfD.
Related to the issue of who should reside in Europe (objectively the current answer remains anyone who can get there) is the question
of how are such questions decided. In July 2015, five years after asserting in a speech that multiculturalism has
"utterly failed" in Germany (without addressing what policies should be pursued in an increasingly ethnically diverse society)
and several weeks after reducing a young Arab girl to tears at a televised forum by telling her that those whose asylum claims were
rejected would "have to go back" and that "politics is hard," Merkel changed course.
For those interested in psychological studies of leadership and decision making, it would be hard to imagine a richer subject.
Merkel's government first announced it would no longer enforce the rule (the Dublin agreement) that required asylum claimants to
be processed in the first country they passed through. Then she doubled down. The migrants fleeing the Syrian civil war, along with
those who pretended to be Syrian, and then basically just anyone, could come to Germany.
"We can do this!" she famously declared. Europe, she said, must "show flexibility" over refugees. Then, a few days later,
she said there was "no limit" to the number of migrants Germany could accept. At first, the burgeoning flood of mostly young male
asylum claimants produced an orgy of self-congratulatory good feeling, celebrity posturing of welcome, Merkel greeting migrants at
the train station, Merkel taking selfies with migrants, Merkel touted in The Economist as
"Merkel the Bold."
Her words traveled far beyond those fleeing Syria. Within 48 hours of the "no limit" remark, TheNew York Times
reported a sudden stirring of migrants from Nigeria. Naturally Merkel boasted in a quiet way about how her decision had revealed
that Germany had put its Nazi past behind it. "The world sees Germany as a land of hope and chances," she said. "That wasn't always
the case." In making this decision personally, Merkel was making it for all of Europe. It was one of the ironies of a European arrangement
whose institutions were developed in part to transcend nationalism and constrain future German power that 70 years after the end
of the war, the privately arrived-at decision of a German chancellor could instantly transform societies all over Europe.
The euphoria, of course, did not last. Several of the Merkel migrants carried out terror attacks in France that fall. (France's
socialist prime minister Manuel Valls remarked pointedly after meeting with Merkel, "It was not us who said, 'Come!'") Reports of
sexual assaults and murders by migrants proved impossible to suppress, though Merkel did ask Mark Zuckerberg to squelch European
criticism of her migration policies on Facebook. Intelligent as she undoubtedly is (she was a research chemist before entering politics),
she seemed to lack any intellectual foundation to comprehend why the integration of hundreds of thousands of people from the Muslim
world might prove difficult.
Merkel reportedly telephoned Benjamin Netanyahu to ask how Israel had been so successful in integrating so many immigrants
during its brief history. There is no record of what Netanyahu thought of the wisdom of the woman posing this question.
In any case, within a year, the Merkel initiative was acknowledged as a failure by most everyone except the chancellor herself.
Her public approval rating plunged from 75 percent in April 2015 to 47 percent the following summer. The first electoral rebuke came
in September 2016, when the brand new anti-immigration party, the Alternative fur Deutschland, beat Merkel's CDU in Pomerania.
In every election since, Merkel's party has lost further ground. Challenges to her authority from within her own party have become
more pointed and powerful. But the mass migration accelerated by her decision continues, albeit at a slightly lower pace.
Angela Merkel altered not only Germany but the entire European continent, in irreversible ways, for decades to come.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor ofand the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars
.
"... On the other hand, President Trump is pushing Merkel on policy on Russia and Ukraine that furthers the image that she is simply a stooge of U.S. geopolitical ambitions. Don't ever forget that Germany is, for all intents and purposes, an occupied country. So, what the U.S. military establishment wants, Merkel must provide. ..."
"... But Merkel, further weakened by another disastrous state election, isn't strong enough to fend off her emboldened Italian and British opposition (and I'm not talking about The Gypsum Lady, Theresa May here). ..."
"... Merkel is a lame-duck now. Merkelism is over. Absentee governing from the center standing for nothing but the international concerns has been thoroughly rebuked by the European electorate from Spain to the shores of the Black Sea. ..."
"... Germany will stand for something other than globalism by the time this is all over. There will be a renaissance of culture and tradition there that is similar to the one occurring at a staggering pace in Russia. ..."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped down as the leader of the Christian Democratic
Union, the party she has led for nearly two decades. Yesterday's election in Hesse, normally a
CDU/SPD stronghold was abysmal for them.
She had to do something to quell the revolt brewing against her.
Merkel knew going in what the polls were showing. Unlike American and British polls, it
seems the German ones are mostly accurate with pre-election polls coming close to matching the
final results.
So, knowing what was coming for her and in the spirit of trying to maintain power for as
long as possible Merkel has been moving away from her staunch positions on unlimited
immigration and being in lock-step with the U.S. on Russia.
She's having to walk a tightrope on these two issues as the turmoil in U.S. political
circles is pulling her in, effectively, opposite directions.
The globalist Davos Crowd she works for wants the destruction of European culture and
individual national sovereignty ground into a paste and power consolidated under the rubric of
the European Union.
They also want Russia brought to heel.
On the other hand, President Trump is pushing Merkel on policy on Russia and Ukraine that
furthers the image that she is simply a stooge of U.S. geopolitical ambitions. Don't ever
forget that Germany is, for all intents and purposes, an occupied country. So, what the U.S.
military establishment wants, Merkel must provide.
So, if she rejects that role and the chaos U.S. policy engenders, particularly Syria, she's
undermining the flow of migrants into Europe.
This is why it was so significant that she and French President Emmanuel Macron joined this
weekend's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan in Istanbul.
It ended with an agreement on Syria's future that lies in direct conflict with the U.S.'s
goals of the past seven years.
It was an admission that Assad has prevailed in Syria and the plan to atomize it into yet
another failed state has itself failed. Merkel has traded 'Assad must go' for 'no more
refugees.'
To President Trump's credit he then piggy-backed on that statement announcing that the U.S.
would be pulling out of Syria very soon now. And that tells me that he is still coordinating in
some way with Putin and other world leaders on the direction of his foreign policy in spite of
his opposition.
But the key point from the Istanbul statement was that Syria's rebuilding be prioritized to
reverse the flow of migrants so Syrians can go home. While
Gilbert Doctorow is unconvinced by France's position here , I think Merkel has to be
focused on assisting Putin in achieving his goal of returning Syria to Syrians.
Because, this is both a political necessity for Merkel as well as her trying to burnish her
crumbling political throne to maintain power.
The question is will Germans believe and/or forgive her enough for her to stay in power
through her now stated 'retirement' from politics in 2021?
I don't think so and it's obvious Davos Crowd boy-toy Macron is working overtime to salvage
what he can for them as Merkel continues to face up to the political realities across Europe,
which is that populism is a natural reaction to these insane policies.
Merkel's job of consolidating power under the EU is unfinished. They don't have financial
integration. The Grand Army of the EU is still not a popular idea. The euro-zone is a disaster
waiting to happen and its internal inconsistencies are adding fuel to an already pretty hot
political fire.
On this front, EU integration, she and Macron are on the same page. Because 'domestically'
from an EU perspective, Brexit still has to be dealt with and the showdown with the Italians is
only just beginning.
But Merkel, further weakened by another disastrous state election, isn't strong enough to
fend off her emboldened Italian and British opposition (and I'm not talking about The Gypsum
Lady, Theresa May here).
And Macron should stop looking in the mirror long enough to see he's standing on a quicksand
made of blasting powder.
This points to the next major election for Europe, that of the European Parliament in May
where all of Merkel's opposition are focused on wresting control of that body and removing
Jean-Claude Juncker or his hand-picked replacement (Merkel herself?) from power.
The obvious transition for Merkel is from German Chancellor to European Commission
President. She steps down as Chancellor in May after the EPP wins a majority then to take
Juncker's job. I'm sure that's been the plan all along. This way she can continue the work she started
without having to face the political backlash at home.
But, again, how close is Germany to snap elections if there is another migrant attack and
Chemnitz-like demonstrations. You can only go to the 'Nazi' well so many times, even in
Germany.
There comes a point where people will have simply had enough and their anger isn't born of
being intolerant but angry at having been betrayed by political leadership which doesn't speak
for them and imported crime, chaos and violence to their homes.
And the puppet German media will not be able to contain the story. The EU's speech rules
will not contain people who want to speak. The clamp down on hate speech, pioneered by Merkel
herself is a reaction to the growing tide against her.
And guess what? She can't stop it.
The problem is that Commies like Merkel and Soros don't believe in anything. They are
vampires and nihilists as I said over the
weekend suffused with a toxic view of humanity.
Oh sure, they give lip service to being inclusive and nice about it while they have
control over the levers of power, the State apparatus. But, the minute they lose control of
those levers, the sun goes down, the fangs come out and the bloodletting begins.
These people are vampires, sucking the life out of a society for their own ends. They are
evil in a way that proves John Barth's observation that "man can do no wrong." For they never
see themselves as the villain.
No. They see themselves as the savior of a fallen people. Nihilists to their very core
they only believe in power. And, since power is their religion, all activities are justified
in pursuit of their goals.
Their messianic view of themselves is indistinguishable to the Salafist head-chopping
animals people like Hillary empowered to sow chaos and death across the Middle East and North
Africa over the past decade.
Add to this Merkel herself who took Hillary's empowerment of these animals and gave them a
home across Europe. At least now Merkel has the good sense to see that this has cost her nearly
everything.
Even if she has little to no shame.
Hillary seems to think she can run for president again and win with the same schtick she
failed with twice before. Frankly, I welcome it like I welcome the sun in the morning, safe in
the knowledge that all is right with the world and she will go down in humiliating defeat yet
again.
Merkel is a lame-duck now. Merkelism is over. Absentee governing from the center standing
for nothing but the international concerns has been thoroughly rebuked by the European
electorate from Spain to the shores of the Black Sea.
Germany will stand for something other than globalism by the time this is all over. There
will be a renaissance of culture and tradition there that is similar to the one occurring
at a staggering pace in Russia.
Not to worry. Brexit is rather a textbook example of the political/economic dichotomy to
which I speak @ 5.
There will be no Brexit in economic or political reality. It isn't even remotely possible,
even in the unlikely event the EU collapses in the short term. There may be a pseudo "Brexit"
for political face-saving purposes, true, which will consist of a similar sales effort as
Trump is making to hold onto his own age-depressed plebes in flyover USArya.
"Brexit is coming! Brexit is coming! Tariffs are easy! Tariffs are easy! Hold on a bit
longer, we are just trying to get it right for you little people not to suffer anymore."
Lol.
@6 "Sadly many left wing ppl prefer EU neoliberal anti democratic, corrupt rule over their
own sovereign democratic institutions."
I see it more as a neoliberal desire to belong to some vague bigger global entity. Plus
the fact that since WW2 nationalism has become equated with fascism.
Britain has never been totally part of Europe....geographically or politically.
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Oct 21, 2018 10:16:20 AM |
link
@dh-mtl: True that. Sadly many left wing ppl prefer EU neoliberal anti democratic, corrupt
rule over their own souvereign democratic institutions. It was the national state (with its
additional regional democratic institutions) that brought us democracy, not the neolibs EU.
But that truth hurts, and many prefer empty slogans against the evil national state over a
honest analysis.
@B: Inoreader cant find new feeds for some days, something is broken!
With Brexit, the U.K. is trying to save itself before it collapses to a state similar to
Greece.
The E.U., because it is essentially a financially based dictatorship, and is fatally
flawed, will break apart. And, in this sense, I agree with you that the U.K. is ahead of the
curve.
Abandoning nuclear treaty is just a diversion to steer away eyes off Khashoggi case, latter
being even more important as it wedges in the very depth of an internal US political
demise.
UK barks there on Russia to steer its own downfall into spotlight of an importance on a world
stage that is close to null. UK didn't even sign anything with Russia as basically nobody
else did from within NATO, so one can render that INF as outdated and stale.
Will they come up with a new one that suits all or we will just let it go and slip into
unilateral single polarity downfall of West? Answers are coming along real soon.
Right now US and a few vasal allies left are getting into dirty set of strategic games
opposing far more skilled opponents and it will come around at a really high price. EU has
lost many contracts lately in mid east due to America First, so a lots of sticks in US wheels
are coming up. It is going to be a real fun watching all that and reading b. and others on
MoA..
The UK will most likely crash out of the EU. Of course, one can't exclude that some
last minute holding action, temp. solution, or reversal can be found - but I doubt it.
Northern Ireland will break away. The analysis of the vote has been very poor, and based
on an 'identity politics' and slice-n-dice views. Pensioners afraid to lose their pension,
deplorables, victims of austerity, lack of young voter turnout, etc.
NI and Scotland are ruled by a tri-partite scheme: 'home rule', 'devolution' - Westminster
- and the EU. The two peripheral entities prefer belonging to and participating in the larger
group (see also! reasons historical and of enmity etc.) which has on the whole been good for
them. England prefers a return to some mythical sovereignity / nationalism, getting rid of
the super-ordinate power, a last desperate stab at Britannia (hm?) rules the waves or at
least some bloody thing like traffic on the Thames, labor law, etc. The UK had no business
running that referendum - by that I mean that in the UK pol. system Parliament rules supreme,
which is antithetical to the referendum approach (in any case the result is only advisory)
and running it was a signal of crack-up. By now, it is clear that the UK political / Gvmt.
system is not fit for handling problems in the years 2000.
Why NI and not Scotland (which might split as well ..)? From a geo-political pov, because
geography bats last - yes. And also because NI is the much weaker entity. EU has stated (Idk
about texts etc.): if and when a EU member conquers, annexes, brings into the fold some
'other' territory, it then in turn becomes part of the EU. Ex. If Andorra chose to join Spain
it would meld into Eurolandia, with time to adjust to all the rules. Perhaps Macron would no
longer be a Prince!
However, Catalonia *cannot* be allowed to split from Spain (affecting Spanish integrity
and the EU) and if it did it would crash out of the EU, loosing all, so that doesn't work.
Scotland is not Catalonia. NI has had a special status in many ways for a long time so it is
easier to tolerate and imagine alternatives. The EU will pay for NI...
The UK is losing power rapidly and indulging in its own form of 're-trenchment' (different
from the Trumpian desired one) - both are nostalgic, but the British one is more
suicidal.
The only alternative interpretation I can see (suggested by John Michael Greer) is that
the UK is ahead of the curve: a pre-emptive collapse (rather semi-collapse) now would put it
in a better position than others 20 years or so hence. That would also include a break-up
into parts.
"... Another year wouldn't be enough additional time to achieve a trade agreement unless the UK capitulated to EU terms. And a big motivation for this idea seemed to be to try to kick the Irish border can down the road. ..."
"... Theresa May is facing the most perilous week of her premiership after infuriating all sections of her party by making further concessions to Brussels. Her offer to extend the transition period after Brexit -- made without cabinet approval -- enraged Remain and Leave Tory MPs alike. ..."
"... DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds has rejected calls for the post-Brexit transition period to be extended, claiming it would cost the UK billions and not break the Irish border deadlock . ..."
"... Theresa May has conceded the Irish backstop cannot have an end date, risking the threat of fresh Cabinet resignations. The PM told Leo Varadkar she accepted Brussels' demands that any fallback border solution cannot be "time-limited". ..."
"... Merkel's effort at an intervention came off like a clueless CEO telling subordinates who have been handed a nearly-impossible task that they need to get more creative ..."
"... Emmanuel Macron, the French president, struck a more uncompromising tone. "It's not for the EU to make some concessions to deal with a British political issue. I can't be more clear on this," he said. "Now the key element for a final deal is on the British side, because the key element is a British political compromise." ..."
"... Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU) 1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. ..."
"... It is accepted that all of the institutional and constitutional arrangements – an Assembly in Northern Ireland , a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies, a British-Irish Council and a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland – are interlocking and interdependent and that in particular the functioning of the Assembly and the North/South Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on that of the other. ..."
Another year wouldn't be enough additional time to achieve
a trade agreement unless the UK capitulated to EU terms. And a big motivation for this idea
seemed to be to try to kick the Irish border can down the road.
As we'll get to later in this post, the press has filed more detailed reports on the EU's
reactions to May's "nothing new" speech at the European Council summit on Wednesday. The
reactions seem to be more sober; recall the first takes were relief that nothing bad happened
and at least everyone was trying to put their best foot forward. Merkel also pressed Ireland
and the EU to be more flexible over the Irish border question but Marcon took issue with her
position. However, they both
then went to a outdoor cafe and had beers for two hours .
May's longer transition scheme vehemently criticized across Tory factions and by the DUP .
Even pro-Remain Tories are opposed. The press had a field day.
From the Telegraph :
Theresa May was on Thursday evening increasingly isolated over her plan to keep Britain
tied to the EU for longer as she was savaged by both wings of her party and left in the cold
by EU leaders
The move enraged Brexiteers who said it would cost billions, and angered members of the
Cabinet who said they had not formally agreed the plan before she offered it up as a
bargaining chip. Mrs May also faced a potential mutiny from Tory MPs north of the border,
including David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, who said the proposal was "unacceptable"
because it would delay the UK's exit from the hated Common Fisheries Policy.
Theresa May is facing the most perilous week of her premiership after infuriating all
sections of her party by making further concessions to Brussels. Her offer to extend the
transition period after Brexit -- made without cabinet approval -- enraged Remain and Leave
Tory MPs alike.
DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds has rejected calls for the post-Brexit transition period
to be extended, claiming it would cost the UK billions and not break the Irish border
deadlock .
His comments came after Tory MPs on all wings of the party also rejected extending the
transition period.
Former minister Nick Boles, who campaigned for Remain in the 2016 referendum, told the
Today programme: "I'm afraid she's losing the confidence now of colleagues of all shades of
opinion – people who've been supportive of her throughout this process – they are
close to despair at the state of this negotiation."
Brexiteer MP Andrea Jenkyns tweeted: "Back in July, myself and 36 colleagues signed a
letter to the Prime Minister setting out our red lines – and that was one of them. It's
completely ridiculous."
Scottish Tories say they would veto an extension to the Brexit transition period in
support of their fisherman.
And members of the hard-core Brexit faction are also up in arms about May conceding that an
Irish border backstop can't be time limited. From The
Sun :
Theresa May has conceded the Irish backstop cannot have an end date, risking the
threat of fresh Cabinet resignations. The PM told Leo Varadkar she accepted Brussels' demands
that any fallback border solution cannot be "time-limited".
But a fudge could cost Mrs May two eurosceptic Cabinet ministers, with Esther McVey and
Andrea Leadsom threatening to resign if there's not a set end date.
Merkel pushes for more Brussels-Ireland flexibility while Macron disagrees . I am at risk of
seeming unduly wedded to my priors, but Merkel's effort at an intervention came off like a
clueless CEO telling subordinates who have been handed a nearly-impossible task that they need
to get more creative . While Merkel is correct to point out that no-deal = hard Irish
border, an outcome no one wants, she does not appear to comprehend that the "sea border," which
is politically fraught for the UK, is the only alternative that does not create ginormous
problems for the EU. Merkel's seeming lack of comprehension may reflect the fact that EU
nations don't handle trade negotiations. From the Financial Times
:
At an EU summit dinner and in later public remarks, the German chancellor expressed
concerns about the bloc's stand-off with the UK over the Irish "backstop", a fallback measure
intended to ensure no hard border divides Ireland if other solutions fail. This has become
the biggest outstanding issue in the talks.
Three diplomats said that at the Wednesday night dinner Ms Merkel indicated that the EU
and the Republic of Ireland should rethink their approach on Northern Ireland to avoid a
fundamental clash with London.
Ms Merkel also signaled her concerns in a press conference on Thursday, highlighting that
if the UK crashes out of the EU without a deal a hard border for Northern Ireland could be
inevitable.
"If you don't have an agreement you don't have a satisfactory answer [to the border issue]
either," she said, noting that on Northern Ireland "we all need an answer" .
Diplomats said the German chancellor was more forceful about the issue at the Brexit
dinner, although some other leaders remained puzzled about the chancellor's intentions.
The Financial Times also said that the UK and Germany would meet Thursday to "discuss a way
out of the Brexit impasse." Given that Barnier has offered a lot of new ideas in last month, it
is hard to see how anything new could be cooked up, unless the UK hopes to sell Germany on its
already-rejected techno vaporware idea.
Macron made clear he was not on the same page. Again from the Financial Times:
Emmanuel Macron, the French president, struck a more uncompromising tone. "It's not
for the EU to make some concessions to deal with a British political issue. I can't be more
clear on this," he said. "Now the key element for a final deal is on the British side,
because the key element is a British political compromise."
Vardakar also made a statement after the dinner that reaffirmed the importance of the EU
affirming the principles of the single market. From
The Times :
The European Union would have "huge difficulties" in agreeing to extend the Northern Irish
backstop to the rest of the UK, the taoiseach has warned. Leo Varadkar said he did not think
"any country or union" would be asked to sign up to an agreement that would give the UK
access to the single market while also allowing it to "undercut" the EU across a range of
areas including state aid competition, labour laws and environmental standards.
"I would feel very strongly about this, as a European as well as an Irishman: you couldn't
have a situation whereby the UK had access to the single market -- which is our market -- and
at the same time was able to undercut us in terms of standards, whether they were
environmental standards, labour laws, or state aid competition. I don't think any country or
any union would be asked to accept that," Mr Varadkar said in Brussels.
Robert Peston deems odds of crash out high; sees only escape route as "customs union Brexit"
. Robert Peston, who is one of the UK's best connected political reporters, described in a new
piece at ITV how May has at best a narrow path to avoiding a disorderly Brexit, and that is
what he calls a "customs union" Brexit. I am sure if Richard North saw that, he'd be tearing
his hair, since he has been describing for months why a customs union does not solve the
problem that virtually everyone who talks in up in UK thinks it solves, namely, conferring
"frictionless trade".
One key point in his analysis is that the UK will also have to accept "a blind Brexit,"
meaning a very fuzzy statement of what the "future relationship" will be. The EU had offered
that in the last month or so, presumably as a fudge to allow May to get the various wings of
her coalition to agree to something. But Peston says it's too late to do anything else.
From ITV :
Hello from Brussels and the EU Council that promised a Brexit breakthrough and delivered
nothing.
So on the basis of conversations with well-placed sources, this is how I think the Brexit
talks are placed (WARNING: if you are fearful of a no-deal Brexit, or are of a nervous
disposition, stop reading now):
1) Forget about having any clue when we leave about the nature and structure of the UK's
future trading relationship with the EU. The government heads of the EU27 have rejected
Chequers. Wholesale. And they regard it as far too late to put in place the building blocks
of that future relationship before we leave on 29 March 2019. So any Political Declaration on
the future relationship will be waffly, vague and general. It will be what so many MPs
detest: a blind Brexit. The PM may say that won't happen. No one here (except perhaps her own
Downing St team) believes her.
Erm, that alone may be a deal killer. We quoted this section of a Politico article
on October
10 :
5. Future relationship – Blind Brexit
Opposed: Brexiteers, Tory Remainers, the Labour Party, Theresa May
I'll let our astute readers give their reactions to Peston's recommendation to May:
3) There is no chance of the EU abandoning its insistence that there should be a backstop
– with no expiry date – of Northern Ireland, but not Great Britain, remaining in
the Customs Union and the single market. That would involve the introduction of the
commercial border in the Irish Sea that May says must never be drawn.
4) All efforts therefore from the UK are aimed at putting in place other arrangements to
make it impossible for that backstop to be introduced.
5) Her ruse for doing this is the creation of another backstop that would involve the
whole of the UK staying in something that looks like the customs union.
6) But she feels cannot commit to keeping the UK in the customs union forever, because her
Brexiter MPs won't let her. So it does not work as a backstop. And anyway the Article 50
rules say that the Withdrawal Agreement must not contain provisions for a permanent trading
relationship between the whole of the UK and the EU. Which is a hideous Catch 22.
7) There is a solution. She could ignore her Brexiter critics and announce the UK wanted
written into the Political Declaration – not the Withdrawal Agreement – that we
would be staying permanently in the customs union. This is one bit of specificity the rest of
the EU would allow into the Political Declaration. And it could be nodded at in the
Withdrawal Agreement.
8) But if she announces we are staying in the Customs Union she would be crossing her
reddest of red lines because she would have to abandon her ambition of negotiating free trade
deals with non-EU countries. Liam Fox would be made redundant.
9) She knows, because her Brexit negotiator Olly Robbins has told her, that her best
chance – probably her only chance of securing a Brexit deal – is to sign up for
the customs union.
10) In its absence, no-deal Brexit is massively in play.
11) But a customs-union Brexit deal would see her Brexiter MPs become incandescent with
fury.
12) Labour of course would be on the spot, since its one practical Brexit policy is to
stay in the Customs Union.
13) This therefore is May's Robert Peel moment. She could agree a Customs Union Brexit and
get it through Parliament with Labour support – while simultaneously cleaving her own
party in two.
Finally, in an elegiac piece, Richard North contends that the UK didn't need to wind up
where it is:
A reader takes me to task for making comparisons between the Brexit negotiations and the
Allied invasion of Normandy
Yet it is precisely because Mrs May seems to have chosen an adversarial route rather than
a consensual process that I have projected her failings in militaristic terms..
In reality, it would have been best to approach the Brexit process not so much as the end
of a relationship as a redefinition, where the need to continue close cooperation continues,
even if it is to be structured on a different basis
Here, though, lies the essential problem. The EU, as a treaty-based organisation, does not
have the flexibility to change its own rules just to suit the needs of one member, and
especially one which is seeking to leave the Union. Yet, on the other hand, the UK government
has political constraints which prevent it making concessions which would allow the EU to
define a new relationship
But, having put herself in a position where she is demanding something that the EU cannot
give, she herself has no alternative but to adopt an adversarial stance – if for no
other reason than to show her own political allies and critics that she is doing her best to
resolve an impossible situation.
If there is a light at the end of this tunnel, it sure looks like the headlight of an
oncoming train, the Brexit end date bearing down on the principals.
I can't help but wonder whether the proposed time extension was proposed mischievously by
EU negotiators precisely to set off divisions among the Tories. While Barniers no.1 aim is a
deal, the close to no.2 aim must surely be to ensure that in the event of no deal (or a
clearly clapped together bad interim deal), 100% of the blame goes to London. So far, they
are doing a good job with that.
Its a little concerning that Merkel was so off-message, even though she is obviously
correct that a no-deal means a hard border, which is a failure by any standard. I'm pretty
sure we won't see any overt disagreements among the EU 27 as they won't want to give the UK
the satisfaction of having sown dissent. However, that doesn't mean there won't be frantic
background pressure from some (probably pushed by business) to do some sort of deal, even a
bad one. That will inevitable mean leaning heavily on Dublin, if it is seen as the last
obstacle. Any such pressure will be private, not public I'm sure.
The damage limitation is there, for sure, but it's always aimed on rest of the world (i.e.
all but the UK, where the EU will be target in any outcome). TBH, I'm not sure how much
that's needed now..
I wonder if the various negotiating teams are reminded of that nursery rhyme I learned as
a child -- "and the wheels on the bus go round and round ".
As line one of section one of Article 50 explicitly states (and would therefore be given
substantial weight in any reading of the Article itself):
Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements.
The U.K. government cannot change the constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland
without the agreement of the people of the six counties and the Republic and the rest of the
U.K. "Nothing about us, without us" in popular parlance. And Republicans need to give their
consent for any change affecting devolved matters (which is enforceable via a Petition of
Concern). EU laws and directives are devolved matters. Constitutionally, no one can force
anything on anyone in the province.
What the EU is asking the U.K. to do is impossible.
What the U.K. is asking the EU to do is impossible.
A hard border is also impossible, both as an outcome of treaty obligations and also as a
practical matter.
Therefore a no-deal Brexit is inevitable. Therefore, so is a hard border. Which is an
impossibility -- politically and operationally.
No wonder this can got kicked down the road last December. But now we have, oh, look,
what's this here? Who left this can lying around?
I'm not sure. I had always read that sentence as meaning "in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements for withdrawing from treaties in general" ie much more narrowly
focused. Normally, any government has a sovereign right to withdraw from treaties, but it
could be the case, for example, that in some countries parliament has to be informed, debates
have to be held etc, and that's the case that's being covered here. Not to say that my
interpretation (if correct) makes the situation any easier.
I posted a long comment on the French media reporting of Wednesday's talks yesterday. If I
have a moment, I'll look to see if there's anything fresh today. One thing to look out for
will be signs of tension between Paris and Brussels.
I would need a lawyer well versed in international treaty interpretations to give a proper
opinion and ultimately a court to rule on this.
What the wording definitely does not say (we can all read it for ourselves) is anything
along the lines of " may initiate " or " may invoke its right to withdraw " or
suchlike followed by the bit about constitutional adherences. Thus the requirements to act
constitutionally must likely be expected to apply to Article 50 in their entirety. Apart from
any lawyerly parsing, this is also common sense.
The section says a Member State may withdraw and it has to (this is so stating the obvious
the treaty drafting must have had this specifically in mind to mention it) be constitutional
about it. The EU cannot ask a Member State to conduct its withdrawal unconstitutionally.
No, that's not what it means – what it means is that as far as EU law is concerned,
EU law ends there. It's wholly up to the withdrawing state to define and consider.
Yes, and the Member State can't act unconstitutionally in respect of its own withdrawal
proceedings. The EU is reserving the right not to accept any instruction in the matter of a
withdrawal from the EU from the said Member State which is unconstitutional
for that Member State. Nor can the EU foist unconstitutional acts onto a Member
State in respect of the withdrawal. Its a basic principle of any legal system and any law and
any jurisprudence that Party A cannot induce Party B to break the law as a result of an
agreement between them and for that agreement to then remain valid.
As a simpler example, I draw up an agreement that says you'll pay me £100 in a
week's time and you must get the money by whatever means possible. Fast forward a week and
you don't have the £100. I can't use our agreement as an excuse for you to commit an
unlawful act (say, go and steal someone's wallet) "because we've got an agreement you'll pay
me, so that makes it okay no matter what, so long as you give me the money". Nor can you use
your being party to the agreement to say "sorry, I don't have the money, but you can steal it
from my Aunt Flossie, she's never gonna know you took it".
I have a suspicion we are (nearly) saying the same thing. See the separate thread below. A
country that signs the Lisbon Treaty accepts that any decision to withdraw will have to be
taken according to its own constitutional arrangements. This is a national obligation, but I
don't see how the EU could refuse to accept the notification on the basis that it had been
unconstitutionally arrived at, or what standing they would have. I've never heard of anything
similar happening elsewhere.
To rephrase your example. My partner and I lend you £100 and you say that we can have
it back any time we want. I ask for it back, and you refuse to give it to me on the basis
that, in your view, this has to be a joint request from my partner and me.
I buy this only partially, as Scotland has some freedom to set taxes, and NI has also
diverged from other UK laws (the infamous abortion rights).
Of course, from that, to staying in single market is quite a jump, but one could argue
that since majority of the NI voted "remain" (by some margin) they clearly DO wish to stay in
the single market.
Also the "the rest of the UK" is dubious – it's really "without the say so from the
Westminster Parliament". See Scottish Indy referendum – I didn't notice they run it in
England as well? (if they did, I suspect Scots could have been independend by now).
That said, even the above can still be done by a single poll that NI republicans actually
already called for i.e. if there's a hard-border Brexit, NI should get a reunification
vote.
TBH, that's MY suggestion to the impasse. The backstop becomes a reunification referendum.
Not time limited – once the transition period is done, it's done, nor really
challengable. You want SM, you go European, or you stay within the UK. I'd like to see DUP to
froth on that..
It's stated right at the top of the Good Friday Agreement absolutely explicitly:
It is accepted that all of the institutional and constitutional arrangements –
an Assembly in Northern Ireland , a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation bodies,
a British-Irish Council and a British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments
to British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland – are interlocking and
interdependent and that in particular the functioning of the Assembly and the North/South
Council are so closely inter-related that the success of each depends on that of the
other.
Treaty texts rarely get so unarguably clear.
This is why I suspect there was such a push in February to get Stormont up and running
again. Without it, everything was stuck in constitutional limbo and lacking any possibility
of constitutionally-authenticated approvals. Similar any possibility of a border poll.
Without a vote in the Assembly, how can the U.K. government have any pretence (that would
withstand a UKSC challenge) that it was responding to a democratic imperative issued by
NI?
Of course, the U.K. government could do whatever the heck it likes by a reintroduced
Direct Rule. At which point the Good Friday Agreement is toast (and the Republic would have
to explicitly buy-in to Direct Rule being initiated). This must be one of the DUP's main game
plans. They really don't care that much about borders in the Irish Sea if they can get rid of
the Good Friday Agreement. The DUP would be quite happy to paint the Garvaghy Road emerald
green from end to end if they could rip that up for good.
An additional complication to this though is the British
Irish Intergovernmental Conference , which explicitly gives the Irish government a say in
non-devolved matters, including the Common Travel area and EU matters. So at least in theory,
the British government must (if the Irish government insists on reconstituting the Council,
which they haven't so far) engage with the Irish government for any change – including
Brexit – to be constitutional.
Its been speculated here that Varadkar has not called for the BIIC to be held in order not
to inflame matters with the DUP.
Yes, I think this holds a lot of water. Especially since the Republic amended its
constitution to facilitate the GFA, it shows how seriously it took the matter. While
politically it may be gruesome for the U.K. to contemplate that it would not be possible to
leave the EU without as a minimum consulting the Republic, I too think there is at least a
possibility it was in fact legally obligated via the GFA to do exactly that.
I read that entirely differently again – my (completely laymans) interpretation is
that it means a countries request for withdrawal must be internally constitutionally based.
In other words, a rogue leader can't simply say 'I'm launching A.50' in defiance of his own
Parliament or courts. Or put another way – the EU can refuse to accept an A.50
application if it can be argued that it was not generated legally in the first place.
I think that's right, though most treaties like this contain some ambiguity in their
wording. Interestingly, the French text gives a slightly different impression.
"Tout État membre peut décider, conformément à ses règles
constitutionnelles, de se retirer de l'Union," which would be translated as "Any member state
may decide, in accordance with its constitutional provisions, to leave the Union." The commas
make it clear that, in French at least, the only decision that has to be taken
constitutionally under the Treaty, is the decision to leave (alinea 1). Once that decision is
taken the states has to inform the EU (alinea 2). Of course, there's a standing general
requirement on governments to behave constitutionally, but that would be a matter for the
domestic courts, not the EU. It must also be true that they should respect their
constitutional rules during the negotiation process. Interestingly, Art 46 of the Vienna
Convention on Treaties deals exactly with your point from the other end – what happens
if a state signs a treaty without going through the proper procedures. I've seen some
suggestions on specialist blogs that Art 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was inspired by the
arguments about this point.
Rubbish. The U.K. government had every right to hold a referendum. It was advisory of
course. But Parliament had every right to invoke A50 as a result of the result.
What the U.K. government had no right whatsoever to do was to pretend that the Good Friday
Agreement obligations could or should be fudged away. Nor that the EU or the Republic should
tolerate this or go along with it. The fact that they did is, well, their bad. I'm still
shaking my head as to why Barnier et al were dumb enough to go along with it at the time.
There's probably a good reason we're not privy to.
A year or so ago there was a little discussion of this in some parts of the Irish media.
The thinking seemed to be that the government at the time (pre-Varadkar) had calculated that
it was too divisive (in terms of the potential impact on NI politics) to be seen to be taking
too aggressive a stance over Brexit (with hindsight, this was very naive, the DUP don't need
outside help to be divisive).
FG was also very worried about giving any electoral help to Sinn Fein.
With hindsight, I think this was a major miscalculation on a number of levels – I
don't think they anticipated that the stupidity of the London government would force them to
take such a strong stance on the border issue, they thought it could be finessed by way of
taking a more neutral stance.
I think these are May's options:
1. Canada+++ with backstop – the DUP say NO! and she loses a vote of confidence.
2. EFTA + EEA without CU – she comes back in triumph – "No CU!" – but she
loses DUP and Ultras so needs Corbyn, who will probably cry "No CU!" with contrary
sentiment.
3. CU with backstop – Labour says it fails test #2 (at least), but she hopes their
remainers defy the whip.
Labour could help vote through a {blind brexit' with an extended Transition} in exchange
for a post-deal General Election. This could suit May in that it would be risky for the
Tories to change leaders in an election atmosphere. The British Public can then decide WHO
best can negotiate the future Trade relationship (though sadly not the WHAT as it must be
negotiated).
You wonder what is in it for May to stay in her job as Prime Minister. All indications are
that she is a perfect example of the Peter Principle which is how she ended up with the job.
You think too that she would be tempted to chuck the whole business and say "Here Boris
– it's all yours!" with all the joy of throwing a live grenade. Maybe, in the end, it
is like Milton had Satan say once – "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven".
I don't believe it has occurred to May for one minute to resign or step aside. Power is
what drives people like her (i.e. almost all politicians). Its the nature of the beast.
Macron's official statement after the European Council is here Interestingly, only
about a third of the text was devoted to Brexit, and much of that was in turn a restatement
of EU priorities – especially unity and the Single Market – and confidence in
Barnier. All the technical solutions are known, said Macron, and it is for the UK to come up
with some new ideas for compromises. The hope was to reach an agreement in the next few
weeks, including "necessary guarantees for Ireland." The French media has essentially
confined itself to reporting what Macron said.
What this shows, I think, is an increasing irritation among European leaders that Brexit,
which should have been sorted out long ago, has been taking up the time that should really
have been devoted to more important subjects, like migration and the deepening of economic
and financial cooperation The British are regarded as a major irritant, incapable of behaving
like a great power, paralysed by internal political splits and capable of doing a lot of
collateral damage. The EU seems increasingly unwilling to devote any more time to Brexit
until the UK comes up with some genuinely useful ideas – hence the cancellation of the
November summit.
Thats probably true, but if so, its very shortsighted. If the UK crashes out, for several
months there will be nothing else on the plate of western Europe to deal with, there will be
deep implications certainly from Germany to Spain. And if it causes more wobbles in the
already very wobbly Italian banks, it'll be even more of a headache, to put it mildly.
I agree, but I think it's at least partly the UK's doing. A modicum of common sense and
political realism could have avoided this situation. The problem is that Brexit, as a
subject, has the nasty twin characteristics of being at once extremely complicated and
politically lunatic. I think EU leaders are focusing on the second, and in some ways May has
become almost light relief. But jokes stop being funny after a while, and I think Macron is
reflecting a wider belief among national leaders that only the UK can sort this out: you
broke it, you fix it.
If there were issues which, whilst difficult, were potentially fixable then I think a lot
more effort would have gone into the negotiations from EU leaders. But they must feel they
are trapped in some Ionesco farce or (to vary the metaphor) trying to negotiate with the
Keystone Cops.
Except the Keystone Cops happen to be playing with hand grenades. There's no doubt that
European leaders are taking a crash-out seriously (the French have published a draft bill
giving the government emergency powers to deal with such a situation) but I think there's a
also widespread sense of helplessness. What can the EU actually do that it hasn't already
done? All they can hope for is an outbreak of common sense in London, and I think we all know
how likely that is. In the circumstances, you might as well concentrate on subjects where
progress is actually possible.
At a minimum, it show that the EU's thumping of May at last month's Salzburg conference has
led to an uptick in activity, as the EU27 leaders set an earlier deadline for the UK to serve
up something realistic than the UK had previously thought it had (October versus November).
But it's far from clear that all the thrashing around and messaging amounts to progress. As
we'll discuss, some press reports claim the EU is showing more flexibility, but the changes
appear to be almost entirely cosmetic. If so, it would represent a cynical calculation that MPs
are so illiterate about technical details that adept repackaging will get the dog to eat the
dog food.
Another thing to keep in mind is that negotiators are always making progress until a deal is
dead. The appearance of momentum can create actual momentum, or at least buy time. But here,
time is running out, so the question is whether either side has made enough of a shift so as to
allow for a breakthough.
One thing that may have happened, and again this is speculative, is that more key players in
the EU are coming to realize that a crash out will inflict a lot of damage on the EU. A
transition period is actually much more beneficial to the EU than the UK. It would not only
allow the EU more time to prepare, but also enable it to better pick the UK clean of personnel
and business activities that can move to the Continent in relatively short order.
By contrast (and not enough people in the UK appear to have worked this out), the UK will
crash out with respect to the EU in either March 2019 or the end of December 2020. There's no
way the UK will have completed a trade deal with the EU by then, unless it accedes to every EU
demand. Recall that the comparatively uncomplicated Canada trade agreement took seven years to
negotiate and another year to obtain provisional approval. And Richard North points out another
impediment to negotiations: " .the Commission has to be re-appointed next year and, after
Brexit, it will not be fully in operation until the following November." Now there are still
some important advantages to securing a transition agreement, and they may be mainly political
(who wants to be caught holding that bag?) but the differences may not be as significant for
the EU as the UK. The UK will wind up having the dislocations somewhat spread out, first having
to contend with falling out of all the trade deals with third countries that it now has through
the EU in March 2019, and then losing its "single market" status with the EU at the end of
2020. But will the UK also be so preoccupied with trying to stitch up deals with the rest of
the world that it loses its already not great focus on what to do with the EU?
That isn't to say there won't be meaningful benefits to the UK if it can conclude a
Withdrawal Agreement with the EU and win a transition period. For instance, it has a dim hope
of being able to get its border IT systems upgraded so as to handle much greater transaction
volumes, a feat that seems pretty much unattainable by March 2019.
Two more cautionary note regarding these divergent news stories. The first is that we've
seen this sort of thing before and generally, the optimistic reports have not panned out.
However, they have generally ben from unnamed sources. While we do have a very thin BBC article with Jean-Claude
Junkcer saying the odds of a deal had improved and Tusk making cautiously optimistic noises,
Leo Vardarkar was more sober and the piece even admitted, "However, there is still no agreement
on some issues, including how to avoid new checks on the Irish border."
Second, they appear to be mainly about claimed progress or deadlocks on the trade front.
Recall that Article 50 makes only a passing reference to "the future relationship," which is
only a non-binding political declaration. However, these issue seems to have assumed more
importance than it should on the UK end, because it has become a forcing device for the
coalition to settle on what sort of Brexit it wants .and it remains fundamentally divided, as
demonstrated by last week's Conservative Party conference. By contrast, there seems to be
little news on the real sticking point, the Irish border.
First, recall that "Canada plus plus plus" has long been derided by the EU as yet another
way for the UK to try to cherry pick among the possible post-Brexit arrangements. Boris Johnson
nevertheless talked it up as a preferred option to May's too-soft Chequers scheme at the Tory
conference .
and May did not mention Chequers . Did EU pols take that to mean May had abandoned Chequers
to appease the Ultras?
However, as we read things (and we need to watch our for our priors), Donald Tusk appears to
be mouthing a pet UK expression to convey a different idea:
Tusk said the EU remained ready to offer the UK a "Canada-plus-plus-plus deal" – a
far-reaching trade accord with extra agreements on security and foreign policy.
That reads as a Canada style free trade agreement plus additional pacts on non-trade
matters. That is not what "Canada plus plus plus" signified on the UK side: it meant the UK
getting a free trade deal with other (typically not specified) goodies so as to make it
"special" and more important, reduce friction.
The Ultras were over the moon to have Tusk dignify Johnson's blather, even as the very next
paragraph of the Guardian story revealed the outtrade over what "Canada plus plus plus" stands
for:
Boris Johnson and other hard Brexit Tories seized on Tusk's remarks, arguing they showed
it was time for May to immediately switch tack and abandon her Chequers proposals for
remaining in a customs union for food and goods. "Tusk's Canada-plus-plus-plus offer shows
there is a superb way forward that can solve the Irish border problem and deliver a
free-trade-based partnership that works well for both sides of the channel," Johnson
said.
If you managed to get further into the story, it sounded more cautionary notes:
Some Brexiters overlook that the EU's version of a so-called Canada deal incorporates a
guarantee to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland, which would keep Northern
Ireland in the EU customs union and single market. "Canada plus-plus-plus" is also a fuzzy
concept that has no formal status in EU negotiating documents. Michel Barnier, the bloc's
chief negotiator, mentioned the idea in an interview with the Guardian and other papers last
year.
"I don't know what Canada-plus-plus-plus means, it is just a concept at this stage,"
Varadkar said, adding that it did not negate the need for a "legally binding backstop"
– a guarantee to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland if there is no agreement
on the future trading relationship.
EU to let UK super fudge on "future relationship." Another Guardian story reported that the
EU might let the UK sign an even less committal version of the "future relationship"
section , allowing the UK to "evolve" [gah] its position during the transition period.
Frankly, this seems to be allowing for a change in government. I don't see this as that
meaningful a concession, since this statement was never legally binding. However, given that
Parliament must ratify the final agreement, formally registering that that section isn't set in
stone probably would facilitate passage as well as any future change in direction. And if you
suspect this is a big dog whistle to Labour, you be right:
An EU source said: "The message to Labour is that the UK could move up Barnier's stairs if
the British government changes its position in the transition period. Voting in favour of the
deal now would not be the last word on it."
May whips Labour for Chequers . You thought May gave up on Chequers? Silly you! She just had
the good sense to go into her famed submarine mode while Boris was having yet another turn in
the limelight.
From the Telegraph :
Ministers are in talks with as many as 25 Labour MPs to force through Theresa May's
Chequers Brexit deal risking open warfare with the party's own MPs.
The Government's whips' office has spent recent months making contact with the MPs as a
back-up option for when Theresa May's Brexit deal is put to a vote in Parliament in early
December, The Daily Telegraph has been told.
News of the wooing operation has infuriated Eurosceptic Tory MPs who are now threatening
to vote against elements of the Budget and other "money bills" to force Mrs May to drop her
Chequers plan.
If true, this is very high stakes poker. Brexit Central says there are 34 Tory MPs who have
already declared they will oppose any "deal based on Chequers". And, to change metaphors, they
appear ready to go nuclear if they have to. From the Times:
Brexiteers have issued a last-ditch threat to vote down the budget and destroy the
government unless Theresa May takes a tougher line with Brussels -- amid signs that she is on
course to secure a deal with the European Union.
Leading members of the hardline European Research Group (ERG) last night vowed to vote
down government legislation after it was claimed the prime minister will use Labour MPs to
push her plan through the Commons.
Reporting of the key issue of our times gets more bizarre by the day. The latest
contribution to the cacophony is the Telegraph, telling us that Ministers are in talks with
as many as 25 Labour MPs "to force through Theresa May's Chequers Brexit deal".
That approaches are being made to Labour MPs is not news, but the idea that attempts to
sell them the Chequers deal confounds recent indications that the prime minister is preparing
to roll out "Chequers II", with enough concessions to all the Commission to conclude a
withdrawal agreement.
If we are looking at such a new deal, then it cannot be the case that anyone is attempting
to convince Labour MPs of the merits of the old deal. And, even if Ministers succeeded in
such a task, it would be to no avail. Chequers, as such, will never come to parliament for
approval because it will never form the basis of a deal that can be accepted by Brussels.
That should consign the Telegraph story to the dustbin now piled high with incoherent
speculation, joining the steady flow of reports which are struggling – and failing
– to bring sense to Brexit.
EU to announce "minimalist" no-deal emergency plans . Interestingly, the Financial Times has
not had any articles in the last few days on the state of UK/EU negotiations. It instead
depicted the EU as about to turn up the heat on the UK by publishing a set of "no deal" damage
containment plans. I've never understood the line of thought, which seems to be taken seriously
on both sides of the table, that acting like a responsible government and preparing for a
worst-case scenario was somehow an underhanded negotiation ploy. 1 The pink paper
nevertheless pushes that notion:
Brussels is planning to rattle the UK by unveiling tough contingency measures for a
no-deal Brexit that could force flight cancellations and leave exporters facing massive
disruption if Britain departs the EU without an exit agreement in March.
Subtext: it's the EU's fault all those bad things could happen .when it is the UK that is
suing for divorce. Back to the story:
Against expectations in London, the plan is likely to encompass a limited number of
initiatives over a maximum of eight months, diplomats who have seen the document told the
Financial Times.
Notably, the EU is not planning special arrangements for customs or road transport and
only limited provisions for financial services -- a decision that, if seen through, would
cause long queues and operational difficulties at ports and airports.
The minimalist emergency plan, designed to be rolled out should there be no breakthrough
in Brexit talks, would increase the pressure over already fraught negotiations between the UK
and the EU ahead of a summit on 17 October. EU plans would then be firmed up by December
.
The commission has thus far resisted outlining details of its plans for a no-deal Brexit
for fear it would disrupt tense negotiations. But with just six months to go before Brexit,
EU member states have pressed Brussels to speed up its preparations in case no deal is agreed
in time.
Brussels will outline general principles for deciding the fields requiring special
measures, which must only mitigate significant disruptions in areas of "vital union
interest". The measures would be applied by the EU until the end of 2019 on a unilateral
basis. They could be revoked with no notice, according to diplomats.
The plans are intended to enable basic air services, allowing flights to land and fly
straight back to the UK, and to extend air safety certificates and security exemptions for UK
travellers in transit. Visa-free travel is envisaged for British citizens, as long as it is
reciprocated
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles.
Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy.
Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20
articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at
https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/5606f710-c8ac-11e8-ba8f-ee390057b8c9
The commission has thus far resisted outlining details of its plans for a no-deal Brexit
for fear it would disrupt tense negotiations. But with just six months to go before Brexit,
EU member states have pressed Brussels to speed up its preparations in case no deal is agreed
in time.
Brussels will outline general principles for deciding the fields requiring special
measures, which must only mitigate significant disruptions in areas of "vital union
interest". The measures would be applied by the EU until the end of 2019 on a unilateral
basis. They could be revoked with no notice, according to diplomats.
The plans are intended to enable basic air services, allowing flights to land and fly
straight back to the UK, and to extend air safety certificates and security exemptions for UK
travellers in transit. Visa-free travel is envisaged for British citizens, as long as it is
reciprocated.
Hopes of progress have been fuelled by expectations that Theresa May has come forward with
a compromise solution to the Irish border.
The PM will propose keeping the whole of the UK in a customs union as a final fallback but
allowing Northern Ireland to stick to EU regulations.
The EU has rejected having the UK collect EU customs post Brexit. Moreover, a customs union,
as we've said repeatedly, does not give the UK its keenly-sounght frictionless trade. Making
Northern Ireland subject to EU regulations means accepting the jurisdiction of the ECJ, since
compliance is not a matter of having a dusty rule book, but of being part of the same
regulatory apparatus. Aside from the fact that this solution won't be acceptable to the DUP, it
would also result in a hard land border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
So are we to take this as incomprehension on the part of the Sun's reporters, or that the
Government's negotiators continue to be as thick as a brick? Sadly,
the Guardian tells a similar tale :
Ministers expect to discuss Brexit in a week's time when some hope that officials will
have clarified how the UK proposes to handle cross-border regulatory checks if no progress is
made on agreeing a free trade deal with the EU.
There has been speculation that this solution could involve the whole of the UK agreeing
to be part of a common customs area with the EU in order to avoid the possibility of an
invisible border separating Northern Ireland from Great Britain, in the event that no
long-term deal is signed.
Richard North has the best take. He points the rumors from the UK side come from people who
present themselves as being on the inside but probably aren't, or not enough to have a good
feel, and
continues :
Yet nothing seems to be leaking from No.10, with officials saying merely that proposals
would emerge "soon". Says the Guardian, these are likely to form the basis of technical
negotiations with Brussels "as officials scramble to find a form of words for the withdrawal
agreement that the UK proposes to sign with the EU".
Any such timing will, of necessity, rule out any formal consideration by the October
European Council. Those who understand the detail will know that, before anything can be
considered by the European Council, it must first be agreed by the General Affairs Council,
meeting as 27.
Currently, this is scheduled for 16 October (Tuesday week) – a day before the
Article 50 European Council which starts its two-day session on the 17th. On the face of it,
there doesn't seem to be enough time to factor in any last-minute proposals from London,
especially as details must first be circulated to Member State capitals for comment.
This does nothing, though, but confirm that which we already know – that if there is
to be a final showdown, then it is going to come at the special meeting in November (if this
actually happens), or even the meeting scheduled for 13-14 December.
Even the rumor mills don't give much reason to think there is a solution to the Irish
border. If May really hasn't abandoned Chequers, all the fudging to come up with a content-free
"future relationship" section will be to the detriment of UK citizens, since the Government
will keep holding on to a Brexit plan that the EU will never accept. But the best interests of
ordinary people have gotten short shrift all along.
"... The vote for Brexit and the election of protectionist Donald Trump to the US presidency – two momentous markers of the ongoing pushback against globalization – led some to question the rationality of voters. This column presents a framework that demonstrates how the populist backlash against globalisation is actually a rational voter response when the economy is strong and inequality is high. It highlights the fragility of globalization in a democratic society that values equality. ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... Aversion to inequality thus reflects envy of the economic elites rather than compassion for the poor. ..."
Posted on September 28,
2018 by Yves
Smith Yves here. Haha, Lambert's volatility voters thesis confirmed! They are voting
against inequality and globalization. This important post also explains how financialization
drives populist rebellions.
By Lubos Pastor, Charles P. McQuaid Professor of Finance, University of Chicago Booth
School of Business and Pietro Veronesi, Roman Family Professor of Finance, University of
Chicago Booth School of Business. Originally published at VoxEU
The vote for Brexit and the election of protectionist Donald Trump to the US presidency
– two momentous markers of the ongoing pushback against globalization – led some to
question the rationality of voters. This column presents a framework that demonstrates how the
populist backlash against globalisation is actually a rational voter response when the economy
is strong and inequality is high. It highlights the fragility of globalization in a democratic
society that values equality.
The ongoing pushback against globalization in the West is a defining phenomenon of this
decade. This pushback is best exemplified by two momentous 2016 votes: the British vote to
leave the EU ('Brexit') and the election of a protectionist, Donald Trump, to the US
presidency. In both cases, rich-country electorates voted to take a step back from the
long-standing process of global integration. "Today, globalization is going through a major
crisis" (Macron 2018).
Some commentators question the wisdom of the voters responsible for this pushback. They
suggest Brexit and Trump supporters have been confused by misleading campaigns and foreign
hackers. They joke about turkeys voting for Christmas. They call for another Brexit referendum,
which would allow the Leavers to correct their mistakes.
Rational Voters
We take a different perspective. In a recent paper, we develop a theory in which a backlash
against globalization happens while all voters are perfectly rational (Pastor and Veronesi
2018). We do not, of course, claim that all voters are rational; we simply argue that
explaining the backlash does not require irrationality. Not only can the backlash happen in our
theory; it is inevitable.
We build a heterogeneous-agent equilibrium model in which a backlash against globalization
emerges as the optimal response of rational voters to rising inequality. A rise in inequality
has been observed throughout the West in recent decades (e.g. Atkinson et al. 2011). In our
model, rising inequality is a natural consequence of economic growth. Over time, global growth
exacerbates inequality, which eventually leads to a pushback against globalization.
Who Dislike Inequality
Agents in our model like consumption but dislike inequality. Individuals may prefer equality
for various reasons. Equality helps prevent crime and preserve social stability. Inequality
causes status anxiety at all income levels, which leads to health and social problems
(Wilkinson and Pickett 2009, 2018). In surveys, people facing less inequality report being
happier (e.g. Morawetz et al. 1977, Alesina et al. 2004, Ferrer-i-Carbonell and Ramos 2014).
Experimental results also point to egalitarian preferences (e.g. Dawes et al. 2007).
We measure inequality by the variance of consumption shares across agents. Given our other
modelling assumptions, equilibrium consumption develops a right-skewed distribution across
agents. As a result, inequality is driven by the high consumption of the rich rather than the
low consumption of the poor. Aversion to inequality thus reflects envy of the economic elites
rather than compassion for the poor.
Besides inequality aversion, our model features heterogeneity in risk aversion. This
heterogeneity generates rising inequality in a growing economy because less risk-averse agents
consume a growing share of total output. We employ individual-level differences in risk
aversion to capture the fact that some individuals benefit more from global growth than others.
In addition, we interpret country-level differences in risk aversion as differences in
financial development. We consider two 'countries': the US and the rest of the world. We assume
that US agents are less risk-averse than rest-of-the-world agents, capturing the idea that the
US is more financially developed than the rest of the world.
At the outset, the two countries are financially integrated – there are no barriers to
trade and risk is shared globally. At a given time, both countries hold elections featuring two
candidates. The 'mainstream' candidate promises to preserve globalization, whereas the
'populist' candidate promises to end it. If either country elects a populist, a move to autarky
takes place and cross-border trading stops. Elections are decided by the median voter.
Global risk sharing exacerbates US inequality. Given their low risk aversion, US agents
insure the agents of the rest of the world by holding aggressive and disperse portfolio
positions. The agents holding the most aggressive positions benefit disproportionately from
global growth. The resulting inequality leads some US voters, those who feel left behind by
globalization, to vote populist.
Why Vote Populist?
When deciding whether to vote mainstream or populist, US agents face a
consumption-inequality trade-off. If elected, the populist delivers lower consumption but also
lower inequality to US agents. After a move to autarky, US agents can no longer borrow from the
rest of the world to finance their excess consumption. But their inequality drops too, because
the absence of cross-border leverage makes their portfolio positions less disperse.
As output grows, the marginal utility of consumption declines, and US agents become
increasingly willing to sacrifice consumption in exchange for more equality. When output grows
large enough -- see the vertical line in the figure below -- more than half of US agents prefer
autarky and the populist wins the US election. This is our main result: in a growing economy,
the populist eventually gets elected. In a democratic society that values equality,
globalization cannot survive in the long run.
Figure 1 Vote share of the populist candidate
Equality Is a Luxury Good
Equality can be interpreted as a luxury good in that society demands more of it as it
becomes wealthier. Voters might also treat culture, traditions, and other nonpecuniary values
as luxury goods. Consistent with this argument, the recent rise in populism appears
predominantly in rich countries. In poor countries, agents are not willing to sacrifice
consumption in exchange for nonpecuniary values.
Globalization would survive under a social planner. Our competitive market solution differs
from the social planner solution due to the negative externality that the elites impose on
others through their high consumption. To see if globalization can be saved by redistribution,
we analyse redistributive policies that transfer wealth from low risk-aversion agents, who
benefit the most from globalization, to high risk-aversion agents, who benefit the least. We
show that such policies can delay the populist's victory, but cannot prevent it from happening
eventually.
Which Countries Are Populist?
Our model predicts that support for populism should be stronger in countries that are more
financially developed, more unequal, and running current account deficits. Looking across 29
developed countries, we find evidence supporting these predictions.
Figure 2 Vote share of populist parties in recent elections
The US and the UK are good examples. Both have high financial development, large inequality,
and current account deficits. It is thus no coincidence, in the context of our model, that
these countries led the populist wave in 2016. In contrast, Germany is less financially
developed, less unequal, and it runs a sizable current account surplus. Populism has been
relatively subdued in Germany, as our model predicts. The model emphasises the dark side of
financial development – it spurs the growth of inequality, which eventually leads to a
populist backlash.
Who are the Populist Voters?
The model also makes predictions about the characteristics of populist voters. Compared to
mainstream voters, populist voters should be more inequality-averse (i.e. more anti-elite) and
more risk-averse (i.e. better insured against consumption fluctuations). Like highly
risk-averse agents, poorer and less-educated agents have less to lose from the end of
globalization. The model thus predicts that these agents are more likely to vote populist. That
is indeed what we find when we examine the characteristics of the voters who supported Brexit
in the 2016 EU referendum and Trump in the 2016 presidential election.
The model's predictions for asset prices are also interesting. The global market share of US
stocks should rise in anticipation of the populist's victory. Indeed, the US share of the
global stock market rose steadily before the 2016 Trump election. The US bond yields should be
unusually low before the populist's victory. Indeed, bond yields in the West were low when the
populist wave began.
Backlash in a booming economy
In our model, a populist backlash occurs when the economy is strong because that is when
inequality is high. The model helps us understand why the backlash is occurring now, as the US
economy is booming. The economy is going through one of its longest macroeconomic expansions
ever, having been growing steadily for almost a decade since the 2008 crisis.
This study relates to our prior work at the intersection of finance and political economy.
Here, we exploit the cross-sectional variation in risk aversion, whereas in our 2017 paper, we
analyse its time variation (Pastor and Veronesi 2017). In the latter model, time-varying risk
aversion generates political cycles in which Democrats and Republicans alternate in power, with
higher stock returns under Democrats. Our previous work also explores links between risk
aversion and inequality (Pastor and Veronesi 2016).
Conclusions
We highlight the fragility of globalization in a democratic society that values equality. In
our model, a pushback against globalization arises as a rational voter response. When a country
grows rich enough, it becomes willing to sacrifice consumption in exchange for a more equal
society. Redistribution is of limited value in our frictionless, complete-markets model. Our
formal model supports the narrative of Rodrik (1997, 2000), who argues that we cannot have all
three of global economic integration, the nation state, and democratic politics.
If policymakers want to save globalization, they need to make the world look different from
our model. One attractive policy option is to improve the financial systems of less-developed
countries. Smaller cross-country differences in financial development would mitigate the uneven
effects of cross-border risk sharing. More balanced global risk sharing would result in lower
current account deficits and, eventually, lower inequality in the rich world.
"rising inequality is a natural consequence of economic growth. " For which definition of
growth? Or maybe, observing that cancer is the very model of growth, for any definition?
Nice model and graphs, though.
What kind of political economy is to be discerned, and how is one to effectuate it with
systems that would have to be so very different to have a prayer of providing lasting
homeostatic functions?
The global overclass can hardly wait too. They think they are in position to guide the
change to their desired outcome. Targeted applied Jackpot Engineering, you know.
At some point if the majority dont think they get any benefit from the economy, they will
put a stake through it, and replace it with some thing that works?now that could be some
thing very different, but it will happen
I had the same thought – growth as defined in the current, neoliberal model. There
is nothing inevitable about inequality – it is caused by political choices.
It is painful to find these assumptions accepted at NC.
"the economy is strong"
Not from my perspective. Or from the perspectives of the work force or the industrial base
replacing themselves. Or the perspective of a 4 to 5 trillion dollar shortfall in
infrastructure funding.
"In our model, rising inequality is a natural consequence of economic growth."
Well, that simply did not happen 1946 to 1971.
"populist delivers lower consumption but also lower inequality to US agents."
REALLY? Consumption of WHAT? Designer handbags and jeans? What about consumption of mass
public transit and health care services? I'm very confident that a populist government that
found a way to put a muzzle on Wall Street and the banksters would increase consumption of
things I prefer while also lessening inequality.
Reading through this summary of modeling, it occurred to me that the operative variable
was not inequality so much as "high financial development."
Yes and also, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. These days, just saying
that globalisation leads to inequality and people act rationally, when they push back –
even though choices are limited – is pretty revolutionary. We need other analyses along
those lines, maybe with a few corrections. Thanks for posting!
" In our model, a populist backlash occurs when the economy is strong because that is when
inequality is high. "
Yes to the above comments. This sentence really stuck in my throat. A strong economy to me
is one that achieves balanced equality. Somehow this article avoids the manner in which the
current economy became "strong". Perhaps a better word is "corrupt". (No 'perhaps' really;
I'm just being polite.)
I also didn't like that the anti-neoliberalists are being portrayed as not having sympathy
for the poor. Gosh, we are a hard-hearted lot, only interested in our own come-uppance and
risk-adversity.
A "strong" economy is one that is growing as measured by GDP – full stop. Inequality
looks to me like a feature of our global economic value system, not a bug.
I only read these articles to see what the enemy is thinking. The vast majority of
economists are nothing more than cheerleaders for capitalism. I imagine anybody who strays
too far from neoliberal orthodoxy is ignored.
the Trump/Brexit populist thinking has nothing to do with equality. it has do do with who
should get preferential treatment and why -- it's about drawing a tight circle on who get's
to be considered "equal".
not sure how you can pull a desire for equality from this (except through statistics,
which can be used to "prove" anything).
I'm confused – so the evidence of statistics should be discounted, in favor of more
persuasive evidence? Consisting of your own authoritative statements about the motives of
other people?
In the future, please try to think about what sorts of arguments are likely to be
persuasive to people who don't already agree with you.
If you consider yourself an "environmentalist," then you have to be against
globalization.
(From the easiest to universally agree upon) the multi-continental supply chain for
everything from tube socks to cobalt to frozen fish is unsustainable, barring Star Trek-type
transport tech breakthroughs.
(to the less easily to universally agree upon) the population of the entire developed
(even in the US) would be stablized/falling/barely rising, but for migration.
mass migration-fueled population growth/higher fertility rates of migrants in the
developed world and increased resource footprint is bad for both the developed world and
developing world.
The long, narrow, and manifold supply lines which characterize our present systems of
globalization make the world much more fragile. The supply chains are fraught with single
points of systemic failure. At the same time Climate Disruption increases the risk that a
disaster can affect these single points of failure. I fear that the level of instability in
the world systems is approaching the point where multiple local disasters could have
catastrophic effects at a scale orders of magnitude greater than the scale of the triggering
events -- like the Mr. Science demonstration of a chain-reaction where he tosses a single
ping pong ball into a room full of mousetraps set with ping pong balls. You have to be
against globalization if you're against instability.
The entire system of globalization is completely dependent on a continuous supply of cheap
fuel to power the ships, trains, and trucks moving goods around the world. That supply of
cheap fuel has its own fragile supply lines upon which the very life of our great cities
depends. Little food is grown where the most food is eaten -- this reflects the distributed
nature of our supply chains greatly fostered by globalization.
Globalization increases the power and control Corporate Cartels have over their workers.
It further increases the power large firms have over smaller firms as the costs and
complexities of globalized trade constitute a relatively larger overhead for smaller firms.
Small producers of goods find themselves flooded with cheaper foreign knock-offs and
counterfeits of any of their designs that find a place in the market. It adds uncertainty and
risk to employment and small ventures. Globalization magnifies the power of the very large
and very rich over producers and consumers.
I believe the so-called populist voters and their backlash in a "booming" economy are
small indications of a broad unrest growing much faster than our "booming" economies. That
unrest is one more risk to add to the growing list of risks to an increasingly fragile
system. The world is configured for a collapse that will be unprecedented in its speed and
scope.
Actually, the way I see it – if one considers oneself an environmentalist, one has
to be against capitalism, not just globalization. Capitalism is built on constant growth
– but on a planet, with limited resources, that simply cannot work. Not long term
unless we're prepared to dig up and/or pave over everything. Only very limited-scale,
mom-and-pop kind of capitalism can try to work long term – but the problem is, it would
not stay that way because greed gets in the way every time and there's no limiting greed.
(Greed as a concept was limited in the socialist system – but some folks did not like
that.)
" Given their low risk aversion, US agents insure the agents of the rest of the world by
holding aggressive and disperse portfolio positions."
That low risk aversion could be driven by the willingness of the US government to provide
military/diplomatic/trade assistance to US businesses around the word. The risk inherent in
moving factories, doing resource extraction and conducting business overseas is always there,
but if one's government lessens the risk via force projection and control of local
governments, a US agent could appear to be "less risk averse" because the US taxpayer has
"got their back".
This paper closes with
"If policymakers want to save globalization, they need to make the world look different
from our model. One attractive policy option is to improve the financial systems of
less-developed countries. Smaller cross-country differences in financial development would
mitigate the uneven effects of cross-border risk sharing. More balanced global risk sharing
would result in lower current account deficits and, eventually, lower inequality in the rich
world."
Ah yes, to EVENTUALLY lower inequality, the USA needs to "improve the financial systems of
less-well developed countries"
Perhaps the USA needs to improve its OWN financial system first?
Paul Woolley has suggested, the US and UK financial systems are 2 to 3 times they should
be.
And the USA's various financial industry driven bubbles, the ZIRP rescue of the financial
industry, and mortgage security fraud seem all connected back to the USA financial
industry.
Inequality did not improve in the aftermath of these events as the USA helped preserve the
elite class.
Maybe the authors have overlooked a massive home field opportunity?
That being that the USA should consider "improving" its own financial system to help
inequality.
I'm glad to see that issues and views discussed pretty regularly here in more or less
understandable English have been translated into Academese. Being a high risk averse plebe,
who will not starve for lack of trade with China, but may have to pay a bit more for
strawberries for lack of cheap immigrant labor, I count myself among the redistributionist
economic nationalists.
Right now I'm making raisins from the grapes harvested here at home .. enough to last for
a year, or maybe two. Sure, it's laborous to some extent, but the supply chain is very short
.. the cost, compared to buying the same amount at retait rates, is minuscule, and they're as
'organic' as can be. The point I'm trying to make is that wth some personal effort, we can
all live lighter, live slower, and be, for the most part, contented.
Might as well step into collapse, gracefully, and avoid the rush, as per J. M. Greer's
mantra.
The UK had become somewhat dependent on Switzerland for wristwatches prior to WW2, and all
of the sudden France falls and that's all she wrote for imports.
Must've been a mad scramble to resurrect the business, or outsource elsewhere.
My wife and I were talking about what would happen if say the reign of error pushes us
into war with China, and thanks to our just in time way of life, the goods on the shelves of
most every retailer, would be plundered by consumers, and maybe they could be restocked a few
times, but that's it.
I recently purchased a cabinet/shelf for 20 tubmans, from a repurposing/recycling
business, and, after putting a couple of hundred moar tubmans into it .. some of which
included recycled latex paints and hardware .. transformed it into a fabulous stand-alone
kitchen storage unit. If I were to purchase such at retail, it would most likely go for close
to $800- $1000.00 easy !!
With care, this 'renewed' polecat heirloom will certainly outlive it's recreator, and pass on
for generations henceforth.
Yes, thank goodness there was no mention of Canada's failure to negotiate a trade treaty
with our best friend. All of a sudden, Canadians seem to be the target of a lot of ill will
in other articles.
I think it's just ill- informed jealousy. Us US mopes think Canadians are much better off
than we Yanks, health care and such. You who live there have your own insights, of course.
Trudeau and the Ford family and tar sands and other bits.
And some of us are peeved that you don't want us migrating to take advantage of your more
beneficent milieu.
It's a different vibe up over, their housing bubble crested and is sinking, as the road to
HELOC was played with the best intentions even more furiously than here in the heat of the
bubble.
Can Canada bail itself out as we did in the aftermath, and keep the charade going?
Feel free to fill out that 8 inch high pile of Canadian immigration documentation, so
ya'all can come on up and join the party. Or just jump on your pony and ride North into the
Land of the Grandmother. Trudeau wants more people and has failed to offer proper sacrifice
to the god Terminus, the god of borders, so .
Just don't move to "Van" unless you have a few million to drop on a "reno'ed" crack shack.
When the god Pluto crawls back into the earth, the housing bubble will burst, and it's not
going to be pretty.
That's funny as our dam here is called the Terminus Reservoir, if the name fits
I'm just looking for an ancestral way out of what might prove to be a messy scene down
under, i'd gladly shack up in one of many of my relatives basements if Max Mad breaks out
here.
Great article, interesting data points, but besides placing tariffs on Chinese imports
there is nothing populist about Trump, just empty rhetoric. Highly regressive tax cuts for
the wealthy, further deregulation, wanton environmental destruction, extremist right-wing
ideologues as judges, a cabinet full of Wall Street finance guys, more boiler-plate Neo-Lib
policies as far as I can tell.
I fear Trump and the Brexiters are giving populism a bad name. A functioning democracy
should always elect populists. A government of elected officials who do not represent the
public will is not really a democracy.
Aversion to inequality thus reflects envy of the economic elites rather than
compassion for the poor.
That's ridiculous. Indeed, the Brexit campaign was all about othering the poor and
powerless immigrants, as well as the cultural, artistic, urban and academic elites, never the
the moneyed elites, not the 1%. The campaign involved no dicussion what's so ever of the
actual numbers of wealth inequality.
When deciding whether to vote mainstream or populist, US agents face a
consumption-inequality trade-off. If elected, the populist delivers lower consumption but
also lower inequality to US agents.
How can anyone possibly write such a thing? The multi-trillion tax cut from Donald Trump
represents a massive long time rise in inequality. Vis-à-vis Brexit, the entire
campaign support for that mad endeavor came from free-trader fundamentalists who want to be
free to compete with both hands in the global race-to-the-bottom while the EU is (barely)
restraining them.
Trump and Brexit voters truly are irrational turkeys (that's saying a lot for anyone who's
met an actual turkey) voting for Christmas.
Some of us mopes who voted for Trump did so as a least-bad alternative to HER, just to try
to kick the hornet's nest and get something to fly out: So your judgment is that those folks
are "irrational turkeys," bearing in mind how mindless the Christmas and Thansgiving turkeys
have been bred to be?
Better to arm up, get out in the street, and start marching and chanting and ready to
confront the militarized police? I'd say, face it: as people here have noted there is a
system in place, the "choices" are frauds to distract us every couple of years, and the
vectors all point down into some pretty ugly terrain.
Bless those who have stepped off the conveyor, found little places where they can live
"autarkically," more or less, and are waiting out the Ragnarok/Gotterdammerung/Mad Max
anomie, hoping not to be spotted by the warbands that will form up and roam the terrain
looking for bits of food and fuel and slaves and such. Like one survivalist I spotted
recently says as his tag-line, "If you have stuff, you're a target. If you have knowledge.
you have a chance–" this in a youtube video on how to revive a defunct nickel-cadmium
drill battery by zapping it with a stick welder. (It works, by the way.)He's a chain smoker
and his BMI must be close to 100, but he's got knowledge
The papers's framing of the issues is curious: the populace has 'envy' of the well-off;
and populism (read envy) rises when the economy is strong and inequality rises (read where's
my yaht?).
The paper lacks acknowledgement of the corruption, fraud, and rigging of policy that rises
when an overly financialized economy is 'good.' This contributes to inequality. Inequality is
not just unequal, but extremely disproportionate distributions which cause real suffering and
impoverishment of the producers. It follows (but not to the writer of this paper) that the
citizens take offense at and objection to the disproprtionate takings of some and the meager
receipts of the many. It's this that contributes to populism.
And the kicker: to save globalization, let's financialize the less developed economies to
mitigate cross-border inequalities. Huh? Was not the discussion about developed nations'
voters to rising inequality in face of globalization? The problem is not cross-border 'envy.'
It's globalization instrinsically and how it is gamed.
I'm with Olga. It's good to see that voting "wrong" taken seriously, and seen as
economically rational. Opposing globalization makes sense, even in the idiosyncratic usage of
economics.
The trouble, of course, is that the world of economics is not the world we live in.
Why does the immigrant cross the border? Is it only for "pecuniary interests," only for
the money? Then why do so many send most of it back across the border, in remittances?
If people in poor countries aren't willing to sacrifice for "luxuries," like a dignified
human life, who was Simon Bolivar, Che Guevara, or more recently, Berta Cáceres?
Seems to be a weakness of economic models in general: it's inconceivable that people do
things for other than pecuniary interests. In the reductionist terms of natural science,
we're social primates, not mechanical information engines.
If this model were a back patio cart, like the one I'm building right now, I wouldn't set
my beer on it. Looks like a cart from a distance, though, esp when you're looking for
one.
To the extent that the backlash has irrational aspects in the way it manifests, I would
suspect that it relates to the refusal of the self-styled responsible people to participate
in opening more rational paths to solutions, or even to acknowledge the existence of a
problem. When the allegedly responsible and knowledgeable actors refuse to act, or even see a
need to act, it's hardly surprising that the snake oil vendors grow in influence.
I'm always leery of t-test values being cited without the requisite sample size being
noted. You need that to determine effect size. While the slope looks ominously valid for the
regression model, effects could be weak and fail to show whether current account deficits are
the true source. Financialization seems purposely left out of the model.
"UK Prime Minister Theresa May suffered political humiliation in Salzburg, when European
Union (EU) leaders rebuffed her appeal to give at least conditional support to her Chequers
proposal for a "soft Brexit."
May was given only 10 minutes to address EU heads of state Wednesday, after dinner at the
informal summit, during which she appealed to her audience, "You are participants in our
debate, not just observers."
She said she had counted on at least supportive noises for her "serious and workable"
plan, given that she was seeking to head off a potential challenge from the
"hard-Brexit"/Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party. She warned that the UK could be
torn apart -- with respect to Northern Ireland and Scotland, as well as by social tensions;
that if her government fell, Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party could win a general election; and
cited the potential damage to the EU itself of lost trade, investment and military support
from the UK.
Instead, her address was met with silence and her implied threats were stonewalled, as the
main players within the EU combined the next day to declare her proposals to be
"unworkable.
No matter how these conflicts play out, Britain and the whole of Europe face a worsening
crisis that threatens to tear the EU apart. The growth of both inter-imperialist and social
antagonisms found dramatic form in Brexit, which the dominant sections of the City of London,
big business, all the major parties and Britain's allies in the US and Europe all opposed.
Yet two years later, May is fighting a desperate struggle against her anti-EU "hard-Brexit"
faction, the US is led by a president who has declared his support for the breakup of the EU,
and numerous far-right governments have taken power in part by exploiting popular hostility
to EU-dictated austerity."
"worsening crisis that threatens to tear the EU-(and hence NATO)- apart. " .
"... Popularity of National Socialism in capitalist country like Germany was exactly due to that process of corruption of working class who embassy stoped to question system as long as provided them with goods. ..."
"... Henceforth, most goods manufactured for US consumption were to be produced abroad, from Mexico to China. Once US based multinationals started down this road, European and even Japanese ones followed. This did not mean an increase in productive forces but a substitution of one labour force for another. ..."
"... Thus the rise of Chinese industry was as much a part of this process as the deindustrialisation of formerly prosperous parts of the US and the UK. This has nothing to do with the evolution of our species and everything to do with the evolution of capitalism. This is what I mean by globalisation. ..."
"... It has not eradicated national borders but is a major factor in the recent development of far right nationalism in Europe. It is a strong contributor to the restructuring of western economies so that only a minority of British workers have full time permanent jobs. It is also used as leverage to drive down wages in western economies. ..."
"... I do not believe what I mean by globalisation is progressive at all. It has been pushed by the most reactionary political forces in western societies as an integral part of what the WSWS calls a social counter revolution. As the WSWS again points out it makes the preservation of national welfare states or a decent standard of living for working class people impossible. I am not calling for this to be reversed under capitalism. ..."
"... "...globalised production is the exploitation of lower wage rates in developing countries." ..."
"... As if domestic production were not the same thing. The author is essentially arguing for "lesser evil" exploitation in the interests of society as a whole. Reformists always do. ..."
"... "The crisis also exposed in full glare another of the central myths of the capitalist order -- that the state is somehow a neutral or independent organisation committed to regulating social and economic affairs in the interests of society as a whole." - Ten years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers ..."
"... "Keynes was a reformist and capable of formulating policies which, if followed, would make capitalism more amenable to the interests of the majority of people." ..."
"... The most important theoretical source of his thinking is his own work "The General Theory of Employment, Money and Interest" which is available to read or download free online. ..."
"... The US wants to reinforce it's declining global hegemonic position at any cost. Now they started with economic war against countries they see as not cooperating to their demands, but under current conditions this could easily transform into Global war at some point in future. ..."
In the aftermath of the global financial crisis ten years ago, the leaders of the world's
major powers pledged that never again would they go down the road of protectionism which had
such disastrous consequences in the 1930s -- deepening the Great Depression and contributing
to the outbreak of world war in 1939.
Yesterday US President Donald Trump announced tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese
goods in what the Washington Post described as "one of the most severe economic
restrictions ever imposed by a US president."
A levy of 10 percent will be imposed starting from September 24 and will be escalated to
25 percent in 2019 if the US does not receive what it considers to be a satisfactory
agreement. The new tariffs, which will cover more than 1,000 goods, come on top of the 25
percent tariff already imposed on $50 billion worth of industrial products. Trump has
threatened further measures on the remaining Chinese exports to the US totalling more than
$250 billion.
China has threatened retaliatory action including tariffs and other, as yet unspecified
measures, against the US, meaning that the world's number one and number two economies are
locked into a rapidly escalating trade war that will have global consequences.
Announcing the decision, Trump called on China to take "swift action" to end what he
called its "unfair trade practices" and expressed the hope that the trade conflict would be
resolved.
But there is little prospect of such an outcome because, while the US is demanding that
the trade deficit with China be reduced, the conflict does not merely centre on that issue.
China has made offers to increase its imports from the US, all of which have been rejected.
The key US demand is that the Chinese government completely abandon its program of economic
development and remain subservient to the US in high-tech economic sectors.
As the position paper issued by Washington in May put it: "China will cease providing
market-distorting subsidies and other types of government support that can contribute to the
creation or maintenance of excess capacity in industries targeted by the Made in China 2025
industrial plan."
In other words, China must completely scrap the foundational structures of its economy so
that it presents no threat to the economic dominance of US capitalism, a dominance which the
US intends to maintain, if it considers necessary, by military means. This was made clear
earlier this year when Washington designated China as a "strategic competitor," that is, a
potential military enemy. This is the inherent, objective, logic of the latest trade war
measures.
Their full significance can only be grasped when viewed with the framework of the
historical development of the global capitalist economy.
After the disastrous decade of the 1930s, and as the world plunged into war, leading
figures within the Roosevelt administration recognised that this situation was due in no
small measure to the division of the world into rival trade and economic blocs which tariff
and other trade restrictions had played a major role in creating.
Post-war planning centred on trying to overcome this contradiction between the global
economy and its division into rival great powers and blocs through the development of a
mechanism that ensured the expansion of world trade. This was the basis of the series of
measures set in place in the immediate aftermath of the war: the Bretton Woods monetary
system which tied major currencies to the dollar in fixed exchange rates, the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that sought to bring down tariff barriers and the
establishment of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to ensure international
economic collaboration.
These measures, however, did not overcome the inherent contradictions of capitalism, above
all between the global economy and the nation-state system. Rather, they sought to contain
and mitigate them within a system based on the overwhelming economic dominance of the US.
But the growth of the world capitalist economy and the strengthening of the other major
powers undermined the very foundations on which they were based -- the absolute dominance of
the US. Within the space of a generation, the weakening of the US position was revealed in
August 1971 when it scrapped the Bretton Woods monetary system declaring that the dollar
would no longer be redeemable for gold.
The period since then has seen the ongoing weakening of the position of the US, which was
graphically revealed in the financial meltdown ten years ago when the US financial system was
shown to be a house of cards based on rampant speculation and outright criminal activity.
This situation has continued in the subsequent decade, threatening, another, even more
disastrous, financial crisis.
The US is now not only confronted with the economic power of its European rivals but a
major new one in the form of China. It is striving to reverse this situation. As Leon Trotsky
explained some eighty years ago, the hegemony of the US would assert itself most powerfully
not in conditions of boom but above all in a crisis when it would use every means -- economic
and military -- against all rivals to maintain its position.
The trade war measures against China are only one expression of this process. The US has
already carried out protectionist measures against Europe and Japan through the imposition of
tariffs on steel and aluminium and has threatened tariffs on cars and auto parts, which will
be invoked unless they join its push on China.
And as the China tariffs are imposed, top officials of the European Union are meeting to
discuss how they might overcome the financial sanctions the US will impose against European
companies if they maintain economic ties with Iran after November 4 following the unilateral
abrogation of the Iran nuclear deal.
The deal was not overturned because Iran had breached the agreement -- international
agencies found that it had fully complied. Rather, the United States unilaterally abrogated
the treaty in order to strengthen the strategic position of the US in the Middle East by
countering the influence of Iran, and because European corporations stood to benefit from the
opening up of new economic opportunities in that country at the expense of their US
rivals.
Now the State Department has warned that European companies are "on the railroad tracks"
if they defy US sanctions and firms that deal with the "enemy" will be barred from access to
the US financial system.
Writing in the 1930s, Leon Trotsky explained that the interdependence of every country in
the global economy meant that the program of economic nationalism, of the kind now being
practised by the Trump administration, was a reactionary "utopia" insofar as it set itself
the task of harmonious national economic development on the basis of private property.
"But it is a menacing reality insofar as it is a question of concentrating all the
economic forces of the nation for the preparation of a new war," he wrote five years before
the outbreak of World War II.
This "menacing reality" is now once again expressed in the fact that the trade war
measures against China, as well as those against Europe and Japan, have all been invoked on
"national security" grounds. Just as the US prepares for war, so too do all the other major
powers. This drive does not arise from the heads of the capitalist politicians -- their
actions are only the translation into politics of the objective logic and irresolvable
contradictions of the capitalist system over which they preside.
But there is another more powerful logic at work. The very development of globalised
production, which has raised the contradiction of the outmoded nation-state system with its
rival great powers to a new peak of intensity, has laid the foundations for a planned world
socialist economy. And it has created in the international working class, unified at an
unprecedented level, the social force to carry it out.
The latest Trump trade war measures underscore the urgency for the political and
theoretical arming of the working class with the program of world socialist revolution,
fought for by the International Committee of the Fourth International, if civilisation is to
go forward and the plunge into barbarism averted.
Beams excellent piece included:
"As the position paper issued by Washington in May put it: "China will
cease providing market-distorting subsidies and other types of government support that can
contribute to the creation or maintenance of excess capacity in industries targeted by the
Made in China 2025 industrial plan."
This issue of "government support" in China is reflected in the U.S. but in a different
way. Nashville and Tennessee governments alone have given hundreds of millions of dollars
in "tax incentives," payment for worker training and outright "grants" to corporations in
"government support."
Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) got millions for, of all things, furniture for new
offices which included thousands of dollars for a guitar-shaped table.
Gaylord's Opryland Resort got almost $14 million from the city to build a $90 million hotel
Waterpark that would only be open to hotel guests!
The state and its capitol are prepared to give Amazon more than $1.5 billion to have the
corporation move is second U.S. headquarters here.
Like the Chinese government and oligarchs, neither state nor city will reveal the details
or total amount.
As the WSWS has so correctly observed before, "the hypocrisy is breathtaking."
I should say I do not agree that globalised production is a beneficial or positive economic
development. I accept that as a by product there is a positive political result namely the
creation and expansion of the international working class. But the only reason for
globalised production is the exploitation of lower wage rates in developing countries. If
the cost of labour, taking into account currency exchange rates as well as wage levels,
were the same in every country and region, there would be no advantage in producing most
commodities in Asia for sale in North America or Europe (or vice versa). Also, I do not
accept that free trade is in everyone's interest. The only argument ever advanced in it's
favour by economists, the comparative advantage argument, is spurious. Even its
originators, Adam Smith and David Ricardo, accepted that the benefits would only apply if
capital was immobile across national boundaries, which hardly applies today. The US
economy's industrial growth, though the result of several factors, was only possible
because the US rejected free trade in favour of protective tariffs which protected its
infant industries from foreign competition. What is the central fallacy in the comparative
advantage argument is that the prosperity of the majority of a country's citizens under
capitalism depends on a strong, capital intensive, manufacturing sector, but which also
requires a large labour input. Only those jobs can pay a sufficiently high wage to workers.
Their spending power also invigorates the whole economy.
Thy major point about this issue global or local is often completely missed namely that
this dispute have nothing to do with Workers Socialist Revolution but to perhaps see ways
how to save capitalism in a way of sharing more wealth with working class, how to suppress
class struggle with Bread and Games or War, an old Roman method of divide and conquer.
Hence, capital controls, tarrifs , barriers, subsidies are instruments of having any
possibility of real social policies in capitalism system making it more livable and longer
lasting than in case of intensified pressure on working class and class struggle of
globalism versus nationalism.
Popularity of National Socialism in capitalist country like Germany was exactly due
to that process of corruption of working class who embassy stoped to question system as
long as provided them with goods.
Little did they know, that they were in 1930 confronted with no permanent political
solution to their class issues via improvement of standard of living and importance of
their labor on the propaganda spectrum,but with dead end politics of submission to one
political sellouts or another since their forced unity was just subordinated to capitalist
imperative of ufettered economic and military growth via extreme exploitation.
And that is what's wrong with nationalism namely it is shutting down paths of class
struggle toward class liberation, as it neuters this struggle.
There is a difference between the growth of global productive capacity and globalisation.
Prior to the latter process, manufacturing capacity was increased including by western
investment in developing countries, especially in Latin America. But production in those
countries was for local regional and national markets.
The US accepted competition from the German economy as a price to be paid for avoiding
the postwar threat of socialism. But the Japanese export driven model of growth was
eventually unacceptable. The US demanded the Japanese destroy this model by raising their
own currency to a level which made their exports much less competitive. The Japanese rich
were given financial opportunities in the US as compensation.
However, when the South Koreans and other nations copied the Japanese model, the US
government and US multinationals radically changed their economic policy. A conscious
choice was made by the Reagon administration to export manufacturing jobs en masse to
developing countries as well as attacking the incomes of US workers who had jobs.
Henceforth, most goods manufactured for US consumption were to be produced abroad,
from Mexico to China. Once US based multinationals started down this road, European and
even Japanese ones followed. This did not mean an increase in productive forces but a
substitution of one labour force for another.
Thus the rise of Chinese industry was as much a part of this process as the
deindustrialisation of formerly prosperous parts of the US and the UK. This has nothing to
do with the evolution of our species and everything to do with the evolution of capitalism.
This is what I mean by globalisation.
It has not eradicated national borders but is a major factor in the recent
development of far right nationalism in Europe. It is a strong contributor to the
restructuring of western economies so that only a minority of British workers have full
time permanent jobs. It is also used as leverage to drive down wages in western
economies.
Of course in recent years the Chinese and Indian economies have grown under these
policies so that there is now an increase of global capacity. Nor do I believe this process
has led to a genuinely more efficient system of production and distribution. To produce
products in one part of the world for distribution to another part half way around the
world is very inefficient, if the product could be made nearer to the point where it would
be used. It however becomes profitable if the labour used to produce it is much cheaper
than that available where the the object is to be sold.
I do not believe what I mean by globalisation is progressive at all. It has been
pushed by the most reactionary political forces in western societies as an integral part of
what the WSWS calls a social counter revolution. As the WSWS again points out it makes the
preservation of national welfare states or a decent standard of living for working class
people impossible. I am not calling for this to be reversed under capitalism.
That seems impossible. Only the overthrow of capitalism offers the possibility of
positive change. But under international socialism, globalised production chains will
finally be seen for what they are, an unnecessary and inefficient encumbrance on
humanity.
I think you are largely confusing globalisation with imperialism. I think you are also
misunderstanding the wsws position. The wsws does not call for xenophobic or nationalist
policies to close borders and keep workers imprisoned in their home countries to be used as
a captive labor force by the domestic bourgeoisie. The wsws calls for an internationalist
and proletarian socialist movement in conformity with that advocated by the workers
movement ever since the publication of the communist manifesto.
I really could not care less what you call it. I just want people to start treating each
other better. What makes those with sticky fingers think that they are so G.D. better than
everyone else that they can condemn whole segments to poverty and even death, all for the
sake of their bits of imaginary ego-boosts?
ALL of the "isms" in the world have never worked out a justification for greed and the
lust for power. No matter what the system, crooked people always try to exploit others, and
blamejustify it all on their "good genes". (edited)
Capitalism is no better or worse because it just doesn't matter what the system is, the
crooks will always cheat that system to get more than everyone else.
An interesting theory to describe what is essentially creation of a world customs union
based on the model that created Germany in 1871, the Zollverein. Spreading the customs
union (Zollverein) worldwide was the reason for the two world wars--instead of maintaining
a world federation politically and economically. The United Nations was designed to be a
federation, but under post-1945 changes in the USA and subsequent pressures on the UN and
its member states, it began developing into a union, not a federation. This was accompanied
with creation of a global Zollverein, tariff free borders and free trade.
The difference politically between a union and a federation is that in a federation the
member states award limited operating powers to a central coordinating body which does what
the members want; in a union the central body holds all the powers and tells the members
what to do.
The United Nations "holds all the powers and tells the members what to do" ? That's news to
me. As far as I can tell, the members do what they damn well please. The UN is more like a
fractured federation with a nearly impotent central body - the so-called "Security Council"
- which issues edicts but has no enforcement power. Same with the World Court.
The UN was designed by the victors of WWII to be "crippled", mere window-dressing as a
calming salve for the developing nations. From the start, it was meant to be largely
ineffective as the world's policeman and justice system .
All the nation states with any significant power are still more interested in preserving
as much their own power and hegemonic control as possible.
"...globalised production is the exploitation of lower wage rates in developing
countries."
As if domestic production were not the same thing. The author is essentially arguing
for "lesser evil" exploitation in the interests of society as a whole. Reformists always
do.
"The crisis also exposed in full glare another of the central myths of the
capitalist order -- that the state is somehow a neutral or independent organisation
committed to regulating social and economic affairs in the interests of society as a
whole." - Ten years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers
"However my fundamental advocacy of policy would be that of international socialism the
result of which would be the handing of power to the working class to be exercised
democratically ."
The "handing of power" from whom exactly?
As it is now, the minority holds the power. So it's reasonable to think you mean they
would hand the power over to the majority.
Which would be silly. But whether or not that was your meaning, "the handing of power to
the working class to be exercised democratically" besides being exactly backwards, is an
opportunist "understanding" of Marxism. It implies a perspective where the state does not
need to be destroyed.
"The crucial question for Marx was what was the social material force -- the class --
created by capitalist society itself, which would be the agency, the driving force, of this
transformation." - A promotion of the "life-style" politics of the pseudo-left
It's a version of the frequently and historically repeated goal of replacing one petty
bourgeoisie minority with another, betraying the material interests of the working class
and the revolution every time.
It seems like you might have just mentioned that phrase as an aside but it might
indicate the deeper problem.
Before you start analyzing which policies might be recommended (which seems to be mainly
what interests you) you have to understand the class nature of the problem. That doesn't
come down only to understanding that there are two classes in struggle in society
and then applying your everyday petty bourgeois thinking to it.
Have you read David North's Lenin, Trotsky and the Marxism of the October
Revolution ? It was written back in March yet it's still posted on the wsws main
page--for a reason.
It provides a concise explanation of some of the fundamental ideas and way of thinking
you have to understand if you want to have any kind of intelligent conversation
about socialism.
Nick Beams did not say that "globalised production chains employed represent a genuinely
beneficial development in some deep sense." He said that such an outcome is impossible
under capitalism and the system of competing nation-states.
The only "deep sense" is that he said it would be possible for globalization to
have a positive effect for humanity if the international working class were able to abolish
capitalism, the pursuit of private profit, warring nation-states, and institute
socialism.
Thank you comrade Nick Beams. US's century is 20th and a bygone one. You finely point out
on the basis of Trotskysm the mortal danger that humanity faces resulting from the
inter-imperialist rivalry that is escalating by the day.
Besides, the US's taking up of its rival China, the second biggest economy, in trade war
pose a military confrontation to which Russia could be attracted on to China side.
Also Russia has been taken up by American imperialism independently as a target. Brexit
hard or soft would also confound economic nationalism that is gathering momentum hugely. US
sanctions on Iran is bound to sharpen the conflict between European imperialists. Also
India appears to be in crisis on whether to abide by US dictats as per its Iranian economic
connection especially on oil purchase. US's increasing protectionism has already gone out
of control as per its implications to global polity and military activity. In view of this
critical situation the role of the working class, national and international, should
determine the future of humanity. Role of the revolutionary triumvirate, ICFI/SEP/IYSSE, is
of paramount importance. I appeal to national working classes to build SEP as your national
party of the socialist revolution. I appeal to youth and students to build your national
chapters of the IYSSE in schools, universities etc. as quickly as possible. World war is
haunting. Very existannce of the humanity on this palnet is uncertain, if we unitedly as
workers, youth and students fail to empower the party of the world revolution, ICFI.
Victory to international socialist revolution. Death to protectionism whose major advocate
is US capitalism/imperialism. Down with the psudo left and the trade unions.
Keynes, who designed the Bretton Woods system, also proposed an international banking
system and currency (called the Bancor). The purpose was to prevent the kind of unbalanced
world trade which now dominates the global economy. Under his proposed system, countries
with chronic trade surpluses would be penalised, thus preventing a situation like the
present with some nations being massive exporters and others massive importers. Instead,
all countries would hover around balanced trade where their imports equaled their exports
in value. The US government told Keynes to shut up about this plan or they would cancel
their promised postwar loans to the UK. The reason was that at the time the US planned to
be a net exporter. Incidentally, Keynes warned that if the system of managed currency
exchange rates were abandoned, the financial markets would become a "virtual senate" which
would have the power to dictate economic policies to nation states.
"Keynes, who designed the Bretton Woods system, also proposed an international banking
system and currency (called the Bancor). The purpose was to prevent the kind of
unbalanced world trade which now dominates the global economy."
Perpetually caught in a "lesser evil" loop of some variety or another from which the
reformist never escapes, applying the same failed (ruling class) logic over, and over and
over and over...
"But this solves nothing because, as Marx's analysis showed, the crises of capitalism
cannot be overcome by reforms to the monetary system because, while they necessarily
express themselves there, they were rooted in the very foundations of the capitalist
economy, in its DNA so to speak -- that is, in the social relations based on profit and the
market system." -Ten years after Lehman: New financial crises in the making
Keynes' suggestion would have "solved" or rather prevented one problem, but not every
problem of capitalism. Keynes was a reformist and capable of formulating policies which, if
followed, would make capitalism more amenable to the interests of the majority of people.
He was consciously trying to save capitalism from itself and said so. But you rightly
point out there is a major problem with this thinking, namely that it ignores the self
interest of governments and capitalists alike, who ignore such concepts of "enlightened"
self interest in favour of short term advantage.
Political reality intruded in Keynes' well-intentioned designs immediately as I've
mentioned and the whole Bretton Woods edifice was knocked down as soon as it proved
inconvenient for US interests.
Similarly, I strongly suspect Keynes would have disapproved of financial deregulation,
but the underlying development of US capitalism led to unstoppable political pressure for
its implementation.
"Keynes was a reformist and capable of formulating policies which, if followed, would
make capitalism more amenable to the interests of the majority of people."
For the life of me I can't figure why you'd praise a policy that more effectively
persuades or controls the masses to their own detriment and to the economic benefit of a
minority--other than to conclude that like Keynes and the rest of the petty bourgeoisie,
you're a reformist.
The most important theoretical source of his thinking is his own work "The General
Theory of Employment, Money and Interest" which is available to read or download free
online.
I only recently learned of his Bancor proposal in an article by George Monbiot
originally published in the Guardian. I read it on the Znet website, but I can't remember
when.
As for his quote about the financial markets becoming a virtual senate, I read that in
some article about finance but don't remember the source. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
There could be other books on his theories but he is somewhat unfashionable as mainstream
economics has mostly reverted to a more ideologically driven right wing position.
"In January, while Trump was requesting Congress to allocate funds for the US-Mexico border
wall, China sent delegates to Chile, inviting Latin American leaders to participate in the
Belt and Road Initiative. Months later, as Trump bullied US allies at the NATO summit,
China was wrapping up the "16+1 summit" in Bulgaria, where Chinese investment and
diplomatic relations were marketed to Central and Eastern European leaders. And most
recently, Chinese President Xi Jinping wrapped up his travels throughout Africa, where he
was visiting with heads of state and deepening China's relationships with the continent of
the future, while America picks a one-sided trade fight with Rwanda."
The US "makes war" while China makes business deals. Pick your poison--two capitalists
countries controlled by oligarchs which can only offer the working-class continued
exploitation.
An Excellent piece of article that explains clearly the trajectory that got us into
US-China trade war, and what this means for the Global Capitalist System going forward. If
we remember when trade war topic was first brought into picture Trump administration
officials were saying imposing tariffs on China and Europe were the only way to correct the
unfair trade balances. However, as the months progressed it quickly became known that US
officials were using unfair trade practices of China as a scapegoat to demand further
concessions from the Chinese authorities. These concessions include complete dismantlement
of Made in China 2025 program and put a hold to their Silk Road initiative. In other words,
Donald Trump and the entire American ruling circles see China as an existential long term
threat and they are using trade war as a weapon to contain China's rising political and
economical ambitions.
For now Trump is increasing the tariffs so as to force the Chinese leadership to
acquiesce to his conditions. Of course, I would expect in the coming days Chinese
authorities to rebuff this latest round of sanctions and that they would retaliate their
own tariffs.
On the other hand, the Trump administration has put Iran under severe sanctions, and
they also warned all big European Multinational corporations like Total and others to stop
doing business with Iran after November. So as we can see we are in a very precarious
Global situation right now due to rising contradictions between the needs of Global economy
and nation states.
The US wants to reinforce it's declining global hegemonic position at any cost. Now
they started with economic war against countries they see as not cooperating to their
demands, but under current conditions this could easily transform into Global war at some
point in future.
A confidential report by Belgian investigators confirms that British intelligence services
hacked state-owned Belgian telecom giant Belgacom on behalf of Washington, it was revealed on
Thursday (20 September).
The report, which summarises a five-year judicial inquiry, is almost complete and was
submitted to the office of Justice Minister Koen Geens, a source close to the case told AFP,
confirming Belgian press reports
The matter will now be discussed within Belgium's National Security Council, which
includes the Belgian Prime Minister with top security ministers and officials.
Contacted by AFP, the Belgian Federal Prosecutor's Office and the cabinet of Minister
Geens refused to comment .
####
NO. Shit. Sherlock.
So the real question is that if this has known since 2013, why now? BREXIT?
"... The EU is not perfect and has costs, but measured against what it has achieved, it is a great success. ..."
"... The EU has brought peace to Europe for the longest period since Pax Romana (and that was not entirely peaceful). ..."
"... You're funny. The EU makes war by other means. The burden of disease in Greece, health loss, risk factors, and health financing, 2000–16: an analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanpub/PIIS2468-2667(18)30130-0.pdf ..."
"... The mortality rate for Greece is up approximately 50,000. All so Merkel in Germany, and Sarkozy and Hollande didn't have to go before their electorates and admit they were bailing out French and German banks through the backdoor. ..."
"... I guess all those little Balkan unpleasantnesses, the former Czechoslovakia and Bosnia and such, are not wars -- but then those are layable at the feet of NATO (that collection, as I recall it, of what, now, 29 member countries including all the Great Powers of the West) and the US imperium. ..."
"... The NATO establishment is about "making war," ..."
"... All of which is linked in significant ways to the economic "health" of the EU, from which lots of weapons flow in exchange for favors and money from the Destabilizers. ..."
"... In the meantime, the various stages are set, the players in the game of statism and nationalism and authoritarianism and neoliberalism are on their marks, the house lights are going out, and the long slow rise of the curtain is under way ..."
"... The period from the end of WWII to the Balkan Wars is still the longest period of peace since the Romans. I doubt you have ever lived through a war so I can't expect you to appreciate the difference between the Horrors of the Brussels Bureaucracy and the Horrors of Shelling and Bombing. ..."
"... I am not defending poor governance per se for the sake of defending the EU. But it is facile and fun to criticize it because one can make up all kinds of counter fantasies about how wonderful life would be without it. ..."
"... in the real world ..."
"... in the real world ..."
"... Ultimately, it's that simple. Merkel, Sarkozy, Hollande, and whoever else among the EU elites who chose to be complicit in killing substantial numbers of people so they could maintain themselves in power are scum. They are scum. They are scum. ..."
"... Fine, our elected leaders are all scum, but why does this mean that the EU is evil specifically. Why single it out? Why not advocate the overthrow of all centralized or unifying government? Move out to Montana to a cult and buy lots of guns or something. ..."
"... Ons should be very aware that EU directives comes mainly from the member states and that especially bad things that would never fly past an election could – and often is – spun by local government as "Big Bad Bruxelles is forcing poor little us to do this terrible thing to you poor people". Ala the British on trade deal with India and immigration of east-european workers. ..."
"... The EU does not have that much in the way of enforcement powers, that part is down-sourced to the individual member states. When a member state doesn't give a toss, it takes forever for some measure of sanctioning to spin up and usually it daily fines unto a misbehaving government, at the taxpayers expense (which of course those politicians who don't give a toss, are fine with since most of their cronies are not great taxpayers anyway). ..."
"... The solution is, patently, Tories out of power. Which I think will happen, certainly between now and 31 March 2019. Now would be better. Anyone thinking strategically in other parties in the UK (an oxymoron of a formulation, to be sure) would call for a no confidence vote the instant May's feet are on British soil. ..."
"... I doubt that this is personal, but what do I know. May is a nincompoop. The other heads of state patently, and quite rightly, don't respect her. Her presence has been useful to them only insofar as she could deliver a deal. ..."
"... I'd agree with your analysis of what happened – just glancing through the news today it seems that Macron in particular just lost patience, and the other leaders were happy to help him put the boot in. The EU has been trying to shore May up for a long time – the December agreement was little more than an attempt to protect her from an internal heave. This is a common dynamic in the EU – however much the leaders may dislike each other, they will usually prefer the person at the seat than the potential newcomer. ..."
"... But I think the EU has collectively decided that May is simply incapable of delivering any type of agreement, so there is no point in mincing words. They simply don't care any more if the Tory government collapses, or if they put Rees Mogg or Johnson in power. It makes absolutely zero difference to them. In fact, it might make it easier for the EU if the UK goes politically insane as they can then wash their hands of the problem. ..."
"... A colleague told me today he knows of several Northern Irish Republicans who voted leave, precisely because they thought this would create constitutional havoc and lead to a united Ireland. It seems at least some people were thinking strategically . ..."
"... British politicians apparently were supposed to negotiate Brexit among themselves. And once they had reached a (tentative) consensus the foreigners (the EU) were apparently supposed to bow down and accept the British proposal. ..."
"... Which means I never understood why the British media was treating the Chequers proposal as a serious proposal? And spending lots of time and articles discussing on how to convince the EU / the member states. ..."
"... As a Scot can I point out that it is English politicians who are responsible for this mess? ..."
Posted on
September 20, 2018 by Yves Smith Yves here. While the
specific observations in this post will be very familiar to readers (you've said the same
things in comments!), I beg to differ with calling the Government's Brexit negotiating stance a
strategy. It's bad habit plus lack of preparation and analysis.
And the UK's lack of calculation and self-awareness about how it is operating means it will
be unable to change course.
By Benjamin Martill, a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Dahrendorf Forum where he focuses on
Europe after Brexit. He is based at LSE IDEAS, the London School of Economics's foreign policy
think tank. The Dahrendorf Forum is a joint research venture between LSE and the Hertie School
of Governance in Berlin. Originally published at
openDemocracy
But is this the best strategy for advancing British interests? Here is the argument based on
the findings of a recent Dahrendorf
Forum working paper .
All eyes in British politics are on the negotiations between the UK and the EU over the
terms of the forthcoming British withdrawal from the Union, or Brexit. Surprisingly, questions
of bargaining strategy – once the preserve of diplomats and niche academic journals
– have become some of the most defining issues in contemporary British politics.
The New Politics of Bargaining
Cabinet disagreements over the conduct of the negotiations led to the resignation of David
Davis and Boris Johnson in early July 2018 and the issue continues to divide the ruling
Conservative party. Theresa May's most recent statements have all addressed the question of how
hard she has pushed Brussels in the talks.
But is the hard bargaining strategy appropriate, or will it ultimately harm the UK? The
salience of this question should occasion deeper analysis of the fundamentals of international
bargaining, given the extent to which the course of British politics will be determined by the
government's performance (or perceived performance) in the Brexit talks.
Driving a Hard Bargain
A hard-bargaining strategy isn't necessarily a poor one. To the extent it is workable, it
may even represent the sensible option for the UK.
Hard bargaining is characterised by negative representations of negotiating partners,
unwillingness to make concessions, issuance of unrealistic demands, threats to damage the
partner or exit the negotiations, representations of the talks in zero-sum terms, failure to
provide argumentation and evidence, and withholding of information. From diplomats' portrayal
of the EU as an uncooperative and bullying negotiating partner to a set of demands recognised
as unrealistic in Brussels and Britain alike, the UK's approach to the Brexit negotiations
scores highly on each of these measures.
The consensus in the academic literature is generally that hard bargaining works only
where a given party has a relative advantage . Powerful states have an incentive to engage
in hard bargaining, since by doing so they will be able to extract greater concessions from
weaker partners and maximise the chance of achieving an agreement on beneficial terms.
But weaker actors have less incentive to engage in hard bargaining, since they stand to lose
more materially if talks break down and reputationally if they're seen as not being backed by
sufficient power,
So which is Britain?
Power Distribution
The success of hard bargaining depends on the balance of power. But even a cursory
examination would seem to confirm that the UK does not hold the upper hand in the negotiations.
Consider three standard measures of
bargaining power: a country's economic and military capabilities, the available alternatives to
making a deal, and the degree of constraint emanating from the public.
When it comes to capabilities, the UK is a powerful state with considerable economic clout
and greater military resources than its size would typically warrant. It is the second-largest
economy in the EU (behind Germany) and its GDP is equal to that of the smallest 19 member
states. And yet in relative terms, the combined economic and military power of the EU27 dwarves
that of the UK: the EU economy is five times the size of the UK's.
Next, consider the alternatives. A 'no deal' scenario would be damaging for both the UK and
the EU, but the impact would be more diffuse for the EU member states. They would each lose one
trading partner, whereas the UK would lose all of its regional trading partners. Moreover, the
other powers and regional blocs often cited as alternative trading partners (the US, China, the
Commonwealth, ASEAN) are not as open as the EU economy to participation by external parties,
nor are they geographically proximate (the greatest determinant of trade flows), nor will any
deal be able to replicate the common regulatory structure in place in the EU. This asymmetric
interdependence strongly suggests that the UK is in greater need of a deal than the EU.
Finally, consider the extent of domestic constraints. Constraint enhances power by
credibly preventing a leader from offering too generous a deal to the other side. On the EU
side the constraints are clear: Barnier receives his mandate from the European Council (i.e.
the member states) to whom he reports frequently. When asked to go off-piste in the
negotiations, he has replied that he does not have the mandate to do so. On the UK side, by
contrast, there is no such mandate. British negotiators continually cite Eurosceptic opposition
to the EU's proposals in the cabinet, the Conservative party, and the public, but they are
unable to guarantee any agreement will receive legislative assent, and cannot cite any unified
position.
Perceptions of Power
But the real power distribution is not the only thing that matters. While the EU is the more
powerful actor on objective criteria, a number of key assumptions and claims made by the
Brexiteers have served to reinforce the perception that Britain has the upper hand.
First, on the question of capabilities, the discourse of British greatness (often based on
past notions of power and prestige) belies the UK's status as a middle power (at best) and
raises unrealistic expectations of what Britain's economic and military resources amount to.
Second, on the question of alternatives, the oft-repeated emphasis on 'global Britain' and the
UK's stated aim to build bridges with its friends and allies around the globe understates the
UK's reliance on Europe, the (low) demand for relations with an independent Britain abroad, and
the value of free trade agreements or other such arrangements with third countries for the UK.
Third, on the question of domestic constraint, the post-referendum discourse of an indivisible
people whose wishes will be fulfilled only through the implementation of the Brexit mandate
belies the lack of consensus in British politics and the absence of a stable majority for
either of the potential Brexit options, including the 'no deal', 'hard', or 'soft' variants of
Brexit. Invoking 'the people' as a constraint on international action, in such circumstances,
is simply not credible.
Conclusion
Assumptions about Britain's status as a global power, the myriad alternatives in the wider
world, and the unity of the public mandate for Brexit, have contributed to the overstatement of
the UK's bargaining power and the (false) belief that hard bargaining will prove a winning
strategy.
Britain desperately needs to have an honest conversation about the limits of the UK's
bargaining power. This is not 'treasonous', as ardent Brexiteers have labelled similar nods to
reality, but is rather the only way to ensure that strategies designed to protect the national
interest actually serve this purpose. Power is a finite resource that cannot be talked into
existence. Like a deflating puffer fish, the UK's weakness will eventually become plain to see.
The risk is that before this occurs, all bridges will be burned, all avenues exhausted, and all
feathers ruffled.
The opinions expressed in this blog contribution are entirely those of the author and do
not represent the positions of the Dahrendorf Forum or its hosts Hertie School of Governance
and London School of Economics and Political Science or its funder Stiftung Mercator.
I tend to agree that there is no real strategy on the UK's part. May resembles a broken
record, where she says much the same thing over and over again, seemingly expecting a
different response each time. Although Einstein said that he probably never made the claim
about what insanity consists of, it is often attributed to him -- doing the same thing over
and over expecting different results is the very definition of insanity. How the government
expects that this sort of behavior will bring desirable results is beyond me.
Both UK and EU politicians are talking past each other. Neither side understands there are
two key issues. Firstly, not understanding the economic effects stemming from the failure to
understand how money is created and how it can be manipulated for global trading advantage.
Secondly, that the UK is high up the list for "cultural tightness" and the reasons for
this.
The other element of course of a negotiation is getting potential allies to roll up behind
you. At the start of this the UK had a series of potential 'friends' it could call on –
eurosceptics governments in Eastern Europe, close historic friends and political like minded
governments in Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland. And of course non-EU countries
like India or the US with historic links.
They somehow managed to anger or frustrate nearly all of those though its heavy handed
negotiations or laughable lack of political empathy.
It must be emphasised that the current Irish government is ideologically and instinctively
very pro-London. And yet, today RTE is
reporting about the latest meeting between May and Varadkar:
The source said there was "an open exchange of views" between both sides, with the Irish
delegation emphasising that the time was short and "we need to get to the stage where we
can consider a legal text" on the backstop.
The source described British proposals so far as "only an outline, and we haven't seen
specific proposals from the British side."
This can only be translated as 'what the hell are they playing at?'
The Indians of course were amusedly baffled by the British assumption that they would
welcome open trade (without lots of new visas for Indian immigrants). Trump just smelt the
blood of a wounded animal. The Russians are well
The British cited the EU's inability to conclude a free-trade agreement with India as one
example of the EU's failings a revitalized Global Britain would no longer be shackled by.
That's quite rich considering the FTA was torpedoed when the British Home Secretary vetoed
increased visas for the Indians. Her name was Theresa May.
They somehow managed to anger or frustrate nearly all of those
Somehow?
The brits basically said: We are special people, much, much better, richer and stronger
than you sorry lot of Peons to Brussels(tm), so now you shall see sense and give us what we
want this week; you can call it your tribute if you like (because we don't care what you like
:)
Half the Danes are fed up with the whole thing and the other half would be egging on a
hard Brexit if only they could – knowing it will likely take out at least some of the
worst and most overleveraged (and gorged with tax-paid subsidies) Anti-Environmentalist
Danish industrial farmers, their bankers too. And diminish the power of their lobbyists:
"Landbrug & Fødevarer"!
The good part is that: the British and the Danish governments have managed to make "being
ruled by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels" look like a pretty much OK & decent deal,
considering the alternative options: Being ruled by our local crazies, straight-up nutters
and odious nincompoops (a word i like), half of whom, to top it up, are probably mere
soulless proxies for those ghouls that are running Washington DC.
It seems more and more to me, that never ending class warfare, and its current emphasis on
austerity, leaves us unable to envision alternate routes to economic health.
The neo-liberal consensus mandates that our ruling class never questions its own tactics,
ie dog-whistle racism to distract and divide the lower classes to enable all the looting.
So on both sides of the Atlantic, the rulers of English speakers stir up resentment
amongst those at the bottom in order to secure votes, and maintain power, while never
intending to follow through on promises to provide tangible material benefits to their
constituents.
The looting goes on, the trail of broken promises grows longer, and the misery
deepens.
The issue being ignored is that the folks at the bottom have reached the limit of their
ability to maintain life and limb in the face of downward economic pressure.
We've finally reached the end game, we in America have been driven to Trumpism, and in
Britain they've been driven to Brexit by the clueless efforts of pols to maintain power in
the face of electorates who have decided they have had enough, and will absolutely not take
the SOS anymore.
So we have the nonsensical situation of pols on both sides of the Atlantic flirting with
economic collapse, and even civil war rather than moderate their irrational fixation on
making the insanely rich even richer.
In both cases we have a cast of alternating villains robbing and beating us while waving
flags and loudly complaining that we aren't showing the proper level of enthusiasm.
Which leaves me with one question for those villains;
Why no one, especially the punditocracy seems to realize this, is astonishing.
I also cannot believe the Old Gray Lady killing millions of trees in its shrill efforts to
prove the Russians cost Hilary the election and nary a word about how totally fed up and
voiceless (with the exception of a single presidential vote) are those in the Great
Flyover.
Also find it amazing that the Beeb with rudimentary linguistic forensic analysis
identified Mike Pence as almost certainly the author of the scathing anti-Trump memo the NYT
published anonymously, without a single mention of this now widely-known fact.
On a related note, while this was about the tactics of leaving, there has been some
movement on the end state front, though not by the UK. Rather it seems that the EU has made
up it's mind, and in my mind definitively scrapped the EEA option.
Several EU leaders (Pms of Malta and the Czech republic) have clearly stated that they wish
to see a new referendum, and Macron said the following:
"Brexit is the choice of the British people pushed by those who predicted easy solutions.
Those people are liars. They left the next day so they didn't have to manage it," Macron said
on Thursday, vowing to "never" accept any Brexit deal, which would put the EU's integrity at
risk.
I think the bridges have been burned, now it's surrender or revocation that's left to the
UK, or stepping off the cliff edge.
It is astonishing to see that the UK still does not accept that the EU doesn't want it to
go on principle more than for practical reasons. May and the others cling to the notion that
without Great Britain, the EU will collapse or something. This is the same nation that has
been foot-dragging on everything about Europe and slagging off the continent at every turn
while pretending they are a Great Power and the BFF of the US. Trump does not care about
Great Britain unless he needs some sort of zoning permission for his gold course, in which
case he will cut a deal on trade or arms with May.
The Irish Border, assuming it remains open, is a massive concession and likely to lead to
future problems as other EU nations try to have open borders or trade with their pet
countries.
Brits on the Continent are worried about many things ranging from driver's licenses to
residency visas! Not every Brit wants to live on that damp little island! Some like the sun
and Continental cuisine.
Is the EU a Great Idea to be Protected and Advanced, one that will inexorably result in
ever greater benefits for the common people of the fainting nations that have been cat-herded
into submitting to the "political union" that many very personally interested parties are
always working toward? Like NATO is a Great Idea, not just a mechanism for global mischief
and chaos? NATO gives "warfighters" a place to sit and play their games. Brussels gives
"rules," at least some of which are sort of for public benefit, until the regulatory
capturers work their magic. Profit and impunity, always for the few.
What is the organizing principle in all this? Likely can't be stated. Just a lot of
interested parties squabbling over gobbets from the carcass torn from the planet
Maybe the 14th Century was not so very horrible after all? If one looks in "A Distant
Mirror" at it, given where humanity seems to be, on the increasingly fleshed-out timeline of
collapse?
OF course, one can always summon up the demoness TINA, to trump any efforts to take
different paths
NATO was created to make war. The EU was created to make peace and prosperity. Comparing
one to the other is unjust.
The EU is not some sacrosanct construct that must be worshiped, but it has brought peace
to Europe for the longest period since Pax Romana (and that was not entirely peaceful). It
has also promoted trade and prosperity. Europe has been even farther ahead of economic and
regulatory integration than the US (phones and credit cards come to mind). Free movement of
labor and travel have dropped costs for businesses and individuals immensely.
Now, whether or not human foibles enter into it is really another discussion. Is Brussels
at times a giant Interest Machine and Bureaucratic Nightmare? Yes, but that is the negative
face we see portrayed by anti-Europeans like the Brexiteers. The EU does a terrible job of
self-promotion; citizens rarely know just how much the EU contributes to their lives. Perhaps
the EU is afraid of drawing attention to itself. But the people making up the EU are not
extraterrestrials; they are Europeans who make the same mistakes and commit the same fraud on
a national level.
Many Americans criticize Europe while vaunting their own Federation. Why should California
and Alabama share a currency, a passport and a Congress? There are more differences between
those states than between France and Belgium or Italy and Spain.
The EU is not perfect and has costs, but measured against what it has achieved, it is a
great success.
The mortality rate for Greece is up approximately 50,000. All so Merkel in Germany, and
Sarkozy and Hollande didn't have to go before their electorates and admit they were bailing
out French and German banks through the backdoor.
If you want to start accounting for economic death by economic war, we can look at the US
as recently as the financial crisis, though I doubt there are studies on the Homeland of this
sort. Or US embargoes of vital medication and food in Iraq which led to hundreds of thousands
of deaths. And so on.
My point is not that the EU is perfect, but there has not been a war in Western Europe since
1945. You are welcome to spin and fiddle and search for anything you like (Gosh, all that
free travel led to increases in traffic deaths! Ban the EU!). Of course, we would also need
to examine what the EU has done for Europe and how many lives have been saved by improved
infrastructure and exchange of information.
I am not defending poor governance per se for the sake of defending the EU. But it is facile
and fun to criticize it because one can make up all kinds of counter fantasies about how
wonderful life would be without it. Let's see how Great Britain does and then we can discuss
this in a few years.
I guess all those little Balkan unpleasantnesses, the former Czechoslovakia and Bosnia and
such, are not wars -- but then those are layable at the feet of NATO (that collection, as I
recall it, of what, now, 29 member countries including all the Great Powers of the West) and
the US imperium.
The NATO establishment is about "making war," largely now displaced to other Woggish and Hajji places where the huge number of refugees that are moving into Eurospace are
coming from (as a result of the largely economically driven (oil and other extraction
interests) and Israeli and Saudi-enhanced large scale destabilizing war prosecution.
All of
which is linked in significant ways to the economic "health" of the EU, from which lots of
weapons flow in exchange for favors and money from the Destabilizers.
Yes, the EU notion of reducing the conflict generators of the past seems to be a good one.
But surprise! In practice, you got your German hegemon and your French strutters and now of
course the British bomb throwers pointing out, along with the renascent nationalism triggered
in part by the hegemon's bleeding of other nations via Brussels and EU institutions, like
Greece and Spain and Italy and so forth.
And of course the warring that the seamless
economies of the EU (that includes their particpation in NATO) foster and participate in that
drives the exodus of mopes from the Mideast and Africa. And how about the fun and games, with
possible nuclear war consequences, that are playing out with EU and NATO and of course US
Imperial Interests activity in Ukraine? And I see that the Krupp Werks has delivered a bunch
of warships to various places (hasn't that happened a couple of times in the past? Thinking
how particularly of Dolphin-class submarines paid for by Uncle Sucker, as in the US, and
delivered to the Israel -ites who have equipped them with many nuclear-warhead cruise
missiles? And thanks to the French, of course, and other Great Nations, the Israelis have
nuclear weapons in the first place.
It's nice that the science parts of the EU structure are sort of working to keep US-made
toxins and genetically modified crap and other bad stuff out of the Holy EU Empire. But hey,
how many VW diesel vehicles on the road (thanks to some combination of corruption and
incompetence on the part of the EU?) equals how much glyphosate and stacked-GM organisms
barred by EU regulations? Lots of argument possible around the margins and into the core of
the political economy/ies that make up the EU/NATO, and the Dead Empire across the Channel,
and of course the wonderful inputs from the empire I was born into.
I guess the best bet
would be to program some AI device to create a value structure (to be democratically studied
and voted on, somehow?) and measure all the goods and bads of the EU, according to some kind
of standard of Goodness to Mope-kind? Naw, power trumps all that of course, and "interests"
now very largely denominated and dominated by supranational corporations that piss on the EU
when not using its institutions as a means to legitimize their looting behaviors that sure
look to me like an expression of a death wish from the human species.
There are always winners and losers in any human game, because at anything larger than the
smallest scale, we do not appear wired to work from comity and commensalism. You sound from
the little one can see of you from your comment as a person among the winners. Which is fine,
all well and good, because of that "winners and losers" thing. Until either the mass vectors
of human behavior strip the livability out of the biosphere, or some provocation or mischance
leads to a more compendious and quicker, maybe nuclear, endpoint. Or maybe, despite the
activities of the Panopticon and the various powers with forces in the polity to tamp it
down, maybe there will be a Versailles moment, and "Aux Armes, Citoyens" will eventuate.
In the meantime, the various stages are set, the players in the game of statism and
nationalism and authoritarianism and neoliberalism are on their marks, the house lights are
going out, and the long slow rise of the curtain is under way
I suggest you read up on your recent European history. Czechoslovakia split entirely
peacefully and it had exactly zero to do with either NATO or USA.
Yugoslavia had its problems ever since it was Yugoslavia in early 20th century – all
Tito managed was to postpone it, and once he was gone, it was just a question of when, and
how violent it would be. Serbian apologistas like to blame NATO, conveniently ignoring any
pre-existing tensions between Croats and Serbs (not to mention ex-Yugoslavian muslims). Did
NATO help? No. But saying it was the cause of the Serbo-Croat war and all the Yugoslavian
fallout is ignorance.
What gets my goat is when someone blames everything on CIA, USA, NATO (or Russia and China
for the matter), denying the small peoples any agency. Especially when that someone tends to
have about zilch understanding of the regions in question, except from a selective
reading.
Yep, CIA and NATO and the Illuminati (and Putin, to put it on both sides) are the
all-powerful, all seeing, all-capable forces. Everyone else is a puppet. Right.
The period from the end of WWII to the Balkan Wars is still the longest period of peace
since the Romans. I doubt you have ever lived through a war so I can't expect you to
appreciate the difference between the Horrors of the Brussels Bureaucracy and the Horrors of
Shelling and Bombing. From your lofty armchair, they might be the same but then again,
perhaps you blame the socialists when your caramel latte is cold.
Lofty armchair? I actually volunteered and got the opportunity to go be a soldier in an
actual war, the Vietnam one. So I have a darn good idea what War is in actuality and from
unpleasant personal experience. And I don't have either the taste or the wealth for lattes.
And forgive my aging failure of typing Czech instead of Yugo -- my point, too, is that the
nations and sets of "peoples" living and involved in United Europe do in fact have "agency,"
and that is part of the fractiousness that the proponents of a federated Europe (seemingly
under mostly German lead) are working steadily at suppressing. Not as effectively as a
Federalist might want, of course.
TheScream wrote: I am not defending poor governance per se for the sake of defending
the EU. But it is facile and fun to criticize it because one can make up all kinds of counter
fantasies about how wonderful life would be without it.
Wake up. I'm talking about what the European elite in the real world deliberately
chose to do.
They chose to do a backdoor bailout of German and French banks specifically so
Merkel, Sarkozy and Hollande and the governments they led didn't have to go to their
electorates and tell them the truth. Thereby, they maintained themselves in power, and German
and French wealth structures -- the frickin', frackin banks -- as they were. And they did
this in the real world knowing that innocent people in Greece would die in
substantial numbers consequently.
This is not a counterfactual. This happened.
There's a technical term for people who plan and execute policies where many thousands of
people die so they themselves can benefit. That term is 'scum.'
Ultimately, it's that simple. Merkel, Sarkozy, Hollande, and whoever else among the EU
elites who chose to be complicit in killing substantial numbers of people so they could
maintain themselves in power are scum. They are scum. They are scum.
Don't get me started on people who defend such scum with threadbare waffle about 'I am not
defending poor governance per blah blah it is facile and fun to criticize blah blah.' Nor
interested in whataboutery about US elites, who as the main instigators of this 21st century
model of finance as warfare are also scum.
Fine, our elected leaders are all scum, but why does this mean that the EU is evil
specifically. Why single it out? Why not advocate the overthrow of all centralized or
unifying government? Move out to Montana to a cult and buy lots of guns or something.
My point is not that EU leaders are charming people working exclusively for the good of the
people. My point is that the EU is not as bad as most of you believe and no worse than most
other governments. It is simply an easy target because it is extra or supra-national. We can
get all frothy at the mouth blaming Nazis and Frogs for our woes and ignore our personal
failures.
I would love to insult you personally as you have insulted me, but I sense you are just
ranting out of frustration. You hate the EU (are you even European or just some right-wing
nutcase from America involving yourself in other's business?) and take it out on me. Go for
it. Your arguments are irrelevant and completely miss the point of my comments.
The EU does a terrible job of self-promotion; citizens rarely know just how much the EU
contributes to their live
The EU is, very simplistically, set up like a shared Civil Service. Civil Services are to
be seen rarely and never heard, less they take shine and glamour from the Government they
serve.
What "Bruxelles" can do is to advise and create Directives, which are instructions to
local government to create and enforce local legislation. The idea is that the legislation
and enforcement will be similar in all EU member states.
Ons should be very aware that EU directives comes mainly from the member states and that
especially bad things that would never fly past an election could – and often is
– spun by local government as "Big Bad Bruxelles is forcing poor little us to do this
terrible thing to you poor people". Ala the British on trade deal with India and immigration
of east-european workers.
The EU does not have that much in the way of enforcement powers, that part is down-sourced
to the individual member states. When a member state doesn't give a toss, it takes forever
for some measure of sanctioning to spin up and usually it daily fines unto a misbehaving
government, at the taxpayers expense (which of course those politicians who don't give a
toss, are fine with since most of their cronies are not great taxpayers anyway).
"Maybe the 14th Century was not so very horrible after all?"
Hopefully sarcastic?
Dude -- black plague! 75 to 200 million dead! At a tie with a world population of 400
million, and 40 million of those may as well have been on Mars! China, ME, North Africa and
Europe depopulated!
Time to really reconsider one's assumptions when one wonders whether the 14th century was
"that bad".
Dude, yes, sarcastic. And ironic. Doesn't change the horribleness of the present, does it
now? Or the coming horrors (say some of us) that may have been inevitably priced in to the
Great Global Market, does it
Donald Tusk, the European council president, has ratcheted up the pressure on Theresa
May by rejecting the Chequers plan and warning of a breakdown in the Brexit talks unless
she delivers a solution for the Irish border by October – a deadline the British
prime minister had already said she will not be able to meet.
The stark threat to unravel the talks came as the French president, Emmanuel Macron,
broke with diplomatic niceties and accused those of backing Brexit of being liars. "Those
who explain that we can easily live without Europe, that everything is going to be all
right, and that it's going to bring a lot of money home are liars," he said.
"It's even more true since they left the day after so as not to have to deal with it."
The comments came at the end of a leaders' summit in Salzburg, where May had appealed
for the EU to compromise to avoid a no-deal scenario. She had been hoping to take warm
words over Chequers into Conservative party conference.
Tusk, who moments before his comments had a short meeting with the prime minister, told
reporters that he also wanted to wrap up successful talks in a special summit in
mid-November.
But, in a step designed to pile pressure on the prime minister, he said this would not
happen unless the British government came through on its commitment to finding a "precise
and clear" so-called backstop solution that would under any future circumstances avoid a
hard border on the island of Ireland.
"Without an October grand finale, in a positive sense of this word, there is no reason
to organise a special meeting in November," Tusk said. "This is the only condition when it
comes to this possible November summit."
It seems the EU leaders aren't even pretending anymore. Its pretty clear they have run out
of patience, and May has run out of options. I wonder if they'll even bother with having the
November summit.
If there's no November summit (which would make no-deal Brexit almost certainty), then the
game becomes fast a and furious, as sterling will drop like a stone – with all sorts of
repercussions. TBH, that can already be clear after the Tory party conference, it's entirely
possible that that one will make any October Brexit discussions entirely irrelevant.
I think that EU overestimated May in terms of sensibility, and now accept that there's no
difference between May and Johnson (in fact, with Johnson or someone like that, they will get
certainy, so more time to get all ducks in row. Entirely cynically, clear no-deal Brexit
Johnson would be better for EU than May where one has no idea what's going to happen).
Either way, this crop of politicians will make history books. Not sure in the way they
would like to though.
Announced post-summit in Salzburg: no November summit absent a binding exit deal on the
table by the end of October. So no: no November dealing.
I don't know that EU politicos overestimated May. She is what they had, and all they had,
so they did their absolute best to prop up Rag Sack Terry as a negotiating partner, hoping
that they could coax her to toddle over their red lines with enough willingness to listen to
her hopeless twaddle first. She just shuffled and circled in place. So they've given up on
her ability to deliver anything of value to them. One could see this coming in June, when she
couldn't even get the sound of one hand clapping to her chipper nonsense over dinner.
I think that deciding heads in Europe have accepted the probability that crashout is
coming. That was clear also in June. If something better happens, I suppose that they would
leap at it. Nothing in the last two years engenders any hope in that regard, so hard heads
are readying the winches to hoist the drawbridge on We're Dead to You Day.
If the Tories fall, which I think and have long thought is probable, it would be up to a
'unity government' to either initial a settlement surrender and keep the sham going, or
flinch. My bet has been on pulling together some kind of flinch mechanism on aborting exit.
It's the kind of year, as I model these, where wild swings of such kind are possible, but I
couldn't predict the outcome anymore than anyone else.
My feeling for a while is that the government would never fall, whatever happened, simply
because the Tories (and DUP) fear a Corbyn government too much, so would never, ever pull the
trigger, no matter how bad things got. But if May falls at the Party Conference and is
replaced with a hard Brexiter, I don't think its impossible that there may be a temptation
that to see if they could whip up a nationalistic mood for a snap election. Some of them are
gamblers by instinct. Anything could happen then.
I think Tory Remainers bolt, choosing keeping their own wallets rather than handing those
over to the worst of their lot with everything else. But they would find a unity coalition
more palatable than passing the microphone to Jerry the Red, yeah, so that's a bit sticky. A
snap election is the worst kind of crazy town, and wolldn't improve negotiating or decision
outcomes in the slightest -- so of course that may be the likeliest near term course! Won't
get settled in a few weeks. Probably not until 20 March 2019.
This is just wowsers. Tusk, Macron, and Merkel baldly state that Chequers is mated --
"unacceptable" -- and furthermore gave the Tories a drop-dead date of 31 October to initial
the divorce settlement. The process is a flat abandonment of Theresa May, concluding the
obvious, that she and her government are incapable of negotiating exit. Going over her head
to Parliament and public, in fact if not in pre-consisdered intent. -- And about time. I was
worried that the EU would eat fudge in November with the Brits again on another
pretend-to-agree accord like that of December 2017, which, as we have seen did nothing to
induce the Tories to negotiate a viable outcome.
What was May's reaction? That she's perfectly prepared to lead Britain over the crashout
cliff if the EU doesn't see fit to capitulate. I'd roll on the floor laughing but I can't
catch my breath.
The next two weeks are going to be lively times in Britain indeed. I can't see how
'Suicide Terry's' government can survive this situation. -- And about high time. Put the poor
brute out of her misery; she's delusional, can't they see how she's suffering? Push has come,
so it's time to shove. Crashout or Flinch, those are the outcomes, now plainer than ever. All
May can do is thrash and fabulate, so time to bag the body and swear in another fool; lesser
or greater, we shall see.
Yes, I wonder was that planned, or (as is suggested in the
latest Guardian articl e), motivated by anger at Mays criticism of Barnier?
EU sources said the move had been made on the bidding of Macron, who urged taking a hard
line over lunch. The French president had been infuriated by May's warning earlier in the
day to Varadkar that she believed a solution on the issue could not be found by October,
despite previous promises to the contrary.
The tone of the prime minister's address to the EU leaders on Wednesday night, during
which she attacked Michel Barnier, is also said by sources to have been the cause of
irritation.
This obviously makes her very vulnerable at the party conference. Its hard to see what she
can do now. She is toast I think.
I can only think of two reasons that they've closed the door firmly in her face. Either
they have simply lost patience and now accept there is nothing can be salvaged, or they have
lost patience with May personally, and hope that a new leader might do a deal out of
desperation. The latter seems highly unlikely – a sudden Tory challenge is more likely
to bring a hardliner into power.
Whichever way you look at it, things look certain to come to a head very soon now. The EU
may have a hope that the UK will blink when staring into the abyss and agree to the backstop,
but I don't see how politically this a capitulation is possible, at least with the Tories in
power.
The solution is, patently, Tories out of power. Which I think will happen, certainly
between now and 31 March 2019. Now would be better. Anyone thinking strategically in other
parties in the UK (an oxymoron of a formulation, to be sure) would call for a no confidence
vote the instant May's feet are on British soil.
I doubt that this is personal, but what do I know. May is a nincompoop. The other heads of
state patently, and quite rightly, don't respect her. Her presence has been useful to them
only insofar as she could deliver a deal. Macron looked at his watch and the date said, non on that. Just looking at his ambitions and how he operates, I would think he
wanted to go this route quite some time ago, but the 'softly, softly' set such as the Dutch
and Merkel wouldn't back that, and he was too smart to break ranks alone. That the Germans
have given up on May is all one really needs to know. This was May's no confidence vote by
the European Council, and she lost it over lunch.
I'd agree with your analysis of what happened – just glancing through the news today
it seems that Macron in particular just lost patience, and the other leaders were happy to
help him put the boot in. The EU has been trying to shore May up for a long time – the
December agreement was little more than an attempt to protect her from an internal heave.
This is a common dynamic in the EU – however much the leaders may dislike each other,
they will usually prefer the person at the seat than the potential newcomer.
But I think the EU has collectively decided that May is simply incapable of delivering any
type of agreement, so there is no point in mincing words. They simply don't care any more if
the Tory government collapses, or if they put Rees Mogg or Johnson in power. It makes
absolutely zero difference to them. In fact, it might make it easier for the EU if the UK
goes politically insane as they can then wash their hands of the problem.
At this point it might actually be a blessing if that happened. There is likely to be a
great deal of practical difference between a no-deal Brexit with six months of planning and
preparation and a no-deal Brexit that takes everyone by surprise at the very last minute.
(Yes, they will both be a nightmare, but some nightmares are worse than others). All this
pretense that the other side is bluffing and will roll over at the 11th hour is starting to
look like a convenient excuse for not facing reality. I don't think either side is
bluffing.
Comments like "Britain desperately needs to have an honest conversation about the limits
of the UK's bargaining power" might very well be true, but they're also irrelevant at this
point. Certainly it would have been very useful if it had happened two years ago. Right now
it's time to break out the life jackets.
Most Brits don't seem capable of mentally accepting how irrelevant they actually are
internationally. They are NOT a 'power' in any other respect than that they have nuclear
weapons under their launch authority (which they are never going to use). They have no
weight. The City is, really other people's money that predominantly foreign nationals at
trading desks play with, loose, steal, hide, and occasionally pay out. The UK economy isn't
of any international consequence. Brits are embedded in the international diplomatic
process, in a dead language speakers kind of way, which makes them seem important. But they
are not.
So there was never going to be a reassessment of the weaknesses of Britain's negotiating
position, nor will there be now exactly, because most in Britain cannot get their heads
around the essential premise to such a discussion, the Britain is now essentially trivial on
the power scale rather than of any real consequence. The Kingdom of Saud has more real power.
Turkey is a more consequential actor. Mexico has more people. &etc.
If one is to accept the convictions of master bloviator Niall Ferguson and other
Brexiteers, the issue is issue. Brexit is about immigration, period. The EU claims it will
not bend on free movement of people, Brexiteers will not accept anything less. There was such
a huge outcry when May mentioned the possibility of 'preferential' treatment for EU citizens
back in July she threatened any further public dissent in the party would result in sackings.
The EU insists there can be no trade deals, no freed movement of goods without free movement
of people, for good reasons. Hard to imagine them climbing down.
There's about as many reasons why people voted Brexit as there's different Brexits they
wanted. Immigration is just one of the convenient scapegoats peddled by both sides, although
for different reasons.
If you want a better (but still not complete) reason, try decreasing real income.
I'd like to know what those "many different reasons" are. Sovereignty? Well, that rolls
off the tongue more easily than "immigration" which, leavers know, sounds a bit racist.
"Control of borders" works for leavers like Nigell, although he went on at great length about
how it's all about immigration, after talking to all the 'real' folks in the provinces.
My Irish/Brit family's Own Private Brexit: the grandparents are entitled to naturalisation
and voted Leave, the children are subjects/citizens and voted Remain (and almost all vote
Tory), the grandchildren are compromised subjects/citizens and didn't have a vote. Everyone's
happy to be entitled to an EU passport. The Pakistan offshoot has a less complex variation
(fewer rights), but I believe their family voted Leave on balance. Life.
A colleague told me today he knows of several Northern Irish Republicans who voted leave,
precisely because they thought this would create constitutional havoc and lead to a united
Ireland. It seems at least some people were thinking strategically .
Majority of the drop in real income is NOT driven by immigration. You may find it
surprising, but there were times with large (relatively speaking) immigration and the real
incomes going up.
I don't believe it is either, you seem to think these views are my own. I am speculating,
with some basis, that a majority of leavers think so. Anti-immigration attitudes are
entrenched and growing. Just the other day a teacher, no less, spouted off about how
immigrants were causing crime and stealing jobs. This is in a blue city in a blue state. I
was shocked.
People come up with fantasy explanations when they've been reduced from realistic
assessments to fantastic ideologies. If there's a clear answer but you are ideologically
constrained from considering it, you need to invent some answer, the nuttier the better.
I think a major part of the problem is that British politicians and media seem to believe
that Brexit is mainly (or exclusively) a British topic.
One British politician publishes one proposal, another British politician shoots it down.
With the British media reporting about it gleefully for days. Newspaper articles, opinion
pieces. Without even mentioning what the EU might think about it. The EU seems to not exist
in this bubble.
Just remember the more than 60 "notices to stakeholders" published by the EU months ago.
And freely available for reading on the Internet. I´ve read British media online for a
long time now but somehow these notices never made any impact. It was only when the first
British impact assessments were published (not that long ago) that British media started to
report about possible problems after a no-deal Brexit. Problems / consequences that were
mentioned in the EU notices months ago.
It´s almost unbelievable. It looks like if something isn´t coming from London (or
Westminster) then it doesn´t exist in the British media.
And it´s the same with British politicians.
David Davis and the back-stop deal in late 2017?. He agreed with it during the negotiations,
returned home and then said that it wasn´t binding, just a letter of intent. Or Michael
Gove a few days ago? Regardless of what agreement PM T. May negotiates now with the EU, a new
PM can simply scrap it and negotiate a new deal? Or send government members to the EU member
states to try and undermine Barnier as reported in British media? How exactly is that
building trust?
Have they never heard about the Internet? And that today even foreigners might read British
media?
Brexit supporter Jacob Rees-Mogg might be the MP for the 18th century but surely they know
that today there are faster methods for messages than using pigeons?
What about foreign investment in the UK? The gateway to the EU? Japanese car
companies?
The drop in foreign investment was reported, to be sure. But after a few days it was
immediately forgotten.
T. May according to British media articles apparently developed her Brexit strategy (and
her red lines) together with her two closest political advisers back in late 2016 / early
2017. No cabinet meeting to discuss the strategy, no ordering of impact assessments which
might have influenced the strategy (and the goals). And apparently – in my opinion
– no detailed briefing on how the EU actually works. What might be realistically
possible and what not.
The resignation of Ivan Rogers seems to support my speculations. Plus the newspaper
articles in early 2017 which mentioned that visitors to certain British government ministries
were warned not to criticize Brexit or warn about negative consequences. Such warnings would
result in no longer being invited to visit said ministry and minister.
If they actually went through with that policy they created an echo chamber with no
dissenting voices allowed.
Which might explain why they had no plan to deal with the EU.
British politicians apparently were supposed to negotiate Brexit among themselves. And once
they had reached a (tentative) consensus the foreigners (the EU) were apparently supposed to
bow down and accept the British proposal.
And now when the EU hasn´t followed the script they don´t know what to do?
I´m not an expert but it was pretty clear to me that the Chequers deal would never
work. It was pretty obvious even when EU politicians were somewhat polite about it when T.
May proposed it.
It might have been a good starting point for negotiations if she had introduced it in 2017.
But in July 2018? Just a few months before negotiations were supposed to be concluded? And
then claiming it´s the only realistic proposal? It´s my way or the highway?
It was obvious.
Which means I never understood why the British media was treating the Chequers proposal as a
serious proposal? And spending lots of time and articles discussing on how to convince the EU
/ the member states.
I really think the EU member states have finally concluded that T. May is incapable of
producing (and getting a majority in the House of Commons) for any realistic solution.
Therefore helping her with statements to keep her politically alive doesn´t make sense
any longer. The EU would probably really, really like a solution that gives them at least the
transition period. Another 21 months to prepare for Brexit. But fudging things only get you
that far .
The UK apparently never understood that it´s one thing to bend rules or fudge things to
get the agreement of a member state. It´s quite another thing with a soon -to-be
ex-member state.
I am a German citizen, living in Germany.
The (German weekly printed newspaper) Zeit Online website did have three articles about
Brexit in the last few days. Which is noteworthy since they normally have 1-2 articles per
month.
And the comments were noteworthy too.
Almost all of them now favor a hard-line approach by the EU.
The UK lost a lot of sympathy and support in the last two years. Not because of the
referendum result itself but because of the actions and speeches of British politicians
afterwards.
The UK had a rebate, opt-outs and excemptions. All because successive British governments
pointed to their EU-sceptic opposition. Now the population voted for Brexit the British want
a deal that gives them all (or most) of the advantages of EU membership without any of the
obligations. To reduce the economic consequences of their decision.
No longer.
Actions have consequences.
And if it means we´ll have to support Ireland, we´ll do it.
The German commentators quite obviously have lost their patience with the UK.
This is the first article that I have seen that talks about power. The ability to
influence or outright control the behavior of people. Money has power. It is needed to eat,
heal and shelter in the West. But, it is never talked about. This is because it would raise
inconvenient truths. The wealthy are accumulating it and everyone else in the West is losing
it. The neo-liberal/neo-conservative ideologies are the foundation of this exploitation. It
is the belief that markets balance and there is no society. "Greed is good. Might is right."
Plutocrats rule the west. Democracy died. There are two versions of similar corporate
political parties in the USA. The little people matter not. Politicians are servants of the
oligarchs. Global trade is intertwined and not redundant. What will happen will be to the
benefit of the very few in power. Donald Trump is raising the price of all Chinese goods
shipped into the USA and sold at Walmart and Amazon. A Brexit crash seems inevitable.
Amen! It is ALWAYS about power. And the only way to deal with the elites is "Lord of the
Rings" style:
their money must be cast into a financial version of Mount Doom, breaking their power once
and for all. You folks in the UK need to make douchebag Brexiteers like Nigel Farrage suffer
total loss of power for forcing this disaster on you.
There is a huge source of wealth that UK monopolises from Treasure Islands that operate
the City's tax havens. That money goes straight back to City banks and flows into the market
economy, independently of trade and commerce. It underwrites the derivatives biz that keeps
the market economy afloat, paying pensions and profits and Directors' options.
Leaving the EU might have an effect but not a big one. Is that why UK seems so blithely
unconcerned?
The offshore wealth is certainly why the core hard Brexiters are unconcerned, because
thats where they store their cash. They don't care if the UK goes down.
But in the longer term, they are under threat – within the EU the UK consistently
vetoed any attempts to crack down on internal tax havens. The internal political balance of
the EU is now much more firmly anti tax avoidance with the UK gone, so there would be little
to stop a series of Directives choking off the Channel Island/Isle of Man option for money
flows.
Split Brain Syndrome: They seem think that the EU is Lucifer's Army Incarnate and then
they apparently also think at the same time, that "The Army of Darkness" once unleashed from
the responsible British leadership into the hands of those per-definition also demonic French
and Germans will still "play cricket" and not come after their tax-havens ASAP, like in 2020
or so.
May now demanding that the EU respect Great Britain. We are back to the beginning again.
May has no leverage beyond the EU wanting Britain to stay in . But if Britain goes out, then
it's out. The only way for May to get any concessions would be to offer to stay in! And even
then I am not sure the EU would accept since it would simply open the way for any member to
have a tantrum and demand better terms.
GB should leave, wallow in their loneliness a while and then ask to come back. I suspect
that the EU would reinstate them fully without the usual processes. Check back here in 24-36
months.
the obligatory four freedoms of the EU are free movement of goods, services, persons and
capital throughout the Union. Open borders. That is the essence of the European Union, the
dogma of the Free Market.
The problem with the Open Border doctrine is that it doesn't know where to stop. Or it
doesn't stop anywhere. When Angela Merkel announced that hundreds of thousands of refugees were
welcome in Germany, the announcement was interpreted as an open invitation by immigrants of all
sorts, who began to stream into Europe. This unilateral German decision automatically applied
to the whole of the EU, with its lack of internal borders. Given German clout, Open Borders
became the essential "European common value", and welcoming immigrants the essence of human
rights.
Very contrasting ideological and practical considerations contribute to the idealization of
Open Borders. To name a few:
This combination of contrasting, even opposing motivations does not add up to a majority in
every country. Notably not in Hungary.
It should be noted that Hungary is a small Central European country of less than ten million
inhabitants, which never had a colonial empire and thus has no historic relationship with
peoples in Africa and Asia as do Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium. As one of the
losers in World War I, Hungary lost a large amount of territory to its neighbors, notably to
Romania. The rare and difficult Hungarian language would be seriously challenged by mass
immigration. It is probably safe to say that the majority of people in Hungary tend to be
attached to their national identity and feel it would be threatened by massive immigration from
radically different cultures. It may not be nice of them, and like everyone they can change.
But for now, that is how they vote.
In particular, they recently voted massively to re
Like the Soviet Union, the European Union is not merely an undemocratic institutional
framework promoting a specific economic system; it is also the vehicle of an ideology and a
planetary project. Both are based on a dogma as to what is good for the world: communism for
the first, "openness" for the second. Both in varying ways demand of people virtues they may
not share: a forced equality, a forced generosity. All this can sound good, but such ideals
become methods of manipulation. Forcing ideals on people eventually runs up against stubborn
resistance.
There are differing reasons to be against immigration just as to be for it. The idea of
democracy was to sort out and choose between ideals and practical interests by free discussion
and in the end a show of hands: an informed vote. The liberal Authoritarian Center represented
by Verhofstadt seeks to impose its values, aspirations, even its version of the facts on
citizens who are denounced as "populists" if they disagree. Under communism, dissidents were
called "enemies of the people". For the liberal globalists, they are "populists" – that
is, the people. If people are told constantly that the choice is between a left that advocates
mass immigration and a right that rejects it, the swing to the right is unstoppable.
Orban's reputation in the West as dictator is unquestionably linked to his intense
conflict with Hungarian-born financier George Soros
And not only Soros, of course:
'I know that this battle is difficult for everyone. I understand if some of us are also
afraid. This is understandable, because we must fight against an opponent which is different
from us. Their faces are not visible, but are hidden from view; they do not fight directly,
but by stealth; they are not honourable, but unprincipled; they are not national, but
international; they do not believe in work, but speculate with money; they have no homeland,
but feel that the whole world is theirs.' --
Viktor Orbán
Watch the great Hungarian foreign minister repel attacks by the BBCs arrogant open borders
propagandist, rudely treating him like an ignorant child and calling him a racist for
defending his nation.
Economic liberals maintain that because Europe is aging, it needs young immigrant
workers to pay for the pensions of retired workers.
Not gonna happen. Their 80 IQ skills are uncompetitive and useless in Europe even before
Automation erases those low-skilled positions in the coming decade or two. Meanwhile, (real)
European youth unemployment rate is 20%. Young Europeans are not making babies because they
don't have a stable future. This can only get worse as the hostile invaders get preferential,
Affirmative Action treatment, in schools and workplaces. None of this is accidental.
There are, in my opinion, two reasons for letting the mass immigration happen:
- the Brussels belief, expressed in a 2009 official document, not secret, that the EU needs
60 million immigrants.
- a Merkel belief dat the Germans are bad, they caused two world wars and perpetrated the
holocaust, so the German people must be changed through mass immigration.
The Brussels belief seems to be based mainly on the increasing average age in the EU.
It is incomprehensible to me, at the same time fear that robots slowly will do all simple
jobs.
The Merkel belief, on the other side of the Atlantic, where few understand German, and
cannot or do not watch German tv, I wonder how many understand that the 20th century
propaganda of the victors still is decisive in German daily life and politics.
The danger of neonazi's and fascism is everywhere.
Nationalism, the equivalent of building gas chambers.
The EU also is based on the 20th century fairy tales, only the EU prevented wars in Europe
after WWII.
The idea that Germans were victims in two world wars, and, until Hitler became power in 1933,
also between the world wars, in unthinkable.
The idea that Endlösung meant deportation to Madagaskar, even more unthinkable.
That jews, as one Rothschild wrote to another around 1890, have and had but one enemy,
themselves, the world unthinkable is too weak.
Yet
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA
explains it, things as 'close economic cooperation, intermarriage, ostentious behaviour'.
In this respect
'Christianity and the Holocaust of the Hungarian Jewry', Moshe Y Herclz, 1993 New York
University press
also is a very interesting book, after jews in the thirties had been banned from many
intellectual professions not a single Hungarian newspaper could be published any more.
Soros trying to force Muslim immigrants on deeply catholic Hungary, he was born in
Hungary, experienced anti semitism, revenge ?
I was recently in Budapest on business and will likely be returning soon: It is the most
beautiful city I have ever seen, with stunning architectural restoration projects, almost
non-existent police and military presence, food and wines that rival those of Paris, and a
very friendly, non-bureaucratic and non-obsese (as opposed to the USA) population. I would
like to hear from others who have recently visited and have knowledge of the country.
Viszlát! -- John
When the fort of folly that Globalism is finally falls, Diana Johnstone's article will be
cited as exemplary in exposing its hidden grammar. That fall cannot be far off now given that
psy-ops can only work if people are ignorant of the manipulation afoot.
Great opening, Diana. For forty years the presstitude media have leaned on the use of
implication as argument to have the ninety-nine percent buy what they are selling. What was
not pointed out very well until now, is that their implications are all false. Now, only a
dummy among the dumbed-down cannot see it.
For those who have the patience to read the English subtitles, here is an excellent speech
given by Orbán in July. Here he outlines his thinking on the issues facing Hungary and
the world.
Viktor Orbán is a very intelligent leader, and he has the vast majority of the
Hungarian people behind him. History has taught those people many things, and they have had
enough. They are not fools. Look to them as an example for all of us.
@John Siman I was recently in Budapest on business and will likely be returning soon: It
is the most beautiful city I have ever seen, with stunning architectural restoration
projects, almost non-existent police and military presence, food and wines that rival those
of Paris, and a very friendly, non-bureaucratic and non-obsese (as opposed to the USA)
population. I would like to hear from others who have recently visited and have knowledge of
the country. Viszlát! -- John Wherever US influence is not yet overwhelming (and such
places are becoming fewer every day, unfortunately), you will still find "old-fashioned" ways
of interaction, few fatties, and decent food and drink.
People may become fat for many reasons, but most fatties these days in the Anglosphere
belong to the underclass. These wretches get fat from eating expensive trash at McDonald's
and other fast food outlets, and drinking Coca Cola and similar sugar-saturated garbage.
Their behavior may seem strange because their brains have largely withered away through
endless TV watching (mainly US or US-inspired visual trash), their hearing impaired by ear-
and mind numbing noise passing for music.
I am afraid the way out of that prison is long and tortuous for all victims of US
neoliberalism.
The usual anti-EU propaganda that Ms Johnstone has been peddling for at least a dozen years,
although she has recently moved from claiming to be a far-leftist to claiming to be a
far-rightest. Whatever pretext "proves" the EU to be evil is trotted out! However, she points
out very clearly Viktor Orban's dilemma. The choice for Hungary is between the EU and Putin's
tanks. After 40 years of occupation by a Soviet Union in which the ethnic Russians acted as
colonial overlords and the general contempt which Hungarians have for Slavs, choosing the
latter option would be political suicide for any Hungarian leader. Thus, Orban is stuck with
the EU whether he likes it or not and the other Member States are stuck with Orban whether
they like it or not. In addition, two of Ms Johnstone's factual claims need to be corrected.
The "EU" is taking no step whatsoever to strip Hungary of its political rights. The
(according to Ms Johnstone, "largely rubber stamp") European Parliament has adopted a
resolution calling on the Member States to sanction Hungary. The EP always does something
attention-grabbing in the run up to elections and since Ms Johnstone once worked for the
European Parliament (as a far-leftist!), I'm sure she knows that. Imposing sanctions, as
always in the EU, is a matter for the sovereign Member States and the decision has to be
unanimous. Poland has already said it will not vote for sanctions, so the whole thing is a
dead letter. Secondly, the claim that Hungary "never had a colonial empire" is untrue. It
never had a colonial empire outside Europe but before 1918, it ruled over Slovakia, most of
Croatia, Transylvania, now part of Romania, and the Vojvodina, now part of Serbia (so much
for Ms Johnstone's supposed "expertise" on ex-Yugoslavia!). In general, the frantic, almost
hysterical, tone of the article suggests that Ms Johnstone doesn't believe that Viktor Orban
is going to be the cause of the imminent and inevitable demise of the hated EU that she has
been predicting for as long as I have been reading her articles (and that goes back at least
14 years!).
@Michael Kenny The usual anti-EU propaganda that Ms Johnstone has been peddling for at
least a dozen years, although she has recently moved from claiming to be a far-leftist to
claiming to be a far-rightest. Whatever pretext "proves" the EU to be evil is trotted out!
However, she points out very clearly Viktor Orban's dilemma. The choice for Hungary is
between the EU and Putin's tanks. After 40 years of occupation by a Soviet Union in which the
ethnic Russians acted as colonial overlords and the general contempt which Hungarians have
for Slavs, choosing the latter option would be political suicide for any Hungarian leader.
Thus, Orban is stuck with the EU whether he likes it or not and the other Member States are
stuck with Orban whether they like it or not. In addition, two of Ms Johnstone's factual
claims need to be corrected. The "EU" is taking no step whatsoever to strip Hungary of its
political rights. The (according to Ms Johnstone, "largely rubber stamp") European Parliament
has adopted a resolution calling on the Member States to sanction Hungary. The EP always does
something attention-grabbing in the run up to elections and since Ms Johnstone once worked
for the European Parliament (as a far-leftist!), I'm sure she knows that. Imposing sanctions,
as always in the EU, is a matter for the sovereign Member States and the decision has to be
unanimous. Poland has already said it will not vote for sanctions, so the whole thing is a
dead letter. Secondly, the claim that Hungary "never had a colonial empire" is untrue. It
never had a colonial empire outside Europe but before 1918, it ruled over Slovakia, most of
Croatia, Transylvania, now part of Romania, and the Vojvodina, now part of Serbia (so much
for Ms Johnstone's supposed "expertise" on ex-Yugoslavia!). In general, the frantic, almost
hysterical, tone of the article suggests that Ms Johnstone doesn't believe that Viktor Orban
is going to be the cause of the imminent and inevitable demise of the hated EU that she has
been predicting for as long as I have been reading her articles (and that goes back at least
14 years!). Judging by your name, you are not a European, but an Englishman, or from
somewhere else in the Anglosphere. It is a good thing for England and especially the English
to be leaving the EuSSR, which is more of a prison than commonly realized. Ruled by a greedy
class of corrupt and, to make it worse, utterly mediocre, politicians, incompetent and stupid
bureaucrats (yes, I know this is an oxymoron) in the exclusive interest of ruthless big
corporations, human rights do not exist in the EuSSR.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe has seen a wave of privatizations on a scale
only comparable to what happened in the former USSR. Nevertheless, taxation has increased to
a point where today, the average EuSSR "citizen" pays between 75% and 80% taxes on every Euro
he earns. The middle class is on its way to extinction. The judiciary is a joke, education
has been dismantled or stupidified, health care is a disaster, save in Southern Europe where
many doctors and nurses still have a sense of humanity.
The piece by Mrs. Johnstone may not be flawless, but it says what needs to be said.
70 years ago the Democrat party in the American South was the party of regular working
class White Southerners and promoted Southern heritage and Southern history including
Confederate history.
Then things change.
Now the national Democrat party and the Democrat party in the South hates Whites
Southerners, hates Southern heritage and Southern history and are promoting the desecration
of Confederate monuments and confederate graves.
60 years ago Hungarian was under Soviet Communist domination and Hungarian patriots looked
to the West – especially American and Great Britain to help them achieve some personal
freedom from Communism.
Now things have completely changed. It's the Wester (EU) UK BBC, American mass media that
restricts freedom and National Christianity in Hungary and pretty much everywhere else.
Russia is once again a health European Christian nation. Nobody in Hungary, Eastern Europe or
Russia wants to allow their countries to be invaded by millions of 3rd world Muslim
rapists.
So I living in Chicago IL (Obama was my neighbor) look to Hungary, Poland, Russia and
Eastern Europe for any small dose of freedom.
Not Pepe's best sauce, but always worth a read. He's best when he's reporting from the
field. His armchair geopolitics aren't that much better than anyone else's.
That said, Eurasian integration, Western Hemispheric energy independence, the populist
revolt against forced globalization/sovereignty elimination/kleptocracy and the outbreak of
global peace are all changing the chessboard profoundly. Most of the premises of traditional
imperialist power politics are simply blown away. Instead, a new 'Chinese Peace with Russian
Muscle' is the de facto hegemony in the vast bulk of the world, including parts of South
American and most of Africa. With the Brits and French too slow and stupid to react, the
Germans as weaselly and venal as ever, and the Japanese comatose, the hulk known as the G7 is
heeling over into full capsize mode. And, good riddance.
Now the G20 has to either stand up or collapse. Much depends on which outcome
develops.
However it works out, we can all stand and cheer that it is not a US dependent historical
course any more. We've ceded our moral and military leadership. Perhaps we can reform, even
if by bloody revolution, and re-emerge with something to give the rest of the world. Free
markets, liberty, democracy, freedom of thought......the future is now really a question of
whether any of these ideas will have a chance in a remade global order dominated, so far, by
dictatorship, corruption, and moral crime.
So, we tend to our own house now. Anyone got a pack of matches?
** We've ceded our moral and military leadership **
Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Benghazi, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, NATO expansion, the
Clintoons, the Bush dynasty of mediocrity, our open border, offshoring, Muslim ass kissing,
free-ranging Antifa filth, media monopoly and lies, foreigners taking university slots,
sexual confusion, ass kissing homosexuals, groveling before bat shit crazy feminists,
destruction of our basic legal document through judicial usurpation, diseased leftists
spouting lies and delusion, excusing black dysfunction, fiscal incontinence, unaddressd
monopolies, attacks on free speech, criminal immunity for elites, a president who won't
exercise his authority and tolerates insubordination, an unaccountable bureaucracy, a loose
cannon prosecutor, Jewish political domination, slobbering over Israel as though Jerusalem is
our capitol not Washington, denigration of the white majority culture, celebration of
miscegenation, degradation of marriage, our diseased educational establishment, rampant vote
fraud, illegal and unconstitutional wars, chest beating about "exceptionalism," and a
generally crap culture all say you're right.
There will be no sudden and dramatic collapse. There will only be a slow, painful,
never-ending, degrading decay into nothingness, a death from one million pundits, a process
readily apparent (literally) all around us. Tune in to CNN, see for yourself.
I see your point, but I am not convinced bankers work independently. Bankers do not have a
monopoly on psychotics. The psychotics in gov have as much greed and craving for power as the
bankers and I believe they work around, with, and against each other for various reasons just
like everything else in the world works. Thus a one dimensional theory will not be complete -
and maybe that is what you are arguing: to include bankers in geopolitics. I agree the
bankers are a big part of the rotten problem but like when I am overseas - I watch the guys
with the guns.
Most of the planet has put up with a lot of shit from America It's good that it's finally
coming to an end.
"We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population... Our real task
in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain
this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we
will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to
be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive
ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction... We should
cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the
living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to
deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the
better."
George Kennan, State Department memo, 1948
America never gave up on the idealistic slogans -- the figleaf for the Empire of Chaos.
Finally shutting the fuck up after the game is over will be welcome.
"... No wonder one of the side effects of progressive Eurasia integration will be not only a death blow to Bretton Woods but also to "democratic" neoliberalism. ..."
Alastair Crooke took a great
shot at deconstructing why Western global elites are terrified of the Russian
conceptualization of Eurasia.
It's because "they 'scent' a stealth reversion to the old, pre-Socratic values: for the
Ancients the very notion of 'man', in that way, did not exist. There were only men: Greeks,
Romans, barbarians, Syrians, and so on. This stands in obvious opposition to universal,
cosmopolitan 'man'."
So it's Heraclitus versus Voltaire – even as "humanism" as we inherited it from the
Enlightenment, is de facto over.
Whatever is left roaming our wilderness of mirrors depends on
the irascible mood swings of the Goddess of the Market.
No wonder one of the side effects of
progressive Eurasia integration will be not only a death blow to Bretton Woods but also to
"democratic" neoliberalism.
What we have now is also a remastered version of sea power versus land powers. Relentless
Russophobia is paired with supreme fear of a Russia-Germany rapprochement – as Bismarck
wanted, and as Putin
and Merkel recently hinted at. The supreme nightmare for the U.S. is in fact a truly
Eurasian Beijing-Berlin-Moscow partnership.
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has not even begun; according to the official Beijing
timetable, we're still in the planning phase. Implementation starts next year. The horizon is
2039.
"... " One of the worst things that can happen to our country, is when Russia ever gets driven to China. We have driven them together – with the big oil deals that are being made. We have driven them together. That's a horrible thing for this country. We have made them friends because of incompetent leadership. I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin – okay? And, I mean [that] where we [the US] have the strength. I don't think we need the sanctions. I think that we would get along very, very well." ..."
"... Art of the Deal ..."
"... Identify a big goal (tax cuts, balanced trade, the wall, etc.). ..."
"... Identify your leverage points versus anyone who stands in your way (elections, tariffs, jobs, etc.). ..."
"... Announce some extreme threat against your opponent that uses your leverage. ..."
"... If the opponent backs down, mitigate the threat, declare victory and go home with a win. ..."
"... If the opponent fires back, double down. If Trump declares tariffs on $50 billion of good from China,and China shoots back with tariffs on $50 billion of goods from the U.S., Trump doubles down with tariffs on $100 billion of goods, etc. Trump will keep escalating until he wins." ..."
"... Eventually, the escalation process can lead to negotiations with at least the perception of a victory for Trump (North Korea) -- even if the victory is more visual than real. ..."
"... "The position of Europe is clear. It isn't a coincidence that Trump, while enumerating the enemies of the US (the EU, China, and Russia), made it clear that he considers Russia to be a smaller problem [than the EU], because there are practically no economic contradictions ("Nord Stream-2" doesn't count) with it. It's not China, with which the US has the biggest negative trade balance, but the EU, which Trump fairly defined as the main trade competitor, receiving unjustified economic benefits from political agreements with the US, and which is the main 'foe' of the US. ..."
"... "[Thus Trump] resolves his military-political contradictions with Russia, [and consequently] reduces the value of the EU as an ally for Washington, to zero Europe was accustomed to (and hoped to continue to use) its role of a springboard for the fight against Russia as [the primordial] argument that was supposed to keep Trump away from making the last step (complete separation with the EU). ..."
"... In recent days, Merkel, after the NATO summit, started talking literally [that Trump's hostility towards Europe is unjustified], because Europe battles with Russia for the interests of the US. ..."
"... "For the EU it was crucial that this argument continued to work. Otherwise, Washington indeed, would have more common ground with Moscow than with Brussels. And Europe isn't ready for a sharp confrontation with the US. Having rested on its laurels [i.e. on its conviction that it occupied, as it were, some 'moral high ground of values']. Europe wasn't engaged (in difference, for example, from China), in the diversification of economic ties and appeared to be strongly dependent on access to the American market. ..."
"... "Without having risked to be ahead of Trump in the question of normalising relations with Russia, EU leaders were fatally afraid that Trump and Putin, despite all difficulties, will do the impossible and reach an agreement, especially as both proved to be people who are ready to instantly make decisions that change the destiny of the world. ..."
"... "The position taken by the EU raised the value of the summit for Russia too. Moscow can wait until Washington is ready for reconciliation. But, taking into account the obvious intention of Europe to manoeuvre between Russia and the US, trying to preserve the geopolitical configuration that is profitable for itself, but doesn't suit either Trump nor Putin, Russia was also interested in showing to the whole world the success of the summit and good prospects for achieving definitive and comprehensive agreements." ..."
"... The latent hatred for Russia is unmistakeably revealed. This animosity will not be a surprise to Putin – though the extremity of the elite language used towards Trump will make Russians aware of their ..."
"... What does such language portend? The roots of American Russo-phobia go deep. It starts with American Trotskyist activists' on ground participation in the initial Trotskyist Bolshevik revolution – largely financed, and orchestrated by Wall Street. ..."
"... Of course, what rankles most in America, and amongst European liberal elites, is the apparent according of moral equivalence of Putin to America, and to America's intelligence capabilities. America believes it WON – it won the Cold War culturally, and in terms of its systems of government and economics. ..."
"... The western Establishment anger stems ultimately from Russia's refusal to acquiesce to their merited 'defeatism' (in this view): Putin rejected to merge Russia into the American-led global order, preferring Russia to remain somehow 'Russian', in its own Russian cultural way. ..."
"... And for Trump? The 'smart money' says that he will be indicted, or impeached, after the midterms. I doubt it. For all John Brennan's talk of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (the precise legal language of impeachment), there is no crime. If any, crimes per se ..."
Maybe we are misreading things. Not a small number of commentaries have suggested
that President Trump intended for Helsinki to re-set the Kissinger-esque triangulation
between the US, Russia and China. And there are good grounds for making such
a hypothesis. At a 2015 press conference, Trump, himself, took the Kissinger
line -- that the US should always try to keep Russia and China divided, and
never allied together against America):
" One of the worst things that can happen to our country, is when
Russia ever gets driven to China. We have driven them together – with the
big oil deals that are being made. We have driven them together. That's
a horrible thing for this country. We have made them friends because of
incompetent leadership. I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin
– okay? And, I mean [that] where we [the US] have the strength. I don't
think we need the sanctions. I think that we would get along very, very
well."
This makes a lot of sense, but maybe in Helsinki Trump was doing something
a little less strategic and more down-to-earth – something more in line with
his Art of the Deal philosophy.
We have, over the decades, developed a fairly precise mental model of how
"Presidents are supposed to behave; and how the policymaking process is supposed
to be carried out. Obviously, Trump does not fit their model", Jim Rickards
writes . "[GW] Bush and Obama were totally process-driven. You could see
events coming a mile away as they wound their way through the West Wing and
Capitol Hill deliberative processes." With Trump, Rickards continues, "there
is a process, but it does not adhere to a timeline or existing template. Trump
seems to be the only process participant most of the time. No one else in Washington
thinks this way. Washington insiders try to avoid confrontation, avoid escalation,
compromise from the beginning, and finesse their way through any policy process."
"Here's the Trump process:
Identify a big goal (tax cuts, balanced trade, the wall, etc.).
Identify your leverage points versus anyone who stands in your way
(elections, tariffs, jobs, etc.).
Announce some extreme threat against your opponent that uses your
leverage.
If the opponent backs down, mitigate the threat, declare victory
and go home with a win.
If the opponent fires back, double down. If Trump declares tariffs
on $50 billion of good from China,and China shoots back with tariffs on
$50 billion of goods from the U.S., Trump doubles down with tariffs on $100
billion of goods, etc. Trump will keep escalating until he wins."
Eventually, the escalation process can lead to negotiations with at least
the perception of a victory for Trump (North Korea) -- even if the victory is
more visual than real.
So, if we reframe the Helsinki meeting through this Art of the Deal lens,
what do we get? Seeing that thedivergencies of vision between Russia and the
US are so substantial, and the common ground is so small, there is very little
prospect for a 'strategic global deal'. In fact, President Trump has little
that he can offer Russia: sanctions relief is not in his gift (it is in the
maw of Congress), and he could not – at this stage – relinquish Ukraine, even
if Trump understands that the US and Europe bought a 'pig in a poke' with its
Maidan coup in Kiev.
"So", as Russian commentator, Rostislav Ishchenko, writes (in Russian, translation
here ): "We have a situation where both parties even prior to negotiations,
knew that they wouldn't be able to come to some arrangement, and they didn't
even prepare for such a thing (it wasn't planned to sign anything following
the results of negotiations). At the same time, both parties needed the event
to be successful". Ishchenko continues: "Trump obviously blackmails the European
Union with a possible agreement with Russia. But Putin also needs to show Europe
that there are other fish in the sea besides them."
"The position of Europe is clear. It isn't a coincidence that Trump,
while enumerating the enemies of the US (the EU, China, and Russia), made
it clear that he considers Russia to be a smaller problem [than the EU],
because there are practically no economic contradictions ("Nord Stream-2"
doesn't count) with it. It's not China, with which the US has the biggest
negative trade balance, but the EU, which Trump fairly defined as the main
trade competitor, receiving unjustified economic benefits from political
agreements with the US, and which is the main 'foe' of the US.
"[Thus Trump] resolves his military-political contradictions with
Russia, [and consequently] reduces the value of the EU as an ally for Washington,
to zero Europe was accustomed to (and hoped to continue to use) its role
of a springboard for the fight against Russia as [the primordial] argument
that was supposed to keep Trump away from making the last step (complete
separation with the EU).
In recent days, Merkel, after the NATO summit, started talking literally
[that Trump's hostility towards Europe is unjustified], because Europe battles
with Russia for the interests of the US.
"For the EU it was crucial that this argument continued to work.
Otherwise, Washington indeed, would have more common ground with Moscow
than with Brussels. And Europe isn't ready for a sharp confrontation with
the US. Having rested on its laurels [i.e. on its conviction that it occupied,
as it were, some 'moral high ground of values']. Europe wasn't engaged (in
difference, for example, from China), in the diversification of economic
ties and appeared to be strongly dependent on access to the American market.
"Without having risked to be ahead of Trump in the question of normalising
relations with Russia, EU leaders were fatally afraid that Trump and Putin,
despite all difficulties, will do the impossible and reach an agreement,
especially as both proved to be people who are ready to instantly make decisions
that change the destiny of the world.
"The position taken by the EU raised the value of the summit for
Russia too. Moscow can wait until Washington is ready for reconciliation.
But, taking into account the obvious intention of Europe to manoeuvre between
Russia and the US, trying to preserve the geopolitical configuration that
is profitable for itself, but doesn't suit either Trump nor Putin, Russia
was also interested in showing to the whole world the success of the summit
and good prospects for achieving definitive and comprehensive agreements."
In short, Trump was using Helsinki to leverage "an extreme threat against
your opponent" (Europe), by voiding the European 'card' of its 'usefulness'
to America through its constant battling against Russia. Indeed the recent
NATO final comunique, reads almost precisely as an legal indictment of Russia
and its behavior.
Both Trump and Putin took a big political risk by staging this 'end
to Cold War – coup de théâtre'. Trump has unleashed extraordinary hysteria in
parts of the US, provoking numerous Washington Post op-eds to language such
as characterising Trump's words (at the press conference) as 'apostasy' and
'a cancer amongst us'. (Apostasy is the language used by violent jihadists against
non-believers.)
The latent hatred for Russia is unmistakeably revealed. This animosity will
not be a surprise to Putin – though the extremity of the elite language used
towards Trump will make Russians aware of their risks – what
might ensue were Trump somehow be removed from office?
What does such language portend? The roots of American Russo-phobia go deep.
It starts with American Trotskyist activists' on ground participation in the
initial Trotskyist Bolshevik revolution –
largely financed, and orchestrated by Wall Street.
Not only did New York
bankers provide money, they also facilitated safe passage to Russia for revolutionaries
such as Trotsky and others. Stalin's ultimate killing of the Trotskyist killers
in the 1930s (and many others) is at the root of the Russian 'thuggery' language
still circulating in US (even if some have forgotten its origins). Stalin's
cleansing has never been forgiven by certain circles in the US.
Of course, what rankles most in America, and amongst European liberal elites,
is the apparent according of moral equivalence of Putin to America, and to America's
intelligence capabilities. America believes it WON – it won the Cold War culturally,
and in terms of its systems of government and economics. This 'End to History'
hubris voided – in this ecstatic state – the need to treat Russia as other than
a psychologically 'defeated people', (which they were not).
The western Establishment anger stems ultimately from Russia's refusal
to acquiesce to their merited 'defeatism' (in this view): Putin rejected to
merge Russia into the American-led global order, preferring Russia to remain
somehow 'Russian', in its own Russian cultural way.
What are the implications for Europe? For Europe this is a catastrophe. It
means that US dialogue with Putin will continue. Where to run for the EU – to
Washington or to Moscow? To remain loyal to an old suzerain or to try to adhere
to a new one, before others get there first?
Moreover, unlike Russia, Europe can't wait. By meeting Putin, Trump brought
the US out of zugzwang, having handed over to the European Union the right to
make this same move, which only risks complicating Euro politics – beyond its
existing challenges.
And for Trump? The 'smart money' says that he will be indicted, or impeached,
after the midterms. I doubt it. For all John Brennan's talk of "High Crimes
and Misdemeanors" (the precise legal language of impeachment), there is no crime.
If any, crimes per se may emerge out from a very different quarter.
And Trump likely will survive the current hysterics.
"... I was not sure whether Trump was controlled opposition or simply a useful scapegoat for the economic crisis that globalists are clearly engineering. Now it appears that he is both. ..."
"... Many businessmen end up dealing with elitist controlled banks at some point in their careers. But when Trump entered office and proceeded to load his cabinet with ghouls from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Council on Foreign Relations and give Wilber Ross the position of Commerce Secretary, it became obvious that Trump is in fact a puppet for the banks. ..."
"... If one examines the history of fake coups, there is ALWAYS an element of orchestrated division, sometimes between the globalists and their own puppets. This is called 4th Generation warfare, in which almost all divisions are an illusion and the real target is the public psyche. ..."
"... the overall picture is not as simple as "Left vs. Right." Instead, we need to look at the situation more like a chess board, and above that chess board looms the globalists, attempting to control all the necessary pieces on BOTH sides. Every provocation by leftists is designed to elicit a predictable response from conservatives to the point that we become whatever the globalists want us to become. ..."
"... Therefore it is not leftists that present the greatest threat to individual liberty, but the globalist influenced Trump administration. A failed coup on the part of the left could be used as a rationale for incremental and unconstitutional "safeguards." And conservatives may be fooled into supporting these measures as the threat is overblown. ..."
At that time I was certain that the globalists would find great use for a Trump presidency,
more so in fact than a Clinton presidency. However, I was not sure whether Trump was controlled
opposition or simply a useful scapegoat for the economic crisis that globalists are clearly
engineering. Now it appears that he is both.
Trump's history was already suspicious. He was bailed out of his considerable debts
surrounding his Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City in the early 1990s by
Rothschild banking agent Wilber Ross , which saved him from embarrassment and
possibly saved his entire fortune . This alone was not necessarily enough to deny Trump the
benefit of the doubt in my view.
Many businessmen end up dealing with elitist controlled banks at some point in their
careers. But when Trump entered office and proceeded to load his cabinet with ghouls from
Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Council on Foreign Relations and give Wilber Ross the position of
Commerce Secretary, it became obvious that Trump is in fact a puppet for the banks.
Some liberty movement activists ignore this reality and attempt to argue around the facts of
Trump's associations. "What about all the media opposition to Trump? Doesn't this indicate he's
not controlled?" they say. I say, not really.
If one examines the history of fake coups, there is ALWAYS an element of orchestrated
division, sometimes between the globalists and their own puppets. This is called 4th Generation
warfare, in which almost all divisions are an illusion and the real target is the public
psyche.
This is not to say that leftist opposition to Trump and conservatives is not real. It
absolutely is. The left has gone off the ideological deep end into an abyss of rabid frothing
insanity, but the overall picture is not as simple as "Left vs. Right." Instead, we need to
look at the situation more like a chess board, and above that chess board looms the globalists,
attempting to control all the necessary pieces on BOTH sides. Every provocation by leftists is
designed to elicit a predictable response from conservatives to the point that we become
whatever the globalists want us to become.
... ... ...
As this is taking place, conservatives are growing more sensitive to the notion of a leftist
coup, from silencing of conservative voices to an impeachment of Trump based on fraudulent
ideas of "Russian collusion."
To be clear, the extreme left has no regard for individual liberties or constitutional law.
They use the Constitution when it suits them, then try to tear it down when it doesn't suit
them. However, the far-left is also a paper tiger; it is not a true threat to conservative
values because its membership marginal, it is weak, immature and irrational. Their only power
resides in their influence within the mainstream media, but with the MSM fading in the face of
the alternative media, their social influence is limited. It is perhaps enough to organize a
"coup," but it would inevitably be a failed coup.
Therefore it is not leftists that present the greatest threat to individual liberty, but the
globalist influenced Trump administration. A failed coup on the part of the left could be used
as a rationale for incremental and unconstitutional "safeguards." And conservatives may be
fooled into supporting these measures as the threat is overblown.
I have always said that the only people that can destroy conservative principles are
conservatives. Conservatives diminish their own principles every time they abandon their
conscience and become exactly like the monsters they hope to defeat. And make no mistake, the
globalists are well aware of this strategy.
Carroll Quigley, a pro-globalist professor and the author of Tragedy and Hope, a book
published decades ago which outlined the plan for a one world economic and political system, is
quoted in his address ' Dissent: Do We Need It
':
"They say, "The Congress is corrupt." I ask them, "What do you know about the Congress? Do
you know your own Congressman's name?" Usually they don't. It's almost a reflex with them,
like seeing a fascist pig in a policeman. To them, all Congressmen are crooks. I tell them
they must spend a lot of time learning the American political system and how it functions,
and then work within the system. But most of them just won't buy that. They insist the system
is totally corrupt. I insist that the system, the establishment, whatever you call it, is so
balanced by diverse forces that very slight pressures can produce perceptible results.
For example, I've talked about the lower middle class as the backbone of fascism in the
future. I think this may happen. The party members of the Nazi Party in Germany were
consistently lower middle class. I think that the right-wing movements in this country are
pretty generally in this group."
Is a "failed coup" being staged in order to influence conservatives to become the very
"fascists" the left accuses us of being? The continuing narrative certainly suggests that this
is the game plan.
* * *
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read,
visit our donations page here . We
greatly appreciate your patronage.
"... For dessert today, I offer Russia's Grand Strategy Revisited published on the 24th. The Outlaw US Empire is in the midst of a Seldon Crisis but lacks the means to even recognize the spectacular mess its made for itself, much of which is quite visibly articulated in its NDS I linked to above. ..."
"... By every metric I've observed, the USA's citizenry from all political POVs wants a return to Reality for that's the only basis from which to address and solve the many domestic problems. ..."
Too Funny!
Trump whines, threatens pullout from WTO again! After decades of bullying
nations and impoverishing their people, other nations are using the Outlaw
US Empire's WTO as a weapon against it, so Trump cries Unfair! As I wrote
above, Big Money's trapped within its own web.
The "Softies" are yet another entity in the Smoke & Mirrors Fun House
designed to fool and gain citizenry's consent to be robbed blind.
Russians already went through that and are very wary as illustrated by
the very sensitive nature of the recent
Pension System Reform Debate and legislation that Putin had to solve
using his political capital.
As with all politicians, you won't know what you elected until you learn
how your rep votes issues, although some can be anticipated by examining
their past behavior as with our pseudo Democrat-Socialist.
For dessert today, I offer Russia's
Grand Strategy Revisited published on the 24th. The Outlaw US
Empire is in the midst of a Seldon Crisis but lacks the means to even recognize
the spectacular mess its made for itself, much of which is quite visibly
articulated in its NDS I linked to above.
By every metric I've observed, the USA's citizenry from all political
POVs wants a return to Reality for that's the only basis from which to address
and solve the many domestic problems.
Big Money refuses as its addicted to Smoke & Mirrors since that's what
was used to gain its power and will now double-down.
The powerful always want more power.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
June 26, 2016
"Brexit: Are The Serfs Finally Rebelling"?
The establishment are shocked that the ordinary people want out of the European Union
(EU). They just don't realize that people are fed up being used, abused, dictated to, lied
to, manipulated, and forced into an EU dictatorship by treacherous politicians.
These are some of the same politicians who scurry to the meetings of the so-called elites
in Davos, and also attend Bilderberg meetings. And many of them, when they leave politics,
finish up on the boards of banks and multi-national corporations with the rest of the
money-manipulating bandits that got bailed out with taxpayers' dollars, some of whom, I
believe, should be in jail .
"... But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States' geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike. ..."
"... But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it. ..."
"... In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it ..."
"But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked
in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded
by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it
launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States'
geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike.
The character of world economy has undergone a major transformation in the past decade in
which economic growth, to the extent it that it occurs, is not driven by the development of
production and new investments but by the flow of money from one source of speculative and
parasitic activity to the next."
"But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the
capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the
ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means
considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it.
This is the lesson from the past decade which, in every country, has seen a deepening
attack on wages, social conditions and living standards as wealth is redistributed up the
income scale, raising social inequality to unprecedented heights.
In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous
benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the
parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of
parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it."
"... So why should you care? Why does that matter to you or me? Well, like most emerging market financial crisis there is the danger of contagion . ..."
"... Turkey's economy is four times the size of Greece, and roughly equal in size to Lehman Brothers circa 2008. ..."
"... Turkey's other borders face six nations: Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, and Nakhchivan, a territory affiliated with Azerbaijan. Five of those are involved in ongoing armed conflicts or outright war. ..."
"... NATO has long outlived its' usefulness. Cancel its' stipend and bring our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and women home! Put them to work here. Fighting fires. ..."
"... NATO only seems to be useful to the hegemony that supports it. Peace is not it's mission. ..."
By now you've probably heard that Turkey is having a financial crisis, and Trump appears to be pouring gasoline on it.
But you may not understand what is happening, or you may not know why it's important.
So let's do a quick recap
.
Turkey's currency fell to a new record low today. Year to date it's lost almost half its value, leading some investors and
lenders inside and outside of Turkey to lose confidence in the Turkish economy.
...
"Ninety percent of external public and private sector debt is denominated in foreign currencies," he said.
Here's the problem. Because of the country's falling currency, that debt just got a lot more expensive.
A Turkish business now effectively owes twice as much as it did at the beginning of the year. "You are indebted in the U.S.
dollar or euro, but your revenue is in your local currency," explained Lale Akoner, a market strategist with Bank of New York
Mellon's Asset Management business. She said Turkey's private sector currently owes around $240 billion in foreign debt.
This is all about hot money that has been washing around in a world of artificially low interest rates, and now, finally, an
external shock happened. As it
always happens .
The bid-ask spread, or the difference between the price dealers are willing to buy and sell the lira at, has widened beyond
the gap seen at the depth of the global financial crisis in 2008, following Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s collapse.
So why should you care? Why does that matter to you or me? Well, like most emerging market financial crisis there is the
danger of contagion
.
The turmoil follows a similar currency crash in Argentina that led to a rescue by the International Monetary Fund. In recent
days, the Russian ruble, Indian rupee and South African rand have also tumbled dramatically.
Investors are waiting for the next domino to fall. They're on the lookout for signs of a repeat of the 1997-1998 Asian financial
crisis that began when the Thai baht imploded.
A minor currency devaluation of the Thai baht in 1997 eventually led to 20% of the world's population being thrust into poverty.
It led to Russia defaulting in 1998, LTCM requiring a Federal Reserve bailout, and eventually Argentina defaulting in 2001.
Turkey's economy is four times the size of Greece, and roughly equal in size to Lehman Brothers circa 2008.
The markets want Turkey to run to the IMF for a loan, but that would require a huge interest rate hike and austerity measures
that would thrust Turkey into a long depression. However, that isn't the
biggest obstacle .
The second is that Erdogan would have to bury his hatchet with the United States, which remains the IMF's largest shareholder.
Without U.S. support, Turkey has no chance of securing an IMF bailout program.
There is another danger, a political one and not so much an economic one, that could have dramatic implications.
If Erdogan isn't overthrown, or humbled, then there is an ironclad certainty that Turkey will
leave NATO and
the West.
Turkey, unlike Argentina, does not seem poised to turn to the International Monetary Fund in order to stave off financial collapse,
nor to mend relations with Washington.
If anything, the Turkish President looks to be doubling down in challenging the US and the global financial markets -- two
formidable opponents.
...
Turkey would probably no longer view the US as a reliable partner and strategic ally.
Whoever ends up leading the country, a wounded Turkey would most likely seek to shift the center of gravity away from the West
and toward Russia, Iran and Eurasia.
It would make Turkey less in tune with US and European objectives in the Middle East, meaning Turkey would seek to assert a
more independent security and defense policy.
Erdogan has warned Trump that Turkey would
"seek new friends" , although Russia and China haven't yet stepped up to the plate to bat for him.
Russia, Iran and China do have a common interest when in comes to undermining the
petrodollar . Pulling Turkey into their sphere of influence would be a coup.
Turkey lies at a historic, strategic crossroad. The
bridge between the peaceful West and the war-ridden dictatorships of the East that the West likes to bomb.
On its Western flank, Turkey borders Greece and Bulgaria, Western-facing members of the European Union. A few years ago, Turkey
-- a member of NATO -- was preparing the join Europe as a full member.
Turkey's other borders face six nations: Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Armenia, and Nakhchivan, a territory affiliated with
Azerbaijan. Five of those are involved in ongoing armed conflicts or outright war.
Losing Turkey would be a huge setback for NATO, the MIC, and the permanent war machine.
more struggling economies are starting to get it. Trade wealth for the rulers (IMF supporters) to be paid by the rest of us.
Fight back. Squeeze the bankers balls. Can't have our resources, now way, no how, without a fight.
in a flailing Turkey? Weren't there some outside potential takers encouraging China when it floated its currency proposal?
Nastarana on Tue, 08/14/2018 - 8:41pm
NATO has long outlived its' usefulness. Cancel its' stipend and bring our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen and women home! Put them to work here. Fighting fires.
Patrolling our shores for drug running and toxic dumping. Teaching school, 10 kids per class maximum. Refurbishing buildings and
housing stock. Post Cold War, an military alliance with Turkey makes no sense.
Meanwhile going back to the ongoing escalation in political tensions between the US and
Turkey, one day after Erdogan vowed to boycott US electronics products, including the iPhone,
Ankara slapped an additional tax on imports of a broad range of American goods. Turkey
announced it would impose an additional 50% tax on U.S. rice, 140% on spirits and 120% on cars.
There are also additional charges on U.S. cosmetics, tobacco and some food products. The was Erdogan's latest retaliation for the Trump administration's punitive actions over the past few
weeks to pressure Turkey into releasing an American pastor.
Bloomberg
calculated that the items listed in the decree accounted for $1 billion of imports last
year, similar to the amount of Turkish steel and aluminum exports that were subjected to higher
tariffs by President Donald Trump last week.
The decision shows Turkey giving a proportionate
response to American "attacks" on the Turkish economy, Vice President Fuat Oktay said in tweets
this morning.
No matter how globalism is repackaged, it always smells the same way in the end.
For decades, the globalists have subtly (or sometimes not so subtly) been moving us toward a
world in which national borders have essentially been made meaningless . The ultimate goal, of
course, is to merge all the nations of the world into a "one world socialist utopia" with a
global government, a global economic system and even a global religion.
The European Union is a model for what the elite hope to achieve eventually on a global
scale . The individual nations still exist, but once inside the European Union you can travel
wherever you want, economic rules have been standardized across the Union, and European
institutions now have far more power than the national governments.
Liberty and freedom have been greatly restricted for the "common good", and a giant horde of
nameless, faceless bureaucrats constantly micromanages the details of daily life down to the
finest details.
With each passing day the EU becomes more Orwellian in nature, and that is why so many in
Europe are completely fed up with it.
"... Trump in fact was not the consensus candidate of the American capitalist class back to the 2016 election. So with respect to these economic policies, especially about his trade protectionist measures, these new tariffs imposed on the Chinese goods, let's put it this way: These are not, certainly not the traditional kind of neoliberal economic policy as we know it. So some sections of the American manufacturing sector [capitalists] may be happy about this. But I would say the majority of the American capitalists probably would not approve this kind of trade war against China. ..."
"... So on the Chinese part, ironically, China very much depends on these overall what Martin Wolf called liberal global order, which might better be called the model of global neoliberal capitalism. So China actually much more depends on that. ..."
"... despite whatever happened to the U.S., China would still be committed to the model of openness, committed to privatization and the financial liberalization. The Chinese government has declared new measures to open up a few economic sectors to foreign investment. ..."
"... for China to rearrange towards this kind of domestic consumption-led model of economic development, the necessary condition is that you have income, wealth redistribution towards the workers, towards poor people. And that is something that the Chinese capitalists will resist. And so that is why and so far China has not succeeded in transforming itself away from this export-led model based on exploitation of cheap labor. ..."
"... first of all, China is not socialist at all today. So income of economic sector, the [space] sector accounts for a small number, a small fraction of the overall economy, by various measurements. ..."
"... And so it's expected China will also become the world's largest importer of natural gas by the year 2019. So you are going to have China to be simultaneously the largest importer of oil, natural gas, and coal. ..."
"... let's say the Chinese government right now, even though is led by the so-called Communist Party, is actually much more committed to the neoliberal global order that the Trump administration in the U.S. ..."
"... The Trump administration of this trade protectionist policy, although not justified, it reflects fundamental social conflicts within the U.S. itself, and that probably cannot be sorted out by the Americans' current political system. ..."
"... So the overall neoliberal regime has become much more unstable. ..."
PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay.
The Financial Times chief economic columnist Martin Wolf has called Trump's trade wars with
Europe and Canada, but obviously the big target is China, he's called this a war on the liberal
world order. Well, what does this mean for China? China's strategy, the distinct road to
socialism which seems to take a course through various forms of state hypercapitalism. What
does this mean for China? The Chinese strategy was developed in what they thought would be a
liberal world order. Now it may not be that at all.
Now joining us to discuss what the trade war means for China, and to have a broader
conversation on just what is the Chinese model of state capitalism is Minqi Li, who now joins
us from Utah. Minqi is the professor, is a professor of economics at the University of Utah.
He's the author of The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy, and the
editor of Red China website. Thanks for joining us again, Minqi.
MINQI LI: Thank you, Paul.
PAUL JAY: So I don't think anyone, including the Chinese, was expecting President Trump to
be president Trump. But once he was elected, it was pretty clear that Trump and Bannon and the
various cabal around Trump, the plan was twofold. One, regime change in Iran, which also has
consequences for China. And trade war with China. It was declared that they were going to take
on China and change in a fundamental way the economic relationship with China and the United
States. And aimed, to a large extent, trying to deal with the rise of China as an equal, or
becoming equal, economy, and perhaps someday in the not-too-distant future an equal global
power, certainly as seen through the eyes of not just Trumpians in Washington, but much of the
Washington political and economic elites.
So what does this mean for China's strategy now? Xi Jinping is now the leader of the party,
leader of the government, put at a level virtually equal to Mao Tse-tung. But his plan for
development of the Chinese economy did not, I don't think, factor in a serious trade war with
the United States.
MINQI LI: OK. As you said, Trump was not expected. Which meant that Trump in fact was not
the consensus candidate of the American capitalist class back to the 2016 election. So with
respect to these economic policies, especially about his trade protectionist measures, these
new tariffs imposed on the Chinese goods, let's put it this way: These are not, certainly not
the traditional kind of neoliberal economic policy as we know it. So some sections of the
American manufacturing sector [capitalists] may be happy about this. But I would say the
majority of the American capitalists probably would not approve this kind of trade war against
China.
Now, on the Chinese part, and we know that China has been on these parts, there was
capitalist development, and moreover it has been based on export-led economic growth model and
with exploitation of cheap labor. So on the Chinese part, ironically, China very much depends
on these overall what Martin Wolf called liberal global order, which might better be called the
model of global neoliberal capitalism. So China actually much more depends on that.
And so you have, indeed there are serious trade conflicts between China and U.S. that will,
of course, undermine China's economic model. And so far China has responded to these new
threats of trade war by promising that China, despite whatever happened to the U.S., China
would still be committed to the model of openness, committed to privatization and the financial
liberalization. The Chinese government has declared new measures to open up a few economic
sectors to foreign investment.
Now, with respect to the trade itself, at the moment the U.S. has imposed tariffs on, 25
percent tariffs on the worth of $34 billion of Chinese goods. And then Trump has threatened to
impose new tariffs on the additional $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. But this amount at
the moment is still a small part of China's economy, about 3 percent of the Chinese GDP. So the
impact at the moment is limited, but certainly has created a lot of uncertainty for the global
and the Chinese business community.
PAUL JAY: So given that this trade war could, one, get a lot bigger and a lot more serious,
and/or even if they kind of patch it up for now, there's a lot of forces within the United
States, both for economic and geopolitical reasons. Economic being the discussion about China
taking American intellectual property rights, becoming the new tech sector hub of the world,
even overpassing the American tech sector, which then has geopolitical implications; especially
when it comes to the military. If China becomes more advanced the United States in artificial
intelligence as applied to the military, that starts to, at least in American geopolitical
eyes, threaten American hegemony around the world.
There are a lot of reasons building up, and it's certainly not new, and it's not just Trump.
For various ways, the Americans want to restrain China. Does this start to make the Chinese
think that they need to speed up the process of becoming more dependent on their own domestic
market and less interested in exporting cheap labor? But for that to happen Chinese wages have
to go up a lot more significantly, which butts into the interests of the Chinese billionaire
class.
MINQI LI: I think you are right. And so for China to rearrange towards this kind of domestic
consumption-led model of economic development, the necessary condition is that you have income,
wealth redistribution towards the workers, towards poor people. And that is something that the
Chinese capitalists will resist. And so that is why and so far China has not succeeded in
transforming itself away from this export-led model based on exploitation of cheap labor.
PAUL JAY: You know, there's some sections of the left in various parts of the world that do
see the Chinese model as a more rational version of capitalism, and do see this because they've
maintained the control of the Chinese Communist Party over the politics, and over economic
planning, that do see this idea that this is somehow leading China towards a kind of socialism.
If nothing else, a more rational planned kind of capitalism. Is that, is there truth to
this?
MINQI LI: Well, first of all, China is not socialist at all today. So income of economic
sector, the [space] sector accounts for a small number, a small fraction of the overall
economy, by various measurements.
And then regarding the rationality of China's economic model, you might put it this way: The
Chinese capitalists might be more rational than the American capitalists in the sense that they
still use most of their profits for investment, instead of just financial speculation. So that
might be rational from the capitalist perspective. But on the other hand, regarding the
exploitation of workers- and the Chinese workers still have to work under sweatshop conditions-
and regarding the damage to the environment, the Chinese model is not rational at all.
PAUL JAY: My understanding of people that think this model works better, at least, than some
of the other capitalist models is that there's a need to go through this phase of Chinese
workers, yes, working in sweatshop conditions, and yes, wages relatively low. But overall, the
Chinese economy has grown by leaps and bounds, and China's position in the world is more and
more powerful. And this creates the situation, as more wealth accumulates, China is better
positioned to address some of the critical issues facing China and the world. And then, as bad
as pollution is, and such, China does appear to be out front in terms of developing green
technologies, solar, sustainable technology.
MINQI LI: OK. Now, Chinese economy has indeed been growing rapidly. It used to grow like
double-digit growth rate before 2010. But now China's growth rate has slowed down just under 7
percent in recent years, according to the official statistics. And moreover, a significant part
of China's growth these days derives rom the real estate sector development. And so there has
been this discussion about this growing housing market bubble. And it used to be that this
housing price inflation was limited to a few big cities. But for the first half of 2018,
according to the latest data, the national average housing price has grown by 11 percent
compared to the same period last year. And that translates into a pace of doubling every six
years.
And so that has generated lots of social resentment. And so not only the working class these
days are priced out of the housing market. Moreover, even the middle class is increasingly
priced out of the housing market. So that is the major concern. And in the long run, I think
that China's current model of accumulation will also face the challenge of growing social
conflicts. Worker protests. As well as resources constrained and environmental damage. And
regarding the issue of China's investment in renewable energy, it is true. China is the largest
investor in renewable energy development, in the solar panels. And although China is of all the
largest investor in about everything.
And so China is still the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, accounting for
almost 30 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions in the world every year. And then
China's own oil production in decline, but China's oil consumption is still rising. So as a
result, China has become the world's largest oil importer. That could make the Chinese economy
vulnerable to the next major oil price shock.
PAUL JAY: And how seriously is climate change science taken in China? If one takes the
science seriously, one sees the need for urgent transformation to green technology. An urgent
reduction of carbon emission. Not gradual, not incremental, but urgent. Did the Chinese- I
mean, it's not, it's so not taken seriously in the United States that a climate denier can get
elected president. But did the Chinese take this more seriously? Because you don't get the
same, any sense of urgency about their policy, either.
MINQI LI: Well, yeah. So like many other governments, the Chinese government also pays lip
service to the obligation of climate stabilization. But unfortunately, with respect to policy,
with respect to mainstream media, it's not taken very seriously within China. And so although
China's carbon dioxide emissions actually stabilized somewhat over the past few years, but is
starting to grow again in 2017, and I expect it will continue to grow in the coming year.
PAUL JAY: I mean, I can understand why, for example, Russia is not in any hurry to buy into
climate change science. Its whole economy depends on oil. Canada also mostly pays lip service
because the Alberta tar sands is so important to the Canadian economy. Shale oil is so
important to the American economy, as well as the American oil companies own oil under the
ground all over the world. But China is not an oil country. You know, they're not dependent on
oil income. You'd think it'd be in China's interest to be far more aggressive, not only in
terms of how good it looks to the world that China would be the real leader in mitigating,
reducing, eliminating the use of carbon-based fuels, but still they're not. I mean, not at the
rate scientists say needs to be done.
MINQI LI: Not at all. Although China does not depend on all on oil for income, but China
depends on coal a lot. And the coal is still something like 60 percent of China's overall
energy consumption. And so it's still very important for China's energy.
PAUL JAY: What- Minqi, where does the coal mostly come from? Don't they import a lot of that
coal?
MINQI LI: Mostly from China itself. Even though, you know, China is the world's largest coal
producer, on top of that China is either the largest or the second-largest coal importer in the
world market as well. And then on top of that, China is also consuming an increasing amount of
oil and natural gas, especially natural gas. And so although natural gas is not as polluting as
coal, it's still polluting. And so it's expected China will also become the world's largest
importer of natural gas by the year 2019. So you are going to have China to be simultaneously
the largest importer of oil, natural gas, and coal.
PAUL JAY: The Chinese party, just to get back to the trade war issue and to end up with, the
idea of this Chinese nation standing up, Chinese sovereignty, Chinese nationalism, it's a
powerful theme within this new Chinese discourse. I'm not saying Chinese nationalism is new,
but it's got a whole new burst of energy. How does China, if necessary to reach some kind of
compromise with the United States on the trade war, how does China do that without looking like
it's backing down to Trump?
MINQI LI: Well, yes, difficult task for the Chinese party to balance. What they have been
right now is that on the one hand they promise to the domestic audience they are not going to
make concessions towards the U.S., while in fact they are probably making concessions. And then
on the other hand the outside world, and they make announcement that they will not change from
the reform and openness policy, which in practice means that they will not change from the
neoliberal direction of China's development, and they will continue down the path towards
financial liberalization. And so that is what they are trying to balance right now.
PAUL JAY: I said finally, but this is finally. Do the Americans have a case? Does the Trump
argument have a legitimate case that the Chinese, on the one hand, want a liberal world order
in terms of trade, and open markets, and such? On the other hand are not following intellectual
property law, property rights and law, the way other advanced capitalist countries supposedly
do. Is there something to that case?
MINQI LI: Well, you know, let's say the Chinese government right now, even though is led
by the so-called Communist Party, is actually much more committed to the neoliberal global
order that the Trump administration in the U.S. - but I don't want to make justifications
for the neoliberal global order. But let's put it this way: The Trump administration of
this trade protectionist policy, although not justified, it reflects fundamental social
conflicts within the U.S. itself, and that probably cannot be sorted out by the Americans'
current political system.
PAUL JAY: So the crisis- you know, when you look at the American side and the Chinese side,
including the deep debt bomb people talk about in China, there really is no sorting out of this
crisis.
MINQI LI: So the overall neoliberal regime has become much more unstable.
PAUL JAY: All right. Thanks for joining us, Minqi. I hope we can pick this up again
soon.
MINQI LI: OK. Thank you.
PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
"... Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book, "Does the United States Have a Future?" was published on 12 October 2017. Both paperback and e-book versions are available for purchase on http://www.amazon.com and all affiliated Amazon websites worldwide. See the recent professional review http://theduran.com/does-the-united-states-have-a-future-a-new-book-by-gilbert-doctorow-review/ For a video of the book presentation made at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on 7 December 2017 see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciW4yod8upg ..."
Tharoor quotes from New York Times columnist David Brooks who concluded that Trump's behavior was that "of a man who
wants the alliance to fail." He quotes extensively from Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister and leader of the Liberal
political fraction in the European Parliament fighting for a much more integrated EU, who sees Trump as the enemy of liberal internationalism
and ally of his own alt right enemies in Europe.
Tharoor also brings into play Martin Wolf of the Financial Times , who delivered a scathing attack on Trump for his rejection
of the West: " today the U.S. president appears hostile to core American values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law; he feels
no loyalty to allies; he rejects open markets; and he despises international institutions."
In the 23 July issue of "Today's World View," Tharoor takes advantage of the time gone by since Helsinki to refine the conclusions.
He offers a pithy commentary from Susan Glasser of The New Yorker : "We are witnessing nothing less than the breakdown of
American foreign policy."
In the same issue, Tharoor notes that public reaction to Trump in Helsinki is less pronounced than one might suppose from reading
the pundits. He offers the following remarks of colleagues on the results of a recent poll: "Most Americans do not feel Trump went
'too far' in supporting Puitn, and while more Americans say U.S. leadership has gotten weaker than stronger under Trump, his ratings
on this question are slightly improved from last fall."
If we go back in time to the days following Trump's visit to the NATO gathering in Brussels, we find in the headlines of the 11
July issue another take on what Trump is doing:
"Trump's NATO trip shows 'America First' is 'America Alone.'"
Here we read about Trump's insistence that America "stop footing Europe's bill" for its defense, namely his demand that all NATO
allies pay up 2% of GDP at once, not in the remote future; and that they prepare to double that to 4% very quickly. By intentional
abrasiveness, these moves by Trump are, Tharoor tells us, "undercutting the post-World War II order in pursuit of short-term, and
likely illusory, wins."
All of these comments address the question of what Trump opposes. However, Tharoor is unable to say what, if anything, Trump stands
for. There are only hints: continued US hegemony but without the ideological cover; might makes right; nationalism and the disputes
that lead to war.
Does this make sense? Or is it just another way of saying that Trump's foreign policy stance is an inconsistent patchwork, illogical
and doomed to fail while causing much pain and destruction along the way?
I fully agree with the proposition that Donald Trump is ripping up the post-Cold War international order and is seeking to end
NATO and the rest of the alliance system by which the United States has maintained its global hegemony for decades. But I believe
this destructive side is guided by a creative vision of where he wants to take US foreign policy.
This new foreign policy of Donald Trump is based on an uncompromising reading of the teachings of the Realist School of international
affairs, such as we have not seen since the days of President Teddy Roosevelt, who was its greatest practitioner in US history.
This is not isolationism, because Trump is acting to defend what he sees as US national interests in foreign trade everywhere
and in geopolitics in one or another part of the world. However, it is a world in which the US is cut free from the obligations of
its alliances which entail maintenance of overseas bases everywhere at the cost of more than half its defense budget. He wants to
end the risks of being embroiled in regional wars that serve our proxies, not core US national interests. And he is persuaded that
by a further build-up of military might at home, by adding new hi-tech materiel the US can secure its interests abroad best of all.
I reach these conclusions from the snippets of Trump remarks which appear in the newspapers of daily record but are intentionally
left as unrelated and anecdotal, whereas when slotted together they establish the rudiments of an integrated worldview and policy.
For example, I take his isolated remark that the United States should not be prepared to go to war to defend Montenegro, which
recently passed NATO accession, because Montenegro had been a trouble-maker in the past. That remark underwent virtually no analysis
in the media, though it could be made only by someone who understood, remarkably, the role of Montenegro at the Russian imperial
court of Nicholas II precisely as "troublemaker," whose dynastic family aided in their own small way the onset of WWI.
Donald Trump is not a public speaker. He is not an intellectual. We cannot expect him to issue some "Trump Doctrine" setting out
his Realist conception of the geopolitical landscape. All we get is Tweets. This inarticulate side of Trump has been used by his
enemies to argue he has no policy.
In fact, Trump is the only Realist on the landscape.
Going back to 2016, I thought he was being guided by Henry Kissinger during the campaign and then in the first months of his presidency,
I misjudged entirely. Trump is true to the underlying principles of Realism without compromise, whereas Henry K. made his peace with
the prevailing Wilsonian Idealism of the American Establishment a couple of decades ago in order to remain welcome in the Oval Office
and not to be entirely marginalized.
Trump's vision of Realism draws from the source in the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648 with its guiding concept of sovereign nation-states
that do not intervene in others' domestic affairs. It further draws on the notions of raison d'état or national interest
developed by the French court of Louis XIV and then taken further by "perfidious Albion" in the eighteenth century, with temporary
and ever changing combinations of states in balance of power realignments of competitors. The history of the Realist School
was set out magnificently by Kissinger in his 1994 work Diplomacy . It is a pity that the master himself strayed from true
and narrow.
In all of this, you have the formula for Trump's respect, even admiration for Putin, since that also is now Vladimir Vladimirovich's
concept of Russia's way forward: as a strong sovereign state that sets its own course without the constraints of alliances and based
on its own military might.
The incredible thing is how a man with such poor communication skills, a man who does not read much came to such an integrated
vision that outstrips the conceptual abilities of his enemies, his friends and everyone in between.
We are tempted to look for a mentor, and one who comes to mind is Steve Bannon, who is very articulate, razor-sharp in his intellect
and who provided Trump with much of the domestic content of his 2016 campaign from the alt right playbook. And though Bannon publicly
broke with Trump in their falling out over his ever diminishing role in the Administration, Bannon's ongoing project, in particular
his Movement to influence European politics and shift it to the Right by coordinating activities across the Continent during the
parliamentary elections of May 2019, very closely parallel what Trump's ambassador in Berlin seems to be doing in Trump's name.
It may well be that the President and his confidantes find it prudent for him to play the hapless fool, the clueless disrupter
of the global political landscape until he has the support in Congress to roll out the new foreign policy that is now in gestation.
The logical consequence of such a Realist approach to foreign policy will be to reach an understanding with the world's other
two principal military powers, Russia and China, regarding respective spheres of influence in their geographic proximity. But I do
not believe we will see a G-3 succeeding America's unipolar moment. Given the predispositions of both Russia and China, we are more
likely to see a broader board of governors of global policy in the form of the G-20, ushering in the multipolar age. In such a formulation,
regional conflicts will be settled locally by the interested parties and with the major powers involved only as facilitators, not
parties to conflict. That promises a much more stable and peaceful future, something which none of Donald Trump's detractors can
begin to imagine as his legacy.
trump has wrecked environmental policy, trade policy and domestic social policy....the
upshots will be: 1- a much more toxic environment & much higher level of respiratory
disease and cancerous related ailments; overall poorer health & health care for the
average citizen 2- higher prices for imported goods, lower level of trade exports, fewer US
based jobs and more off-shoring of US jobs 3- a substantial increase in the homeless
population in the urban areas of this country; increased rates of poverty for the poor, lower
economic prosperity for the lower and lower middle class income brackets; wage stagnation for
the middle & upper middle income brackets; less advanced education & lower worker
productivity and innovation to name just a few of the impacts created by this idiot....in
simple in English, Trump and his so-called initiatives are shafting this country in almost
every way possible
What part of international law is not just pissed on toiler paper strewn over the floors of a
urinal? Which post WWII president respected this law?
None.
International law, since WWII failed. It failed in '47 when no referendum was held in
Palestine - against Chapter 1, Article 1 paragraph 2 of the UN Charter. It failed in Crimea,
when the results of such a referendum was spat on by the previous war criminal to sit in the
Oval Office. It fails now as sanctions are used unilaterally - being equivalent to the use of
force in result, they should be
But then let's not stop at after the war. The US is the only country to nuke civilians.
6/7 US four star generals at the time said the action had no strategic or tactical purpose
whatsoever.
The US is what ISIS dreams to be, the sooner it falls into obscurity the better.
Pure nonsense. The Great Depression began on October 29, 1929. FDR was inaugurated on March
4, 1933 nearly 4 years after it began. Hoover had actually only been in office for just over
6 months before Black Tuesday. GDP began growing and unemployment began falling in 1933
shortly after FDR took office. The Depression officially came to an end in 1939 when GDP
returned to pre-Depression levels.
There is no long term US growth. There is a debt default after people realize the fact that
the top of the whole US government is incompetent. That it has chained itself to such
astronomic liabilities for useless wars (as the Empire has not succeeded in world hegemony),
is even sadder. It coould have spent the $5tn of Iraq and Afghanistan on building shit, but
instead it bombed shit.
Trump doesn't matter for US long run - in 5-10 years time the country will be only found
in history books.
Remember Kruschev's (sp?) last words on leaving office, and I'm paraphrasing: "Don't worry
about America, they'll spend themselves to death (just like we have)". Continued economic
growth is a wet dream of Wall Street origin. We are massively overpopulated and rapidly using
up earth's natural resources at an increasingly unsustainable rate. We must begin to reduce
our growth, not keep increasing it. Population density stress is killing us now and only
increasing every day along with the 220,000 new mouths to feed that we are turning out into a
world that has no room for 28,000,000 homeless migrants already. Just how crazy are we
really. If this article is to be believed, we are nuts. E.F. Schumacher is rolling in his
grave! Stress R Us
The contribution of a president to the national debt depends a bit on how you calculate it.
You could simply look at rhe dates of inauguration or go a step further and look at the
fiscal years. For the latter see :
In absolute terms Obama is indeed at the top of the list, percentagewise his predecessor
played a larger part. No matter how you look at it or what the causes were, under Bush and
Obama the U.S. debt seems to have spiralled out of of control and Trump is doing bugger all
to stop that trend.
For consider the fruits of free trade policy during the last 25 years : the frozen wages of
U.S. workers, $12 trillion in U.S. trade deficits, 55,000 factories lost, 6 million
manufacturing jobs gone, China surpassing the U.S in manufacturing, all causing a backlash that
pushed a political novice to the Republican nomination and into the presidency.
To maintain a belief in the superiority of free trade to economic patriotism, in the face of
such results, is to recognize that this belief system is impervious to contradictory proof.
The sad reality that I see all around is that Western civilization has been hijacked by
degenerate hyenas like Rome was sacked from within first before being sacked externally. The
institutions that once made the West a leader and a model, have been corrupted, tainted and
filled with anti-humanists and crony corporatists. Greed is out of control and "popular
culture" is spreading decay. The hollowing out will continue until these parasites find
another host to leech off. Will it be China? Will it be a global government? Will it be
another planet? Who knows.
Once upon a time figures like Rosenstein, Mueller, Brennan, Browder, Clapper, Clinton etc
would be just fucking taken out or punished. Instead of that, they get to wander their toxic
asses around like protected peacocks, all on tax payers dime, with their shitty agendas, and
their shitty handlers cheering on the degeneracy and assault on the truth and the people.
If this is what "civilization" has boiled down to, count me the fuck out of it. The 5000
year old human farming experiment is merely switching straight jackets. Its the same old
story that ever was, ever since we gave up the nomadic lifestyle. In a way, its probably an
inevitability, given our flawed human nature, and the size of the population....and average
intellect. The desire to be 'lead' by some ruling class, no matter what flavour of 'ism' it
is, eventually all turns to the same end result....shit. Unless this global awakening can
muster into a force to be reckoned with, and not be swayed by divide and conquer tactics,
nothing will change. So far with the toxic Left vs Right divide, and countless other divides,
the only beneficiaries of this are the ones at the top of the pyramid.
Pat Buchanan: Are Globalists Plotting A Counter-Revolution?
HopefulCynical : Is the sky blue? Is water wet? Is fire hot?
FFS, look at the goddamn purge on (((Social media))). Of COURSE the (((globalists))) are
attempting a counter-revolution.
We all need to move to alt-tech: Minds , Gab , Bitchute . Even if you don't have a
(((social media))) presence, consider getting an alt-media presence. We've been wondering
when the next phase would begin, whewn it would be time to take further action. Well, it's
here.
First step in this next phase is to set up multiple lines of communication not under
(((establishment))) control. Even if you seldom use them, set up accounts; advise those you
know to do likewise. Wanna see the establishment panic? If they see the subscriber count for
the alt-tech sites suddenly quadruple (or more) in response to their purge, they'll shit
themselves. They'll probably attempt to pull domain registrars and financial processing
services from those sites.
Then - the motherfucking games begin, bitchez.
[EDIT:] According to Styx, the alt-tech sites are already seeing a surge in membership.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZP1fwkdupg
Let the (((establishment))) diaper-filling begin!
But will "negotiations" and regulatory loosening on issues like the environment and worker
safety, which have gotten out of hand in the US to the disadvantage of underemployed
citizens, offset the extremely low wages offered to Asian and Latin American workers in the
countries where American-owned companies shipped over 6 million jobs, canceling out the
SS-retirement fund contributions that would have been made by American workers [and]
employers if the jobs had been kept here?
Cheap labor seems to TRUMP everything with US employers.
Running from the SS trust fund might be another reason for their abandonment of
America.
Cheap labor Trumps everything here in the USA, too, and the cheap-labor pool is aided and
abetted by the welfare system. That is why US employers prefer an often extremely absentee
welfare and progressive-tax-code-subsidized labor market, receiving .gov-financed monthly
bills and up to $6,431 in refundable child-tax-credit cash for US-born instant-citizen
kids.
Contrary to myth, hard work, daily and all-day attendance and even work productivity, like
every-month quota meeting, is NOT preferred by American employers for most of the jobs left
here in the USA.
The welfare-eligible 42 million are (on the books) not hard workers, but part-time
workers, staying under the income limits for welfare programs. I KNOW that from working at
the Department of Human Services, where single moms and the womb-productive girlfriends of
illegal and legal immigrants MUST submit proof of a single-breadwinner's part-time, traceable
earnings to get the free stuff.
The earnings must fall below the income limits for welfare programs that ALWAYS reward
part-time work in womb-productive single-breadwinner households of citizens and noncitizens.
You cannot work full time in a minimum-wage job while meeting the income limits. When I
worked at DHS, both the EBT and monthly cash assistance income limits were BELOW $900 per
month......
Even if Trump eventually lures US corporations back here with looser regulations and tax
cuts, rather than just unleashing a stock buy-back spree, it will not matter to the 101
million American citizens of working age who are out of the labor force and the 78 million
gig pieceworkers, not if this welfare-rigged labor market of citizens and noncitizens
continues to be the norm.
You cannot compete with a bigly labor market full of welfare-fetching citizens &
noncitizens who do not need pay sufficient to cover rent due to their womb production.
Only a Deplorables First immigration reform would address that issue, including a big
reduction in the number of welfare-eligible legal immigrants let in each year. The number 1.5
million is too many. This -- no more and no less than illegal immigration -- keeps wages
down, but the illegal immigration has the added bonus of making America more dangerous.
The impasse on the immigration issue is the reason why I am skeptical of the value of
current trade-war maneuvering, even though I am glad that Trump is addressing that general
issue.
The other thing that complicates this trade war is the way that globalist elites have sold
America out over the years, not just destroying the middle class with all of this offshoring
and welfare-supported illegal labor, but also getting the US economy 1) waist-deep in debt,
2) dependent on foreign investment and 3) subject to getting jerked around by Machiavellian
currency manipulation that non-math people, like me, really don't understand.
It sounds kind of dangerous, though, even just the argument that Stockman makes about
China being a house of cards that, if it came down, could have unintended consequences for
the US.
I have no idea. But I do know that many of the people who voted for Trump are pretty
adamant about the immigration issue, first and foremost, regarding it as an easier and less
risky thing to get done as well.
Maybe, the children-at-the-border Movie of the Week has convinced most Trump voters to
stay on the train, thinking something permanent has been done to contain the flow of
welfare-rewarded illegal immigration.
I think many of the teenagers, released into the country to live with extended family or
in foster care, will, in a few years, be entering the labor force as part-time workers,
producing instant-citizen kids and getting free monthly bills and refundable child-tax-credit
cash from .gov, while citizens like me will still face rent that eats up over half of our
monthly, earned-only income from low-wage churn jobs.
As much of an enthusiastic Trump voter as I have been, going back a long way, I am not
sure that I am going to vote in the mid-term general election. I am not going to vote for
this Tammany Hall II Democratic Party, but I may just stay home.
There are many populists out there, not just on the right either, who are disgruntled for
very real reasons, like this interesting article explains, so there will likely be wave after
wave of non-centrist populism until globalism's shoreline has been redefined.
Hmmm, weird, when I loaded the other link, it conformed to the format of this text box,
but then when I loaded the link above this last paragraph, it reverted to cutting off the
text on the side. Until I post it, I cannot see the full text after links are added.
"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so
dependent on it favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other
hand, the great body of people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous
advantages...will bear its burden without complaint and perhaps without suspecting that the
system is inimical to their best interests."
-Rothschild Brothers of London communique' to associates in New York June 25th, 1863.
The Difference.
J. Speer-Willams
June 16, 2010.
New-Cons. Love War & torture, increased regulations, tyranny and taxes; with our taxes
going to the plutocrats of the private banking community. They support governmental
destruction of our environment, under the pretender of protecting it. They, also, overtly
support corporatism (Fascism for Oligarchs) and any measures supported by the Republican
Party that enrich the private International Monetary / Banking Cartel at the expensive of
the. American People.
New- Libs. Love War & torture, increased regulations, tyranny and taxes; with our
taxes going to the plutocrats of the private banking community. They support governmental
destruction of our environment, under the pretender of protecting it. They, also, overtly
support corporatism (Socialism for Oligarchs) and any measures supported by the Democratic
Party that enrich the private International Monetary / Banking Cartel at the expensive of
the. American People.
The economics of the neoliberal era had a fundamental flaw.
The 1920s roared with debt based consumption and speculation until it all tipped over into
the debt deflation of the Great Depression. No one realised the problems that were building
up in the economy as they used an economics that doesn't look at private debt, neoclassical
economics.
I think Pat also gets this sentence wrong and if so I say he misses details we would like
to see
This is truly economics uber alles, economy before country.
The University Economist programs/studies were more oriented toward people in the old
days. Economics today is used to justify Wall Street type finance and ideology. Economic
study was hijacked to serve only those looking to get rich any way they can. CFR agenda comes
to mind. Globalism comes to mind also and is an attack on all nations constitutions.
The Americans have been discovering the problems of running an economy with bad
economics.
Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the
economy.
The Classical economist, Adam Smith, observed the world of small state, unregulated
capitalism around him.
"The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining
of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the
labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious
merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his
money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no
usurers and no tax gatherers."
How does this tie in with the trickledown view we have today?
Somehow everything has been turned upside down.
The workers that did the work to produce the surplus lived a bare subsistence
existence.
Those with land and money used it to live a life of luxury and leisure.
The bankers (usurers) created money out of nothing and charged interest on it. The bankers
got rich, and everyone else got into debt and over time lost what they had through defaults
on loans, and repossession of assets.
Capitalism had two sides, the productive side where people earned their income and the
parasitic side where the rentiers lived off unearned income. The Classical Economists had
shown that most at the top of society were just parasites feeding off the productive activity
of everyone else.
Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the
economy.
How can we protect those powerful vested interests at the top of society?
The early neoclassical economists hid the problems of rentier activity in the economy by
removing the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and they conflated "land" with
"capital". They took the focus off the cost of living that had been so important to the
Classical Economists to hide the effects of rentier activity in the economy.
The landowners, landlords and usurers were now just productive members of society
again.
It they left banks and debt out of economics no one would know the bankers created the
money supply out of nothing. Otherwise, everyone would see how dangerous it was to let
bankers do what they wanted if they knew the bankers created the money supply through their
loans.
The powerful vested interests held sway and economics was corrupted.
Now we know what's wrong with neoclassical economics we can put the cost of living back
in.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Employees want more disposable income (discretionary spending)
Employers want to pay lower wages for higher profits
The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs + food + other
costs of living
The neoliberals obsessed about reducing taxes, but let the cost of living soar.
The economists also ignore the debt that is papering over the cracks and maintaining
demand in the economy. This can never work in the longer term as you max. out on debt.
The problem is the US has lost citizenry-control. A shadow-government along with media
operatives work unseen to manipulate sentiment and events in-line with an overall globalist,
world-government objective (Neo-Marxism). The so-called elites behind the curtain are after
total control which is why we will continue toward totalitarian dictatorship. It will not be
a one-man show nor will it be readily recognizable as such, rather there will be a secretive
Cabal of select ultra-wealthy liberals who will negotiate with each other as to which levers
to pull and valves to turn in order to "guide" culture and civilization. But the tightknit
Cabal has more work to do to infiltrate deeper into US (and world) government. The EU's
Parliament is a proto-type test to tweak how they must proceed. As the Cabal coalesces their
power, more draconian rulership will become apparent. The noose will tighten slowly so as to
be un-noticeable and unstoppable. Certain events are planned that will cause citizenry to
demand totalitarianism (for safety reasons). For the Cabal, it'll be like taking candy from a
baby. This, in a nutshell, is the outline of how the US (and Western civilization) loses its
democracy.
Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to
understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect.
That is, global financial exploitation of national markets. FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS :
♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national
outputs and industries of developed industrial western nations.
♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive
global financial institutions, multinational banks.
♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying
interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).
♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals
then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured
to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously
established a proactive financial footprint.
Pat must suffer from some kind of cognitive dissonance. There is no free trade, nor there
was before Trump. In a world of flexible exchange rates and central banking
backed-inflationary credit trade wars are the status quo. He willfully ignores all the
effects of credit inflation, unsound money, tax structures, subsidies, regulatory burdens
created internally and by those "trade deals" and last but not least the reserve status of
the fiat dollar which basically turned the US in a huge nothing-for-something economy
relative to its imports.
Completing the latest round of tariffs pledged against China, the US Trade Representative
announced on Tuesday (after the close of course) it will impose 25% tariffs on $16
billion-worth of Chinese imports starting August 23. The new round of tariffs completes Trump's
previously disclosed threat to impose $50 billion of import taxes on Chinese goods. The first
$34 billion-worth went into effect on July 6th.
According to the USTR statement, customs will collect duties on 279 product lines, down from
284 items on the initial list; as Bloomberg notes, this will be the second time the U.S. slaps
duties on Chinese goods in about the past month, overruling complaints by American companies
that such moves will raise business costs, tax US consumers and raise prices.
On July 6, the U.S. levied 25% duties on $34 billion in Chinese goods prompting swift
in-kind retaliation from Beijing.
Of course, China will immediately retaliate, having vowed before to strike back again,
dollar-for-dollar, on the $16 billion tranche.
The biggest question is whether there will be a far bigger tariff in the near future: as a
reminder, the USTR is currently also reviewing 10% tariffs on a further $200 billion in Chinese
imports, and may even raise the rate to 25%. Those tariffs could be implemented after a comment
period ends on Sept. 5. President Donald Trump has suggested he may tax effectively all imports
of Chinese goods, which reached more than $500 billion last year.
Over the weekend, Trump boasted that he has the upper hand in the trade war, while Beijing
responded through state media by saying it was ready to endure the economic fallout. Judging by
the US stock market, which has risen by $1.3 trillion since Trump launched his trade war with
China, which has crushed the Shanghai Composite, whose recent drop into a bear market has been
duly noted by Trump, the US president is certainly ahead now, even if the market's inability,
or unwillingness, to push US stocks lower has led many traders and analysts to scratch their
heads.
Exposing the growing backlash against Trump's trade policies, the
WSJ writes
that "ticked-off Canadians", angered by U.S. metals tariffs and Trump's harsh words
for their prime minister,
are boycotting American products and buying Canadian.
Take Garland Coulson, a 58-year-old Alberta entrepreneur, who admits that while usually he doesn't
pay much attention to where the goods he buys are coming from, saying that "you tend to buy the
products that taste good or you buy the products that are low in price where taste isn't an issue",
he believes the tariffs from Canada's neighbor are a "slap in the face," and added that in recent
he has put more Canadian products into his shopping cart.
Or take Calgary resident Tracy Martell, who "replaced her Betty Crocker brownie mix with a
homemade recipe and hasn't visited the U.S. since shortly after President Trump's inauguration."
Or take Ontario resident Beth Mouratidis is trying out Strub's pickles as a replacement for her
longtime favorite, Bick's.
The push to " boycott America" and buy more Canadian products gained strength after the U.S.
levied 25% tariffs on Canadian steel and 10% on aluminum starting June 1 and President Trump called
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau "Very dishonest & weak" on Twitter following a Group of
Seven meeting the following week. Canada in turn imposed retaliatory tariffs on some U.S. products,
including foodstuffs such as ketchup, orange juice and yogurt.
"People sort of feel that we're getting a raw deal from the U.S. and we have to stick up for
ourselves," said Tom Legere, marketing manager for Ontario-based Kawartha Dairy Ltd., which has
seen more interest in its ice cream recently. "And this is their way at the supermarket of
trying to do so."
However, in their attempt to exclude US produce, Canadians have run into a problem:
what
is American, and what is really Canadian
?
The logistical spiderweb of global supply chains has made even something as simple as a boycott
surprisingly complex. It shouldn't be: after all, Canada is the U.S.'s top export market, taking a
little more than 18% of all U.S. exports. According to some estimates, roughly 40% to 60% of food
on Canada's grocery shelves is from the US, while closely linked production chains make it tough to
determine how much of any given item was produced domestically.
That has left would-be boycotters scratching their heads as they untangle how much of a given
product was made or grown outside the country.
The confusion has led to a mini cottage industry: tracing the origins of Canadian products.
"I'll swear up and down something is 100% Canadian," said Mouratidis, who curates a Facebook list
of Canadian household goods, food products and other items. Occasionally, she runs into surprises:
she was convinced Old Dutch chips were all-Canadian until she found out Old Dutch Foods Ltd. is a
subsidiary. The parent company, Old Dutch Foods Inc., is based in Minnesota.
This leads to occasional exclusions on the boycott list: the Old Dutch snack food remains on Ms.
Mouratidis's list because the Canadian company makes its chips in Canada.
It has also led to a sales boost for companies whose products are not "diluted" with traces of
American influence. A social-media post promoting Kawartha Dairy over "American" Haagen-Dazs ice
cream was criticized by a Facebook user who pointed out that Haagen-Dazs products sold in Canada
are made at a Canadian plant. The plant also uses Canadian dairy, Nestlé Canada Inc. confirmed.
Kawartha Dairy, which wasn't involved in the original post, received more than a hundred
emails and Facebook messages in recent weeks from Canadians asking where they could find the
company's ice cream.
Another product getting a boost from the "Buy Canadian" push: Hawkins Cheezies, a corn snack
that looks like a denser and crunchier version of Cheetos that is made with Canadian cheddar. W.T.
Hawkins Ltd., which makes the snack, said two large grocery-store chains recently increased their
orders.
The growing animosity to "Made in America" has made some traditional staples
non-grata:
Kraft Heinz has been a frequent target for Canadians since Heinz stopped producing ketchup
in Ontario in 2014.
A list circulating online recently that ranked consumers' best options for Canadian products
puts French's ketchup ahead of Heinz because it is manufactured in Canada.
Then again, unlike the Chinese where a
boycott really means a boycott
,
one wonder if for all the clamor, Canada's revulsion to US products is merely just another example
of virtue signaling. After all, one sector where the boycott efforts are failing miserably, is
travel. Although some people are deliberately staying away from the U.S., the WSJ notes that
according to official Canadian data,
overall cross-border car trips by Canadians were up
12.7% in June from the same month last year
.
Foreign trade can be mutually beneficial. For the most
part it has not been beneficial for the US for the last 40
years.
Much of the problem centers around US politicians simply
selling out to foreign interests through family, friends,
and foundations. The US worker has been left to dry up and
die.
China is willing to resolve differences with the United States
on an equal footing, the Chinese government's top diplomat said on Friday after meeting U.S.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, but added they did not address their trade war too
specifically.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday instructed his trade officials to look at
increasing tariffs to 25 percent from 10 percent on $200 billion in Chinese imports into the
United States.
Trump, who has accused China and others of exploiting the United States in global trade, has
demanded that Beijing make a host of concessions to avoid the new duties, which could be
imposed in the weeks after a comment period closes on Sept. 5.
China, however, shows no sign of bending to Washington's pressure.
Speaking to reporters after meeting Pompeo on the sidelines of a regional summit in
Singapore, Chinese State Councillor Wang Yi said Pompeo told him he was "was willing to
maintain constructive contact".
"As two members of the U.N. Security Council and the world's largest two economies, we
should of course maintain talks at all times," Wang said.
"Cooperation is the only correct choice for the United States and China. It's the universal
expectation of the international community. Opposition can only bring dual loss and will hurt
the peaceful and stable development of the world," he added.
"We are willing to resolve the concerns of both sides via talks on the basis of an equal
footing and mutual respect. He (Pompeo) was accommodating on this as a direction, and said that
he does not want current frictions to continue," Wang said.
Answering a question about what was specifically said on trade, Wang said: "We did not speak
in such details. But actually, as journalists have noted, how can talks take place under this
pressure?"
Wang, who is also China's foreign minister, urged the United States on Thursday to calm down
and "carefully listen to the voices of U.S. consumers".
So far, the United States has imposed duties on $34 billion of imports from China as part of
a first tranche of sanctions on $50 billion of goods.
It wants China to stop stealing U.S. corporate secrets, abandon plans to boost its high-tech
industries at America's expense and stop subsidising Chinese companies with cheap loans that
enable them to compete unfairly.
China says the United States is trying to stop the rise of a competitor and it has imposed
its own tariffs on U.S. goods. The rising tensions have weighed on stock and currency markets,
with the Chinese yuan falling against the dollar.
The two countries have not had formal talks on their trade dispute since early June.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do
not necessarily reflect those of NASDAQ, Inc.
We are in the point when capitalist system (which presented itself as asocial system that created a large middle class)
converted into it opposite: it is social system that could not deliver that it promised and now want to distract people from this
sad fact.
The Trump adopted tax code is a huge excess: we have 40 year when corporation paid less taxes. This is last moment when they
need another gift. To give them tax is crazy excess that reminding
Louis XV of France. Those gains are going in buying of socks. And real growth is happening elsewhere in the world.
After WW2 there were a couple of decades of "golden age" of US capitalism when in the USA middle class increased considerably.
That was result of pressure of working class devastated by Great Depression. Roosevelt decided that risk is too great and he
introduced social security net. But capitalist class was so enraged that they started fighting it almost immediately after the
New Deal was introduced. Business class was enrages with the level of taxes and counterattacked. Tarp act and McCarthyism were
two successful counterattacks. McCarthyism converting communists and socialists into agents of foreign power.
The quality of jobs are going down. That's why Trump was elected... Which is sad. Giving your finger to the
neoliberal elite does not solve their problem
Notable quotes:
"... Finally, if everybody tries to save themselves (protection), we have a historical example: after the Great Depression that happened in Europe. And most people believe that it was a large part of what led to WWII after WWI, rather than a much saner collective effort. But capitalism doesn't go for collective efforts, it tends to destroy itself by its own mechanisms. There has to be a movement from below. Otherwise, there is no counter force that can take us in another direction. ..."
"... When Trump announced his big tariffs on China, we saw the stock market dropped 700 points in a day. That's a sign of the anxiety, the danger, even in the minds of capitalists, about where this is going. ..."
"... Everything is done to avoid asking the question to what degree the system we have in place - capitalism is its name - is the problem. It's the Russians, it's the immigrants, it's the tariffs, it's anything else, even the pornstar, to distract us from the debate we need to have had that we haven't had for a half a century, which puts us in a very bad place. We've given a free pass to a capitalist system because we've been afraid to debate it. And when you give a free pass to any institution you create the conditions for it to rot, right behind the facade. ..."
"... The Trump presidency is the last gasp, it's letting it all hang out. A [neoliberal] system that's gonna do whatever it can, take advantage of this moment, grab it all before it disappears. ..."
In another interesting interview with Chris Hedges, Richard Wolff explains why the Trump presidency is the last resort of a system
that is about to collapse:
Finally, if everybody tries to save themselves (protection), we have a historical example: after the Great Depression that happened
in Europe. And most people believe that it was a large part of what led to WWII after WWI, rather than a much saner collective effort.
But capitalism doesn't go for collective efforts, it tends to destroy itself by its own mechanisms. There has to be a movement from
below. Otherwise, there is no counter force that can take us in another direction.
So, absent that counter force we are going to see this system spinning out of control and destroying itself in the very way its
critics have for so long foreseen it well might.
When Trump announced his big tariffs on China, we saw the stock market dropped 700 points in a day. That's a sign of the anxiety,
the danger, even in the minds of capitalists, about where this is going. If we hadn't been a country with two or three decades of
a middle class - working class paid really well - maybe we could have gotten away with this. But in a society that has celebrated
its capacity to do what it now fails to do, you have an explosive situation.
Everything is done to avoid asking the question to what degree the system we have in place - capitalism is its name - is the problem.
It's the Russians, it's the immigrants, it's the tariffs, it's anything else, even the pornstar, to distract us from the debate we
need to have had that we haven't had for a half a century, which puts us in a very bad place. We've given a free pass to a capitalist
system because we've been afraid to debate it. And when you give a free pass to any institution you create the conditions for it
to rot, right behind the facade.
The Trump presidency is the last gasp, it's letting it all hang out. A [neoliberal] system that's gonna do whatever it can, take advantage
of this moment, grab it all before it disappears.
In France, it was said
'Après moi, le déluge' (after me the
catastrophe). The storm will break.
In the long run, the US has two distinct advantages that offset some of the vulnerabilities in the US economy, brought about
by 40 years of outsourcing. The US is energy independent to a very large extent, where China is greatly dependent on energy
imports, largely priced in dollars. The US has a global military advantage that will persist for the next decade or more.
Hard to say where this will lead. Best option is for the US and China to resume the trade talks that broke off months ago.
Economic mutually assured destruction is not a pleasant outcome, particularly at a moment when even the IMF is worrying about
emerging market debt, corporate debt defaults and other signs of another global financial crisis.
My sense is that the whole issue of trade disputes is not so much about trade and economics as much
as politics and sovereignty. Not a whole lot will have changed in economic terms when the dust
clears, but the underlying politics will have been altered unrecognizably. The whole idea of
creating international bureaucratic bodies to oversee and regulate international trade (e.g. WTO)
was to bypass the "normal" politics in the states involved. Long ago, the weaker countries cried
"modern day imperialism" over these because they felt (not entirely without justification) that
these arrangements took trade policy out of the hands of their domestic politics and unresponsive
to their needs, interests, and demands--and, in a sense, this was exactly the point, since
protectionism, even economically undesirable varieties, are product of "good" domestic politics.
But since 1980s and 90s, the pendulum seems to have swung in the opposite direction where
reclaiming a share of sovereignty over trade policy is preferred by many over trusting
international bureaucracy. While not exactly "trade" policy (but it is economic), the experiences
of the less well off countries in EU (as well as segments of the publics even in better off
countries) has to be a fairly widespread worldview in many countries these days--certainly enough
that it should make good politics to try to address them in some fashion, not try to override them
by fiat (the latter seeming to be the preferred approach of the cosmopolitan elite)
"My sense is that the whole issue of trade disputes is not so much about trade and economics as
much as politics and sovereignty."
That has to be right, and it certainly applies to small
countries. Small countries must always be aware that there is a loss of sovereignty implicit in
the very act of trading with larger ones. The greater weight of the large country can enable it
to impose trading terms that are sometimes disadvantageous to the smaller.
Tough. That's how it is. But the smaller country must always be on its guard against the very
real danger of allowing that to extend to loss of political sovereignty.
What I don't see is how this applies to the US. The US is not a small country and need not
fear any loss of political sovereignty attendant upon any lack of size or power. Therefore one
could perhaps see the current US trade negotiations in a different light.
That is, that Trump is not defending his country against any such threat. He is merely
attempting to level the playing field. For far too long that playing field has been tilted
against the US worker and, ultimately, the US economy. He was elected to rectify that and will,
I believe, be judged by his success in doing so.
If, in attempting that, he ruffles a few feathers - well, if he went the asking nicely route
they'd walk all over him.
That quibble aside, I couldn't agree more with your note.
I don't think the size of the country is the decisive factor.
International trade always
produces winners and losers. Depending on the particulars, the gains might be more widely
spread than losses, or vice versa. Both sides want to play the political game to shape the
terms of the trade in their favor. Generally, those who are in favor of more protection tend
to do well in domestic politics, while those who tend to gain more by opening up trade don't.
This is why international bureaucracy regulating trade winds up being set up, to bypass the
domestic political process in favor of the free traders.
I don't think there is a fundamental relationship between the size of the country and the
political conflict over free trade. It may be that smaller countries tend to be predisposed
more towards protectionist policies, but counterexamples are found easily (e.g. Singapore).
The real issue is that creation of and deference to international bureaucracy is a mechanism
through which the winners from free trade shift the venue of politics from the domestic to
the international and, in a sense, unfairly disadvantage their political enemies by depriving
them of the means to affect trade policy easily. Or, in other words, international trade
bureaucracy is NOT just a solution for trade conflict between nations, but a political weapon
directed at the skeptics at home. If the winners of free trade were willing to share their
gains with the losers, the conflict would not need to be so sharp. This has not been the case
in US: more than in most other developed countries, the winners of free trade kept the gains
only to themselves, claiming moral absolute of the free trade and their Mammon-given right to
hold on to everything. Those who lose from the free trade are not only aggrieved, but find
themselves at the wrong end of the political game specifically rigged to deprive them of
influence. They don't want to play by its rules if they can--and Trump is providing them this
option.
In this sense, Trump's actions are re-domesticalizing the politics of free trade, making
trade policy responsive to domestic interests that were shunted side formerly. The
internationalists have only their own short-sightedness to blame: if they were willing to
build up a broader coalition, or at least, appease their domestic opponents better, the
opposition to free trade detached from domestic politics would not have become so
acrimonious.
Personally, I think it's not a good development: walking back from free trade is not easy,
if at all possible--too many linkages have been built, too many sectors are dependent on
access to foreign inputs or markets, that actual protectionism will be near impossible to
bring back without major costs. Still, if you are creating international bureaucracy to
bypass domestic politics, you'd better not piss off folks back home enough that they'd start
with pitchforks, and this is among the many mistakes internationalists have made.
This interview of Sir James Goldsmith by Charlie Rose frames his debate with Laura Tyson, Clinton's
trade representative. Well worth watching to understand the trade debate.
Play
Hide
The analyst in the link below explained the myth US energy independence. Although it is not as
severe as china's need for foreign energy supply , but she got russian energy export via landline
as opposed as sealane gulf imports.
There also this constant propaganda of better unemployment
statistic , because of the way the data was processed to make it looks better (cooked)
-- -- -- -- --
From Srsroccoreport :
While the Mainstream media and the Whitehouse continue with the energy independent mantra, the
U.S. is still highly reliant upon a great deal of foreign oil.
Ahttps://d3hxt1wz4sk0za.clo...
, why would the U.S. import 8 million barrels of oil per day if
its shale oil production has surged over the past decade?
Well, it's quite simple. The U.S. Shale Oil Industry is producing way too much light tight oil,
with a high API Gravity, for our refineries that are designed for a lower grade. So, as U.S. shale
oil production exploded , the industry was forced to export a great deal more of this light oil
overseas.
Thanks for your exposition.
Some observations:
China's import of oil in US funds is about equal to USA's net import in US$ - the rest is in ruble/yuan.
The armed force imbalance is of no value, as attack on China is certain to get A-bombs into play
[aside form danger to US ships both naval and other due to Chinese/Russian made anti ship missiles]
The USA can not maintain 25% duties on consumer goods for the simple reason that 75% of population
can not afford to be consumer -debt levels are too high.
The USA can not maintain high tariffs as such would greatly increase the inflation rate applicable
to the "deplorables" who are already on ropes [homelessness, welfare, food subsidies etc.] Notably
the Fed would have to raise rates if inflation increases with dire result for the bond market and
the federal deficit due to increased interest costs.
That the European satraps have bowed under US pressure is nothing new... there will be more changes
in governments in the next cycle - the present bunch is too ripe [or rotten].
I do not imply by the above that China will not suffer, however they have a trillion dollar kitty
to balance the external trade problems.
"75% of population can not afford to be consumer..."
They are in debt because they are consuming beyond thier income. "the Fed would have to raise
rates if inflation increases" The Fed has already raised rates twice this year. It was less than
ten days ago that Trump based the Fed for raising rates. The losers in that have always been
Americans at the bottom.
http://thehill.com/policy/f...
"... The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support Trump and his policies: ..."
"... Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country. ..."
"... Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder. ..."
"... The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless weapons. ..."
"... Trump grand foreign policy is following a realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy. ..."
President's Trump successful summit with President Putin was used by the 'resistance' and
the deep state to launch a coup-attempt against Trump. Their minimum aim is to put Trump into a
(virtual) political cage where he can no longer pursue his foreign policy agenda.
One does not have to be a fan of Trump's policies and still see the potential danger. A
situation where he can no longer act freely will likely be worse. What Trump has done so far
still does not add up to the
disastrous policies and crimes his predecessor committed.
The borg, financed and sworn to the agenda of globalists and the
military-industrial-media complex, has its orders and is acting on them. The globalists want
more free trade agreements, no tariffs and more immigration to prevent higher wages. Capital
does not have a national attachment. It does not care about the 'deplorables' who support
Trump and his policies:
[P]olls show that Trump appears to still have the support of the bulk of Republican voters
when it comes to tariffs. Nearly three-fourths, or 73 percent, of Republicans and
Republican-leaning independents who responded to a Pew Research survey out this week said
they felt increased tariffs would benefit the country.
Donald Trump is, indeed, a kind of traitor to the Washington Consensus, a
hyper-militarized capitalist utopia of corporate dominated global supply chains that doubled
the international wage-slave workforce in the last two decades of the 20th century and herded
these desperate billions into a race to the bottom. The leadership of both corporate parties
conspired to force U.S. workers into the global meat-grinder.
The weapon industry and the military recognize that the 'war of terror' is nearing its
end. To sell more they need to create an new 'enemy' that looks big enough to justify large and
long-term spending. Russia, the most capable opponent the U.S. could have, is the designated
target. A new Cold War will give justification for all kinds of fantastic and useless
weapons.
Trump does not buy the
nonsense claims of 'Russian meddling' in the U.S. elections and openly says so. He does not
believe that Russia wants to attack anyone. To him Russia is not an enemy.
Trump grand foreign policy is following a
realist assessment . He sees that previous administrations pushed Russia into the Chinese
camp by aggressive anti-Russian policies in Europe and the Middle East. He wants to pull Russia
out of the alliance with China, neutralize it in a political sense, to then be able to better
tackle China which is the real thread to the American (economic) supremacy.
Former CIA chief John Brennan denounced Trump as a "traitor" who had "committed high crimes"
in holding a friendly summit with Putin.
It can't get more seditious than that. Trump is being denigrated by almost the entire
political and media establishment in the US as a "treasonous" enemy of the state.
Following this logic, there is only one thing for it: the US establishment is calling for
a coup to depose the 45th president. One Washington Post oped out of a total of five
assailing the president gave the following stark ultimatum: "If you work for Trump, quit
now".
Some high ranking people working for Trump followed that advice. His chief of staff John
Kelly rallied
others against him:
According to three sources familiar with the situation, Kelly called around to Republicans on
Capitol Hill and gave them the go-ahead to speak out against Trump. (The White House did not
respond to a request for comment.) Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker
Paul Ryan held televised press conferences to assert that Russia did meddle in the election.
Others who attacked Trump over his diplomatic efforts with Russia
included the Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats who used an widely distributed
interview for that:
The White House had little visibility into what Coats might say. The intelligence director's
team had turned down at least one offer from a senior White House official to help prepare
him for the long-scheduled interview, pointing out that he had known Mitchell for years and
was comfortable talking with her.
Coats was extraordinarily candid in the interview, at times questioning Trump's judgment
-- such as the president's decision to meet with Putin for two hours without any aides
present beyond interpreters -- and revealing the rift between the president and the
intelligence community.
FBI Director Wray also
undermined his boss' position:
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Wednesday defended Special Counsel Robert Mueller as a
"straight shooter," and said the Russia investigation is no "witch hunt."
Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, Wray said he stood by his view that
Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election in some capacity and that the threat
remained active.
A day latter Secretary of Defense Mattis also issued a statement that contradicted his
president's policy:
Secretary of Defense James Mattis took his turn doing the implicit disavowing in a statement
about new military aid to Ukraine:
"Russia should suffer consequences for its aggressive, destabilizing behavior and its
illegal occupation of Ukraine. The fundamental question we must ask ourselves is do we wish
to strengthen our partners in key regions or leave them with no other options than to turn to
Russia, thereby undermining a once in a generation opportunity to more closely align nations
with the U.S. vision for global security and stability."
Pat Lang
thinks that Trump should fire Coats, Wary and Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General who
is overseeing the Mueller investigation.
My advice is to spare Rosenstein, for now, as firing him would lead to a great uproar in
Congress. The Mueller investigation has not brought up anything which is dangerous to Trump and
is unlikely to do so in the immediate future. He and Rosenstein can be fired at a latter
stage.
But Wray and Coats do deserve a pink slip and so do Kelly and Mattis. They are political
appointees who work 'at the pleasure of the President'.
The U.S. has the legislative and the judicative as a counterweight to the president who
leads the executive. The 'deep state' and its moles within the executive should have no role in
that balance. The elected president can and must demand loyalty from those who work for
him.
Those who sabotage him should be fired, not in a Saturday night massacre but
publicly, with a given reason and all at the same time. They do not deserve any warning. Their
rolling heads will get the attention of others who are tempted by the borg to act against the
lawful policy directives of their higher up.
All this is not a defense of Trump. I for one despise his antics and most of his policies.
But having a bad president of the United States implementing the policies he campaigned on, and
doing so within the proper process, is way better than having unaccountable forces dictating
their policies to him.
It will be impossible for Trump to get anything done if his direct subordinates, who work
'at his pleasure', publicly sabotage the implementation of his policies. Either he fires these
people or the borg will have won.
"... By Enrico Verga, a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga . ..."
"... Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of this achievement is the exploitation of workers from the former East, as Reuters reports . ..."
"... The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has allowed many European businesses to shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker is much lower ( by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries. ..."
"... The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization, while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi continues: ..."
"... I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic migrants. ..."
"... In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily focus. ..."
"... If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new direction. ..."
"... "Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest) labor force." ..."
"... never export their way out of poverty and misery ..."
By Enrico Verga,
a writer, consultant, and entrepreneur based in Milan. As a consultant, he
concentrates on firms interested in opportunities in international and digital markets. His
articles have appeared in Il Sole 24 Ore, Capo Horn, Longitude, Il Fatto Quotidiano, and many
other publications. You can follow him on Twitter @enricoverga .
International commerce, jobs, and economic migrants are propelled by a common force:
profit.
In recent times, the Western middle class (by which I mean in particular industrial workers
and office employees) has lost a large number of jobs and has seen its buying power fall. It
isn't true that migrants are the source of all evil in the world. However, under current
conditions, they become a locus for the exasperation of the population at twenty years of
pro-globalization politics. They are tragically placed in the role of the straw that breaks the
camel's back.
Western businesses have slipped jobs overseas to countries with low labor costs, while the
middle class has been pushed into debt in order to try to keep up. The Glass-Steagall law and
other brakes on American banks were abolished by a cheerleader for globalization, Bill Clinton,
and these banks subsequently lost all restraints in their enthusiasm to lend. The cherry on top
of the sundae was the real estate bubble and ensuing crash of 2008.
A damning picture of the results of 20 years of globalization is provided by
Forbes , capitalism's magazine par excellence. Already in 2016, the surprise victory of
Trump led to questions about whether the blond candidate's win was due in part to the straits
of the American middle class, impoverished as a result of the pro-globalization politics of
figures like Clinton and Obama.
Further support for this thesis is furnished by the
New York Times , describing the collapse of the stars-and-stripes middle class. Its
analysis is buttressed by lengthy research from the very mainstream
Pew Center , which agrees that the American middle class is vanishing.
And Europe? Although the European middle class has been squeezed less than its American
counterpart, for us as well the picture doesn't look good. See for example the
analysis of the Brookings Institute , which discusses not only the flagging economic
fortunes of the European middle class, but also the fear of prosperity collapsing that
currently grips Europe.
Migrants and the Shock Doctrine
What do economic migrants have to do with any of this?
Far be it from me to criticize large corporations, but clearly they – and their
managers and stockholders – benefit from higher margins. Profits (revenue minus costs and
expenses) can be maximized by reducing expenses. To this end, the costs of acquiring goods
(metals, agricultural products, energy, etc.) and services (labor) need to fall steadily.
In the quest to lower the cost of labor, the most desirable scenario is a sort of blank
slate: to erase ongoing arrangements with workers and start over from zero, building a new
"happy and productive" economy. This operation can be understood as a sort of "shock
doctrine."
The term "economic shock therapy" is based on an analogy with electroshock therapy for
mental patients. One important analysis of it comes from Naomi Klein , who became
famous explaining in 2000 the system of fashion production through subsidiaries that don't
adhere to the safety rules taken so seriously in Western countries (some of you may recall the
scandal of
Benetton and Rana Plaza , where more than a thousand workers at a Bangladesh factory
producing Benetton (and other) clothes were crushed under a collapsing building).
Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational corporations
freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable (i.e. cheapest)
labor force. Sometimes relocating from one nation to another is not possible, but if you can
bring the job market of other countries here in the form of a low-cost mass of people competing
for employment, then why bother?
The Doctrine in Practice
Continuing flows of low-cost labor can be useful for cutting costs. West Germany
successfully absorbed East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but the dirty secret of
this achievement is the exploitation of workers
from the former East, as Reuters reports .
The expansion of the EU to Poland (and the failed attempt to incorporate the Ukraine) has
allowed many European businesses to
shift local production to nations where the average cost of a blue or white collar worker
is much lower (
by 60-70% on average ) than in Western European countries.
The migrant phenomenon is a perfect counterpoint to a threadbare middle class, given its
role as a success story within the narrative of globalization.
Economic migrants are eager to obtain wealth on the level of the Western middle class
– and this is of course a legitimate desire. However, to climb the social ladder, they
are willing to do anything: from accepting low albeit legal salaries to picking tomatoes
illegally (
as Alessandro Gassman, son of the famous actor, reminded us ).
The middle class is a silent mass that for many years has painfully digested globalization,
while believing in the promises of globalist politicians," explains Luciano Ghelfi, a
journalist of international affairs who has followed Lega from its beginnings. Ghelfi
continues:
This mirage has fallen under the blows it has received from the most serious economic
crisis since the Second World War. Foreign trade, easy credit (with the American real estate
bubble of 2008 as a direct consequence), peace missions in Libya (carried out by
pro-globalization French and English actors, with one motive being in my opinion the
diversion of energy resources away from [the Italian] ENI) were supposed to have created a
miracle; they have in reality created a climate of global instability.
Italy is of course not untouched by this phenomenon. It's easy enough to give an
explanation for the Five Stars getting votes from part of the southern electorate that is
financially in trouble and might hope for some sort of subsidy, but the North? The choice of
voting center right (with a majority leaning toward Lega) can be explained in only one way
– the herd (the middle class) has tried to rise up.
I asked him, "So in your opinion, is globalization in stasis? Or is it radically
changing?" He replied:
I think unrestrained globalization has taken a hit. In Italy as well, as we have seen
recently, businesses are relocating abroad. And the impoverished middle class finds itself
forced to compete for state resources (subsidies) and jobs which can be threatened by an
influx of economic migrants towards which enormous resources have been dedicated – just
think of the 4.3 billion Euros that the last government allocated toward economic
migrants.
This is an important element in the success of Lega: it is a force that has managed to
understand clearly the exhaustion of the impoverished middle class, and that has proposed a
way out, or has at least elaborated a vision opposing the rose-colored glasses of
globalization.
In all of this, migrants are more victims than willing actors, and they become an object on
which the fatigue, fear, and in the most extreme cases, hatred of the middle class can easily
focus.
What Conflicts Are Most Relevant Today?
At the same time, if we observe, for example in Italy, the positions taken by the
(pro-globalization?) Left, it becomes easier to understand why the middle class and also many
blue collar workers are abandoning it. Examples range from the unfortunate declarations of
deputy Lia Quartapelle on
the need to support the Muslim Brotherhood to the explanations of the former president of
the Chamber of Deputies, Laura Boldrini, on how the status of economic migrant should be seen as a model for the
lifestyle of all Italians . These remarks were perhaps uttered lightly (Quartapelle
subsequently took her post down and explained that she had made a mistake), but they are
symptomatic of a certain sort of pro-globalization cultural "Left" that finds talking to
potential voters less interesting than other matters.
From Italy to America (where
Hillary Clinton was rejected after promoting major international trade arrangements that
she claimed would benefit middle-class American workers) to the UK (where Brexit has been taken as a sort of
exhaust valve), the middle class no longer seems to be snoring.
We are currently seeing a political conflict between globalist and nationalist forces.
Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want protection
for work and workers, a clamping down on economic migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at
controlling international trade.
If for the last twenty years, with only occasional oscillation, the pro-globalization side
has been dominant in the West, elections are starting to swing the balance in a new
direction.
Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly uninterested in the concerns
of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict with the commitment to
globalization.
If the distinction between globalism and nationalism is in practice trumping other
differences, then we should not let ourselves be distracted by bright and shiny objects, and
keep our focus on what really matters.
From the Forbes link:
"The first downside of international trade that even proponents of freer trade must
acknowledge is that while the country as a whole gains some people do lose."
More accurate to say a tiny, tiny, TINY percentage gain.
Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP. Yes, GDP goes up – but
that word that can never be uttered by American corporate media – DISTRIBUTION –
that essentially ALL gains in GDP have gone to the very top. AND THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL
DECISION, not like the waves of the ocean or natural selection. There is plenty that could be
done about it – BUT it STARTS with WANTING to do something effective about it .
Nice how they use the euphemism "country as a whole" for GDP.
Fresno Dan,
You have identified one of my pet peeves about economists and their fellow traveler
politicians. They hide behind platitudes, and the former are more obnoxious about that.
Economists will tell people that they just don't understand all that complexity, and that in
the name of efficiency, etc, free trade and the long slide toward neo-liberal hell must
continue.
I think the assertion that all economic gains have gone to the very top is not accurate.
According to 'Unintended Consequences' by Ed Conard, the 'composition of the work force has
shifted to demographics with lower incomes' between 1980 and 2005. If you held the workforce
of 1980 steady through 2005, wages would be up 30% in real terms, not including benefits.
I think the author has highlighted some home truths in the article. I once remember
several years ago just trying to raise the issue of immigration* and its impact on workers on
an Irish so-called socialist forum. Either I met silence or received a reply along the lines:
'that when socialists rule the EU we'll establish continental wide standards that will ensure
fairness for everyone'. Fairy dust stuff. I'm not anti immigrant in any degree but it seems
unwise not to understand and mitigate the negative aspects of policies on all workers. Those
chickens are coming home to roost by creating the type of political parties (new or
established) that now control the EU and many world economies.
During the same period many younger middle and upper middle class Irish extolled the
virtues, quite openly, of immigration as way of lowering the power and wages of existing
Irish workers so that the costs of building homes, labour intensive services and the like
would be concretely reduced; and that was supposed to be a good thing for the material well
being of these middle and upper middle classes. Sod manual labour.
One part of the working class was quite happy to thrown another part of the working class
under the bus and the Left**, such as it was and is, was content to let it happen. Then
established Leftist parties often facilitated the rightward economic process via a host of
policies, often against their own stated policies in election manifestos. The Left appeared
deceitful. The Irish Labour party is barely alive and subsisting on die-hard traditionalists
for their support by those who can somehow ignore the deceit of their party. Surreaslist
stuff from so-called working class parties,
And now the middle-middle classes are ailing and we're supposed to take notice. Hmmm. Yet,
as a Leftist, myself, it is incumbent upon us to address the situation and assist all
workers, whatever their own perceived status.
*I'm an immigrant in the UK currently, though that is about to change next year.
** Whether the "Left", such as the Irish Labour Party, was just confused or bamboozled
matters not a jot. After the financial crises that became an economic crisis, they zealously
implemented austerity policies that predominantly cleared the way for a right wing political
landscape to dominate throughout Europe. One could be forgiven for thinking that those who
called themselves Leftists secretly believed that only right wing, neo-liberal economic
policies were correct. And I suppose, being a bit cynical, that a few politicos were paid
handsomely for their services.
I think its easy to see why the more middle class elements of the left wing parties never
saw immigration as a problem – but harder to see why the Trade Unions also bought into
this. Partly I think it was a laudable and genuine attempt to ensure they didn't buy into
racism – when you look at much trade union history, its not always pleasant reading
when you see how nakedly racist some early trade union activists were, especially in the US.
But I think there was also a process whereby Unions increasingly represented relatively
protected trades and professions, while they lost ground in more vulnerable sectors, such as
in construction.
I think there was also an underestimation of the 'balancing' effect within Europe. I think
a lot of activists understimated the poverty in parts of Europe, and so didn't see the
expansion of the EU into eastern Europe as resulting in the same sort of labour arbitrage
thats occurred between the west and Asia. I remember the discussions over the enlargement of
the EU to cover eastern Europe and I recall that there seemed to be an inbuilt assumption
(certainly in the left), that rising general prosperity would ensure there would be no real
migration impact on local jobs. This proved to be entirely untrue.
Incidentally, in my constituency (Dublin Central) in past elections the local Labour party
was as guilty as any of pandering to the frequent racism encountered on the doorsteps in
working class areas. But it didn't do them much good. Interestingly, SF was the only party
who would consistently refuse to pander (At least in Dublin), making the distinction between
nationalist and internationalist minded left wingers even more confusing.
Yes, one has to praise the fact that the Unions didn't pander to racism – but that's
about all the (insert expletive of choice) did correctly.
Your other points, as ever, are relevant and valid but (and I must but) I tend to think
that parties like Labour were too far "breezy" about the repercussions about labour
arbitrage. But that's water under the bridge now.
Speaking about SF and the North West in general, they have aggressively canvassed recent
immigrants and have not tolerated racism among their ranks. Their simple reasoning was that
is unthinkable that SF could tolerate such behaviour amongst themselves when they has waged a
campaign against such attitudes and practices in the six counties. (SF are no saints, often
fumble the ball badly, and are certainly not the end-all-be-all, but this is something they
get right).
It has to be understood that much of immigration is occurring because of war, famine,
collapsing societies (mostly due to massive wealth inequality and corrupt governments).
Immigration is not the cause of the economic issues in the EU, it's a symptom (or a feature
if you're on top). If you don't correct the causes – neo-liberalism, kleptocracy,
rigged game – what ever you want to call it, then you too will become an immigrant in
your own country (and it will be a third world country by the time the crooks on top are
done).
Don't get caught up in the blame the other poor people game. It's a means to get the
powerless to fight among themselves. They are not in charge, they are victims just like
you.
Having spent a lot of time in the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan and Iraq I have to
say that rampant overpopulation plays a big part. Anyone who can get out is getting out. It
makes sense. And with modern communications they all know how life is in Europe or the US in
contrast to the grinding horror that surrounds them.
But Conan tells me that Haiti is a tropical paradise! (my brother too spent a lot of time
in Afghanistan and Iraq working with the locals during his deployments)
"Twitter liberalism" is doing itself by not recognizing that much of the developing world
IS a corrupt cesspool.
Instead of railing against Trump, the Twitter-sphere needs to rail against the bipartisan
policies that drive corruption, and economic dislocations and political dislocations. and
rail against religious fundamentalism that hinders family planning.
But if you actually do that, rail against bipartisan neoliberal policies on social media
and IRL, the conservatives are far less hostile than the die-hard Dems. This is especially
true now, with all the frothing at the mouth and bloodlust about Russia. Its raised their
"it's ALL *YOUR* FAULT"-ism by at least an order of magnitude.
Actually, that's been true since the 18th C., at least for the US. TV may make it more
vivid, and Europe has changed places, but most Americans have immigrant ancestors, most often
from Europe.
However, it does seem that the policy of the EU, especially under the influence of Mutti
Merkel, signalled a free-for-all immigration stance over the last several years, completely
ignoring the plight of existing workers (many of whom would be recent immigrants themselves
and the children of immigrants). That the so-called Left either sat idly by or jumped on
Mutti's band wagon didn't do them any favours with working people. Every country or customs
union has and needs to regulate its borders. It also makes some sense to monitor labour
markets when unfavourable conditions appear.
It appears that only the wealthy are largely reaping the rewards of the globalist
direction trade has taken. These issues need to be addressed by the emerging Left political
parties in the West. Failure to address these issues must, I would contend, play into the
hands of the more right wing parties whose job is to often enrich the local rich.
But, bottom line, your are correct workers do not come out well when blaming other workers
for economies that have been intentionally created to produce favourable conditions for the
few over the many.
It's a blade with two sides.
There are push factors like the wars and poor countries. However neither of these causes can
be fixed. Not possible. Europe can gnash their teeth all they want, not even when they did
the unthinkable and put the US under sanctions for their warcrimes would the US ever stop.
First there would be color revolutions in western europe.
As important as the push factors are the pull ones. 90% or so of all refugees 2015 went to
Germany. Some were sent to other countries by the EU, these too immediately moved to Germany
and didn't stay where they were assigned. So the EU has to clean up their act and would need
to put the last 10 or so US presidents and administrations before a judge in Den Haag for
continued war crimes and crimes against humanity (please let me my dreams). The EU would also
need to clean up their one sided trade treaties with Africa and generally reign in their own
corporations. All that is however not enough by far and at most only half the battle. Even
when the EU itself all did these things, the poverty would remain and therefore the biggest
push factor. Humans always migrate to the place where the economy is better.
The pull factors is however at least as big. The first thing to do is for Germany to fix
their laws to be in sync with the other EU countries. At this point, Germany is utterly
alone, at most some countries simply don't speak out against german policy since they want
concessions in other areas. Main one here is France with their proposed EU and Euro reforms
but not alone by far.
Nationalists want protection for work and workers, a clamping down on economic
migrants, and rules with teeth aimed at controlling international trade.
Socialism in one country is a Stalinist theory, and falling back upon it in fear of
international capital is not only regressive but (assuming we aren't intentionally ignoring
history) relective of a defensive mentality.
In other words, this kind of thinking is the thinking of the whipped dog cringing before
the next blow.
Or perhaps they want to regulate and control the power of capital in their country. Which
is an entirely impossible proposition considering that capital can flee any jurisdiction and
cross any border. After all, transnational capital flows which were leveraged to the hilt in
speculative assets played an oversized role in generating the financial crisis and subsequent
crash.
It wouldn't be the first time I've been called a Stalinist though.
And why would we care whether it's a "Stalinist" theory? For that matter, although worker
ownership would solve some of these problems, we needn't be talking about socialism, but
rather about more functional capitalism.
Quite a leap in that last sentence; you haven't actually established anything of the
sort.
Personally, I believe capitalism needs to go away, but for it, or any other economic
system, to work, we would need a fair, equal, just, enforced rule of law that
everyone would be under, wouldn't we?
Right now the blessed of our various nations do not want this, so they make so that one
set is unfair, unequal, unjust, harshly enforced on most of their country's population while
they get the gentle rules.
For a society to function long term, it needs to have a fair and just set of rules that
everyone understands and follow, although the rules don't have to equal; people will tolerate
different levels of punishments and strictness of the rules. The less that is the case the
more dysfunctional, and usually the more repressive it is. See the Western Roman Empire, the
fall of just about every Chinese dynasty, the Russian Empire, heck even the American War of
Independence, and the American Civil War. In example, people either actively worked to
destroy the system or did not care to support it.
Thank you for the article, a pretty lucid analysis of the recent electoral results in
Italy and trends elsewhere. Although I would have liked to read something about people voting
the way they do because they are xenophobe fascist baby-eating pedophile racist Putin
friends. Just for fun.
Funny how the author's company promotes "Daily international job vacancies in UNDP, FAO,
UN, UNCTAD, UNIDO and the other Governative Organization, Non Governative Organization,
Multinationals Corporations. Public Relations, Marketing, Business Development."
Precisely the sort of jobs that infuriates the impoverishing middle classes.
As recently as 2015, Bernie Sanders defended not only border security, but also national
sovereignty. Asked about expanded immigration, Sanders flipped the question into a critique
of open-borders libertarianism: "That's a Koch brothers proposal which says essentially there
is no United States."
Unfortunately the ethnic division of the campaign and Hillary's attack seems to have led him
to change his mind.
That's probably due to the fact that just about everybody can't seem to differentiate
between immigration and mass migration. The latter issue is a matter of distributing the pain
of a collapsing order. state failure, and climate change while the former is simply engaging
in the comfortable rhetoric of politics dominated by the American middle class.
1 people vote they like. im not updated if the voters eat babies but i'll check and let u
know.
2 My company is not dream job. It is a for free ( and not making a penny) daily bulleting
that using a fre soft (paper.li) collect international qualified job offers for whoever is
willing to work in these sector.
i'm not pro or contro migrants. i actually only reported simple fact collating differents
point :)
Economic migrants seek prosperity and are justified in doing so, yet they can also be
seen as pawns in an international strategy that destroys the negotiating leverage of
workers. The resulting contradictions potentially render conventional political
classifications obsolete.
This appears on the homepage, but not here.
In any case, the 10% also seek prosperity. They are said to be the enablers of the 1%.
Until the left alters its thinking to reflect the crucial information presented in this
video, information more clearly and comprehensively spelled out in "Reclaiming the State" by
Mitchell and Fazi, resurgent rightwing nationalism will be the only outlet for those who
reject global neoliberalism's race to the bottom. It's that simple and sad.
To paint this as two pro-globalisation (within which you place the left) and
pro-nationalism is simplistic and repositions the false dichotomy of left vs right with
something just as useless. We should instead seek to speak to the complexities of the modern
political spectrum. This is an example of poor journalism and analysis and shouldn't have
been posted here, sorry Yves.
Thanks for your opinion. Check the format of this place: articles selected for information
or provoking thoughts, in support of a general position of driving toward betterment of the
general welfare, writ large.
The political economy is at least as complex as the Krebs or citric acid cycle that
biology students and scientists try to master. There are so many moving parts and
intersecting and competing interests that in the few words that the format can accommodate,
regarding each link, it's a little unkind to expect some master work of explication and
rhetorical closure every time.
The Krebs cycle is basically driven by the homeostatic thrust, bred of billions of years
of refinement, to maintain the healthy functioning and prolong life of the organism. There's
a perceivable axis to all the many parts of respiration, digestion, energy flows and such,
all inter-related with a clear organizing principle at the level of the organism. On the
record, it's hardly clear that at the level of the political economy, and all the many parts
that make it up, there is sufficient cohesion around a set of organizing principles that
parallel the drive, at the society and species level, to regulate and promote the energy
flows and interactions that would keep things healthy and prolong the life of the larger
entity. Or that their is not maybe a death wish built into the "cultural DNA" of most of the
human population.
Looks a lot to me that we actually have been invested (in both the financial and military
senses of the word) by a bunch of different cancer processes, wild and unregulated
proliferation of ecnomic and political tumor tissues that have invaded and undermined the
healthy organs of the body politic. Not so clear what the treatments might be, or the
prognosis. It is a little hopeful, continuing the biological analogy, that the equivalents of
inflammation and immune system processes appear to be overcoming the sneaky tricks that
cancer genes and cells employ to evade being identified and rendered innocuous.
Yes, "invested in a bunch of cancer processes" is a good description of allowing excessive
levels of predatory wealth. Thus you end up with a bunch of Jay Gould hyper capitalists whose
guiding principle is: I can always pay one half of the working class to kill the other half.
Divide and conquer rules.
It's mostly simply wrong. This doesn't describe the political views of almost anyone near
power anywhere as far as I can tell:
"Globalists want more open borders and freer international trade. Nationalists want
protection for work and workers, "
Most of the nationalist forces are on the right and give @#$# all for workers rights.
Really they may be anti-immigrant but they are absolutely anti-worker.
The middle class does not really exist, it was a concept invented by capitalists to
distract the workers from their essential unity as fellow wage slaves. Some make more wages,
some make less wages but they all have their surplus value, the money left over after they
have enough to take care of themselves, taken by the capitalist and used for his ends even
though he may not have worked in the value creation process at all.
Economic migrants are members of the working class who have been driven from their home
country to somewhere else by the capitalist system. While the article does mention capitalist
shock doctrine methods for establishing imperialism and correctly notes that economic
migrants are victims, it then goes on to try to lay a weak and insidious argument against
them. The author goes on citing multiple different cases of worker wages being driven lower
or stagnating, many of these cases have differing and sometimes complex reasons for why this
happened. But migrants and globalization are to blame he says and that our struggle is
nationalism vs globalism. He refuses to see what is staring him in the face, workers produce
surplus value for society, more workers produce more surplus value. If society finds itself
wealthier with more workers then why do workers wage fall or stagnate? He does note correctly
that this is due to the workers now having a weaker bargaining position with the capitalist,
but he seems to conclude from this without stating outrightly that we should then reject the
economic migrants because of this.
However, we could instead conclude that if more workers produce more surplus value but yet
their wages fall because the capitalist takes a larger share of the overall pot, that the
problem is not more workers but instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to
exploit workers everywhere. Plus the workers bargaining position only weakens with a greater
number of them if they are all just bargaining for themselves, but if they were to bargain
togather collectively then there bargaining position has actually only grown even
stronger.
Also he falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists, instead of correctly
noting that the democratic party represents capitalist interests from a centrist position and
not the left. The strength of global capitalism can only be fought by a global coalition of
the working class. The struggle of Mexican and American workers are interrelated to each
other and the same goes for that of European and Middle Eastern workers. The time has come
for the left to raise the rallying cry of its great and glorious past.
You claim, as if it were obvious, that "economic migrants are members of the working class
who have been driven from their home country to somewhere else by the capitalist system."
Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?
If the borders of the US were abruptly left completely open, a huge number of people would
enter the country tomorrow, for economic reasons. Would they all have been "driven" here, or
would they have some choice in the matter?
When you say, "he refuses to say what is staring him in the face, that [ ] more workers
produce more surplus value," you are not only taking a gratuitously pedantic tone, you are
actually not making a coherent critique. If economic migrants move from one country to
another, the total pool of workers in the world has not increased; while according to your
logic, if all the workers in the world were to move to Rhode Island, Rhode Island would
suddenly be swimming in the richness of surplus value.
When you say, "we could instead conclude that [..] the problem is not more workers but
instead the capitalist system itself which was rigged to exploit workers everywhere," you are
straw-manning the author but also making a purely rhetorical argument. If you think the
capitalist system can be replaced with a better one within the near future, then you can work
toward that; but in the meanwhile, nations, assuming that they will continue to exist, will
either have open borders or something short of that, and these decisions do affect
the lives of workers.
When you say he "falsly equates democratic party policies with leftists," the false
equivalence is coming from you. The article barely touches on the Democratic Party, and
instead draws most of its examples from Europe, especially Italy. In Italy, the public
figures he mentions call themselves part of the sinistra and are generally referred
to that way. You might perhaps feel that they are not entitled to that name (and in fact, the
article sometimes places "left" in quotation marks), but you should at least read the article
and look them up before discussing the matter.
From the article: "Meanwhile, many who self-identify as on the Left seem utterly
uninterested in the concerns of ordinary people, at least in cases where these would conflict
with the commitment to globalization."
To Be Fair, Verga clearly is skeptical about those claims to be "on the Left," as he
should be. Nonetheless, his initial mention of Democratic exemplars of globalization triggers
American reflexes.
Something before this failed to post; was rejected as a double post.
In brief: corporate globalization is a conservative, Republican policy that Bill Clinton
imposed on the Dems, where it has since become doctrine, since it pays. It's ultimately the
reason I'm a Green, not a Democrat, and in a sense the reason there IS a Green Party in the
US.
The author points to stagnant middle class income in USA and Western Europe but fail to
look the big picture. Middle class income has increased sharply in the past decades in Asia
and Eastern Europe. Overall the gain huge, even though life is tougher in richer
countries.
Overall the gain huge, even thought life is tougher in richer countries.
Please accept my apologies for saying this. I don't mean to offend. I just have to point
out something.
Many in the Democratic Party, as well as the left, are pointing to other countries and
peoples as well as the American 9.9% and saying things are great, why are you complaining?
With the not so hidden implications, sometimes openly stated that those who do are losers and
deplorables.
Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an
untruth. As an American, I do not really care about the middle classes in Asia and Eastern
Europe. Bleep the big picture. The huge gains comes with a commensurate increase in homeless
in the United States, and a falling standard of living for most the of the population,
especially in the "wealthy" states, like my state of California. Most of us are using
fingernails to stay alive and homed. If those gains had not been caused by the losses, I
would be very please to see them. As it is, I have to live under President Trump and worry
about surviving. Heck, worry about the rest of my family doing so.
"Saying that middle class incomes are merely stagnant is a sick, sick joke as well as an
untruth."
+10,000
I mean I actually do care somewhat about the people of the world, but we here in "rich
countries" are being driven to homelessness at this point and told the goddamn lie that we
live in a rich country, rather than the truth that we live in a plutocracy with levels of
inequality approaching truly 3rd world. We are literally killing ourselves because we have to
live in this plutocracy and our one existence itself is not even worth it anymore in this
economic system (and we are lacking even a few of the positives of many other 3rd world
countries). And those that aren't killing ourselves still can't find work, and even if we do,
it doesn't pay enough to meet the most basic necessities.
1. It is unfortunate that Verga raises the rising cost of material inputs but fails to
meaningfully address the issue. One of the drivers of migration, as mentioned in Comments
above, is the population volcano currently erupting. Labor is cheap and globalization
possible in large part because the world population has grown from 2 Billion to over 7
Billion in the past 60-odd years. This slow-growing mountain of human beings has created
stresses on material inputs which are having a negative impact on the benefits derived from
declining labor costs. This becomes a death-spiral as capital seeks to balance the rising
cost of raw materials and agricultural products by driving down the cost of labor ever
further.
2. Verga touches on the interplay of Nationalism and Racism in the responses of political
parties and institutions in Italy and elsewhere. Voters appear to be abandoning Left and
left-ish parties because the Left have been unable to come up with a definintion of national
sovereignty that protects worker rights largely due to the importance of anti-racism in
current Left-wing thought. Working people were briefly bought-off with cheap consumer goods
and easy credit, but they now realize that low-wage migrant and off-shore workers mean that
even these goodies are now out of reach. The only political alternative currently on offer is
a brand of Nationalism defined by Racism -- which becomes acceptable to voters when the
alternative is Third-World levels of poverty for those outside the 1% and their 9%
enablers.
I don't see any simple solutions. Things may get very ugly.
I certainly see that policies tampering down free trade, both of capital and labor, can
benefit workers within a particular country. However, especially in the context of said
policies in "Western" countries, this can tend towards a, protect the working class within
the borders, leave those outside of it in impoverished squalor. Which doesn't mesh well with
the leftist goal of global class consciousness. Much like the racially segregated labor
policies of yesteryear, it's playing a zero-sum game with the working class while the
ownership class gets the "rising tide lifts all boats" treatment.
So how do we protect workers within the sovereign, while not doing so at the cost of the
workers outside of it? Schwieckart has an interesting idea, that tariffs on imports are used
to fund non-profits/higher education/cooperatives in the country of export. However, I think
we'd need something a bit more fine-tuned than that.
It has always baffled me that governments enable this global musical chairs game with the
labor market. Nearly all Western governments allow tax dodging by those who benefit the most
from their Navies, Armies, Patents, and Customs enforcement systems. However, it is the
working class that carries the brunt of that cost while corporations off-shore their
profits.
A simple-minded fix might be to start taxing foreign profits commensurate with the cost of
enabling those overseas profits.
Interesting that a corporation is a person just like us mortals when it is to their
advantage, but unlike us humans, they can legally escape taxation on much of their income
whereas a human being who is a US citizen cannot. A human citizen is generally taxed by the
US on all income regardless of its source. OTOH, corporations (among other means) routinely
transfer intellectual property to a non tax jurisdiction and then pay artificial payments to
that entity for the rights to use such property. It is a scam akin to a human creating a tax
deduction by transferring money from one pocket to another. Yes, proper taxation of
corporations is a simple-minded fix which is absolutely not simple to legislate. Nice try
though. Something else to ponder: Taxation without representation was said to be a major
factor in our war of independence from Britain. Today no one seems to be concerned that we
have evolved into representation without taxation. Doesn't see right to me.
"Klein analyzes a future (already here to some degree) in which multinational
corporations freely fish from one market or another in an effort to find the most suitable
(i.e. cheapest) labor force."
FWIW I don't think it's productive to talk about things like immigration in (or to) the US
in terms of just the here – as in what should/could we be doing here
to fix the problem. It's just as much if not more about the there . If we
view the global economic order as an enriched center feeding off a developing periphery, then
fixing the periphery should be first aim. #Wall or #NoBorders are largely incendiary
extremes. Ending Original Sin and creating some
sort of supranational
IOU/credit system (not controlled by World Bank or IMF!) will end the economic imbalance
and allow countries who will never export their way out of poverty and misery a way
to become equal first world nation states. With this equality, there will be less economic
migration, less peripheral poverty and potentially less political unrest. It's a gargantuan
task to be sure, but with rising Socialist sentiment here and abroad, I'd like to think we
are at least moving in the right direction.
If the rich were properly taxed then social tensions would be greatly reduced and if the
revenue raised were used to help the poorest in society much distress could be
alleviated.
I worry that debate on migration/globalisation is being encouraged to distract attention
from this issue.
I may indeed have taken a gratuitously pedantic tone and could have chosen a better one,
for that i apologise. I do however believe that much of my critique still stands, I will try
to go through your points one by one.
"Are all economic migrants therefore bereft of agency?"
Not all but many are, especially the ones that most people are complaining about. Many of
them are being driven from their home countries not simply for a better life but so they can
have something approaching a life at all. While to fully prove this point would require an
analysis of all the different migrants and their home country conditions, I do feel that if
we are talking about Syrian refugees, migrants from Africa risking their lives crossing the
Mediteranian sea, or CentralAmerican refugees than yes i do think these people to an extent
have had their agency taken from them by global events. For Syrians, by being caught in an
imperialist power struggle which while the civil war may not have been caused by it, it
certainly has been prolonged because of it. Not too mention America played a very significant
role in creating the conditions for ISIS, and western European powers don't have completely
clean hands either due to their long history of brutal imperialism in the mideast. Africa of
course also has an extensive past of colonization and suffers from a present of colonization
and exploitation as well. For Central Americans there is of course the voracious american
drug market as well as our politicians consistent appetite for its criminalisation to blame.
There is also of course global climate change. Many of these contributing conditions are not
being dealt with and so i believe that the migrations we have witnessed these last few years
are only the first ining of perhaps even greater migrations to come. How we deal with it now,
could determine whether our era is defined by mass deaths or something better. So to the
extent that i believe many of these migrants have agency is similiar to how a person climbing
onto the roof of there house to escape a flood does.
If the borders of the US were left completely open then, yes, there would most likely be a
rush of people at first but over time they would migrate back and forth according to their
needs, through the opening of the border they would gain agency. People often think that a
country not permitting its citizens to leave is wrong and immoral, but if most countries
close their borders to the people of a country going through great suffering, then it seems
to me that is essentially the same even if the rhetoric may be different. The likeliness of
this is high if the rich countries close there borders, since if the rich countries like the
US and Italy feel they can not take them in, then its doubtful countries on the way that are
much poorer will be able to either.
At the begining of your article you stated that "International commerce, jobs, and
economic migrants are propelled by a common force: profit." This is the capitalist system,
which is a system built upon the accumulation of capital, which are profits invested in
instruments of labor, aka machines and various labor enhancements. Now Rhode island is quite
small so there are geographical limitations of course, but if that was not an issue then yes.
Wage workers in the capitalist system produce more value than they consume, if this was not
the case they would not be hired or be hired for long. So if Rhode Island did not have the
geographical limitations that it does, then with more workers the overall pot of valuable
products and services would increase per capita in relation to the population. If the workers
are divided and not unified into cohesive and responsive institutions to fight for there
right share of the overall pie, which I believe should be all of it, then most of the gain to
society will go to the capitalist as increased profits. So it is not the migrant workers who
take from the native but instead actually the capitalist who exploits and trys to magnify
there difference. So if the capitalist system through imperialism helped to contribute to the
underlying conditions driving mass migration, and then it exploits there gratitude and
willingness to work for less than native workers, than I believe it follows that they will
wish to drive native anger towards the migrants with the ultimate goal of allowing them to
exploit the migrant workers at an even more severe level. This could be true within the
country, such as the US right now where the overarching result of anti-immigrant policies has
been to not get rid of them but to drive there exploitation more into the shadows, or through
mass deportations back to their home country followed by investments to exploit their
desperation at super low wages that will then compete with the rich country workers, it is
also possible they will all just die and everyone will look away. Either way the result will
still be lower wages for rich country workers, it seems to me the only way out of the impass
is for the native workers to realize their unity with migrant workers as exploited workers
and instead of directing that energy of hostility at each other instead focus it upon the
real root which is the capitalists themselves. Without the capitalists, more workers, held
withing certain geographic limitations of course, would in fact only enrich each other.
So while nations may indeed continue to exist for awhile, the long term benefit of native
workers is better served by making common cause with migrants against their mutual oppressors
then allowing themselves to be stirred up against them. Making this argument to workers is
much harder, but its the most beneficial if it can be made successfully.
This last point i do agree i may have been unfair to you, historically I believe the left
generally referred to anarchists, socialists and communists. So I often dislike the way
modern commentators use the left to refer to anything from a center right democrat like
Hillary Clinton all the way to the most hard core communist, it can make understanding
political subtleties difficult since anarchists, socialists and communists have radically
different politics than liberals, much more so than can be expressed along a linear line. But
as you point out you used quotes which i admit i did not notice, and of course one must
generally use the jargon of the times in order to be understood.
Overall i think my main critique was that it seemed that throughout your article you were
referencing different negative symptoms of capitalism but was instead taking that evidence
for the negatives of globalism. I may come from a more radical tradition than you may be used
to, but i would consider globalism to be an inherent aspect of capitalism. Capitalism in its
algorithmic quest for ever increasing profits generally will not allow its self to be bound
for long by people, nations, or even the physical and environmental limitations of the earth.
While one country may be able to restrict it for a time unless it is overcome completely it
will eventually reach out globally again. The only way to stop it is a prolonged struggle of
the international working class cooperating with each other against capitalism in all its
exploitive forms. I would also say that what we are seeing is not so much globalism vs
nationalism but instead a rearrangement of the competing imperial powers, Russia, China, US,
Germany and perhaps the evolution of multiple competing imperialisms similiar in nature to
pre- world war times but that may have to wait for later.
A great deal of your article did indeed deal with Italy which I did not address but I felt
that your arguments surrounding migrants was essentially of a subtle right wing nature and it
needed to be balanced by a socialist counter narrative. I am very glad that you took the time
to respond to my critique I know that putting analysis out there can be very difficult and i
am thankful for your response which has allowed me to better express and understand my
viewpoint. Once again I apoligise if I used some overly aggressive language and i hope your
able to get something out of my response as well.
I appreciate the more reflective tone of this reply. I believe there are still some
misreadings of the article, which I will try to clarify.
For one thing, I am not the author of the article! Enrico Verga is the author. I merely
translated the article. Enrico is Italian, however, and so for time zone reasons will be
unable to respond to your comments for a while. I am happy to write a bit on this in the
meantime.
You make two arguments.
The first is that many or most migrants are fleeing desperate circumstances. The article
speaks however consistently of "economic migrants" – there are some overlapping issues
with refugees, but also significant differences. Clearly there are many people who are
economically comfortable in their home countries and who would still jump at a chance to get
US citizenship if they could (look up EB-5 fraud for one example). Saying this does not imply
some sort of subtle critique of such people, but they are not a myth.
I actually found your second argument more thought-provoking. As I understand you, you are
suggesting something like the following. You support completely open borders. You acknowledge
that this would lead at first to massive shifts in population, but in the long run you say
things would stabilize. You acknowledge that this will lead to "lower wages for rich country
workers," but say that we should focus on the fact that it is only within the capitalist
system that this causality holds. You also suggest that it would probably lead, under current
conditions, to workers having their anger misdirected at migrants and therefore supporting
more reactionary policies.
Given that the shift to immediate open borders would, by this analysis, be highly
detrimental to causes you support, why do you favor it? Your reasons appear to be (1) it's
the right thing to do and we should just do it, (2) yes, workers might react in the way
described, but they should not feel that way, and maybe we can convince them not to feel that
way, (3) things will work themselves out in the long run.
I am a bit surprised at the straightforwardly idealistic tone of (1) and (2). As for (3),
as Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead. He meant by this that phenomena that might
in theory equilibrate over a very long time can lead to significant chaos in the short run;
this chaos can meanwhile disrupt calculations about the "long term" and spawn other
significant negative consequences.
Anyone who is open to the idea of radically new economic arrangements faces the question
of how best to get there. You are perhaps suggesting that letting global capital
reign supreme, unhindered by the rules and restrictions of nation-states, will in the long
run allow workers to understand their oppression more clearly and so increase their openness
to uniting against it. If so, I am skeptical.
I will finally point out that a part of the tone of your response seems directed at the
impression that Enrico dislikes migrants, or wants other people to resent them. I see nothing
in the article that would suggest this, and there are on the other hand several passages in
which Enrico encourages the reader to empathize with migrants. When you suggest that his
arguments are "essentially of a subtle right wing nature," you are maybe reacting to this
misreading; in any case, I'm not really sure what you are getting at, since this phrase is so
analytically imprecise that it could mean all sorts of things. Please try to engage with the
article with arguments, not with vague epithets.
There is a bit of a dissonance here. Human rights has been persistently used by
neoliberals to destabilize other regions for their own ends for decades now with little
protest. And when the standard playbook of coups and stirring up trouble does not work its
war and total destruction as we have seen recently in Iraq, Libya and Syria for completely
fabricated reasons.
Since increased migration is the obvious first consequence when entire countries are
decimated and in disarray one would expect the countries doing the destruction to accept the
consequences of their actions but instead we have the same political forces who advocate
intervention on 'human rights grounds' now demonizing migrants and advocating openly racist
policies.
One can understand one mistake but 3 mistakes in a row! And apparently we are not capable
of learning. The bloodlust continues unabated for Iran. This will destabilize an already
destabilized region and cause even more migration to Europe. There seems to be a fundamental
contradiction here, that the citizens of countries that execute these actions and who who
protest about migrants must confront.
Maybe they should pay trillions of dollars of reparations for these intervention so these
countries can be rebuilt and made secure again so migrants can return to their homes. Maybe
the UN can introduce a new fund with any country considering destabilizing another country,
for instance Iran, to first deposit a trillion dollars upfront to deal with the human
fallout. Or maybe casually destabilizing and devastating entire countries, killing millions
of people and putting millions more in disarray should be considered crimes against humanity
and prosecuted so they are not repeated.
Globalization is not a one-dimensional phenomenon, and some of its aspects are still intact.
Hollywood dominance, Internet, English language dominance, West technological dominance, will
not reverse any time soon.
What is under attack by Trump, Brexit, etc. is neoliberal globalization, and, especially
financial globalization, free movement of labor and outsourcing of manufacturing and services
(offshoring).
Neoliberal globalization was also based on the dollar as world reserve currency (and oil
trading in dollars exclusively). But this role of dollar recently is under attack due to the
rise of China. Several "anti-dollar" blocks emerged.
Trump tariffs are also anathema for "classic neoliberalism" and essentially convert
"classic neoliberalism" into "national neoliberalism" on the state level. BTW it looks like
Russia switched to "national neoliberalism" earlier than the USA. No surprise that Trump
feels some affinity to Putin ;-)
Attacks against free labor movement also on the rise and this is another nail in the
coffin of classic neoliberalism. In several countries, including the USA the neoliberal elite
(especially financial elite after 2008, despite that no banksters were killed by crowds) does
not feel safe given animosity caused by the promotion of immigration and resorts of
conversion of the state into national security state and neo-McCarthyism to suppress
dissent.
I think those attacks will continue, immigration will be curtailed, and "classic
neoliberalism" will be transformed into something different. Not necessarily better.
Several trends are also connected with the gradual slipping of the power of the USA as the
chief enforcer of the neoliberal globalization. Which is partially happened due to the
stupidity and arrogance of the USA neoliberal elite and neocons.
Another factor in play is the total, catastrophic loss of power of neoliberal propaganda
-- people started asking questions, and neoliberal myths no longer hold any spell on
population (or at least much less spell). The success of Bernie Sanders during the last
election (DNC was forced to resort to dirty tricks to derail him) is one indication of this
trend. This "collapse of ideology" spells great troubles for the USA, as previously it spells
great troubles for the USSR.
"Trumpism" as I understand it tried to patch the situation by two major strategies:
(1) splitting Russia from China
(2) Attempt to acquire dominant position in regions rick in hydrocarbons (Iraq, Iran,
Libya, Venezuela, etc)
But so far the decline of neoliberalism looks like Irreversible. It never fully recovered
from the deep crisis of 2008 and there is no light at the end of the tunnel.
Another powerful factor that works against neoliberal globalization is the end of cheap
oil. How it will play out is unclear, Much depends whether we will have a Seneca cliff in oil
production or not. And if yes, how soon.
This is the end of classic neoliberalism, no question about it, and the collapse of
neoliberal globalization is just one aspect of it
"... Two U.S. 'realists', Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had always warned that the 'west' must keep China and Russia apart if it wants to keep its leading global position. Nixon went to China to achieve that. ..."
"... Years later the U.S. fell for the myth that it had 'won' the Cold War. It felt invincible, the 'sole superpower' and sought to 'rule them all'. It woke up from that dream after it invaded Iraq. The mighty U.S. military was beaten to pulp by the 'sand niggers' it despised. A few years later U.S. financial markets were in shambles. ..."
"... Crude attempts to further encircle Russia led to the Chinese-Russian alliance that now leads the SCO and soon, one might argue, the world. There will be no photo like the above from the SCO summit. The Chinese President Xi calls Russia's President Putin 'my best friend'. ..."
"... Agreed! But what will the US psychopaths do to maintain their grip when they realize they are really losing it? Nuclear war? ..."
"... Watching the two meetings play out has really been interesting, that the West is dead is not in question. And once it started it seems to be gaining momentum. I don't know how many readers here watch CGTN but it is amazing. My IQ goes up every time I watch. Astonishing how much more valuable information you get from a "heavily censored" Chinese news compared to MSM. The website is a little slow at times but it is well worth the wait. ..."
G-7 summits are supposed to symbolize "the west", its unity and its power. The summits pretended to set policy directions for
the world. We are happy to see that they are dead.
Trump was obviously not inclined to compromise.
Before attending the summit Trump trolled his colleagues by inviting Russia to rejoin the G-7/G-8 format without conditions. Russia
had been kicked out after Crimea voted to join its motherland. Merkel, who had negotiated the Minsk agreement with Russia, was furious.
She wants to use such an invitation as an element of future negotiations. (It is stupid talk. Russia is not interested in rejoining
the G-7/G-8 format.)
There are now many fields where the U.S. and its allies disagree: climate change, the Iran deal, trade are only the major ones.
Before leaving the summit Trump again
used
Mafia language against everyone else:
As he prepared to depart early from the G-7 summit in Charlevoix, Canada, to head to Singapore ahead of his planned meeting with
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump delivered an ultimatum to foreign leaders, demanding that their countries reduce trade
barriers for the U.S. or risk losing market access to the world's largest economy.
"They have no choice. I'll be honest with you, they have no choice," Trump told reporters at a news conference, adding that
companies and jobs had left the U.S. to escape trade barriers abroad. "We're going to fix that situation. And if it's not fixed,
then we're not going to deal with these countries. "
The row at the G-7 meeting was in stark contrast to the more important other meeting that happened today, the 18th Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) summit in Qingdao, China:
Dazzling against the city skyline of Qingdao, fireworks lit up the faces of guests who traveled across the vast Eurasian continent
to the coast of the Yellow Sea for the 18th Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, on Saturday night.
It is the first such summit since the organization's expansion in June 2017 when India and Pakistan joined as full members.
...
The Shanghai Spirit of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diverse civilizations and pursuit
of common development , was stated in the Charter of the SCO, a comprehensive regional organization founded in 2001 by China,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and later expanded to eight member states.
This weekend Xi will chair the summit for the first time as Chinese president, which is attended by leaders of other SCO member
states and four observer states, as well as chiefs of various international organizations.
...
The SCO has grown to be an organization covering over 60 percent of the Eurasian landmass, nearly half the world's population
and over 20 percent of global GDP.
Two U.S. 'realists', Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had always warned that the 'west' must keep China and Russia
apart if it wants to keep its leading global position. Nixon went to China to achieve that.
Years later the U.S. fell for the myth that it had 'won' the Cold War. It felt invincible, the 'sole superpower' and sought
to 'rule them all'. It woke up from that dream after it invaded Iraq. The mighty U.S. military was beaten to pulp by the 'sand niggers'
it despised. A few years later U.S. financial markets were in shambles.
Crude attempts to further encircle Russia led to the Chinese-Russian alliance that now leads the SCO and soon, one might argue,
the world. There will be no photo like the above from the SCO summit. The Chinese President Xi calls Russia's President Putin 'my
best friend'.
The 'west' has lost in Eurasia.
The U.S. is reduced to a schoolyard bully who beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big. Trump is off to Singapore to meet Kim Yong-un. Unlike Trump North Korea's supreme leader will be well prepared. It is likely that
he will run rings around Trump during the negotiations. If Trump tries to bully him like he bullies his 'allies', Kim will pack up
and leave. Unlike the U.S. 'allies' he has no need to bow to Trump. China and Russia have his back. They are now the powers that
can lead the world.
The 'west' is past. The future is in the east.
Posted by b on June 9, 2018 at 03:14 PM |
Permalink
Yeah, I was just thinking that. Trump is running full-speed into isolation. It's an ancient policy, which recalls the 1920s. What
does America need of the outside world? Good question.
I would think we will hear in the not too distant future of a European replacement of the US exchange systems, such as VISA.
The Americans have become too unreliable. Obviously the Russians and Chinese do have their own systems, but that won't do for
the EU.
Independence is going to be forced, and the consequences will be permanent.
Watching the two meetings play out has really been interesting, that the West is dead is not in question. And once it started
it seems to be gaining momentum. I don't know how many readers here watch CGTN but it is amazing. My IQ goes up every time I watch. Astonishing how much more
valuable information you get from a "heavily censored" Chinese news compared to MSM. The website is a little slow at times but
it is well worth the wait.
Last year during the border standoff with India they had on strident Indian voices arguing the Indian position every day. Imagine
if CNN had on Mexican reps regarding the wall - never happen.
Because Iran was under sanctions levied by the United Nations earlier, it was blocked from admission as a new member of the Shanghai
Cooperation Council [SCO]. The SCO stated that any country under UN sanctions could not be admitted. After the UN sanctions were
lifted, Chinese president Xi Jinping announced its support for Iran's full membership in SCO during a state visit to Iran in January
2016.Iran must join the SCO ASAP it is also a military alliance and should prepare itself for a big effort at regime change by
the US and lackeys. The moral of the story unless they hang together, the US will hang them separately.
Well, China as the text books say was always ' half the human story' - only eclipsed by Western connivance in the 1860's .I remember
my father argueing with high ranking Australian government and commercial figures in 1970.
My father argued Australia needed
to find its own voice with China and Chinese policy . They replied sneeringly '' Ralph , their just red communists and will never
amount to anything ' . Shortly thereafter Nixon flew to Beijing and my father sat back in his living room with a sardonic look
on his face !
You may like Freedland's article yesterday, which unusually I agreed with, that in fact Trump is a poor negotiator, and gives
away tricks he doesn't have to. Why no concession from Israel, over the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem? Why give away the
honour to NK of a one-to-one with the US president? I'd be surprised if NK surrenders, when they know what will happen if they
do.
"President Putin is the leader of a great country who is influential around the world," Xi said. "He is my best, most intimate
friend." Xi promised Russia and China would increase their coordination in the international arena.
Putin expressed his thanks for the honor and said he saw it as an "evaluation" of his nation's efforts to strengthen its relationship
with its southern neighbor.
"This is an indication of the special attention and respect on which our mutual national interests are based, the interests
of our peoples and, of course, our personal friendship," Putin said.
Interesting that Trump has said Russia should be invited back into the west's G7/G8 at this time. In cold war 1.0, Soviet Union
was the main enemy of the US and China was split away from the Soviet Union. In this war, Trump sees China's economy as the main
threat to the US and is trying but failing to pull Russia away from China.
They did win the Cold War. That's how they became the'sole superpower'.
If winning the Cold War is about vanquishing communism, they flat out lost. Because, while they were concentrating on the end
of the USSR and celebrating, China was going up and up and up. They never saw her coming, yet to this day and for the foreseeable
future, China is a socialist, Marxist country.
So the new, desperate Western spin is to try to argue that China has "succumbed" to capitalism. Yeah, right, a country where
all the private companies have to have members of the CPC on their board and hand over enough shares to the state to grant it
veto powers, not to mention the Central bank and all its major companies are state-owned... Lol.
After the collapse of the USSR the consensus - even of the alt-media (what little of it existed) was that a new American century
was on the way and the whole world would be better off for it. A decade later in 2003 the consensus (post 'shock & awe' Gulf War
2) was that America had the ability to re-structure the Asian /African world and that it would all be for good.
15 years later we are all sick of the fruit of that delusion. So we look to another power to save us... Do we understand nothing?
Without the accountability of multi-polarity, Western supreme power all became security-obsessed privilege, self-aggrandizement,
blatant plunder and total disregard for moral value and life. Power corrupts - it knows no exceptions.
If the West is truly dead, the East will be no different.
Interesting that Trump has said Russia should be invited back into the west's G7/G8 at this time.
Thought of a moment to annoy the Europeans. It is obvious that Trump was pissed off about having to attend, and left at the earliest
opportunity. The Europeans heard that, and will draw the inevitable conclusions.
Lea @ 13 Socialist, Marxist, Capitalist, what does it matter: it seems to work for China, at least for the time being. It's success
makes me think that a bit more government control of corporations might not be such a bad thing.
The summit with Kim will be fascinating to observe. In my view, NK has finessed the US and the Trump administration to a degree
I would not have thought possible, even from native US insiders. To do it long range from the other side of the world speaks to
me a lot about the power of Asia, and the clarity of view from there.
I agree with Laguerre @9 that Trump is a terrible negotiator (forgive that I didn't read the Guardian piece). I would take
this much further and say that all the US institutions themselves are culturally crippled in terms of understanding what's happening
in the ascendancy of Asia. All of their negotiation is feeble, because their grasp on their own true position is based on yesterday's
view of their power. You cannot go into negotiation without knowing what you hold.
Every day, I become more confident in the ability of the elder nations to put the young western empires to rest without their
being triggered into death spasms.
Red Ryder @11 - I see China's full-on drive for the one Road as its way of waging total war, its strategic masterstroke to
render the enemy powerless without the enemy's realizing that it is being attacked. Russia as the other half of the Double Helix
mesmerizes the west with weaponry while China undercuts the ground. Both countries are fully at war, and winning, while unseeing
commenters complain that it's time for them to "do something." How superb the silk rope drawn so softly around the throat.
It's a beautiful play. I very much hope - and truly expect - that we can all survive to be able to sit back and admire it as
the years unfold.
I have a small quibble with b's wording but thank him for following and reporting on our evolving world.
b's words:"
The U.S. is reduced to a schoolyard bully who beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big.
"
My rewording:
The global elite have their US puppet acting like a schoolyard bully who beat up his gang members because their former victims
have grown too big.
The West is trying to consolidate power and control while they still have some ghost of a chance. How they hold countries after
this global divorce will be interesting.
At his time the West has little to offer humanistically except its vice grip on most economic interaction and the tools including
banking underpinning the "system". The elite have deluded the public in the West for centuries about private finance behind the
scenes of all/most conflict......pointing to other religions but never their own.
It sure is getting interesting. IMO, the two Koreas are going to announce a reconciliation that requires the removal of America
military forces/bases et al, which fits in with the fake nationalism efforts of Trump.
That the US and the EU and their respective camps are at loggerheads over trade and perhaps other economic issues should not (I
hope) lead readers to assume that one side has the interests of the public it represents uppermost in mind. As the US and the
Anglosphere is dominated by one set of neoliberals, so Germany and the lackey EU nations following Berlin are dominated by another
set of neoliberals in thrall to an export-led mercantilist ideology. Just as the elites in charge of US power structures are only
interested in enriching themselves, the same can be said for those in charge of power structures in Europe. Whether under the
US or the EU, the public suffers.
Notice that Germany benefits from being the major economic power in the EU while its fellow EU nations around the Atlantic
and Mediterranean rim flail under a huge debt (and Greece is being punished back into the impoverished colonial status it held
under Nazi German occupation) and eastern European EU members are following suit running their economies into the ground and having
to beg NATO into setting up bases in their territories to attract money. At the same time German workers are becoming poorer,
they are not benefiting from Berlin's economic policies, they are not reproducing fast enough so Berlin needs to bring in more
foreign workers in the guise of "refugees" to prop up factories and keep wages low.
@ Madderhatter67: The US did not win the Cold War because the Cold War was only ever a propaganda front for the secret war
waged by US / UK elites against Russia and China to dominate and rob these nations and their neighbours of their natural resources.
thanks b - and for the laugh with the marjorie and homer pic for comparison!
i think this parallel you draw is a good one.. the west is certainly floundering... i am not sure how global finance responds
here... i can't imagine the 1% being on the wrong side of a bet on the direction of things here either..
@6 harry law.. did iran make it into the sco? it sounds like it did.. good!
@14 les7.. regarding your last line - i tend to agree with that viewpoint..
@19 jen... do you think it will be somehow different if the power shifts to russia/china? i guess i am not so sanguine over
power, regardless of who holds it.
Very well put, only issue that as to be dealt with is all those Stan Countries, they are a hibernating and breeding ground for
Terrorists and Arms dealers , who don't care who they sell arms to and how they get them to rogue regimes.
I see China's full-on drive for the one Road as its way of waging total war, its strategic masterstroke to render the enemy
powerless without the enemy's realizing that it is being attacked.
I do think you're exaggerating there.
China's past history has been one of a country very contented with itself, much like the US, because defended geographically
by vast deserts. A longer history, so some foreigners did traverse the deserts.
The Chinese exported their products by foreign ships (Arabo-Persian) arriving at Canton, and buying cargoes, or camel caravans
arriving in the north and buying silk. The Chinese themselves did not travel abroad very much, and so didn't know very much about
surrounding countries, or the rest of the world. There was a fleet of Chinese junks which arrived in the Gulf in the 14th century,
but it was the only one.
Today's situation is not so different. There are Chinese interventions in Africa, but their diplomacy is pretty ham-fisted.
The Belt-and-Road initiative is in fact intended to bring up to speed Central Asian countries like Tajikistan. Fine, Tajikistan
needs it, but it's not world-changing.
The rail freight from Beijing to Frankfurt works better as an intermediate between sea and air freight, but essentially it
is what has always happened - foreigners export Chinese products. The Chinese don't know how to run a foreign policy.
from their body language, I would say that Japan is surely 'with' Trump and the US, but that's only because that arch-reactionary
Abe is in power.....and when he goes, and go he will, there will be a big period of adjustment...some day.
The scambastic Trump could be inclined to make a slightly more fair deal in Singapore just to make a deal, but he is going extra
early (no jet lag) and will be controlled by Pompeo with his 'Grim Reaper' CIA-dog/warhawk/translator/born & raised S. Korean
with multiple relations in their South KCIA (NIS) and cabinet leadership, Andrew Kim (born Kim Sung-hyun). Kim's purpose will
be to control Trump's spontaneaous decision making, inform him on what he reads as N. Korea's intent, and give baseline hawkish
color to the translations for his own hawkish viewpoint.
bjd, bolton is trump's overseer, making sure he doesn't step out of line.
Trump is a poor negotiator, and gives away tricks he doesn't have to. Why no concession from Israel, over the move of the
US embassy to Jerusalem?
Laguerre, you have it backwards. the embassy move, the iran deal, and the appointment of bolton are all concessions trump made,
as payback for adelson's millions to both the gop and his campaign. possibly also has a little something to do cambridge analytica,
honey traps or whatever.
The imprint of the 84-year-old's political passions is seen in an array of Donald Trump's more controversial decisions, including
violating the Iran nuclear deal, moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and appointing the ultra-hawkish John
Bolton as national security adviser.
......The New York Times reported that Adelson is a member of a "shadow National Security Council" advising Bolton
James @ 21: I think one should always be a bit suspicious of those who hold power, especially those who find themselves holding
the uppermost hand in power as a result of victory in war (whether in the form of actual military combat, trade war or other wars
in soft power).
Russia under Vladimir Putin and China under Xi Jinping may be fine but will their successors know not to abuse the power they
may gain from the New Silk Road projects encompassing Eurasia and Africa?
Of course, it is about Iran. It's the Iranian deal that the EU needs to continue. They benefit as the biggest vendors to Iran.
They want to get inside that developing 70 million person market, also.
Bolton wants regime change. The EU knows that will be worse than Iraq. And economically, the EU will be in the dumps for 2
decades if there's another war they are forced to join. And they will be forced to join. They cannot say No to the Hegemon.
The EU 2, Germany and France, are at a historic moment of truth.
They could have a great future with Russia, China, Iran, the BRICS, SCO, OBOR and EAEU or they could be crippled by the Empire.
"...But Canada, which pushed for Russia to get the boot in 2014, is not onside. 'Russia was invited to be part of this club
and I think that was a very wise initiation, and an invitation full of goodwill,'[FM Chrystia Freeland] she told reporters at
the summit. 'Russia, however, made clear that it had no interest in behaving according to the rules of Western democracies..."
it's kind of wonderful to see all these imperialist and former neo-colonial powers fighting among themselves.
unfortunately, like the old African proverb goes, when the elephants fight it's the grass and small animals that suffer.
I see no reason for optimism for the peoples of europe at this point, as the stranglehold of the Trioka is perhaps as strong
as ever, and hundreds of millions of people are suffering; the people simply have to get organized at all levels and take back
their sovereignty at least as a start
The US still has the power of the dollar in its arsenal. The UK and EU, and any nation that deals with Wall Street, are addicted
to US investment in dollars. Since the EU is run by the banks, and western banks can't function with the dollar, any statements
by the EU that they're going to avoid US sanctions over Iran are meaningless.
The equation is essentially this: you can have your sovereignty or you can have the benefits of the dollar that make your 1%
very rich. You can't have both. Since the EU is ruled by the 1% banker/investor class they will forestall any attempts to regain
sovereignty by the people. In a sense, Europe is like Russia 10-15 years ago, thinking that the US is the key to the golden calf.
Russia learned the hard way they needed to establish some independence (although to this day Russia doesn't have nearly the financial
independence one might hope), and China saw from Russia's example they needed to do so as well. This led them to team up on many
economic initiatives while seeking to reduce the dominance of the dollar.
Perhaps someday Europe will learn this lesson. But as long as the EU exists, I kind of doubt it. The EU-crats will cry and
criticize Trump but the bankers love US money too much to let them actually do anything serious.
If the West is dead and the East is the future, then why are so many Chinese buying houses and living part time in Canada, Australia,
and the USA? Why is there so much emphasis put on Western education facilities by Asians?
Most Americans don't no matter how much explanation I go into.
They insist its a tariff or duty,which its not.
I've given up trying to explain its a sales tax on all,paying at customs is merely a cash flow issue for the importer.A reclaimable
input on his VAT return,did it many times myself.
there is only a bunch of paid of administrators running the countries and the corporations that pay them.
Trumps quid pro quo is deals that benefit his family. I don't thinks he cares one bit about the GOP and how the party fundraises.
He cares about advancing his family and keeping the loot.
maybe we should realize that the concepts of east and west, as much as neo liberalism or neo conservatism or any other moniker
that we could apply to loot and steal - legally and without shame under the guise of trade - are concepts of the past.
the future is for the strongest, irrespective of their origins or philosophy. we are burning this planet down with a vengeance
and we - the people - are to numerous and too expensive to keep.
while we debate and some even chuckle with delight as to how the west is treated by trump, or how much the west deserves to
be made redundant and all hail the Russians and the Chinese - the king is dead, long live the king - it is us who dies in the
wars, it is our children that are being kidnapped and locked up in prison when arriving on the border seeking asylum, it is us
who will watch the women in our live die in childbirth because of lack of medical care, it is us who will die of black lung, hunger,
thirst and general malice.
and while we gossip, they laugh all the way to the bank.
b, we have no doubt that the North Korean leadership is ready for the Americans and know the score with a rising Eurasia and a
sinking NATO. However, your last assumption of Kim being more than ready to go toe-to-toe with DJT smacks of some of the worst
tendencies of many posters here who are ready to venerate Kim without him ever even making formal address of more than a few words
to a) his people, 2) his allies, or D) even the world. This is a laughable assumption from you and it would be like having the
most beautifully-made garment handy for a long while, desperate for anyone to come along so you could fling it on them to prove
they were the most amazing supreme leader in all the world!
This is not to say I do not want the NoKos to succeed in their endeavors of getting a fair deal...hardly: I think they will
succeed eventually because they are shrewd. But this is an attempt to squash the unbelievably propagandistic (or naive) attempts
to place the mantle of imperviousness, all-knowingness, utterly-innocentness, and insurmountably-cleverousness onto the boy that
would be king. DJT could eat a boy like Kim for breakfast if left alone from their advisors.
Trump is very dependent on his base. He knows them well. At risk of hitting a discordant note I suspect a lot of his fans are
happy seeing him sock it to the goddamn ch*nks and euro faggots.
It's a big weekend. G7, SCO, Bilderberg, NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels and the huge NATO "Drills" including the Baltic
States and for the first time, Israel.
Oh, and the US called on NATO to add 30 land battalions, 30 air fighter squadrons, and 30 naval ships to "counter Russian aggression."
I predicted it would become the G6+1 and so it has. Trump told his staffers NOT to sign the Joint Communique, which I believe
is a first.
On the issue of power
and the BRI , the linked item is a trove of info as it focuses on perhaps the most problematic region of the SCO/BRI.
If Europe is to break free from the Outlaw US Empire, Merkel must be jettisoned and independent-minded leaders must take control
of Germany and EU. I'm not at all surprised with how events went in Canada. However, I see the Policy as the Bully, not Trump,
the policy still being the attempt to gain Full Spectrum Domination. What's most important, IMO, is this spectacle will not go
unnoticed by the rest of the world. The Outlaw US Empire cannot make it any plainer that it's the primary enemy state of all except
the Zionist Abomination. I think Abe wonders why he's there and not in Qingdao.
Although this item focuses on Kashmir , it should be read after the longer article linked above. There's little news as of
yet coming from Qingdao other than who's cooking what and sideline meets. I expect more coming out beginning Monday. Of course,
Kim-Trump begins now, it being the 10th in Singapore already.
The difference between the two projects- the western Empire and the Eurasian schemes exemplified by OBOR- is that the former,
as 500 years of experience teaches us, relies on ethnic divisions, wars and competition while the latter requires peace and co-operation.
In a sense that answers Jen @ 32. It really doesn't matter who runs the governments of China and Russia, provided that they
can prevent the imperialists from distracting them into rivalry. It was that which, thanks to plenty of stupidity on both sides,
gave rise to the tensions of which Nixon and Kissinger took advantage.
Had the USSR and China ironed out their small differences on the sixties- and Vietnam gave them a perfect excuse to do so,
history would have been very different and probably much less bloody.
The truth is that, as b asserts, the SCO is already much more important than the G7- America and the Six Dwarfs. How much more
important is shown by the role of Freeland (the neo-Nazi Ukrainian apologist) in insisting on holding the line against Russia's
re-admission to a club that it almost certainly does not want to rejoin.
Trump may not be a 'good negotiator' but he has a position of relative strength vis a vis the rest of the G7 who cannot negotiate
because they do as they are told. If they won't do what Trump tells them to do they will be on the lookout for someone else to
give them orders-they have no idea of independence or sovereignty. Just watch most of them scuttle back to Brussels for ideas,
or set up back channels to Moscow- once a puppet always a puppet.
The Sino-Soviet Split occurred while Stalin was still alive--he refused to allow the Chinese to develop "Communism with Chinese
Characteristics" just like any other European Orientalist. And as the Monthly Review article I linked, the Chinese must
beware of becoming/being seen as Imperialistic in their zeal to push BRI--Imperialist behavior will kill the Win-Win concept as
it will revert to just another Zero-sum Game.
One of the factors which has been killing the 'Democratic' West is that its bribed & blackmailed leaders have alienated themselves
from The People whose views they were elected to represent.
No-one living in a so-called democracy is prepared to tolerate a leader who spends too much time praising, and making excuses
for, the crimes of the racist-supremacist Zionist Abomination (h/t karlof1) and its Piece Process in Palestine. It can be persuasively
argued that embrace of and fealty to the Z.A. is the only factor which Western Leaders have in common. And it's neither a coincidence
nor happenstance.
Grrr! I still don't get why so many humans believe anything good comes from chucking aside one greedy oppressive arsehole then
replacing it with another. Sure the SCO has a founding document laden with flowery words and seemingly wonderful concepts but
I say "So what" check out the UN charter or the amerikan constitution and you'll find the same.
These issues of justice & equity
cannot be fixed by swapping bosses because every society has its share of pathologically fucked up greedies who have the means
and lack of empathy to destroy anything and everyone in their lust for whatever it is they imagine they need.
We have to accept that will never change and that trying to purge the planet of those types just creates more of them from
within the structure most successful in effecting the swap.
I know I sound like a scratched disc but the only fix that could hope to work is one that smashes the conglomerations into
tiny shards, reducing the world to thousands of small self governing entities; sure some places will still end up being taken
over by low self esteem motivated arseholes, but not only will they not be able to do as much damage, arseholes stand out in a
small society where more 'normal' humans interact with them - currently all the pr1cks coagulate in spots such as the G7 and few
non-pr1cks ever get close enough to see them for what they are. A low count on the old degrees of seperation register makes it
much more difficult for the scum to rise. Making sure that no chunk is sufficiently big to force its will on another would also
be vital.
That won't fix everything, but who outside some totally screwed up anal regressive would want that anyway? I just want to live
in a world where no one cops it like the entire Yemeni population currently is. I see no benefit in moving the horror from Yemen
to Uigar-land or whatever place the new bosses decide should be their fun palace of hate, murder and misery.
The Congo and/or Nigeria another coupla sites of misery for money. Timor Leste aka East Timor, now that the Portuguese expats
in the form of the man with the Nobel stamp of obeisance to the monied
Jose Ramos Horta have done over the
locals, something Xanana Gusmão always said could happen. Horta's arseholeness made the wealthiest nation in the world (divide
resources by population) riven by poverty, lack of health and education services plus of course old favourite, racist oppression.
Check out these kids here untroubled
by issues like getting a decent phone signal or their ranking on Twitch - wondering where their next decent feed is coming from
is prolly their most pressing issue.
Swapping SCO for G7 will do SFA for them or anyone else unlucky enough to be living on top of whatever the current 'must have'
is deemed to be.
Humanity either learns how to live with itself on an equal basis or it will perish; it's really that simple. The likes of the
Outlaw US Empire, its NATO vassals and the Zionist Abomination are shining examples of what MUST be exorcised for ever more.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com
.
Leaders are routinely confronted with philosophical dilemmas. Here's a classic one for our Trumptopian times: If you make enemies
out of your friends and friends out of your enemies, where does that leave you? What does winning (or losing) really look like? Is
a world in which walls of every sort encircle America's borders a goal worth seeking? And what would be left in a future fragmented
international economic system marked by tit-for-tat tariffs, travel restrictions, and hyper-nationalism? Ultimately, how will such
a world affect regular people? Let's cut through all of this for the moment and ask one crucial question about our present cult-of-personality
era in American politics: Other than accumulating more wealth and influence for himself,
his children
, and the
Trump family empire , what's Donald J. Trump's end game as president? If his goal is to keep this country from being, as he likes
to complain, " the world's
piggy bank ," then his words, threats, and actions are concerning. However bombastic and disdainful of a history he appears to
know little about, he is already making the world a less stable, less affordable, and more fear-driven place. In the end, it's even
possible that, despite the upbeat economic news of the moment, he could almost single-handedly smash that piggy bank himself, as
he has many of his own
business
ventures . Still, give him credit for one thing: Donald Trump has lent remarkable new meaning to the old phrase "the imperial
presidency." The members of his administration, largely a set of aging white men, either conform to his erratic wishes or get fired.
In other words, he's running domestic politics in much the same fashion as he oversaw the boardroom on his reality-TV show The
Apprentice . Now, he's begun running the country's foreign policy in the same personalized, take-no-prisoners, you're-fired
style. From the moment he hit the Oval Office, he's made it clear at home and abroad that it's his way or the highway. If only,
of course, it really was that simple. What he will learn, if "learning process" and "President Trump" can even occupy the same sentence,
is that "firing" Canada, the European Union (EU), or for that matter China has a cost. What the American working and the middle classes
will see (sooner than anyone imagines) is that actions of his sort have unexpected global consequences. They could cost the United
States and the rest of the world big-time. If he were indeed emperor and his subjects (that would be us) grasped where his policies
might be leading, they would be preparing a revolt. In the end, they -- again, that's us -- will be the ones paying the price in
this global chess match.
The Art of Trump's Deals
So far, President Trump has only taken America out of trade deals or threatened to do so if other countries don't behave
in a way that satisfies him. On his
third day in the White House, he honored his campaign promise to remove the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
a decision that opened space for our allies and competitors, China in particular, to negotiate deals without us. Since that grand
exit, there has, in fact, been a boom in side deals involving China and other Pacific Rim countries that has weakened, not strengthened,
Washington's global bargaining position. Meanwhile, closer to home, the Trump administration has engaged in a barrage of NAFTA-baiting
that is isolating us from our regional partners, Canada and Mexico.
Conversely, the art-of-the-deal aficionado has yet to sign a single new bilateral trade deal. Despite steadfast claims that he
would serve up the best deals ever, we have been left with little so far but various tariffs and an onslaught against American trading
partners. His one claim to bilateral-trade-deal fame was the
renegotiation of a six-year-old
deal with South Korea in March that doubled the number of cars each US manufacturer could export to South Korea (without having to
pass as many safety standards).
As White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders
put
it , when speaking of Kim Jong-un's North Korea, "The President is, I think, the ultimate negotiator and dealmaker when it comes
to any type of conversation." She left out the obvious footnote, however: any type that doesn't involve international trade.
In the past four months, Trump has imposed tariffs, exempting certain countries, only to reimpose them at his whim. If trust were
a coveted commodity, when it came to the present White House, it would now be trading at zero. His supporters undoubtedly see this
approach as the fulfillment of his many campaign promises and part of his
classic method of keeping both friends and enemies guessing until he's ready to go in for the kill. At the heart of this approach,
however, lies a certain global madness, for he now is sparking a set of trade wars that could, in the end,
cost millions of American jobs.
The Allies
On May 31st, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross
confirmed that Canada, Mexico, and the EU would all be hit with 10 percent aluminum and 25 percent steel tariffs that had first
made headlines in March. When it came to those two products, at least, the new tariffs bore no relation to the previous average 3
percent tariff on US-EU traded goods.
In that way, Trump's tariffs, initially supposed to be
aimed at
China (a country whose president he's praised to the skies and whose trade policies he's lashed out at endlessly), went global.
And not surprisingly, America's closest allies weren't taking his maneuver lightly. As the verbal-abuse level rose and what looked
like a possible race to the bottom of international etiquette intensified, they threatened to strike back.
In June, President Trump ordered
that a promised 25 percent tariff on
$50 billion worth of imported
goods from China also be imposed. In response, the Chinese, like the Europeans, the Canadians, and the Mexicans, immediately
promised a massive response in kind. Trump countered by threatening another
$200 billion in tariffs against China. In the meantime, the White House is targeting its initial moves largely against products
related to that country's "
Made in China 2025 " initiative, the Chinese government's strategic plan aimed at making the country a major competitor in advanced
industries and manufacturing.
Meanwhile, Mexico began adopting retaliatory tariffs on American imports. Although it has a far smaller economy than the United
States, it's still the second-largest importer of US products, buying a whopping
$277 billion of them last year. Only Canada buys
more. In a mood of defiance stoked by the president's
hostility to its people, Mexico
executed its own trade gambit, imposing
$3 billion in 15
percent–25 percent tariffs against US exports, including pork, apples, potatoes, bourbon, and cheese.
While those Mexican revenge tariffs still remain limited, covering
just 1 percent
of all exports from north of the border, they do target particular industries hard, especially ones that seem connected to President
Trump's voting "base." Mexico, for instance, is by far the largest buyer of US pork exports, 25 percent of which were sold there
last year. What its 20 percent tariff on pork means, then, is that many US producers will now find themselves unable to compete in
the Mexican market. Other countries may follow suit. The result: a possible loss of up to 110,000 jobs in the pork industry.
Our second North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partner (for whose prime minister, Justin Trudeau, there is "
a special place in hell ," according to a key Trumpian trade negotiator) plans to invoke tariffs of up to 25 percent on about
$13 billion in US products beginning on July 1st. Items impacted
range "from ballpoint
pens and dishwasher detergent to toilet paper and playing cards sailboats, washing machines, dish washers, and lawn mowers." Across
the Atlantic, the EU has similarly announced retaliatory tariffs of 25 percent on 200 US products, including such American-made classics
as Harley-Davidson motorcycles, blue jeans, and bourbon.
Trump Disses the Former G7
As the explosive Group of Seven, or G7, summit in Quebec showed, the Trump administration is increasingly isolating itself from
its allies in palpable ways and, in the process, significantly impairing the country's negotiating power. If you combine the economies
of what might now be thought of as the G6 and add in the rest of the EU, its economic power is collectively larger than that of the
United States. Under the circumstances, even a small diversion of trade thanks to Trump-induced tariff wars could have costly consequences.
President Trump did try one "all-in" poker move at that summit. With his game face on, he first suggested the possibility of wiping
out all tariffs and trade restrictions between the United States and the rest of the G7, a bluff met with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Before he left for his meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore, he even suggested that the G7 leaders "consider
removing every single tariff or trade barrier on American goods." In return, he claimed he would do the same "for products from their
countries." As it turned out, however, that wasn't actually a venture into economic diplomacy, just the carrot before the stick,
and even it was tied to lingering
threats of severe penalties.
The current incipient trade war was actually launched by the Trump administration in March in the name of American "
national security
." What should have been highlighted, however, was the possible "national insecurity" in which it placed the country's (and the
world's) future. After all, a similar isolationist stance in the 1920s and the subsequent market crash of 1929 sparked the global
Great Depression,
opening the way for the utter devastation of World War II.
European Union countries were
incredulous when Trump insisted, as he had many times before, that the "U.S. is a victim of unfair trade practices," citing the
country's trade deficits, especially with
Germany and China. At the G7 summit, European leaders did their best to explain to him that his country isn't actually being
treated unfairly. As French President Emmanuel Macron
explained , "France runs trade
deficits with Germany and the United Kingdom on manufactured goods, even though all three countries are part of the EU single market
and have zero tariffs between them."
"... The official who described this to me said Trump believes that keeping allies and adversaries alike perpetually off-balance necessarily benefits the United States, which is still the most powerful country on Earth. ..."
"... "No," the official said. "There's definitely a Trump Doctrine." "What is it?" I asked. Here is the answer I received: "The Trump Doctrine is 'We're America, Bitch.' That's the Trump Doctrine." ..."
In an interview with "CBS Evening News" anchor Jeff Glor in Scotland on Saturday, President
Trump named the European Union -- comprising some of America's oldest allies -- when asked to
identify his "biggest foe globally right now."
"Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us
in trade. Now, you wouldn't think of the European Union, but they're a foe. ..."
Bashing allies is an essential component of the
Trump doctrine :
The second-best self-description of the Trump Doctrine I heard was this, from a senior
national-security official: "Permanent destabilization creates American advantage." The
official who described this to me said Trump believes that keeping allies and adversaries
alike perpetually off-balance necessarily benefits the United States, which is still the most
powerful country on Earth.
...
The best distillation of the Trump Doctrine I heard, though, came from a senior White
House official with direct access to the president and his thinking. I was talking to this
person several weeks ago, and I said, by way of introduction, that I thought it might perhaps
be too early to discern a definitive Trump Doctrine. "No," the official said. "There's
definitely a Trump Doctrine." "What is it?" I asked. Here is the answer I received: "The
Trump Doctrine is 'We're America, Bitch.' That's the Trump Doctrine."
I think Trump simply has a very prosaic, very sincere even, view about the world: he treats
his equals equally (e.g. Putin, Xi, Kim) and his unequals unequally (NATO countries'
leaders, Abe etc.).
That is, he simply views his allies for what they really are: clients. And when you go
visit clients, you expect them to stop, lower their heads, listen and obey you: that's why
he probably found strange the fact that the Europeans were insulted by his behavior during
the NATO summit and the individual countries official visits. He must have been
particularly thunderstruck over the popular protests in Scotland: from his point of view,
Scotland owes everything they have now to the USA (NATO), so he, as chief of State of the
USA, has every right to go there and play golf whenever he pleases to do so. And the fact
is he's right to think so: the European peninsula is an American protectorate, a
"subState", inhabited by second-class citizens (like the peoples of Latin status of the
Roman Republic).
As for the destabilization doctrine (Trump Doctrine), it's absolutely correct: peace,
right now, is nocive to the USA. That's why Russia and China are trying to descalate: peace
(and time) is on their side. If the USA doesn't manage to trigger WWIII soon, it will start
to eat itself up, because the world didn't recover from the 2008 meltdown. The clock is
ticking for the Americans (and, by extension, for the Europeans and the Japanese).
Last, I agree completely with the theory that May is a remainer who's trying to implode
brexit without appearing to do so. She was a remainer during the camapaign, that's the
reason she was elected as Cameron's successor (it was she or Leadsom or Johnson, both
hardcore brexiters). The British elite is holding her while it can, and she is only in
office right now because she has the elite's full weight behind her: if it was a Labour MP,
he/she would've already fallen.
There is one significant weakness to Putin's patient, restrained and reasonable response
to US/NATO aggression and intimidation...
...
Posted by: les7 | Jul 15, 2018 12:17:17 PM | 2
Huh?!
If you watch the last 8 minutes of Episode 3 of Oliver Stone's Putin Interviews it'll cure
you of the habit of confusing Putin's "Our Partners" diplo-speak with the hair-raising
reality experienced by the crew of the Donald Cook in the Black Sea a couple of years ago.
It'll also dissuade you from imagining that Putin/Russia has a 'weak' or 'reasonable'
attitude toward NATO military provocations.
Imo Trump would have either watched them himself or been briefed on their contents by
someone who has.
Trump is acting out the good cop bad cop role all in one. He comes in with slashing attacks
and praise. The media only prints the slashing attacks. By placing his adversaries off
balance he seeks to gain something. I would say that he is operating like a corporate
raider. The weak kneed euro leaders just do not know how to handle this stuff.
He will not try that with Putin because he respects him. Putin is operating with a weak
hand and he cannot and will not take on the Europe on his borders conventionally when he
can possibly get what he wants in time with no bloodshed. Libya is his next target.
Putin and his family are from Stalingrad and Putin will cut off the head of the Snake
(US) before he lets that happen again. How? Think bright glowing mushroom clouds. It is
that serious.
Trump wants to bring Russia back into Europe. The Anglo Europeans want more control over
Russia's vast resources and companies that control them. Offering then a role in NATO would
be genius.
Putin is being conflated into an enemy of the world by a mass propaganda campaign.
Crimea and Ukraine was NATO pushing to hard to make Putin act with aggression. Crimea fell
without a shot being fired. As an independent republic full of Russians it can choose who
it wants to affiliate with.
All in all this can be solved diplomatically but not by the current crop of deep state
diplomats.
THERESA May's new soft Brexit blueprint would "kill" any future trade deal with the United
States, Donald Trump warns today.
Mounting an extraordinary attack on the PM's exit negotiation, the President also reveals
she has ignored his advice on how to toughen up the troubled talks.
Instead he believes Mrs May has gone "the opposite way", and he thinks the results have been
"very unfortunate".
His fiercest criticism came over the centrepiece of the PM's new Brexit plan -- which was
unveiled in full yesterday.
It would stick to a common rulebook with Brussels on goods and agricultural produce in
a bid to keep customs borders open with the EU.
But Mr Trump told The Sun: "If they do a deal like that, we would be dealing with the
European Union instead of dealing with the UK, so it will probably kill the deal.
Trump's declaration that "trade wars are good, and easy to win" is an instant classic, right up there with Herbert Hoover's "prosperity
is just around the corner."
Trump obviously believes that trade is a game in which he who runs the biggest surplus wins, and that America, which imports more
than it exports, therefore has the upper hand in any conflict. That's also why Peter Navarro predicted that
nobody would retaliate against Trump's
tariffs. Since that's actually not how trade works, we're already facing plenty of retaliation and the strong prospect of escalation.
But here's the thing: Trump's tariffs are badly designed even from the point of view of someone who shares his crude mercantilist
view of trade. In fact, the structure of his tariffs so far is designed to inflict maximum damage on the U.S. economy, for minimal
gain. Foreign retaliation, by contrast, is far more sophisticated: unlike Trump, the Chinese and other targets of his trade wrath
seem to have a clear idea of what they're trying to accomplish.
The key point is that the Navarro/Trump view, aside from its fixation on trade balances, also seems to imagine that the world
still looks the way it did in the 1960s, when trade was overwhelmingly in final goods like wheat and cars. In that world, putting
a tariff on imported cars would cause consumers to switch to domestic cars, adding auto industry jobs, end of story (except for the
foreign retaliation.)
In the modern world economy, however, a large part of trade is in intermediate goods – not cars but car parts. Put a tariff on
car parts, and even the first-round effect on jobs is uncertain: maybe domestic parts producers will add workers, but you've raised
costs and reduced competitiveness for downstream producers, who will shrink their operations.
So in today's world, smart trade warriors – if such people exist – would focus their tariffs on final goods, so as to avoid raising
costs for downstream producers of domestic goods. True, this would amount to a more or less direct tax on consumers; but if you're
afraid to impose any burden on consumers, you really shouldn't be getting into a trade war in the first place.
But almost none of the Trump tariffs are on consumer goods.
Chad Bown and colleagues
have a remarkable chart showing the distribution of the Trump China tariffs: an amazing 95 percent are either on intermediate goods
or on capital goods like machinery that are also used in domestic production: KS
Is there a strategy here? It's hard to see one. There's certainly no hint that the tariffs were designed to pressure China into
accepting U.S. demands, since nobody can even figure out what, exactly, Trump wants from China in the first place.
China's retaliation
looks very different. It doesn't completely eschew tariffs on intermediate goods, but it's mostly on final goods. And it's also
driven by a clear political strategy of hurting Trump voters; the Chinese, unlike the Trumpies, know what they're trying to accomplish:
Image
What about others?
Canada's picture
is complicated by its direct response to aluminum and steel tariffs, but those industries aside it, too, is following a far more
sophisticated strategy than the U.S.:
Except for steel and aluminum, Canada's retaliation seemingly attempts to avoid messing up its engagement in North American
supply chains. In broad terms, Canada is not targeting imports of American capital equipment or intermediate inputs, focusing
instead on final goods.
And like China, Canada is clearly trying to inflict maximum political damage.
Trade wars aren't good or easy to win even if you know what you're trying to accomplish and have a clear strategy for getting
there. What's notable about the Trump tariffs, however, is that they're so self-destructive.
And we can already see hints of the economic fallout. From the Fed's
most recent minutes :
[M]any District contacts expressed concern about the possible adverse effects of tariffs and other proposed trade restrictions,
both domestically and abroad, on future investment activity; contacts in some Districts indicated that plans for capital spending
had been scaled back or postponed as a result of uncertainty over trade policy. Contacts in the steel and aluminum industries
expected higher prices as a result of the tariffs on these products but had not planned any new investments to increase capacity.
So Trump and company don't actually have a plan to win this trade war. They may, however, have stumbled onto a strategy that will
lose it even more decisively than one might have expected.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above
On Tuesday, his trade representative Robert Lighthizer released a list of $10% tariffs
to be imposed on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods.
A senior Trump regime official falsely said it's "roughly equal to their exports to" the
US. It's around 40% of the 2017 total.
Newly announced tariffs won't take effect before completion of a two-month review process,
concluding at end of August. Trump warned he may order tariffs on $500 billion worth of Chinese
goods.
In 2017, imports from China were $506 billion, US exports to the country $130 billion. The
trade deficit was $375 billion last year.
It's because so much of industrial America was offshored to China and other low-wage
countries, millions of US jobs lost, Washington under Republicans and undemocratic Dems
permitting what demands opposition.
The Investment-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system incorporated into US trade deals like
NAFTA and others, letting a corporate controlled extrajudicial tribunal resolve disputes,
promotes offshoring of US jobs.
China called the latest announced tariffs "totally unacceptable" bullying, urging other
countries to unite against Trump's trade policy, promising to retaliate in kind.
Along with earlier duties on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods, newly announced ones raise
the total to half of Chinese imports – maybe all of them to be targeted ahead if China
retaliates in kind as expected.
China Association of International Trade senior fellow Li Yong believes one Beijing
retaliatory measure may be a greater push to attract foreign investment other than from the US,
adding:
Trump "closed the door for negotiations. It's up to (him) to open the door again."
Trade policy expert Eswar Prasad believes
"(t)he internal political dynamics in both countries make it unlikely that either side
will stand down and offer conciliatory measures that could deescalate tensions and lead to a
resumption of negotiations."
Economist Stephen Roach called trade wars "not easy to win easy to lose, and the US is on
track to lose (its) trade war" with China, adding:
"This is live ammunition. This is not just rhetorical discussion anymore. We're in the
early stages of fighting skirmishes in a real, live trade war."
"The question is, how far does it go? And how significant will the ammunition be in the
future?"
Roach believe China has lots of ammunition to hold firm and fight back with.
"The US is hugely dependent on China as a source for low-cost goods to make ends meet for
American consumers. We're hugely dependent on China to buy our Treasuries to fund our budget
deficits," he explained.
Beijing has lots of ways to retaliate against Washington besides imposing duties on US
goods.
On Thursday, China's People's Daily slammed the Trump
regime, saying
Beijing "will never back down when faced with threats and blackmail, neither will it waver
its resolution in safeguarding the global free trade and multilateral trade system,"
adding:
"The US is undermining global trade rules and causing problems for the global economy.
(Its) mentality not only brings negative impacts to both parties directly involved, but also
to every country on the global industrial chain."
China's Global Times called Trump's trade policy "extortion," stressing "countermeasures"
will be taken.
Markets believe both sides eventually will show restraint. There's no sign of it so far
– just the opposite.
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research
based in Chicago.
Trump's declaration that "trade wars are good, and easy to win" is an instant classic, right up there with Herbert Hoover's "prosperity
is just around the corner."
Trump obviously believes that trade is a game in which he who runs the biggest surplus wins, and that America, which imports more
than it exports, therefore has the upper hand in any conflict. That's also why Peter Navarro predicted that
nobody would retaliate against Trump's
tariffs. Since that's actually not how trade works, we're already facing plenty of retaliation and the strong prospect of escalation.
But here's the thing: Trump's tariffs are badly designed even from the point of view of someone who shares his crude mercantilist
view of trade. In fact, the structure of his tariffs so far is designed to inflict maximum damage on the U.S. economy, for minimal
gain. Foreign retaliation, by contrast, is far more sophisticated: unlike Trump, the Chinese and other targets of his trade wrath
seem to have a clear idea of what they're trying to accomplish.
The key point is that the Navarro/Trump view, aside from its fixation on trade balances, also seems to imagine that the world
still looks the way it did in the 1960s, when trade was overwhelmingly in final goods like wheat and cars. In that world, putting
a tariff on imported cars would cause consumers to switch to domestic cars, adding auto industry jobs, end of story (except for the
foreign retaliation.)
In the modern world economy, however, a large part of trade is in intermediate goods – not cars but car parts. Put a tariff on
car parts, and even the first-round effect on jobs is uncertain: maybe domestic parts producers will add workers, but you've raised
costs and reduced competitiveness for downstream producers, who will shrink their operations.
So in today's world, smart trade warriors – if such people exist – would focus their tariffs on final goods, so as to avoid raising
costs for downstream producers of domestic goods. True, this would amount to a more or less direct tax on consumers; but if you're
afraid to impose any burden on consumers, you really shouldn't be getting into a trade war in the first place.
But almost none of the Trump tariffs are on consumer goods.
Chad Bown and colleagues
have a remarkable chart showing the distribution of the Trump China tariffs: an amazing 95 percent are either on intermediate goods
or on capital goods like machinery that are also used in domestic production:
Image
Is there a strategy here? It's hard to see one. There's certainly no hint that the tariffs were designed to pressure China into
accepting U.S. demands, since nobody can even figure out what, exactly, Trump wants from China in the first place.
Advertisement
China's retaliation
looks very different. It doesn't completely eschew tariffs on intermediate goods, but it's mostly on final goods. And it's also
driven by a clear political strategy of hurting Trump voters; the Chinese, unlike the Trumpies, know what they're trying to accomplish:
Image
What about others?
Canada's picture
is complicated by its direct response to aluminum and steel tariffs, but those industries aside it, too, is following a far more
sophisticated strategy than the U.S.:
Except for steel and aluminum, Canada's retaliation seemingly attempts to avoid messing up its engagement in North American
supply chains. In broad terms, Canada is not targeting imports of American capital equipment or intermediate inputs, focusing
instead on final goods.
And like China, Canada is clearly trying to inflict maximum political damage.
Trade wars aren't good or easy to win even if you know what you're trying to accomplish and have a clear strategy for getting
there. What's notable about the Trump tariffs, however, is that they're so self-destructive.
And we can already see hints of the economic fallout. From the Fed's
most recent minutes :
[M]any District contacts expressed concern about the possible adverse effects of tariffs and other proposed trade restrictions,
both domestically and abroad, on future investment activity; contacts in some Districts indicated that plans for capital spending
had been scaled back or postponed as a result of uncertainty over trade policy. Contacts in the steel and aluminum industries
expected higher prices as a result of the tariffs on these products but had not planned any new investments to increase capacity.
So Trump and company don't actually have a plan to win this trade war. They may, however, have stumbled onto a strategy that will
lose it even more decisively than one might have expected.
The trend is definitely against EU. But Britain may be crushed, like Brazil and Argentina into accepting neoliberal world order
for longer.
Notable quotes:
"... Maybe Johnson the Brexiter can now launch an inner party coup and push Theresa May out. According to a YouGov poll she lost significant support within her conservative party. Besides the Brexit row she botched a snap election, lost her party's majority in parliament and seems to have no clear concept for anything. It would not be a loss for mankind to see her go. ..."
"... Boris the clown, who wins within his party on 'likability' and 'shares my political outlook', would then run the UK. A quite amusing thought. Johnson is a man of no principles. While he is currently pretending to hold a pro-Brexit position he would probably run the same plan that May seems to execute: Delay as long as possible, then panic the people into a re-vote, then stay within the EU. ..."
"... There is an excellent piece in the Boston Review on the EU- https://bostonreview.net/class-inequality/j-w-mason-market-police ..."
"... Iy makes the point that "The European Union offers the fullest realization of the neoliberal political vision. Its incomplete integration -- with its confusing mix of powers -- is precisely the goal." ..."
"... It traces the neo-liberal project, designed to prevent democracy from controlling economic policy, back to von Mises and Hayek. Nothing is more mistaken for critics of imperialism than to buy the line that the EU represents internationalism in any sense. The fact that some racists oppose the EU-just as others support it as a 'white" bastion -- is no reason to give an institution which is profoundly and purposefully undemocratic the benefit of the doubt. ..."
"... It is a wondrous sight to see Western [neo]Liberal Democracy crumbling before our eyes. Have a look at the very founders and protectors of "freedom" corrupt to the very marrow of their bones. ..."
"... Anything bad that can happen to the UK is well-deserved. The home, the womb of Russophobia, lies and illegal wars, as well as the hub of spying against American citizens, is exposed as thoroughly bankrupt politically. ..."
"... EU is bound to collapse but Britain might be tempted to wait it out, and maybe it is the game in London: not to be the first. The most dynamic destructive work in progress is the Euro that benefit to none of its 18 members (the euro-zones) but Geramny and Nederland. Italy has understood it but is using the refugees crisis to enlarge the contestation to non-euro zone countries (Visegrad group and more). ..."
"... As Nato is the real and only cement in this enlarged un-united Europe, in an epoch of accelerating change (collapse maybe) the famous Wait and see of the Brits has just muted in a slow fox-trot. ..."
"... But the puffed up Brits do not even see this danger and would blithely fall into the arms of the mafiosi from across the pond. ..."
"... Brexit is rebellion against the US imposed world order. London money has gone along and profited from the US imposed order, but the ordinary Brits may not have. They may not know where they are going, but they do know where they do not want to be. ..."
"... ditto... status of colony... isn't that what the globalists, corporations, neo liberals and etc want? get rid of any national identity as it gets in the way of corporations having the freedom to rape and pillage as needed.. ..."
"... Trump has reversed some 70 years of US strategy to gain nothing. It is quite remarkable. Strategic vandalism is a good description. ..."
"... The thing about UK and the EU is the UK is basically the US 51st state and the US is a defacto commonwealth nation. The colonization of Europe by the US was never meant to encompass the UK and the City. As they are basically one and the same. ..."
"... EU could not possibly have been a US/CIA idea as it actually works. Yes it is undemocratic, usurps national aspirations, perverts local economies, coddles oligarchs, and all that. But that does not mean it is a US idea. ..."
"... Single union political aspirations have been around for centuries and in many countries. Dare I suggest that it is actually based on the Soviet Union of peoples and most likely a Leninist or Trotskyist plot!! :)))) ..."
"... What do the City of London, the Vatican and Washington DC have in common? Actually, Jerusalem shares many of the same traits. Bonus points for the most creative euphemism for "usurious bank." ..."
"... From my perspective, Nation-States have not been the loci of power for some time (if they ever really were). The US, with its awesome military might and (former) industrial capabilities has served as the enforcement arm of that usurious supra-national cabal throughout "the American Century." ..."
"... Obtainimg strong mandate Cameron went to Brussels to supposedly negotiate better deal with EU ESPECIALLY for security while in fact he went there trying to bully the shape future EU integration especially in political realm and even more in realm of banking Union and integration and coordination of banking rules, laws and unified controlling authorities, via threatening Brexit which would be a deadly blow to EU propaganda glue that holds together this melting pot of divided as never before nations and never since medieval times united national elites integrated in EU ruling bureaucracy. ..."
"... First it was devastating impact of further EU integration on UK banking as London has become legal under U.K. law illegal in EU, money laundering capital of the world and criminal income is huge part of the revenue of the City , US is second. ..."
"... At the passage of Brexit I believed the purpose to be to allow the City of London (the bankers) unlimited financial freedom, perhaps especially in their entering into agreements with the Chinese. This could not be the case under the original EU rules. It will be interesting to see how this works out. ..."
"... The reality of the brexit which the Tory government is determined to raiload through has been designed by elites to better oppress the hoi polloi and to sell it to the masses it has been marketed as a means of restoring 'white power'. ..."
"... That is really saying something because the current version of the UK is one of the sickest, greed is good and devil take the hindmost societies I have ever experienced -- up there with contemporary israel and the US, 1980's South Africa and by the sound of it (didn't experience it firsthand like the other examples, all down to not existing at the time) 1940's Germany. ..."
"... Brexit is nether the problem or the solution, it was just another distraction to keep the mass occupied, whilst they assist stripped the uk and a large part of the world! ..."
"... Every brexiteer I've asked why they voted for out, begins by saying "For once they had to listen to us" and that's usually followed by "there's too many people here" or "it's the E.Europeans". (My response to the europhiles is that you knew the EU was finished a dozen years ago, when all the Big Issue sellers turned into Romanian women.) UK cities are thick with destitute E.Europeans. ..."
...Hours before Boris Johnson quit his position, Brexit Secretary David Davis resigned from Prime Minister May's cabinet.
On July 6 the British government held a cabinet meeting at Chequers, the private seat of the prime minister. Following the meeting
it published
a paper (pdf) that took a weird position towards exiting the European Union. If it would be followed, Britain would practically
end up with staying in the EU, accepting nearly all its regulations and court decisions, but without any say over what the EU decides.
The paper was clearly written by the 'Remain' side. The two top Brexiters in May's cabinet felt cheated and resigned. More are likely
to follow.
The majority of the British people who voted to leave the EU must feel duped.
My hunch is that Prime Minister Theresa May was tasked with 'running out the clock' in negotiations with the EU. Then, shortly
before the March 2019 date of a 'hard Brexit' would arrive without any agreement with the EU, the powers that be would launch a panic
campaign to push the population into a new vote. That vote would end with a victory for the 'Remain' side. The UK would continue
to be a member of the European Union.
No matter how the Brexit vote will go, the powers that are will not allow Britain to exit the European Union.
Is that claim still justified?
Maybe Johnson the Brexiter can now launch an inner party coup and push Theresa May out. According to a YouGov poll she
lost significant
support within her conservative party. Besides the Brexit row she botched a snap election, lost her party's majority in parliament
and seems to have no clear concept for anything. It would not be a loss for mankind to see her go.
Boris the clown, who wins within his party on 'likability' and 'shares my political outlook', would then run the UK. A quite
amusing thought. Johnson is a man of no principles. While he is currently pretending to hold a pro-Brexit position he would probably
run the same plan that May seems to execute: Delay as long as possible, then panic the people into a re-vote, then stay within the
EU.
Then again - Boris may do the unexpected.
How do the British people feel about this?
Posted by b on July 9, 2018 at 11:43 AM |
Permalink
Did you notice how quickly th E U sided with the U K over Salisbury ? That was the deal.
Remain in EU and we're back you!
Then again could have been we'l create a false flag you back us and we'll stay , a suttle nuonce.
The likelihood is that the blairite faction in the Parliamentary Labour Party-which has no real political differences with the
Tories and is fanatically pro EU, as all neo-liberals are- will prop up the May government. Or a Tory government headed by another
Remainer, with Blairites in the Cabinet.
This will prevent the General Election which Tories of all parties fear.
Iy makes the point that "The European Union offers the fullest realization of the neoliberal political vision. Its incomplete
integration -- with its confusing mix of powers -- is precisely the goal."
It traces the neo-liberal project, designed to prevent democracy from controlling economic policy, back to von Mises and
Hayek. Nothing is more mistaken for critics of imperialism than to buy the line that the EU represents internationalism in any
sense. The fact that some racists oppose the EU-just as others support it as a 'white" bastion -- is no reason to give an institution
which is profoundly and purposefully undemocratic the benefit of the doubt.
@Jeff - #1 - You are correct. There will not be another referendum.
I would add that there is some chance, however small, that on March 29th the British government will tell the EU that they
just have no way to meet the requirements of Article 50 and would the EU please allow them to continue as a member of the EU and
forget about all the shenanigans of the past 2 years. The EU has said previously that they will accept such a result and allow
the UK to continue as a member. The Brexiteers will have a total meltdown, and May will most likely be thrown out of office, but
most businesses and many individuals will be quite happy for this whole thing to just go away.
It is a wondrous sight to see Western [neo]Liberal Democracy crumbling before our eyes. Have a look at the very founders
and protectors of "freedom" corrupt to the very marrow of their bones.
In the US Trump, in the UK the Torys the democracies are now openly imperial and openly corrupt. Rule of law - ask the Skripals.
Brexit, Russia, Skripals, Russia, junkies and poisons Russians - minority government - ministers resigning right and left deadlines
looming no solutions in sight.
Western civilization is based on the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment and all its ideas of "democracy" are failing. Democracy
is not a religion, it is not the end of history, it is not sacred and immutable - checks and balances have failed utterly. This
sweetly written little essay says it all.
Look for countries to unilaterally bail from the EU with little or no advance notice. They will simply abrogate and that will
trigger an avalanche of others joining in. There are various good economic reasons why they would do that, but I think the groundswell
of populism fueled by anger over the open borders cataclysm will be the prime driver.
Anything bad that can happen to the UK is well-deserved. The home, the womb of Russophobia, lies and illegal wars, as well
as the hub of spying against American citizens, is exposed as thoroughly bankrupt politically.
The current path to chaos
is well-trod. Now, we can expect national attention is on the team in Russia in the semi-finals, while the government crumbles
and tumbles. But afterward, especially if Kane fails to bring the Cup home? Oh, the chaos. Of course, it will all be Putin and
Russia's fault.
UK. Despicable. How long it has taken for folks to realize Theresa May always has been a stalking horse. Highly Likely the
UK will stew in its own piss. Put that in their White Hall dossiers, and stamp it "Kremlin Plot".
Britain won't be staying in the EU and nor will the EU be accepting May's fantasy ideas for a future relationship giving the UK
free trade on everything it needs. There's a remote possibility that a new UK government could begin working on re-joining the
EU (Article 49), but there are plenty in Europe who would not let the UK re-join, at least not in the near future.
Friday the
13th is coming soon, scary stuff ?
The "Don't take No for an answer" is rather misleading. Made to vote again ..only after changes to the Treaty. France's vote
against the EU Constitution was accepted and when the Dutch also rejected it, it didn't happen.
EU is bound to collapse but Britain might be tempted to wait it out, and maybe it is the game in London: not to be the first.
The most dynamic destructive work in progress is the Euro that benefit to none of its 18 members (the euro-zones) but Geramny
and Nederland. Italy has understood it but is using the refugees crisis to enlarge the contestation to non-euro zone countries
(Visegrad group and more).
Now we have this Nato meeting coming and the abomination of Donald meeting Vlad that scares the whole neo-lberals, borgists,
russian haters, warmongers.
As Nato is the real and only cement in this enlarged un-united Europe, in an epoch of accelerating change (collapse maybe)
the famous Wait and see of the Brits has just muted in a slow fox-trot.
Brits, especially the Leave voters, have no real idea what the consequences of leaving the EU are, nor do they care that much.
What is uppermost in their minds is they do not want is to be in a union with "losers". Every single country on the Continent
is a loser and thus the object of contempt. The only country in Europe that is not a loser (meaning they have never lost a war)
is the United Kingdom of Roast Beef and God Save The Queen.
This British loser-phobia also explains the island nation's guttural hatred of Russia, which has bailed out Europe, and so
by definition the Brits as well, twice, thereby taking away some of the British luster. (OK the last time around they got a bit
of help from their old colonies, the Yanks, but its all the same. Yanks and Brits are the same stock.) As far as EU goes the Brits
can leave, no problem. Except that what the Continent would then be faced with was an American armed camp a few miles off shore,
not an appealing prospect to say the least. But the puffed up Brits do not even see this danger and would blithely fall into
the arms of the mafiosi from across the pond.
Boris Johnson's resignation letter. Well written.
Makes the same argument over the Checkers paper that I made above. If Johnson gets 48 back benchers on his side he could launch
a vote on no-confidence against May and possibly become PM. The Conservatives in Parliament seem quite upset over all of this.
Brexit is rebellion against the US imposed world order. London money has gone along and profited from the US imposed
order, but the ordinary Brits may not have. They may not know where they are going, but they do know where they do not want to
be.
@20 Not sure who qualifies as an 'ordinary Brit' these days. They come in all shapes and colours. I think the ones who moved to
Spain are fairly happy with the EU status quo.
Dominic Raab is the new UK Brexit point-man. The previous guy, Davies, just resigned. But Raab's appointment, I think, points
to what Brexit has been about all along -- namely, labour market reform beyond the rest of Europe, and to do this the UK must
be free of the European Human Rights council and other protections it provides for workers in the member states.
@23 psychohistorian... ditto... status of colony... isn't that what the globalists, corporations, neo liberals and etc want?
get rid of any national identity as it gets in the way of corporations having the freedom to rape and pillage as needed..
it was interesting reading near the end of bjs comments "Over the last few months they have shown how many friends this country
has around the world, as 28 governments expelled Russian spies in an unprecedented protest at the attempted assassination of the
Skripals." Guilty first - we will prove it later... maybe he really ought to consider rule from Brussels or where ever, if he
can't fathom the concept of innocent until proven guilty...
The French populace rejected the EU Constitution in 2005 during the Chirac years, and you are correct that after some changes
it was accepted under the Sarkozy government.But that happened because it was the Assembly (the parliament, i.e., the political
class) that voted on it, not the people. Can't have those deplorable citizens deciding important matters like that, now can we?
@51 pft... in so far as the cia work for the financial complex - yeah, probably.. how to create a currency - the eu - that no
one has any real control over, to compete with the us$ and yen... makes sense on that level..
Western civilization is based on the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment and all its ideas ...
When we discuss ALL ideas of the Enlightenment, we must remember this:
Wikipedia: "Enlightened absolutism is the theme of an essay by Frederick the Great, who ruled Prussia from 1740 to 1786, defending
this system of government.[1]
When the prominent French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire fell out of favor in France, he eagerly accepted Frederick's invitation
to live at his palace. He believed that an enlightened monarchy was the only real way for society to advance.
Frederick the Great was an enthusiast of French ideas. Frederick explained: "My principal occupation is to combat ignorance
and prejudice ..."
In relatively short time, the List of enlightened despots included almost all absolute monarchs in Europe.
The awful truth for the Leave campaign is that the governing establishment of the entire Western world views Brexit as strategic
vandalism. Whether fair or not, Brexiteers must answer this reproach. A few such as Lord Owen grasp the scale of the problem.
Most seemed blithely unaware until Mr Obama blew into town last week.
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has come out in support of Brexit, saying the UK would be "better
off" outside of the European Union and lamenting the consequences of migration in the continent.
The billionaire, who secured the backing of Republican voters on a staunchly anti-immigration platform, said that his support
for the UK leaving the EU was a personal belief and not a "recommendation".
"I think the migration has been a horrible thing for Europe," Trump told Fox News late on Thursday. "A lot of that was pushed
by the EU. I would say that they're better off without it, personally, but I'm not making that as a recommendation. Just my
feeling."
Donald Trump accuses Angela Merkel of making 'catastrophic mistake' on refugees. President-elect tells The Times and Bild that
EU has become 'a vehicle for Germany'.
US President-elect Donald Trump said in a newspaper interview published on Sunday that German Chancellor Angela Merkel had
made a "catastrophic mistake" with a policy that let a wave of more than one million migrants into her country.
In a joint interview with The Times and the German newspaper Bild, Trump also said the European Union had become "a vehicle
for Germany" and predicted that more EU member states would vote to leave the bloc as Britain did last June.
"I think she made one very catastrophic mistake, and that was taking all of these illegals," Trump said of Merkel, who in
August 2015 decided to keep Germany's borders open for refugees, mostly Muslims, fleeing war zones in the Middle East.
Trump has reversed some 70 years of US strategy to gain nothing. It is quite remarkable. Strategic vandalism is a good
description.
Even when the 'light' (read truth about Brexit) is revealed, many here choose to ignore it out of sheer ignorance. For a good
description of the MOA comment section, one should consult Plato's Allegory of the Cave. And the 'left' blames external elements
for its inaptitude and demise when many it has only itself to blame.
The thing about UK and the EU is the UK is basically the US 51st state and the US is a defacto commonwealth nation. The
colonization of Europe by the US was never meant to encompass the UK and the City. As they are basically one and the same.
Its presence in the EU was never really a problem though and was useful in terms of providing a guiding hand, so long as it remained
free of the Eurozone. So I am not really sure its a change in strategy. Just another fork in the road.
It remains to be seen how it all works out. Perhaps the UK Brexit is meant to send a message to the other EU states as to the
consequences of leaving. One benefit to the US neoliberals might be that UK scraps or at least scales back its NHS due to the
economic consequences of a hard Brexit. The 0.1% will be fine at the end of the day and they are the only group that matters .
The rest are just pawns on the board.
As for Germany. Immigration in the EU was all about divide and rule and leaving fewer Euros for social programs. All part of
the neoliberal blueprint. Divide and rule is an age old tactic perfected by the British to rule the colonies. The EU and Germany
being controlled by the Anglo-American ruling elite , and basically occipied by US controlled NATO opened the doors. Reversing
this immigration can provide a plausible reason for more terrorism in Europe to empower the EU to become more of a security-police
state like US and UK.
On a side note its interesting the head of the ECB and BOE are both former Goldman Sachs employees.
Another related link suggesting the EU also serves a purpose of isolating Russia economically.
EU could not possibly have been a US/CIA idea as it actually works. Yes it is undemocratic, usurps national aspirations,
perverts local economies, coddles oligarchs, and all that. But that does not mean it is a US idea.
Zero Hedge is polishing turds now it seems.
Single union political aspirations have been around for centuries and in many countries. Dare I suggest that it is actually
based on the Soviet Union of peoples and most likely a Leninist or Trotskyist plot!! :))))
"The Marshall Plan also established the creation of the Organization for European economic cooperation. It did this in a
number of ways:
promote co-operation between participating countries and their national production programmes for the reconstruction
of Europe,
develop intra-European trade by reducing tariffs and other barriers to the expansion of trade,
study the feasibility of creating a customs union or free trade area,
study multi-lateralisation of payments, and
Achieve conditions for better utilisation of labour.
It was arguably through this persistent interlinking of many European countries economic affairs that to not cooperate would
simply be too risky.
This provided the basis for European cooperation and this was favoured by many people because cooperation was seen as a
fundamental building block in the establishment of long term European Peace."
"In relatively short time, the List of enlightened despots included almost all absolute monarchs in Europe."
You are right, and that included Catherine the Great for whom Samuel Bentham worked for some years. His brother Jeremy spent
some time with him there and was a great admirer of Catherine and Potemkin. He was a key figure in the development of liberal
ideology and political economy.
'The Enlightenment' is an historical concept which obscures more than it explains. To suggest that representative democracy's
origins lie in this nebulous thing is completely misleading -- the truth is that democracy is as old as community. If anything
'The Enlightenment' movements are the beginning of the current system whereby the trappings of popular government are hung on
the reality of a kleptocrats' oligarchy.
Just in time for Emperor Trump's arrival in Britain! I do not understand Great Britain's "democracy," (the very concept
of an aristocratic House of Lords Peerage makes my head explode... and what's this about the Monarch having the authority to appoint
a Prime Minister if he/she doesn't like the one selected?). But doesn't the party with the majority get to anoint the Prime Minister?
Wouldn't that be Labour right now if Missy May is shown the door?
Furthermore, the assertion that the UK will stay in the EU is entirely plausible. I heard, early in the days after the vote, that
the govt had not expected it to go the way it did. Plans were made for a show of Brexit but that 'the idea is that everything
stays the same' , i.e., no change. Sadly for the UK, the EU will not allow that to happen. In all probability, another vote
will indeed be called. Otherwise, it's going to be a disaster for an already divided UK for many, many years to come!
The main problem with Brexit is that it is so complex that neither the officials who were set the task of drafting it knew
little more than the Ministers themselves! NOBODY knew what the fuck to do! And they still don't!
There is every chance a Vote of No Confidence is going to be called on May's government and she will finally fall, as she must
as she is the most inept PM there has probably ever been!
What do the City of London, the Vatican and Washington DC have in common? Actually, Jerusalem shares many of the same traits.
Bonus points for the most creative euphemism for "usurious bank."
Are terms such as "The Five Eyes" and "The AZ Empire"
'trumped' by all this nationalistic furor?
From my perspective, Nation-States have not been the loci of power for some time (if they ever really were). The US, with
its awesome military might and (former) industrial capabilities has served as the enforcement arm of that usurious supra-national
cabal throughout "the American Century."
But really, does anyone here really believe that a New York City conman or the latest British "mophead" is more powerful than
the dynastic power of the Rothschilds, Warburgs or Morgans... or even the nouveau riche like the Rockefellers or Carnegies?
These are dynasties so wealthy and powerful that they don't even appear on Forbes lists of "The Richest" and no one dare mention
their names when plotting the next global conflagration.
Since David Cameron used Jimmy Cliff's " You Can Get It
If You Really Want " for his campaign,
Afshin Rattansi's interview
with that truly revolutionary artist is not so off topic. And it's well worth 12 minutes to enter a worldview we Westerners rarely
live.
I and I say "Ja Mon!"
OK. I can't post Jimmy without " The Harder They Come,
" especially as that seems to be the root of most of the comments here.
@33 -- "...and Western Australia were separate British colonies that all began as penal settlement."
Not entirely correct. Western Australia started as a capitalist investment venture (c. 1828) but suffered chronic labor shortages
as slavery was closed down (c. 1833). The colony then resorted to convict imports for a time. Much of the myth about 'criminal'
can be re-framed as political prisoners such as the Welsh Chartists (see Chartism in Wales).
One can only be confused if one ignores public and secret reasons while Cameron threatened Brexit vote already in 2015 and went
through it in 2016. Officially it was about antiterrorism, security and hence controlling immigration flagship of Tory political
campaign that brought them overwhelming electoral win as well as some noises that EU rules and laws stifle economic development
and the British lose more in EU payments than they gain.
Obtainimg strong mandate Cameron went to Brussels to supposedly
negotiate better deal with EU ESPECIALLY for security while in fact he went there trying to bully the shape future EU integration
especially in political realm and even more in realm of banking Union and integration and coordination of banking rules, laws
and unified controlling authorities, via threatening Brexit which would be a deadly blow to EU propaganda glue that holds together
this melting pot of divided as never before nations and never since medieval times united national elites integrated in EU ruling
bureaucracy.
What Cameron was scared of as far as direction of future of EU?
First it was devastating impact of further EU integration on UK banking as London has become legal under U.K. law illegal
in EU, money laundering capital of the world and criminal income is huge part of the revenue of the City , US is second.
And second point is future of British monarchy which further integration of EU into superstate would require to be abandoned
in UK as elsewhere as states were to loose all even symbolic sovereignty and turn into regions and provinces as in Roman Empire
. Needles to say that UK still powerful landed aristocracy want nothing of that sort.
Hence Cameron went to Brussels make special deal for UK and was essentially, with some meaningless cosmetic changes, rebuked
into binary decision in EU or out of it no special deal and hence he escalated with calling Brexit vote as a negotiating tool
only to increase political pressure to rig elections toward remain if deal reached . In fact as latest scandal revealed results
of exit polls were released to stock market betting hedge funds just minutes before polls were closed concluding guess what, that
remain campaign won while electoral data in hours showed Brexiters wining simply because to the last moment before closing polls
they expected EU to cave in, they did not so they continued pressure by closing openly pro Brexit win.
The pressure continues now while Cameron had to pay political price as he openly advocated staying in EU under phony deal even
Tory did not buy, and hence this seeming chaos now fooling people that there is other way but hard Brexit to keep monarchy sovereignty
and profits from global money laundering or surrender and humiliation degradation U.K. into EU colony as BJ just said.
Of course which way it goes ordinary Brits will pay but also big crack will widen in EU as national movements will have impact
of shattering dreams of quit ascending to EU superstate.
At the passage of Brexit I believed the purpose to be to allow the City of London (the bankers) unlimited financial freedom,
perhaps especially in their entering into agreements with the Chinese. This could not be the case under the original EU rules.
It will be interesting to see how this works out.
The Chinese, as they are intended to be the regional governor of Asia under the evolving global governance are key to the entire
tyrannical plan. The AGW hoax, paid for by Western oligarchs, is the public relations for the UN's Agenda 21, currently being
enforced at the local level in many parts of the US.
The Chinese oligarchs are so delighted with its tyrannical land-use provisions that they are actually calling their projects
"China's Agenda 21". You may search for it.
@ 62: Thanks for the Pilger article, a good read. There are many today, who would return us all to those days.
Herman J Kweeblefezer , Jul 10, 2018 1:05:09 AM |
72
The reality of the brexit which the Tory government is determined to raiload through has been designed by elites to better
oppress the hoi polloi and to sell it to the masses it has been marketed as a means of restoring 'white power'. Bevin
& co can whine on about the injustices of the eu for as long as their theoretical view of the world sustains them, but the brexit
which will be delivered is based on 'pragmatic realism' developed by a really nasty gang of avaricious lying c**tfaces and will
create a society far more unjust, divided and impoverished than the one that currently exists.
That is really saying something
because the current version of the UK is one of the sickest, greed is good and devil take the hindmost societies I have ever experienced
-- up there with contemporary israel and the US, 1980's South Africa and by the sound of it (didn't experience it firsthand like
the other examples, all down to not existing at the time) 1940's Germany.
Jezza was great in the house last night but he didn't
call for an immediate general election which would be pretty much SOP for any opposition facing as tattered a government (Seven
cabinet 'resignations') as bereft of ideas as the Maybot machine.
The reason he didn't - couldn't in fact, is that the UK left is as divided and dug into their positions as that tory bunch
of bastards. Far too many opposition politicians insist that a 'deal' on brexit comes first ahead of sorting out poverty and homelessness,
woeful education outcomes (unless you believe wildly juked stats) and the horror show that has been created by three decades of
relentless attacks on the health service.
We see it here from the brexiters so convinced of the rightness of their cause they ignore the institutionalised racism that
will certainly follow a tory brexit. Or the remoaners who also ignore the unsavory aspects of eu policy to try and render the
labour left impotent. Those latter types simply don't give a damn about anything which flows from this debate and division other
than killing momentum, they consider even losing the next 5 elections to tories an agreeable sacrifice for ridding the party of
Corbyn and co.
Corbyn has recognized the destructive divisiveness of Brexit and tries to ignore it because he holds with fixing the mess so
many people are in as being much more important than theoretical arguments which will change nothing for the better regardless
of impassioned exhortations by ninnies on both sides of the argument.
The thing which really pisses me off about the lefty brexiters, is that they behave as if it is a now or never situation, when
it is anything but. There is nothing to prevent a more united Labour Party who have got their mandate by actually delivering a
better life for people rather than irrelevant concepts, returning to sorting out the UK's position in the EU at a later date,
ideally at a time when the EU's intransigent support for corporate welfare has run bang smack into a leftist UK Labour government's
determination to restore public ownership of natural monopolies (rail, water, power, mail delivery etc).
The lefty brexiters claim the lefty remainers won't allow it, while the lefty remainers claim it is the lefty brexiters clogging
the works. In fact it is both gangs of selfish egotistical assholes.
NotBob @ 35.
The EU Constitution never happened. The Lisbon Treaty came along a couple of years later and this time round the Irish people
voted against it. It got amended and the Irish people accepted it. The French and Dutch (and every other EU) country chose not
to "ask the people" and left the decision to the peoples' chosen represtentatives.
The Irish Constitution has a bit in it making
it necessary to ask the people before any changes can be made to that Constitution, so every time the EU adds some bits to the
EU Treaty that require the Irish to change their own Constitution there's trouble, as those 3 million or so Irish people have
the power to scupper anything and everything for the other 500 million EU citizens. Holding a national referendum to make decisions
affecting the entire Union doesn't seem to be either fair or democratic. A single EU-wide referendum could be held when there's
a major change to the Treaties.
Political correctness is a social disease very similar to syphilis - it fucks with the brain. You really should take precautions
if socializing in those circles. Precautionary measures are available at all chemists and most public toilets.
I click on MoA now and see a pic of Boris the clown hanging from a rope. If the Brits were smart, they would connect that rope
to a weather balloon and allow Boris to ascend to the stratosphere and cruise the jet stream.
The EU is first and foremost a massive attack on democracy. At the same time it attempts to establish technocracy as the mode
of government of the future. But right only racists and overly idealistic assholes oppose the EU...
"Democracy" only being possible locally? Numbers I posted on another thread:
Members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation - population of 3 Billion+
EU Members - population of 500 million.
United States - population of 326 million
GDP of United States - 18.57 trillion USD
GDP of European Union - 17.1 trillion USD
GDP China, India, Russia combined (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) -
- close to 15 trillion
You think EU countries have got a competitive chance if on their own? Or - democracy in Switzerland enables them to decide
on their relations with the outside world? Like not being part of the "single market" - they are -including free movement of people
- yes you can live and work in Switzerland if you are a EU citizen.
But right only racists and overly idealistic assholes oppose the EU
Brexit is nether the problem or the solution, it was just another distraction to keep the mass occupied, whilst they assist
stripped the uk and a large part of the world! The people we are scared to mention are the true people killing and oppressing
us. I thank Daniel@66 for naming them ! Rothchild family ect ect I would add the Rothermere family and Murdoch ! Politics are
debated, but history is made on the streets. We need to regain our sense of moral outrage (where did that go ?) there are 70 million
displaced people in the world ! It could be. You or I next !
Peter AU 1 @ 83: I agree with ADKC and IMO. There were convicts transported to the Australian colonies whose crimes can be considered
political crimes. The Tolpuddle Martyrs who came to the Sydney colony in the 1830s are one example: they were transported for
the crime of demanding an extension of voting rights to all men, among other demands. Such convicts were a small minority though.
As for Germany. Immigration in the EU was all about divide and rule and leaving fewer Euros for social programs.
"The demonization of Muslim immigration to the EU ...." - fixed it for you.
The stuff about leaving fewer euros for social programmes is propaganda. Social programmes are designed to force people to
work - they are pegged below the minimum wage.
In the case of Germany costs for refugees were accounted to the 0.7 percent of GDP Germany is supposed to spend for development
aid by the UN, thereby effectively developing Germany instead.
Alan @ 88
I am in total agreement with you on your comment regarding Boris Johnson ! His childish buffoonery, is a commen system / tactic
of a psychopath . It hides a callous disregard for human life , wins gullible friends which the psychopath manipulates to exploit
there power and influence! They are very good at scheming there own self interested plan. But (and here's the crunch ) are totally
useless at for seeing the consequences of there actions . And no regard for the victim of there actions!!! Do we want that in
charge of the nuclear button ?
There is nothing wrong/inconsistent with the idea of an interconnected world of sovereign (independent) states. The idea that
a treaty or a trade agreement means that a state is no-longer independent is ridiculous. As ridiculous as believing that an individual
who purchases a pack of polo mints is no longer free because of the need of a local shop and a manufacturer.
You are basically pushing the idea that there should be no nation states, no borders and all trade free and therefore no need
for treaties. From this comes no regulation, a poisoned environment, uncontrolled and rapacious capitalism, no rights for people,
no benefits, no protection, just work til' you die and polished off sharpish if you are no longer productive.
I don't object to an EU as a grouping of independent states acting collectively. I do object to an EU that erodes and undermines
the nation state, that seeks to remove state leaders and interfere in state elections/policies. The EU that we have is the latter
and there is no practical way to reform it to the former.
@ B. You have too high an opinion of the competence of the main political figures in the UK Governing Party.
Boris Johnson has
never been a serious contender for PM. He's good at giving a rousing speech to the Party faithful but that's it. The blue rinses
enjoy the titillation of his infidelities but they don't want someone so amoral coming anywhere near their daughters, or representing
their principles.
You knew Theresa May had no judgment the first day of her premiership, when she made BoJo her Foreign Secretary. A selection
that could kindly be described as risible. He indicated no suitability for the role before his appointment nor has since. Quite
the opposite. It was at that decision you knew all was hopeless. Brexit was going to be hopeless. Everything she was going to
be involved in was hopeless.
And so it has proved.
The vox pop that I encounter ..... the Remainers are reconciled to Brexit and just want to get on with it. The Brexiteers are
sick to death with hearing about it but not seeing anything done. Everyone had made their minds up before the election in 2015.
The Referendum campaign was a few weeks of premium entertainment watching the most reviled political figures in the land trying
to tear each others' throats out.
Every brexiteer I've asked why they voted for out, begins by saying "For once they had to listen to us" and that's usually
followed by "there's too many people here" or "it's the E.Europeans". (My response to the europhiles is that you knew the EU was
finished a dozen years ago, when all the Big Issue sellers turned into Romanian women.) UK cities are thick with destitute E.Europeans.
There's a huge disconnect between Parliament (+ media) and the people. A further example of this is the official narrative
on the Salisbury poisonings. Ask people in the street and they say "yeah, it was Vlad with the doorknob" and then they crease
up laughing. The Govt has no credibility with its "only plausible explanation".
My prediction, since the day BoJo was appointed minister for the exterior, is that the situation is so catastrophic the EU
will have to lead us by the hand through the process of brexit. The EU's priority will be the stability of the Euro. They won't
want us beggared on their doorstep and as they export 15% of their stuff to us they'll want to keep on doing that. We'll have
to have what we're given and be grateful.
The political situation in the UK is so far beyond surreal that a man dragging a piano with a dead horse on it would appear
mundane.
- It doesn't matter who the prime minister is. The UK has already adopted A LOT OF EU regulations/laws and that will make it nearly
impossible to perform a "Hard Brexit". The UK still exports A LOT OF stuff to the Eurozone and then it simply has to follow EU
regulations, no matter what the opinion of the government is. In that regard, the current EU regulation simply provides a good
framework, even for the UK. No matter what one Mrs. May or Mr. Johnson.
- As time goes by the UK can change parts of the EU
regulations to what the UK thinks those regulations should be.
- And do I think that Mrs. May and her ministers have drawn that same conclusion.
The much anticipated resignation letter penned by the former UK Foreign Minister Boris
Johnson has been released, and in as expected, he does not mince his words in unleashing a
brutal attack on Thersa May, warning that "we have postponed crucial decisions -- including the
preparations for no deal, as I argued in my letter to you of last November -- with the result
that we appear to be heading for a semi-Brexit, with large parts of the economy still locked in
the EU system, but with no UK control over that system ."
He then adds that while "Brexit should be about opportunity and hope" and "a chance to do
things differently, to be more nimble and dynamic, and to maximise the particular advantages of
the UK as an open, outward-looking global economy", he warns that the " dream is dying,
suffocated by needless self-doubt. "
He then compares May's proposal to a submission even before it has been received by the EU,
noting that "what is even more disturbing is that this is our opening bid. This is already how
we see the end state for the UK -- before the other side has made its counter-offer . It is as
though we are sending our vanguard into battle with the white flags fluttering above them."
And his punchline: the UK is headed for the status of a colony:
In that respect we are truly headed for the status of colony -- and many will struggle to
see the economic or political advantages of that particular arrangement
Explaining his decision to resing, he then says that "we must have collective
responsibility. Since I cannot in all conscience champion these proposals, I have sadly
concluded that I must go."
It remains to be seen if his passionate defense of Brexit will stir enough MPs to indicate
they are willing to back a vote of no confidence, and overthrow Theresa May in what would be
effectively a coup, resulting in new elections and chaos for the Brexit process going
forward.
Meanwhile, as Bloomberg adds, the fact that Boris Johnson, or those around him, made sure
his resignation statement came out in time for the evening news - before it was formally issued
in the traditional way by May's office, hints at his continued interest in leading the
Conservative Party.
His full letter is below (highlights ours):
Dear Theresa,
It is more than two years since the British people voted to leave the European Union on an
unambiguous and categorical promise that if they did so they would be taking back control of
their democracy.
They were told that they would be able to manage their own immigration policy, repatriate
the sums of UK cash currently spent by the EU, and, above all, that they would be able to
pass laws independently and in the interests of the people of this country.
Brexit should be about opportunity and hope. It should be a chance to do things
differently, to be more nimble and dynamic, and to maximise the particular advantages of the
UK as an open, outward-looking global economy.
That dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt.
We have postponed crucial decisions -- including the preparations for no deal, as I argued
in my letter to you of last November -- with the result that we appear to be heading for a
semi-Brexit, with large parts of the economy still locked in the EU system, but with no UK
control over that system.
It now seems that the opening bid of our negotiations involves accepting that we are not
actually going to be able to make our own laws. Indeed we seem to have gone backwards since
the last Chequers meeting in February, when I described my frustrations, as Mayor of London,
in trying to protect cyclists from juggernauts. We had wanted to lower the cabin windows to
improve visibility; and even though such designs were already on the market, and even though
there had been a horrific spate of deaths, mainly of female cyclists, we were told that we
had to wait for the EU to legislate on the matter.
So at the previous Chequers session we thrashed out an elaborate procedure for divergence
from EU rules. But even that now seems to have been taken off the table, and there is in fact
no easy UK right of initiative. Yet if Brexit is to mean anything, it must surely give
Ministers and Parliament the chance to do things differently to protect the public. If a
country cannot pass a law to save the lives of female cyclists -- when that proposal is
supported at every level of UK Government -- then I don't see how that country can truly be
called independent.
Conversely, the British Government has spent decades arguing against this or that EU
directive, on the grounds that it was too burdensome or ill-thought out. We are now in the
ludicrous position of asserting that we must accept huge amounts of precisely such EU law,
without changing an iota, because it is essential for our economic health -- and when we no
longer have any ability to influence these laws as they are made.
In that respect we are truly headed for the status of colony -- and many will struggle to
see the economic or political advantages of that particular arrangement.
It is also clear that by surrendering control over our rulebook for goods and agrifoods
(and much else besides) we will make it much more difficult to do free trade deals. And then
there is the further impediment of having to argue for an impractical and undeliverable
customs arrangement unlike any other in existence.
What is even more disturbing is that this is our opening bid. This is already how we see
the end state for the UK -- before the other side has made its counter-offer. It is as though
we are sending our vanguard into battle with the white flags fluttering above them. Indeed, I
was concerned, looking at Friday's document, that there might be further concessions on
immigration, or that we might end up effectively paying for access to the single market.
On Friday I acknowledged that my side of the argument were too few to prevail, and
congratulated you on at least reaching a Cabinet decision on the way forward. As I said then,
the Government now has a song to sing. The trouble is that I have practised the words over
the weekend and find that they stick in the throat.
We must have collective responsibility. Since I cannot in all conscience champion these
proposals, I have sadly concluded that I must go.
I am proud to have served as Foreign Secretary in your Government. As I step down, I would
like first to thank the patient officers of the Metropolitan Police who have looked after me
and my family, at times in demanding circumstances.
I am proud too of the extraordinary men and women of our diplomatic service. Over the last
few months they have shown how many friends this country has around the world, as 28
governments expelled Russian spies in an unprecedented protest at the attempted assassination
of the Skripals. They have organised a highly successful Commonwealth summit and secured
record international support for this Government's campaign for 12 years of quality education
for every girl, and much more besides. As I leave office, the FCO now has the largest and by
far the most effective diplomatic network of any country in Europe -- a continent which we
will never leave.
"... By David Llewellyn-Smith, founding publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Diplomat magazine, now the Asia Pacific's leading geo-politics website. Cross posted from MacroBusiness ..."
"... Captains of the German auto industry kowtowing to US ambassador Grenell make a remarkable scene, not unlike the Chinese capitulating to the British and handing over Hong Kong in the opium wars. ..."
Europe
Isolates China Trade Cheat Posted on July 7,
2018 by Yves
Smith Yves here. I'm faithfully replicating the MacroBusiness headline as an indicator of
unhappiness in some circles in Australia about the degree to which the government has opened
the floodgates since I was there to investment from China, particularly in real estate. When I
lived in Sydney in 2002 to 2004, property struck me as awfully fully priced by global
standards, and it's been on a moon shot trajectory since then, in part due to Australia also
liberalizing immigration. When I was there, the intent of policy was to have immigration in
certain skilled categories, and then with an eye to maintaining population levels, not goosing
them. Since then, the population in Australia has grown from 20 million to over 24 million.
But in addition, even though imposing tariffs on cars and car parts would hurt quite a few
US employers, it would also hurt European multinationals (many of whom happen to be US
employers), to the degree that they've pushed the European officialdom to see if they can cut a
deal with Trump. If that happens, Trump gets a win he can brandish for the midterms and the
tariff brinksmanship presumably eases off a bit, potentially a lot.
By David Llewellyn-Smith, founding publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Diplomat
magazine, now the Asia Pacific's leading geo-politics website. Cross posted from MacroBusiness
Recall that China has tried to play Europe for the chump, via
Reuters :
China is putting pressure on the European Union to issue a strong joint statement against
President Donald Trump's trade policies at a summit later this month but is facing
resistance, European officials said.
In meetings in Brussels, Berlin and Beijing, senior Chinese officials, including Vice
Premier Liu He and the Chinese government's top diplomat, State Councillor Wang Yi, have
proposed an alliance between the two economic powers and offered to open more of the Chinese
market in a gesture of goodwill.
One proposal has been for China and the European Union to launch joint action against the
United States at the World Trade Organization.
But the European Union, the world's largest trading bloc, has rejected the idea of allying
with Beijing against Washington, five EU officials and diplomats told Reuters, ahead of a
Sino-European summit in Beijing on July 16-17.
Instead, the summit is expected to produce a modest communique, which affirms the
commitment of both sides to the multilateral trading system and promises to set up a working
group on modernizing the WTO, EU officials said.
"China wants the European Union to stand with Beijing against Washington, to take sides,"
said one European diplomat. "We won't do it and we have told them that."
Despite Trump's tariffs on European metals exports and threats to hit the EU's automobile
industry, Brussels shares Washington's concern about China's closed markets and what Western
governments say is Beijing's manipulation of trade to dominate global markets.
"We agree with almost all the complaints the U.S. has against China, it's just we don't
agree with how the United States is handling it," another diplomat said.
But it's China that looking more isolated today, via
Quartz :
The US may have been accused by China of "opening fire on the world" with its punitive
trade tariffs, but it looks like officials may be making more progress in Europe's largest
economy Germany.
Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany, has caused quite a stir since he arrived in
Berlin in May, lecturing German companies to stop trading with Iran, and saying he planned to
"empower" anti-establishment conservatives in Europe. However, with the threat of punitive US
tariffs on its cars looming, Grenell certainly has the attention of Germany's powerful car
bosses.
German business daily Handelsblatt reports (link in German) that Grenell met Daimler CEO
Dieter Zetsche, BMW CEO Harald Krüger, and VW CEO Herbert Diess on Wednesday evening to
discuss both sides abolishing all tariffs on each others car imports. Right now, the European
Union adds a 10% tax on imported US cars, and the US puts 2.5% on EU car imports, and is
threatening to ramp that up to 25%. As part of the deal, president Donald Trump would
reportedly want German carmakers to invest more in the US.
Last night's meeting was not the first time the carmakers and Grenell have talked about
abolishing two-way tariffs. The Wall Street Journal (paywall) reported on June 20 that the
ambassador had been meeting with all Germany's most important car companies, and that they
were already behind the idea.
Chancellor Angela Merkel is worried about the damage a car trade war could do to one of
Germany's core industries. "We now have tariffs on aluminum and steel and we have a
discussion that is far more serious," she told parliament, referring to auto tariffs. "It's
worth every effort to try to defuse this conflict so it doesn't turn into a war."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Thursday she would back opening talks with trading
partners on lowering automobile tariffs, in what appeared to be an olive branch to US
President Donald Trump as the EU battles to dissuade him from imposing hefty levies on
European cars.
But Merkel said that any negotiations on lowering tariffs in one area could only be
conducted with "all the countries with which we have trade in cars," rather than just with
the United States.
A deal with the US alone "would not conform with WTO" rules, she said.
"We can either have negotiations about a wide range of tariffs, for 90 percent of goods,"
Merkel said in a reference to the stalled talks for a transatlantic free-trade deal known as
TTIP.
"Or we can talk about one type of goods, but then we must accord the same treatment to all
trading partners of the world. That's an option I could imagine," she added.
Interestingly, Nomura sees it all as deflationary:
US pursuit of beggar thy neighbor policies: is it leading to a whole new world for global
automakers?
Automakers have set up an intricate web of suppliers and assembly plants globally to
leverage the benefits of trade agreements, while keeping FX risks at acceptable levels. The
pursuit of beggar thy neighbour policies by a large, connected, and heretofore open Now 3
mths 12 mths US Europe Japan Korea Brazil Russia India China Thailand Indonesia Nomura |
Global Autos Outlook 4 June 2018 4 economy such as the US threatens to upend this
structure.
In this edition of the Global Autos Outlook, we therefore look at trade-related challenges
(and opportunities) facing global automakers, possible strategies they could adopt to cope,
and potential winners and losers over the near-to-medium term. Risk of "No NAFTA" has risen,
although our base case remains NAFTA 2.0 Trump's openly protectionist policies have increased
the risk of a "No NAFTA" outcome, although our base case still remains that NAFTA will be
renegotiated.
Nearly 25 years of NAFTA have integrated the North American auto industry very tightly. If
NAFTA is dissolved, it will impact all automakers operating in North America. In particular,
we think GM and FCA could be hit the hardest (higher import tariffs cut 40% of GM's FY2018E
EBIT, 23% of that for FCA). In our opinion, it increasingly appears that the US President's
decision-making is centered on autoworkers, even if that is to the detriment of the
automakers. Thus, US automakers getting hurt might not hold back Trump from making such a
move.
Auto industry staring at global excess capacity, no matter what the outcome of the Section
232 drama
The US Department of Commerce has started a Section 232 investigation into US imports of
autos and auto parts. Under the worst case scenario, this may result in broadbased import
tariffs slapped on US automotive imports after the investigation concludes and reports back
to the President in several months. US imports of new passenger vehicles and auto parts
totaled $333bn in 2017. Import duties on such a large volume of goods would be highly
disruptive and impact all the major car exporting countries/regions such as Mexico, Canada,
Japan, the EU, and South Korea.
While we think that the threat of tariffs is largely Trump's negotiation tactic to get a
better NAFTA deal, we caution investors to pay attention, as the tail risk (of import tariffs
materializing) is not negligible. Furthermore, no matter whether new auto tariffs are imposed
or not, global carmakers, irrespective of nationality, are feeling pressured to build plants
and increase employment in the US. This is likely to lead to increased capacity in the US,
where car demand is no longer growing.
On the other hand, non-US carmakers are unlikely to cut capacity at home or elsewhere,
leading to excess capacity globally. This will impact most markets except for relatively
closed ones such as China, India, and Southeast Asia, due to their existing high import
tariffs. For global automakers, we therefore see a binary outcome from a growing list of
protectionist measures being deployed by the US. Neither outcome is good news, with
automakers staring at excess global capacity in either case:
If Section 232 tariffs are imposed, it (largely) cuts off imports into the
domestic US market. However, that would mean that there is excess capacity outside the US, as
existing foreign plants supplying to the US (7.88mn/$192bn new PVs, 8.2% of global volume,
and $141bn auto parts in 2017) have to find markets elsewhere.
If new tariffs are not imposed, we still have additional capacity coming up in
the US as automakers are goaded into doing so to avoid political pressure. This also leads to
a global supply-demand imbalance in the auto industry.
Although US protectionism is a real threat, we see a couple of silver linings. China
announced an import tariff cut for autos, from 25% currently to 15% beginning 1st July 2018.
The Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement (JEEPA) was agreed upon last December and is
likely to become effective in spring 2019, benefiting Japanese car exporters. One of the
biggest beneficiaries from both China and the EU's tariff cuts would be Toyota Motor.
"US lure carmakers with tariff offer – but the proposal is illegal"
That's the title in WirtschaftsWoche. A premier german language trade and economics
magazine. It had an interview(in German) with Ewald Pum attorney at internal law firm
Wirtschaftskanzlei Rödl & Partner.
He states that what Ambassador Grenell proposed is illegal under international WTO law,
and the EU could therefore not support it. Also, the EU had historically supported rules
based free trade, and this could only be accomplished via an bilateral trade deal in goods,
what he called TTIP on a diet.
' Nomura sees it all as deflationary: the pursuit of beggar thy neighbour policies by a
large, connected, and heretofore open economy such as the US threatens to upend this
structure. '
So does UK-based Russell Napier, who sees the US obsession with shrinking its trade
deficit provoking a seismic shift in China:
Investors need to prepare for a formal widening of the trading bands for the RMB
relative to its basket and the problems such a move will create for all emerging markets.
That first move in the RMB is inherently deflationary. This is no counter-punch in a trade
war; it is the beginning of the creation of a new global monetary system.
The ability of China to extend the cycle has come to an end as its current account
surplus has all but evaporated. It has also come to an end because Jay Powell has warned
China, and other emerging markets, that he will not alter the course of US monetary policy
to assist with any credit disturbances outside his own jurisdiction.
Who can run the current account deficits necessary to make their currency an attractive
anchor for smaller countries seeking to run current account surpluses?
It seems well nigh impossible to believe, following almost 40 years of mercantilism,
that China would opt to become a country running large current account deficits. Such a
change in mindset may seem revolutionary, but it is just another necessary shift in the
long game in the attempt to make China the pre-eminent global economy.
The initial shift to a more flexible Chinese exchange rate is deflationary and
dangerous. The USD selling price of Chinese exports will likely fall, putting pressure on
all those who compete with China – EMs [Emerging Markets] but also Japan. The USD
will rise, putting pressure on all those, particularly EMs, who have borrowed USD without
having USD cash flows to service those debts. With world debt-to-GDP at a record high, such
a major deflationary dislocation can easily trigger another credit crisis.
Following the great dislocation, China will be free to reflate the world.
' Free to reflate the world ' much as the US did post-WW II with its Great
Inflation that flooded the world with dollars.
But getting from here to there is the tricky bit. As Napier insists, a deflationary ditch
lies between. Combine Llewellyn-Smith's comments on the auto industry's overcapacity and
supply-chain disruption with a deflationary break in the global economy, and you've got the
recipe for a nasty little crisis and perhaps a second bankruptcy in GM, whose long-term debt
is rising rapidly.
Flake-o-nomics may be creative destruction, but folks are not going to like the interim
results. The purblind Hoover-Trump will be blamed, rightly.
This whole tariff fight really seems to be about derailing China's plans to be a world
leader with its 'Made in China 2025' plan. Maybe Trump and his advisers reckon that if this
fight is not carried to the Chinese soon, then it will be too late. Europe, though under
attack by Trump, is also seeing the dangers where the EU will be eclipsed by a single
country.
It may be that Europe is giving Trump a message that if he plays nice with Europe's
tariffs, then the EU will cooperate with the US against China. I hope that the calculation is
not to push China into financial chaos as serving Europe's and Trump's interests. Supply
chains are far too meshed to make that a good option and I can easily see a recession in the
making which will hit the world hard.
China may have a long term advantage in that it has invested in infrastructure, transport,
education and training whereas the west has been devaluing these things due to neoliberal
policies for decades now. They may start pulling their money back which will hit places like
Australia, Canada and the US hard as to my eye Chinese money keeps things like property
values high in those places. We'll find out soon enough.
I've been following CGTN on the tariff war, and it looks like China is going to go the
'proportional reciprocity' route, just as Russia has with sanctions.
The latter has benefited from sanctions, while Europe has lost billions in trade.
As for the 'five EU officials' – all anonymous – cited in Reuters' report, I
would take their statements with a large dose of salt.
EU is in ferment, and Merkel is not doing well in the polls.
There is strong anti-US sentiment in Germany, albeit not reported in the media. A
combination of Trump's policies and the perpetual wars – now implicated in the greatest
mass migrantion crisis since WWII – has led to a disenchantment with US.
Then there is OBOR, with various interest groups – particularly in European industry
– beginning to look East rather than West.
Thus there is no real unified resolve at EU level to warrant such claims.
Dedollarization is continuing apace too, and new alliances are emerging like the SCO and
the reported deals between the major oil producing countries like Russia and Saudi.
China plays a much longer game than the US, so it is hard to estimate what the consequence
will be within the short – tern assessment models used by the Western powers.
I've gotten into the habit of rolling my eyes whenever an establishment media outlet
quotes "anonymous sources". Looking at the prospects in the global automotive sector, surely
the smart money is on the east (and other emerging markets) being where the long term growth
is going to emerge, so why the EU would bet on a jockey riding a horse that's falling behind
the pace would be rather difficult to fathom. One assumes that CEOs of the big three German
automakers play as long a game as anyone, so being brow beaten into an anti-china stance by a
US ambassador would be incredibly shortsighted, to say nothing of raising investor ire
Captains of the German auto industry kowtowing to US ambassador Grenell make a
remarkable scene, not unlike the Chinese capitulating to the British and handing over Hong
Kong in the opium wars.
But Germany is an occupied and humbled nation, with tens of thousands of US troops
garrisoned on its soil for three generations now. And Grenell, a product of the John F
Kennedy School of Gubmint at Hahhhhhvid, was born to rule.
It's good to be king ambassador.
*summons his liveried steward to fetch oysters and mimosas for brunch*
I agree that this is looking like creative destruction -- but more like intentional
creative destruction. Bringing down the dinosaur auto industry – now that's definitely
a step in the right direction, imo. So it's curious that Trump has such a strategic focus,
no? And he just started Space Force.
So clearly that is where the technology is. I do not agree that this is hyper-nationalism
(that's just the cover) and it seems absurd for anyone to suggest that Trump is actually
doing anything to benefit domestic auto workers he's just not that dumb. And of course Merkel
is in a tizzy. She's going to do everything she can to soften the impact of the
inevitable.
Ha! As discussed and promised 'round the table at D4 last night ;-) #ChicagoNCMeetup
Thanks again Yves!
Part of me wants to believe that the capitalist nations were always destined to circle
the wagons against communist China, despite all the hand wringing about Trump. The
political aspect of this is more interesting to me at the moment. Given all we know about the
loyalty Trump still enjoys from those who put him in office, a yuge trade "win" this
year will play to the theme of tempered expectations of a "Blue Wave".
Many historians have suggested that the 1929 stock market crash
was not the cause of the Great Depression. If anything, the 1929 crash was
the technical reflection of the inevitable fate of an overblown bubble
economy. Yet, stock market crashes can recover within a relatively short time
with the help of effective government monetary measures, as demonstrated by
the crashes of 1987 (23% drop, recovered in 9 months), 1998 (36% drop,
recovered in 3 months) and 2000-2 (37% drop, recovered in 2 months).
Structurally, the real cause of the Great Depression, which lasted more than
a decade, from 1929 till the beginning of the Second World War in 1941, was
the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs that put world trade into a tailspin from which
it did not recover until World War II began. While the US economy finally
recovered from war mobilization after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on
December 7, 1940, most of the world's market economies sunk deeper into
war-torn distress and never fully recovered until the Korea War boom in
1951.
Barely five years into the 21st century, with
a globlaized neo-liberal trade regime firmly in place in a world where market
economy has become the norm, trade protectionism appears to be fast
re-emerging and developing into a new global trade war of complex dimensions.
The irony is that this new trade war is being launched not by the poor
economies that have been receiving the short end of the trade stick, but by
the US which has been winning more than it has been losing on all counts from
globalized neo-liberal trade, with the EU following suit in locked steps.
Japan of course has never let up on protectionism and never taken competition
policy seriously. The rich nations needs to recognize that in their effort to
squeeze every last drop of advantage out of already unfair trade will only
plunge the world into deep depression. History has shown that while the poor
suffer more in economic depressions, the rich, even as they are fianancially
cushioned by their wealth, are hurt by political repercussions in the form of
either war or revolution or both.
During the Cold War, there was no international free trade. The
economies of the two contending ideology blocks were completely disconnected.
Within each block, economies interact through foreign aid and memorandum
trade from their respective superpowers. The competition was not for profit
but for the hearts and minds of the people in the two opposing blocks as well
as those in the non-aligned nations in the Third World. The competition
between the two superpowers was to give rather than to take from their
separate fraternal economies.
The population of the superpowers worked hard to help the poorer
people within their separate blocks and convergence toward equality was the
policy aim even if not always the practice. The Cold War era of foreign aid
and memorandum trade had a better record of poverty reduction in either camps
than post-Cold War globalized neo-liberal trade dominated by one single
superpower. The aim was not only to raise income and increase wealth, but
also to close income and wealth disparity between and within economies.
Today, income and wealth disparity is rationalized as a necessity for capital
formation. The New York Time reports that from 1980 to 2002, the total income
earned by the top 0.1% of earners in the US more than doubled, while the
share earned by everyone else in the top 10% rose far less and the share of
the bottom 90% declined.
For all its ill effects, the Cold War achieved two formidable ends:
it prevented nuclear war and it introduced development as a moral imperative
into superpower geo-political competition with rising economic equality
within each block. In the years since the end of the Cold War, nuclear
terrorism has emerged as a serious threat and domestic development is
pre-empted by global trade even in the rich economies while income and wealth
disparity has widened everywhere.
Since the end of the Cold War some fifteen years ago, world economic
growth has shifted to rely exclusively on globalized neo-liberal trade
engineered and led by the US as the sole remaining superpower, financed with
the US dollar as the main reserve currency for trade and anchored by the huge
US consumer market made possible by the high wages of US workers. This growth
has been sustained by knocking down national tariffs everywhere around the
world through supranational institutions such as the World Trade Organization
(WTO), and financed by a deregulated foreign exchange market working in
concert with a global central banking regime independent of local political
pressure, lorded over by the supranational Bank of International Settlement
(BIS) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Redefining humanist morality, the US asserts that world trade is a
moral imperative and as such trade promotes democracy, political freedom and
respect for human rights in trade participating nations. Unfortunately,
income and wealth equality are not among the benefits promoted by trade. Even
if the validity of this twisted ideological assertion is not questioned, it
clearly contradicts US practice of trade embargo against countries the US
deems undemocratic, lacking in political freedom and deficient in respect for
human rights. If trade promotes such desirable conditions, such practice of
linking trade to freedom is tantamount to denying medicine to the
sick.
President George W Bush defended his free trade agenda in moralistic
terms. "Open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral
imperative," he declared in a May 7, 2001 speech. "Trade creates jobs for the
unemployed. When we negotiate for open markets, we're providing new hope for
the world's poor. And when we promote open trade, we are promoting political
freedom." Such claims remain highly controversial when tested by actual
data.
Phyllis Schlafly, syndicated conservative columnist, responded
three weeks later in an article: Free Trade is an Economic Issue, Not a
Moral One . In it, she notes while conservatives should be happy to
finally have a president who adds a moral dimension to his actions, "the
Bible does not instruct us on free trade and it's not one of the Ten
Commandments. Jesus did not tell us to follow Him along the road to free
trade. Nor is there anything in the U.S. Constitution that requires us to
support free trade and to abhor protectionism. In fact, protectionism was the
economic system believed in and practiced by the framers of our Constitution.
Protective tariffs were the principal source of revenue for our federal
government from its beginning in 1789 until the passage of the 16th
Amendment, which created the federal income tax, in 1913. Were all those
public officials during those hundred-plus years remiss in not adhering to a
"moral obligation" of free trade?" Hardly, argues Schlafly whose views are
noteworthy because US politics is currently enmeshed in a struggle between
strict-constructionist paleo-conservatives and moral-imperialist
neo-conservatives. Despite the ascendance of neo-imperialism in US foreign
policy, protectionism remains strong in US political culture, particularly
among conservatives and in the labor movement.
Bush also said China, which reached a trade agreement with the
US at the close of the Clinton administration, and became a member of the WTO
in late 2001, would benefit from political changes as a result of liberalized
trade policies. This pronouncement gives clear evidence to those in China who
see foreign trade as part of an anti-China "peaceful evolution" strategy
first envisioned by John Forster Dulles, US Secretary of State under
Eisenhower in the 1950s. It is a strategy of inducing through peaceful trade
the Communist Party of China (CPC) to reform itself out of power and to
eliminate the dictatorship of the proletariat in favor of bourgeois
liberalization. Almost four decades later, Deng Xiaoping criticized CPC
Chairman Hu Yaobang and Premier Zhao Ziyang for having failed to contain
bourgeois liberalization in their implementation of China's modernization
policy. Deng warned in November 1989, five months after the Tiananmen
incident: "The Western imperialist countries are staging a third world war
without guns. They want to bring about the peaceful evolution of socialist
countries towards capitalism." Deng's handling of the Tiananmen incident
prevented China from going the catastrophic route of the USSR which dissolved
in 1991.
Yet it is clear that political freedom is often the first
casualty of a garrison state mentality and such mentality inevitably results
from hostile US economic and security policy toward any country the US deems
as not free. Whenever the US pronounces a nation to be not free, that nation
will become less free as a result of US policy. This has been repeatedly
evident in China and elsewhere in the Third World. Whenever US policy toward
China turns hostile, as it currently appears to be heading, political and
press freedom inevitably face stricter curbs. For trade to mutually and truly
benefit the trading economies, three conditions are necessary: 1) the
de-linking of trade from ideological/political objectives, 2) equality must
be maintained in the terms of trade and 3) recognition that global full
employment at rising, living wages is the prerequisite for true comparative
advantage in global trade.
The developing rupture between the sole superpower and its
traditionally deferential allies lies in mounting trade conflicts. The US has
benefited from an international financial architecture that gives the US
economy a structural monetary advantage over those of the EU and Japan, not
to mention the rest of the world. Trade issues range from government
subsidies disputes between Airbus and Boeing, banana, sugar, beef, oranges,
steel, as well as disputes over fair competition associated with mergers and
acquisition and financial services. If either government is found to be in
breach of WTO rules when these disputes wind through long processes of
judgment, the other will be authorized to retaliate. The US could put tariffs
on other European goods if the WTO rules against Airbus and vice versa. So if
both governments are found in breach, both could retaliate, leading to a
cycle of offensive protectionism. When the US was ruled to have unfairly
supported its steel industry, tariffs were slapped by the EU on Florida
oranges to make a political point in a politically important state in US
politics.
Trade competition between the EU and the US is spilling over
into security areas, allowing economic interests to conflict with ideological
sympathy. Both of these production engines, saddled with serious
overcapacity, are desperately seeking new markets, which inevitably leads
them to Asia in general and China in particular, with its phenomenal growth
rate and its 1.2 billion eager consumers bulging with rapidly rising
disposable income. The growth of the Chinese economy will lift all other
economies in Asia, including Australia which has only recently begun to
understand that its future cannot be separated from its geographic location
and that its prosperity is interdependent with those of other Asian
economies. Australian iron ores, beef and dairy products are destined for
China, not the British Isles. The EU is eager to lift its 15-year-old arms
embargo on China, much to the displeasure of the US. Israel faces similar
dilemma in its close relations with the US on military sales to China. Even
the US defense establishment has largely come around to the view that US arms
industry must export, even to China, to remain on top. The Bangkok Post
reported on June 7 that Rumsfeld tried to sell to Thailand F-16 warplanes
capable of firing advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAMs) two
days after he lashed out in Singapore at China for upgrading its own military
when no neighboring nations are threatening it. The sales pitch was in
competition with Russian-made Sukhoi SU-30s and Swedish JAS-39s. The open
competition in arms export had been spelled out for Congress years earlier by
Donald Hicks, a leading Pentagon technologist in the Reagan administration.
"Globalization is not a policy option, but a fact to which policymakers must
adapt," he said. "The emerging reality is that all nations' militaries are
sharing essentially the same global commercial-defense industrial base." The
boots and uniforms worn by US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq were made in
China.
The WTO is the only global international organization dealing
with the rules of trade between its 148 member nations. At its heart are the
WTO agreements, known as the multilateral trading system, negotiated and
signed by the majority of the world's trading nations and ratified in their
parliaments. The stated goal is to help producers of goods and services,
exporters, and importers conduct their business, with the dubious assumption
that trade automatically brings equal benefits to all participants. The
welfare of the people is viewed only as a collateral aim based on the
doctrinal fantasy that "balanced" trade inevitably brings prosperity equally
to all, a claim that has been contradicted by facts produced by the very
terms of trade promoted by the WTO itself.
Two decades of neo-liberal globalized trade have widened income
and wealth disparity within and between nations. Free trade has turned out
not to be the win-win game promised by neo-liberals. It is very much a
win-lose game, with heads, the rich economies win, and tails, the poor
economies lose. Domestic development has been marginalized as a hapless
victim of foreign trade, dependent on trade surplus for capital. Foreign
trade and foreign investment have become the prerequisite engines for
domestic development. This trade model condemns those economies with trade
deficits to perpetual underdevelopment. Because of dollar hegemony, all
foreign investment goes only to the export sector where dollars can be
earned. Even the economies with trade surpluses cannot use their dollar trade
earnings for domestic development, as they are forced to hold huge dollar
reserves to support the exchange rate of their
currencies.
In the fifth WTO Ministerial Conference held in Cancun in
September 2003, the richer countries rejected the demands of poorer nations
for radical reform of agricultural subsidies that have decimated Third World
agriculture. Failure to get the Doha round back on track after the collapse
of Cancun runs the danger of a global resurgence of protectionism, with the
US leading the way. Larry Elliott reported on October 13, 2003 in The
Guardian on the failed 2003 Cancun Ministerial meeting: "The language of
globalization is all about democracy, free trade and sharing the benefits of
technological advance. The reality is about rule by elites, mercantilism and
selfishness." Elliot noted that the process is full of paradoxes: why is it
that in a world where human capital is supposed to be the new wealth of
nations, labor is treated with such contempt?
Sam Mpasu, Malawi's commerce and industry minister, asked at
Cancun for his comments about the benefits of trade liberalization, replied
dryly: "We have opened our economy. That's why we are flat on our back."
Mpasu's comments summarize the wide chasm that divides the perspectives of
those who write the rules of globalization and those who are powerless to
resist them.
Exports of manufactures by low-wage developing countries have
increased rapidly over the last 3 decades due in part to falling tariffs and
declining transport costs that enable outsourcing based on wage arbitrage. It
grew from 25% in 1965 to nearly 75% over three decades, while agriculture's
share of developing country exports has fallen from 50% to under 10%. Many
developing countries have gained relatively little from increased
manufactures trade, with most of the profit going to foreign capital. Market
access for their most competitive manufactured export, such as textile and
apparel, remains highly restricted and recent trade disputes threaten further
restrictions. Still, the key cause of unemployment in all developing
economies is the trade-related collapse of agriculture, exacerbated by the
massive government subsidies provided to farmers in rich economies. Many poor
economies are predominantly agriculturally based and a collapse of
agriculture means a general collapse of the whole
economy.
The Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations, sponsored by the
WTO, collapsed in Cancun, Mexico over the question of government support for
agriculture in rich economies and its potential impacts on causing more
poverty in developing countries. The Doha negotiations since Cancun are
focused on the need to better understand the linkages between trade policies,
particularly those of the rich economies, and poverty in the developing
world. While poverty reduction is now more widely accepted by establishment
economists as a necessary central focus for development efforts and has
become the main mission of the World Bank and other development institutions,
very little effective measures have been forthcoming. The UN Millennium
Development Goals (UNMDG) commits the international community to halve world
poverty by 2015, a decade from now. With current trends, that goal is likely
to be achievable only through death of half of the poor by starvation,
disease and local conflicts. The UN Development
Program warns that 3 million children will die in sub-Saharan Africa alone by
2015 if the world continues on its current path of failing to meet the UNMDG
agreed to in 2000 . Several key venues to this goal are located in
international trade where the record of poverty reduction has been
exceedingly poor, if not outright negative. The fundamental question whether
trade can replace or even augment socio-economic development remains unasked,
let alone answered. Until such issues are earnestly addressed, protectionism
will re-emerge in the poor countries. Under such conditions, if democracy
expresses the will of the people, democracy will demand protectionism more
than government by elite.
While tariffs in the past decade have been coming down like
leaves in autumn, flexible exchange rates have become a form of virtual
countervailing tariff. In the current globalized neo-liberal trade regime
operating in a deregulated global foreign exchange market, the exchanged
value of a currency is regularly used to balance trade through government
intervention in currency market fluctuations against the world's main reserve
currency – the dollar, as the head of the international monetary
snake.
Purchasing power parity (PPP) measures the disconnection between
exchange rates and local prices. PPP contrasts with the interest rate parity
(IRP) theory which assumes that the actions of investors, whose transactions
are recorded on the capital account, induces changes in the exchange rate.
For a dollar investor to earn the same interest rate in a foreign economy
with a PPP of four times, such as the purchasing power parity between the US
dollar and the Chinese yuan, local wages would have to be at least 4 time
lower than US wages.
<>PPP theory is based
on an extension and variation of the "law of one price" as applied to the
aggregate economy. The law of one price says that identical goods should sell
for the same price in two separate markets when there are no transportation
costs and no differential taxes applied in the two markets. But the law of
one price does not apply to the price of labor. Price arbitrage is the
opposite of wage arbitrage in that producers seek to make their goods in the
lowest wage locations and to sell their goods in the highest price markets.
This is the incentive for outsourcing which never seeks to sell products
locally at prices that reflect PPP differentials.
What is not generally noticed is that price deflation in an economy
increases its PPP, in that the same local currency buys more. But the
cross-border one price phenomenon applies only to certain products, such as
oil, thus for a PPP of 4 times, a rise in oil prices will cost the Chinese
economy 4 times the equivalent in other goods, or wages than in the US. The
larger the purchasing power parity between a local currency and the dollar,
the more severe is the tyranny of dollar hegemony on forcing down wage
differentials.
Ever since 1971, when US president Richard Nixon, under pressure from
persistent fiscal and trade deficits that drained US gold reserves, took the
dollar off the gold standard (at $35 per ounce), the dollar has been a fiat
currency of a country of little fiscal or monetary discipline. The Bretton
Woods Conference at the end of World War II established the dollar, a solid
currency backed by gold, as a benchmark currency for financing international
trade, with all other currencies pegged to it at fixed rates that changed
only infrequently. The fixed exchange rate regime was designed to keep
trading nations honest and prevent them from running perpetual trade
deficits. It was not expected to dictate the living standards of trading
economies, which were measured by many other factors besides exchange
rates.
Bretton Woods was conceived when conventional wisdom in international
economics did not consider cross-border flow of funds necessary or desirable
for financing world trade precise for this reason. Since 1971, the dollar has
changed from a gold-back currency to a global reserve monetary instrument
that the US, and only the US, can produce by fiat. At the same time, the US
continued to incur both current account and fiscal deficits. That was the
beginning of dollar hegemony.
With deregulation of foreign exchange and financial markets, many
currencies began to free float against the dollar not in response to market
forces but to maintain export competitiveness. Government interventions in
foreign exchange markets became a regular last resort option for many trading
economies for their preserving export competitiveness and for resisting the
effect of dollar hegemony on domestic living standards.
World trade under dollar hegemony is a game in which the US produces
paper dollars and the rest of the world produce real things that paper
dollars can buy. The world's interlinked economies no longer trade to capture
comparative advantage; they compete in exports to capture needed dollars to
service dollar-denominated foreign debts and to accumulate dollar reserves to
sustain the exchange value of their domestic currencies in foreign exchange
markets. To prevent speculative and manipulative attacks on their currencies
in deregulated markets, the world's central banks must acquire and hold
dollar reserves in corresponding amounts to market pressure on their
currencies in circulation. The higher the market pressure to devalue a
particular currency, the more dollar reserves its central bank must hold.
This creates a built-in support for a strong dollar that in turn forces all
central banks to acquire and hold more dollar reserves, making it stronger.
This anomalous phenomenon is known as dollar hegemony, which is created by
the geopolitically constructed peculiarity that critical commodities, most
notably oil, are denominated in dollars. Everyone accepts dollars because
dollars can buy oil. The denomination of oil in dollars and the recycling of
petro-dollars is the price the US has extracted from oil-producing countries
for US tolerance of the oil-exporting cartel since 1973.
By definition, dollar reserves must be invested in dollar-denominated
assets, creating a capital-accounts surplus for the US economy. A
strong-dollar policy is in the US national interest because it keeps US
inflation low through low-cost imports and it makes US assets denominated in
dollars expensive for foreign investors. This arrangement, which Federal
Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan proudly calls US financial hegemony in
congressional testimony, has kept the US economy booming in the face of
recurrent financial crises in the rest of the world. It has distorted
globalization into a "race to the bottom" process of exploiting the lowest
labor costs and the highest environmental abuse worldwide to produce items
and produce for export to US markets in a quest for the almighty dollar,
which has not been backed by gold since 1971, nor by economic fundamentals
for more than a decade. The adverse effects of this type of globalization on
the developing economies are obvious. It robs them of the meager fruits of
their exports and keeps their domestic economies starved for capital, as all
surplus dollars must be reinvested in US treasuries to prevent the collapse
of their own domestic currencies.
The adverse effect of this type of globalization on the US economy is
also becoming clear. In order to act as consumer of last resort for the whole
world, the US economy has been pushed into a debt bubble that thrives on
conspicuous consumption and fraudulent accounting. The unsustainable and
irrational rise of US equity and real estate prices, unsupported by revenue
or profit, had merely been a de facto devaluation of the dollar. Ironically,
the recent fall in US equity prices from its 2004 peak and the anticipated
fall in real estate prices reflect a trend to an even stronger dollar, as it
can buy more deflated shares and properties for the same amount of dollars.
The rise in the purchasing power of the dollar inside the US impacts its
purchasing power disparity with other currencies unevenly, causing sharp
price instability in the economies with freely exchangeable currencies and
fixed exchange rates, such as Hong Kong and until recently Argentina. For the
US, falling exchange rate of the dollar actually causes asset prices to rise.
Thus with a debt bubble in the US economy, a strong dollar is not in the US
national interest. Debt has turned US policy on the dollar on its
head.
The setting of exchange values of currencies is practiced not only by
sovereign governments on their own currencies as a sovereign right. The US,
exploiting dollar hegemony, usurps the privilege of dictating the exchange
value of all foreign currencies to support its own economic nationalism in
the name of global free trade. And US position on exchange rates has not been
consistent. When the dollar was rising, as it did in the 1980s, the US, to
protect its export trade, hailed the stabilizing wisdom of fixed exchange
rates. When the dollar falls as it has been in recent years, the US, to
deflect the blame of its trade deficit, attacks fixed exchange rates as
currency manipulation, as it targets China's currency now which has been
pegged to the dollar for over a decade, since the dollar was lower. How can a
nation manipulate the exchange value of its currency when it is pegged to the
dollar at the same rate over long periods? Any manipulation came from the
dollar, not the yuan.
The recent rise of the euro against the dollar, the first
appreciation wave since its introduction on January 1, 2002, is the result of
an EU version of the 1985 Plaza Accord on the Japanese yen, albeit without a
formal accord. The strategic purpose is more than merely moderating the US
trade deficit. The record shows that even with the 30% drop of the dollar
against the euro, the US trade deficit has continued to climb. The strategic
purpose of driving up the euro is to reduce the euro to the status of the
yen, as a subordinated currency to dollar hegemony. The real effect of the
Plaza Accord was to shift the cost of support for the dollar-denominated US
trade deficit, and the socio-economic pain associated with that support, from
the US to Japan.
What is happening to the euro now is far from being the beginning of
the demise of the dollar. Rather, it is the beginning of the reduction of the
euro into a subservient currency to the dollar to support the US debt bubble.
Six and a half years since the launch of European Monetary Union, the
eurozone is trapped in an environment in which monetary policy of sound money
has in effect become destructive and supply-side fiscal policy unsustainable.
National economies are beginning to refuse to bear the pain needed for
adjustment to globalization or the EU's ambitious enlargement. The European
nations are beginning to resist the US strategy to make the euro economy a
captive supporter of a rising or falling dollar as such movements fit the
shifting needs of US economic nationalism.
It is the modern-day monetary equivalent of the brilliant Roman
strategy of making a dissident Jew a Christian god, to pre-empt Judaism's
rising cultural domination over Roman civilization. Roman law, the foundation
of the Roman Empire, gained in sophistication from being influenced by if not
directly derived from Jewish Talmudic law, particularly on the concept of
equity - an eye for an eye. The Jews had devised a legal system based on the
dignity of the individual and equality before the law four century before
Christ. There was no written Roman law until two centuries B.C. The Roman law
of obligatio was not conducive to finance as it held that all
indebtedness was personal, without institutional status. A creditor could not
sell a note of indebtedness to another party and a debtor did not have to pay
anyone except the original creditor. Talmudic law, on the other hand,
recognized impersonal credit and a debt had to be paid to whoever presented
the demand note. This was a key development of modern finance. With the
Talmud, the Jews under the Diaspora had an international law that spans three
continents and many cultures.<>
The Romans were faced with a dilemma. Secular Jewish ideas and values
were permeating Roman society, but Judaism was an exclusive religion that the
Romans were not permitted to join. The Romans could not assimilate the Jews
as they did the more civilized Greeks. Early Christianity also kept its
exclusionary trait until Paul who opened Christianity to all. Historian
Edward Gibbon (1737-94) noted that the Rome recognized the Jews as a nation
and as such were entitled to religious peculiarities. The Christians on the
other hand were a sect, and being without a nation, subverted other nations.
The Roman Jews were active in government and when not resisting Rome against
social injustice, fought side by side with Roman legionnaires to preserve the
empire. Roman Jews were good Roman citizens. By contrast, the early
Christians were social dropouts, refused responsibility in government and
civic affairs and were conscientious objectors and pacifists in a militant
culture. Gibbon noted that Rome felt that the crime of a Christian was not in
what he did, but in being who he was. Christianity gained control of Roman
culture and society long before Constantine who in 324 A.D. sanctioned it
with political legitimacy and power after recognizing its power in helping to
win wars against pagans, the way Pope Urban II in 1095 used the crusade to
keep Papal temporal power longer. When early Christianity, a secular Jewish
dissident sect, began to move up from the lower strata of Roman society and
began to find converts in the upper echelons, the Roman polity adopted
Christianity, the least objectionable of all Jewish sects, as a state
religion. Gibbons estimated that Christians killed more of their own members
over religious disputes in the three centuries after coming to secular power
than did the Romans in three previous centuries. Persecution of the Jews
began in Christianized Rome. The disdain held by early Christianity on
centralized government gave rise to monasticism and contributed to the fall
of the Roman Empire.
By allowing a trade surplus denominated in dollars to be accumulated
by non-dollar economies, such as yen, euro, or now the Chinese yuan, the cost
of supporting the appropriate value of the dollar to sustain perpetual
economic growth in the dollar economy is then shifted to these non-dollar
economies, which manifests themselves in perpetual relative low wages and
weak domestic consumption. For already high-wage EU and Japan, the penalty is
the reduction of social welfare benefits and job security traditional to
these economies. For China, now the world's second largest creditor nation,
it is reduced to having to ask the US, the world's largest debtor nation, for
capital denominated in dollars the US can print at will to finance its export
trade to a US running recurring trade deficits.<>
The IMF, which has been ferocious in imposing draconian fiscal and
monetary "conditionalities" on all debtor nations everywhere in the decade
after the Cold War, is nowhere to be seen on the scene in the world's most
fragrantly irresponsible debtor nation. This is because the US can print
dollars at will and with immunity. The dollar is a fiat currency not backed
by gold, not backed by US productivity, not back by US export prowess, but by
US military power. The US military budget request for Fiscal Year 2005 is
$420.7 billion. For Fiscal Year 2004, it was $399.1 billion; for 2003, $396.1
billion; for 2002, $343.2 billion and for 2001, $310 billion. In the first
term of the Bush presidency, the US spent $1.5 trillion on its military. That
is bigger than the entire GDP of China in 2004. The US trade deficit is
around 6% of its GDP while it military budget is around 4%. In other words,
the trading partners of the US are paying for one and a half times of the
cost of a military that can someday be used against any one of them for any
number of reasons, including trade disputes. The anti-dollar crowd has
nothing to celebrate about the recurring US trade deficit.
It is pathetic that US Secretary of Defense Donald H Rumsfeld tries
to persuade the world that China's military budget, which is less that one
tenth of that of the US, is a threat to Asia, even when he is forced to
acknowledge that Chinese military modernization is mostly focused on
defending its coastal territories, not on force projection for distant
conflicts, as is US military doctrine. While Rumsfeld urges more political
freedom in China, his militant posture toward China is directly
counterproductive towards that goal. Ironically, Rumsfeld chose to make his
case about political freedom in Singapore, the bastion of Confucian
authoritarianism.
Normally, according to free trade theory, trade can only stay
unbalanced temporarily before equilibrium is re-established or free trade
would simply stop. When bilateral trade is temporarily unbalanced, it is
generally because one trade partner has become temporarily uncompetitive,
inefficient or unproductive. The partner with the trade deficit receives more
goods and services from the partner with the trade surplus than it can offer
in return and thus pays the difference with its currency that someday can buy
foods produced by the deficit trade partner to re-established balance of
payments. This temporary trade imbalance is due to a number of socio-economic
factors, such as terms of trade, wage levels, return on investment,
regulatory regimes, shortages in labor or material or energy,
trade-supporting infrastructure adequacy, purchasing power disparity, etc. A
trading partner that runs a recurring trade deficit earns the reputation of
being what banks call a habitual borrower, i.e. a bad credit risk, one who
habitually lives beyond his/her means. If the trade deficit is paid with its
currency, a downward pressure results in the exchange rate. A flexible
exchange rate seeks to remove or moderate a temporary trade imbalance while
the productivity disparities between trading partners are being addressed
fundamentally.
Dollar hegemony prevents US trade imbalance from returning to
equilibrium through market forces. It allows a US trade deficit to persist
based on monetary prowess. This translates over time into a falling exchange
rate for the dollar even as dollar hegemony keeps the fall at a slow pace.
But a below-par exchange rate over a long period can run the risk of turning
the temporary imbalance in productivity into a permanent one. A continuously
weakening currency condemns the issuing economy into a downward economic
spiral. This has happened to the US in the last decade. To make matters
worse, with globalization of deregulated markets, the recurring US trade
deficit is accompanied by an escalating loss of jobs in sectors sensitive to
cross-border wage arbitrage, with the job-loss escalation climbing up the
skill ladder. Discriminatory US immigration policies also prevent the
retention of low-paying jobs within the US and exacerbate the illegal
immigration problem.
Regional wage arbitrage within the US in past decades kept the US
economy lean and productive internationally. Labor-intensive US industries
relocated to the low-wage South through regional wage arbitrage and despite
temporary adjustment pains from the loss of textile mills, the Northern
economies managed to upgrade their productivity, technology level, financial
sophistication and output quality. The Southern economies in the US also
managed to upgrade these factors of production and in time managed to narrow
the wage disparity within the national economy. This happened because the
jobs stay within the nation. With globalization, it is another story. Jobs
are leaving the nation mercilessly. According to free trade theory, the US
trade deficit is supposed to cause the dollar to fall temporarily against the
currencies of its trading partners, causing export competitiveness to
rebalance to remove or reduce the US trade deficit or face the collapse of
its currency. Either case, jobs that have been lost temporarily are then
supposed to return to the US.
But the persistent US trade deficit defies trade theory because of
dollar hegemony. The current international finance architecture is based on
dollar hegemony which is the peculiar arrangement in which the US dollar, a
fiat currency, remains as the dominant reserve currency for international
trade. The broad trade-weighted dollar index stays in an upward trend,
despite selective appreciation of some strong currencies, as highly-indebted
emerging market economies attempt to extricate themselves from
dollar-denominated debt through the devaluation of their currencies. While
the aim is to subsidize exports, it ironically makes dollar debts more
expensive in local currency terms. The moderating impact on US price
inflation also amplifies the upward trend of the trade-weighted dollar index
despite persistent US expansion of monetary aggregates, also known as
monetary easing or money printing.
Adjusting for this debt-driven increase in the exchange value of
dollars, the import volume into the US can be estimated in relationship to
expanding monetary aggregates. The annual growth of the volume of goods
shipped to the US has remained around 15% for most of the 1990s, more than 5
times the average annual GDP growth. The US enjoyed a booming economy when
the dollar was gaining ground, and this occurred at a time when interest
rates in the US were higher than those in its creditor nations. This led to
the odd effect that raising US interest rates actually prolonged the boom in
the US rather than threatened it, because it caused massive inflows of
liquidity into the US financial system, lowered import price inflation,
increased apparent productivity and prompted further spending by US consumers
enriched by the wealth effect despite a slowing of wage increases. Returns on
dollar assets stayed high in foreign currency terms.
This was precisely what Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan
did in the 1990s in the name of pre-emptive measures against inflation.
Dollar hegemony enabled the US to print money to fight inflation, causing a
debt bubble of asset appreciation. This data substantiated the view of the US
as Rome in a New Roman Empire with an unending stream of imports as the free
tribune from conquered lands. This was what Greenspan meant by US "financial
hegemony."
The Fed Funds rate (ffr) target has been lifted eight times in steps
of 25 basis points from 1% in mid 2004 to 3% on May 3, 2005. If the same
pattern of "measured pace" continues, the ffr target would be at 4.25% by the
end of 2005. Despite Fed rhetoric, the lifting of dollar interest rate has
more to do with preventing foreign central banks from selling
dollar-denominated assets, such as US Treasuries, than with fighting
inflation. In a debt-driven economy, high interest rates are themselves
inflationary. Rising interest rate to fight inflation could become the
monetary dog chasing its own interest rate tail, with rising rate adding to
rising inflation which then requires more interest rate hikes. Still,
interest rate policy is a double edged sword: it keeps funds from leaving the
debt bubble, but it can also puncture the debt bubble by making the servicing
of debt prohibitively expensive.
To prevent this last adverse effect, the Fed adds to the money
supply, creating an unnatural condition of abundant liquidity with rising
short-term interest rate, resulting in a narrowing of interest spread between
short-term and long-term debts, a leading indication for inevitable recession
down the road. The problem of adding to the money supply is what Keynes
called the liquidity trap, that is, an absolute preference for liquidity even
at near zero interest-rate levels. Keynes argued that either a liquidity trap
or interest-insensitive investment draught could render monetary expansion
ineffective in a recession. It is what is popularly called pushing on a
credit string, where ample money cannot find credit-worthy willing borrowers.
Much of the new low cost money tends to go to refinancing of existing debt
take out at previously higher interest rates. Rising short-term interest
rates, particularly at a measured pace, would not remove the liquidity trap
when long term rates stay flat because of excess liguidity.
The debt bubble in the US is clearly having problems, as evident in
the bond market. With just 14 deals worth $2.9 billion, May 2005 was the
slowest month for high-yield bond issuance since October 2002. The late-April
downgrades of the debt of General Motors and Ford Motor to junk status roiled
the bond markets. The number of high-yield, or junk bond deals fell 55% in
the March-to-May 2005 period, compared with the same three months in 2004.
They were also down 45% from the December-through-February period. In dollar
value, junk bond deals totaled $17.6 billion in the March-to-May 2005 period,
compared with $39.5 billion during the same three months in 2004 and $36
billion from December through February 2005. There were 407 deals of
investment-grade bond underwriting during the March-to-May 2005 period,
compared with 522 in the same period 2004 - a decline of 22%. In dollar
volume, some $153.9 billion of high-grade bonds were underwritten from March
to May 2005, compared with $165.5 billion in the same period in 2004 - a 7%
decline. Oil at $50, along with astronomical asset price appreciation,
particularly in real estate, is giving the debt bubble additional borrowed
time. But this game cannot go on forever and the end will likely be triggered
by a new trade war's effect on reduced trade volume. The price of a reduced
US trade deficit is the bursting of the US debt bubble which can plunge the
world economy into a new depression. Given such options, the US has no choice
except to ride the trade deficit train for as long as the traffic will bear,
which may not be too long, particularly if protectionism begins to gather
force.
The transition to offshore outsourced production has been the source
of the productivity boom of the "New Economy" in the US in the last decade.
The productivity increase not attributable to the importing of other nations'
productivity is much less impressive. While published government figures of
the productivity index show a rise of nearly 70% since 1974, the actual rise
is between zero and 10% in many sectors if the effect of imports is removed
from the equation. The lower productivity values are consistent with the
real-life experience of members of the blue-collar working class and the
white collar middle class who have been spending the equity cash-outs from
the appreciated market value of their homes. World trade has become a network
of cross-border arbitrage on differentials in labor availability, wages,
interest rates, exchange rates, prices, saving rates, productive capacities,
liquidity conditions and debt levels. In some of these areas, the US is
becoming an underdeveloped economy.
The Bush Administration continues to assure the public that the state
of the economy is sound while in reality the US has been losing entire
sectors of its economy, such as manufacturing and information technology, to
foreign producers, while at the same time selling off the part of the nation
to finance its rising and unending trade deficit. Usually, when unjustified
confidence crosses over to fantasized hubris on the part of policymakers,
disaster is not far ahead.
To be fair, the problems of the US economy started before the second
Bush Administration. The Clinton Administration's annual economic report for
2000 claimed that the longest economic expansion in US history could continue
"indefinitely" as long as "we stick to sound policy", according to Chairman
Martin Baily of the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) as reported in the
Wall Street Journal . The New York Times report differed
somewhat by quoting Baily as saying: "stick to fiscal policy." Putting the
two newspaper reports together, one got the sense that the Clinton
Administration thought that its fiscal policy was the sound policy needed to
put an end to the business cycle. Economics high priests in government,
unlike the rest of us mortals who are unfortunate enough to have to float in
the daily turbulence of the market, can afford to aloofly focus on long-term
trends and their structural congruence to macro-economic theories. Yet,
outside of macro-economics, long-term is increasingly being re-defined in the
real world. In the technology and communication sectors, long-term evokes
periods lasting less than 5 years. For hedge funds and quant shops, long-term
can mean a matter of weeks.
Two factors were identified by the Clinton CEA Year 2000 economic
report as contributing to the "good" news: technology-driven productivity and
neo-liberal trade globalization. Even with somewhat slower productivity and
spending growth, the CEA believed the economy could continue to expand
perpetually. As for the huge and growing trade deficit, the CEA expected
global recovery to boost demand for US exports, not withstanding the fact
that most US exports are increasingly composed of imported parts. Yet the US
has long officially pursued a strong dollar policy which weakens world demand
for US exports. The high expectation on e-commerce was a big part of
optimism, which had yet to be substantiated by data. In 2000, the CEA
expected the business to business (B2B) portion of e-commerce to rise to $1.3
trillion by 2003 from $43 billion in 1998. Goldman Sachs claimed in 1999 that
B2B e-commerce would reach $1.5 trillion by 2004, twice the size of the
combined 1998 revenues of the US auto industry and the US telecom sector.
Others were more cautious. Jupiter Research projected that companies around
the globe would increase their spending on B2B e-marketplaces from US$2.6
billion in 2000 to only $137.2 billion by 2005 and spending in North America
alone would grow from $2.1 billion to only $80.9 billion. North American
companies accounted for 81% of the total spending in 1998, but by 2005, that
figure was expected to drop to 60% of the total. The fact of the matter is
that Asia and Europe are now faster growth market for communication and
technology.
Reality proved disappointing. A 2004 UN Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) report said: In the United States, e-commerce between
enterprises (B2B), which in 2002 represented almost 93% of all e-commerce,
accounted for 16.28% of all commercial transactions between enterprises.
While overall transactions between enterprises (e-commerce and non
e-commerce) fell in 2002, e-commerce B2B grew at an annual rate of 6.1%. As
for business-to-consumer (B2C) e-commerce, UNCTAD reported that sales in the
first quarter of 2004 amounted to 1.9 per cent of total retail sales, a
proportion that is nearly twice as large as that recorded in 2001. The annual
rate of growth of retail e-commerce in the US in the year to the end of the
first quarter of 2004 was 28.1%, while the growth of total retail in the same
period was only 8.8%. Dow Jones reported on May 20, 2005 that first-quarter
retail e-commerce sales in the U.S. rose 23.8% compared with the year-ago
period to $19.8 billion from $16 billion, according to preliminary numbers
released by the Department of Commerce. E-commerce sales during the first
quarter rose 6.4% from the fourth quarter, when they were $18.6 billion.
Sales for all periods are on an adjusted basis, meaning the Commerce
Department adjusts them for seasonal variations and holiday and trading-day
differences but not for price changes.
E-commerce sales accounted for 2.2% of total retail sales in the
first quarter of 2005, when those sales were an estimated $916.9 billion,
according to the Commerce Department. Walmart, the low-priced retailer that
imports outsourced goods from overseas, grew only 2%, indicating spending
fatigue on the part of low-income US consumers, while Target Stores, the
upscale retailer that also imports outsourced goods, continues to grow at 7%,
indicating the effects of rising income disparity.
The CEA 2000 report did not address the question whether e-commerce
was merely a shift of commerce or a real growth. The possibility exists for
the new technology to generate negative growth. It happened to IBM –
the increased efficiency (lower unit cost of calculation power) of IBM big
frames actually reduced overall IBM sales, and most of the profit and growth
in personal computers went to Microsoft, the software company that grew on
business that IBM, a self-professed hardware manufacturer, did not consider
worthy of keeping for itself. The same thing happened to Intel where Moore's
Law declared in 1965 an exponential growth in the number of transistors per
integrated circuit and predicted that this trend would continue the doubling
of transistors every couple of years. But what Moore's Law did not predict
was that this growth of computing power per dollar would cut into company
profitability. As the market price of computer power continues to fall, the
cost to producers to achieve Moore's Law has followed the opposite trend:
R&D, manufacturing, and test costs have increased steadily with each new
generation of chips. As the fixed cost of semiconductor production continues
to increase, manufacturers must sell larger and larger quantities of chips to
remain profitable. In recent years, analysts have observed a decline in the
number of "design starts" at advanced process nodes. While these observations
were made in the period after the year 2000 economic downturn, the decline
may be evidence that the long-term global market cannot economically sustain
Moore's Law. Is the Google Bubble a replay of the AOL fiasco?
Schumpeter's creative destruction theory, while revitalizing the
macro-economy with technological obsolescence in the long run, leaves real
corporate bodies in its path, not just obsolete theoretical concepts.
Financial intermediaries and stock exchanges face challenges from Electronic
Communication Networks (ECNs) which may well turn the likes of NYSE into
sunset industries. ECNs are electronic marketplaces which bring buy/sell
orders together and match them in virtual space. Today, ECNs handle roughly
25% of the volume in NASDAQ stocks. The NYSE and the Archipelago Exchange
(ArcaEx) announced on April 20, 2005 that they have entered a definitive
merger agreement that will lead to a combined entity, NYSE Group, Inc.,
becoming a publicly-held company. If approved by regulators, NYSE members and
Archipelago shareholders, the merger will represent the largest-ever among
securities exchanges and combine the world's leading equities market with the
most successful totally open, fully electronic exchange. Through Archipelago,
the NYSE will compete for the first time in the trading of NASDAQ-listed
stocks; it will be able to indirectly capture listings business that
otherwise would not qualify to list on the NYSE. Archipelago lists stocks of
companies that do not meet the NYSE's listing standards.
On fiscal policy, US government spending, including social programs
and defense, declined as a share of the economy during the eight years of the
Clinton watch. This in no small way contributed to a polarization of both
income and wealth, with visible distortions in both the demand and supply
sides of the economy. This was the opposite of the FDR record of increasing
income and wealth equality by policy. The wealth effect tied to bloated
equity and real estate markets could reverse suddenly and did in 2000, bailed
out only by the Bush tax cut and the deficit spending on the War on Terrorism
after 2001. Private debt kept making all time highs throughout the 1990s and
was celebrated by neo-liberal economists as a positive factor. Household
spending was heavily based on expected rising future earnings or paper
profits, both of which might and did vanished on short notice. By election
time in November 1999, the Clinton economic miracle was fizzling. The
business cycle had not ended after all, and certainly not by
self-aggrandizing government policies. It merely got postponed for a more
severe crash later. The idea of ending the business cycle in a market economy
was as much a fantasy as Vice President Cheney's assertion in a speech before
the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August 26, 2002 that "the Middle East expert
Professor Fouad Ajami predicts that after liberation, the streets in Basra
and Baghdad are sure to erupt in joy ."
In their 1991 populist campaign for the White House, Bill Clinton and
Al Gore repeatedly pointed out the obscenity of the top 1% of Americans
owning 40% of the country's wealth. They also said that if you eliminated
home ownership and only counted businesses, factories and offices, then the
top 1% owned 90% of all commercial wealth. And the top 10%, they said, owned
99%. It was a situation they pledged to change if elected. But once in
office, Clinton and Gore did nothing to redistribute wealth more equally -
despite the fact that their two terms in office spanned the economic joyride
of the 1990s that would eventually hurt the poor much more severely than the
rich. On the contrary, economic inequality only continued to grow under the
Democrats. Reagan spread the national debt equally among the people while
Clinton gave all the wealth to the rich.
Geopolitically, trade globalization was beginning to face complex
resistance worldwide by the second term of the Clinton presidency. The
momentum of resistance after Clinton would either slow further globalization
or force the terms of trade to be revised. The Asian financial crises of 1997
revived economic nationalism around the world against US-led neo-liberal
globalization, while the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) attack on
Yugoslavia in 1999 revived militarism in the EU. Market fundamentalism as
espoused by the US, far from being a valid science universally, was
increasingly viewed by the rest of the world as merely US national ideology,
unsupported even by US historical conditions. Just as anti-Napoleonic
internationalism was essentially anti-French, anti-globalization and
anti-moral-imperialism are essentially anti-US. US unilateralism and
exceptionism became the midwife for a new revival of political and economic
nationalism everywhere. The Bush Doctrine of monopolistic nuclear posture,
pre-emptive wars, "either with us or against us" extremism, and no compromise
with states that allegedly support terrorism, pours gasoline on the
smoldering fire of defensive nationalism everywhere.
Alan Greenspan in his October 29, 1997 Congressional testimony on
Turbulence in World Financial Markets before the Joint Economic
Committee said that "it is quite conceivable that a few years hence we will
look back at this episode [Asian financial crisis of 1997] . as a salutary
event in terms of its implications for the macro-economy." When one is
focused only on the big picture, details do not make much of a difference:
the earth always appears more or less round from space, despite that some
people on it spend their whole lives starving and cities get destroyed by war
or natural disasters. That is the problem with macroeconomics. As Greenspan
spoke, many around the world were waking up to the realization that the
turbulence in their own financial markets was viewed by the US central banker
as having a "salutary effect" on the US macro-economy. Greenspan gave anti-US
sentiments and monetary trade protectionism held by participants in these
financial markets a solid basis and they were no longer accused of being mere
paranoia.
Ironically, after the end of the Cold War, market capitalism has
emerged as the most fervent force for revolutionary change. Finance
capitalism became inherently democratic once the bulk of capital began to
come from the pension assets of workers, despite widening income and wealth
disparity. The monetary value of US pension funds is over $15 trillion, the
bulk of which belong to average workers. A new form of social capitalism has
emerged which would gladly eliminate the worker's job in order to give
him/her a higher return on his/her pension account. The capitalist in the
individual is exploiting the worker in same individual. A conflict of
interest arises between a worker's savings and his/her earnings. As Pogo used
to say: "The enemy: they are us." This social capitalism, by favoring return
on capital over compensation for labor, produces overinvestment, resulting in
overcapacity. But the problem of overcapacity can only be solved by high
income consumers. Unemployment and underemployment in an economy of
overcapacity decrease demand, leading to financial collapse. The world
economy needs low wages the way the cattle business need foot and mouth
disease.
The nomenclature of neo-classical economics reflects, and in turn
dictates, the warped logic of the economic system it produces. Terms such as
money, capital, labor, debt, interest, profits, employment, market, etc, have
been conceptualized to describe synthetic components of an artificial
material system created by the power politics of greed. It is the capitalist
greed in the worker that causes the loss of his/her job to lower wage earners
overseas. The concept of the economic man who presumably always acts in his
self-interest is a gross abstraction based on the flawed assumption of market
participants acting with perfect and equal information and clear
understanding of the implication of his actions. The pervasive use of these
terms over time disguises the artificial system as the logical product of
natural laws, rather than the conceptual components of the power politics of
greed.
Just as monarchism first emerged as a progressive force against
feudalism by rationalizing itself as a natural law of politics and eventually
brought about its own demise by betraying its progressive mandate, social
capitalism today places return on capital above not only the worker but also
the welfare of the owner of capital. The class struggle has been internalized
within each worker. As people facing the hard choice of survival in the
present versus wellbeing in the future, they will always choose survival,
social capitalism will inevitably go the way of absolute monarchism, and make
way for humanist socialism.
Global trade has forced all countries to adopt market economy. Yet the market
is not the economy. It is only one aspect of the economy. A market economy
can be viewed as an aberration of human civilization, as economist Karl
Polanyi (1886-1964) pointed out. The principal theme of Polanyi's Origins
of Our Time: The Great Transformation (1945) was that market economy was
of very recent origin and had emerged fully formed only as recently as the
19th century, in conjunction with capitalistic industrialization. The current
globalization of markets following the fall of the Soviet bloc is also of
recent post-Cold War origin, in conjunction with the advent of the electronic
information age and deregulated finance capitalism. A severe and prolonged
depression can trigger the end of the market economy, when intelligent human
beings are finally faced with the realization that the business cycle
inherent in the market economy cannot be regulated sufficiently to prevent
its innate destructiveness to human welfare and are forced to seek new
economic arrangements for human development. The principle of diminishing
returns will lead people to reject the market economy, however
sophisticatedly regulated.
Prior to the coming of capitalistic industrialization, the market played only
a minor part in the economic life of societies. Even where market places
could be seen to be operating, they were peripheral to the main economic
organization and activities of society. In many pre-industrial economies,
markets met only twice a month. Polanyi argued that in modern market
economies, the needs of the market determined social behavior, whereas in
pre-industrial and primitive economies the needs of society determined market
behavior. Polanyi reintroduced to economics the concepts of reciprocity and
redistribution in human interaction, which were the original aims of trade.
Reciprocity implies that people produce the goods and services they are
best at and enjoy most in producing, and share them with others with joy.
This is reciprocated by others who are good at and enjoy producing other
goods and services. There is an unspoken agreement that all would produce
that which they could do best and mutually share and share alike, not just
sold to the highest bidder, or worse to produce what they despise to meet the
demands of the market. The idea of sweatshops is totally unnatural to human
dignity and uneconomic to human welfare. With reciprocity, there is no need
for layers of management, because workers happily practice their livelihoods
and need no coercive supervision. Labor is not forced and workers do not
merely sell their time in jobs they hate, unrelated to their inner callings.
Prices are not fixed but vary according to what different buyers with
different circumstances can afford or what the seller needs in return from
different buyers. The law of one price is inhumane, unnatural, inflexible and
unfair. All workers find their separate personal fulfillment in different
productive livelihoods of their choosing, without distortion by the need for
money. The motivation to produce and share is not personal profit, but
personal fulfillment, and avoidance of public contempt, communal ostracism,
and loss of social prestige and moral standing.
This motivation, albeit distorted today by the dominance of money, is
still fundamental in societies operating under finance capitalism. But in a
money society, the emphasis is on accumulating the most financial wealth,
which is accorded the highest social prestige. The annual report on the
world's richest 100 as celebrities by Forbes is a clear evidence of this
anomaly. The opinion of figures such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are
regularly sought by the media on matters beyond finance, as if the possession
of money itself represents a diploma of wisdom. In the 1960s, wealth was an
embarrassment among the flower children in the US. It was only in the 1980s
that the age of greed emerged to embrace commercialism. In a speech on June 3
at the Take Back America conference in Washington, D.C, Bill Moyers drew
attention to the conclusion by the editors of The Economist , all
friends of business and advocates of capitalism and free markets, that "the
United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society." A
front-page leader in the May 13, 2005 Wall Street Journal concluded that "as
the gap between rich and poor has widened since 1970, the odds that a child
born in poverty will climb to wealth - or that a rich child will fall into
middle class - remain stuck....Despite the widespread belief that the U.S.
remains a more mobile society than Europe, economists and sociologists say
that in recent decades the typical child starting out in poverty in
continental Europe (or in Canada) has had a better chance at prosperity."
The New York Times ran a 12-day series in June 2005 under the heading
of "Class Matters" which observed that class is closely tied to money
in the US and that " the movement of families up and down the economic ladder
is the promise that lies at the heart of the American dream. But it does not
seem to be happening quite as often as it used to." The myth that free
markets spread equality seems to be facing challenge in the heart of market
fundamentalism.
People trade to compensate for deficiencies in their current state of
development. Free trade is not a license for exploitation. Exploitation is
slavery, not trade. Imperialism is exploitation by systemic coercion on an
international level. Neo-imperialism after the end of the Cold War takes the
form of neo-liberal globalization of systemic coercion. Free trade is
hampered by systemic coercion. Resistance to systemic coercion is not to be
confused with protectionism. To participate in free trade, a trader must have
something with which to trade voluntarily in a market free of systemic
coercion. All free trade participants need to have basic pricing power which
requires that no one else commands monopolistic pricing power. That tradable
something comes from development, which is a process of self-betterment. Just
as equality before the law is a prerequisite for justice, equality in pricing
power in the market is a prerequisite for free trade. Traders need basic
pricing power for trade to be free. Workers need pricing power for the value
of their labor to participate in free trade.
Yet trade in a market economy by definition is a game to acquire
overwhelming pricing power over one's trading partners. Wal-Mart for example
has enormous pricing power both as a bulk buyer and a mass retailer. But it
uses its overwhelming pricing power not to pay the highest wages to workers
in factories and in its store, but to deliver the lowest price to its
customers. The business model of Wal-Mart, whose sales volume is greater than
the GDP and trade volume of many small countries, is anti-development. The
trade off between low income and low retail price follows a downward spiral.
This downward spiral has been the main defect of trade de-regulation when low
prices are achieved through the lowering of wages. The economic purpose of
development is to raise income, not merely to lower wages to reduce expenses
by lowering quality. International trade cannot be a substitute for domestic
development, or even international development, although it can contribute to
both domestic and international development if it is conducted on an equal
basis for the mutual benefit of both trading partners. And the chief benefit
is higher income.
The terms of international trade needs to take into consideration local
conditions not as a reluctant tolerance but with respect for diversity.
Former Japanese Vice Finance Minister for International Affairs, Eisuke
Sakakibara, in a speech "The End of Market Fundamentalism" before the
Foreign Correspondent's Club, Tokyo, Jan. 22, 1999, presented a coherent and
wide ranging critique of global macro orthodoxy. His view, that each national
economic system must conform to agreed international trade rules and
regulations but needs not assimilate the domestic rules and regulations of
another country, is heresy to US-led one-size-fits-all globalization. In a
computerized world where output standardization has become unnecessary, where
the mass production of customized one-of-a-kind products is routine,
one-size-fit all hegemony is nothing more than cultural imperialism. In a
world of sovereign states, domestic development must take precedence over
international trade, which is a system of external transactions made
supposedly to augment domestic development. And domestic development means
every nation is free to choose its own development path most appropriate to
its historical conditions and is not required to adopt the US development
model. But neo-liberal international trade since the end of the Cold War has
increasingly preempted domestic development in both the center and the
periphery of the world system. Quality of life is regularly compromised in
the name of efficiency.
This is the reason the French and the Dutch voted against the EU
constitution, as a resistance to the US model of globalization. Britain has
suspended its own vote on the constitution to avoid a likely voter rejection.
In Italy, cabinet ministers suggested abandoning the euro to return to an
independent currency in order to regain monetary sovereignty. Bitter battles
have erupted between member nations in the EU over national government
budgets and subsidies. In that sense, neo-liberal trade is being increasingly
identified as an obstacle, even a threat, to diversified domestic development
and national culture. Global trade has become a vehicle for exploitation of
the weak to strengthen the strong both domestically and internationally.
Culturally, US-style globalization is turning the world into a dull market
for unhealthy MacDonald fast food, dreary Walt-Mart stores, and automated
Coca Cola and ATM machines. Every airport around the world is a replica of a
giant US department store with familiar brand names, making it hard to know
which city one is in. Aside from being unjust and culturally destructive,
neo-liberal global trade as it currently exists is unsustainable, because the
perpetual transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich is unsustainable
anymore than drawing from a dry well is sustainable in a drought, nor can a
stagnant consumer income sustain a consumer economy. Neo-liberal claims of
fair benefits of free trade to the poor of the world, both in the center and
the periphery, are simply not supported by facts. Everywhere, people who
produce the goods cannot afford to buy the same goods for themselves and the
profit is siphoned off to invisible investors continents away.
Trade and Money
Trade is facilitated by money. Mainstream monetary economists view
government-issued money as a sovereign debt instrument with zero maturity,
historically derived from the bill of exchange in free banking. This view is
valid only for specie money, which is a debt certificate that entitles the
holder to claim on demand a prescribed amount of gold or other specie of
value. Government-issued fiat money, on the other hand, is not a sovereign
debt but a sovereign credit instrument, backed by government acceptance of it
for payment of taxes. This view of money is known as the State Theory of
Money, or Chartalism. The dollar, a fiat currency, entitles the holder to
exchange for another dollar at any Federal Reserve Bank, no more, no less.
Sovereign government bonds are sovereign debts denominated in money.
Sovereign bonds denominated in fiat money need never default since sovereign
government can print fiat money at will. Local government bonds are not
sovereign debt and are subject to default because local governments do not
have the authority to print money. When fiat money buys bonds, the
transaction represents credit canceling debt. The relationship is rather
straightforward, but of fundamental importance.
Credit drives the economy, not debt. Debt is the mirror reflection of
credit. Even the most accurate mirror does violence to the symmetry of its
reflection. Why does a mirror turn an image right to left and not upside down
as the lens of a camera does? The scientific answer is that a mirror image
transforms front to back rather than left to right as commonly assumed. Yet
we often accept this aberrant mirror distortion as uncolored truth and we
unthinkingly consider the distorted reflection in the mirror as a perfect
representation. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?
The answer is: your backside.
In the language of monetary economics, credit and debt are opposites but
not identical. In fact, credit and debt operate in reverse relations. Credit
requires a positive net worth and debt does not. One can have good credit and
no debt. High debt lowers credit rating. When one understands credit, one
understands the main force behind the modern finance economy, which is driven
by credit and stalled by debt. Behaviorally, debt distorts marginal utility
calculations and rearranges disposable income. Debt turns corporate shares
into Giffen goods, demand for which increases when their prices go up, and
creates what Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan calls "irrational
exuberance", the economic man gone mad. <> If fiat money is not
sovereign debt, then the entire financial architecture of fiat money
capitalism is subject to reordering, just as physics was subject to
reordering when man's world view changed with the realization that the earth
is not stationary nor is it the center of the universe. For one thing, the
need for capital formation to finance socially useful development will be
exposed as a cruel hoax. With sovereign credit, there is no need for capital
formation for socially useful development in a sovereign nation. For another,
savings are not necessary to finance domestic development, since savings are
not required for the supply of sovereign credit. And since capital formation
through savings is the key systemic rationale for income inequality, the
proper use of sovereign credit will lead to economic democracy.
Sovereign Credit and Unemployment
In an economy financed by sovereign credit, labor should be in perpetual
shortage, and the price of labor should constantly rise. A vibrant economy is
one in which there is a persistent labor shortage and labor enjoys basic,
though not monopolistic, pricing power. An economy should expand until a
labor shortage emerges and keep expanding through productivity rise to
maintain a slight labor shortage. Unemployment is an indisputable sign that
the economy is underperforming and should be avoid as an economic
plague.
The Phillips curve, formulated in 1958, describes the systemic
relationship between unemployment and wage-pushed inflation in the business
cycle. It represented a milestone in the development of macroeconomics .
British economist A. W. H. Phillips observed that there was a consistent
inverse relationship between the rate of wage inflation and the rate of
unemployment in the United Kingdom from 1861 to 1957. Whenever unemployment
was low, inflation tended to be high. Whenever unemployment was high,
inflation tended to be low. What Phillips did was to accept a defective labor
market in a typical business cycle as natural law and to use the tautological
data of the flawed regime to prove its validity, and made unemployment
respectable in macroeconomic policymaking, in order to obscure the
irrationality of the business cycle. That is like observing that the sick are
found in hospitals and concluding that hospitals cause sickness and that a
reduction in the number of hospitals will reduce the number of the sick. This
theory will be validated by data if only hospital patients are counted as
being sick and the sick outside of hospitals are viewed as "externalities" to
the system. This is precisely what has happened in the US where an oversupply
of hospital beds has resulted from changes in the economics of medical
insurance, rather than a reduction of people needing hospital care. Part of
the economic argument against illegal immigration is based on the overload of
non-paying patients in a health care system plagued with overcapacity.
Nevertheless, Nobel laureates Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow led an army
of government economists in the 1960s in using the Phillips curve as a guide
for macro-policy trade-offs between inflation and unemployment in market
economies. Later, Edmund Phelps and Milton Friedman independently challenged
the theoretical underpinnings by pointing out separate effects between the
"short-run" and "long-run" Phillips curves, arguing that the
inflation-adjusted purchasing power of money wages, or real wages, would
adjust to make the supply of labor equal to the demand for labor, and the
unemployment rate would rest at the real wage level to moderate the business
cycle. This level of unemployment they called the "natural rate" of
unemployment. The definitions of the natural rate of unemployment and its
associated rate of inflation are circularly self-validating. The natural rate
of unemployment is that at which inflation is equal to its associated
inflation. The associated rate of inflation rate is that which prevails when
unemployment is equal to its natural rate.
A monetary purist, Friedman correctly concluded that money is all
important, but as a social conservative, he left the path to truth half
traveled, by not having much to say about the importance of the fair
distribution of money in the market economy, the flow of which is largely
determined by the terms of trade. Contrary to the theoretical relationship
described by Phillips curve, higher inflation was associated with higher, not
lower, unemployment in the US in the 1970s and contrary to Friedman's claim,
deflation was associated also with high unemployment in Japan in the 1990s.
The fact that both inflation and deflation accompanied high unemployment
ought to discredit the Phillips curve and Friedman's notion of a natural
unemployment rate. Yet most mainstream economists continue to accept a
central tenet of the Friedman-Phelps analysis that there is some rate of
unemployment that, if maintained, would be compatible with a constant rate of
inflation. This they call the "non-accelerating inflation rate of
unemployment" (NAIRU), which over the years has crept up from 4% to 6%.
It is hard to see how sound money can ever lead to full employment when
unemployment is necessary to keep money sound. Within limits and within
reason, unemployment hurts people and inflation hurts money. And if money
exists to serve people, then the choice between inflation and unemployment
becomes obvious. The theory of comparative advantage in world trade is merely
Say's Law internationalized. It requires full employment to be operative.
Wages and Profit
And neoclassical economics does not allow the prospect of employers having
an objective of raising wages, as Henry Ford did, instead of minimizing wages
as current corporate management, such as General Motors, routinely practices.
Henry Ford raised wages to increase profits by selling more cars to workers,
while Ford Motors today cuts wages to maximize profit while adding to
overcapacity. Therein resides the cancer of market capitalism: falling wages
will lead to the collapse of an overcapacity economy. This is why global wage
arbitrage is economically destructive unless and until it is structured to
raise wages everywhere rather than to keep prices low in the developed
economies. That is done by not chasing after the lowest price made possible
by the lowest wages, but by chasing after a bigger market made possible by
rising wages. The terms of global trade need to be restructured to reward
companies that aim at raising wages and benefits globally through
internationally coordinated transitional government subsidies, rather than
the regressive approach of protective tariffs to cut off trade that exploits
wage arbitrage. This will enable the low-wage economies to begin to be able
to afford the products they produce and to import more products from the high
wage economies to move towards balanced trade. Eventually, certainly within a
decade, wage arbitrage would cease to be the driving force in global trade as
wage levels around the world equalize. When the population of the developing
economies achieves per capita income that matches that in developed
economies, the world economy will be rid of the modern curse of overcapacity
caused by the flawed neoclassical economics of scarcity. When top executives
are paid tens of million of dollars in bonuses to cut wages and worker
benefits, it is not fair reward for good management; it is legalized theft.
Executives should only receive bonuses if both profit and wages in their
companies rise as a result of their management strategies.
Sovereign Credit and Dollar Hegemony
In an economy that can operate on sovereign credit, free from dollar
hegemony, private savings are needed only for private investment that has no
clear socially redeeming purpose or value. Savings are deflationary without
full employment, as savings reduces current consumption to provide investment
to increase future supply. Savings for capital formation serve only the
purpose of bridging the gap between new investment and new revenue from
rising productivity and increased capacity from the new investment. With
sovereign credit, private savings are not needed for this bridge financing.
Private savings are also not needed for rainy days or future retirement in an
economy that has freed itself from the tyranny of the business cycle through
planning. Say's Law of supply creating its own demand is a very special
situation that is operative only under full employment, as eminent
post-Keynesian economist Paul Davidson has pointed out. Say's Law ignores a
critical time lag between supply and demand that can be fatal to a
fast-moving modern economy without demand management. Savings require
interest payments, the compounding of which will regressively make any
financial system unsustainable by tilting it toward overcapacity caused by
overinvestment. The religions forbade usury also for very practical reasons.
Yet interest on money is the very foundation of finance capitalism, held up
by the neoclassical economic notion that money is more valuable when it is
scarce. Aggregate poverty then is necessary for sound money. This was what
President Reagan meant when he said that there is always going to be poor
people.
The Bank of International Finance (BIS) estimated that as of the end of
2004, the notional value of global OTC interest rate derivatives is around
$185 trillion, with a market risk exposure of over $5 trillion, which is
almost half of US 2004 GDP. Interest rate derivatives are by far the largest
category of structured finance contracts, taking up $185 trillion of the
total $250 trillion of notional values. The $185 trillion notional value of
interest rate derivatives is 41 times the outstanding value of US Treasury
bonds. This means that interest rate volatility will have a disproportioned
impact of the global financial system in ways that historical data cannot
project.
Fiat money issued by government is now legal tender in all
modern national economies since the 1971 collapse of the Bretton Woods regime
of fixed exchange rates linked to a gold-backed dollar. The State Theory of
Money (Chartalism) holds that the general acceptance of government-issued
fiat currency rests fundamentally on government's authority to tax.
Government's willingness to accept the currency it issues for payment of
taxes gives the issuance currency within a national economy. That currency is
sovereign credit for tax liabilities, which are dischargeable by credit
instruments issued by government, known as fiat money. When issuing fiat
money, the government owes no one anything except to make good a promise to
accept its money for tax payment.
A central banking regime operates on the notion of government-issued fiat
money as sovereign credit. That is the essential difference between central
banking with government-issued fiat money, which is a sovereign credit
instrument, and free banking with privately issued specie money, which is a
bank IOU that allows the holder to claim the gold behind it.
With the fall of the USSR, US attitude toward the rest of the world
changed. It no longer needs to compete for the hearts and minds of the masses
of the Third /Fourth Worlds. So trade has replaced aid. The US has embarked
on a strategy to use Third/Fourth-World cheap labor and non-existent
environmental regulation to compete with its former Cold War Allies, now
industrialized rivals in trade, taking advantage of traditional US anti-labor
ideology to outsource low-pay jobs, playing against the strong pro-labor
tradition of social welfare in Europe and Japan. In the meantime, the US
pushed for global financial deregulation based on dollar hegemony and emerged
as a 500-lb gorilla in the globalized financial market that left the Japanese
and Europeans in the dust, playing catch up in an un-winnable game. In the
game of finance capitalism, those with capital in the form of fiat money they
can print freely will win hands down.
The tool of this US strategy is the privileged role of the dollar as the
key reserve currency for world trade, otherwise known as dollar hegemony. Out
of this emerges an international financial architecture that does real damage
to the actual producer economies for the benefit of the financier economies.
The dollar, instead of being a neutral agent of exchange, has become a weapon
of massive economic destruction (WMED) more lethal than nuclear bombs and
with more blackmail power, which is exercised ruthlessly by the IMF on behalf
of the Washington Consensus. Trade wars are fought through volatile currency
valuations. Dollar hegemony enables the US to use its trade deficits as the
bait for its capital account surplus.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) under dollar hegemony has changed the face
of the international economy. Since the early 1970s, FDI has grown along with
global merchandise trade and is the single most important source of capital
for developing countries, not net savings or sovereign credit. FDI is mostly
denominated in dollars, a fiat currency that the US can produce at will since
1971, or in dollar derivatives such as the yen or the euro, which are not
really independent currencies. Thus FDI is by necessity concentrated in
exports related development, mainly destined for US markets or markets that
also sell to US markets for dollars with which to provide the return on
dollar-denominated FDI. US economic policy is shifting from trade promotion
to FDI promotion. The US trade deficit is financed by the US capital account
surplus which in turn provides the dollars for FDI in the exporting
economies. A trade spat with the EU over beef and bananas, for example, risks
large US investment stakes in Europe. And the suggestion to devalue the
dollar to promote US exports is misleading for it would only make it more
expensive for US affiliates to do business abroad while making it cheaper for
foreign companies to buy dollar assets. An attempt to improve the trade
balance, then, would actually end up hurting the FDI balance. This is the
rationale behind the slogan: a strong dollar is in the US national
interest.
Between 1996 and 2003, the monetary value of US equities rose around 80%
compared with 60% for European and a decline of 30% for Japanese. The 1997
Asian financial crisis cut Asia equities values by more than half, some as
much as 80% in dollar terms even after drastic devaluation of local
currencies. Even though the US has been a net debtor since 1986, its net
income on the international investment position has remained positive, as the
rate of return on US investments abroad continues to exceed that on foreign
investments in the US. This reflects the overall strength of the US economy,
and that strength is derived from the US being the only nation that can enjoy
the benefits of sovereign credit utilization while amassing external debt,
largely due to dollar hegemony.
In the US, and now also increasingly so in Europe and Asia, capital
markets are rapidly displacing banks as both savings venues and sources of
funds for corporate finance. This shift, along with the growing global
integration of financial markets, is supposed to create promising new
opportunities for investors around the globe. Neo-liberals even claim that
these changes could help head off the looming pension crises facing many
nations. But so far it has only created sudden and recurring financial crises
like those that started in Mexico in 1982, then in the UK in 1992, again in
Mexico in 1994, in Asia in 1997, and Russia, Brazil, Argentina and Turkey
subsequently.
The introduction of the euro has accelerated the growth of the EU
financial markets. For the current 25 members of the European Union, the
common currency nullified national requirements for pension and insurance
assets to be invested in the same currencies as their local liabilities, a
restriction that had long locked the bulk of Europe's long-term savings into
domestic assets. Freed from foreign-exchange transaction costs and risks of
currency fluctuations, these savings fueled the rise of larger, more liquid
European stock and bond markets, including the recent emergence of a
substantial euro junk bond market. These more dynamic capital markets, in
turn, have placed increased competitive pressure on banks by giving
corporations new financing options and thus lowering the cost of capital
within euroland. How this will interact with the euro-dollar market is still
indeterminate. Euro-dollars are dollars outside of US borders everywhere and
not necessarily Europe, generally pre-taxed and subject to US taxes if they
return to US soil or accounts. The term also applies to euro-yens and
euro-euros. But the idea of French retirement accounts investing in
non-French assets is both distasteful and irrational for the average French
worker, particularly if such investment leads to decreased job security in
France and jeopardizes the jealously guarded 35-hour work-week with 30 days
of paid annual vacation which has been part of French life.
Take the Japanese economy as an example, the world's largest creditor
economy. It holds over $800 billion in dollar reserves in 2005. The Bank of
Japan (BoJ), the central bank, has bought over 300 billion dollars with yen
from currency markets in the last two years in an effort to stabilize the
exchange value of the yen, which continued to appreciate against the dollar.
Now, BoJ is faced with a dilemma: continue buying dollars in a futile effort
to keep the yen from rising, or sell dollars to try to recoup yen losses on
its dollar reserves. Japan has officially pledged not to diversify its dollar
reserves into other currencies, so as not to roil currency markets, but many
hedge funds expect Japan to soon run out of options.
Now if the BoJ sells dollars at the rate of $4 billion a day, it will take
some 200 trading days to get out of its dollar reserves. After the initial 2
days of sale, the remaining unsold $792 billion reserves would have a market
value of 20% less than before the sales program began. So the BoJ will suffer
a substantial net yen paper loss of $160 billion. If the BoJ continues its
sell-dollar program, everyday Y400 billion will leave the yen money supply to
return to the BoJ if it sells dollars for yen, or the equivalent in euro if
it sells dollars for euro. This will push the dollar further down against the
yen or euro, in which case the value of its remaining dollar reserves will
fall even further, not to mention a sharp contraction in the yen money supply
which will push the Japanese economy into a deeper recession.
If the BoJ sells dollars for gold, two things may happen. There would be
not enough sellers because no one has enough gold to sell to absorb the
dollars at current gold prices. Instead, while price of gold will rise, the
gold market may simply freezes with no transactions. Gold holders will not
have to sell their gold; they can profit from gold derivatives on notional
values. Also, the reverse market effect that faces the dollar would hit gold.
After two days of Japanese gold buying, everyone would hold on to their gold
in anticipation for still higher gold prices. There would be no market
makers. Part of the reason central banks have been leasing out their gold in
recent years is to provide liquidity to the gold market. The second thing
that may happen is that price of gold will sky rocket in currency terms,
causing a great deflation in gold terms. The US national debt as of June 1,
2005 was $7.787 trillion. US government gold holding is about 261,000,000
ounces. Price of gold required to pay back the national debt with US-held
gold is $29,835 per ounce. At that price, an ounce of gold will buy a car.
Meanwhile, market price of gold as of June 4, 2005 was $423.50 per ounce.
Gold peaked at $850 per ounce in 1980 and bottom at $252 in 1999 when oil was
below $10 a barrel. At $30,000 per ounce, governments then will have to made
gold trading illegal, as FDR did in 1930 and we are back to square one. It is
much easier for a government to outlaw the trading of gold within its borders
than it is for it to outlaw the trading of its currency in world markets. It
does not take much to conclude that anyone who advices any strategy of
long-term holding of gold will not get to the top of the class.
Heavily indebted poor countries need debt relief to get out of virtual
financial slavery. Some African governments spend three times as much on debt
service as they do on health care. Britain has proposed a half measure that
would have the IMF sell about $12 billion worth of its gold reserves, which
have a total current market value of about $43 billion to finance debt
relief. The US has veto power over gold decisions in the IMF. Thus Congress
holds the key. However, the mining industry lobby has blocked a vote. In
January, a letter opposing the sale of IMF gold was signed by 12 US senators
from Western mining states, arguing that the sale could drive down the price
of gold. A similar letter was signed in March by 30 members of the House of
Representatives. Lobbyists from the National Mining Association and gold
mining companies, such as Newmont Mining and Barrick Gold Corp, persuaded the
Congressional leadership that the gold proposal would not pass in Congress,
even before it came up for debate. The BIS reports that gold derivatives took
up 26% of the world's commodity derivatives market yet gold only composes 1%
of the world's annual commodity production value, with 26 times more
derivatives structured against gold than against other commodities, including
oil. The Bush administration, at first apparently unwilling to take on a
congressional fight, began in April to oppose gold sales outright. But
President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair announced on June 7 that the
US and UK are "well on their way" to a deal which would provide 100% debt
cancellation for some poor nations to the World Bank and African Development
Fund as a sign of progress in the G-8 debate over debt cancellation.
Jude Wanniski, a former editor of the Wall Street Journal, commenting in
his Memo on the Margin on the Internet on June 15, 2005, on the headline of
Pat Buchanan's syndicated column of the same date: Reviving the Foreign-Aid
Racket, wrote: "This not a bailout of Africa's poor or Latin American
peasants. This is a bailout of the IMF, the World Bank and the African
Development Bank . The second part of the racket is that in exchange for
getting debt relief, the poor countries will have to spend the money they
save on debt service on "infrastructure projects," to directly help their
poor people with water and sewer line, etc., which will be constructed by
contractors from the wealthiest nations What comes next? One of the worst
economists in the world, Jeffrey Sachs, is in charge of the United Nations
scheme to raise mega-billions from western taxpayers for the second leg of
this scheme. He wants $25 billion A YEAR for the indefinite future, as I
recall, and he has the fervent backing of The New York Times , which
always weeps crocodile tears for the racketeers. It was Jeffrey Sachs, in
case you forgot, who, with the backing of the NYTimes persuaded Moscow
under Mikhail Gorbachev to engage in "shock therapy" to convert from
communism to capitalism. It produced the worst inflation in the history of
Russia, caused the collapse of the Soviet federation, and sank the Russian
people into a poverty they had never experienced under communism."
The dollar cannot go up or down more than 20% against any other major
currencies within a short time without causing a major global financial
crisis. Yet, against the US equity markets the dollar appreciated about 40%
in purchasing power in the 2000-02 market crash, so had gold. And against
real estate prices between 2002 and 2005, the dollar has depreciated 60% or
more. According to Greenspan's figures, the Fed can print $8 trillion more
fiat dollars without causing inflation. The problem is not the money
printing. The problem is where that $8 trillion is injected. If it is
injected into the banking system, then the Fed will have to print $3 trillion
every subsequent year just to keep running in place. If the $8 trillion is
injected into the real economy in the form of full employment and higher
wages, the US will have a very good economy, and much less need for paranoia
against Asia or the EU. But US wages cannot rise as long as global wage
arbitrage is operative. This is one of the arguments behind protectionism. It
led Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to say on May 5 he feared what
appeared to be a growing move toward trade protectionism, saying it could
lessen the US and the world's economy ability to withstand shock. Yet if
democracy works in the US, protectionism will be unstoppable as long as free
trade benefits the elite at the expense of the voting masses.
Fiat Money is Sovereign Credit
Money is like power: use it or lose it. Money unused (not circulated) is
defunct wealth. Fiat money not circulated is not wealth but merely pieces of
printed paper sitting in a safe. Gold unused as money is merely a shiny metal
good only as ornamental gifts for weddings and birthdays. The usefulness of
money to the economy is dependent on its circulation, like the circulation of
blood to bring oxygen and nutrient to the living organism. The rate of money
circulation is called velocity by monetary economists. A vibrant economy
requires a high velocity of money. Money, like most representational
instruments, is subject to declaratory definition. In semantics, a
declaratory statement is self validating. For example: "I am King" is a
statement that makes the declarer king, albeit in a kingdom of one citizen.
What gives weight to the declaration is the number of others accepting that
declaration. When sufficient people within a jurisdiction accept the kingship
declaration, the declarer becomes king of that jurisdiction instead of just
his own house. When an issuer of money declares it to be credit it will be
credit, or when he declares it to be debt it will be debt. But the social
validity of the declaration depends on the acceptance of
others.
Anyone can issue money, but only sovereign government can
issue legal tender for all debts, public and private, universally accepted
with the force of law within the sovereign domain. The issuer of private
money must back that money with some substance of value, such as gold, or the
commitment for future service, etc. Others who accept that money have
provided something of value for that money, and have received that money
instead of something of similar value in return. So the issuer of that money
has given an instrument of credit to the holder in the form of that money,
redeemable with something of value on a later date.
When the state issues fiat money under the principle of Chartalism, the
something of value behind it is the fulfillment of tax obligations. Thus the
state issues a credit instrument, called (fiat) money, good for the
cancellation of tax liabilities. By issuing fiat money, the state is not
borrowing from anyone. It is issuing tax credit to the economy.
Even if money is declared as debt assumed by an issuer who is not a
sovereign who has the power to tax, anyone accepting that money expects to
collect what is owed him as a creditor. When that money is used in a
subsequent transaction, the spender is parting with his creditor right to buy
something of similar value from a third party, thus passing the "debt" of the
issuer to the third party. Thus no matter what money is declared to be, its
functions is a credit instrument in transactions. When one gives money to
another, the giver is giving credit and the receiver is incurring a debt
unless value is received immediately for that money. When debt is repaid with
money, money acts as a credit instrument. When government buys back
government bonds, which is sovereign debt, it cannot do so with fiat money it
issues unless fiat money is sovereign credit.
When money changes hands, there is always a creditor and a debtor.
Otherwise there is no need for money, which stands for value rather than
being value intrinsically. When a cow is exchanged for another cow, that is
bartering, but when a cow is bought with money, the buyer parts with money
(an instrument of value) while the seller parts with the cow (the substance
of value). The seller puts himself in the position of being a new creditor
for receiving the money in exchange for his cow. The buyer exchanges his
creditor position for possession of the cow. In this transaction, money is an
instrument of credit, not a debt.
When private money is issued, the only way it will be accepted generally
is that the money is redeemable for the substance of value behind it based on
the strong credit of the issuer. The issuer of private money is a custodian
of the substance of value, not a debtor. All that is logic, and it does not
matter how many mainstream monetary economists say money is debt.
Economist Hyman P Minsky (1919-1996) observed correctly that money is
created whenever credit is issued. He did not say money is created when debt
is incurred. Only entities with good credit can issue credit or create money.
Debtors cannot create money, or they would not have to borrow. However, a
creditor can only be created by the existence of a debtor. So both a creditor
and a debtor are needed to create money. But only the creditor can issue
money, the debtor accepts the money so created which puts him in debt.
The difference with the state is that its power to levy taxes exempts it
from having to back its creation of fiat money with any other assets of
value. The state when issuing fiat money is acting as a sovereign creditor.
Those who took the fiat money without exchanging it with things of value is
indebted to the state; and because taxes are not always based only on income,
a tax payer is a recurring debtor to the state by virtue of his citizenship,
even those with no income. When the state provides transfer payments in the
form of fiat money, it relieves the recipient of his tax liabilities or
transfers the exemption from others to the recipient to put the recipient in
a position of a creditor to the economy through the possession of fiat money.
The holder of fiat money is then entitled to claim goods and services from
the economy. For things that are not for sale, such as political office,
money is useless, at least in theory. The exercise of the fiat money's claim
on goods and services is known as buying something that is for sa <>
le.
There is a difference between buying a cow with fiat money and buying a
cow with private IOUs (notes). The transaction with fiat money is complete.
There is no further obligation on either side after the transaction. With
notes, the buyer must either eventually pay with money, which cancels the
notes (debt) or return the cow. The correct way to look at sovereign
government-issued fiat money is that it is not a sovereign debt, but a
sovereign credit good for canceling tax obligations. When the government
redeems sovereign bonds (debt) with fiat money (sovereign credit), it is not
paying off old debt with new debt, which would be a Ponzi scheme.
Government does not become a debtor by issuing fiat money, which in the US
is a Federal Reserve note, not an ordinary bank note. The word "bank" does
not appear on US dollars. Zero maturity money (ZMM), which grew from $550
billion in 1971 when Nixon took the dollar off gold, to $6.63 trillion as of
May 30, 2005 is not a Federal debt. It is a Federal credit to the economy
acceptable for payment of taxes and as legal tender for all debts, public and
private. Anyone refusing to accept dollars within US jurisdiction is in
violation of US law. One is free to set market prices that determine the
value, or purchasing power of the dollar, but it is illegal on US soil to
refuse to accept dollars for the settlement of debts. Instruments used for
settling debts are credit instruments. When fiat money is used to buy
sovereign bonds (debt), money cannot be anything but an instrument of
sovereign credit. If fiat money is sovereign debt, there is no need to sell
government bonds for fiat money. When a sovereign government sells a
sovereign bond for fiat money issues, it is withdrawing sovereign credit from
the economy. And if the government then spends the money, the money supply
remains unchanged. But if the government allows a fiscal surplus by spending
less than its tax revenue, the money supply shrinks and the economy slows.
That was the effect of the Clinton surplus which produce the recession of
2000. While run-away fiscal deficits are inflationary, fiscal surpluses lead
to recessions. Conservatives who are fixated on fiscal surpluses are simply
uninformed on monetary economics. <>
For euro-dollars, meaning fiat dollars outside of the US, the reason those
who are not required to pay US taxes accept them is because of dollar
hegemony, not because dollars are IOUs of the US government. Everyone accept
dollars because dollars can buy oil and all other key commodities. When the
Fed injects money into the US banking system, it is not issuing government
debt; it is expanding sovereign credit which would require higher government
tax revenue to redeem. But if expanding sovereign credit expands the economy,
tax revenue will increase without changing the tax rate. Dollar hegemony
exempts the dollar, and only the dollar, from foreign exchange implication on
the State Theory of Money. To issue sovereign debt, the Treasury issues
treasury bonds. Thus under dollar hegemony, the US is the only nation that
can practice and benefit from sovereign credit under the principle of
Chartalism .<>
Money and bonds are opposite instruments that cancel each other. That is
how the Fed Open Market Committee (FOMC) controls the money supply, by buying
or selling government securities with fiat dollars to set a fed funds rate
target. The fed funds rate is the interest rate at which banks lend to each
other overnight. As such, it is a market interest rate that influences market
interest rates throughout the world in all currencies through exchange rates.
Holders of a government bond can claim its face value in fiat money at
maturity, but holder of a fiat dollar can only claim a fiat dollar
replacement at the Fed. Holders of fiat dollars can buy new sovereign bonds
at the Treasury, or outstanding sovereign bond in the bond market, but not at
the Fed. The Fed does not issue debts, only credit in the form of fiat money.
When the Fed FOMC buys or sells government securities, it does on behalf of
the Treasury. When the Fed increases the money supply, it is not adding to
the national debt. It is increasing sovereign credit in the economy. That is
why monetary easing is not deficit financing.
Money and Inflation
It is sometimes said that war's legitimate child is revolution and war's
bastard child is inflation. World War I was no exception. The US national
debt multiplied 27 times to finance the nation's participation in that war,
from US$1 billion to $27 billion. Far from ruining the United States, the war
catapulted the country into the front ranks of the world's leading economic
and financial powers. The national debt turned out to be a blessing, for
government securities are indispensable as anchors for a vibrant credit
market. <>
Inflation was a different story. By the end of World War I, in 1919, US
prices were rising at the rate of 15% annually, but the economy roared ahead.
In response, the Federal Reserve Board raised the discount rate in quick
succession, from 4 to 7%, and kept it there for 18 months to try to rein in
inflation. The discount rate is the interest rate charged to commercial banks
and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional
Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window. The result was
that in 1921, 506 banks failed. Deflation descended on the economy like a
perfect storm, with commodity prices falling 50% from their 1920 peak,
throwing farmers into mass bankruptcies. Business activity fell by one-third;
manufacturing output fell by 42%; unemployment rose fivefold to 11.9%, adding
4 million to the jobless count. The economy came to a screeching halt. From
the Fed's perspective, declining prices were the goal, not the problem;
unemployment was necessary to restore US industry to a sound footing, freeing
it from wage-pushed inflation. Potent medicine always came with a bitter
taste, the central bankers explained.
At this point, a technical process inadvertently gave the New York Federal
Reserve Bank, which was closely allied with internationalist banking
interest, preeminent influence over the Federal Reserve Board in Washington,
the composition of which represented a more balanced national interest. The
initial operation of the Fed did not use the open-market operation of
purchasing or selling government securities to set interest rate policy as a
method of managing the money supply. The Fed could not simply print money to
buy government securities to inject money into the money supply because the
dollar was based on gold and the amount of gold held by the government was
relatively fixed. Money in the banking system was created entirely through
the discount window at the regional Federal Reserve Banks. Instead of buying
or selling government bonds, the regional Feds accepted "real bills" of
trade, which when paid off would extinguish money in the banking system,
making the money supply self-regulating in accordance with the "real bills"
doctrine to maintain the gold standard. The regional Feds bought government
securities not to adjust money supply, but to enhance their separate
operating profit by parking idle funds in interest-bearing yet super-safe
government securities, the way institutional money managers do today.
Bank economists at that time did not understand that when the regional
Feds independently bought government securities, the aggregate effect would
result in macro-economic implications of injecting "high power" money into
the banking system, with which commercial banks could create more money in
multiple by lending recycles based on the partial reserve principle. When the
government sold bonds, the reverse would happen. When the Fed made open
market transactions, interest rates would rise or fall accordingly in
financial markets. And when the regional Feds did not act in unison, the
credit market could become confused or become disaggregated, as one regional
Fed might buy while another might sell government securities in its open
market operations.
Benjamin Strong, first president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, saw
the problem and persuaded the other 11 regional Feds to let the New York Fed
handle all their transactions in a coordinated manner. The regional Feds
formed an Open Market Investment Committee, to be run by the New York Fed for
the purpose of maximizing overall profit for the whole system. This committee
became dominated by the New York Fed, which was closely linked to big-money
center bank interests which in turn were closely tied to international
financial markets. The Federal Reserve Board approved the arrangement without
full understanding of its full implication: that the Fed was falling under
the undue influence of the New York internationalist bankers. For the US,
this was the beginning of financial globalization. This fatal flaw would
reveal itself in the Fed's role in causing and its impotence in dealing with
the 1929 crash.
The deep 1920-21 depression eventually recovered by the lowering of the
Fed discount rate into the Roaring Twenties, which, like the New Economy
bubble of the 1990s, left some segments of economy and the population in them
lingering in a depressed state. Farmers remained victimized by depressed
commodity prices and factory workers shared in the prosperity only by working
longer hours and assuming debt with the easy money that the banks provided.
Unions lost 30% of their membership because of high unemployment in boom
time. The prosperity was entirely fueled by the wealth effect of a
speculative boom in the stock market that by the end of the decade would face
the 1929 crash and land the nation and the world in the Great Depression.
Historical data showed that when New York Fed president Strong leaned on the
regional Feds to ease the discount rate on an already overheated economy in
1927, the Fed lost its last window of opportunity to prevent the 1929 crash.
Some historians claimed that Strong did so to fulfill his internationalist
vision at the risk of endangering the national interest. It is an issue of
debate that continues in Congress today. Like Greenspan, Strong argued that
it was preferable to deal with post-crash crisis management by adding
liquidity than to pop a bubble prematurely with preventive measures of tight
money. It is a strategy that requires letting a bubble to pop only inside a
bigger bubble.
The speculative boom of easy credit in the 1920s attracted many to buy
stocks with borrowed money and used the rising price of stocks as new
collateral for borrowing more to buy more stocks. Broker's loans went from
under $5 million in mid 1928 to $850 million in September of 1929. The market
capitalization of the 846 listed companies of the New York Stock Exchange was
$89.7 billion, at 1.24 times 1929 GDP. By current standards, a case could be
built that stocks in 1929 were in fact technically undervalued. The 2,750
companies listed in the New York Stock Exchange had total global market
capitalization exceeding $18 trillion in 2004, 1.53 times 2004 GDP of $11.75
trillion. <>
On January 14, 2001, the DJIA reached its all time high to date at 11,723,
not withstanding Greenspan's warning of "irrational exuberance" on December
6, 1996 when the DJIA was at 6,381. From its August 12, 1982 low of 777, the
DJIA began its most spectacular bull market in history. It was interrupted
briefly only by the abrupt and frightening crash on October 19, 1987 when the
DJIA lost 22.6% on Black Monday, falling to 1,739. It represented a
1,020-point drop from its previous peak of 2,760 reached less than two months
earlier on August 21. But Greenspan's easy money policy lifted the DJIA to
11,723 in 13 years, a 674% increase. In 1929 the top came on September 4,
with the DJIA at 386. A headline in The New York Times on October 22,
1929, reported highly-respected economist Irving Fisher as saying: "Prices of
Stocks Are Low." Two days later, the stock market crashed, and by the end of
November, the New York Stock Exchange shares index was down 30%. The index
did not return to the 9/3/29 level until November, 1954. At its worst level,
the index dropped to 40.56 in July 1932, a drop of 89%. Fisher had based his
statement on strong earnings reports, few industrial disputes, and evidence
of high investment in research and development (R&D) and in other
intangible capital. Theory and supportive data not withstanding, the reality
was that the stock market boom was based on borrowed money and false
optimism. In hindsight, many economists have since concluded that stock
prices were overvalued by 30% in 1929. But when the crash came, the overshoot
dropped the index by 89% in less than three years <> .
Money and Gold
When money is not backed by gold, its exchange value must be managed by
government, more specifically by the monetary policies of the central bank.
No responsible government will voluntarily let the market set the exchange
value of its currency, market fundamentalism notwithstanding. Yet central
bankers tend to be attracted to the gold standard because it can relieve them
of the unpleasant and thankless responsibility of unpopular monetary policies
to sustain the value of money. Central bankers have been caricatured as party
spoilers who take away the punch bowl just when the party gets going.
Yet even a gold standard is based on a fixed value of money to gold, set
by someone to reflect the underlying economical conditions at the time of its
setting. Therein lies the inescapable need for human judgment. Instead of
focusing on the appropriateness of the level of money valuation under
changing economic conditions, central banks often become fixated on merely
maintaining a previously set exchange rate between money and gold, doing
serious damage in the process to any economy temporarily out of sync with
that fixed rate. It seldom occurs to central bankers that the fixed rate was
the problem, not the dynamic economy. When the exchange value of a currency
falls, central bankers often feel a personal sense of failure, while they
merely shrug their shoulders to refer to natural laws of finance when the
economy collapses from an overvalued currency.
The return to the gold standard in war-torn Europe in the 1920s was
engineered by a coalition of internationalist central bankers on both sides
of the Atlantic as a prerequisite for postwar economic reconstruction.
Lenders wanted to make sure that their loans would be repaid in money equally
valuable as the money they lent out, pretty much the way the IMF deals with
the debt problem today. President Strong of the New York Fed and his former
partners at the House of Morgan were closely associated with the Bank of
England, the Banque de France, the Reichsbank, and the central banks of
Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, and Belgium, as well as with leading
internationalist private bankers in those countries. Montagu Norman, governor
of the Bank of England from 1920-44, enjoyed a long and close personal
friendship with Strong as well as ideological alliance. Their joint
commitment to restore the gold standard in Europe and so to bring about a
return to the "international financial normalcy" of the prewar years was well
documented. Norman recognized that the impairment of British financial
hegemony meant that, to accomplish postwar economic reconstruction that would
preserve pre-war British interests, Europe would "need the active cooperation
of our friends in the United States."
Like other New York bankers, Strong perceived World War I as an
opportunity to expand US participation in international finance, allowing New
York to move toward coveted international-finance-center status to rival
London's historical preeminence, through the development of a commercial
paper market, or bankers' acceptances in British finance parlance, breaking
London's long monopoly. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 permitted the Federal
Reserve Banks to buy, or rediscount, such paper. This allowed US banks in New
York to play an increasingly central role in international finance in
competition with the London market.
Herbert Hoover, after losing his second-term US presidential election to
Franklin D Roosevelt as a result of the 1929 crash, criticized Strong as "a
mental annex to Europe", and blamed Strong's internationalist commitment to
facilitating Europe's postwar economic recovery for the US stock-market crash
of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression that robbed Hoover of a second
term. Europe's return to the gold standard, with Britain's insistence on what
Hoover termed a "fictitious rate" of US$4.86 to the pound sterling, required
Strong to expand US credit by keeping the discount rate unrealistically low
and to manipulate the Fed's open market operations to keep US interest rate
low to ease market pressures on the overvalued pound sterling. Hoover, with
justification, ascribed Strong's internationalist policies to what he viewed
as the malign persuasions of Norman and other European central bankers,
especially Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank and Charles Rist of the Bank of
France. From the mid-1920s onward, the US experienced credit-pushed
inflation, which fueled the stock-market bubble that finally collapsed in
1929.
Within the Federal Reserve System, Strong's low-rate policies of the
mid-1920s also provoked substantial regional opposition, particularly from
Midwestern and agricultural elements, who generally endorsed Hoover's
subsequent critical analysis. Throughout the 1920s, two of the Federal
Reserve Board's directors, Adolph C Miller, a professional economist, and
Charles S Hamlin, perennially disapproved of the degree to which they
believed Strong subordinated domestic to international considerations.
The fairness of Hoover's allegation is subject to debate, but the fact
that there was a divergence of priority between the White House and the Fed
is beyond dispute, as is the fact that what is good for the international
financial system may not always be good for a national economy. This is
evidenced today by the collapse of one economy after another under the
current international finance architecture that all central banks support
instinctively out of a sense of institutional solidarity. The same issue has
surfaced in today's China where regional financial centers such as Hong Kong
and Shanghai are vying for the role of world financial center. To do this,
they must play by the rules of the international financial system which
imposes a cost on the national economy. The nationalist vs. internationalist
conflict, as exemplified by the Hoover vs. Strong conflict of the 1930s, is
also threatening the further integration of the European Union. Behind the
fundamental rationale of protectionism is the rejection of the claim that
internationalist finance places national development as its priority. The
Richardian theory of comparative advantage of free trade is not the
issue.
The issue of government control over foreign loans also brought the Fed,
dominated by Strong, into direct conflict with Hoover when the latter was
Secretary of Commerce. Hoover believed that the US government should have
right of approval on foreign loans based on national-interest considerations
and that the proceeds of US loans should be spent on US goods and services.
Strong opposed all such restrictions as undesirable government intervention
in free trade and international finance and counterproductively
protectionist. Businesses should be not only allowed, but encouraged to buy
when it is cheapest anywhere in the world, including shopping for funds to
borrow, a refrain that is heard tirelessly from free traders also today. Of
course, the expanding application of the law of one price to more and more
commodities, including the price of money, i.e. interest rates adjusted by
exchange rates, makes such dispute academic. The only commodity exempt from
the law of one price is labor. This exemption makes the trade theory of
comparative advantage a fantasy.
In July and August 1927, Strong, despite ominous data on mounting market
speculation and inflation, pushed the Fed to lower the discount rate from 4
to 3 percent to relieve market pressures again on the overvalued British
pound. In July 1927, the central bankers of Great Britain, the United States,
France, and Weimar Germany met on Long Island in the US to discuss means of
increasing Britain's gold reserves and stabilizing the European currency
situation. Strong's reduction of the discount rate and purchase of 12 million
pound sterling, for which he paid the Bank of England in gold, appeared to
come directly from that meeting. One of the French bankers in attendance,
Charles Rist, reported that Strong said that US authorities would reduce the
discount rate as "un petit coup de whisky for the stock exchange".
Strong pushed this reduction through the Fed despite strong opposition from
Miller and fellow board member James McDougal of the Chicago Fed, who
represented Midwestern bankers, who generally did not share New York's
internationalist preoccupation.
Frank Altschul, partner in the New York branch of the transnational
investment bank Lazard Freres, told Emile Moreau, the governor of the Bank of
France, that "the reasons given by Mr Strong as justification for the
reduction in the discount rate are being taken seriously by no one, and that
everyone in the United States is convinced that Mr Strong wanted to aid Mr
Norman by supporting the pound." Other correspondence in Strong's own files
suggests that he was giving priority to international monetary conditions
rather than to US export needs, contrary to his public arguments. Writing to
Norman, who praised his handling of the affair as "masterly", Strong
described the US discount rate reduction as "our year's contribution to
reconstruction." The Fed's ease in 1927 forced money to flow not into the
overheated real economy, which was unable to absorb further investment, but
into the speculative financial market, which led to the crash of 1929. Strong
died in October 1928, one year before the crash, and was spared the pain of
having to see the devastating results of his internationalist policies.
Scholarly debate still continues as to whether Strong's effort to
facilitate European economic reconstruction compromised the US domestic
economy and, in particular, led him to subordinate US monetary policies to
internationalist demands. In 1930, the US economy had yet to dominate the
world economy as it does now. There is, however, little disagreement that the
overall monetary strategy of European central banks had been misguided in its
reliance on the restoration of the gold standard. Critics suggest that the
ambitious but misguided commitment of Strong, Norman, and other
internationalist bankers to returning the pound, the mark, and other major
European currencies to the gold standard at overly-high parities to gold,
which they were then forced to maintain at all costs, including indifference
to deflation, had the effect of undercutting Europe's postwar economic
recovery. Not only did Strong and his fellow central bankers through their
monetary policies contribute to the Great Depression, but their continuing
fixation on gold also acted as a straitjacket that in effect precluded
expansionist counter-cyclical measures.
The inflexibility of the gold standard and the central bankers'
determination to defend their national currencies' convertibility into gold
at almost any cost drastically limited the policy options available to them
when responding to the global financial crisis. This picture fits the
situation of the fixed-exchange-rates regime based on the fiat dollar that
produced recurring financial crises in the 1990s and that has yet to run its
full course by 2005. In 1927, Strong's unconditional support of the gold
standard, with the objective of bringing about the rising financial
predominance of the US which had the largest holdings of gold in the world,
exacerbated nascent international financial problems. In similar ways, dollar
hegemony does the same damage to the global economy today. Just as the
international gold standard itself was one of the major factors underlying
and exacerbating the Great Depression that followed the 1929 crash, since the
conditions that had sustained it before the war no longer existed, the
breakdown of the fixed-exchange-rates system based on a gold-backed dollar
set up by the Bretton Woods regime after World War II, without the removal of
the fiat dollar as a key reserve currency for trade and finance, will cause a
total collapse of the current international financial architecture with
equally tragic outcomes. Stripped of its gold backing, the fiat dollar has to
rely on geopolitical factors for its value, which push US foreign policy
towards increasing militaristic and belligerent unilateralism. With dollar
hegemony today, as it was with the gold standard of 1930, the trade war is
fought through currencies valuations on top of traditional tariffs.
The nature of and constraints on US internationalism after World War I had
parallels in US internationalism after World War II and in US-led
globalization after the Cold War. Hoover bitterly charged Strong with
reckless placement of the interests of the international financial system
ahead of US national interest and domestic development needs. Strong
sincerely believed his support for European currency stabilization also
promoted the best interests of the United States, as post-Cold War
neo-liberal market fundamentalists sincerely believe its promotion enhances
the US national interest. Unfortunately, sincerity is not a vaccine against
falsehood.
Strong argued relentlessly that exchange rate volatility, especially when
the dollar was at a premium against other currencies, made it difficult for
US exporters to price their goods competitively. As he had done during the
war, on numerous later occasions, Strong also stressed the need to prevent an
influx of gold into the US and the consequent domestic inflation, by the US
making loans to Europe, pursuing lenient debt policies, and accepting
European imports on generous terms. Strong never questioned the gold parities
set for the mark and the pound sterling. He merely accepted that returning
the pound to gold at prewar exchange rates required British deflation and US
efforts to use lower dollar interest rates to alleviate market pressures on
sterling. Like Fed chairman Paul Volcker in the 1980s, but unlike Treasury
Secretary Robert Rubin in the 1990s, Strong mistook a cheap dollar as serving
the national interest, while Rubin understood correctly that a strong dollar
is in the national interest by sustaining dollar hegemony. In either case,
the price for either an over-valued or under-valued dollar is the same:
global depression. Dollar hegemony in the 1990s pushed Japan and Germany into
prolonged depression. <>
The US position in 2005 is that a strong dollar is still in the US
national interest, but a strong dollar requires an even stronger Chinese yuan
in the 21 st century. Just as Strong saw the need for a strong
British pound paid for by deflation in Britain in exchange for the carrot of
continuing British/European imports to the US, Bush and Greenspan now want a
stronger Chinese yuan, paid for with deflation in China in exchange for
curbing US protectionism against Chinese imports. The 1985 Plaza Accord to
force the appreciation of the Japanese yen marked the downward spiral of the
Japanese economy via currency-induced deflation. Another virtual Plaza Accord
forced the rise of the euro that left Europe with a stagnant economy. A new
virtual Plaza Accord against China will also condemn the Chinese economy into
a protracted period of deflation. Deflation in China at this time will cause
the collapse of the Chinese banking system which is weighted down by the BIS
regulatory regime that turned national banking subsidies to
state-own-enterprises into massive non-performing loans. A collapse of the
Chinese banking system will have dire consequences for the global financial
system since the robust Chinese economy is the only engine of growth in the
world economy at this time.
When Norman sent Strong a copy of John Maynard Keynes' Tract on
Monetary Reform (1923), Strong commented "that some of his [Keynes']
conclusions are thoroughly unwarranted and show a great lack of knowledge of
American affairs and of the Federal Reserve System." Within a decade, Keynes,
with his advocacy of demand management via deficit financing, became the most
influential economist in post-war history.
The major flaw in the European effort for post-World War I economic
reconstruction was its attempt to reconstruct the past through its attachment
to the gold standard, with little vision of a new future. The democratic
governments of the moneyed class that inherited power from the fall of
monarchies did not fully comprehend the implication of the disappearance of
the monarch as a ruler, whose financial architecture they tried to continue
for the benefit of their bourgeois class. The broadening of the political
franchise in most European countries after the war had made it far more
difficult for governments and central bankers to resist electoral pressures
for increased social spending and the demand for ample liquidity with low
interest rates, as well as high tolerance for moderate inflation to combat
unemployment, regardless of the impact of national policies on the
international financial architecture. The Fed, despite its claim of
independence from politics, has never been free of US presidential-election
politics since its founding. Shortly before his untimely death, Strong took
comfort in his belief that the reconstruction of Europe was virtually
completed and his internationalist policies had been successful in preserving
world peace. Within a decade of his death, the whole world was aflame with
World War II. <>
But in 1929, the dollar was still gold-backed. The government fixed the
dollar at 23.22 grains of gold, at $20.67 per troy ounce. When stock prices
rose faster than real economic growth, the dollar in effect depreciated. It
took more dollars to buy the same shares as prices rose. But the price of
gold remained fixed at $20.67 per ounce. Thus gold was cheap and the dollar
was overvalued and the trading public rushed to buy gold, injecting cash into
the economy which fueled more stock buying on margin. Price of gold mining
shares rose by 600%. But with a gold standard, the Fed could not print money
beyond its holding of gold without revaluing the dollar against gold. The
Quantity Theory of Money caught up with the financial bubble as prices for
equity rose but the quantity of money remained constant and it came into play
with a vengeance. Because of the gold standard, there reached a time when
there was no more money available to buy without someone first selling. When
the selling began, the debt bubble burst, and panic took over. When the stock
market collapsed, panic selling quickly wiped out most investors who bought
shares instead of gold. As gold price was fixed, it could not fall with the
general deflation and owners of gold did exceptionally well by comparison to
share owners.
What Strong did not figure was that when the Fed lowered the discount rate
to relieve market pressure on the overvalued British pound sterling after its
gold convertibility had been restored in 1925, the world economy could not
expand because money tied to gold was inelastic, leaving the US economy with
a financial bubble that was not supported by any rise in earnings. The
British-controlled gold standard proved to be a straightjacket for world
economic growth, not unlike the deflationary Maastricht "convergence
criteria" based on the strong German mark of the late 1990's. The speculation
of the Coolidge-Hoover era was encouraged by Norman and Strong to fight
gold-induced deflation. The accommodative monetary policy of the US Federal
Reserve led to a bubble economy in the US, similar to Greenspan's bubble
economy since 1987. There were two differences: the dollar was gold-backed in
1930 while in 1987 it was a fiat currency; and in 1930, the world monetary
system was based on sterling pound hegemony while today it is based on dollar
hegemony. When the Wall Street bubble was approaching unsustainable
proportions in the autumn of 1929, giving the false impression that the US
economy was booming, Norman sharply cut the British bank rate to try to
stimulate the British economy in unison. When short-term rates fell, it
created serious problems for British transnational banks which were stuck
with funds borrowed long-term at high interest rates that now could only be
lent out short-term at low rates. They had to repatriating British hot money
from New York to cover this ruinous interest rate gap, leaving New York
speculators up the creek without an interest rate paddle. This was the first
case of hot money contagion, albeit what hit the Asian banks in 1997 was the
opposite: they borrowed short-term at low interest rates to lend out
long-term at high rates. And when interest rates rose because of falling
exchange rate of local currencies, borrowers defaulted and the credit system
collapsed. <>
The contagion in the 1997 Asian financial crisis devastated all Asian
economies. The financial collapse in Thailand and Indonesia in July 1997
caused the strong markets of high liquidity such as Hong Kong and Singapore
to collapse when investors sold in these liquid markets to raise funds to
rescue their positions in illiquid markets that were wrongly diagnosed by the
IMF as mere passing storms that could be weathered with a temporary shift of
liquidity. Following badly flawed IMF advice, investors threw good money
after bad and brought down the whole regional economy while failing to
contain the problem within Thailand. <>
The financial crises that began in Thailand in July 1997 caused sell-downs
in other robust and liquid markets in the region such as Hong Kong and
Singapore that impacted even Wall Street in October. But prices fell in
Thailand not because domestic potential buyers had no money. The fact was
that equity prices in Thailand were holding in local currency terms but
falling fast in foreign exchange terms when the peg of the baht to the dollar
began to break. Then as the baht devalued in a free fall, stocks of Thai
companies with local currency revenue, including healthy export firms that
contracted local currency payments, logically collapsed while those with hard
currency revenue actually appreciated in local currency terms. The margin
calls were met as a result of investors trying not to sell, rather than
trying to liquidate at a loss. The incentive for holding on with additional
margin payments was based on IMF pronouncements that the crisis was only
temporary and imminent help was on the way and that the problem would
stabilize within months. But the promised help never come. What came was an
IMF program of imposed "conditionalities" that pushed the troubled Asian
economies off the cliff, designed only to save the foreign creditors. The
"temporary" financial crisis was pushed into a multi-year economic crisis.
<>
Geopolitics played a large role. US Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin
decided very early the Thai crisis was a minor Asian problem and told the IMF
to solve it with an Asian solution but not to let Japan take the lead. Hong
Kong contributed US$1 billion and China contributed US$1 billion on blind
faith on Rubin's assurance that the problem would be contained within Thai
borders (after all, Thailand was a faithful US ally in the Cold War). Then
Korea was hit in December 1997. Rubin again thought it was another temporary
Asian problem. The Korean Central Bank was bleeding dollar reserves trying to
support an overvalued won pegged to the dollar, and by late December had only
several days left before its dollar reserves would run dry. Rubin was holding
on to his moral hazard posture until his aides in the Department of Treasury
told him one Sunday morning that the Brazilians were holding a lot of Korean
bonds. If Korea were to default, Brazil would collapse and land the US banks
in big trouble. Only then did Rubin get Citibank to work out a restructuring
the following Tuesday in Korea by getting the Fed to allow the American banks
to roll over the short-term Korean debts into non-interest paying long-term
debts without having to register them as non-performing, thus exempting the
US banks from the adverse impacts of the required capital injection that
would drag down their profits. <>
The Great Depression that started in 1929 was made more severe and
protracted by the British default on gold payment in September, 1931 and
subsequent British competitive devaluations as a national strategy for a new
international trade war. British policy involved a deliberate use of pound
sterling hegemony, the only world monetary regime at that time, as a national
monetary weapon in an international trade war, causing an irreversible
collapse of world trade. In response to British monetary moves, alternative
currency blocs emerged in rising economies such as the German Third Reich and
Imperial Japan. It did not take these governments long to realize that they
had to go to war to obtain the oil and other natural resources needed to
sustain their growing economies that collapsed world trade could no longer
deliver in peace. For Britain and the US, a quick war was exactly what was
needed to bring their own economies out of depression. No one anticipated
that WWII would be so destructive. German invasion of Poland on September 1,
1939 caused Britain and France to declared war on Germany on September 3, but
the British and French stayed behind the Maginot Line all winter, content
with a blockade of Germany by sea. The inactive period of the "phony war"
lasted 7 months until April 9, 1940 when Germany invaded Demark and Norway.
On May 10, German forces overrun Luxemburg and invaded the Netherlands and
Belgium. On March 13, they outflanked the Maginot Line and German panzer
divisions raced towards the British Channel, cut off Flanders and trapped the
entire British Expeditionary Force of 220,000 and 120,000 French troops at
Dunkirk. The trapped Allied forces had to be evacuated by civilian small
crafts from May 26 to June 4. On June 22, France capitulated. If Britain had
failed to evacuate its troops from Dunkirk, it would have to sue for peace as
many had expected, the war would have been over with German control of
Europe. Unable to use Britain as a base, US forces would never be able to
land in Europe. Without a two-front war, Germany might have been able to
prevail over the USSR. Germany might have then emerged as the hegemon.
Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated as president on March 4, 1933. In
his first fireside chat radio address, Roosevelt told a panicky public that
"the confidence of the people themselves" was "more important than gold." On
March 9, the Senate quickly passed the Emergency Banking Act giving the
Secretary of the Treasury the power to compel every person and business in
the country to relinquish their gold and accept paper currency in exchange.
The next day, Friday March 10, Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 6073,
forbidding the public from sending gold overseas and forbidding banks from
paying out gold for dollar. On April 5, Roosevelt issued Executive Order No.
6102 to confiscate the public's gold, by commanding all to deliver their gold
and gold certificates to a Federal Reserve Bank, where they would be paid in
paper money. Citizens could keep up to $100 in gold, but anything above that
was illegal. Gold had become a controlled substance by law in the US.
Possession was punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and imprisonment for up
to 10 years. On January 31, 1934, Roosevelt issued another Executive Order to
devalue the dollar by 59.06% of its former gold quantum of 23.22 grains,
pushing the dollar down to be worth only13.71 grains of gold, at $35 per
ounce, which lasted until 1971.
1929 Revisited and More
Shortsighted government monetary policies were the main factors that led
to the market collapse but the subsequent Great Depression was caused by the
collapse of world trade. US policymakers in the 1920s believed that business
was the purpose of society, just as policymakers today believe that free
trade is the purpose of civilization. Thus, the government took no action
against unconstructive speculation believing that the market knew best and
would be self-correcting. People who took risks should bear the consequences
of their own actions. The flaw in this view was that the consequences of
speculation were largely borne not by professional speculators, but by the
unsophisticated public who were unqualified to understand how they were being
manipulated to buy high and sell low. The economy had been based on
speculation but the risks were unevenly carried mostly by the innocent.
National wealth from speculation was not spread evenly. Instead, most money
was in the hands of a rich few who quickly passed on the risk and kept the
profit. They saved or invested rather than spent their money on goods and
services. Thus, supply soon became greater than demand. Some people profited,
but the majority did not. Prices went up faster than income and the public
could afford things only by going into debt while their disposable income
went into mindless speculation in hope of magically bailing borrowers out
from such debts. Farmers and factory/office workers did not profit at all.
Unevenness of prosperity made recovery difficult because income was
concentrated on those who did not have to spend it. The situation today is
very similar.
After the 1929 crash, Congress tried to solve the high unemployment
problem by passing high tariffs that protected US industries but hurt US
farmers. International trade came to a stand still both because of
protectionism and the freezing up of trade finance. <>
This time, world trade may also collapse, and high tariffs will again be the
effect rather than the cause. The pending collapse of world trade will again
come as a result of protracted US exploitation of the advantages of dollar
hegemony, as the British did in 1930 regarding sterling pound hegemony. The
dollar is undeservedly the main trade currency without either the backing of
gold or US fiscal and monetary discipline. Most of the things people want to
buy are no longer made in the US, so the dollar has become an unnatural trade
currency. The system will collapse because despite huge US trade deficits,
there is no global recycling of money outside of the dollar economy. All
money circulates only within the dollar money supply, overheating the US
economy, financing its domestic joyrides and globalization tentacles, not to
mention military adventurism, milking the rest of the global economy dry and
depriving the non-dollar economies of needed purchasing power independent of
the US trade deficit. World trade will collapse this time not because of
trade restricting tariffs, which are merely temporary distractions, but
because of a global mal-distribution of purchasing power created by dollar
hegemony.
Central banking was adopted in the US in 1913 to provide elasticity to the
money supply to accommodate the ebb and flow of the business cycle. Yet the
mortal enemy of elasticity is structural fatigue which is what makes the
rubber band snap. Today, dollar hegemony cuts off monetary recirculation to
all non-dollar economies, forcing all exporting nations with mounting trade
surpluses into the position of Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Ancient Mariner:
"Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink."
The USA elite might now want abandoning of GATT and even WTO as it does not like the results. That single fraud on the west has
had catastrophically perverse consequences for the coterie of killer's future and all because the designers of GATT had never thought
outside the square of economics and failed utterly to grasp the gift of scientific and manufacturing politics.
Notable quotes:
"... The US still depends heavily on oil importation -- it is not "independent" in any manner whatsoever. Here's the most current data while this chart shows importation history since 1980. ..."
"... the only time a biological or economic entity can become energy independent is upon its death when it no longer requires energy for its existence. ..."
"... A big part of the US move into the middle east post WWII was that they needed a strategic reserve for time of war and also they could see US consumption growing far larger than US production. ..."
"... The USA of WAR may have oil independence, but it is temporary. The race is on for release from oil dependency and China intends to win in my view. It is setting ambitious targets to move to electric vehicles and mass transit. That will give it a technology dominance, and perhaps a resource dominance in the EV sphere. We are in the decade of major corporate struggles and defensive maneuverings around China investments in key EV sectors. ..."
"... In ten to twenty years' time the energy story could well be significantly different. The USA and its coterie of killers are still fighting yesterday's war, yesterday's hatred of all things Russian, yesterday's energy monopoly. ..."
"... I don't believe that the USA of WAR has changed or even intends to change the way they play their 'game'. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade set the trajectory for technology transfer, fabrication skills transfer, growth of academic and scientific achievement in 'other' countries (China, Russia etc). Their thoughts in the GATT deal were trade = economics = oligarchy = good. ..."
"... That single fraud on the west has had catastrophically perverse consequences for the coterie of killer's future and all because the designers of GATT had never thought outside the square of economics and failed utterly to grasp the gift of scientific and manufacturing politics. ..."
"... Canada and the gulf monarchies are the only countries with large reserves that are not hostile as yet to the US. As the US no longer is totally reliant on imports to meet its consumption, Saudi's, Bahrain and co are now expendable assets. ..."
The US still depends heavily on oil importation -- it is not "independent" in any manner whatsoever.
Here's the most current data
while this chart shows importation
history since 1980.
As I've said before, the only time a biological or economic entity can become energy independent is upon its death when
it no longer requires energy for its existence.
What I am looking at are strategic reserves, not how much oil is currently produced. With shale it now has those reserves and
shale oil I think is now at the point where production could quickly ramp up to full self sufficiency if required. Even if the
US were producing as much oil as they consumed, they would still be importing crude and exporting refined products.
A big part of the US move into the middle east post WWII was that they needed a strategic reserve for time of war and also
they could see US consumption growing far larger than US production.
@Peter AU 1 #28 Thank you for that stimulating post. I just have to respond. And thanks to b and all the commenters here, it is
my daily goto post.
The USA of WAR may have oil independence, but it is temporary. The race is on for release from oil dependency and China intends
to win in my view. It is setting ambitious targets to move to electric vehicles and mass transit. That will give it a technology
dominance, and perhaps a resource dominance in the EV sphere. We are in the decade of major corporate struggles and defensive
maneuverings around China investments in key EV sectors.
In ten to twenty years' time the energy story could well be significantly different. The USA and its coterie of killers
are still fighting yesterday's war, yesterday's hatred of all things Russian, yesterday's energy monopoly.
I don't believe that the USA of WAR has changed or even intends to change the way they play their 'game'. The General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade set the trajectory for technology transfer, fabrication skills transfer, growth of academic and scientific
achievement in 'other' countries (China, Russia etc). Their thoughts in the GATT deal were trade = economics = oligarchy = good.
That single fraud on the west has had catastrophically perverse consequences for the coterie of killer's future and all
because the designers of GATT had never thought outside the square of economics and failed utterly to grasp the gift of scientific
and manufacturing politics.
By gross ignorance and foolish under-investment, the USA of WAR and its coterie of killers have eaten their future at their
people's expense.
Light sweet vs heavy sour. Light means it contains a lot of diesel/petrol. Sweet means low sulphur. Many oils are heavy sour.
Canada sand. the stuff they get from that is thick bitumen with high sulpher. The sulpher needs to be removed and the bitumen
broken down into light fuels like diesel and petrol.
Canada and the gulf monarchies are the only countries with large reserves that are not hostile as yet to the US. As the
US no longer is totally reliant on imports to meet its consumption, Saudi's, Bahrain and co are now expendable assets.
The great game for the US now is control or denial. Access to oil as a strategically critical resource is no longer a factor
for the US.
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as
you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're
history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Karl Rove.
The squealing and consternation coming from the UK indicates that the empire has changed course and the UK is left sitting
on its own shit pile.
What is happening in Germany? Is "open borders" that Merkel has championed on its last
legs? It seems that the CSU is worried about the coming elections in Bavaria where AfD might
do much better than expected. Just as the outcome of the Italian elections was for a
government coalition opposed to illegal economic immigration under the guise of asylum for
political persecution.
Hungarian foreign minister in an interview with a snowflake BBC reporter. It seems that
the political trend in central Europe is away from multi-culturalism. Hungary wants to
maintain its culture.
"... The loss of middle class jobs has had a dire effect on the hopes and expectations of Americans, on the American economy, on the finances of cities and states and, thereby, on their ability to meet pension obligations and provide public services, and on the tax base for Social Security and Medicare, thus threatening these important elements of the American consensus. In short, the greedy corporate elite have benefitted themselves at enormous cost to the American people and to the economic and social stability of the United States. ..."
"... With the decline in income growth, the US economy stalled. The Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan substituted an expansion in consumer credit for the missing growth in consumer income in order to maintain aggregate consumer demand. Instead of wage increases, Greenspan relied on an increase in consumer debt to fuel the economy. ..."
"... As a member of the Plunge Protection Team known officially as the Working Group on Financial Markets, the Federal Reserve has an open mandate to prevent another 1987 "Black Monday." In my opinion, the Federal Reserve would interpret this mandate as authority to directly intervene. ..."
"... As Washington's international power comes from the US dollar as world reserve currency, protecting the value of the dollar is essential to American power. Foreign inflows into US equities are part of the dollar's strength. Thus, the Plunge Protection Team seeks to prevent a market crash that would cause flight from US dollar assets. ..."
When are America's global corporations
and Wall Street going to sit down with President Trump and explain to him that his trade war is not
with China but with them?
The biggest chunk of America's trade deficit with China is
the offshored production of America's global corporations. When the corporations bring the products
that they produce in China to the US consumer market, the products are classified as imports from
China.
Six years ago when I was writing
The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism
, I concluded
on the evidence that
half of US imports from China consist of the offshored production of
US corporations.
Offshoring is a substantial benefit to US corporations because of much
lower labor and compliance costs.
Profits, executive bonuses, and shareholders' capital
gains receive a large boost from offshoring. The costs of these benefits for a few fall on the many
- the former American employees who formerly had a middle class income and expectations for their
children.
In my book, I cited evidence that during the first decade of the 21st century
"the US lost
54,621 factories, and manufacturing employment fell by 5 million employees. Over the decade, the
number of larger factories (those employing 1,000 or more employees) declined by 40 percent. US
factories employing 500-1,000 workers declined by 44 percent; those employing between 250-500
workers declined by 37 percent, and those employing between 100-250 workers shrunk by 30 percent.
These losses are net of new start-ups. Not all the losses are due to offshoring. Some are the
result of business failures"
(p. 100).
In other words, to put it in the most simple and clear terms,
millions of Americans lost
their middle class jobs not because China played unfairly, but because American corporations
betrayed the American people and exported their jobs.
"Making America great again"
means dealing with these corporations, not with China.
When Trump learns this, assuming anyone
will tell him, will he back off China and take on the American global corporations?
The loss of middle class jobs has had a dire effect
on the hopes and
expectations of Americans, on the American economy, on the finances of cities and states and,
thereby, on their ability to meet pension obligations and provide public services, and on the tax
base for Social Security and Medicare, thus threatening these important elements of the American
consensus. In short, the greedy corporate elite have benefitted themselves at enormous cost to the
American people and to the economic and social stability of the United States.
The job loss from offshoring also has had a huge and dire impact on Federal Reserve
policy.
With the decline in income growth, the US economy stalled. The Federal Reserve under Alan
Greenspan substituted an expansion in consumer credit for the missing growth in consumer income in
order to maintain aggregate consumer demand.
Instead of wage increases, Greenspan relied
on an increase in consumer debt to fuel the economy.
The credit expansion and consequent rise in real estate prices, together with the deregulation
of the banking system, especially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, produced the real estate
bubble and the fraud and mortgage-backed derivatives that gave us the 2007-08 financial crash.
The Federal Reserve responded to the crash not by bailing out consumer debt but by
bailing out the debt of its only constituency -- the big banks.
The Federal Reserve let
little banks fail and be bought up by the big ones, thus further increasing financial
concentration. The multi-trillion dollar increase in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet was
entirely for the benefit of a handful of large banks. Never before in history had an agency of the
US government acted so decisively in behalf only of the ownership class.
The way the Federal Reserve saved the irresponsible large banks, which should have failed and
have been broken up, was to raise the prices of troubled assets on the banks' books by lowering
interest rates. To be clear, interest rates and bond prices move in opposite directions. When
interest rates are lowered by the Federal Reserve, which it achieves by purchasing debt
instruments, the prices of bonds rise. As the various debt risks move together, lower interest
rates raise the prices of all debt instruments, even troubled ones.
Raising the prices of
debt instruments produced solvent balance sheets for the big banks.
To achieve its aim, the Federal Reserve had to lower the interest rates to zero, which even the
low reported inflation reduced to negative interest rates. These low rates had disastrous
consequences. On the one hand low interest rates caused all sorts of speculations. On the other low
interest rates deprived retirees of interest income on their retirement savings, forcing them to
draw down capital, thus reducing accumulated wealth among the 90 percent.
The
under-reported inflation rate also denied retirees Social Security cost-of-living adjustments,
forcing them to spend retirement capital.
The low interest rates also encouraged corporate boards to borrow money in order to buy back the
corporation's stock, thus raising its price and, thereby, the bonuses and stock options of
executives and board members and the capital gains of shareholders. In other words, corporations
indebted themselves for the short-term benefit of executives and owners. Companies that refused to
participate in this scam were threatened by Wall Street with takeovers.
Consequently today the combination of offshoring and Federal Reserve policy has left us
a situation in which every aspect of the economy is indebted - consumers, government at all levels,
and businesses.
A recent Federal Reserve study concluded that Americans are so indebted
and so poor that 41 percent of the American population cannot raise $400 without borrowing from
family and friends or selling personal possessions.
A country whose population is this indebted has no consumer market. Without a consumer market
there is no economic growth, other than the false orchestrated figures produced by the US
government by under counting the inflation rate and the unemployment rate.
Without economic growth, consumers, businesses, state, local, and federal governments
cannot service their debts and meet their obligations.
The Federal Reserve has learned that it can keep afloat the Ponzi scheme that is the US economy
by printing money with which to support financial asset prices. The alleged rises in interest rates
by the Federal Reserve are not real interest rates rises. Even the under-reported inflation rate is
higher than the interest rate increases, with the result that the real interest rate falls.
It is no secret that the Federal Reserve controls the price of bonds by openly buying and
selling US Treasuries.
Since 1987 the Federal Reserve can also support the price of US
equities.
If the stock market tries to sell off, before much damage can be done the
Federal Reserve steps in and purchases S&P futures, thus driving up stock prices.
In recent
years, when corrections begin they are quickly interrupted and the fall is arrested.
As a member of the Plunge Protection Team known officially as the Working Group on
Financial Markets, the Federal Reserve has an open mandate to prevent another 1987 "Black Monday."
In my opinion, the Federal Reserve would interpret this mandate as authority to directly intervene.
However,
just as the Fed can use the big banks as agents for its control over the price
of gold, it can use the Wall Street banks dark pools to manipulate the equity markets.
In
this way the manipulation can be disguised as banks making trades for clients. The Plunge
Protection Team consists of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the SEC, and the Commodity Futures
Trading Corporation. As Washington's international power comes from the US dollar as world reserve
currency, protecting the value of the dollar is essential to American power. Foreign inflows into
US equities are part of the dollar's strength.
Thus, the Plunge Protection Team seeks to
prevent a market crash that would cause flight from US dollar assets.
Normally so much money creation by the Federal Reserve, especially in conjunction with such a
high debt level of the US government and also state and local governments, consumers, and
businesses, would cause a falling US dollar exchange rate.
Why hasn't this happened?
For three reasons.
One is that the central banks of the other three reserve currencies -- the Japanese central
bank, the European central bank, and the Bank of England -- also print money. Their Quantitative
Easing, which still continues, offsets the dollars created by the Federal Reserve and keeps the
US dollar from depreciating.
A second reason is that when suspicion of the dollar's worth sends up the gold price, the
Federal Reserve or its bullion banks short gold futures with naked contracts. This drives down
the gold price. There are numerous columns on my website by myself and Dave Kranzler proving
this to be the case. There is no doubt about it.
The third reason is that money managers, individuals, pension funds, everyone and all the
rest had rather make money than not. Therefore, they go along with the Ponzi scheme. The people
who did not benefit from the Ponzi scheme of the past decade are those who understood it was a
Ponzi scheme but did not realize the corruption that has beset the Federal Reserve and the
central bank's ability and willingness to continue to feed the Ponzi scheme.
As I have explained previously,
the Ponzi scheme falls apart when it becomes
impossible to continue to support the dollar as burdened as the dollar is by debt levels and
abundance of dollars that could be dumped on the exchange markets.
This is why Washington is determined to retain its hegemony.
It is Washington's hegemony
over Japan, Europe, and the UK that protects the American Ponzi scheme.
The moment one of
these central banks ceases to support the dollar, the others would follow, and the Ponzi scheme
would unravel. If the prices of US debt and stocks were reduced to their real values, the United
States would no longer have a place in the ranks of world powers.
The implication is that war, and not economic reform, is America's most likely future.
In a subsequent column I hope to explain why neither US political party has the awareness
and capability to deal with real problems.
Roberts is totally correct that Trump's trade war is with US
corporations and their offshoring. I think Trump knows this
and that's why he's cutting regulations and red tape at
home. We've gone too far left on regs. As for labor costs,
most factories are highly automated here but labor cost
includes disability, pensions, 'diversity' harassment
lawsuits, etc. This overhead doesn't exist in China or
Vietnam where my LL Bean t-shirts are made.
Trump's war is with the a corporate ideology that says
profit is primary to nationality or normal morality. He gave
the biggest corporations a huge tax cut. Now they need to
play ball with America's workers.
They need to acknowledge that we're all Americans and our
legal system, which protects their solvency, will not
survive if today's angry politics continues for two more
years.
The S&P500 needs to think about their future and getting
Bernie or worse in 2020. There's all these trade tirades
going on - good time to give Trump a win and then another to
let him feel some support. Then let the wise men of
government policy step in for a sit-down and determine the
best policy for America's survival. Is it either becoming
fascist or a pleading for a negotiated bankruptcy with all
the geopolitical implications? It can't be either extreme so
plan and do it. Otherwise, Mr. Roberts will be remembered as
a sage.
"To continue allowing these products into our country will
ultimately bring their standard of living here also."
This
is the most incisive comment I've seen on ZH in quite awhile. It's
like a balance beam scale that swings back and forth as weight is
added to or subtracted from one side or the other. Ultimately, the
scale will balance out as everyone attains the same standard of
living . Our government and economy has been surviving on borrowed
money (ie; paper fiat currency) since at least 1971, and now even
common people are living on borrowed paper fiat currency. Most of
the common people in China that I have known live in small rented
apartments and mostly eat the cheapest foods they can find; ie,
rice, vegetables, tofu, pumpkin, etc. At least the downward
trajectory of our economy will cure the obesity epidemic, but many
will likely starve. The big question is when? We are on the
downward slope already, but how steep it will be is a question no
one seems to be able to answer.
"when I was writing
The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism
,
I concluded on the evidence that
half of US imports from
China consist of the offshored production of US corporations"
Escaping government taxes and regulations has NOTHING to do with
Laissez Faire Capitalism, it's not even capitalism at that point!
Most of the people on this site already know what Roberts just
summarized. Other than referring to the Fed as a government agency
rather than a private corporation, he was mainly correct in what he
wrote. Most of the American sheeple do not. They do know that they
were sold out, but they don't know the details; how, why, by whom.
It's common knowledge that the people's gold was stolen by the Bush
and Clinton crime families along with Robert Rubin. There is a
persistent rumor out that Trump is in the process of successfully
recovering it. If China and Russia force the world back on a real
gold standard and Trump's recovery is unsuccessful, the USA will be
swimming naked when the tide goes out.
As to how long can the Fed
keep their Ponzi going. The answer would be a lot longer if they
still controlled the planet. But they no longer do and their bluff
is being called right now by Putin, Xi and others. As Göring wrote
at his Nuremberg trial, "Truth is the enemy of the State."
Roberts should be the one explaining. He makes sweeping assertions like:
" With the decline in income growth, the US economy stalled." When
exactly? What year are you talking about? And he seemingly leaves out
demographics completely in his analysis. He's just looking at everything
through the lens of central banking, and when all you have is a hammer,
everything tends to look like a nail. I'm thinking that, like Rudy
Giuliani, he lost his fastball a while back and maybe should just stick
to writing about 1987.
Finally, we have an
economist who reveals the ugly truth behind what the criminal corporate
class has done and is doing to America. See also Dr. Michael Hudson and
his work.
As for Trump, I suspect he understands what's really going on, but a
lot of his pals are billionaires involved in this corruption. Obviously,
he can't name names otherwise, the 1% elite would eliminate his
administration.
It may be that Trump is using the only "out" left in causing these
tariff wars. If you read other online reports in China, Russia, a seldom
few from the EU, you see enormous amounts of trade between China,
Russia, Iran, Germany, and other Asian nations. This American senses we
are being left in the dust by all this vitality.
It's recognized many multi-millionaire/billionaires in both the US &
other parts of the world are making lots of money from the system.
However, I'm beginning to sense that ALL these US elites recognize
the US financial system is deteriorating and there's no way to turn
back.
It happens to every "empire" throughout history, but, other than
about 10% of population who are informed, the real tragedy is about 80%
of the American public who haven't a clue.
"With the decline in income growth, the US economy stalled. The Federal
Reserve under Alan Greenspan substituted an expansion in consumer credit
for the missing growth in consumer income in order to maintain aggregate
consumer demand. Instead of wage increases, Greenspan relied on an increase
in consumer debt to fuel the economy."
"The credit expansion and
consequent rise in real estate prices, together with the deregulation of
the banking system, especially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act,
produced the real estate bubble and the fraud and mortgage-backed
derivatives that gave us the 2007-08 financial crash."
"The Federal Reserve responded to the crash not by bailing out consumer
debt but by bailing out the debt of its only constituency -- the big banks."
Yes, It is wash, rinse, repeat but Glass Steagal is irrelevant. The
criminaliy is the actual issue. Rules and regs are meaningless when the
bankers are also in charge of the regulation. Another layer is the
multinational corporations / banks that operate in between nations. What
may be illegal in one jurisdiction is protected in another. Without a
will to enforce, the crime is unstoppable.
The bankers did the end run round Glass Steagal long before
Clinton and his banking pals killed it officially. Killing it was
simply the formality, making things all legal like.
I had to laugh when I read it given all the irreversible mistakes that have
been made for decades in that city given how vital it once was to the U.S.
economy. But it makes you want to cry given the delusion on display of it's
leadership that could have made Ford embarrass itself like this with that
announcement so late in our "game"!
PCR of course does not explain how a nation of 320 million people with bountiful
natural resources and extensive industrial, services, and education
infrastructure would *not* be a world power, save for the fact that he really
really wishes America wasn't.
I bet what happened was these same multinationals stoked the fire about
China because they were concerned about the China 2030 plan. They wanted
China for production and a market, not for competition. They poured lots
of money into lobbying.
When Trump was elected instead of acting how they
predicted he's off script now and could hurt them. The nuisance of being a
democracy.
Barter. Happens all the time. There is NO alternative so long as we
are going to continue to believe in fantasy. Specifically, the
fantasy that economies can grow exponentially and forever in a
biosphere with finite resources. The only solution is a monetary
system that remains attached to reality, period. Keeping in mind
that no system will ever be perfect, but a system that insures bad
behavior and bad management
suffer real consequences
would be a good start! Remind me, how many bankers/financiers went to
prison for those MBS that almost destroyed the world?
A great deal of the BS is being hidden away in an explosion of large
Public-Private Partnerships projects.
Over the years we have been
hearing a lot of good things about "Public-Private Partnerships" and how they
can propel forward needed projects by adding an incentive for the private
sector to undertake projects they might choose not to do alone. Often this is
because the numbers often simply don't work. The truth is that history is
littered with these failed projects.
Often their announcements are
accompanied by promises and hype but sadly the synergy these projects are
intended to create never occurs. These so-called, "bridges to nowhere" and
boondoggles tend to be forgotten and brushed aside each time public servants
and their cronies get together. The article below delves into this tool often
used to line the pockets of those with influence.
You've well penned an Excellent Summation Piece of
not so well known behind the scenes economic conditions and factors.
As I've said many times:
UNFORESEEN WAR IS THE ONLY THING THAT DISRUPTS THE AMERICAN PONZI KNOWN AS
THE COLLUSIVE BIG BANKSTERS AKA THE FEDERAL RESERVE.
There is one point, however, where you are mistaken:
"The way the Federal Reserve saved the irresponsible large banks, which
should have failed and have been broken up, was to raise the prices of
troubled assets on the banks' books by lowering interest rates"
Wrong.
Instead, this was accomplished by the Banksters paying off the American
Congress to suspend the accounting rule called "mark to market". It was very
simple. The banks went to the government and said:
"you can print $2 trillion to bail us out, OR you can suspend mark to
market and we can show that we have NO losses on our books."
The FASB under pressure from Congress chose the prudent (at that time) but
dishonest approach and allowed the banks to suspend the mark to market
accounting rule, which is a basic rule of financial accounting. The sacrifice
was in banking transparency, which of course, is an oxymoron in 2018.
But that action essentially robbed an entire group of market speculators in
risky securities like FAZ (a 3x inverse ETF play on the banks, essentially
shorting the big banks) who bet that the US Government would not break the law
and suspend mark to market for the banks.
They were wrong and a lot of those honest speculators lost a lot of money
very quickly.
It was an "Aha!" Epiphanous moment on Thursday, April 2, 2009 for many
American equities speculators as they quickly realized that the American
government was indeed provably in the pocket of the Banksters Cartel and
likely had been for a very long time.
Interest rates way up or the dollar is toast if not for the Euro and Yen. I
have always felt the Euro was established as a shield for the USD and not so
much some European union of countries. The union of those countries will
always be difficult but controlling the currency of all those countries is
very important to the USA. Imagine all the dollar sellers today if the Euro
was not established.
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who
makes it's laws" Roth
- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the USA
into an economic backwater
This is only a surmise I guess but Globalists are plum tired of American middle
class population, and their main purpose in the world is over, and the horses of manufacturing
and technology ''have got out of the barn'' and successfully transplanted to... greener
pastures so that, it's time to make fallow and put the stops to the further
exploitation of North American resources that are too much used up by the damned American
population on their gaddamed consumer needs, and time to put that back in store for a future
where there won't be so many hungry overfed mouths to worry about, so that is the possible
purpose to isolate and crush America at this time.
An induced torpor of complacency will make it seem impossible until the last moment, then
it's too late. (''Have you noticed the exsorbitance high cost of... Latties lately?.puffpuff...
// Hey! they ain't nuthin' on da shelves in da supermarket!!'')
Mean while there's time for the development of Russia and China to have their time in the
sun , for a while, then they get the axe later, and so it goes.
Well, I didn't want to say it but, part of the plan will be a pretty big reduction in pops
which isn't all bad... depends on how the cookie crumbles, (who's ox gets gored.) (Good for
biosphere mainly.)
But if your "In the Club'' and a member in standing which is a only a few you get a ticket
to ride.
The creeps are running America down every way, bread and circuses for a while then Austerity
for real.
Globalists are plum tired of American middle class population, and their main purpose in
the world is over
Bull's eye. That is an under-appreciated dynamic driving everything from economic policies
to the hatred of Trump and populists in general. The narcissistic Western elites cannot stand
their own people. One sees it in the culture, academia, economic policies, and the insane
attempt to dilute native population and replace them with new migrants. (It is amusing that
sophisticated Westerners often boringly allude to the evil 'commies' who 'wanted to elect new
people', and of course never did, but they are unwilling to see it happening at home.)
The purpose for creating the Western middle class after WWII was to prevent a revolution.
That is no longer a threat, so why coddle the deplorables?
- more trade with Russia, and the railway connections with China, threaten to turn the
USA into an economic backwater
This is only a surmise I guess but Globalists are plum tired of American middle class
population, and their main purpose in the world is over, and the horses of manufacturing and
technology "have got out of the barn" and successfully transplanted to greener
pastures so that, it's time to make fallow and put the stops to the further
exploitation of North American resources that are too much used up by the damned American
population on their gaddamed consumer needs, and time to put that back in store for a future
where there won't be so many hungry overfed mouths to worry about, so that is the possible
purpose to isolate and crush America at this time.
An induced torpor of complacency will make it seem impossible until the last moment, then
it's too late. ("Have you noticed the exsorbitance high cost of Latties lately?.puffpuff //
Hey! they ain't nuthin' on da shelves in da supermarket!!")
Mean while there's time for the development of Russia and China to have their time in
the sun , for a while, then they get the axe later, and so it goes.
Well, I didn't want to say it but, part of the plan will be a pretty big reduction in pops
which isn't all bad depends on how the cookie crumbles, (who's ox gets gored.) (Good for
biosphere mainly.)
But if your "In the Club" and a member in standing which is a only a few you get a ticket
to ride.
The creeps are running America down every way, bread and circuses for a while then
Austerity for real.
Much better articles in italian or spanish. They basically say that's because of 'recent'
events of P2 sect fraud in 1981. More sensible to think they don't want globalist with hidden
loyalties infiltrating a new inexperienced government, but I don't follow italian
developments closely. Any thoughts?
Trump's "national neoliberalism" has some interesting side effects...
Notable quotes:
"... All it takes is for confidence to falter, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down ..."
"... I have felt for a long time that our consumption based economy is a way to keep people so self absorbed that they don't ask too many questions . ..."
"... As tempting as it is to attribute this to personality failings, I don't believe that Mr. Trump's China tantrum is geopolitical one-upmanship. It is more likely a reaction to the annual Industrial Capabilities Report released on May 17 by the Pentagon's Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, in parallel to a similar review being conducted internally by the White House. ..."
"... The Pentagon has concluded that two decades of financially-engineered corporate concentration and out-sourcing of skilled work to China has stripped the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex of its "organic industrial base." It appears evident that the White House has decided that tariff barriers on China are the only way to rebuild a population of of "qualified workers to meet current demands as well as needing to integrate a younger workforce with the 'right skills, aptitude, experience, and interest to step into the jobs vacated by senior-level engineers and skilled technicians' as they exit the workforce." ..."
"... I find myself confused and in a quandary. Is it not neoliberalism and global trade that over the past 25 years or so has led to corporate mega-wealth and the beginning of the end of the US middle class, and the further impoverishment of the working class? If so, then as a good progressive, should I not welcome a trade war or whatever economic change will end this global economic tyranny? Is the skepticism or outright opposition to a trade war of so many progressives simply based on the fact taht t's being initiated by the colossal idiot in the White House who may inadvertently be doing something beneficial? ..."
The White House's tough stance represents the ascendancy, for now, of trade hawks in the administration, particularly White
House senior trade adviser Peter Navarro and U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer
"It's clear that China has much more to lose" than the U.S. from a trade fight, said Mr. Navarro.
Mr. Lighthizer said additional tariffs wouldn't be imposed until the U.S. picked the products, and received industry comment,
a process that will take months and leaves open the possibility of additional negotiations. But so far there is no indication
that such talks are on the horizon, and the Trump administration is signaling that it is increasingly confident of achieving goals
through a dramatically more confrontational approach to China
Next up from the administration is a plan to halt Chinese investment in U.S. technology, due to be released by the Treasury
Department by June 30 .
Mr. Trump has backed away from threats before .In April, Mr. Trump threatened a dramatic increase in tariffs on Chinese goods,
but didn't follow through. Instead, he approved negotiations Mr. Mnuchin led to get China to buy more U.S. goods and make changes
to its tariffs and other trade barriers. That led to a temporary reprieve in the tensions as the two sides sought to negotiate
a truce.
The White House has since judged those efforts a failure, especially after Mr. Mnuchin and Mr. Trump were criticized by cable
TV hosts and some lawmakers of being weak on China. During a June trade mission to China by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Beijing
offered to buy nearly $70 billion in U.S. farm, manufacturing and energy products if the Trump administration abandoned tariff
threats. Mr. Trump rejected that offer as another empty promise.
Trump's negotiating strategy, if you can call it that, appears unlikely to work with China . If one were to try to ascribe logic
to Trump picking and then escalating a fight with China, it is presumably in the end to bring them to the negotiating table. But
China is not North Korea, where the US threatened the Hermit Kingdom with nuclear devastation and Kim Jong Un with being the next
Gaddafi and then dialed the bluster way down as China pushed and South Korea pulled North Korea to the negotiating table. And the
good luck of the Olympics being in South Korea facilitated the process.
One could argue that all of the theatrics was to enable Trump to talk with Kim Jong Un and not look like a wus.
With China, Trump's escalation to threatening another $200 billion of Chinese goods after his initial $50 billion shot is a reaction
to China going into tit for tat mode as opposed to negotiating. This should not be a surprise. The more detailed press reports were
making clear that China was initially not engaging with the US (as in making clear that they weren't receptive to US demands and
accordingly weren't deploying meaningful resources to talks).
Even if China incurs meaningful economic costs in hitting back at the US, politically it's a no brainer. China's sense of itself
as the power that will displace the US means it's unacceptable to be bullied. China has been bizarrely sensitive to slights, for
instance, lashing out during the 2007 IPCC negotiations and getting testy when the US put countervailing duties
on a mere $224 million
of goods . Recall that when the US put sanctions on Russia, its strategists seemed to genuinely believe that Russians would rise
up and turf Putin out. Instead, his popularity ratings rose and even the Moscow intelligentsia rallied to support him.
Oh, and while we are speaking about North Korea,
Kim Jong Un is in Beijing . It's not hard to get the message: there's no reason for China to play nicely in the face of US trade
brinksmanship.
Trump appears to be relying on the idea that since the US imports more than China exports, we can do more damage to them in a
tariff game of chicken . On the one hand, as Marshall Auerback has pointed out, in trade wars, the creditor nation, which would be
China, typically fares worse than the debtor nation. However, China can do a lot a damage to US companies in China. The US has long
had a policy of promoting the interests of US multinationals based on the claim that deeper trade relations would reduce the odds
of war and make countries more disposed towards democracy. And when "free trade" ideology got a life of its own, economists and pundits
regularly treated the idea of trying to protect domestic jobs as retrograde, even when many of our trade partners negotiated their
deals with that consideration in mind.
American businesses from Apple Inc. and Walmart Inc. to Boeing Co. and General Motors Co. all operate in China and are keen
to expand. That hands Xi room to impose penalties such as customs delays, tax audits and increased regulatory scrutiny if Trump
delivers on his threat of bigger duties on Chinese trade. U.S. shares slumped Tuesday as part of a broad sell-off in global markets
in response to Trump's threat.
The total amount of U.S. goods exports to China only amounted to $130 billion last year, meaning Trump's potential tariffs
on $250 billion or more of Chinese imports can't be matched, at least directly. But if you measure both exports and sales of U.S.
companies inside China, the U.S. has a surplus of $20 billion with China, according to Deutsche Bank AG .
One advantage of this tactic for Xi is that this time the numbers are on his side, as U.S. investment in China is far larger
than the reverse. American companies had $627 billion in assets and $482 billion in sales in China in 2015, compared to just $167
billion in U.S. assets and $26 billion in U.S. sales for Chinese companies .
A change in trade priorities to focus on domestic employment isn't nuts . It's hard to know what Trump is trying to achieve as
he calls for China to reduce its trade deficit by $200 billion. Given that the Administration said it will focus on the sectors depicted
as priorities in China's "Made-in-China 2025" plans in next round to tariff targets, China has good reason to think Trump's real
aim is to check its rise as a superpower.
Even though Trump is giving trade negotiations a bad name, there's every reason to give domestic employment higher priority in
trade negotiation. The reason Trump is so fond of tariffs is that they are a weapon he can deploy quickly and unilaterally, while
negotiations and WTO cases take time. And even though the pundit class likes to decry manufacturing as oh-so-20th century, Ford's
Rouge plant employed more people than Apple does in the entire US. Restoring infrastructure would create a lot of employment, as
would increasing domestic manufacturing.
But the US has eliminated the supervisor and middle managers that once ran operations like these. If we were to seek to build
some areas of manufacturing, the US would have to engage in industrial policy, which is something we do now, but only by default,
with the defense industry, financial services, health care, housing, and higher education among the favored sectors. So given our
political constraints, it's hard to see how we get there from here.
Mr. Market is anxious . Anxious is well short of panicked. Chinese stocks took the worst hit, but the latest round of threats
took 4% off the Shanghai composite, taking it back to its level of 20 months ago.
Chinese indexes were mixed today .
By contrast, the Dow was down 1.15% and the S&P 500, 0.4%.
Having said that, the Fed is in a tightening cycle and stock valuations already looked pretty attenuated. Trade tensions and the
uncertainty over how the threat to global supply chains will play out may lead investors to curb their enthusiasm, particularly if
the Trump initiative starts looking less like another fit of pique and more like a change in the rules of the game that looks unlikely
to work out well.
I think the Chinese response depends on the great unknown of the Chinese Communist Parties long term strategy. One line of
thought is that the 'Asian model' of trade surpluses is for them just the means to an end for China to reach 'high development'
status, from which point they would seek a much more balanced internal economy. The other, sees Chinas trade surplus – in particular
the deliberate over production of strategic products such as microprocessors and pharmaceuticals as an end itself – warfare by
means of trade. Both aspects are variations on the Japanese
Yoshida Doctrine , something the Chinese have studied
in detail.
If the former, then its entirely possible that the Chinese see Trump's threat not as a challenge, but an opportunity to carry
out the necessary deep structural changes to balance their economy. A populist trade war would be the cover the government needs
to dramatically cut over-production and focus instead on ensuring China has all the strategic products it needs (the most crucial
of course is food). The CCP's fear is always inflation in food prices – this is historically the trigger for urban unrest, as
in the 1980's. But if they have a foreign scapegoat for that, they may see it as a risk worth taking. Urban riots where people
attack CCP buildings terrifies the leadership. Urban riots where people burn Trump effigies, less so.
If the true strategy is the second, then Trumps attacks are an obvious threat. The Chinese are aware now of the growing awareness
in the US of just how vulnerable the US has become to shortages of products which are now almost entirely Chinese made or controlled
– many processed metals, pharmaceuticals, key electronic components, etc. If it is indeed Chinese strategy to use these for leverage
at some future date, then they won't want to risk undermining this in a tit for tat war. In this situation, they will tread much
more carefully and won't be worried about a minor loss of face if they stand down and give Trump the victory headlines he craves.
In a broader sense, Trump believes that the biggest stick always wins a war like this, and he and his advisor clearly believe
the US has the biggest stick. But in military terms, the winner in a war is not the country who has the biggest army, but the
country that can bring the biggest army to the right field of battle. The Chinese (along perhaps with the Europeans and Mexicans)
may believe that if they fight smart and focus on specific battles – such as US farm goods or key US aerospace and consumer electronics
companies – they can make Trump and the Republicans really hurt. They know the electoral cycle in the US, which gives them a big
advantage. It will be interesting to see if Trump forces all sorts of new and unlikely alliances in opposition.
Interesting analysis. Do you think Trump's aim could be to throw a spanner into their works, whatever the plan is, thereby
buying more time to re-industrialize and wean US industries off of China? Also, it strikes me that Trump is consciously disciplining
US-based businesses like Apple every bit as much as he is China.
It would also require companies like Apple to show some interest in U.S. manufacturing, which is not the case at this time.
I'm all for whatever barriers are necessary to re-invigorate and modernize U.S. manufacturing. But it will be impossible to
make progress if U.S. multi-nationals refuse to go along. Trump doesn't play the long game and there is really no evidence that
he is willing to challenge/threaten U.S. firms in substantive ways. Remember the campaign threats against Ford? Since then, Ford
has not upped its U.S. investment but instead chosen to get completely out of the small car business. And that is a company that
still has an extensive U.S. manufacturing presence, unlike, say, Apple.
I think this is what the Chinese understand (maybe Trump does too and this is all just theater for 2020). They can play hardball
with Trump as long as US MNC's are on the side of China against the U.S. In the last 6 months, have you heard a single large U.S.
manufacturer voice support for Trump's trade policies? I haven't.
If the Chinese focus on key areas that can 'make Trump and the Republicans really hurt. They know the electoral cycle in the
US ,' wouldn't that be outright election meddling?
There is the same logic, possibility, at work in Trump's thinking (and thinking may be too generous a term for it but we do
I suppose have to assign some sort of plan being pushed through here) to that of the U.K.'s Brexit Ultras.
For the Ultras, reestablishing political and sovereignty independence is conflated and intertwined with economic independence
which all -- through a mechanism which is never adequately explained -- will result in domestic economic revitalisation that doesn't
require government direct intervention.
No, it doesn't stack up or make a great deal of sense, but having been around many hard-core Brexit'eers in the Brexit heartland
(and the Conservative party's local association in a Brexit stronghold) the people who hold this worldview do make it work
within the confines of their own minds. It goes something like: if you neutralise or at least weaken the power blocks which are
winning out politically and you'll reap a reward economically. The fallacy assumes that you can give Johnny Foreigner a good kicking
at the sovereignty and international power-broker level and because you're a geopolitical shaker and mover, that'll pay off in
trade terms. All without consequences.
But of course there are always consequences. Other countries can decide to endure downsides (not least because the
various ruling elites don't end up on the receiving end of these, usually) -- this was the same gamble the U.K. government made,
unsuccessfully, with the EU ("we're in the unassailable position because we import from them more than we export"). And so also
with China. If Beijing is prepared to play a long game, it can tough it out with the US, potentially longer than the US is prepared
to tolerate.
This has always been the case with the US (and the U.K. too, for that matter) -- they never expect anyone else to tolerate
any downside which is imposed. They're astonished when Cuba, the DPRK, Iran, Russia, China and even to a lesser extent the EU
don't simply fall into line when they click their fingers.
There are different power centers operating in the Trump administration's trade policy. Trump himself may be motivated by no
more than a desire to appear tough -- and as Yves notes, tariffs are one of the few ways a US president can act swiftly and unilaterally
to do so.
His advisers are another matter. They would like to pressure China to have more open and fair policies, but are OK with the
consequences if China refuses -- i.e., an extremely large decrease in US trade volumes with China, and, indeed, the entire world.
They have probably performed a calculation similar to the one outlined by Paul Krugman
in his June
17 column on trade wars . Basically, a global trade war would not have a giant impact on global GDP -- perhaps 2-3 percent
assuming tariffs on everything in the neighborhood of 30 percent. There would be displacement of jobs and workers while everyone
readjusted, but that's a price the Trump administration would probably be willing to pay. And, what Krugman does not mention,
the United States as a very large economy would in fact do less badly in a trade war than most others countries. By losing less,
it would "win" in the zero-sum universe Trump seems to inhabit.
That's a difference between Trumpers and Brexiters. Britain is an island that has always depended on trade. The US has two
oceans around it, still the world's largest economy (more or less), adequate natural resources, and a whole hemisphere to pick
on.
I think you are right in suggesting that the calculation is that even an all out trade war would not be catastrophic, and the
US would come out best.
I think the problem with this thinking is that it assumes symmetric actions by all the major parties, but in this sort of trade
war it will be more targeted and asymmetric. By which I mean that the Chinese and Europeans in particular have immediately targetted
more obvious, vulnerable US sectors. At first, these are just rather obvious ones, like Harley Davidson bikes or Levi Jeans, but
its not hard to see that if it gets serious there might be co-operation to target what they see as Trumps heartlands. As I suggested
above, a targeted attempt to hit key US food exports at the strategically right time could be devastating for US farmers, and
domestically China and other countries may accept the 'hit' domestically as they have a convenient scapegoat.
I should say though that whatever the outcome, the uncertainty created by Trumps action is likely to make all investors much
more wary of businesses which depend on widespread global supply chain networks, which can only be a good thing for people trying
to keep jobs local and to reduce emissions. Its unfortunate that when these come about through trade wars the impacts (as usual)
will hit ordinary people first, at least in the initial stage
I do agree that the zenith of long, complex and ultimately not especially resilient global supply chains has passed. For at
least 20, possibly 30 years these have received and been able to rely on unstinting political aircover and hidden subsidies.
Not any more. There's some minor tremors already being felt with the distinct possibility of some bigger systemic shocks in
store.
I do agree that the zenith of long, complex and ultimately not especially resilient global supply chains has passed.
Indeed – anecdotally and slightly tangentially – the days of outsourcing call-centres etc are numbered. Whilst many knowledgable
people have shown that the cost savings have not turned out to be anything like as large as the corporations predicted, consumer
hatred cannot be understated. I have gone through several weeks of arguing with Three over their service, being bounced around
various call-centres offshore. Finally, an email to the CEO, pointing out (in a measured way) how my business calls and those
of other businesses who use them will very quickly be affected, it was amazing how quickly things progressed, with my complaint
being escalated to the CEO executive group. I phrased it in terms of the fact their business model now actively encouraged (and
in many cases only supported) people to use phones known to be vulnerable to hackers and companies are really not going to like
that, even if they're cheap. Furthermore Three are immensely vulnerable come the next 5G spectrum auction (they are significantly
in trouble spectrum-wise) and I was about to be escalated to the Ombudsman, and told the CEO I'd be highlighting their security
vulnerabilities – something they really don't want, even though they'd done it to save a bob or two in outsourcing.
Things were sorted ASAP; it was obvious that a UK programmer redid the whole Three app and web interface over a weekend (I
used to program in Fortran in my PhD and diagnosed their problem straightaway). Three used to be innovative in carving out a niche
segment regarding its roaming plans – but has not kept innovating, and EU laws on roaming now mean its advantage is largely gone
whilst Vodafone staff in stores gleefully tell customers that you'll talk to a British call-centre – they have calculated that
the price premium is worth it, if people don't have to go through what I did, particularly high-value customers.
The days of long supply chains are numbered, most definitely. Systemic breakdowns would simply kill a company that operated
as they did. Now rapid changes seem to be in motion to make supply chains more robust and acceptable .
I hope its true – the fascinating shipping stats that Lambert posts in WaterCooler most days shows that transport is still
a huge and growing business, and seems to have recovered from the changes made 5 years ago when the oil price peak made a lot
of companies think twice about long supply chains. But there do seem to be a converging set of factors which must surely make
companies think twice. If you combine energy price risks, political risks, increasing tarrifs, consumer resistence, etc., there
are more and more incentives for companies to tighten and simplify supply chains. But I think it will be quite a while before
we see the impacts (and I'd never underestimate the power of inertia behind globilisation either).
Its often forgotten of course – mostly by economists who never study history – that we've been here before, most notably in
the late 19th Century when the trade was highly globilised, thanks to the major empires. That unravelled with startling speed.
Indeed, I see his statistics and agree regarding interia. But, as you say, economists are rubbish at history – and coupled
with their fascination with models that are ergodic (when the climate models suggest we are entering new territory with complete
"breaks" in the relationships and possible sudden shifts to new equilibria with associated huge, fast, cyclical changes) I can't
help but wonder if the supply chain models simply must collapse if the climate scientists are right and the economists are wrong.
But only time will tell .
Speaking of 'bigger systemic shocks,' Doug Kass puts a finer point on it [lifted from the Z site this morning]:
[Trump's] policy and negotiating tactics hold the risk that business confidence could be jeopardized and supply chains
may be disrupted.
I have long argued that the "Orange Swan" would ultimately be market unfriendly – that an untethered Trump would "Make Uncertainty
and Volatility (in the markets) Great Again." (#MUVGA)
And, I have recently argued over the last few months that the president's behavior is now beginning to impact the capital
markets.
Acting upon his impulses, growing more isolated and becoming more unhinged -- the Supreme Tweeter is now an Orange Swan
headwind.
" Rex, eat your salad " – President Trump
What numerical analyses such as Kurgman's miss is confidence. Popular mood has propelled Bubble III to stratospheric
heights, with equities and property dear worldwide.
All it takes is for confidence to falter, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down with a crash far out of proportion
to the minor changes in economic stats that will be visible at the time. ' No one could have foreseen ' etc
Bubbles, and their aftermaths, are self-reinforcing both on the way up and the way down. A manly square jaw and a glorious
orange helmet will take you only so far when you haven't a clue what you're doing. :-(
Since Kass mentioned 'negotiating tactics,' presumably many now also are aware that factor.
Judging by how the bubble is holding up, can we say that, so far, the key market players are receiving that message and remain
(again, so far the Nasdaq dropped just a bit yesterday after the additional $200 billion tariffs news) confident on this front
(but whose confidence can be shaken on other fronts for example, perhaps by others who worry openly and warn that the sky is,
at this moment, falling).
Who needs confidence when the Fed has proved it will just step in and buy whatever's necessary to prop up the market. Loot
on the way up, loot on the way down. Fearing volatility is for smallfolk.
All it takes is for confidence to falter, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down
But U.S. MNCs have had no confidence in U.S. manufacturing for decades. Which is why we need to never anger the bubble-driven
"confidence fairy." On the fundamentals that affect most people, the house blew down long ago.
What's amazing, is that right at the time when being part of a large trading block would seem to be an imperative and not just
an advantage, Britain decides to leave the EU. Even the very timing is wrong.
Much as I would like one, I am quite confident there will not be a global trade war. Trump has no long game and in any event
no stomach for taking on the entire U.S. business class. There will negotiations, flip-flops, photo-ops, some marginal claimed
"wins," no real change, and on to 2020.
'Basically, a global trade war would not have a giant impact on global GDP -- perhaps 2-3 percent assuming tariffs on everything
in the neighborhood of 30 percent.'
Kurgman seems to assume that the radical adjustment to supply chains is nearly frictionless. But it's not. Vast capital investment
will be needed, at a time when corporations are already highly leveraged by piling up debt to buy back shares.
A trade war is just the pin we need to pop Bubble III and send it crashing to earth like the Hindenburg -- oh the humanity!
It's a heavy price to pay, just to turf out Herbert Hoover Trump after one term and highlight Peter Rabbit Navarro as the PhD
Econ know nothing who wrecked the global economy. Even the benighted Kurgman sees that Navarro is a total charlatan.
It has been interesting for the last few years watching the pigs cotillion that passes for a "western elite" pull pin after
pin after pin on what have been assumed to be grenades thus far without any detonation.
Though we'll never know for sure, the Fed's bond dumping is a financial pin, while trade wars are a confidence smasher.
Once a stampede starts, it acquires a momentum of its own: you're obliged to run, not because you were scared, but because
a thundering herd is coming at you.
I'd agree very much with this, Clive. I would add that this sort of delusion seems largely restricted to major powers who haven't
suffered a major loss (or at least not one that couldn't be quietly forgotten) in a century or so. Those of us who live in smaller
countries always know that true absolute 'sovereignty' in the real world is a chimera. What matters is what areas you maintain
control, and which ones you let go – and its always better to let some go than have them ripped from your hands. And those countries
who have suffered humiliations in the recent past (Germany, France, China, Japan) have fewer delusions about the dangers of arrogance
and powerplay, although the French in particular are prone to forget.
An overly dynamic situation is one thing so long as it does not end up in a 'kinetic' situation. I am going to go out on a
limb here and say that Trump's threats against China are a gamble but will have to explain it a bit. For about two decades after
the collapse of the USSR we lived in a unipolar world with the axis located in Washington DC. You had people like McCain, Rubio,
Navarro, Lighthizer and Graham working through their careers in this 'golden age' but those times are now definitely over. The
world is once more reverting to its normal state of a multipolar world and people like the aforementioned people cannot tolerate
this.
To push back against this reversion, they have been trying on a wide front to use American military and economic power to make
countries bend to their will. Threatening allies if they purchase Russian weapons, blackmailing the EU to abandon Iran in preparation
for a cruel embargo, threatening Turkey by withholding sales of the F35 fighter, etc. have all been tried. For several reasons,
this approach is not working so well anymore. So at this point, after wrestling some time with countries like Russia and Iran,
the US has decided that they need to attack the center of gravity in this new multipolar world and that means China.
The US demanded that China reconfigure their entire economy to enable US corporations to have more power and say in China while
demanding that China curtail their advancing their technological development program. China balked at this but did offer compromises
to no effect. With the lunatic policy of pushing China and Russia together, a massive political and economic federation is slowly
forming on the mass of lands from Vladivosok all the way through to Europe. If that happens, then the US definitely becomes a
second rate power. The clock is ticking on this development hence the attempt to cower China which is the linchpin for this.
Trump has been convinced that the US holds the upper hand and decided on a gamble, a doubling down if you will, so that a decisive
victory will be achieved on the cusp of the 2018 US midterm elections. The trouble with all this is that the US is hemorrhaging
both soft and hard power and is in a weaker position now. There is more and more countries seeking to bypass use of the US dollar
as being too dangerous to use for some countries and working with an American company and buying America products is also being
seen as risky. An example is when the US forbid Airbus selling its own aircraft to Iran due to the presence of US parts. I am
willing to bet that a lot of other companies sat up and took notice of this. So now for Trump he is going all in to try to overturn
these developments but as we say in Australia, he has two chances – his and Buckleys
They do seem to be caught in something of a chinese finger puzzle alright. Everything they do seems to make their opponents
stronger in some fashion or another. As per PK above, I wonder if Trump is not, unwittingly, doing the Chinese a favour?
There's a reason historical trade routes followed the Silk Road, a reason horsemen swept out of the Mongolian plains to conquer
the world time and again. The axis of human trade runs through Europe/Asia. It has never run through North America and never will.
The US can't be the axis of the world because it quite simply isn't located in the right place along the right population vectors.
This is a fact the US military is well aware of. If the US tries to maintain its position in the long run it will fail. That's
just the way it is, and the sooner US stops propagandizing its own citizens to the contrary, the better.
to throw out an unconventional thought: if you're an environmentalist/anti-climate change, you should want a trade war. I guess
per the media and Democratic pundits it's: Reduce, reuse, recycle–Unless your goals align with a Trump policy on a discrete issue.
you should want to stop the government-subsidized 5/10,000-mile supply chain. Government-subsidized as in: favorable taxation
for fuel oil, government subsidized port facilities/roads, lax emissions regulations, lax labor laws, etc.
to throw out an unconventional thought: if you're an environmentalist/anti-climate change, you should want a trade war
That thought occurred to me too. Of course this is one of those situations in which the supply conditions support this but
the demands of the population ? Nasty situation ..People are going to have to learn (maybe the hard way via the oft-quoted "war-like
BREXIT economy on here") that lots of foodstuffs currently grown between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are simply going
to become unavailable. A 2-5 degree increase in average temperature in many of the countries there – particularly those with high
humidity – means that unless they have a LOT of energy to air condition people for large parts of the day, then human life will
be impossible – the body can't sweat enough to eliminate excess body heat if not cooled and death is inevitable. Nasty times ahead
for lots of countries in the "middle" of the planet ..and besides the (obviously) huge human cost to them, the days of producing
nice vegetables out of season for us at higher latitudes will soon be over.
But the US has eliminated the supervisor and middle managers that once ran operations like these. If we were to seek
to build some areas of manufacturing, the US would have to engage in industrial policy, which is something we do now, but only
by default, with the defense industry, financial services , health care, housing, and higher education among the favored
sectors. So given our political constraints, it's hard to see how we get there from here.
Perhaps, Trump is using the method of obliquity to get what is important to the powers that be, the fraudsters of Wall Street.
For instance, three nano seconds after the billionaire's tax cut was passed his top economic advisor, Gary Cohn
resigned , and the reason given was his opposition to the direction trade policy was going, but really,
who is dumb enough to believe that?
Quoting Trump:
"Gary has been my chief economic adviser and did a superb job in driving our agenda, helping to deliver historic tax
cuts and reforms and unleashing the American economy once again," Trump said in a statement to Times. "He is a rare talent,
and I thank him for his dedicated service to the American people."
Substitute "billionaire class" for "American people" to get closer to the truth. Gary is a venal mercenary that went to Washington
to get a jawb done.
Two of the "demands" by the US when it comes to "trade" is that intellectual property be respected and that US "companies"
operating in China be permitted to do so without the requirement to form partnerships with Chinese (CCP offshoots really) companies,
and to get there, my cynical self suspects that all peasants are nothing more than cannon fodder in this trade war so that the
fraudsters of Wall Street can go into China unfettered and loot the Chinese as much as they have looted Americans, and without
sharing a cut with Chinese "partners".
Sadly, the Europeans are key to preventing this. Only they have the purchasing power to offload China's current surplus, and
eventually proceed to an even trade relationship as the other terminus of the Belt.
I say sadly because they are the wimps of all time, and they will simply not let go of Mother America's apron strings. So at
least for my lifetime (another 20-30 years I'm expecting) things aren't going to change -- well, they will actually get worse
for the 90% in the US as well as everywhere else, but the overall state-level power dynamics will remain.
Funny also because the F35 sucks, you can barely tell where they detonated the MOAB, Elon Musk is building strange, badly-thought
out tunnels, our military is just tired, tired tired . yet still everybody cowers. What are they afraid of?
You make a good point in deriding Trump's vacillating positions as not a policy. (For comparison, Kirstjen Nielsen's consistent
behavior in having her dept. separate would be immigrant adults from children – without tracking who belongs to whom – is a policy.)
Trump's focus on domestic jobs would be an excellent, indeed, a necessary policy. Successful economic competitors in Asia and
Europe do exactly that. For Trump, however, it's not a policy, it's a talking point.
As you say, American mythology is that it has no industrial policy. The reality is that it has one, but it's written, implemented
and policed by the private sector. It does not want government to make a priority of domestic employment because it has largely
abandoned the idea as impossibly unprofitable.
In that, Elon Musk's reduction of at least 9% of his manufacturing workforce is the standard antediluvian response to management's
inability to meet its self-imposed objectives. He has decided, all evidence to the contrary, that his line workers and the processes
they are implementing are adequate to meet his objectives. They just need someone to crack the whip a tad harder.
But which jobs is Musk cutting? Largely middle management supervisors and technical staff. These are the people with manufacturing
know-how, the very people most likely to fix Musk's manufacturing-cum-quality process defects.
Musk is throwing out the people who could most help him meet his objectives. Adopting policies to which Detroit has long been
addicted will produce the consequences they always have before.
Krugman is not to be taken seriously on anything. He may actually know economic theory but he sold out so long ago that anything
he writes I dismiss out of hand as propaganda . I don't think he even has the potential to be stopped clock right about anything
. Every column is econo-babble designed to support whatever message his handlers need put out there. I think of him as the Baghdad
Bob of the economics bloggers.
As far as trade wars go I say bring it on. We have gotten so soft here in the US that everyone seems to walk around wringing
their hands and moaning all the time. My parents grew up during WW2 they had ration coupons and no passenger cars , no gasoline
, full on recycling of everything. I'd like to see some belt tightening of that sort in the here and now. I grew up in the 70's
I remember the energy crisis clearly, and people under 45 or 40 maybe literally have no clue what it means to have limitations
on basic necessities , not I can't afford the new Iphone but that it just can't be bought period.
Where ever one is in the golbal warming spectrum or the environmental spectrum personally , we just can not go on the way we
are . We need to put pressure on people to think about how they live and how they spend and what our government is doing in our
name.
many, many thing of which I do not approve, and wish to have no part of. However, in some manner I feel responsible as this
is a democracy, and I should have some influence (minuscule as it is).
The US is an oligarchy, even Princeton academics agree. Part of the way to end that problem, is seize control back from the
tyrants. My suggestion is to join the poor people's campaign, and do whatever you can do for them, whether it is protest, make
signs, or send small donations.
Don't let the oligarchs make you believe that what they do is in your name. It is not, and the only way to stop them is to
make them fear the population.
Elections won't do it – not as long as black-box voting machines and interstate cross-check ensure that the poor voice is as
quiet as possible.
I have felt for a long time that our consumption based economy is a way to keep people so self absorbed that they don't
ask too many questions .
WHEEE I got a new Iphone , instead of why are we bombing these people. Looking back I was a happier person when I had less
possessions. I don't know when the cut off point was though. I mean as a young man I did without and wanted things and then there
was a period of fuzziness and now my house is full of shit that I don't even care about.
I can remember waiting in line at a gas pump with my dad so we could go to nantasket beach. I didn't mind waiting in a hot
car for an hour because I was excited to go. Now you see a family out in a car everyone has their device and do they even care
where they are going?
In a world of plenty everything seems cheap and tawdry . Bring on the trade war , lets see people start to do without and then
realize the garbage they can't get isn't even important.
> One advantage of this tactic for Xi is that this time the numbers are on his side, as U.S. investment in China is far larger
than the reverse.
That's a really weird definition of the word "advantage". The factories and plants US companies built in China employ Chinese
workers and consist of infrastructure that exists in China. If China cracks down on those plants it's basically punching itself
in the face. Share prices for those US companies would fall, but as a working class American I honestly DGAF.
The American companies get far more revenue from their Chinese operations than their Chinese workers can get from their salaries.
So China's retaliation will disproportionately affect the revenue of these companies instead of the income of their Chinese workers.
As tempting as it is to attribute this to personality failings, I don't believe that Mr. Trump's China tantrum is geopolitical
one-upmanship. It is more likely a reaction to the annual Industrial Capabilities Report released on May 17 by the Pentagon's
Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, in parallel to a similar review being conducted internally by the White House.
The Pentagon has concluded that two decades of financially-engineered corporate concentration and out-sourcing of skilled
work to China has stripped the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex of its "organic industrial base." It appears evident that the
White House has decided that tariff barriers on China are the only way to rebuild a population of of "qualified workers to meet
current demands as well as needing to integrate a younger workforce with the 'right skills, aptitude, experience, and interest
to step into the jobs vacated by senior-level engineers and skilled technicians' as they exit the workforce."
It's good to have an 'organic industrial base.' And Chins is well aware of the Japanese Judo, which advocates using someone's
energy to do the work for you. Here, workers in the US can take advantage of the energy of the MIC to achieve the goal of making
American manufacturing and employment great again.
Mr. Market is anxious. Anxious is well short of panicked.
When was "the market" not anxious? It appears to me that fear, anxiety, is paramount. They, the market participants, are anxious
where they are making money, they are anxious when not making money, they are anxious when they have money, and they are anxious
when they don't have money.
I find myself confused and in a quandary. Is it not neoliberalism and global trade that over the past 25 years or so has
led to corporate mega-wealth and the beginning of the end of the US middle class, and the further impoverishment of the working
class? If so, then as a good progressive, should I not welcome a trade war or whatever economic change will end this global economic
tyranny? Is the skepticism or outright opposition to a trade war of so many progressives simply based on the fact taht t's being
initiated by the colossal idiot in the White House who may inadvertently be doing something beneficial?
Decimation of anti-war forces and flourishing of Russophobia are two immanent features of the US neoliberalism. As long as
the maintinace fo the US global neoliberal empire depends of weakening and, possibly, dismembering Russia it is naive to expect any
change. Russian version of soft "national neoliberalism" is not that different, in principle form Trump version of hard
"netional neoliberalism" so those leaders might have something to talk about. In other words as soon as the USA denounce
neoliberal globalization that might be some openings.
Ten ways the new US-Russian Cold War is increasingly becoming more dangerous than the one we survived.
The political epicenter of the new Cold War is not in far-away Berlin, as it was from the late 1940s on, but directly on
Russia's borders, from the Baltic states and Ukraine to the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Each of these new Cold War fronts
is, or has recently been, fraught with the possibly of hot war. US-Russian military relations are especially tense today in the Baltic
region, where a large-scale NATO buildup is under way, and in Ukraine, where a US-Russian proxy war is intensifying. The "Soviet
Bloc" that once served as a buffer between NATO and Russia no longer exists. And many imaginable incidents on the West's new Eastern
Front, intentional or unintentional, could easily trigger actual war between the United States and Russia. What brought about this
unprecedented situation on Russia's borders -- at least since the Nazi German invasion in 1941 -- was, of course, the exceedingly
unwise decision, in the late 1990s, to expand NATO eastward. Done in the name of "security," it has made all the states involved
only more insecure.
Proxy wars were a feature of the old Cold War, but usually small ones in what was called the "Third World" -- in Africa,
for example -- and they rarely involved many, if any, Soviet or American personnel, mostly only money and weapons. Today's US-Russian
proxy wars are different, located in the center of geopolitics and accompanied by too many American and Russian trainers, minders,
and possibly fighters. Two have already erupted: in Georgia in 2008, where Russian forces fought a Georgian army financed, trained,
and minded by American funds and personnel; and in Syria, where in February
scores
of Russians were killed by US-backed anti-Assad forces . Moscow did not retaliate, but it has pledged to do so if there is "a
next time," as there very well may be. If so, this would in effect be war directly between Russia and America. Meanwhile, the risk
of such a direct conflict continues to grow in Ukraine, where the country's US-backed but politically failing President Petro Poroshenko
seems increasingly tempted to launch another all-out military assault on rebel-controlled Donbass, backed by Moscow. If he does so,
and the assault does not quickly fail as previous ones have, Russia will certainly intervene in eastern Ukraine with a truly tangible
"invasion." Washington will then have to make a fateful war-or-peace decision. Having already reneged on its commitments to the Minsk
Accords, which are the best hope for ending the four-year Ukrainian crisis peacefully, Kiev seems to have an unrelenting impulse
to be a tail wagging the dog of war. Certainly, its capacity for provocations and disinformation are second to none, as evidenced
again last week by the faked "assassination and resurrection" of the journalist Arkady Babchenko.
The Western, but especially American, years-long demonization of the Kremlin leader, Putin, is also unprecedented. Too
obvious to reiterate here, no Soviet leader, at least since Stalin, was ever subjected to such prolonged, baseless, crudely derogatory
personal vilification. Whereas Soviet leaders were generally regarded as acceptable negotiating partners for American presidents,
including at major summits, Putin has been made to seem to be an illegitimate national leader -- at best "a KGB thug," at worst a
murderous "mafia boss."
Still more, demonizing Putin has generated a
widespread Russophobic vilification
of Russia itself , or what The New York Times and other mainstream-media outlets have taken to calling "
Vladimir Putin's Russia ." Yesterday's enemy was Soviet Communism. Today it is increasingly Russia, thereby also delegitimizing
Russia as a great power with legitimate national interests. "The Parity Principle," as Cohen termed it during the preceding Cold
War -- the principle that both sides had legitimate interests at home and abroad, which was the basis for diplomacy and negotiations,
and symbolized by leadership summits -- no longer exists, at least on the American side. Nor does the acknowledgment that both sides
were to blame, at least to some extent, for that Cold War. Among influential American observers
who at least
recognize the reality of the new Cold War , "Putin's Russia" alone is to blame. When there is no recognized parity and shared
responsibility, there is little space for diplomacy -- only for increasingly militarized relations, as we are witnessing today.
Meanwhile, most of the Cold War safeguards -- cooperative mechanisms and mutually observed rules of conduct that evolved
over decades in order to prevent superpower hot war -- have been vaporized or badly frayed since the Ukrainian crisis in 2014,
as the
UN General Secretary António Guterres, almost alone, has recognized : "The Cold War is back -- with a vengeance but with a difference.
The mechanisms and the safeguards to manage the risks of escalation that existed in the past no longer seem to be present." Trump's
recent missile strike on Syria carefully avoided killing any Russians there, but here too Moscow has vowed to retaliate against US
launchers or other forces involved if there is a "next time," as, again, there may be. Even the decades-long process of arms control
may, we are told by an
expert , be coming to an "end." If so, it will mean an unfettered new nuclear-arms race but also the termination of an ongoing
diplomatic process that buffered US-Soviet relations during very bad political times. In short, if there are any new Cold War rules
of conduct, they are yet to be formulated and mutually accepted. Nor does this semi-anarchy take into account the new warfare technology
of cyber-attacks. What are its implications for the secure functioning of existential Russian and American nuclear command-and-control
and early-warning systems that guard against an accidental launching of missiles still on high alert?
Russiagate allegations that the American president has been compromised by -- or is even an agent of -- the Kremlin are
also without precedent. These allegations have had profoundly dangerous consequences, among them the nonsensical but mantra-like
warfare declaration that "Russia attacked America" during the 2016 presidential election; crippling assaults on President Trump every
time he speaks with Putin in person or by phone; and making both Trump and Putin so toxic that even most politicians, journalists,
and professors who understand the present-day dangers are reluctant to speak out against US contributions to the new Cold War.
Mainstream-media outlets have, of course, played a woeful role in all of this. Unlike in the past, when pro-détente
advocates had roughly equal access to mainstream media, today's new Cold War media enforce their orthodox narrative that Russia is
solely to blame. They practice not diversity of opinion and reporting but "confirmation bias." Alternative voices (with, yes, alternative
or opposing facts) rarely appear any longer in the most influential mainstream newspapers or on television or radio broadcasts. One
alarming result is that "disinformation" generated by or pleasing to Washington and its allies has consequences before it can be
corrected. The fake Babchenko assassination (allegedly ordered by Putin, of course) was quickly exposed, but not the alleged Skripal
assassination attempt in the UK, which led to the largest US expulsion of Russian diplomats in history before London's official version
of the story began to fall apart. This too is unprecedented: Cold War without debate, which in turn precludes the frequent rethinking
and revising of US policy that characterized the preceding 40-year Cold War -- in effect, an enforced dogmatization of US policy
that is both exceedingly dangerous and undemocratic.
Equally unsurprising, and also very much unlike during the 40-year Cold War, there is virtually no significant opposition
in the American mainstream to the US role in the new Cold War -- not in the media, not in Congress, not in the two major political
parties, not in the universities, not at grassroots levels. This too is unprecedented, dangerous, and contrary to real democracy.
Consider only the thunderous silence of scores of large US corporations that have been doing profitable business in post-Soviet Russia
for years, from fast-food chains and automobile manufacturers to pharmaceutical and energy giants. And contrast their behavior to
that of CEOs of PepsiCo, Control Data, IBM, and other major American corporations seeking entry to the Soviet market in the 1970s
and 1980s, when they publicly supported and even funded pro-détente organizations and politicians. How to explain the silence of
their counterparts today, who are usually so profit-motivated? Are they too fearful of being labeled "pro-Putin" or possibly "pro-Trump"?
If so, will this Cold War continue to unfold with only very rare profiles of courage in any high places? 9. And then there is the
widespread escalatory myth that today's Russia, unlike the Soviet Union, is too weak -- its economy too small and fragile, its leader
too "isolated in international affairs" -- to wage a sustained Cold War, and that eventually Putin, who is "punching above his weight,"
as the cliché has it, will capitulate. This too is a dangerous delusion.
As Cohen has shown previously ,
"Putin's Russia" is hardly isolated in world affairs, and is becoming even less so, even in Europe, where at least five governments
are tilting away from Washington and Brussels and perhaps from their economic sanctions on Russia. Indeed, despite the sanctions,
Russia's energy industry and agricultural exports are flourishing. Geopolitically, Moscow has many military and related advantages
in regions where the new Cold War has unfolded. And no state with Russia's modern nuclear and other weapons is "punching above its
weight." Above all, the great majority of Russian people have rallied behind Putin because t
hey believe
their country is under attack by the US-led West . Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Russia's history understands it is
highly unlikely to capitulate under any circumstances.
Finally (at least as of now), there is the growing war-like "hysteria" often commented on in both Washington and Moscow. It
is driven by various factors, but television talk/"news" broadcasts, which are as common in Russia as in the United States, play
a major role. Perhaps only an extensive quantitative study could discern which plays a more lamentable role in promoting this frenzy
-- MSNBC and CNN or their Russian counterparts. For Cohen, the Russian dark witticism seems apt: "Both are worst" ( Oba khuzhe
). Again, some of this American broadcast extremism existed during the preceding Cold War, but almost always balanced, even
offset, by truly informed, wiser opinions, which are now largely excluded.
Is this analysis of the dangers inherent in the new Cold War itself extremist or alarmist? Even SOME usually reticent specialists
would seem to agree with Cohen's general assessment. Experts gathered by a centrist Washington think tank
thought that on a scale of 1 to 10,
there is a 5 to 7 chance of actual war with Russia. A former head of British M16 is
reported as saying
that "for the first time in living memory, there's a realistic chance of a superpower conflict." And a respected retired Russian
general tells
the same think tank that any military confrontation "will end up with the use of nuclear weapons between the United States and
Russia."
In today's dire circumstances, one Trump-Putin summit cannot eliminate the new Cold War dangers. But US-Soviet summits traditionally
served three corollary purposes. They created a kind of security partnership -- not a conspiracy -- that involved each leader's limited
political capital at home, which the other should recognize and not heedlessly jeopardize. They sent a clear message to the two leaders'
respective national-security bureaucracies, which often did not favor détente-like cooperation, that the "boss" was determined and
that they must end their foot-dragging, even sabotage. And summits, with their exalted rituals and intense coverage, usually improved
the media-political environment needed to enhance cooperation amid Cold War conflicts. If a Trump-Putin summit achieves even some
of those purposes, it might result in a turning away from the precipice that now looms
"... The United States, the EU and Canada are preparing tariffs impacting untold billions of dollars in goods and threatening tens of millions of jobs worldwide. As the remarks of Trudeau and Trump show, US tariff threats are setting into motion an escalatory spiral of tariffs and counter-tariffs with potentially devastating consequences. ..."
"... The collapse of the G7 talks cannot be explained by the personal peculiarities of Donald Trump. Rather, this historical milestone is an expression of US imperialism's desperate attempts to resolve insoluble contradictions of world capitalism. Not only Trump, but prominent Democrats and large sections of the European media and ruling elite are all recklessly calling for trade war measures against their rivals. ..."
"... Analyzing US imperialist policy in 1928, the year before the eruption of the Great Depression, Leon Trotsky warned: "In the period of crisis, the hegemony of the United States will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America, Australia or Europe itself, whether this takes place peacefully or through war." ..."
"... After the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991, lifting the main obstacle to US-led neo-colonial wars, Washington tried to counterbalance its economic weakness by resort to its vast military superiority. ..."
"... Over decades of bloody neo-colonial wars that killed millions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and beyond, the United States has sought to establish a powerful military position in the oil-rich Middle East. These wars placed its forces athwart key trade and energy supply routes of its main economic rivals. ..."
"... Amid growing tensions with the US, all of the European powers are rapidly rearming. ..."
The summit issued a final communiqué papering over the conflicts, as is usual in G7
summits, condemning protectionism but making a few criticisms of the World Trade Organization
in line with US complaints. The US was expected to sign, but Trump, after listening to Canadian
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's post summit press conference while en route to Singapore for a
summit with North Korean President Kim Jong-un, fired off a volley of tweets that signaled a
comprehensive breakdown of the G7 talks.
After Trudeau said that the communiqué criticized protectionism and that Canada would
maintain its $16 billion retaliatory tariffs on US goods, the biggest Canadian tariffs since
World War II, Trump hurled invective at Trudeau, warning that he "will not allow other
countries" to impose tariffs. He accused what are nominally the closest US allies of having
targeted the US for "Trade Abuse for many decades -- and that is long enough."
In another tweet, the US president threatened a major escalation of trade war measures with
tariffs on auto imports and announced the breakdown of talks: "Based on Justin's false
statements at his news conference and the fact that Canada is charging massive Tariffs to our
US farmers, workers and companies, I have instructed our US Reps not to endorse the
Communiqué as we look at Tariffs on automobiles flooding the US market!"
This is the first time since G7 summits began in 1975 -- originally as the G5 with the
United States, Japan, Germany, Britain and France -- that all the heads of state could not
agree on a communiqué.
What is unfolding is a historic collapse of diplomatic and economic relations between the
major imperialist powers. For the three quarters of a century since World War II, a broad
consensus existed internationally in the ruling class that the trade wars of the 1930s Great
Depression played a major role in triggering that war, and that trade wars should be avoided at
all costs. This consensus has now broken down.
Explosive conflict and uncertainty dominate the world economy. The United States, the EU
and Canada are preparing tariffs impacting untold billions of dollars in goods and threatening
tens of millions of jobs worldwide. As the remarks of Trudeau and Trump show, US tariff threats
are setting into motion an escalatory spiral of tariffs and counter-tariffs with potentially
devastating consequences.
The collapse of the G7 talks cannot be explained by the personal peculiarities of Donald
Trump. Rather, this historical milestone is an expression of US imperialism's desperate
attempts to resolve insoluble contradictions of world capitalism. Not only Trump, but prominent
Democrats and large sections of the European media and ruling elite are all recklessly calling
for trade war measures against their rivals.
Analyzing US imperialist policy in 1928, the year before the eruption of the Great
Depression, Leon Trotsky warned: "In the period of crisis, the hegemony of the United States
will operate more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of boom. The
United States will seek to overcome and extricate herself from her difficulties and maladies
primarily at the expense of Europe, regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South
America, Australia or Europe itself, whether this takes place peacefully or through
war."
The G7 summits were launched to manage conflicts between the major powers as the industrial
and economic dominance established by US imperialism in World War II rapidly eroded, and after
Washington ended dollar-gold convertibility in 1971. Still unable to catch up to its European
and international competitors, the United States has for decades posted ever-larger trade
deficits with rivals in Europe and Asia.
After the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991, lifting the main
obstacle to US-led neo-colonial wars, Washington tried to counterbalance its economic weakness
by resort to its vast military superiority.
Over decades of bloody neo-colonial wars that killed millions in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Syria and beyond, the United States has sought to establish a powerful military position in the
oil-rich Middle East. These wars placed its forces athwart key trade and energy supply routes
of its main economic rivals.
Trump's election and his denunciations of "trade abuse" of the United States by Europe,
Japan and Canada marks a new stage in the crisis of world capitalism. Bitter US-EU divisions
are growing not only over trade, but over EU opposition to the US policy of threatening Iran
with war by ending the Iranian nuclear deal. After decades of economic crisis and neo-colonial
war, the danger is rapidly emerging of a 1930s-style disintegration of the world economy into
rival trading blocs and, as in that decade, the eruption of military conflict between them.
... ... ...
The European powers have responded to Trump with stepped-up threats of retaliatory measures.
Following the summit, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas called on the European powers to
respond "together" in order to defend their "interests even more offensively."
Historically, trade war has been a precursor to military conflict. Prior to the summit,
French President Emmanuel Macron responded angrily to Trump's threatened sanctions, declaring,
"This decision is not only unlawful but it is a mistake in many respects. Economic nationalism
leads to war. This is exactly what happened in the 1930s."
Amid growing tensions with the US, all of the European powers are rapidly rearming.
Just one week before the G7 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel signalled her support for
Macron's proposal to create a joint European defence force, open to British participation and
independent of NATO.
Then Trump demanded that the other G7 members remove their "ridiculous and unacceptable"
tariffs on U.S. goods – which would be hard for them to do, because their actual tariff
rates are very low. The European Union, for example, levies an average tariff of only three
percent on US goods. Who says so? The U.S. government's own guide to exporters
.
True, there are some particular sectors where each country imposes special barriers to
trade. Yes, Canada imposes high tariffs on certain dairy products. But it's hard to make the
case that these special cases are any worse than, say, the 25 percent tariff the U.S. still
imposes on light
trucks . The overall picture is that all of the G7 members have very open markets.
So what on earth was Trump even talking about? His trade advisers have repeatedly claimed
that value-added taxes, which play an important role in many countries, are a form of unfair trade
protection . But this is sheer ignorance: VATs don't convey any
competitive advantage – they're just a way of implementing a sales tax -- which is
why they're legal under the WTO. And the rest of the world isn't going to change its whole
fiscal system because the U.S. president chooses to listen to advisers who don't understand
anything.
Looks like Trump adopted Victoria Nuland "Fuck the EU" attitude ;-). There might be nasty
surprises down the road as this is uncharted territory: destruction of neoliberal
globalization.
Trump proved to be a really bad negotiator. he reduced the USA to a schoolyard bully who
beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big.
As the owner of world reserve currency the USA is able to tax US denominated transactions both via conversion fees and
inflation. As long as the USA has dollar as a reserve currency the USA has so called "exorbitant priviledge" : "In the
Bretton Woods system put in place in
1944, US dollars were convertible to gold. In France, it was called "America's
exorbitant privilege"[219]
as it resulted in an "asymmetric financial system" where foreigners "see themselves supporting American living standards and
subsidizing American multinationals"."... "De Gaulle openly criticised the
United States intervention in Vietnam and the "exorbitant
privilege" of the United States dollar. In his later years, his support for the slogan "Vive
le Québec libre" and his two vetoes of Britain's entry into the
European Economic
Community generated considerable controversy." Charles de Gaulle -
Wikipedia
Notable quotes:
"... Errrr, that so-called "piggy bank' just happens to; ..."
"... have the world's reserve currency ..."
"... dominates the entire planet militarily since the end of the Cold War ..."
"... dictates "regime change" around the world ..."
"... manipulates and controls the world's entire financial system, from the price of a barrel to every financial transaction in the SWIFT system. ..."
"... And Trump has the ignorance, the arrogance and the audacity to be pleading 'poverty?' ..."
"We had productive discussion on having fair and reciprocal" trade and market access.
"We're linked in the great effort to create a more just and prosperous world. And from the
standpoint of trade and creating more prosperous countries, I think they are starting to be
committed to more fair trade. We as a nation lost $870 billion on trade...I blame our leaders
and I congratulate leaders of other countries for taking advantage of our leaders."
"If they retaliate they're making a tremendous mistake because you see we have a
tremendous trade imbalance...the numbers are so much against them, we win that war 1000 times
out of a 1000."
"We're negotiating very hard, tariffs and barriers...the European Union is brutal to the
United States....the gig is up...there's nothing they can say."
"We're like the piggy bank that everybody's robbing."
"I would say the level of relationship is a ten - Angela, Emmanuel and Justin - we have a very good relationship. I won't
blame these people, unless they don't smarten up and make the trades fair."
Trump is now making the 20-hour flight to Singapore, where he will attend a historic summit with North Korea leader Kim Jong
Un. We'll now keep our eye out for the finalized communique from the group. The US is typically a leader in the crafting of the
statement. But this time, it's unclear if the US had any input at all into the statement, as only the leaders from Britain,
Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan as well as the presidents of the European Commission and European Council remain at the
meeting. But regardless of who writes it, the statement will probably be of little consequence, as UBS points out:
Several heads of state will be heading off on a taxpayer-financed "mini-break" in Canada today. In all of its incarnations
(over the past four years, we've gone from G-8 to G-6+1) the group hasn't really accomplished much since an initial burst of
enthusiasm with the Plaza Accords and Louvre Accords in the 1980s.
By the way, Trump is right on the tariffs in my view, Europeans should lower their tariffs
and not having the US raising it.
Trump: "We're The Piggy Bank That Everybody's Robbing"
Isn't Trump great in catch phrases? Trump's base will now regurgitate it to death.
Now reconcile Trump's remarks with reality:
Professor Werner: Germany is for instance not even allowed to receive delivery of US
Treasuries that it may have purchased as a result of the dollars earned through its current
account surplus: these Treasuries have to be held in custody by the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, a privately owned bank: A promise on a promise. At the same time, German influence
over the pyramid structure of such promises has been declining rapidly since the abolition of
the German currency and introduction of the euro, controlled by an unaccountable
supranational international agency that cannot be influenced by any democratic assembly in
the eurozone. As a result, this structure of one-sided outflows of real goods and services
from Germany is likely to persist in the short and medium-term.
To add insult to injury:
Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs
The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist
organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the
movement's funds.
Okay, everyone set your "team" aside for a few minutes and let's look at the facts and
reality.
Do you really believe the rest of the world has trade advantages over the US? Well, let's
consider major industries.
Agriculture.....maybe, but only sightly. Our farmers are the richest in the workd....by
far.
Manufacturers.....probably so....because we gave it away to countries with slave labor.
Manufacturers jobs were jobs where people could earn a decent living...and that had to
go..can't be cutting into corporate profits with all that high cost labor.
Defense.....need I go here? We spend more than the next 11 countries combined! We sell
more as well.
Energy.....we rule thus space because we buy it with worthless printed fiat
debt...whenever we want to....and nd if you deny us, we will bomb the hell out of you and
take it.
Technology. ....Apple, Microsoft, Intel, Google, Amazon, Oracle, Dell, Cisco.....who can
touch that line up....not to mention all the on-line outfits like Facebook and Twitter.
Finance.....the best for last. We control the printing press that prints the dollar the
rest of the world needs. We control energy and foreign policy. Don't do what we like and we
will cut you off from SWIFT and devalue the hell out of your currency...and then move in for
the "regime" change to some one who plays ball the way we like it. 85% of all international
trade takes place in dollars everyday. We have the biggest banks, Wall Street, and infest the
world with our virus called the dollar so that we can Jeri their chain at will.
Now I ask you....just where the hell is the "trade imbalances"? Sure there are some
companies or job sectors that get a raw deal because our politicians give some foreigners
unfair trade advantages here and there, but as a whole, we dominate trade by far. The poor in
our country lives like kings compared to 5.5 billion of the world's population. Trump knows
this.....or he is stupid. He is pandering to his sheeple voting base that are easily duped
into believing someone is getting what is their's.
Hey, I am thankful to be an American and enjoy the advantages we have. But I am not going
to stick my head up Trump's ass and agree with this bullshit. It is misdirection (corporate
America and politicians are the problem here, not foreign countries) and a major distraction.
Because all the trade in the world isn't going to pull us out of this debt catastrophe that's
coming.
But, if we cut through all the verbiage, we will arrive at the elephant in the room.
American manufacturing jobs have been off-shored to low wage countries and the jobs which
have replaced them are, for the most part, minium wage service jobs. A man cannot buy a
house, marry and raise a family on a humburger-flippers wage. Even those minimum wage jobs
are often unavailable to Americans because millions of illegal aliens have been allowed into
the country and they are undercutting wages in the service sector. At the same time, the
better paid positions are being given to H-1B visa holders who undercut the American worker
(who is not infrequently forced to train his own replacement in order to access his
unemployment benefits.)
As the above paragraph demonstrates the oligarchs are being permitted to force down
American wages and the fact that we no longer make, but instead import, the things we need,
thus exporting our wealth and damaging our own workers is all the same to them. They grow
richer and they do not care about our country or our people. If they can make us all into
slaves it will suit them perfectly.
We need tariffs to enable our workers to compete against third world wages in countries
where the cost-of-living is less. (American wages may be stagnating or declining but our
cost-of-living is not declining.) We need to deport illegal aliens and to stop the flow of
them over our borders. (Build the wall.) We need to severely limit the H-1B visa programme
which is putting qualified Americans out of work. (When I came to the US in 1967 I was
permitted entry on the basis that I was coming to do a job for which there were not enough
American workers available. Why was that rule ever changed?)
You are making my point. China didn't "off shore" our jobs....our politicians and
corporations did. You can't fix that by going after other countries. You fix that by
penalizing companies for using slave labor workers from other countries. Tariffs are not
going to fix this. They will just raise prices on everyone.
I can't believe you Trumptards can't see this! Once again we will focus on a symptom and
ignore the real problem. Boy, Trump and his buddies from NYC and DC have really suffered
because of unfair trade practices, right? Why can't you people see that "government is the
problem" and misdirection your attention to China, Canada, Germany, Mexico, or whomever is
just that....misdirection.
I would tax the shit out of companies like Apple that make everything overseas with slave
labor and then ship it in here to sell to Americans at ridiculous prices.
Plenty of down votes but no one has proven that I am wrong on one point.
The EU countries have free college, health care, day care and just about everything else.
All paid for because they have no military spending.
It's all on the backs of the US tax payer. Or the fed, if you prefer.
Trump is working both angles. Forcing them to pay for their own defense. Forcing them to
allow US products with no trade disadvantages. Go MAGA and fuck the EU.
"... Back to Turkey. The largest net backstabbing of Turkish economy could be the slowdown of investments from the Gulf, where Erdogan bravely sided with Qatar. Erdogan engineered de facto confiscation of media assets owned by tycoons sympathetic to the opposition, to be purchased by Qataris, now Qatar is to Turkey what Adelson is to Israel. ..."
"... Add the effect of Iran sanctions -- it increased prices of oil and gas, but no associated increase the demand from the Gulf, on the northern shore there is a prospect of tightened belts, on the southern shore anti-Turkish policies, and Qatar alone is too small ..."
...Rusal,
the dominant aluminum maker in Russia recently was sanctioned by USA, while a while ago it
gained control of a large portion of alumina production -- aluminum ore, bauxite, has to be
processed into more pure feedstock for smelting factories, called alumina. Now aluminum
producers in many areas, notably, Europe, have a shortage of alumina that may lead to
mothballing of some smelters; the largest alumina facility in Europe is in Ireland and it is
owned by Rusal. Perhaps great for American smelter owners, but there has to be some teeth
gnashing in Europe.
Back to Turkey. The largest net backstabbing of Turkish economy could be the slowdown of
investments from the Gulf, where Erdogan bravely sided with Qatar. Erdogan engineered de facto
confiscation of media assets owned by tycoons sympathetic to the opposition, to be purchased by
Qataris, now Qatar is to Turkey what Adelson is to Israel.
Siding with Qatar would eliminate
investments from KSA and UAE, and draconian treatment of Saudi princes and other tycoons
probably led to their assets being under the control of the Crown Prince.
This is not
particularly recent, but financial markets tend to have delayed fuse. Add the effect of Iran
sanctions -- it increased prices of oil and gas, but no associated increase the demand from the
Gulf, on the northern shore there is a prospect of tightened belts, on the southern shore
anti-Turkish policies, and Qatar alone is too small.
Plus Erdogan himself promised to "pay more
attention to Turkish central bank", and justifiably or not, that is a very strong sell signal
for the currency.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister
Theresa May have agreed in phone talks that the European Union should be ready to defend its
trade interests if the United States takes any trade measures against the bloc, the German
government said Sunday.
"The chancellor also spoke with the president [Macron] and the prime minister [May] on trade
relations with the United States. They agreed that the United States should not take
trade-linked measures against the European Union and that, otherwise, the European Union should
be ready to defend its interests within the framework of the multilateral trading system," the
statement read.
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
"Together," President Macron instructed President Trump, "we can resist the rise of aggressive nationalisms that deny our history
and divide the world."
In an address before Congress on Wednesday, France's Macron denounced "extreme nationalism," invoked the UN, NATO, WTO, and Paris
climate accord, and implored Trump's America to come home to the New World Order.
"The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism," Macron went on, "you are the one now who has to help preserve
and reinvent it."
His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron seem to be less about tomorrow than
yesterday. For the world he celebrates is receding into history. The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into
an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.
Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and among the organization's biggest
beneficiaries -- the EU. Under the Paris climate accord, environmental restrictions are put upon the United States from which China
is exempt. As for the UN, is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the scores of billions we have
plunged into it?
"Aggressive nationalism" is a term that might well fit Napoleon Bonaparte, whose Arc de Triomphe sits on the Champs-Elysees. But
does it really fit the Hungarians, Poles, Brits, Scots, Catalans, and other indigenous peoples of Europe who are now using democratic
methods and means to preserve their national homes?
And the United States would seem an odd place to go about venting on "aggressive nationalisms that deny our history." Did Macron
not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d'Administration how the Americans acquired all that land? General
Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought for six years to sever America's ties to the nation
under which he was born. How does Macron think Andrew Jackson acquired Florida from Spain, Sam Houston acquired Texas from Mexico,
and Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor acquired the Southwest? By bartering?
Aggressive nationalism is a good synonym for the Manifest Destiny of a republic that went about relieving Spain of Cuba, Puerto
Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. How does Macron think the "New World" was conquered and colonized if not by aggressive British,
French, and Spanish nationalists determined to impose their rule upon weaker indigenous tribes? Was it not nationalism that broke
up the USSR into 15 nations?
Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and in 1967 captured the West Bank and then annexed East Jerusalem
and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive nationalism?
Macron is an echo of George H.W. Bush who in Kiev in 1991 warned Ukrainians against the "suicidal nationalism" of declaring independence
from the Russian Federation. "Aggressive nationalisms divide the world," warns Macron. Well, yes, they do, which is why we have now
194 members of the U.N., rather than the original 50. Is this a problem? "Together," said Macron, "we will build a new, strong multilateralism
that defends pluralism and democracy in the face of ill winds."
Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and tightening the ties of dependency, and
eventually creating a One Europe whose destiny his crowd will forever control.
But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural nations, with a multilateral EU overlord, he is describing
a future that tens of millions of Europeans believe means the deaths of the nations that give meaning to their lives.
And they will not go gently into that good night.
In America, too, millions have come to recognize that there is a method to the seeming madness of open borders. Name of the game:
dispossessing the deplorables of the country they love.
With open borders and mass migration of over a million people a year into the USA, almost all of them from third-world countries
that vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the left is foreclosing the future. They're converting the greatest country of the West into
what Teddy Roosevelt called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." And in that boarding house the left will have a lock on the
presidency.
With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent
power.
For, as the millions of immigrants here legally and illegally register, and the vote is extended to prison inmates, ex-cons, and
16-year-olds, the political complexion of America will come to resemble San Francisco.
End goal: ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a despised establishment, never happens again.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President
and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists,
visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
"... In asserting that the EU was primarily formed to divert financial gains from the US, Trump promised that what he termed "disastrous trade deals" would stop, as he was going to personally "take on" the economic European powerhouse, as well as China, the largest economy in Asia and the second largest economy in the world. ..."
As the US president struggles at home with a legislature and judiciary increasingly
unwilling to do his bidding, new bluster and threats of a trade war with other nations appear
to have become Trump's rallying cry to the faithful. US President Donald Trump, at a meeting of
his followers in Michigan on Saturday, suggested that his administration would do everything
within its power to shift what the White House terms Washington DC's trade imbalance with the
European Union, and hinted darkly that Americans must prepare for a bumpy and uncomfortable
ride, according to RT.
In asserting that the EU was primarily formed to divert financial gains from the US,
Trump promised that what he termed "disastrous trade deals" would stop, as he was going to
personally "take on" the economic European powerhouse, as well as China, the largest economy in
Asia and the second largest economy in the world.
At a carefully curated supporters-only promotional speaking event in Michigan, the
strikingly unpopular US leader claimed that EU trade policies existed only "to take advantage
of the United States," cited by RT.
The US president warned of tough economic times for residents of the wealthiest country on
earth, declaring that, "In short term you may have to take some problems, long term -- you're
going to be so happy."
In keeping with an ongoing talking point repeatedly used by the president, Trump blamed
previous US administrations for the issues he describes as problems.
"I don't blame them," the US president declared -- referring to those nations with which he
seeks to engage in trade wars -- adding, "I blame past presidents and past leaders of our
country."
A May 1 deadline has been implemented for the March 1 Trump ultimatum to various nations --
including China and the EU -- to either curb aluminum and steel exports to the US or face
sharply-increased import taxes.
The ultimatum triggered a speedy global backlash alongside threats of retaliation from
China, the EU, and most other nations.
At a meeting of EU members in Sofia on Saturday, Belgian Finance Minister Johan Van
Overtveldt noted that Trump's strong-arm tactics will backfire, adding that trade wars are a
no-win scenario over the long term.
"A trade war is a losing game for everybody," Van Overtveldt observed.
The same for the un-elected Mandarins in Brussels. They are a real swamp. Lazy, clueless, overpaid and greedy still. They are
powerhungry despite their tremendous lack of any political clout.
Vasalls through blackmail by 3 letter agencies?
The same for german Mrs. Merkel. Being a german citizen, I am ashamed of thus woman and her orwellian ,politics'.
Today, the former CEO of Thyssen-Krupp, Prof. Dr. Dieter Spethmann, a lawyer, called for her urgent removal from the job by publishing
an Open Letter in mmnews (a blog).
With just days left until the May 1 deadline when a temporary trade waiver expires and the
US steel and aluminum tariffs kick in, and after last-ditch attempts first by Emmanuel Macron
and then Angela Merkel to win exemptions for Europe fell on deaf ears, the European Union is
warning about the costs of an imminent trade war with the US while bracing for one to erupt in
just three days after the White House signaled it will reject the bloc's demand for an
unconditional waiver from metals-import tariffs .
"A trade war is a losing game for everybody," Belgian Finance Minister Johan Van Overtveldt
told reporters in Sofia where Europe's finance ministers have gathered. " We should stay cool
when we're thinking about reactions but the basic point is that nobody wins in a trade war so
we try to avoid it at all costs. "
Well, Trump disagrees which is why his administration has given Europe, Canada and other
allies an option: accept quotas in exchange for an exemption from the steel and aluminum
tariffs that kick on Tuesday, when the temporary waiver expires. "We are asking of everyone:
quotas if not tariffs," Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said on Friday. This, as
Bloomberg points out , puts the EU in the difficult position of either succumbing to U.S.
demands that could breach international commerce rules, or face punitive tariffs.
Forcing governments to limit shipments of goods violates World Trade Organization rules,
which prohibit so-called voluntary export restraints. The demand is also contrary to the
entire trade philosophy of the 28-nation bloc, which is founded on the principle of the free
movement of goods.
Adding to the confusion, while WTO rules foresee the possibility of countries taking
emergency "safeguard" measures involving import quotas for specific goods, such steps are rare,
must be temporary and can be legally challenged. The EU is demanding a permanent, unconditional
waiver from the U.S. tariffs.
Meanwhile, amid the impotent EU bluster, so far only South Korea has been formally spared
from the duties, after reaching a deal last month to revise its bilateral free-trade agreement
with the U.S.
Europe, on the other hand, refuses to reach a compromise, and according to a EU official,
"Trump's demands to curb steel and aluminum exports to 90 percent of the level of the previous
two years are unacceptable." The question then is whether Europe's retaliatory move would be
painful enough to deter Trump and lift the sanctions: the official said the EU's response would
depend on the level of the quotas after which the punitive tariffs would kick in; meanwhile the
European Commission continues to "stress the bloc's consistent call for an unconditional,
permanent exclusion from the American metal levies."
"In the short run it might help them solve their trade balance but in the long run it will
worsen trade conditions," Bulgarian Finance Minister Vladislav Goranov said in Sofia. "The
tools they're using to make America great again might result in certain mistakes because free
world trade has proven to be the best solution for the development of the world so far."
Around the time of his meeting, French President Emmanuel Macron made it clear that the EU
is not afraid of an escalating trade war and will not be intimidated, saying " we won't talk
about anything while there's a gun pointed at our head. "
He may change his opinion once Trump fires the first bullet.
Adding to Europe's disappointment, during her visit to the White House on Friday, Angela
Merkel said she discussed trade disputes with Trump and that she failed to win a public
commitment to halt the tariffs.
Meanwhile, Merkel's new bffs over in France are also hunkering down in preparation for a
lengthy conflict. French economy minister Bruone Le Maire told his fellow European bureaucrats
Sofia during a discussion on taxation: "One thing I learned from my week in the U.S. with
President Macron: The Americans will only respect a show of strength."
Coming from the French, that observation is as accurate as it is delightfully ironic.
And now the real question is who has the most to lose from the imminent Transatlantic trade
war, and will surrender first.
"... "Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU." ..."
"Together," President Macron instructed President Trump, "we can resist the rise of
aggressive nationalisms that deny our history and divide the world."
In an address before Congress on Wednesday, France's Macron denounced "extreme nationalism,"
invoked the UN, NATO, WTO, and Paris climate accord, and implored Trump's America to come home
to the New World Order.
"The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism," Macron went on, "you are
the one now who has to help preserve and reinvent it."
His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron
seem to be less about tomorrow than yesterday.
For the world he celebrates is receding into history.
The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into an endless U.S. commitment
to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its
own defense.
Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits,
and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU.
Under the Paris climate accord, environmental restrictions are put upon the United States
from which China is exempt.
As for the UN, is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the
scores of billions we have plunged into it?
"Aggressive nationalism" is a term that might well fit Napoleon Bonaparte, whose Arc de
Triomphe sits on the Champs-Elysees. But does it really fit the Hungarians, Poles, Brits,
Scots, Catalans, and other indigenous peoples of Europe who are now using democratic methods
and means to preserve their national homes?
And the United States would seem an odd place to go about venting on "aggressive
nationalisms that deny our history."
Did Macron not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d'Administration
how the Americans acquired all that land?
General Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought
for six years to sever America's ties to the nation under which he was born.
How does Macron think Andrew Jackson acquired Florida from Spain, Sam Houston acquired Texas
from Mexico, and Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor acquired the Southwest? By bartering?
Aggressive nationalism is a good synonym for the Manifest Destiny of a republic that went
about relieving Spain of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
How does Macron think the "New World" was conquered and colonized if not by aggressive
British, French, and Spanish nationalists determined to impose their rule upon weaker
indigenous tribes?
Was it not nationalism that broke up the USSR into 15 nations?
Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and in 1967 captured the West
Bank and then annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive
nationalism?
Macron is an echo of George H.W. Bush who in Kiev in 1991 warned Ukrainians against the
"suicidal nationalism" of declaring independence from the Russian Federation.
"Aggressive nationalisms divide the world," warns Macron.
Well, yes, they do, which is why we have now 194 members of the U.N., rather than the
original 50. Is this a problem?
"Together," said Macron, "we will build a new, strong multilateralism that defends pluralism
and democracy in the face of ill winds."
Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and
tightening the ties of dependency, and eventually creating a One Europe whose destiny his crowd
will forever control.
But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural nations, with a
multilateral EU overlord, he is describing a future that tens of millions of Europeans believe
means the deaths of the nations that give meaning to their lives.
And they will not go gently into that good night.
In America, too, millions have come to recognize that there is a method to the seeming
madness of open borders. Name of the game: dispossessing the deplorables of the country they
love.
With open borders and mass migration of over a million people a year into the USA, almost
all of them from third-world countries that vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the left is
foreclosing the future. They're converting the greatest country of the West into what Teddy
Roosevelt called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." And in that boarding house the left
will have a lock on the presidency.
With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of
altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent power.
For, as the millions of immigrants here legally and illegally register, and the vote is
extended to prison inmates, ex-cons, and 16-year-olds, the political complexion of America will
come to resemble San Francisco.
End goal: ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a
despised establishment, never happens again.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
Let's remember, it was nationalism that led German, Japan and Italy into the two world wars.
Like everything, nationalism is not absolutely good or absolutely bad.
European nationalism that led them to colonize other weaker countries was not a good
thing. Nationalism that led the colonized countries to fight for independence was a good
thing.
The current rising of nationalism is not a good thing because it is often bound up with
white nationalism, a belief that the non-whites are inferior people undeserving of care and
happiness.
While I understand the anxiety of White people for losing their power of dominance,
multiculturalism is a future that can't be rolled back no matter how much they long for the
past white homogeneity. Because technology that made our world smaller and flatter can't be
uninvented.
I agree the West can't absorb all the immigrants who want to find new life in the West.
The solution is not to shun the immigrants and pretend they don't exist. The solution is to
acknowledge their suffering and their need for a stable home and help them build that at
their home countries.
Biologically, it is known that our genes get stronger with more diversity, that community
gets weaker with too much in breeding. So is our strength as a people, culturally,
philosophically, spiritually and creatively.
Another nice notion on the mis/abuse of the world nationalism from Mr. Buchanan. From a
Central European perspective, however Macron's alleged multilateralism as presented in
Washington is just a pretence peddled for the media – teaming up with Angela Merkel
(more specifically, with Germany's economic strength), Macron pretty much insists on reining
in the rebellious Visegrad 4 politically, without the slightest interest in reaching a
mutually beneficial compromise with them.
Pat points to Macron's globalist trade babble to Congress answers:
"Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade
deficits, and among the organization's biggest beneficiaries -- the EU."
President Trump's economic nationalist/fair trade agenda can fix this problem.
It strikes me that both France and Germany have large enough populations, economies and
technical know-how to produce effective modern fighting forces. Second, given the size of EU,
it is clear that the EU, if it could get its act together, would be capable of projecting
force in the world on an equal playing field with the United States.
The European Leaders appeals to Trump to pursue European interests in American foreign
policy are simply pathetic. If Europe has foreign interests, they will only be able to
protect and insure them if they retake their sovereignty and independence on the world
stage.
Europe can, and I suspect Europe will, because their problem is not just Trump and whether
he is impeached or re-elected, it is that European interests are being held hostage to the
American Electorate, which can and will return a Cowboy to the Presidency long after Trump is
gone.
I don't see how, given the developments with the Iran Deal, as well as other frictions,
that the NATO alliance can remain standing. None of the above reflections are particularly
ideological, and it seems impossible that Merkel and Macron couldn't entertain such
thoughts.
Europe can, and inevitably will, declare independence from the Americans, and I see NATO
unraveling and a new dawn of European "multilateralism" taking its place.
Nationalism and Multiculturalism cannot coexist separately, they're in tendsion as we all try
to balance the scales.
Without the benefit of nationalism, the Koreas would not have done what they just did. My
own "ethnic people" are the minority of 1.2 million Hungarians who live in Romania, who have
lived there for centuries and will not leave their homeland except many of them do, like my
parents did, and many of my other relatives and friends–the number was 1.5 million not
too long ago, and I was estimating 1.8, but man, we are dwindling. Only 1.2 million! That
shocks me. Nationalism keeps us alive. But if that's all we had, then the Romanians would be
totally nationalistic too, and they will forcefully seek to curtail minority rights,
language, culture, and slowly choke us out. That's the nationalist philosophy on
minorities.
That's your philosophy, and you're saying what will happen here is liberals will slowly
turn the country into San Francisco. You make the same error as my friend in another thread.
You cannot compare a city and its politics to a province or a country, or to any territory
that contains vast farmlands.
Pat, you are saying that it's possible for the entire Byzantine Empire to take on the
precise political complexion of the walled city of Constantinople. That city cannot feed
itself, it's not a self-contained social or political entity.
The roiling cities of San Francisco/Bay Area and glorious Constantinople are and were
completely and totally dependent on the countryside, and thus, on the politics the rurals
tend to practice. The rurals need to feel the effects of city politics too.
No city anywhere is self-contained, and most cities are more liberal than their
hinterlands, so should we do away with cities?
You can see it as symbiotic or some kind of yin and yang tension, however you prefer. But
one is good and the other is evil? I don't buy that.
I'm pretty sure I should say ALL cities are more liberal then the surrounding countrysides
which feed them. After all, the city is really just the most commonly known major local
market, which the villages eventually form organically. One village in particular stands out,
and the neighbors start flocking more and more to its market, some decide to move there and
contribute even more to the good energy, and voila, the first city is soon born.
Then it takes on pride, and starts thinking it's superior to the "rubes." It isn't. I was
lucky enough to get my foundations in a village, I know its incredible efficiency and
_conservative_ values and lifestyle, but trust me, there's plenty of drunkenness and scandal,
even among the sainted rubes who raised me.
Keep slapping down the cities, Pat, but don't exaggerate the threat, no self-supporting
society on Earth could live the way those freaks live in San Francisco, or Constantinople,
that's a fact.
My apologies, I know I go on a little long sometimes:
I am an American now, and America is my "us," I don't have mixed political allegiances,
just cultural ones. I don't live in my original homeland anymore. The choice to leave wasn't
mine, though.
If I had a choice to leave my country of origin, the land I was raised in and find
familiar–and I have been in America since age twelve, so I do see it as home and very
familiar–I would be daunted. Speaking as an average American adult, I know that moving
to another English-speaking and equally advanced country is complicated enough for the
average American. Imagine uprooting and going to a foreign land whose language you don't know
yet, where everything is a lot more expensive. Try getting a job there. Let's say you have no
college degree. Try it. I wouldn't want to.
Immigrants are tough as nails, I'm sorry to say. You have no chance against them,
actually. You cannot even conceive of the willpower and trials by fire. Most people quite
understandably can't fathom it, unless they actually try it or see it with their own
eyes.
"... The ultimate goal of the new world order as an ideology is total centralization of economic and governmental power into the hands of a select and unaccountable bureaucracy made up of international financiers. This is governance according the the dictates of Plato's Republic; a delusional fantasy world in which benevolent philosopher kings, supposedly smarter and more objective than the rest of us, rule from on high with scientific precision and wisdom. It is a world where administrators become gods. ..."
"... Large corporations receive unfair legal protection under limited liability as well as outright legislative protection from civil consequences (Monsanto is a perfect example of this). They also receive immense taxpayer funded welfare through bailouts and other sources when they fail to manage their business responsibly. All this while small businesses and entrepreneurs are impeded at every turn by taxation and legal obstacles. ..."
"... Only massive corporations supported by governments are able to exploit the advantages of international manufacturing and labor sources in a way that ensures long term success. Meanwhile economic models that promote true decentralization and localism become impractical because real competition is never allowed. The world has not enjoyed free markets in at least a century. What we have today is something entirely different. ..."
"... The fact is, globalist institutions and central banks permeate almost every corner of the world. Nations like Russia and China are just as heavily tied to the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements and international financial centers like Goldman Sachs as any western government. ..."
"... The first inclination of human beings is to discriminate against ideas and people they see as destructive and counter to their prosperity. Globalists therefore have to convince a majority of people that the very tribalism that has fueled our social evolution and some of the greatest ideas in history is actually the source of our eventual doom. ..."
"... As mentioned earlier, globalists cannot have their "new world order" unless they can convince the masses to ask for it. Trying to implement such a system by force alone would end in failure, because revolution is the natural end result of tyranny. Therefore, the new world order has to be introduced as if it had been formed by coincidence or by providence. Any hint that the public is being conned into accepting global centralization would trigger widespread resistance. ..."
"... This is why globalism is always presented in the mainstream media as a natural extension of civilization's higher achievement. Even though it was the dangerous interdependency of globalism that helped fuel the economic crisis of 2008 and continues to escalate that crisis to this day, more globalism is continually promoted as the solution to the problem. It is spoken of with reverence in mainstream economic publications and political discussions. It receives almost religious praise in the halls of academia. Globalism is socioeconomic ambrosia -- the food of deities. It is the fountain of youth. It is a new Eden. ..."
"... Obviously, this adoration for globalism is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that globalism is a positive force for humanity, let alone a natural one. There is far more evidence that globalism is a poisonous ideology that can only ever gain a foothold through trickery and through false flags. ..."
When globalists speak publicly about a "new world order" they are speaking about something
very specific and rather sacred in their little cult of elitism. It is not simply the notion
that civilization shifts or changes abruptly on its own; rather, it is their name for a
directed and engineered vision - a world built according to their rules, not a world that
evolved naturally according to necessity.
There are other names for this engineered vision, including the "global economic reset," or
the more general and innocuous term "globalism," but the intention is the same.
The ultimate goal of the new world order as an ideology is total centralization of economic
and governmental power into the hands of a select and unaccountable bureaucracy made up of
international financiers. This is governance according the the dictates of Plato's Republic; a
delusional fantasy world in which benevolent philosopher kings, supposedly smarter and more
objective than the rest of us, rule from on high with scientific precision and wisdom. It is a
world where administrators become gods.
Such precision and objectivity within human systems is not possible, of course . Human
beings are far too susceptible to their own biases and personal desires to be given
totalitarian power over others. The results will always be destruction and disaster. Then, add
to this the fact that the kinds of people who often pursue such power are predominantly
narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths. If a governmental structure of high level
centralization is allowed to form, it opens a door for these mentally and spiritually broken
people to play out their twisted motives on a global stage.
It is important to remember that sociopaths are prone to fabricating all kinds of high
minded ideals to provide cover for their actions. That is to say, they will adopt a host of
seemingly noble causes to rationalize their scramble for power, but in the end these
"humanitarians" only care about imposing their will on as many people as possible while feeding
off them for as long as time allows.
There are many false promises, misrepresentations and fraudulent conceptions surrounding the
narrative of globalism. Some of them are rather clever and subversive and are difficult to pick
out in the deliberately created fog. The schemes involved in implementing globalism are
designed to confuse the masses with crisis until they end up ASKING for more centralization and
less freedom.
Let's examine some of the most common propaganda methods and arguments behind the push for
globalization and a "new world order"
Con #1: Globalism Is About "Free Markets"
A common pro-globalism meme is the idea that globalization is not really centralization, but
decentralization. This plays primarily to the economic side of global governance, which in my
view is the most important because without economic centralization political centralization is
not possible.
Free markets according to Adam Smith, a pioneer of the philosophy, are supposed to provide
open paths for anyone with superior ideas and ingenuity to pursue those ideas without
interference from government or government aided institutions. What we have today under
globalism are NOT free markets. Instead, globalism has supplied unfettered power to
international corporations which cannot exist without government charter and government
financial aid.
The corporate model is completely counter to Adam Smith's original premise of free market
trade. Large corporations receive unfair legal protection under limited liability as well as
outright legislative protection from civil consequences (Monsanto is a perfect example of
this). They also receive immense taxpayer funded welfare through bailouts and other sources
when they fail to manage their business responsibly. All this while small businesses and
entrepreneurs are impeded at every turn by taxation and legal obstacles.
In terms of international trade being "free trade," this is not really the case either. Only
massive corporations supported by governments are able to exploit the advantages of
international manufacturing and labor sources in a way that ensures long term success.
Meanwhile economic models that promote true decentralization and localism become impractical
because real competition is never allowed. The world has not enjoyed free markets in at least a
century. What we have today is something entirely different.
Con #2: Globalism Is About A "Multipolar World"
This is a relatively new disinformation tactic that I attribute directly to the success of
the liberty movement and alternative economists. As the public becomes more educated on the
dangers of economic centralization and more specifically the dangers of central banks, the
globalists are attempting to shift the narrative to muddy the waters.
For example, the liberty movement has railed against the existence of the Federal Reserve
and fiat dollar hegemony to the point that our information campaign has been breaking into
mainstream thought. The problem is that globalism is not about the dollar, U.S. hegemony or the
so-called "deep state," which in my view is a distraction from the bigger issue at hand.
The fact is, globalist institutions and central banks permeate almost every corner of the
world. Nations like Russia and China are just as heavily tied to the IMF and the Bank for
International Settlements and international financial centers like Goldman Sachs as any western
government.
Part of the plan for the new world order, as has been openly admitted by globalists and
globalist publications, is the decline of the U.S. and the dollar system to make way for one
world financial governance through the IMF as well as the Special Drawing Rights basket as a
mechanism for the world reserve currency. The globalists WANT a less dominant U.S. and a more
involved East, while the East continues to call for more control of the global economy by the
IMF. This concept unfortunately flies over the heads of most economists, even in the liberty
movement.
So, the great lie being promoted now is that the fall of the U.S. and the dollar is a "good
thing" because it will result in "decentralization," a "multi-polar" world order and the
"death" of globalism. However, what is really happening is that as the U.S. falls globalist
edifices like the IMF and the BIS rise. We are moving from centralization to
super-centralization. Globalists have pulled a bait and switch in order to trick the liberty
movement into supporting the success of the East (which is actually also globalist controlled)
and a philosophy which basically amounts to a re-branding of the new world order as some kind
of decentralized paradise.
Con #3: Nationalism Is The Source Of War, And Globalism Will End It
If there's one thing globalists have a love/hate relationship with, it's humanity's natural
tribal instincts. On the one hand, they like tribalism because in some cases tribalism can be
turned into zealotry, and zealots are easy to exploit and manipulate. Wars between nations
(tribes) can be instigated if the tribal instinct is weighted with artificial fears and
threats.
On the other hand, tribalism lends itself to natural decentralization of societies because
tribalism in its best form is the development of many groups organized around a variety of
ideas and principles and projects. This makes the establishment of a "one world ideology" very
difficult, if not impossible. The first inclination of human beings is to discriminate against
ideas and people they see as destructive and counter to their prosperity. Globalists therefore
have to convince a majority of people that the very tribalism that has fueled our social
evolution and some of the greatest ideas in history is actually the source of our eventual
doom.
Nationalism served the globalists to a point, but now they need to get rid of it entirely.
This requires considerable crisis blamed on nationalism and "populist" ideals. Engineered war,
whether kinetic or economic, is the best method to scapegoat tribalism. Every tragedy from now
on must eventually be attributed to ideas of separation and logical discrimination against
negative ideologies. The solution of globalism will then be offered; a one world system in
which all separation is deemed "evil."
Con #4: Globalism Is Natural And Inevitable
As mentioned earlier, globalists cannot have their "new world order" unless they can
convince the masses to ask for it. Trying to implement such a system by force alone would end
in failure, because revolution is the natural end result of tyranny. Therefore, the new world
order has to be introduced as if it had been formed by coincidence or by providence. Any hint
that the public is being conned into accepting global centralization would trigger widespread
resistance.
This is why globalism is always presented in the mainstream media as a natural extension of
civilization's higher achievement. Even though it was the dangerous interdependency of
globalism that helped fuel the economic crisis of 2008 and continues to escalate that crisis to
this day, more globalism is continually promoted as the solution to the problem. It is spoken
of with reverence in mainstream economic publications and political discussions. It receives
almost religious praise in the halls of academia. Globalism is socioeconomic ambrosia -- the
food of deities. It is the fountain of youth. It is a new Eden.
Obviously, this adoration for globalism is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that
globalism is a positive force for humanity, let alone a natural one. There is far more evidence
that globalism is a poisonous ideology that can only ever gain a foothold through trickery and
through false flags.
We live in an era that represents an ultimate crossroads for civilization; a time of great
uncertainty. Will we seek truth in the trials we face, and thus the ability to create our own
solutions? Or, will we take a seemingly easier road by embracing whatever solutions are handed
to us by the establishment? Make no mistake -- the globalists already have a solution
prepackaged for us. They have been acclimating and conditioning the public to accept it for
decades now. That solution will not bring what it promises. It will not bring peace, but
eternal war. It will not bring togetherness, but isolation. It will not bring understanding,
but ignorance.
When globalists eventually try to sell us on a full-blown new world order, they will pull
out every conceivable image of heaven on Earth, but they will do this only after creating a
tangible and ever present hell.
* * *
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read,
visit our donations page here . We
greatly appreciate your patronage.
While the U.S. has intentionally kept it trade wide open with China, China has stolen trillions over the last 20 years in intellectual
property, including military technology. It has kept its markets tightly controlled and/or closed while the U.S. has made China
rich. Today China has a 1/2 Trillion trade surplus, is still stealing our intellectual property, and still keeps its markets tightly
controlled and mostly closed and under Chinese control. That might be ok if the goal of making China richer, a member of the world
community, and peaceful had worked, but it has not.
China is a hegemon using its wealth to grow its military, build up military forces in international sea lanes like the South China
sea, and bullying its neighbors like India, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, and others while also supporting the Ballistic Nuclear missile
program of NK. Its time for the USA to realize that China is an adversary, not because we want it that way, but because China
sees itself that way. And its time to stop letting an adversary use us, and steal from us, to further its imperial/hegemonic aggressive
ambitions. Apple can make iPhones in Vietnam, the Philippines, and India as cheaply as in China. Let's stop the theft, and shift
the flow of our money to the countries China is bullying like the Philippines, India, Vietnam, as well as more modern allies like
Taiwan and Japan. Let's make India rich, rather than let China continue to steal from us. Let China figure out how to keep hundreds
of millions of Chinese employed from that 1/2 Trillion surplus employed. Keep in mind a richer Vietnam and India with improved
ties with the USA and increasing wealth helped by the USA both border China. China still has time to play fair and leave the path
of hegemony and aggression, but everything point to the fact that they would rather be our adversary than our friend. So we have
to wake up and smell the coffee of that reality and move forward with our eyes open. Thank God Trump isn't sticking his head in
the sand like Bush, and especially weak, worthless, appeasing Obama.
typical trump supporter, can't even do simple arithmetic. on paper the US calculates the trade deficit to be $347 billion not
the half a trillion figure your lying president so often vomits out.
btw if moving production line to another country is so easy you people would've done it ages ago. but they're still in China,
why is that I wonder, since south east asia and india has much much lower wage than China, why dont the brilliant accountants
at Apple tell their CEO to move their production lines? =)
US Trade Deficit with China (2017) is $375.2B/year.
https://www.census.gov/fore... Moving a Production is easy. Moving a production line while improving productivity is very
hard. The US elites found it easier to move production lines overseas to take advantage of low-cost labor. In the alternative
they could have improve productivity so the US could produce the goods in question at competitive prices. That was the US history
from 1935 to 1985. Changing production processes entails risks, you could create competitors who might displace you. Moving a
standard process overseas gave you a cost advantage and increased the US elite 1% share of income from 10% GDP to 22% of GDP.
The benefits of competive destruction now flow to the Chinese. They Globalized Labor to reduce the power of the US working and
middle classes. See Blyth:
https://www.youtube.com/wat... (around 3:00 Min).
What stops China from IP rights violation now? In fact, this is an incentive to go to town with it. China has excess capacity
there is no way to halt production. China's challenge is to find markets. For instance, if they sell a product to a US owner at
$40 a piece where the US owner sells it to consumers at $900, China can sell it direct to consumers at $500 (or even $50) and
be better off. This is what will happen. Consumers outside USA will be able to buy US goods at a fraction of the price and with
time there will be importers in USA who will use third parties to import these to USA clandestinely. Why should US consumers pay
more anyway!
Talking about stealing who can compete with the whites in this game.
Pls go visit museums and galleries in London, Paris and other European capitals to see how much had been looted and stolen from
China, Asia, Arab world and Africa in the last 500.
The essentials of what Mr Brown wrote are that China got rich trading, got richer stealing IP, and spends riches on militarily
expanding with the stated goal of excluding the U.S. Navy west or south of Guam. From the perspective of an American of any political
variety, would you rather the U.S. observe this trend continuing or act to stop the IP theft and military challenge?
The best approach is go with fully reciprocal tariffs and restructure international trade around Warren Buffet's idea of a
market for Import Certificates based on US exports. This would automatically balance trade (an Import Certificate based on exports
is needed for any Import), provide a rules-based approach (vs. bureaucratic), and thus block massive rent-seeking around Trade
Policy. It would dampen potential trade wars because the focus is on reciprocity, balancing trade and not on tariffs to constantly
reduce imports. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... and
http://thehill.com/blogs/co... We can (perhaps) back off reciprocal trade when we better understand free-markets and can identify
nations who practice this freedom.
There is a reason why China carries a huge trade surplus against USA - Americans have benefitted Chinese cheaper goods and
services (than trying to procure them from other sources). They will pay more for the same service. This will reduce their savings
and increase borrowings. China progressively dumps the US dollar in petroleum purchases which will devalue the USD. This will
make imports even more expensive for Americans. China will devalue its currency again to overcome the tarrif impact.
The worlds largest market for commercial aircraft and Trump just put Boeing out of contention. Betcha Trump gets a yuuuugh
campaign contribution from Airbus on the condition he starts a trade war with the second biggest market of airliners, India, as
well.
China has been preparing for a trade war with the USA for some time. The belt/road project and petroyuan are 2 such projects
looking to build trade relations that bypass the USA altogether. It won't be that difficult for China to find markets for TV's,
dollar store plastic and consumer appliances. I'm sure it will hurt but there are other markets for their products.
Try finding another market for Boeing Dreamliners .... all those high paying specialized jobs. The good news is that with this
trade war markets open up for consumer appliances which Boeing can fill ..... the bad news is the stealth toasters they make will
cost $250,000, will only be operational one day a week as long as it isn't raining and you won't be able to find it on that day
because it's a stealth toaster.
Doesn't matter about finding another market for Dreamliners .. So your implying its ok for China to rip us off and we just
take it. Boeing has done well these last few years.. Boeing plans to increase 737 production to 57 aircraft a month not counting
the 767, 777 and 787. China drops their orders there are customers right behind them to take their slot on the line.
The worse part is the requirement to turn over your intellectual property to the state. Why should they spend the billions
in R&D when they can just wait it out, crack their market open a small bit, then take or steal the property with no recourse from
the owner. Once they have that IP they set up another business putting the original business into bankruptcy.
China is playing an economic war to win. Trump plans to win...
"The worse part is the requirement to turn over your intellectual property to the state."
If that's a condition of the contract why do US companies agree to the contract?
I have a lot of experience negotiating contracts with US firms. The US businesses I've dealt with have always sought favourable
terms to the extent that I really don't like doing business with them.
When I see terms in a contract I can't live with I walk away ..... and I've done it a lot. Now you're trying to tell me US
businesses were coerced into signing contracts that forced them to give away intellectual property?
I don't believe that for a moment.
I have a dozen stories of guys getting screwed over because they didn't bother with the details of a contract. If you are that
naive you take your lumps and if you're smart you learn from it.
What you don't do is keep signing the same agreements that has technology transfers in the terms then cry foul after doing
it for thirty or forty years.
The way I see it technology transfer was likely seen by the Chinese as part of the overall compensation. You got the product
made for a killer price on the condition you tell them how to make it themselves.
You should know that no one works for nothing. If you're getting an unbelievably good price look at the fine print.
Given who your president is, the business he's in and his reputation as a business man I have a pretty good idea what he's
really up to with this tactic and it might play well to the peanut gallery but the Chinese are not going to be played so easily
Most developing countries require some level of technology transfer before they permit foreign firms to operate inside their
borders. It's their only way of avoiding becoming commercial colonies of countries like the US. If firms don't like it, the solution
is as you suggest: they can decline to set up in foreign countries and simply export finished products made in their home country.
Lots of multinational firms have legitimate grievances against the Chinese government for being lax in policing and prosecuting
copyright laws. Fake prestige brand fashion, handbags, cell phones and the like, made in China, are openly sold throughout Asia.
But the crap about 'intellectual property theft' is nonsense.
There is no such thing as FAIR trade among vastly unequal economies. China has a billion citizens (an endless supply of cheap
labor). China is a major polluter (not limited like the US is with it's EPA). The laws concerning wages, working-hours, over-time,
workman's compensation, safety, pensions don't compare between economies. Thus, the US is at a severe competitive disadvantage.
China plays dirty on top of their already significant economic advantages. FAIR trade between China and the US is a fairy-tale.
I support Trump. China is not our friend.
Industrial revolution and consequently polution lasted for decades in west before China jumped into the game. So your "carbon
footprint" is much higher cumulatevely than China's. Also you don't complain about countries like Bangladesh where USA companies
exploit people like modern day slaves. Drop that moralising please! Globalisation is 2 way street, in begining when you "oppened"
3. World markets and flooded them with your superior technologies and products and practically plundered them, it wasn't a problem.
Now when things changed you whine like babies.
Even if U.S. exports to China went to zero, that'd be way less than 1% of our GDP. If China's exports to the U.S. went to zero,
that be about 5% of its GDP.
When one reads Chinese propaganda, Xi is banking heavily on U.S. politics to stop the U.S. from getting tough on China's trade
cheating. He thinks that farmers and other business people will stop the Trump admin from enacting tariffs and other measures
because of fear of Chinese retaliation. Xi faces no similar domestic political pressure because China is an authoritarian state.
The only thing that can mess-up gaining a U.S. trade victory is self-defeat. People here in the U.S. should stop overreacting
and playing into the hands of Xi. Let's get some backbone people!
Given that the U.S. has severely reduced our industrial metal production and manufacturing by failing to modernize years ago,
we do need China. The same goes for several other industrial and manufacturing products. China's pork production is currently
battling a corona virus from bats that is killing off their young swine. Our food products are important to the Chinese given
the high levels of pollution in their country. The U.S. is most vulnerable because China provides nearly all of the Rare Earth
Elements (REEs) that are essential for our high tech industries and defense equipment.
The U.S. would face a real problem anyway if the shipping lanes were closed down because of conflicts or natural catastrophes...better
to prepare for the worst now and get China to open up trade barriers or follow fairer trade policy.
The worst Chinese import is the Marxist-Leninist ideology that slaughtered over 100 million Chinese...blame the Russians!
U.S. free market ideological imports lifted a billion plus Chinese out of poverty.
For anyone travelling in China, being labelled a Laowei or foreignor is commonplace. The current government is pushing a defensive,
Han Chinese based, zenophobic system that seeks to monopolize ideas and keep the imported Marxist-Leninist ideology in total control
of the thoughts and minds of the average Chinese citizen.
The U.S. can't change that, but we can look out for our own sovereign interests in better trade deals, re-establishing vital mining,
industrial and/or manufacturing capabilities, and maintaining strategic reserves of essential elements.
This Guardian pressitute can't even mentions the term neoliberalism, to day noting to accept that neoliberalism now experience a
crisis (which actually started in 2008)
Globalization blowback will not totally bury neoliberal globalization, but it puts some limits on transnational corporations racket...
hat is happening to national politics? Every day in the US, events further exceed the imaginations of absurdist novelists and comedians;
politics in the UK still shows few signs of recovery after the "
national nervous breakdown " of Brexit.
France "
narrowly
escaped a heart attack " in last year's elections, but the country's leading daily feels this has done little to alter the "
accelerated decomposition " of the political system. In neighbouring Spain, El País goes so far as to say that "the rule of law,
the democratic system and even the market economy are in doubt"; in Italy, "the collapse of the establishment" in the March elections
has even brought talk of a "barbarian arrival", as if Rome were falling once again. In Germany, meanwhile, neo-fascists are preparing
to take up their role as
official opposition , introducing anxious volatility into the bastion of European stability.
But the convulsions in national politics are not confined to the west. Exhaustion, hopelessness, the dwindling effectiveness of
old ways: these are the themes of politics all across the world. This is why energetic authoritarian "solutions" are currently so
popular: distraction by war (Russia, Turkey); ethno-religious "purification" (India, Hungary, Myanmar); the magnification of presidential
powers and the corresponding abandonment of civil rights and the rule of law (China, Rwanda, Venezuela, Thailand, the Philippines
and many more).
What is the relationship between these various upheavals? We tend to regard them as entirely separate – for, in political life,
national solipsism is the rule. In each country, the tendency is to blame "our" history, "our" populists, "our" media, "our" institutions,
"our" lousy politicians. And this is understandable, since the organs of modern political consciousness – public education and mass
media – emerged in the 19th century from a globe-conquering ideology of unique national destinies. When we discuss "politics", we
refer to what goes on inside sovereign states; everything else is "foreign affairs" or "international relations" – even in this era
of global financial and technological integration. We may buy the same products in every country of the world, we may all use Google
and Facebook, but political life, curiously, is made of separate stuff and keeps the antique faith of borders.
Yes, there is awareness that similar varieties of populism are erupting in many countries. Several have noted the parallels in
style and substance between leaders such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orbán and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. There
is a sense that something is in the air – some coincidence of feeling between places. But this does not get close enough. For there
is no coincidence. All countries are today embedded in the same system, which subjects them all to the same pressures: and it is
these that are squeezing and warping national political life everywhere. And their effect is quite the opposite – despite the desperate
flag-waving – of the oft-remarked "
resurgence of the nation state ".
The future of economic globalisation, for which the Davos men and women see themselves as
caretakers, had been shaken by a series of political earthquakes. "Globalisation" can mean many
things, but what lay in particular doubt was the long-advanced project of increasing free trade
in goods across borders. The previous summer, Britain had voted to leave the largest trading
bloc in the world. In November, the unexpected victory of Donald Trump , who vowed to withdraw from
major trade deals, appeared to jeopardise the trading relationships of the world's richest
country. Forthcoming elections in France and Germany suddenly seemed to bear the possibility of
anti-globalisation parties garnering better results than ever before. The barbarians weren't at
the gates to the ski-lifts yet – but they weren't very far.
In a panel titled Governing Globalisation , the economist
Dambisa Moyo , otherwise a well-known supporter of free trade, forthrightly asked the
audience to accept that "there have been significant losses" from globalisation. "It is not
clear to me that we are going to be able to remedy them under the current infrastructure," she
added. Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund,
called for a policy hitherto foreign to the World Economic Forum : "more redistribution".
After years of hedging or discounting the malign effects of free trade, it was time to face
facts: globalisation caused job losses and depressed wages, and the usual Davos proposals
– such as instructing affected populations to accept the new reality – weren't
going to work. Unless something changed, the political consequences were likely to get
worse.
The backlash to globalisation has helped fuel the extraordinary political shifts of the past
18 months. During the close race to become the Democratic party candidate, senator Bernie
Sanders relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton on her
support for free trade . On the campaign trail, Donald Trump openly proposed tilting the
terms of trade in favour of American industry. "Americanism, not globalism, shall be our
creed," he bellowed at the Republican national convention last July.
The vote for Brexit was strongest in the regions of the UK devastated by the flight of
manufacturing. At Davos in January, British prime minister Theresa May, the leader of the party
of capital and inherited wealth, improbably picked up the theme, warning that, for many, "talk
of greater globalisation means their jobs being outsourced and wages undercut." Meanwhile,
the European far right has been warning against free movement of people as well as goods.
Following her qualifying victory in the first round of France's presidential election,
Marine Le Pen warned darkly that "the main thing at stake in this election is the rampant
globalisation that is endangering our civilisation."
It was only a few decades ago that globalisation was held by many, even by some critics, to
be an inevitable, unstoppable force. "Rejecting globalisation," the American journalist George
Packer has written, "was like rejecting the sunrise." Globalisation could take place in
services, capital and ideas, making it a notoriously imprecise term; but what it meant most
often was making it cheaper to trade across borders – something that seemed to many at
the time to be an unquestionable good. In practice, this often meant that industry would move
from rich countries, where labour was expensive, to poor countries, where labour was cheaper.
People in the rich countries would either have to accept lower wages to compete, or lose their
jobs. But no matter what, the goods they formerly produced would now be imported, and be even
cheaper. And the unemployed could get new, higher-skilled jobs (if they got the requisite
training). Mainstream economists and politicians upheld the consensus about the merits of
globalisation, with little concern that there might be political consequences.
Back then, economists could calmly chalk up anti-globalisation sentiment to a marginal group
of delusional protesters, or disgruntled stragglers still toiling uselessly in "sunset
industries". These days, as sizable constituencies have voted in country after country for
anti-free-trade policies, or candidates that promise to limit them, the old self-assurance is
gone. Millions have rejected, with uncertain results, the punishing logic that globalisation
could not be stopped. The backlash has swelled a wave of soul-searching among economists, one
that had already begun to roll ashore with the financial crisis. How did they fail to foresee
the repercussions?
Comment of the Day : Dennis Drew :
GLOBALIZATION: WHAT DID PAUL KRUGMAN MISS? : "I'm always the first to say that if today's
10 dollars an hour jobs paid 20 dollars an hour
(Walgreen's, Target, fast food less w/much high labor costs) that would solve most social
problems caused by loss of manufacturing (to out sourcing or automation). The money's there.
Bottom 40% income take about 10% of overall income. "Mid" take about 67.5%. Top 1%, 22.5%.
The instrument of moving 10% more from "mid" to the bottom is higher consumer prices arriving
with the sudden reappearance of nationwide, high union density (see below for the easy
application). The instrument of retrieving the "mid's" lost 10% is Eisenhower level
confiscatory taxes for the top 1%.
Jack Kennedy lowered max income tax rate from 92% to 70% to improve incentives (other cuts
followed). But with the top 1% wages now 20X (!) what they were in the 60s while per capita
only doubled since, there will be all the incentive in the world left over while we relieve
them of the burden of stultifying wealth. ;-)
Brad argues that globalization is as good for the USA as Krugman thought in the 1990s. He has three key arguments. One is that
the manufacturing employment which has been off shored is unskilled assembly and such boring jobs are not good jobs. The second is
that the problems faced by US manufacturing workers are mostly due to electing Reagan and W Bush and not trade. Finally he notes
that local economic decline is not new at all and that trade with South Carolina did it to Massachusetts long before China entered
the picture. The third point works against his general argument and is partly personal. I won't discuss it except to note that Brad
is right.
I have criticisms of Brad's first two arguments. The first is that the boring easy manufacturing jobs were well paid. They are
bad jobs in that thinking of doing them terrifies me even more than work in general terrifies me, but they are (or mostly were) well
paid jobs. There are still strong forces that make wages paid to people who work near each other at the same firm similar. As very
much noted by Dennis Drew, unions used to be very strong and used that strenth to help all employees of unionized firms (and employess
of non-union firms whose managers were afraid of unions). I think that, like Krugman, Brad assumes that wages are based on skills
importantly including ones acquired on the job. I think this leaves a lot out.
... ... ...
Kaleberg , April 1, 2018 4:03 pm
An argument no one mentions is about comparative advantage. The US had a comparative advantage in manufacturing. It had the
engineers, the technicians, the labor, the venture capital and so on. When transportation costs are low and barriers minimal,
comparative advantage is something a nation creates, not some natural attribute. The US sacrificed that comparative advantage
on the altar of ideological purity. Manufacturing advantage is an especially useful type of advantage since it can permeate the
remaining economy. We sacrificed it, and we have been paying for it. Odds are, we will continue to pay.
likbez , April 1, 2018 6:38 pm
The problem here is that neoliberalism and globalization are two sides of the same coin.
If you reject globalization, you need to reject neoliberalism as a social system. You just can't sit between two chairs (as
Trump attempts to do propagating "bastard neoliberalism" -- neoliberal doctrine is still fully applicable within the country,
but neoliberal globalization is rejected)
Rejection of neoliberal globalization also implicitly suggests that Reagan "quiet coup" that restored the power of financial
oligarchy and subsequent dismantling of the New Deal Capitalism was a disaster for common people in the USA.
While this is true, that's a very tough call. That explains DeLong behavior.
"... And, quoting his colleague Archon Fung from the Harvard Kennedy School, " American politics is no longer characterized by the rule of the median voter, if it ever was. Instead, in contemporary America the median capitalist rules as both the Democratic and Republican parties adjust their policies to attract monied interests." And finally Mr. Ringen adds, "American politicians are aware of having sunk into a murky bog of moral corruption but are trapped." ..."
"... Trump merely reflects the dysfunctionality and internal contradictions of American politics. He is the American Gorbachev, who kicked off perestroika at the wrong time. ..."
"... Global financial services exercise monopolistic power over national policies, unchecked by any semblance of global political power. Trust is haemorrhaging. The European Union, the greatest ever experiment in super-national democracy, is imploding ..."
"... Probably this is because the Western model of neoliberalism does not provide any real freedom of commerce, speech, or political activity, but rather imposes a regime of submission within a clearly defined framework. ..."
"... america is going through withdraw from 30 years of trickledown crap. the young are realizing that the shithole they inherit does not have to be a shithole, and the old pathetic white old men who run the show will be dead soon. ..."
"... The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators. ..."
"... However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front. ..."
"... So the US Imperialists are being eclipsed by the Sino-Russo Alliance and wants us to believe this is a great tragedy. Meanwhile the same crew of Liberal -neoCon Deep Staters presses on with wars and tensions that are slipping out of control. ..."
Haass writes: " Liberalism is in retreat. Democracies are feeling the effects of growing populism. Parties of the political extremes
have gained ground in Europe. The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the EU attested to the loss of elite influence.
Even the US is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its own president on the country's media, courts, and law-enforcement institutions.
Authoritarian systems, including China, Russia, and Turkey, have become even more top-heavy. Countries such as Hungary and Poland
seem uninterested in the fate of their young democracies
"We are seeing the emergence of regional orders. Attempts to build global frameworks are failing."
Haass has previously made alarmist statements , but this
time he is employing his rhetoric to point to the global nature of this phenomenon. Although between the lines one can easily read,
first of all, a certain degree of arrogance -- the idea that only we liberals and globalists really know how to administer foreign
policy -- and second, the motifs of conspiracy.
"Today's other major powers, including the EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan, could be criticized for what they are doing,
not doing, or both."
Probably this list could be expanded by adding a number of Latin American countries, plus Egypt, which signs arms deals with North
Korea while denying any violation of UN sanctions, and the burgeoning Shiite axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
But Haass is crestfallen over the fact that it is Washington itself that is changing the rules of the game and seems completely
uninterested in what its allies, partners, and clients in various corners of the world will do.
" America's decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades thus marks a turning point. The liberal
world order cannot survive on its own, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be
a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike."
Richard Haass's colleague at the CFR, Stewart Patrick, quite agrees with the claim that it is
the US itself that is burying the liberal world order . However, it's not doing it on its own, but alongside China. If the US
had previously been hoping that the process of globalization would gradually transform China (and possibly destroy it, as happened
to the Soviet Union earlier), then the Americans must have been quite surprised by how it has actually played out. That country modernized
without being Westernized, an idea that had once been endorsed by the leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini.
Now China is expanding its influence in Eurasia in its own way, and this is for the most part welcomed by its partner countries.
But this has been a painful process for the US, as it is steadily and irrevocably undermining its hegemony.
"Its long-term ambition is to dismantle the U.S. alliance system in Asia, replacing it with a more benign (from Beijing's perspective)
regional security order in which it enjoys pride of place, and ideally a sphere of influence commensurate with its power.
China's Belt and Road initiative is part and parcel of this effort, offering not only (much-needed) infrastructure investments
in neighboring countries but also the promise of greater political influence in Southeast, South, and Central Asia. More aggressively,
China continues to advance outrageous jurisdictional claims over almost the entirety of the South China Sea , where it continues
its island-building activities, as well as engaging in provocative actions against Japan in the East China Sea," writes Patrick.
And as for the US:
"The United States, for its part, is a weary titan, no longer willing to bear the burdens of global leadership, either economically
or geopolitically.
Trump treats alliances as a protection racket, and the world economy as an arena of zero-sum competition. The result is a fraying
liberal international order without a champion willing to invest in the system itself. "
One can agree with both authors' assessments of the changed behavior of one sector of the US establishment, but this is about
more than just Donald Trump (who is so unpredictable that he has
staffed his own team with a member of the very swamp he was preparing to drain) and North American populism. One needs to look
much deeper.
"Today, American democratic exceptionalism is defined by a system that is dysfunctional in all the conditions that are needed
for settlement and loyalty...
Capitalism has collapsed into crisis in an orgy of deregulation. Money is transgressing into politics and undermining democracy
itself ."
And, quoting his colleague Archon Fung from the Harvard Kennedy School, " American politics is no longer characterized by
the rule of the median voter, if it ever was. Instead, in contemporary America the median capitalist rules as both the Democratic
and Republican parties adjust their policies to attract monied interests." And finally Mr. Ringen adds, "American politicians are
aware of having sunk into a murky bog of moral corruption but are trapped."
Trump merely reflects the dysfunctionality and internal contradictions of American politics. He is the American Gorbachev,
who kicked off perestroika at the wrong time. Although it must be conceded that if Hillary Clinton had become president, the
US collapse would have been far more painful, particularly for the citizens of that country. We would have seen yet more calamitous
reforms, a swelling influx of migrants, a further decline in the nation's manufacturing base, and the incitement of new conflicts.
Trump is trying to keep the body of US national policy somewhat alive through hospice care, but what's really needed is a major restructuring,
including far-reaching political reforms that would allow the country's citizens to feel that they can actually play a role in its
destiny.
These developments have spread to many countries in Europe, a continent that, due to its transatlantic involvement, was already
vulnerable and susceptible to the current geopolitical turbulence. The emergence of which, by the way, was largely a consequence
of that very policy of neoliberalism.
Stein Ringen continues on that score:
"Global financial services exercise monopolistic power over national policies, unchecked by any semblance of global political
power. Trust is haemorrhaging. The European Union, the greatest ever experiment in super-national democracy, is imploding
"
It is interesting that panic has seized Western Europe and the US -- the home of transatlanticism, although different versions
of this recipe for liberalism have been employed in other regions -- suffice it to recall the experience of Singapore or Brazil.
But they don't seem as panicked there as in the West.
Probably this is because the Western model of neoliberalism does not provide any real freedom of commerce, speech, or political
activity, but rather imposes a regime of submission within a clearly defined framework. Therefore, the destruction of the current
system entails the loss of all those dividends previously enjoyed by the liberal political elites of the West that were obtained
by speculating in the stock market, from the mechanisms of international foreign-exchange payments (the dollar system), and through
the instruments of supranational organizations (the UN, WTO, and World Bank). And, of course, there are the fundamental differences
in the cultural varieties of societies.
In his book The Hidden God, Lucien Goldmann draws some interesting conclusions, suggesting that the foundations of Western culture
have rationalistic and tragic origins, and that a society immersed in these concepts that have "abolish[ed] both God and the community
[soon sees] the disappearance of any external norm which might guide the individual in his life and actions." And because by its
very nature liberalism must carry on, in its mechanical fashion, "liberating" the individual from any form of structure (social classes,
the Church, family, society, and gender, ultimately liberating man from his very self), in the absence of any standards of deterrence,
it is quite logical that the Western world was destined to eventually find itself in crisis. And the surge of populist movements,
protectionist measures, and conservative policies of which Haass and other liberal globalists speak are nothing more than examples
of those nations' instinct for self-preservation. One need not concoct conspiracy theories about Russia or Putin interfering in the
US election (which Donald Trump has also denied, noting only that support was seen for Hillary Clinton, and it is entirely true that
a portion of her financial backing did come from Russia). The baseline political decisions being made in the West are in step with
the current crisis that is evident on so many levels. It's just that, like always, the Western elites need their ritual whipping
boy(although it would be more accurate to call it a human sacrifice). This geopolitical shake-up began in the West as a result of
the implicit nature of the very project of the West itself.
But since alternative development scenarios exist, the current system is eroding away. And other political projects are starting
to fill the resultant ideological void -- in both form as well as content.
Thus it's fairly likely that the current crisis of liberalism will definitively bury the unipolar Western system of hegemony.
And the budding movements of populism and regional protectionism can serve as the basis for a new, multipolar world order.
Oh, Wicked Witch of the West Wing, the cleansing fire awaits thy demise! Those meds can only keep you standing for so long.
Keep tripping. Keep stumbling. Satan calls you to him. The day approacheth. Tick tock tick tock. 👹😂
Democracy ultimately melts down into chaos. We have a perfectly good US Constitution, why don't we go back to using it as written?
That said, I am for anything that makes the elites become common.
Democracy is a form of government. Populism is a movement. Populist movements come about when the current form of government
is failing ... historically it seems they seldom choose wisely.
Ridiculous cunt Hillary thinks after getting REJECTED by the voters in the USA that somehow being asked to "go the fuck away
and shut the fuck up" makes her a women's leader. The cocksucker Soros and some of these other non-elected globalist should keep
in mind that while everybody has a right to an opinion: it took the Clinton Crime Family and lots of corruption to create the
scandals that sets a Clinton Crime Family member aside, and why Soros was given a free pass on election meddling and not others
requires congressional investigation and a special prosecutor. And then there is that special kind of legal and ignorant opinion
like David Hogg who I just disagree with, making him in my opinion and many fellow NRA members a cocksucker and a cunt. I'd wish
shingles on David Hogg, Hillary Clinton, and Soros.
america is going through withdraw from 30 years of trickledown crap. the young are realizing that the shithole they inherit
does not have to be a shithole, and the old pathetic white old men who run the show will be dead soon.
all i see is a bunch of fleeting old people who found facebook 10 years late are temporarily empowered since they can now connect
with other equally impotent old people.
The usual self-serving swill from the Best and the Brightest of the Predator Class out of the CFR via Haas.
The liberal order aka the New British Empire, was born 70 years ago by firebombing and nuking undefended civilian targets.
It proceeded to launch serial genocidal rampages in the Koreas, SE Asia, Latin America until finally burning down a large portion
of the Middle East.
The fact that there has not been a catastrophic nuclear war is pure dumb luck. The Deep State came within seconds of engineering
a nuclear cataclysm off the waters of Cuba in 1962. When JFK started dismantling the CIA Deep State and ending the Cold War with
the USSR, Dulles dispatched a CIA hit-squad to gun down the President. (RFK and Nixon immediately understood the assassination
was a CIA-led wet-works operation since they chaired the assassination committees themselves in the past).
The liberal order is dying because it is led by criminally depraved Predators who have pauperized the labor force and created
political strife, though the populists don't pose much threat to the liberal-order Predators.
However by shipping the productive Western economies overseas to Asia, the US in particular cannot finance and physically
support a military empire or the required R&D to stay competitive on the commercial and military front.
So the US Imperialists are being eclipsed by the Sino-Russo Alliance and wants us to believe this is a great tragedy. Meanwhile
the same crew of Liberal -neoCon Deep Staters presses on with wars and tensions that are slipping out of control.
Liberalism is anything but liberal... and I suppose that is the problem with it. It aims to do to the western world what Mao
did to China and Stalin did to Russia. Many people were murdered or imprisoned and people had no rights, just obligations to dictators
and their cronies.
I think this world is past the point where any benefit is gained from having "owners of the people", benevolent or otherwise.
And we certainly do not benefit from perverted demonic entities even if they come bearing technology. The price is too high.
Populism goes along with essential freedoms for the human race.-
As I told the idiotic retards who argued with me on Prodigy fucking 27 years ago, China will not change because of increased
trading and the West making them wealthier. In fact, just the opposite. I wonder if they have caught on yet?
The recent German Marshall Fund's Brussels Forum, which brought together influential
American neocons and trans-Atlantic leaders from Europe, marked the failure of the
Western-centered globalist idea, Sputnik political observer Dmitry Kosyrev notes, adding that
meanwhile, Russia and China continue to facilitate the emergence of a multi-polar world.
Globalists have admitted their defeat by recognizing that neither Russia nor China will dance
to their tune, Sputnik political observer Dmitry Kosyrev writes
.
"It seems that work has begun to revive the half-dead 'liberal world order'," the observer
noted. "It will take quite some time, and it is not necessary that the United States will be
its epicenter. However, this 'order' will not be global -- goodbye, illusions. It will involve
only part of the countries while China, Russia and some other states won't be affected [by the
project]."
The observer referred to the 2018 German Marshall Fund's (GMF) Brussels Forum ,
citing Josh Rogin of The Washington Post. The Brussels Forum is an annual high-level
meeting of influential politicians, corporate leaders and scholars from North America and
Europe. The event had the eloquent title "Revise, Rebuild, Reboot: Strategies for a Time of
Distrust." The organizers of the forum raised the alarm over "a decline in trust, both in
domestic and international spheres."
"We lost sight of what it took to create this international order and what an act of
defiance of history and even defiance of human nature this order has been. We have the capacity
to push back -- we just need to understand the pushback needs to start occurring," Robert
Kagan, neoconservative American historian and husband of former US Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland told the forum, as quoted by Rogin.
For
his part, Senator Chris Murphy bemoaned the fact that US President Donald Trump is not
interested in "projecting liberal values" into other countries, let alone trade liberalization.
The White House's recent
initiative to introduce additional tariffs on aluminum and steel imports has prompted a
wave of criticism from the US' global partners and allies.
Furthermore, the US president made it clear that the US will not support numerous
international institutions and withdrew from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Murphy called upon the defenders of the liberal world order to team up and "build new
alliances within their societies."
On the other hand, the transatlantic bloc has seemingly recognized its failure to impose a
Western-style political order on Russia and China.
"We can no longer expect that the principles of liberal democracy will expand across the
globe," Rogin wrote. "We can no longer assume the United States will carry the bulk of the
burden."
Following Trump's win in 2016, The New York Times
called Germany's Angela Merkel the last defender of the trans-Atlantic alliance and liberal
values.
However, not everything is rosy in the European garden, Kosyrev noted referring to
the
rise of right-wing forces in Austria, Italy, Hungary, Poland and other EU member states.
Although Merkel still remains at the helm of German politics, the right-wing Alternative for
Germany (AfD) entered the Bundestag in September 2017 as the third-largest party.
Given all of the above, the rebuilding of the liberal international order will take years,
Kosyrev presumed.
According to the political observer, Russia and China could benefit from the inner struggle
in the trans-Atlantic camp. On the other hand, he does not exclude that the West will continue
its overseas operations to maintain the status quo. To illustrate his point, Kosyrev referred
to Syria: While Washington has virtually no leverage to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
it
continues its saber-rattling, threatening Damascus with a massive strike.
The failure of globalism means the further rise of a multi-polar order based on the
principles of equality and sovereignty with its own norms and regulations, the political
observer concluded.
The views and opinions expressed by Dmitry Kosyrev are those of the contributor and do
not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
The Trump administration's proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports will target China, but not the way most
observers believe. For the US, the most important bilateral trade issue has nothing to do with the Chinese authorities'
failure to reduce excess steel capacity, as promised, and stop subsidizing exports.
CAMBRIDGE – Like almost all economists and most policy analysts, I
prefer low trade tariffs or no tariffs at all. How, then, can US President Donald Trump's decision to impose substantial
tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum be justified?
3
Trump no doubt sees potential political gains in steel- and
aluminum-producing districts and in increasing the pressure on Canada and Mexico as his administration renegotiates the
North American Free Trade Agreement. The European Union has announced plans to retaliate against US exports, but in the
end the EU may negotiate – and agree to reduce current tariffs on US products that exceed US tariffs on European
products.
But the real target of the steel and aluminum tariffs is China. The
Chinese government has promised for years to reduce excess steel capacity, thereby cutting the surplus output that is
sold to the United States at subsidized prices. Chinese policymakers have postponed doing so as a result of domestic
pressure to protect China's own steel and aluminum jobs. The US tariffs will balance those domestic pressures and
increase the likelihood that China will accelerate the reduction in subsidized excess capacity.
Because the tariffs are being levied under a provision of US trade
law that applies to national security, rather than dumping or import surges, it will be possible to exempt imports from
military allies in NATO, as well as Japan and South Korea, focusing the tariffs on China and avoiding the risk of a
broader trade war. The administration has not yet said that it will focus the tariffs in this way; but, given that they
are being introduced with a phase-in period, during which trade partners may seek exemptions, such targeting seems to be
the likeliest scenario.
For the US, the most important trade issue with China concerns
technology transfers, not Chinese exports of subsidized steel and aluminum. Although such subsidies hurt US producers of
steel and aluminum, the resulting low prices also help US firms that use steel and aluminum, as well as US consumers
that buy those products. But China unambiguously hurts US interests when it steals technology developed by US firms.
Until a few years ago, the Chinese government was using the Peoples
Liberation Army's (PLA) sophisticated cyber skills to infiltrate American companies and steal technology. Chinese
officials denied all wrongdoing until President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping met in California in June 2013.
Obama showed Xi detailed proof that the US had obtained through its own cyber espionage. Xi then agreed that the Chinese
government would no longer use the PLA or other government agencies to steal US technology. Although it is difficult to
know with certainty, it appears that such cyber theft has been reduced dramatically.
The current technology theft takes a different form. American firms
that want to do business in China are often required to transfer their technology to Chinese firms as a condition of
market entry. These firms "voluntarily" transfer production knowhow because they want access to a market of 1.3 billion
people and an economy as large as that of the US.
These firms complain that the requirement of technology transfer is a
form of extortion. Moreover, they worry that the Chinese government often delays their market access long enough for
domestic firms to use their newly acquired technology to gain market share.
1
The US cannot use traditional remedies for trade disputes or World
Trade Organization procedures to stop China's behavior. Nor can the US threaten to take Chinese technology or require
Chinese firms to transfer it to American firms, because the Chinese do not have the kind of leading-edge technology that
US firms have.
So, what can US policymakers do to help level the playing field?
This brings us back to the proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum. In
my view, US negotiators will use the threat of imposing the tariffs on Chinese producers as a way to persuade China's
government to abandon the policy of "voluntary" technology transfers. If that happens, and US firms can do business in
China without being compelled to pay such a steep competitive price, the threat of tariffs will have been a very
successful tool of trade policy.
"... The UK is clearly past the point where it could undo Brexit . There was pretty much no way to back out of Brexit, given the ferocious support for it in the tabloids versus the widespread view that a second referendum that showed that opinion had changed was a political necessity for a reversal. Pundits and politicians were cautious about even voicing the idea. ..."
"... The UK still faces high odds of significant dislocations as of Brexit date . All sorts of agreements to which the UK is a party via the EU cease to be operative once the UK become a "third country". These other countries have every reason to take advantage of the UK's week and administratively overextended position. Moreover, these countries can't entertain even discussing interim trade arrangements (new trade deals take years) until they have at least a high concept idea of what the "future relationship" with the EU will look like. Even though it looks likely to be a Canada-type deal, no one wants to waste time negotiating until that is firmed up. ..."
"... On the World Service this morning, the BBC reported from the "cultural front line against Putin". A playwright (perhaps a member of playwrights against Putin) was given half an hour from 5 am to witter on. This is half an hour more than what Brexit will get on the airwaves today. ..."
"... I think the key thing that is driving the politics for the moment is that May has shown an absolute determination to hold on to power at any cost, and she realises that having a transition agreement is central to this. ..."
"... I think you are right that the main political priority now in London is preserving May in her position. ..."
A
reader was kind enough to ask for a Brexit update. I hadn't provided one because truth be told,
the UK press has gone quiet as the Government knuckled under in the last round of
negotiations.
It is a mystery as to why the hard core Brexit faction and the true power brokers, the press
barons, have gone quiet after having made such a spectacle of their incompetence and refusal to
compromise. Do they not understand what is happening? Has someone done a whip count and
realized they didn't have the votes if they tried forcing a crisis, and that the result would
probably be a Labour government, a fate they feared far more than a disorderly Brexit?
As we've pointed out repeatedly, the EU has the vastly stronger negotiating position. The UK
could stomp and huff and keep demanding its super special cherry picked special cake all it
wanted to. That was a fast track to a crash-out Brexit. But it seems out of character for the
Glorious Brexit true believers to sober up suddenly.
Some observations:
The transition deal is the much-decried "vassal state ". As we and others pointed out, the
only transition arrangement feasible was a standstill with respect to the UK's legal
arrangements with the EU, save at most some comparatively minor concessions on pet issues. The
UK will remain subject to the authority of the ECJ. The UK will continue to pay into the EU
budget. As we'd predicted, the transition period will go only until the end of 2020.
The UK couldn't even get a break on the Common Fisheries Policy.
From the Guardian :
For [fisherman Tony] Delahunty's entire career, a lopsided system of quotas has granted up
to 84% of the rights to fish some local species, such as English Channel cod, to the French,
and left as little as 9% to British boats. Add on a new system that bans fishermen from
throwing away unwanted catch and it becomes almost impossible to haul in a net of mixed fish
without quickly exhausting more limited quotas of "choke" species such as cod .
Leaving the EU was meant to change all that .Instead, growing numbers of British fishermen
feel they have been part of a bait-and-switch exercise – a shiny lure used to help reel
in a gullible public. Despite only recently promising full fisheries independence as soon as
Brexit day on 29 March 2019, the UK government this week capitulated to Brussels' demand for it
to remain part of the common fisheries system until at least 2021, when a transition phase is
due to end. Industry lobbyists fear that further cave-ins are now inevitable in the long run as
the EU insists on continued access to British waters as the price of a wider post-Brexit trade
deal.
The one place where the UK did get a win of sorts was on citizen's rights, where the
transition deal did not make commitments, much to the consternation of both EU27 and UK
nationals. Curiously, the draft approved by the EU27 last week dropped the section that had
discussed citizens' rights. From
the Express :
Italy's Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Angelino Alfano,
demands EU citizens' rights be protected after Brexit .
The comments from Italy's foreign minister come after the draft Brexit agreement struck
between Britain and the EU on Monday was missing "Article 32", which in previous drafts
regulated the free movement of British citizens living in Europe after Brexit.
The entire article was missing from the document, which goes straight from Article 31 to
Article 33.
MEPs from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour, Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru have
written to Brexit Secretary David Davis for clarification about the missing article, while
citizens' group British in Europe said the document failed to provide them with "legal
certainty".
A copy of the letter sent to Mr Davis seen by the Independent said: "As UK MEPs we are
deeply worried about what will happen to British citizens living in EU27 member states once
we leave the EU.
This issue has apparently been pushed back to the April round of talks. I have not focused
on the possible points of contention here. However, bear in mind that EU citizens could sue if
they deem the eventual deal to be too unfavorable. Recall that during the 2015 Greece-Troika
negotiations, some parties were advocating that Greece leave the Eurozone. A counterargument
was that Greek citizens would be able to sue the Greek government for their loss of EU
rights.
The UK is backing into having to accept a sea border as the solution for Ireland. As many
have pointed out, there's no other remedy to the various commitments the UK has already made
with respect to Ireland, as unpalatable as that solution is to the Unionists and hard core
Brexiters. The UK has not put any solutions on the table as the EU keeps working on the
"default" option, which was included in the Joint Agreement of December. The DUP sabre-rattled
then but was not willing to blow up the negotiations then. It will be even harder for them to
derail a deal now when the result would be a chaotic Brexit.
The UK is still trying to escape what appears to be the inevitable outcome. The press of the
last 24 hours reports that the UK won't swallow the "backstop" plan that the EU has been
refining, even though it accepts the proposition that the
agreement needs to have that feature . The UK is back to trying to revive one of its barmy
ideas that managed to find its way into the Joint Agreement, that of a new super special
customs arrangement.
Politico gives an outline below. This is a non-starter simply because the EU will never
accept any arrangement where goods can get into the EU without there being full compliance with
EU rules, and that includes having them subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ and the various
relevant Brussels supervisory bodies. Without even hearing further details, the UK's barmy
"alignment" notions means that the UK would somehow have a say in these legal and regulatory
processes. This cheeky plan would give the UK better rights than any EU27 member. From
Politico :
The key issues for debate, according to one senior U.K. official, is how the two sides can
deliver "full alignment" and what the territorial scope of that commitment will be -- the U.K.
or Northern Ireland.
The starting point of the U.K.'s position will be that "full alignment" should apply to
goods and a limited number of services sectors, one U.K. official said.
On the customs issue, the proposal that Northern Ireland is subsumed into the EU's customs
territory is a non-starter with London
The alternative would be based on one of the two customs arrangements set out by the
government in August last year and reaffirmed by May in her Mansion House speech. They are
either a customs partnership -- known as the "hybrid" model internally -- or the "highly
streamlined customs arrangement" known by officials as "max-fac" or maximum facilitation.
The hybrid model would mean the U.K. continuing to police its border as if it were the
EU's customs border, but then tracking imports to apply different tariffs depending on which
market they end up in -- U.K. or EU. Under this scenario, because Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland would share an external EU customs border, as they do now, it would
remove the need for checks on the land border between the two.
The complexity and unprecedented nature of this solution has led to accusations from the
Brussels side that it amounts to "magical thinking."
The "max-fac" model is simpler conceptually but would represent a huge logistical effort
for U.K. customs authorities. It would involve the use of technological and legal measures
such as electronic pre-notification of goods crossing the border and a "trusted trader"
status for exporters and importers, to make customs checks as efficient as possible.
While the U.K. will present both customs arrangements as possible ways of solving this
aspect of the Irish border problem, one senior official said that the "hybrid" model was
emerging as the preferred option in London.
The UK is already having trouble getting its customs IT upgrade done on time, which happens
to be right before Brexit. As we wrote early on, even if the new programs are in place, they
won't be able to handle the increased transactions volume resulting from of being outside the
EU, and I haven't seen good figures as to what the impact would be of the UK becoming a third
country but having its transition deal in place. In other words, even if the "mac-fac" scheme
were acceptable to the EU (unlikely), the UK looks unable to pull off getting the needed
infrastructure in place. Even for competent shops, large IT projects have a high failure rate.
And customs isn't looking like a high capability IT player right now.
So the play for the EU is to let the UK continue to flail about and deliver Ireland
"solutions" that are dead on arrival because they violate clearly and consistently stated EU
red lines. The UK will then in say September be faced with a Brexit deal that is done save
Ireland, and it then have to choose between capitulating (it's hard to come up with any way to
improve the optics, but we do have a few months for creative ideas) or plunging into a chaotic
Brexit.
6.The approach outlined below reflects the level of rights and obligations compatible with
the positions stated by the UK
7. In this context, the European Council reiterates in particular that any agreement with
the United Kingdom will have to be based on a balance of rights and obligations, and ensure a
level playing field. A non-member of the Union, that does not live up to the same obligations
as a member, cannot have the same rights and enjoy the same benefits as a member.
The European Council recalls that the four freedoms are indivisible and that there can be
no "cherry picking" through participation in the Single Market based on a sector-by-sector
approach, which would undermine the integrity and proper functioning of the Single
Market.
The European Council further reiterates that the Union will preserve its autonomy as
regards its decision-making, which excludes participation of the United Kingdom as a
third-country in the Union Institutions and participation in the decision-making of the Union
bodies, offices and agencies. The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union will
also be fully respected.
8. As regards the core of the economic relationship, the European Council confirms its
readiness to initiate work towards a balanced, ambitious and wide-ranging free trade
agreement (FTA) insofar as there are sufficient guarantees for a level playing field. This
agreement will be finalised and concluded once the UK is no longer a Member State.
The EU also reaffirmed the obvious, "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."
The EU nevertheless has relented in its negotiating tactics . The EU's initial approach was
to put the most contentious issues up front: the exit tab, Ireland, freedom of movement. You
will notice it has achieved closure only only one of those issues where the EU's initial
position had been that they had to be concluded before the two sides would discuss "the future
relationship," as in trade. This is the opposite of the approach that professional negotiators
use, that of starting with the least contentious issues first to establish a working
relationship between both sides and create a sense of momentum, and then tackling the difficult
questions later. The EU has now allowed the UK to defer resolving the messy issue of Ireland
twice, and it is not clear if any progress has been made on the citizens' rights matter.
The UK is clearly past the point where it could undo Brexit . There was pretty much no way
to back out of Brexit, given the ferocious support for it in the tabloids versus the widespread
view that a second referendum that showed that opinion had changed was a political necessity
for a reversal. Pundits and politicians were cautious about even voicing the idea.
As we've pointed out, coming up with the wording of the referendum question took six months.
In the snap elections last year, the Lib Dems set forth the most compact timeline possible for
a Brexit referendum redo which presupposed that the phrasing had been settled. That was eight
months. And you'd have to have a Parliamentary approval process before and a vote afterwards
(Parliament is sovereign; a referendum in and of itself is not sufficient to change
course).
Spain has been making noises about Gibraltar but they aren't likely to mean much . I could
be proven wrong, but I don't see Spain as able to block a Brexit deal. Article 50 says that
only a "qualified majority" vote is required to approve a Brexit agreement. Spain as a lone
holdout couldn't keep a deal from being approved. And I don't see who would join Spain over the
issue of Gibraltar. In keeping, Spain joined with the rest of the EU27 in approving the latest
set of texts.
The UK still faces high odds of significant dislocations as of Brexit date . All sorts of
agreements to which the UK is a party via the EU cease to be operative once the UK become a
"third country". These other countries have every reason to take advantage of the UK's week and
administratively overextended position. Moreover, these countries can't entertain even
discussing interim trade arrangements (new trade deals take years) until they have at least a
high concept idea of what the "future relationship" with the EU will look like. Even though it
looks likely to be a Canada-type deal, no one wants to waste time negotiating until that is
firmed up.
May has lasted in office longer than many pundits predicted she would because, weak as her
grip on power may have been since she lost her parliamentary majority last year, she has
timed her surrenders cleverly.
It looks chaotic and undignified, but the prime minister has hunkered down and let pro-
and anti-Brexit factions in her party shout the odds in the media day and night, squabble
publicly about acceptable terms for a deal, leak against each other and publish Sunday
newspaper columns challenging her authority.
Then in the few days before a European summit deadline for the next phase of a deal, she
has rammed the only position acceptable to Brussels through her Cabinet and effectively
called the hard Brexiteers' bluff.
But what kind of leader marches her country into at worst an abyss and at best a future of
lower prosperity, less clout, and no meaningful increase in autonomy? Like it or not, the UK is
a small open economy, and its leaders, drunk on Imperial nostalgia, still can's stomach the
idea that the UK did better by flexing its muscle within the EU that it can ever do solo.
I'm curious as to the ramifications of the Northern Ireland sea border. Is reunification
possible with the ROI, given that the Unionists have been completely castrated?
I'm a Californian so am not one that is tuned into the history.
Theoretically, there is no fundamental problem with a NI sea border and NI remaining
within the UK. Northern Ireland already has its own Assembly and its own laws (the Assembly
is suspended at the moment), so it can, if the EU agreed, stay within the EU (albeit without
a separate vote or voice at the table). There are precedents for this, such as the
dependant territories of France . It would be constitutionally messy, but if authorized
by Parliament in London and in the EU itself, it would likely be legally watertight so far as
I am aware.
Hardline Unionists oppose this partly because they are ideologically opposed to the EU
anyway (although its highly likely many of their constituents don't agree), but also because
they see this as a 'thin end of the wedge' leading to a United Ireland. More thoughtful
Unionists realise that a sort of 'foot in both camps' approach might actually be an economic
boon to Northern Ireland – it could attract a lot of investment from companies wishing
easy access to both the internal UK market and Europe.
"The UK press has gone quiet as the Government knuckled under in the last round of
negotiations." The MSM, corporate or government (BBC and Channel 4), are under orders to go
quiet. In any case, it's easier and more fun to cover the anti-semites and anti-transgender
whatever in the Labour Party, Trump's extra-marital goings-on and whatever dastardly plot
Putin has come up with.
On my 'phone's news feed yesterday and today, the Corbyn's anti-Semitism is not shifting
from the top line. The only change is from where the latest article is sourced.
On the World Service this morning, the BBC reported from the "cultural front line against
Putin". A playwright (perhaps a member of playwrights against Putin) was given half an hour
from 5 am to witter on. This is half an hour more than what Brexit will get on the airwaves
today.
How are things playing out locally, Buckinghamshire in my case? The economy is slowing
down. More shops are closing. Some IT contractors report contracts not being renewed and
having to look for business outside the UK. East Europeans working in farming, care and
social services have been replaced in many, but not all, cases by immigrants from south Asia.
An cabbie and restaurateur report the worst festive season and first quarter of the year for
many, many years.
At Doncaster races last Saturday, the opening day of the flat season, some bookies were
offering odds of Tory victory in 2022, if not an earlier khaki one. It seems that May is a
survivor and Corbyn's Labour has peaked. All very depressing.
I think the key thing that is driving the politics for the moment is that May has shown an
absolute determination to hold on to power at any cost, and she realises that having a
transition agreement is central to this. I've also been puzzling over the relative
acquiescence of the hard Brexiteers – I think they've been told by their paymasters
that accepting a lousy transitional deal is the key to a 'clean' and firm Brexit. I believe
the phrase Gove was reported as using was that they should 'keep their eye on the prize'. I
think, as Yves says, the Tory establishment fears a move against May will precipitate a
Corbyn government, so they see it as a strategic necessity to keep her in position, and
postpone the main Brexit fallout for later.
Of lesser importance, but also I think a relevant consideration given the strong support
given by Merkel, Barnier and Tusk to the Irish PM, Varadkar, is that he is rumoured to be
planning a snap election in the autumn. His stance on Brexit has proven popular and he sees
the time as ripe to go for an overall majority (he is currently leading a minority
government). He is very much an EU establishment favourite, so I don't doubt that some of the
motivation is to help his domestic politics by giving him what are perceived as 'wins' over
Brexit.
If this is the case, then barring an unexpected event, I think there will be a strong
political push on both sides to sign off a transition deal which would be both a complete
surrender by the UK, but with sufficient spin by a supportively dim witted UK press will
allow her to push the whole Brexit issue politically to one side for a year or two. The
Tories will be hoping that this can be sold to the public as a success for long enough for
them to work out how to stop Corbyn.
I'm taking the liberty of re-posting a comment I made yesterday on one of the links
– a Richard North piece – to which none of the usual Brexit scholars responded
(Sunday .). It bears very much on this discussion and echoes a number of points made
above.
"Richard North's Brexit article is well informed as one would expect, but I think that, like
a lot of other commentators, he's missing something. May is a post-modern politician, ie
there is no particular link between what she says and does, and her understanding of its
impact on the real world. Only her words and actions actually count, and, whether it's
threatening Russia or threatening Brussels, real-world consequences don't form part of the
calculation, insofar as they actually exist. Her only concern (and in this she is indeed
post-modernist) is with how she is perceived by voters and the media, and as a consequence
whether she can hang onto her job. I think May has decided that she will have an agreement at
any cost, no matter if she has to surrender on every single issue, and throw Northern Ireland
to the wolves. She wants to be seen as the Prime Minister who got us "out of Europe," just as
Ted Heath got us in. The content of the final deal is secondary: not that she wouldn't prefer
to please the City and the Brexit ultras if she could, but if there's a choice she will
sacrifice them for a picture of her shaking hands with Barnier and waving the Union Jack with
the other hand. The resulting chaos can then be blamed on a treacherous Europe. Indeed, if
May can stick it out until next year, I think she'll keep her job. What a thought." I think
many of the hardline Brexiters have the same idea – the political prize is exiting the
EU: the damage is a secondary consideration. Any deal, no matter how humiliating, can be spun
in the end as a triumph because we will have broken the shackles of Brussels.
I'd add that the EU's emphasis on the priority to give to NI was an each-way bet, as I argued
at the time. Either the Tory government collapsed, and something more reasonable took its
place, or May gave way on everything else, in the hope of surviving and somehow finding a NI
solution later. This has indeed proved to be the case.
Finally, I wouldn't put too much store by the imperial nostalgia argument, not least because
few Brexiters were even alive then. The real nostalgia is for an independent Britain capable
of playing a role on the world stage, perhaps at the head of a coalition of likeminded
nations. The idea of a Commonwealth Free Trade area, for example, was raised in the 1975 EU
referendum debate, and has its ultimate origins in the ideas of Mill and others in the 19th
century for a kind of British superstate, incorporating Australia, New Zealand, Canada and
perhaps South Africa. Its ghost still walks.
Finally, let's not get too carried away with the small size of the British economy. It's the
fifth or sixth largest economy in the world, depending on how you calculate it, ahead of
Russia, India, Italy and Spain.
I think you are right that the main political priority now in London is preserving May in
her position. Whether or not she does a good deal (or any other good policy work) has become
irrelevant. Its all about survival, and keeping Corbyn at bay.
Who are the 'wolves' to whom NI may be thrown?
More interesting, who are the strange Tory Brexiteers, not exactly in sync with the needs and
expectations of the City of London, big business in Britain, etc? The people for whom an
imperial past is still a ghost that walks? A possible answer here: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n05/william-davies/what-are-they-after
Thank you David. I agree with your definition of the present Brexit set-up and May herself
as post-modernist . The same could be said even more so about Trump . They have in their very
different ways taken politics to a place beyond policies and even identities ( it's most
recent iteration ) to this very new place where the public ( translation : American people )
simply roll over and get out of bed the next day to whatever is new and move on whether it be
bombing in Syria, or Trump and a prostitute . I think the technology of the smart phone and
everything that emanates from it is the handmaiden to this change . The speed of daily life
as orchestrated by the smart phone has brought us all , whether we like it or not, to this
post-modern , everything is a cultural construct , position which is possibly the most
terrifying reality the West has ever had to face and yet it barely registers .
On your last point – it used to be larger. It would have been inconcievable even 50
years ago that the UK's economy could be compared with Spain's.
The point being that the correlation of physical closeness and trade is about as close as
you get in economics to a natural law. The UK is now spurning (wilfully limiting its access
to) the closest and the richest markets it has. That will have impact – and no amount
of Brexiter's wishful thinking will replace it – if for nothing else, the likelyhood of
the UK SMEs suddenly wanting to export to China/India/NZ/whatever is not going to grow with
Brexit. Those who wanted and could, already do. The other don't want and are unlikely to want
to in a new world.
Vlade, 50 years ago Africa still started at the Pyrenées, as the saying was in
France. It is not that the UK has shrunk so much as that Spain has dramatically improved its
position. So, unhelpful comparison. How the UK fared over those 50 years relative to, say,
France and Germany or even Italy, would be more instructive.
In relation to France it stayed roughly the same. But actually the share of British GDP to
world GDP is much smaller and international specialisation and globalisation is much
increased. For the question if the UK can act as a "big" economy in relation to economic
policy the latter is more important.
You watch. About the same time that the British wake to find that the elites have sold
them down the river through devastating incompetence and sheer bloodymindedness, they will
find that in the transition to Brexit that the government would have voted themselves all
sorts of laws that will give them authoritarian powers. And then it will be too late.
It won't matter how bad May is at that point and she might just resign and let somebody else
deal with all the fallout over the new regulations at which time she will be kicked upstairs
to the House of Lords. Isn't the way that it works in practice? Don't make any preparations,
tell the people that they have got it all organized, then when it all hits they start pumping
out emergency orders and the like.
It all seems quite curious does it not (curiouser and curiouser?). I wonder if I smell a
rat? Forgive me; I have a suspicious nature. I was thinking partly of the role of Gove, which
prompted some idle musings.
Gove is reportedly telling people who support Brexit to keep their eyes on the prize, by
which he is said to mean letting the clock run down to 29 March 2019 at which time the UK is
officially out of the EU. When I read Gove, I tend to think Murdoch, who pulls Gove's
strings. Yves quite rightly asks what the press barons are about; that is generally worth
knowing when it comes to UK politics. Is Murdoch playing a longer game?
The argument goes that once the UK is out of the EU it will be much harder to get support
for it to go back in again as the UK would only be allowed back in without the special
privileges it had negotiated for itself over the decades : opt out from Euro, Schengen,
various justice issues, the budget rebate. Is this determining Murdoch's approach at the
moment – ensure that the UK is outside the EU at almost any cost before proceeding to
the next stage, when Ministers will be largely unable to call Brussels in to help them
against him and his allies?
Why might Murdoch want to do that? There is talk that May will be ditched once she does a
deal. If it is seen as a bad deal then she becomes the scapegoat (and Gove steps in to her
shoes?). Post March 2019, it might then be the plan to seek to undercut the effect of any
deal struck now by, for example, pulling out of the Good Friday Agreement if that proves to
be an obstacle to the trade deals Fox is so keen to sign (is he expecting kickbacks?). At
that point the UK might declare that with the demise of the GFA it was no longer constrained
by the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement with regards to the Irish Border and with one leap
the UK would be free. I have seen cynics suggest that the men of violence in Northern Ireland
might be encouraged to go on a bit if a spree to justify claims that the GFA had failed.
I hope I am wrong but as I said I have a suspicious nature and, having watched more of
Murdoch's machinations than I have ever wished, know that he is very capable of playing a
long game.
I'm loath to indulge in conspiracy theorising, but when it comes to Brexit (and Northern
Ireland) conspiracies are legion and real.
I'm sure in any spiders web Murdoch will be found in the middle of it, and there is
certainly something up, thats the only explanation for the low key response of the hard
Brexiters. It wouldn't surprise me if he has realised that a tanking UK economy isn't exactly
good for his investments (its also worth noting that it seems to have belatedly been realised
by the UK media economy that many of them will have to up sticks to Europe if they are to
keep broadcasting rights).
My guess is that they 'have a plan' which will involve Gove playing middle man, but
actually working for a decisive Brexit doing his duty for the country at some stage to step
into Mays shoes. All sorts of behind the scenes promises (mostly jobs, no doubt) have
probably been made. I suspect a centre piece of it would be a dramatic repudiation of any
deal, supposedly on the UK's terms.
As for Northern Ireland, anything is possible. Several of the
Loyalist terrorist groups have been shown over the years to be little more than puppets
of the security forces, they will do what they are told. And there have long been rumours
that at least one of the fringe Republican groups is so completely infiltrated that they are
similarly under control. There have been nearly 50 years of shady assassinations and bombings
in NI and the Republic which have the fingerprints of intelligence services, so quite
literally, I could believe almost anything could happen if it was in their interest. People
who c ould
maintain a boys home as the centre of a paedophile ring for political purposes are
capable of almost anything.
Oh yes, this is a big part of the history of "the troubles". So much of what went on in
that conflict was beneficial to the U.K. government. Budget, manpower, little oversight,
draconian powers and a lot more besides was enabled merely because of the paramilitary
activities. It's not hard to look for well documented examples -- such as the mass
warrantless surveillance of all U.K.- Republic telecommunications http://www.lamont.me.uk/capenhurst/original.html
by the U.K. security services.
And, there's more, a lot of provisional activity was just your common or garden organised
crime -- protection rackets, kidnapping and bribery.
To say that the troubles were merely to do with republicanism and unionism is like saying
US Civil War was only about racism and ignoring the politics and the economics.
I think that we should remember how much the anti-EU fraternity in politics and the media
have had a symbiotic, if not downright parasitic, relationship with the EU itself. Much of
their commerce depended on us being members, and so being able to strike poses and make cheap
cracks about Europe and Brussels. I have a feeling that reality is starting to dawn, and they
are standing to understand that politics will be a great deal more complicated, and probably
nastier, after Brexit than even it is now.They'll have to find something else to complain
about for easy applause instead of just bashing Brussels.
As for conspiracy theories, well I have the same skepticism about them of most people who've
worked in government, and I happen to have been reasonably close to a number of people who
had to deal with these issues in the 1970s and 1980s. There was certainly complicity in some
cases, and some of the actors involved broke the rules badly , but it's a stretch from that
to talk of conspiracies. With what objective? And what objective would such conspiracies have
today, and how could they be implemented? The universal refrain among everyone I knew
involved in the security forces at the time was Get Us Out of Here.
It'll put a cat amongst the pigeons and no mistake. If I may put in a word from the
deplorables who voted Brexit, there's a lot which -- for both the UK and the EU -- was made a
whole lot easier because a problem issue could simply be labelled as the British complaining
and not understanding The Project.
Take energy. It was probably energy supply as much as Greece and the Ukraine which tipped
me over into Brexit. At the behest of the U.K., the European energy industry became, at least
in theory, a pan-continental endeavour free from national restrictive practices. Well, a fat
lot of good that turned out to be. As exemplified by the recent cold weather snap, UK
wholesalers when faced with a shortfall in natural gas supplies spiked the offer price into
the stratosphere
http://mip-prod-web.azurewebsites.net/PrevailingViewGraph/ViewReport?prevailingViewGraph=ActualPriceGraph&gasDate=2018-03-26
. No -- and I mean no -- EU suppliers made any bids. Now, it's either a Single
Market or it isn't. It either looks and acts like it's subject to market forces or it
doesn't. The rules are either enforced properly amongst all participants or they aren't.
Irony's of irony's, when the U.K. needed an augmented natural gas input to match system
demand, the only country to answer their doorbell was Russia. That, and some U.K. big
capacity users releasing stocks from storage.
Now, the smell of the nationalist pulling up the drawbridge in energy supply is causing
the Commission to try to document how in fact the Single Market sometimes isn't a market at
all but just a token gesture and is working on the usual eurofudge
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.032.01.0052.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2018:032:TOC
(the contortions of which did genuinely have me laughing out loud). There's going to be a lot
more of this to come once the U.K. can't be the donkey this kind of tail is routinely pinned
on.
And it'll be the same in the U.K. of course. Without the EU ready to play it's role of
perpetual bogeyman, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. And I still cannot, in all
honesty, say anything other than bring it on.
People have avoided the difficulty of reciprocal citizen's rights. How can the UK
reciprocate with all the EU countries? Simultaneously? Where UK non-citizen residents can
relocate for 30 years to an EU country then relocate back in the same way that a Brit in
France can move to Germany for 30 years and then move back under current rules? It's even
worse if you consider reciprocity to include the rights of all people outside their
citizenship country's right to relocate.
The only obvious solution is to reduce Brits to the same status of any immigrant to a EU
country. That means not being able to shift your permanent residency without applying for
immigration.
Unless you are blue card eligible that's non-trivial.
" As far as we all know now are quite hard times to Russia and to the world as a whole.
"
Why do we have these hard times ?
Could it be globalisation, western greed, and western aggression ?
Well, probably it can be more clear for those who are attacking and humiliating Russia in
all directions? The West-ZUS-UK
But I think it's just an agony of Empire seeing the world order is about to change. And
yes it's "western greed" which have a "western aggression" as a consequence.
The "globalisation" actually IS that world order which the West trying to
establish. Russia in all times in all its internal structure was a subject of annexation and
submission. But we never agreed and never will do it, until alive. The West is too stupid to
get that simple thing to know and leave us to live as we are about to.
Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade
zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: "There shall be
open borders."
Bartley accepted what the erasure of America's borders and an endless influx or foreign
peoples and goods would mean for his country.
Said Bartley, "I think the nation-state is finished."
His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.
This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of
this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his
vision and the power of his rhetoric.
In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to
be removed. There, Cobden thundered:
"I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world
as the principle of gravitation in the universe -- drawing men together, thrusting aside the
antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal
peace."
Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the
Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the "American System," had been
embraced.
The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding
Father of his country in his first address to Congress: "A free people should promote such
manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military
supplies."
In his 1791 "Report on Manufactures," Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Every nation ought to
endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the
means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence."
This was wisdom born of experience.
At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence.
They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the
necessities of our national life, and establish new bonds of mutual dependency -- among
Americans.
Britain's folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while
selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies and arms she needed to survive but
could not produce.
America's own first major steps toward free trade, open borders and globalism came with
JFK's Trade Expansion Act and LBJ's Immigration Act of 1965.
By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in, and a great awakening begun.
U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a
million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of
the country.
Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation's manufacturing base
and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this earth there is no
greater loss.
The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.
We see it in Trump's hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.
We see it in England's declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the
political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising
across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the
admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin.
Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally
imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med and desperate come and
occupy their homelands.
Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West?
The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer -- a world of
free trade, open borders and global government -- are constructs of the mind that do not engage
the heart.
Men will fight for family, faith and country. But how many will lay down their lives for
pluralism and diversity?
Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU?
On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest
socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and
Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.
Patriotism trumps ideology.
In "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born
in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The U.N., IMF, World Bank,
Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO.
We are present now at the end of all that.
And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.
To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and
champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence
and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.
"... As of leaving the EU, we have fought long and hard (sometimes each other) to be independent and free. 45 years of communism (with the obligatory internationalism) does not fade out unnoticed. I have written a long essay some two years ago here on SST about 'if it looks like a duck'. ..."
"... human rightsism has turned into a full fledged monotheistic religion, with a credo, an instutionalized church, and a serious hate against unbelievers. All that in the name of tolerance and progress. ..."
I can't speak for the whole V4 as czechs and slovaks have been sneaky in diplomacy in the last
century, and even as V4 members. We Hungarians and our Polish brothers were usually stupid
enough to say what we meant (and damn the consequences) and not hide away behind ambigous
terms or actions. While I can understand their cautiousness (Sp?), we 'dwa bratinki' usually
say yes or no. For the czech/slovaks it is usually abstain, even if everybody knows what
their stand is.
As of leaving the EU, we have fought long and hard (sometimes each other) to be
independent and free. 45 years of communism (with the obligatory internationalism) does not
fade out unnoticed. I have written a long essay some two years ago here on SST about 'if it
looks like a duck'.
We have sensors for unsaid intentions becuase of that oppression, and for us (V4) Brussels
is turning into Moscow in an ever increasing pace, only the tanks have been replaced by
banks, as a late hungarian politician has said. Of course everybody welcomes free money (EU
funds), but as
Most of it flows back to german/french/italian/austrian companies anyway
The previously hidden internationalist and centralized agenda is slowly turning into
reality, not to mention the intended connection between the two (funds and internationalist
policies).
It is more and more seen as Judas Iskariotes' 30 silver pieces. None wants war again in Europe, and none wants to leave the EU unless forced to do
it. There has been a more or less functioning proto-EU, the Austro-Hungarian Empire that is. A
similar EU, where none really can and should question German French leadership is viable,
with the following terms.
Internal policies are handled locally from education, to justice system, from internal
affairs to other local issues etc. No human rights meddling in partner countries, no SJW
pushing to accept economical migrants to poor countires etc.
ONLY foreign affairs and military affairs are handled centrally, but no typical french
meddling in ex colonies or R2P. European army CAN be exclusively used abroad, with all
parliaments giving consent (In the age of IT this should not be a problem) or in case of
foreign attack against or own soil.
ONLY money to finance the above two are handled centrally. euro can stay, but no
pressure to join it. And V4 will definitely want a say in it how it used.
Dismantling of the social justice warrior turned, democratically deficited,
internationalist, and non-transparent bureaucracy in Brussels/Strasbourg.
Exactly. I always say to my students, that like it or not, agree or not, human rightsism has
turned into a full fledged monotheistic religion, with a credo, an instutionalized church,
and a serious hate against unbelievers. All that in the name of tolerance and progress.
The crisis of neoliberalism is at the core of current anti-Russian campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... So, as long as Russia remained open to the West's political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory. But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an "autocrat" and a "KGB thug." ..."
"... As the Western countries' elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main reason for that is that the model of "West-centric" globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world's population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective. It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of "chosen ones" is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources . ..."
"... The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what's really going on. Russia is not Washington's enemy, it's a friend that's trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making, and a narrower gap between the world's winners and losers. ..."
"... Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It's time to move on. ..."
The United States has launched a three-pronged offensive on Russia. First, it's attacking Russia's economy via sanctions and oil-price
manipulation. Second, it's increasing the threats to Russia's national security by arming and training militant proxies in Syria
and Ukraine, and by encircling Russia with NATO forces and missile systems. And, third, it's conducting a massive disinformation
campaign aimed at convincing the public that Russia is a 'meddling aggressor' that wants to destroy the foundation of American democracy.
(Elections)
In response to Washington's hostility, Moscow has made every effort to extend the olive branch. Russia does not want to fight
the world's biggest superpower any more than it wants to get bogged down in a bloody and protracted conflict in Syria. What Russia
wants is normal, peaceful relations based on respect for each others interests and for international law. What Russia will not tolerate,
however, is another Iraq-type scenario where the sovereign rights of a strategically-located state are shunted off so the US can
arbitrarily topple the government, decimate the society and plunge the region deeper into chaos. Russia won't allow that, which is
why it has put its Airforce at risk in Syria, to defend the foundational principle of state sovereignty upon which the entire edifice
of global security rests.
The majority of Americans believe that Russia is the perpetrator of hostilities against the United States, mainly because the
media and the political class have faithfully disseminated the spurious claims that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. But the
allegations are ridiculous and without merit. Russia-gate is merely the propaganda component of Washington's Full Spectrum Dominance
theory, that is, disinformation is being used to make it appear as though the US is the victim when, in fact, it is the perpetrator
of hostilities against Russia. Simply put, the media has turned reality on its head. Washington wants to inflict as much pain as
possible on Russia because Russia has frustrated its plan to control critical resources and pipeline corridors in Central Asia and
the Middle East. The Trump administration's new National Defense Strategy is quite clear on this point. Russia's opposition to Washington's
destabilizing interventions has earned it the top spot on the Pentagon's "emerging rivals" list. Moscow is now Public Enemy#1.
Washington's war on Russia has a long history dating back at least 100 years to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Despite the
fact that the US was engaged in a war with Germany at the time (WW1), Washington and its allies sent 150,000 men from 15 nations
to intervene on behalf of the "Whites" hoping to staunch the spread of communism into Europe. In the words of British Prime Minister
Winston Churchill, the goal was "to strangle the Bolshevik baby in its crib."
According to Vasilis Vourkoutiotis from the University of Ottawa:
" the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.. was a failed attempt to eradicate Bolshevism while it was still weak .As
early as February 1918 Britain supported intervention in the civil war on behalf of the Whites, and in March it landed troops
in Murmansk. They were soon joined by forces from France, Italy, Japan, the United States, and ten other nations. Eventually,
more than 150,000 Allied soldiers served in Russia
The scale of the war between the Russian Reds and Whites, however, was such that the Allies soon realized they would have little,
if any, direct impact on the course of the Civil War unless they were prepared to intervene on a far grander scale. By the end
of April 1919 the French had withdrawn their soldiers .British and American troops saw some action in November 1918 on the Northern
Front but this campaign was of limited significance in the outcome of the Civil War. The last British and American soldiers were
withdrawn in 1920. The main Allied contributions to the White cause thereafter were supplies and money, mostly from Britain .
The chief purpose of Allied intervention in Soviet Russia was to help the Whites defeat the Reds and destroy Bolshevism." (Allied
Intervention in the Russian Revolution", portalus.ru)
The reason we bring up this relatively unknown bit of history is because it helps to put current events into perspective. First,
it helps readers to see that Washington has been sticking its nose in Russia's business more than a century. Second, it shows that–
while Washington's war on Russia has ebbed and flowed depending on the political situation in Moscow– it has never completely ended.
The US has always treated Russia with suspicion, contempt and brutality. During the Cold War, when Russia's global activities put
a damper on Washington's depredations around the world, relations remained stretched to the breaking point. But after the Soviet
Union collapsed in December, 1991, relations gradually thawed, mainly because the buffoonish Boris Yeltsin opened the country up
to a democratization program that allowed the state's most valuable strategic assets to be transferred to voracious oligarchs for
pennies on the dollar. The plundering of Russia pleased Washington which is why it sent a number of prominent US economists to Moscow
to assist in the transition from communism to a free-market system. These neoliberal miscreants subjected the Russian economy to
"shock therapy" which required the auctioning off of state-owned resources and industries even while hyperinflation continued to
rage and the minuscule life savings of ordinary working people were wiped out almost over night. The upshot of this Washington-approved
looting-spree was a dramatic uptick in extreme poverty which intensified the immiseration of tens of millions of people. Economist
Joseph Stiglitz followed events closely in Russia at the time and summed it up like this:
"In Russia, the people were told that capitalism was going to bring new, unprecedented prosperity. In fact, it brought unprecedented
poverty, indicated not only by a fall in living standards, not only by falling GDP, but by decreasing life spans and enormous
other social indicators showing a deterioration in the quality of life ..
(Due to) the tight monetary policies that were pursued firms didn't have the money to even pay their employees . they didn't
have enough money to pay their pensioners, to pay their workers .Then, with the government not having enough revenue, other aspects
of life started to deteriorate. They didn't have enough money for hospitals, schools. Russia used to have one of the good school
systems in the world; the technical level of education was very high. (But they no longer had) enough money for that. So it just
began to affect people in every dimension of their lives .
The number of people in poverty in Russia, for instance, increased from 2 percent to somewhere between 40 and 50 percent, with
more than one out of two children living in families below poverty. The market economy was a worse enemy for most of these people
than the Communists had said it would be. It brought Gucci bags, Mercedes, the fruits of capitalism to a few .But you had a shrinking
(economy). The GDP in Russia fell by 40 percent. In some (parts) of the former Soviet Union, the GDP, the national income, fell
by over 70 percent. And with that smaller pie it was more and more unequally divided, so a few people got bigger and bigger slices,
and the majority of people wound up with less and less and less . (PBS interview with Joseph Stiglitz, Commanding Heights)
So, as long as Russia remained open to the West's political maneuvering and wholesale thievery, every thing was hunky-dory.
But as soon as Vladimir Putin got his bearings (during his second term as President) and started reassembling the broken state, then
western elites became very concerned and denounced Putin as an "autocrat" and a "KGB thug." At the same time, Washington continued
its maniacal push eastward using its military catspaw, NATO, to achieve its geopolitical ambitions to control vital resources and
industries in the most populous and prosperous region of the coming century, Eurasia. After promising Russian President Gorbachev
that NATO would never "expand one inch to the east", the US-led military alliance added 13 new countries to its membership, all of
them straddling Russia's western flank, all of them located, like Hitler, on Russia's doorstep, all of them posing an existential
threat to Russia's survival. NATO forces now routinely conduct provocative military drills just miles from the Russian border while
state-of-the-art missile systems surround Russia on all sides. (Imagine Russia conducting similar drills in the Gulf of Mexico or
on the Canadian border. How would Washington respond?)
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an excellent summary of post Cold War history at a gathering of the Korber Foundation
in Berlin in 2017. Brainwashed Americans who foolishly blame Russia for meddling in the 2016 elections, should pay attention to what
he said.
LAVROV– "Ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall we have shown our cards, trying to do our best to assert the values of equal
partnership in international affairs .Back in the early 1990s, we withdrew our troops from Eastern and Central Europe and the
Baltic states and dramatically downsized our military capacity near our western borders
When the cold war era came to an end, Russia was hoping that this would become our common victory – the victory of both the
former Communist bloc countries and the West. The dreams of ushering in shared peace and cooperation seemed near to fruition.
However, the United States and its allies decided to declare themselves the sole winners, refusing to work together to create
the architecture of equal and indivisible security. They made their choice in favor of shifting the dividing lines to our borders
– through expanding NATO and then through the implementation of the EU's Eastern Partnership program
As the Western countries' elites were implementing a policy of political and economic containment of Russia, old threats
were growing and new ones were emerging in the world, and the efforts to do away with them have failed. I think that the main
reason for that is that the model of "West-centric" globalization, which developed following the dismantling of the bipolar architecture
and was aimed at ensuring the prosperity of one-seventh of the world's population at the expense of the rest, proved ineffective.
It is becoming more and more obvious that a narrow group of "chosen ones" is unable to ensure the sustainable growth of the global
economy on their own and solve such major challenges as poverty, climate change, shortage of food and other vital resources .
The latest events are clear evidence that the persistent attempts to form a unipolar world order have failed .The new centers
of economic growth and concomitant political influence are assuming responsibility for the state of affairs in their regions.
Let me reiterate that the emergence of multipolar world order is a fact and a reality. Seeking to hold back this process and keep
the unfairly gained privileged positions is going to lead nowhere. We see increasing examples of nations raising their voice in
defense of their right to decide their own destiny ." (Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister)
The American people need to look beyond the propaganda and try to grasp what's really going on. Russia is not Washington's
enemy, it's a friend that's trying to nudge the US in adirection that will increase its opportunities for peace and prosperity in
the future. Lavrov is simply pointing out that a multipolar world is inevitable as economic power becomes more widespread. This emerging
reality means the US will have to modify its behavior, cooperate with other sovereign nations, comply with international law, and
seek a peaceful settlement to disputes. It means greater parity between the states, fairer representation in global decision-making,
and a narrower gap between the world's winners and losers.
Who doesn't want this? Who doesn't want to see an end of the bloody US-led invasions, the countless drone assassinations, the
vast destruction of ancient civilizations, and the senseless slaughter of innocent men, women and children? Who doesn't want to see
Washington's wings clipped so the bloodletting stops and the millions of refugees and internally displaced can return to their homes?
Lavrov offers a vision of the future that all peace-loving people should welcome with open arms.
Admit it: The imperial model has failed. It's time to move on.
"... The globalists envision the earth as a plantation with oligarchs (stateless corporate monopolists) as planters, former national governments as overseers and the people of earth as niggers. ..."
what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our
people?
The globalists envision the earth as a plantation with oligarchs (stateless corporate
monopolists) as planters, former national governments as overseers and the people of earth as
niggers.
Trump lost in large cities.
May lost in major cities, the Anti-Brexit folks won instead.
The globalists have their tight grip on virtually every major city in the world.
They want megacities, logistic cities etc. in the world.
The globalists have had enough with America. (Trump wasn't happy so he wants to make it
great again) The globalists made their money through capitalism, now they need Bitnation,
blockchain (as a state, govt, you can no longer own citizens and print money because they'll be
the citizens of Bitnation and they'll mine their own money) there will be home-made gold soon,
they want middlemen eliminated, they sell you products without owning any stores (Amazon,
Alibaba) they can transport you a-b without owning any vehicles (Uber) they control the media
without employing any correspondents (facebook, youtube, twitter, instagram etc.) they don't
need any banknotes (Trump=dollar), they want AI, they want Human 2.0, (first one was created by
God and the new one will be fathered by the globalists) they want transhumanism, IOT, they want
robots and female/male robots and marriage with robots, they want to produce economy and
technology but they are not interested in the hearts and minds of the human beings, when you
are thirsty they'll give you filtered seawater, hungry? they'll give you GMO food, the Chinese
had sweatshops but now they have workshops manufacturing electronics, nothing has changed for
them really, now they have 1 belt 1 road via logistic cities, trains to Tibilisi, then to the
world's largest airport in Istanbul, people need peace and tranquility but the globalists have
sold you the idea of 'happiness', they want LGBT, children with 2-3 mothers, Trump hates
Obama's toilets, they want covert ops and proxies (Katie Perry has 60 million followers mostly
fake and why is that? Because she's rigged for a future suicide bombing case, she'll say "I
have seen a UFO" or "I made millions out of BTC" or whatever role is assigned to her) but Trump
is conventional, he wants the US armed forces mobilized and wants them to face the country
A-B-C straightforward like in the olden days, he has the soldiers and oil barons with him, a
war cabinet... And the story goes on and on...
We are in 21st century.
Trump = Guns+Oil, KKK, Evangelists (Zionist Christians)...
The real America however belongs to = Finance capital + Technology = Globalists
We have to take all those above to see what's going on around us.
"... Things "should" be made locally. There's no reason, especially with declining energy resources, that a toaster should be shipped from thousands of miles away by boat, plane, truck, rail. That's simply ridiculous, never mind causing a ton of extra pollution. We end up working at McDonald's or Target, but, yay, we just saved $5.00 on our toaster. ..."
"... I don't know how you know about the so-called safety net. I know because I had to use it while undergoing treatment for 2 types of stage 4 breast cancer the past 4 years. It is NOT what people think. It beats the already vulnerable into the ground -- -- this is not placating -- -- it is psychological breaking of human minds until they submit. The paperwork is like undergoing a tax audit -- - every 6 months. "Technicians" decide one's "benefits" which vary between "technicians". ..."
"... Food stamps can be $195 during one period and then $35 the next. The technicians/system takes no responsibility for the chaos and stress they bring into their victims' lives. It is literally crazy making. BTW: I am white, a member of Phi Beta Kappa, have a masters' degree, formerly owned my own business and while married lived within the top 10%. ..."
"... In addition, most of those on so-called social programs are children, the elderly, chronically ill, veterans. You are correct that the middle class is falling into poverty but you are not understanding what poverty actually looks like when the gov holds out its beneficial hand. It is nothing short of cruelty. ..."
Yes, but increasingly there is no "working class" in America due to outsourcing and automation.
I hear that Trump wants to reverse all of that and put children to work in forward-to-the-past factories (versus
back-to-the-future) and mines working 12 hours a day 7 days a week as part of his Make America Great Again initiative.
With all the deregulation, I can't wait to start smoking on airplanes again. Those were great times. Flying bombs with
fifty or more lit fuses in the form of a cigarette you can smoke. The good old days.
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 5:50 pm
Cold N. Holefield -- it's like Ross Perot said re NAFTA and globalization: "When the rest
of the world's wages go up to $6.00/hour and our's come down to $6.00/hour, globalization
will end." That's what's happening, isn't it? Our wages are being held down, due in large
part to low-skilled labor and H-1B's flooding into the country, and wages in Asia are rising.
I remember Ross Perot standing right beside Bill Clinton when he said this, and I also
remember the sly smile on Bill Clinton's face. He knew.
Our technology was handed to China on a silver platter by the greedy U.S. multinationals,
technology that was developed by Western universities and taxpayer dollars, technology that
would have taken decades for China to develop on their own.
Trump is trying desperately to bring some of these jobs back. That's why he handed them
huge corporate tax breaks and cut some regulations.
Things "should" be made locally. There's no reason, especially with declining energy
resources, that a toaster should be shipped from thousands of miles away by boat, plane,
truck, rail. That's simply ridiculous, never mind causing a ton of extra pollution. We end up
working at McDonald's or Target, but, yay, we just saved $5.00 on our toaster.
Trump is trying to cut back on immigration so that wages can increase, but the Left want
to save the whole world, doing themselves in in the process. He wants to bring people in with
skills the country can benefit from, but for that he's tarred and feathered.
P.S. I remember sitting behind a drunk on a long flight, and I saw him drop his cigarette.
It rolled past me like it knew where it was going, and I couldn't find it. I called the
stewardess, and she and I searched for a few anxious seconds until we found it. Yes, the good
old days.
I don't know how you know about the so-called safety net. I know because I had to use it
while undergoing treatment for 2 types of stage 4 breast cancer the past 4 years. It is NOT
what people think. It beats the already vulnerable into the ground -- -- this is not
placating -- -- it is psychological breaking of human minds until they submit. The paperwork
is like undergoing a tax audit -- - every 6 months. "Technicians" decide one's "benefits"
which vary between "technicians".
Food stamps can be $195 during one period and then $35 the
next. The technicians/system takes no responsibility for the chaos and stress they bring into
their victims' lives. It is literally crazy making. BTW: I am white, a member of Phi Beta
Kappa, have a masters' degree, formerly owned my own business and while married lived within
the top 10%.
In addition, most of those on so-called social programs are children, the
elderly, chronically ill, veterans. You are correct that the middle class is falling into
poverty but you are not understanding what poverty actually looks like when the gov holds out
its beneficial hand. It is nothing short of cruelty.
backwardsevolution , February 6, 2018 at 4:48 pm
Diana Lee -- I hope you are well now. It breaks my heart what you went through. No, I
cannot imagine.
I didn't mean the lower class were living "well" on food stamps and welfare. All I meant
was that it helped, and without it all hell would break loose. If you lived in the top 10% at
one point, then you would surely notice a difference, but for many who have been raised in
this environment, they don't notice at all. It becomes a way of life. And, yes, you are
right, it is cruelty. A loss of life.
Due to automation, offshoring and transnational communications/internet, the elitists no
longer need a large domestic underclass of undocumented workers to artificially lower wages.
That is likely the reason that every Administration since Slick Willy have sought to reduce
illegal immigration.
After all, it was the Obama Administration that deported more undocumented immigrants than
any other in history, and it was in those years after the 2008 economic crash that saw net
migration from Mexico hit zero, or even negative numbers.
What the MSM is telling us is that the Trump Administration is more draconian in carrying
out practices that have been US policy for decades. That might even be true.
backwardsevolution , February 6, 2018 at 6:53 pm
Daniel -- " the elitists no longer need a large domestic underclass of undocumented
workers to artificially lower wages."
Oh, sure, that's why corporations and the Chambers of Commerce are fighting so hard to
keep chain migration, legal and illegal immigration numbers up! Because they don't need them.
Yeah, right.
And technology companies are clamoring for more H-1B's so they can pay them less.
Come on, Daniel.
Daniel , February 7, 2018 at 12:22 am
backward,
Please provide evidence that the "Chambers of Commerce are fighting so hard.." Please try to
keep your rebuttal to my statement that "elitists no longer need a large domestic underclass
of undocumented workers" and not various forms of legal migration. Because I do agree that
there is a market for "skilled labor" who are legal. Part off the reason for this labor
market is the drop in STEM-educated USAmericans.
I'm afraid the population has been so thoroughly incapacitated via a Dumbing Down
Education System coupled with 24/7 Media Misinformation and the Stultifying Effects of Social
Media that there will be no Revolution. Instead, it looks like it will be a steady
capitulation and acquiescence of personal sovereignty all the way to the Gas Chambers and no
doubt when or if that time comes, there will be an a nifty Application from Silicon Valley to
guide you through your Final Processing.
backwardsevolution , February 5, 2018 at 5:18 pm
Cold N. Holefield -- a "Dumbing Down Education System", but also lots of benefits on the
lower end: food stamps, disability, subsidized housing, free cell phones, etc. If these
things were removed (no, I'm not saying they should be), things would be completely
different. There'd be a riot in a fortnight.
If your stomach is empty, it doesn't really matter how dumbed down you've become, you are
going to feel fear and react. That's why they keep the lower end placated.
It is the middle class who is slipping down into the lower class, and these are the people
who are getting angry and fearful, mainly for their children. Those people have actually lost
something.
Concerning the discussion on "globalism" - and please excuse me if I've missed prior
discussion, I wasn't following that point back in the last thread - this word as used today
essentially is referring to neoliberal economic policies, which are the handmaiden of neocon
"war & plunder" policies. Both doctrines walk hand in hand. The so-called "free trade
agreements" remove barriers not so much against free trade as against corporate regulation -
this is the whole point of them. The TPP agreement that Trump withdrew from was the most vile
such agreement ever yet proposed.
"Globalism", so called, is the opening of doors in target nations to predatory capitalism,
disaster capitalism, the economic part of the John Perkins playbook. As corporatism gains
strength in a nation, fascism as Mussolini defined it (i.e. as corporatism) becomes the
reality. Maybe the word meant something good once, I don't know. But it stands for everything
bad now.
@ Grieved
Globalism is also blogs like this.
Globalism has been turned into a dirty word as it has been used, same as colour revolutions
ect, but I suspect it will also help bring down corporate globalism.
For me, in the latter part of my life, it has brought great interest for cultures and people
that are different to my own upbringing.
@21 Nationalism is seen as narrow, regressive and responsible for conflict. It's only
acceptable at sporting events. (Turks and Kurds haven't got the message yet.) Globalism is
seen as progressive. One world government is supposed to bring peace and prosperity to all.
Of course there are all kinds of racial and religious contradictions but the basic choice is
looking backwards or forwards.
Nationalism, globalism, sovereignty.
There is a word missing. Sovereignty does not seem to cover it but is the closest I can
find.
This is the wikipedia definition of sovereignty.. "Sovereignty is the full right and power
of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In
political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some
polity.[1] It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state
foundation."
Also similar to nationalism.
What is the correct word or term for full sovereignty plus respect for other countries and
cultures?
globalisation - the information highway (apart from road blocks) - a place where a shitkicker
from the mad monks anglosphere (oz) can converse or argue with people from all round the
world.
"Well, with regard to Germany, the EU project was the longest period of peace for the last
200 years. Same for France." somebody writes.
France and Germany have both been at war several times since the EU came into being. Of
course being US satraps, under NATO, they haven't fought each other.
As to Germany its existence, as a state, begins in 1870 and, in the past 150 years has
gone through several revolutionary changes, such as Anschluss, the Allied Occupation regime
and the Bundesrepublik-Democratic Republic interlude.
And then there are the border changes which, over the period are dramatic.
The point is that this cant apology for the EU is cheap and demagogic.
Any defence of the EU has to begin with a justification of its two cardinal objects: Wall St
forged neoliberalism and Pentagon directed policies designed to advance US geo-strategy
Seems like a discussion on semantics - rocky ground.
Putin once set up two words to explain a thing. He said that patriotism was love of one's
country. Nationalism was hatred of other countries. Great set of concepts, but there's no
real consensus of the meaning of those two words, in any group of people you could assemble
at random.
Important to agree on concepts and be wary of words when they're not solidly established
in a broad and functional consensus.
My apologies. I thought "globalism" as I described it was commonly held ground, but it's
not. I respectfully withdraw from the discussion, leaving disaster capitalism as the great
enemy, and global fraternity and exchange as the great friend of the ordinary people of the
whole world.
The words for all this I leave to others to establish. My apologies again for butting
in.
@30 Nothing to apologize for Grieved. The term 'globalism' means different things to
different people. Some see is as paradise on earth ....some see it as a subtle form of
hegemony.
@33 So many of the terms we use today are profoundly affected by the dilemma that Nietzsche
described in his statement (I paraphrase): 'God is dead, we have killed him. And no amount of
water can wash the blood from our hands'
This was not a statement of triumph, rather of despair. In the loss of the divine as the
source of morality, Nietzsche anticipated that people would invest that authority in other
structures - including the state (Nazi-ism, Marxism), the military, economics ('free-market'
capitalism) etc.
The loyalists in each of those 'causes' would see all their associated terms positively,
just like all adherents of religious systems. Those outside, or those who suffered abuse at
their hands, see those terms quite differently.
So Nationalism can be positive (as in pride in the legitimate achievements of your
country) or negative (where the people ascribe to the state/nation/race the right to define
what is morally right) where the nation has God-like authority to remove from whole classes
of people all their rights - even the right to life.
Wikipedia (under types of government) slices and dices your options when it comes to
political terms for the ruling elite. Two stand out to me, with the second suffering from an
unrecognisable name:
Plutocracy: Rule by the wealthy; a system wherein governance is indebted to, dependent
upon or heavily influenced by the desires of the rich
Ochlocracy: Rule by the crowd; a system of governance where mob rule is government by mob
or a mass of people, or the intimidation of legitimate authorities. As a pejorative for
majoritarianism, it is akin to the Latin phrase mobile vulgus meaning "the fickle crowd",
from which the English term "mob" was originally derived in the 1680s. Ochlocratic
governments are often a democracy spoiled by demagoguery, "tyranny of the majority" and the
rule of passion over reason; such governments can be as oppressive as autocratic tyrants.
Ochlocracy is synonymous in meaning and usage to the modern, informal term "mobocracy".
Personally, when it comes to describing the state of affairs in the empire, I lean toward
a despotic corporatism as being the best description. Others may prefer militarism over
corporatism, but when the two forces (the corporate and the military) unify you get
fascism.
Again, this is just how I, at this time, understand it.
Liberal democracy is not democratic. Let us stop lying, and dispense with the false
narrative that granting anyone a term of office in which they can steal from the commons and
not be immediately fired or even killed is anything remotely "cratic". It's feudalism, plain
and simple, and those who defend it are typically of a class long known to be
problematic.
i think the big challenge for the world is letting economics trump the environment...
until that changes, we're in trouble.. maybe it doesn't have to be an either/or thing... i do
think corporate power and the various trade deals (tpp - canada has bought into this with
mexico, so tpp is still happening, although the usa is not presently a part of it) are mostly
about ignoring local or national laws or trying to over-ride them so that corporations can
have all the power.. les7 calls something like this "despotic corporatism", but i mostly
think of it as just plain corporatism.. it is all despotic...
well, i feel the same way about the accumulation of ridiculous amounts of wealth in the
hands of a few as well.. how can this happen when people are struggling to survive on the
planet? do these people have no sense of shame? apparently not! they go about their business
accruing wealth oblivious to the pain and suffering they are directly, or indirectly
inflicting on others.. then there are those types who realize what they have done and try to
make amends by changing their ways and staring foundations - gates foundation and etc. etc...
to me, why not just not fuck people over, instead of thinking you have to trample on others
to get ahead and that the universe can only be seen as a dog eat dog universe? well, i can't
change others, i can only change myself and do what i feel good about and can live with..
thanks for the conversation..
@ 42 john gilberts.. canada continues to go down the wrong road, being sucked into the
made in the us bs.. freeland is a warmonger, with undisclosed financial support from soros to
continue the war on russia and etc. etc.. i can't believe we are that stupid to have such a
women is such a prominent role here in canada... anyone would be better..
Needless to say that there is only one me and I am grateful that b has deleted the fake ones.
Although it is known in car design that plagiarism is a form of admiration, in
my case it was the cheap attempt to soil my name. Ironically, the only people that believe
that they could succeed with this kind of gas lighting have an IQ that is surpassed by
the
shoe size of their little feet.
Allow me to contribute in regards to Nationalism. Having been born in a country that was
once ruled by a "National Socialist" party, I needed to find out more about what had caused
Nationalism to go rogue and destroy the Nation it emanated from.
Stories by family members did provide some answers, but we're insufficient at best, since
no one had seen it coming this way.
Then I discovered the lecture by J. Krishnamurti about Nationalism. My own parents were
toddlers when Krishnamurti spoke about Nationalism in Argentina in 1935.
The time spent listening to this speech was the best spent time ever in regards to finding
answers. While I have the speech on my computer, I will link here to the Krishnamurti
repository where all of his speeches can be found.
In an extremely ironic and the saddest way, his words about Nationalism were absolutely
prophetic. The transition from 'National Identity' to deadly Nationalism is fleeting.
Humanity has not been able to overcome Nationalism and struggles with the concept of
'sovereignty', as it appears to be dependent on Nationalism and not National identity.
Imo, sovereignty can only arise from Interdependence. The acknowledgement of
Interdependence at the root of sovereignty will allow for a National identity, that would not
resort to Nationalism and its cancerous degeneration into a murderous, inhumane tragedy.
"... We support free trade, but it needs to be fair," he chided. "It needs to be fair and it needs to be reciprocal." He went on to announce his support for "mutually beneficial, bilateral trade agreements with all countries, ..."
The president tries to sell business tycoons and world leaders on his "America First" policy
and sounds like a small-town mayor wooing Walmart to open a store in his community.
... ... ...
"I'm here to represent the interests of the American people," he began, ignoring the fact
that the majority of the American people don't want him representing their interests. "America
hopes for a future in which everyone can prosper," he said, describing the American dream as "a
great job, a safe home and a better life for their children." All true, but right now there are
also plenty of Americans dreaming of a president who won't embarrass them.
... ... ...
Trump naturally brought his patented "America First" routine to the august gathering, but he
was less belligerent about it than usual, almost conciliatory. "As president of the United
States I will always put America first," he said. "But America first does not mean America
alone," he added, as the audience of business tycoons and international leaders breathed a sigh
of relief. Of course, Trump wasn't yet done rebuking them. " We support free trade, but it
needs to be fair," he chided. "It needs to be fair and it needs to be reciprocal." He went on
to announce his support for "mutually beneficial, bilateral trade agreements with all
countries, " even hinting at rejoining TPP. That Donald, he's such a tease.
Trump's campaign to return manufacturing to America and repatriate profits held overseas
makes good business sense. The ravaging of America's once mighty industrial base to boost
corporate profits was a crime against the nation by unscrupulous Wall Street bankers and
short-sighted, greedy CEO's.
The basis of industrial power is the ability to make products people use. Shockingly, US
manufacturing has shrunk to only 14% of GDP. Today, America's primary business has become
finance, the largely non-productive act of paper-passing that only benefits a tiny big city
parasitic elite.
Trump_vs_deep_state is a natural reaction to the self-destruction of America's industrial base. But the
president's mania to wreck international trade agreements and impose tariff barriers will
result in diminishing America's economic and political influence around the globe.
Access to America's markets is in certain ways a more powerful political tool than
deployment of US forces around the globe. Lessening access to the US markets will inevitably
have negative repercussions on US exports.
Trump has been on a rampage to undo almost every positive initiative undertaken by the Obama
administration, even though many earned the US applause and respect around the civilized world.
The president has made trade agreements a prime target. He has targeted trade pacts involving
Mexico, Canada, the EU, Japan, China and a host of other nations by claiming they are unfair to
American workers. However, a degree of wage unfairness is the price Washington must pay for
bringing lower-cost nations into America's economic orbit.
This month, the Trump administration threatened new restrictions against 120 US trade
partners who may now face much higher tariffs on their exports to the US.
Trump is in a hurry because he fears he may not be re-elected. He is trying to eradicate all
vestiges of the Obama presidency with the ruthlessness and ferocity of Stalinist officials
eradicating every trace of liquidated commissars, even from official photos. America now faces
its own era of purges as an uneasy world watches.
Money quote: "And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War
3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real.
And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage,
to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation."
Notable quotes:
"... And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation. ..."
"... Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times ..."
"... Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy ..."
"... What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf. ..."
"... You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran. ..."
"... The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican opponents will not let him. ..."
"... That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not withstanding. ..."
"... The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard. ..."
"... The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems .missing ..."
"... Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago. ..."
"... I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this. I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US? ..."
"... The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest. ..."
"... The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer. ..."
"... Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them. ..."
"... There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals. ..."
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
"... Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that. ..."
"... Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance. ..."
"... And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country. ..."
"... The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans. ..."
It is one of the great ironies that the United States, a land mass protected by two broad oceans while also benefitting from the
world's largest economy and most powerful military, persists in viewing itself as a potential victim, vulnerable and surrounded by
enemies. In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the
second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World
War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative
than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or
no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating
their cooperation.
Also, I would characterize international terrorism as a faux threat at a national level, though one that has been exaggerated
through the media and fearmongering to such an extent that it appears much more dangerous than it actually is. It has been observed
that more Americans are killed by falling furniture than by terrorists in a year but terrorism has a particularly potency due to
its unpredictability and the fear that it creates. Due to that fear, American governments and businesses at all levels have been
willing to spend a trillion dollars per annum to defeat what might rationally be regarded as a relatively minor problem.
So if the United States were serious about dealing with or deflecting the actual threats against the American people it could
first of all reduce its defense expenditures to make them commensurate with the actual threat before concentrating on three things.
First, would be to establish a solid modus vivendi with Russia and China to avoid conflicts of interest that could develop
into actual tit-for-tat escalation. That would require an acceptance by Washington of the fact that both Moscow and Beijing have
regional spheres of influence that are defined by their interests. You don't have to like the governance of either country, but their
national interests have to be appreciated and respected just as the United States has legitimate interests within its own hemisphere
that must be respected by Russia and China.
Second, Washington must, unfortunately, continue to spend on the Missile Defense Agency, which supports anti-missile defenses
if the search for a modus vivendi for some reason fails. Mutual assured destruction is not a desirable strategic doctrine
but being able to intercept incoming missiles while also having some capability to strike back if attacked is a realistic deterrent
given the proliferation of nations that have both ballistic missiles and nukes.
Third and finally, there would be a coordinated program aimed at international terrorism based equally on where the terror comes
from and on physically preventing the terrorist attacks from taking place. This is the element in national defense that is least
clear cut. Dealing with Russia and China involves working with mature regimes that have established diplomatic and military channels.
Dealing with terrorist non-state players is completely different as there are generally speaking no such channels.
It should in theory be pretty simple to match threats and interests with actions since there are only a handful that really matter,
but apparently it is not so in practice. What is Washington doing? First of all, the White House is deliberately turning its back
on restoring a good working relationship with Russia by insisting that Crimea be returned to Kiev, by blaming Moscow for the continued
unrest in Donbas, and by attacking Syrian military targets in spite of the fact that Russia is an ally of the legitimate government
in Damascus and the United States is an interloper in the conflict. Meanwhile congress and the media are poisoning the waters through
their dogged pursuit of Russiagate for political reasons even though nearly a year of investigation has produced no actual evidence
of malfeasance on the part of U.S. officials and precious little in terms of Moscow's alleged interference.
Playing tough to the international audience has unfortunately become part of the American Exceptionalism DNA. Upon his arrival
in Warsaw last week, Donald Trump doubled down on the
Russia-bashing, calling on Moscow to "cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes
including Syria and Iran." He then recommended that Russia should "join the community of responsible nations in our fight against
common enemies and in defense of civilization itself."
The comments in Warsaw were unnecessary, even if the Poles wanted to hear them, and were both highly insulting and ignorant. It
was not a good start for Donald's second overseas trip, even though the speech has otherwise been interpreted as a welcome defense
of Western civilization and European values. Trump also followed up with a two hour plus discussion with President Vladimir Putin
in which the two apparently agreed to differ on the alleged Russian hacking of the American election. The Trump-Putin meeting indicated
that restoring some kind of working relationship with Russia is still possible, as it is in everyone's interest to do so.
Fighting terrorism is quite another matter and the United States approach is the reverse of what a rational player would be seeking
to accomplish. The U.S. is rightly assisting in the bid to eradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq but it is simultaneously attacking the
most effective fighters against that group, namely the Syrian government armed forces and the Shiite militias being provided by Iran
and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that at least some in the Trump Administration are seeking to use the Syrian
engagement as a stepping stone to war with Iran.
As was the case in the months preceding the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003, all buttons are being pushed to vilify Iran. Recent
reports suggest that two individuals in the White House in particular have been pressuring the Trump administration's generals to
escalate U.S. involvement in Syria to bring about a war with Tehran sooner rather than later. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek
Harvey, reported to be holdovers from the team brought into the White House by the virulently anti-Iranian former National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn.
Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and
has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council.
But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times
that "wants to use American spies to help oust the Iranian government," a comment that reflects complete ignorance, both regarding
Iran and also concerning spy agency capabilities. His partner in crime Harvey, a former military officer who advised General David
Petraeus when he was in Iraq, is the NSC advisor on the Middle East.
Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need
to be confronted by force,
an opportunity described by Foreign Policy magazine as having developed into "a pivotal moment that will determine whether
Iran or the United States exerts influence over Iraq and Syria." Other neocon promoters of conflict with Iran have described their
horror at a possible Shiite "bridge" or "land corridor" through the Arab heartland, running from Iran itself through Iraq and Syria
and connecting on the Mediterranean with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery
but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar
sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make
a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not
wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's
number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument
on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf.
The problem with the Trump analysis is that he has his friends and enemies confused. He is actually supporting Saudi Arabia, the
source of most of the terrorism that has convulsed Western Europe and the United States while also killing hundreds of thousands
of fellow Muslims. Random terrorism to kill as many "infidels and heretics" as possible to create fear is a Sunni Muslim phenomenon,
supported financially and doctrinally by the Saudis. To be sure, Iran has used terror tactics to eliminate opponents and select targets
overseas, to include several multiple-victim bombings, but it has never engaged in anything like the recent series of attacks in
France and Britain. So the United States is moving seemingly inexorably towards war with a country that itself constitutes no actual
terrorist threat, unless it is attacked, in support of a country that very much is part of the threat and also on behalf of Israel,
which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.
Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very hard
on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's
armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go. Saudi
financing and Washington's propensity to go to war and thereby create a deep well of hatred just might be the principal causative
elements in the rise of global terrorism. Do I think that Donald Trump's White House has the courage to take such a step and change
direction? Unfortunately, no.
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic. And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud. So,
our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled by
WASP Elites.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at YouTube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Besides what Priss Factor said above the following is to be reinforced with every real American man, woman and child.
Israel , which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its
own sons and daughters.
Israel, the REAL enemy! ,
@K India is looking to unload hindus to U.S? Quite the opposite. India is 'losing' its best brains to the U.S so its
trying to attract them back to their country. For eg: The chief- architect of IBM's Watson is a Hindu Indian and so is the
head of IBM's neuro-morphic computing. These people are advancing western technology.... civilian and also defense (IBM
is collaborating with the American defense organization DARPA) instead of helping India achieve technological competence.
And most of other super intelligent Indians also India is losing them to the west.
(i dont hate the west for doing that. Any country in amercia's place would have done the same. It is india's job to keep
its best brains working for it and not for others. And india is trying its best to do that albeit unsuccessfully.)
100 Words #UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG – Robert David Steele Weekly Update
@Durruti Nice action approach
to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed - with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet - both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort
to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran.
The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand
the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal,
the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his
republican opponents will not let him.
That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given
so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence
Agencies to the contrary not withstanding.
The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel
will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard.
The western world is dependent on oil, especially ME oil. Saudi Arabia was made the USA's main oil supplier at the end of 1944.
The Saud dynasty depends on the USA. That the Saudis would sponsor terrorism, why would they ? And which terrorism is Muslim terrorism
?
Sept 11 not, Boston not, Madrid and London very questionably. We then are left with minor issues, the Paris shooting the biggest.
That Saudi Arabia is waging war in Yemen certainly is with USA support. The Saudi army does what the USA wants them to do.
Mr. Giraldi, you forgot to mention Israel as one of America's biggest liabilities besides Saudi Arabia. But with such amateur
dramatics in the White House and on the Security Council, the US is destined for war but only against the wrong enemy such as
Iran. If the Saudis and the right-wing Netanyahu regime want to get after Iran they should do it alone. They surely will get a
bloody nose. Americans have shed enough blood for these rascal regimes. President Trump should continue with his rapprochement
towards Russia because both nation states have more in common than expected.
I'm a little disappointed in this article. Not that it's a bad article per se: perfectly rational, reasonable, academic even.
But unfortunately, it's simply naive.
"Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very
hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which
America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have
a go."
Realize who the real enemy is ? Come down hard on the Saud's ? No -- really ?
The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems
.missing. Israel, the Saudi's themselves, the MIC & so on & so forth ARE the special interests who literally "realise" US Policy.
Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag.
Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle
east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.)
I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies.
So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? ,
"The White House is targeting Iran but should instead focus on Saudi Arabia"
Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for
him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies
never work and ours quit long ago.
I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy',
the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia
population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves.
USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The
operation was by and large very successful btw.
It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world.
Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first
country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so
much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood – "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud,
Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal
tendencies of Mexicans.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at youtube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Replies: @Sowhat And what grudge
is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural
resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast and the decades
long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that
bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting
her wars of conquest.
You won't see Israeli troops in the streets, since their confederates control the economy thru their control of the FED and
US Treasury and most of those TBTF banks, which we always bail out, no matter the cost.
The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them
a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer.
The WH is also Israeli territory, especially now with a Jew NYC slumlord now Trump's top adviser and his fashion model faux
Jew daughter egging Daddy on to kill more Arab babies, since she can't stand the sight of dead babies
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some
people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if
any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?
@eah The WH should focus on
the USA. And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization
of their natural resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast
and the decades long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others
to do their "dirty work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely
argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"
-- goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses
Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend her interests just
as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and
Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians--except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they
acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity)
or they can go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture,
Drama and Music or blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try
to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
, @bjondo Jews/Judaism
bring death, destruction, misery.
Muslims/Islam (minus Western creation of "Muslim"terrorists) brought golden ages to many areas.
Christianity and Islam elevate the human spirit. Judaism degrades.
June 7, 2017 We Have Met the Evil Empire and It Is Us
Life in America was pure injustice, the lash and the iron boot, despite the version of history we have been given by the Ford
and Rockefeller Foundations who "re-invented" America and its history through taking control of public education in the late 1940s.
You see, the multi-generational ignorance we bask in today is not unplanned. The threat represented by advances in communications
and other technology was recognized and dealt with, utterly quashed at birth.
@anarchyst Israel's current
"agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty
work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely argue
that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"--goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran...you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses... Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend
her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and Judaism.
In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians–except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they acknowledge
that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can
go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture, Drama and Music or
blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try to act
like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
Trump is torn between Israel's permanent need to weaken its powerful neighbors (Iraq, Iran) and the necessity to protect the USA
from terrorists attacks.
Iran is an hypothetical threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia has proven to be a threat to the world.
In Tehran and other Iranian cities including Iran's holiest, that is, most conservative cities like Mashad. there are taxi
companies owned and run by women.
Tehran traffic makes NYC look like Mayberry RFD; many Iranians use small motorcycles to commute and take care of daily chores.
It's not at all uncommon to see an Iranian woman in full chador driving a motorcycle with a child and parcels in tow.
Iranian women could offer to teach the women of Saudi Arabia to drive.
@Wizard of Oz I am beginning
to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening
question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? A better question: Have YOU read
The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?
There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming
there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've
spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way
of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems.
They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance
of US goals.
They live the royal life thanks to being able to use the money from their nation's resource wealth as their own personal kitty,
living in palaces, buying obscene amounts of jewelry and other luxury goods, and so on. They'll never give that up and being a
close ally of the US affords them protection which of course they pay for. They may be seen as an enemy by the average person
but not at the elite level with whom they all consort and roll around in the money with.
Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has
good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.
Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also
because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial
political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration
to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that.
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) "Well, the real enemy of the people are the
real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag."
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic.
And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud.
So, our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled
by WASP Elites. SECOND worst,my friend.
@Chad I fully agree that attacking
Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less,
in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security.
Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority
Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands
this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large
very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across
the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran
became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became
the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher
so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood - "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Bingo. Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it
wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.
1,000 Words @RobinG#UNRIG
adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
..................."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG - Robert David Steele Weekly Update Nice action approach to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed – with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet – both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
are studying US states and ranking them according to financial stability measures. The states with biggest problems -- Illinois,
California, New Jersey, Connecticut -- are in the mess they are in largely because of pension liability issues: some pensions
are unfunded or underfunded.
I recall that ten years ago about a dozen Jewish organizations formed the "Iran Task Force," ** whose primary activity was
to persuade managers of State pension funds to divest from Iran-connected companies; that is, corporations & banks, etc. that
did business with Iran. I recall very clearly that Arnold Schwartznegger was the poster child for California's vanguard role in
divesting from such nasty nasty companies, in accord with the wishes of Jewish Israel-firsters.
Perhaps the Mercatus scholars could prepare an exercise in alternative financial history: What shape would the US economy,
and the various States's economies, be in if the US were NOT so overwhelmingly influenced by Israel firsters, and were NOT persuaded,
Against Our Better Judgment, to entangle themselves in Israel's nefarious activities?
____
** The 2007 Iran Task Force is NOT the same as the group formed in 2015 or so, embedded in US House/Senate, with Joe Lieberman
and Michael Hayden playing prominent roles in attempting to influence the Iran Deal.
The 2007 initiative was sponsored by groups such as ZOA, RJC, AIPAC, etc., and / or spun off groups such as Foundation for
Defense of Democracy, United Against Nuclear Iran.
Also the concept of "Neoliberal jihad is valid, but it is better to call it Neoliberal World revolution as it was borrowed
from Trotskyism
Notable quotes:
"... Jihad vs. McWorld ..."
"... In the two decades since Barber's book, this conflict has seemed to play out along overtly cultural lines: with Islamic extremism representing jihad, in opposition to Western neoliberalism representing McWorld. ..."
"... Linking Brexit and Trump to global right-wing tribal nationalisms doesn't mean conflating them all, of course. ..."
"... Yet at the same time, we can't understand our 21st century world without a recognition of this widespread phenomenon of global, tribal nationalism. ..."
In his ground-breaking
1995 book Jihad vs. McWorld , political scientist Benjamin Barber posits that the
global conflicts of the early 21st century would be driven by two opposing but equally
undemocratic forces: neoliberal corporate globalization (which he dubbed "McWorld") and
reactionary tribal nationalisms (which he dubbed "Jihad"). Although distinct in many ways, both
of these forces, Barber persuasively argues, succeed by denying the possibilities for
democratic consensus and action, and so both must be opposed by civic engagement and activism
on a broad scale.
In the two decades since Barber's book, this conflict has seemed to play out along overtly
cultural lines: with Islamic extremism representing jihad, in opposition to Western
neoliberalism representing McWorld. Case in pitch-perfect point: the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Center. Yet despite his use of the Arabic word Jihad, Barber is clear that
reactionary tribalism is a worldwide phenomenon -- and in 2016 we're seeing particularly
striking examples of that tribalism in Western nations such as Great Britain and the United
States.
Britain's vote this week in favor of leaving the European Union was driven entirely by such
reactionary tribal nationalism. The far-right United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and its
leader Nigel Farage
led the charge in favor of Leave , as exemplified by a recent UKIP poster featuring a photo
of Syrian refugees with the caption " Breaking point: the EU has failed
us ." Farage and his allies like to point to demographic statistics about how much the UK
has changed in the last few decades , and more
exactly how the nation's white majority has been somewhat shifted over that time by the
arrival
of sizeable African and Asian immigrant communities.
It's impossible not to link the UKIP's emphases on such issues of immigration and demography
to the presidential campaign of the one prominent U.S. politician who is
cheering for the Brexit vote : presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. From his
campaign-launching speech about Mexican immigrant "criminals and rapists" to his proposal to
ban Muslim immigration and his "Make American Great Again" slogan, Trump has relied on
reactionary tribal nationalism at every stage of his campaign, and has received the
enthusiastic endorsement
of white supremacist and far-right organizations as a result. For such American tribal
nationalists, the 1965 Immigration Act is the chief bogeyman, the origin point of continuing
demographic shifts that have placed white America in a precarious position.
The only problem with that narrative is that it's entirely inaccurate. What the 1965 Act did
was reverse a
recent, exclusionary trend in American immigration law and policy, returning the nation to
the more inclusive and welcoming stance it had taken throughout the rest of its history.
Moreover, while the numbers of Americans from Latin American, Asian, and Muslim cultures have
increased in recent decades, all of those
communities have been part of o
ur national community from its origin points . Which is to say, this right-wing tribal
nationalism isn't just opposed to fundamental realities of 21st century American identity -- it
also depends on historical and national narratives that are as mythic as they are
exclusionary.
Linking Brexit and Trump to global right-wing tribal nationalisms doesn't mean conflating
them all, of course. Although Trump rallies have featured troubling instances of violence, and
although the
murderer of British politican Jo Cox was an avowed white supremacist and Leave supporter,
the right-wing Islamic extremism of groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram rely far more
consistently and centrally on violence and terrorism in support of their worldview and goals.
Such specific contexts and nuances are important and shouldn't be elided.
Yet at the same time, we can't understand our 21st century world without a recognition of
this widespread phenomenon of global, tribal nationalism. From ISIS to UKIP, Trump to France's
Jean-Marie Le Pen, such reactionary forces have become and remain dominant players across the
world, influencing local and international politics, economics, and culture. Benjamin Barber
called this trend two decades ago, and we would do well to read and remember his analyses -- as
well as his call for civic engagement and activism to resist these forces and fight for
democracy.
Petras did not mention that it was Carter who started neoliberalization of the USA. The subsequent election of Reagan signified
the victory of neoliberalism in this country or "quite coup". The death of New Deal from this point was just a matter
of time. Labor relations drastically changes and war on union and atomization of workforce are a norm.
Welfare state still exists but only for corporation and MIC. Otherwise the New Deal society is almost completely dismanted.
It is true that "The ' New Deal' was, at best, a de facto ' historical compromise' between the capitalist class
and the labor unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition
while the capitalists retained their executive prerogatives." But the key factor in this compromise was the existence of the USSR as
a threat to the power of capitalists in the USA. when the USSR disappeared cannibalistic instincts of the US elite prevailed over caution.
Notable quotes:
"... The earlier welfare 'reforms' and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East. ..."
"... In the 1940's through the 1960's, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program – a form of ' social imperialism' , which 'buy off' the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity and poor health. ..."
"... modern welfare state' ..."
"... Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections, collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility. ..."
"... Social Security legislation was approved along with workers' compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace shop steward councils organized 'on the spot' job action to protect safe working conditions. ..."
"... World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers' collective bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number were also killed or wounded in the war. ..."
"... So-called ' right to work' ..."
"... Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses. Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing hours (" thirty hours work for forty hours pay ..."
"... Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers' incomes, increased, inequalities, especially in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans' access to high-quality subsidized education declined ..."
"... With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the " Volker Plan " – freezing workers' wages as a means to combat inflation. ..."
"... Guns without butter' became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based on politically fragile foundations. ..."
"... The anti-labor offensive from the ' Oval Office' intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization, capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor's share of national income. ..."
"... The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression, at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its control of the commanding heights of the economy ..."
"... Hand in bloody glove' with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home. The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers. Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas and turned their backs on labor at home. ..."
"... President 'Bill' Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard 'Bernie' Madoff. ..."
"... Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor 'workfare', exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families ravaged the urban communities. ..."
"... President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush's two overseas wars to Obama's seven. ..."
"... Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued to moralize to black families about ' values' . ..."
"... Obama's war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa. The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of Africans flooding Europe. ..."
"... Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump ..."
"... Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. The remains of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society -- are on the chopping block. ..."
"... The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the 'Great Society's' gravediggers, while wailing at Trump's allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave. ..."
"... Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ' labor movement' has contributed to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ' strike-breaker' Reagan, ' workfare' Clinton, ' Wall Street crash' Bush, ' Wall Street savior' Obama and ' Trickle-down' Trump. ..."
"... Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from the 'Great Financial Meltdown' of the 21 st century. ..."
"... The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class polarized social system in history ..."
"... "The collaboration of liberals and unions in promoting endless wars opened the door to Trump's mirage of a stateless, tax-less, ruling class." ..."
"... Corporations [now] are welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up ..."
"... Corporations not only continuously seek monopolies (with the aid and sanction of the state) but they steadily fine tune the welfare state for their benefit. In fact, in reality, welfare for prols and peasants wouldn't exist if it didn't act as a money conduit and ultimate profit center for the big money grubbers. ..."
"... The article is dismal reading, and evidence of the failings of the "unregulated" society, where the anything goes as long as you are wealthy. ..."
"... Like the Pentagon. Americans still don't readily call this welfare, but they will eventually. Defense profiteers are unions in a sense, you're either in their club Or you're in the service industry that surrounds it. ..."
The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period, the
capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.
Between the mid 1970's to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies for
affordable housing have been gutted. ' Workfare' (under President 'Bill' Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced
workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits to an
astronomical degree.
What started as incremental reversals during the 1990's under Clinton has snowballed over the last two decades decimating welfare
legislation and institutions.
The earlier welfare 'reforms' and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a
series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East.
In the 1940's through the 1960's, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program
– a form of ' social imperialism' , which 'buy off' the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized
by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity
and poor health.
New Deals and Big Wars
The 1930's witnessed the advent of social legislation and action, which laid the foundations of what is called the ' modern
welfare state' .
Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections,
collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and
benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class
and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility.
Social Security legislation was approved along with workers' compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through
federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace
shop steward councils organized 'on the spot' job action to protect safe working conditions.
World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers' collective
bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number
were also killed or wounded in the war.
The post-war period witnessed a contradictory process: wages and salaries increased while legislation curtailed union rights via
the Taft Hartley Act and the McCarthyist purge of leftwing trade union activists. So-called ' right to work' laws effectively
outlawed unionization mostly in southern states, which drove industries to relocate to the anti-union states.
Welfare reforms, in the form of the GI bill, provided educational opportunities for working class and rural veterans, while federal-subsidized
low interest mortgages encourage home-ownership, especially for veterans.
The New Deal created concrete improvements but did not consolidate labor influence at any level. Capitalists and management still
retained control over capital, the workplace and plant location of production.
Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses.
Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing
hours (" thirty hours work for forty hours pay "). Dissident local unions were seized and gutted by the trade union bosses
– sometimes through violence.
Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the
will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist
class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers' incomes, increased, inequalities, especially
in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans' access to high-quality subsidized education declined.
While a new wave of social welfare legislation and programs began in the 1960's and early 1970's it was no longer a result of
a mass trade union or workers' "class struggle". Moreover, trade union collaboration with the capitalist regional war policies led
to the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of workers in two wars – the Korean and Vietnamese wars.
Much of social legislation resulted from the civil and welfare rights movements. While specific programs were helpful, none of
them addressed structural racism and poverty.
The Last Wave of Social Welfarism
The 1960'a witnessed the greatest racial war in modern US history: Mass movements in the South and North rocked state and federal
governments, while advancing the cause of civil, social and political rights. Millions of black citizens, joined by white activists
and, in many cases, led by African American Viet Nam War veterans, confronted the state. At the same time, millions of students and
young workers, threatened by military conscription, challenged the military and social order.
Energized by mass movements, a new wave of social welfare legislation was launched by the federal government to pacify mass opposition
among blacks, students, community organizers and middle class Americans. Despite this mass popular movement, the union bosses at
the AFL-CIO openly supported the war, police repression and the military, or at best, were passive impotent spectators of the drama
unfolding in the nation's streets. Dissident union members and activists were the exception, as many had multiple identities to represent:
African American, Hispanic, draft resisters, etc.
Under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, the EPA and multiple poverty programs were implemented.
A national health program, expanding Medicare for all Americans, was introduced by President Nixon and sabotaged by the Kennedy Democrats
and the AFL-CIO. Overall, social and economic inequalities diminished during this period.
The Vietnam War ended in defeat for the American militarist empire. This coincided with the beginning of the end of social welfare
as we knew it – as the bill for militarism placed even greater demands on the public treasury.
With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were
accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the " Volker Plan " – freezing workers' wages as a means to combat inflation.
Guns without butter' became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based
on politically fragile foundations.
The Debacle of Welfarism
Private sector trade union membership declined from a post-world war peak of 30% falling to 12% in the 1990's. Today it has sunk
to 7%. Capitalists embarked on a massive program of closing thousands of factories in the unionized North which were then relocated
to the non-unionized low wage southern states and then overseas to Mexico and Asia. Millions of stable jobs disappeared.
Following the election of 'Jimmy Carter', neither Democratic nor Republican Presidents felt any need to support labor organizations.
On the contrary, they facilitated contracts dictated by management, which reduced wages, job security, benefits and social welfare.
The anti-labor offensive from the ' Oval Office' intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention
firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush
and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was
astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization,
capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor's share of national income.
The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression,
at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its
control of the commanding heights of the economy.
The ' New Deal' was, at best, a de facto ' historical compromise' between the capitalist class and the labor
unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition while the capitalists
retained their executive prerogatives.
The Second World War secured the economic recovery for capital and subordinated labor through a federally mandated no strike
production agreement. There were a few notable exceptions: The coal miners' union organized strikes in strategic sectors and some
leftist leaders and organizers encouraged slow-downs, work to rule and other in-plant actions when employers ran roughshod with special
brutality over the workers. The recovery of capital was the prelude to a post-war offensive against independent labor-based political
organizations. The quality of labor organization declined even as the quantity of trade union membership increased.
Labor union officials consolidated internal control in collaboration with the capitalist elite. Capitalist class-labor official
collaboration was extended overseas with strategic consequences.
The post-war corporate alliance between the state and capital led to a global offensive – the replacement of European-Japanese
colonial control and exploitation by US business and bankers. Imperialism was later 're-branded' as ' globalization' . It
pried open markets, secured cheap docile labor and pillaged resources for US manufacturers and importers.
US labor unions played a major role by sabotaging militant unions abroad in cooperation with the US security apparatus: They worked
to coopt and bribe nationalist and leftist labor leaders and supported police-state regime repression and assassination of recalcitrant
militants.
' Hand in bloody glove' with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home.
The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers.
Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas
and turned their backs on labor at home.
Labor union officials had laid the groundwork for the demise of stable jobs and social benefits for American workers. Their collaboration
increased the rate of capitalist profit and overall power in the political system. Their complicity in the brutal purges of militants,
activists and leftist union members and leaders at home and abroad put an end to labor's capacity to sustain and expand the welfare
state.
Trade unions in the US did not use their collaboration with empire in its bloody regional wars to win social benefits for the
rank and file workers. The time of social-imperialism, where workers within the empire benefited from imperialism's pillage, was
over. Gains in social welfare henceforth could result only from mass struggles led by the urban poor, especially Afro-Americans,
community-based working poor and militant youth organizers.
The last significant social welfare reforms were implemented in the early 1970's – coinciding with the end of the Vietnam War
(and victory for the Vietnamese people) and ended with the absorption of the urban and anti-war movements into the Democratic Party.
Henceforward the US corporate state advanced through the overseas expansion of the multi-national corporations and via large-scale,
non-unionized production at home.
The technological changes of this period did not benefit labor. The belief, common in the 1950's, that science and technology
would increase leisure, decrease work and improve living standards for the working class, was shattered. Instead technological changes
displaced well-paid industrial labor while increasing the number of mind-numbing, poorly paid, and politically impotent jobs in the
so-called 'service sector' – a rapidly growing section of unorganized and vulnerable workers – especially including women and minorities.
Labor union membership declined precipitously. The demise of the USSR and China's turn to capitalism had a dual effect: It eliminated
collectivist (socialist) pressure for social welfare and opened their labor markets with cheap, disciplined workers for foreign manufacturers.
Labor as a political force disappeared on every count. The US Federal Reserve and President 'Bill' Clinton deregulated financial
capital leading to a frenzy of speculation. Congress wrote laws, which permitted overseas tax evasion – especially in Caribbean tax
havens. Regional free-trade agreements, like NAFTA, spurred the relocation of jobs abroad. De-industrialization accompanied the decline
of wages, living standards and social benefits for millions of American workers.
The New Abolitionists: Trillionaires
The New Deal, the Great Society, trade unions, and the anti-war and urban movements were in retreat and primed for abolition.
Wars without welfare (or guns without butter) replaced earlier 'social imperialism' with a huge growth of poverty and homelessness.
Domestic labor was now exploited to finance overseas wars not vice versa. The fruits of imperial plunder were not shared.
As the working and middle classes drifted downward, they were used up, abandoned and deceived on all sides – especially by the
Democratic Party. They elected militarists and demagogues as their new presidents.
President 'Bill' Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the
prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard 'Bernie' Madoff.
Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor 'workfare', exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next
generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families
ravaged the urban communities.
Provoked by an act of terrorism (9/11) President G.W. Bush Jr. launched the 'endless' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and deepened
the police state (Patriot Act). Wages for American workers and profits for American capitalist moved in opposite directions.
The Great Financial Crash of 2008-2011 shook the paper economy to its roots and led to the greatest shakedown of any national
treasury in history directed by the First Black American President. Trillions of public wealth were funneled into the criminal banks
on Wall Street – which were ' just too big to fail .' Millions of American workers and homeowners, however, were '
just
too small to matter' .
The Age of Demagogues
President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion
to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush's two overseas wars to Obama's seven.
Obama's electoral 'donor-owners' stashed away two trillion dollars in overseas tax havens and looked forward to global free trade
pacts – pushed by the eloquent African American President.
Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while
swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama
completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued
to moralize to black families about ' values' .
Obama's war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa.
The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of
Africans flooding Europe.
'Obamacare' , his imitation of an earlier Republican governor's health plan, was formulated by the private corporate
health industry (private insurance, Big Pharma and the for-profit hospitals), to mandate enrollment and ensure triple digit profits
with double digit increases in premiums. By the 2016 Presidential elections, ' Obama-care' was opposed by a 45%-43% margin
of the American people. Obama's propagandists could not show any improvement of life expectancy or decrease in infant and maternal
mortality as a result of his 'health care reform'. Indeed the opposite occurred among the marginalized working class in the old 'rust
belt' and in the rural areas. This failure to show any significant health improvement for the masses of Americans is in stark contrast
to LBJ's Medicare program of the 1960's, which continues to receive massive popular support.
Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump
Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
The remains of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society -- are on the chopping block.
The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare
state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the 'Great Society's' gravediggers, while wailing
at Trump's allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave.
Conclusion
Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ' labor movement' has contributed
to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ' strike-breaker' Reagan, ' workfare' Clinton, ' Wall Street crash' Bush,
' Wall Street savior' Obama and ' Trickle-down' Trump.
Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions
into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in
the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from
the 'Great Financial Meltdown' of the 21 st century.
The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and
among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off
state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class
polarized social system in history. The first trillionaire and multi-billionaire tax evaders rose on the backs of a miserable
standing army of tens of millions of low-wage workers, stripped of rights and representation. State subsidies eliminate virtually
all risk to capital. The end of social welfare coerced labor (including young mother with children) to seek insecure low-income employment
while slashing education and health – cementing the feet of generations into poverty. Regional wars abroad have depleted the Treasury
and robbed the country of productive investment. Economic imperialism exports profits, reversing the historic relation of the past.
Labor is left without compass or direction; it flails in all directions and falls deeper in the web of deception and demagogy.
To escape from Reagan and the strike breakers, labor embraced the cheap-labor predator Clinton; black and white workers united to
elect Obama who expelled millions of immigrant workers, pursued 7 wars, abandoned black workers and enriched the already filthy rich.
Deception and demagogy of the labor-
If the welfare state in America was abolished, major American cities would burn to the ground. Anarchy would ensue, it would be
magnitudes bigger than anything that happened in Ferguson or Baltimore. It would likely be simultaneous.
I think that's one of the only situations where preppers would actually live out what they've been prepping for (except for
a natural disaster).
I've been thinking about this a little over the past few years after seeing the race riots. What exactly is the line between
our society being civilized and breaking out into chaos. It's probably a lot thinner than most people think.
I don't know who said it but someone long ago said something along the lines of, "Democracy can only work until the people
figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury." We are definitely in this situation today.
I wonder how long it can last.
While I agree with Petras's intent (notwithstanding several exaggerations and unnecessary conflations with, for example, racism),
I don't agree so much with the method he proposes. I don't mind welfare and unions to a certain extent, but they are not going
to save us unless there is full employment and large corporations that can afford to pay an all-union workforce. That happened
during WW2, as only wartime demand and those pesky wage freezes solved the Depression, regardless of all the public works programs;
while the postwar era benefited from the US becoming the world's creditor, meaning that capital could expand while labor participation
did as well.
From then on, it is quite hard to achieve the same success after outsourcing and mechanization have happened all over the world.
Both of these phenomena not only create displaced workers, but also displaced industries, meaning that it makes more sense to
develop individual workfare (and even then, do it well, not the shoddy way it is done now) rather than giving away checks that
probably will not be cashed for entrepreneurial purposes, and rather than giving away money to corrupt unions who depend on trusts
to be able to pay for their benefits, while raising the cost of hiring that only encourages more outsourcing.
The amount of welfare given is not necessarily the main problem, the problem is doing it right for the people who truly need
it, and efficiently – that is, with the least amount of waste lost between the chain of distribution, which should reach intended
targets and not moochers.
Which inevitably means a sound tax system that targets unearned wealth and (to a lesser degree) foreign competition instead
of national production, coupled with strict, yet devolved and simple government processes that benefit both business and individuals
tired of bureaucracy, while keeping budgets balanced. Best of both worlds, and no military-industrial complex needed to drive
up demand.
The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period,
the capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Corporations [now] are welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up, and welfare for
them started before 1935. In fact, it started in America before there was a USA. I do not have time to elaborate, but what were
the various companies such as the British East India Company and the Dutch West India Companies but state pampered, welfare based
entities? ~200 years ago, Herbert Spencer, if memory serves, pointed out that the British East India Company couldn't make a profit
even with all the special, government granted favors showered upon it.
Corporations not only continuously seek monopolies (with the aid and sanction of the state) but they steadily fine tune
the welfare state for their benefit. In fact, in reality, welfare for prols and peasants wouldn't exist if it didn't act as a
money conduit and ultimate profit center for the big money grubbers.
Well, the author kind of nails it. I remember from my childhood in the 50-60 ties in Scandinavia that the US was the ultimate
goal in welfare. The country where you could make a good living with your two hands, get you kids to UNI, have a house, a telly
ECT. It was not consumerism, it was the American dream, a chicken in every pot; we chewed imported American gum and dreamed.
In the 70-80 ties Scandinavia had a tremendous social and economic growth, EQUALLY distributed, an immense leap forward. In the
middle of the 80 ties we were equal to the US in standards of living.
Since we have not looked at the US, unless in pity, as we have seen the decline of the general income, social wealth fall way
behind our own.
The average US workers income has not increased since 90 figures adjusted for inflation. The Scandinavian workers income in the
same period has almost quadrupled. And so has our societies.
The article is dismal reading, and evidence of the failings of the "unregulated" society, where the anything goes as long
as you are wealthy.
Between the mid 1970's to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies
for affordable housing have been gutted. 'Workfare' (under President 'Bill' Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced
workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits
to an astronomical degree.
What does Hollywood "elite" JAP and wannabe hack-stand-up-comic Sarah Silverman think about the class struggle and problems
facing destitute Americans? "Qu'ils mangent de la bagels!", source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
Like the Pentagon. Americans still don't readily call this welfare, but they will eventually. Defense profiteers are unions
in a sense, you're either in their club Or you're in the service industry that surrounds it.
As other commenters have pointed out, it's Petras curious choice of words that sometimes don't make too much sense. We can probably
blame the maleable English language for that, but here it's too obvious. If you don't define a union, people might assume you're
only talking about a bunch of meat cutters at Safeway.
The welfare state is alive and well for corporate America. Unions are still here – but they are defined by access and secrecy,
you're either in the club or not.
The war on unions was successful first by co-option but mostly by the media. But what kind of analysis leaves out the role
of the media in the American transformation? The success is mind blowing.
America has barely literate (white) middle aged males trained to spout incoherent Calvinistic weirdness: unabased hatred for
the poor (or whoever they're told to hate) and a glorification of hedge fund managers as they get laid off, fired and foreclosed
on, with a side of opiates.
There is hardly anything more tragic then seeing a web filled with progressives (management consultants) dedicated to disempowering,
disabling and deligitimizing victims by claiming they are victims of biology, disease or a lack of an education rather than a
system that issues violence while portending (with the best media money can buy) that they claim the higher ground.
""Democracy can only work until the people figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public
treasury." We are definitely in this situation today."
Quite right: the 0.01% have worked it out & US democracy is a Theatre for the masses.
I don't know who said it but someone long ago said something along the lines of, "Democracy can only work until the people
figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury."
Some French aristocrat put it as, once the gates to the treasury have been breached, they can only be closed again with gunpowder.
Anyone recognize the author?
The author doesn't get it. What we have now IS the welfare state in an intensely diverse society. We have more transfer spending
than ever before and Obamacare represents another huge entitlement.
Intellectuals continue to fantasize about the US becoming a Big Sweden, but Sweden has only been successful insofar as it has
been a modest nation-state populated by ethnic Swedes. Intense diversity in a huge country with only the remnants of federalism
results in massive non-consensual decision-making, fragmentation, increased inequality, and corruption.
The welfare state is alive and well for corporate America. Unions are still here – but they are defined by access and
secrecy, you're either in the club or not.
They are largely defined as Doctors, Lawyers, and University Professors who teach the first two. Of course they are not called
unions. Access is via credentialing and licensing. Good Day
Bernie Sanders, speaking on behalf of the MIC's welfare bird: "It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and
of NATO."
Elizabeth Warren, referring to Mossad's Estes Rockets: "The Israeli military has the right to attack Palestinian hospitals
and schools in self defense"
Barack Obama, yukking it up with pop stars: "Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming."
It's not the agitprop that confuses the sheep, it's whose blowhole it's coming out of (labled D or R for convenience) that
gets them to bare their teeth and speak of poo.
What came first, the credentialing or the idea that it is a necessary part of education? It certainly isn't an accurate indication
of what people know or their general intelligence – although that myth has flourished. Good afternoon.
For an interesting projection of what might happen in total civilizational collapse, I recommend the Dies the Fire series of
novels by SM Stirling.
It has a science-fictiony setup in that all high-energy system (gunpowder, electricity, explosives, internal combustion, even
high-energy steam engines) suddenly stop working. But I think it does a good job of extrapolating what would happen if suddenly
the cities did not have food, water, power, etc.
Spoiler alert: It ain't pretty. Those who dream of a world without guns have not really thought it through.
It has been pointed out repeatedly that Sweden does very well relative to the USA. It has also been noted that people of Swedish
ancestry in the USA do pretty well also. In fact considerably better than Swedes in Sweden
This was a pretty profitc book, if you think that it was publishe in 1995. At the same time
neoliberalm is not atolerant isther and we can talk about "neoliberal jihad"
Notable quotes:
"... As neoliberal economic theory -- not to be confused with social liberalism -- is the force behind globalization, this critique is relevant on a much larger scale. ..."
"... Barber argues that there are several imperatives that make up the McWorld, or the globalization of politics : a market imperative, a resource imperative, an information-technology imperative, and an ecological imperative. Due to globalization, our market has expanded and is vulnerable to the transnational markets where free trade, easy access to banking and exchange of currency are available. ..."
"... Barber sees Jihad as offering solidarity and protecting identities, but at the potential cost of tolerance and stability. ..."
The book was based on a March 1992 article by Barber first published in The Atlantic Monthly .
[1]
The book employs the basic critique of neoliberalism seen in Barber's earlier,
seminal work Strong
Democracy . As neoliberal economic theory -- not to be
confused with social
liberalism -- is the force behind globalization, this critique is relevant on a much larger
scale. Unregulated market forces encounter parochial (which he calls tribal ) forces.
These tribal forces come in many varieties: religious, cultural, ethnic, regional, local,
etc. As globalization imposes a culture of its own on a population, the tribal forces feel
threatened and react. More than just economic, the crises that arise from these confrontations
often take on a sacred quality to the tribal elements; thus Barber's use of the term "Jihad"
(although in the second edition, he expresses regret at having used that term). [
why? ]
Barber's prognosis in Jihad vs McWorld is generally negative -- he concludes that
neither global corporations nor traditional cultures are supportive of democracy . He further posits that McWorld could ultimately win the
"struggle". He also proposes a model for small, local democratic institutions and
civic engagement
as the hope for an alternative to these two forces.
Barber argues that there are several imperatives that make up the McWorld, or the
globalization of politics
: a market imperative, a resource imperative, an information-technology imperative, and an
ecological imperative. Due to globalization, our market has expanded and is vulnerable to the
transnational markets where free trade, easy access to banking and exchange of currency are
available. With the emergence of our markets, we have come up with international laws and
treaties in order to maintain stability and efficiency in the interconnected economy. Resources
are also an imperative aspect in the McWorld, where autarky seems insufficient and inefficient
in presence of globalization. The information-technology of globalization has opened up
communications to people all over the world, allowing us to exchange information. Also,
technology is now systematically integrated into everyone's lives to the point where it "gives
every person on earth access to every other person". [3] Globalization of
ecology may seem cliche; Barber argues that whatever a nation does to their own ecology, it
affects everyone on earth. For instance, cutting down a jungle will upset the overall oxygen
balance, which affects our "global lungs". McWorld may promote peace and prosperity, but Barber
sees this as being done at the cost of independence and identity , and notes that no more
social justice or equality than necessary are needed to promote efficient economic production
and consumption.
Barber sees Jihad as offering solidarity and protecting identities, but at the potential
cost of tolerance and stability. Barber describes the solidarity needed within the concept
of Jihad as being secured through exclusion and war against outsiders. As a result, he argues,
different forms of anti-democratization can arise through anti-democratic one-party
dictatorships, military juntas, or theocratic fundamentalism. Barber also describes through
modern day examples what these 'players' are. "they are cultures, not countries; parts, not
wholes; sects, not religions, rebellious factions and dissenting minorities at war not just
with globalism but with the traditional nation-state. Kurds, Basques, Puerto Ricans, Ossetians,
East Timoreans, Quebecois, the Catholics of Northern Ireland, Catalans, Tamils, and of course,
Palestinians- people with countries, inhabiting nations not their own, seeking smaller worlds
within borders that will seal them off from modernity." [4]
Barber writes democracy can be spread and secured through the world satisfying the needs of
both the McWorld and Jihad. "With its concern for accountability, the protection of minorities,
and the universal rule of law, a confederalized representative system would serve the political
needs of McWorld as well as oligarchic bureaucratism or meritocratic elitism is currently
doing." [4] Some can accept
democracy faster than others. Every case is different, however "Democracy grows from the bottom
up and cannot be imposed from the top down. Civil society has to be built from the inside out."
[1] He
goes on to further explain exactly what the confederal option means and how it will help. "It
certainly seems possible that the most attractive democratic ideal in the face of the brutal
realities of Jihad and the dull realities of McWorld will be a confederal union of semi
autonomous communities smaller than nation-states, tied together into regional economic
associations and markets larger than nation-states -- participatory and self-determining in
local matters at the bottom, representative and accountable at the top. The nation-state would
play a diminished role, and sovereignty would lose some of its political potency."
[4]
The book was based on a March 1992 article by Barber first published in The Atlantic Monthly .
[1]
The book employs the basic critique of neoliberalism seen in Barber's earlier,
seminal work Strong
Democracy . As neoliberal economic theory -- not to be
confused with social
liberalism -- is the force behind globalization, this critique is relevant on a much larger
scale. Unregulated market forces encounter parochial (which he calls tribal ) forces.
These tribal forces come in many varieties: religious, cultural, ethnic, regional, local,
etc. As globalization imposes a culture of its own on a population, the tribal forces feel
threatened and react. More than just economic, the crises that arise from these confrontations
often take on a sacred quality to the tribal elements; thus Barber's use of the term "Jihad"
(although in the second edition, he expresses regret at having used that term). [
why? ]
Barber's prognosis in Jihad vs McWorld is generally negative -- he concludes that
neither global corporations nor traditional cultures are supportive of democracy . He further posits that McWorld could ultimately win the
"struggle". He also proposes a model for small, local democratic institutions and
civic engagement
as the hope for an alternative to these two forces.
Barber argues that there are several imperatives that make up the McWorld, or the
globalization of politics
: a market imperative, a resource imperative, an information-technology imperative, and an
ecological imperative. Due to globalization, our market has expanded and is vulnerable to the
transnational markets where free trade, easy access to banking and exchange of currency are
available. With the emergence of our markets, we have come up with international laws and
treaties in order to maintain stability and efficiency in the interconnected economy. Resources
are also an imperative aspect in the McWorld, where autarky seems insufficient and inefficient
in presence of globalization. The information-technology of globalization has opened up
communications to people all over the world, allowing us to exchange information. Also,
technology is now systematically integrated into everyone's lives to the point where it "gives
every person on earth access to every other person". [3] Globalization of
ecology may seem cliche; Barber argues that whatever a nation does to their own ecology, it
affects everyone on earth. For instance, cutting down a jungle will upset the overall oxygen
balance, which affects our "global lungs". McWorld may promote peace and prosperity, but Barber
sees this as being done at the cost of independence and identity , and notes that no more
social justice or equality than necessary are needed to promote efficient economic production
and consumption.
Barber sees Jihad as offering solidarity and protecting identities, but at the potential
cost of tolerance and stability. Barber describes the solidarity needed within the concept of
Jihad as being secured through exclusion and war against outsiders. As a result, he argues,
different forms of anti-democratization can arise through anti-democratic one-party
dictatorships, military juntas, or theocratic fundamentalism. Barber also describes through
modern day examples what these 'players' are. "they are cultures, not countries; parts, not
wholes; sects, not religions, rebellious factions and dissenting minorities at war not just
with globalism but with the traditional nation-state. Kurds, Basques, Puerto Ricans, Ossetians,
East Timoreans, Quebecois, the Catholics of Northern Ireland, Catalans, Tamils, and of course,
Palestinians- people with countries, inhabiting nations not their own, seeking smaller worlds
within borders that will seal them off from modernity." [4]
Barber writes democracy can be spread and secured through the world satisfying the needs of
both the McWorld and Jihad. "With its concern for accountability, the protection of minorities,
and the universal rule of law, a confederalized representative system would serve the political
needs of McWorld as well as oligarchic bureaucratism or meritocratic elitism is currently
doing." [4] Some can accept
democracy faster than others. Every case is different, however "Democracy grows from the bottom
up and cannot be imposed from the top down. Civil society has to be built from the inside out."
[1] He
goes on to further explain exactly what the confederal option means and how it will help. "It
certainly seems possible that the most attractive democratic ideal in the face of the brutal
realities of Jihad and the dull realities of McWorld will be a confederal union of semi
autonomous communities smaller than nation-states, tied together into regional economic
associations and markets larger than nation-states -- participatory and self-determining in
local matters at the bottom, representative and accountable at the top. The nation-state would
play a diminished role, and sovereignty would lose some of its political potency."
[4]
Globalization, which was supposed to benefit developed and developing countries alike, is now reviled almost
everywhere, as the political backlash in Europe and the US in recent years has shown. The challenge is to minimize the
risk that the backlash will intensify, and that starts by understanding – and avoiding – past mistakes.
NEW YORK – Fifteen years ago, I published
Globalization and Its
Discontents,
a book that sought to explain why there was so much dissatisfaction with globalization within the
developing countries. Quite simply, many believed that the system was "rigged" against them, and global trade agreements
were singled out for being particularly unfair.
The Year Ahead 2018
The world's leading thinkers and policymakers examine what's come apart in the past year, and anticipate
what will define the year ahead.
Order now
Now discontent with globalization has fueled a wave of populism in
the United States and other advanced economies, led by politicians who claim that the system is unfair to their
countries. In the US, President Donald Trump insists that America's trade negotiators were snookered by those from
Mexico and China.
So how could something that was supposed to benefit all, in developed
and developing countries alike, now be reviled almost everywhere? How can a trade agreement be unfair to all parties?
To those in developing countries, Trump's claims – like Trump himself
– are laughable. The US basically wrote the rules and created the institutions of globalization. In some of these
institutions – for example, the International Monetary Fund – the US still has veto power, despite America's diminished
role in the global economy (a role which Trump seems determined to diminish still further).
To someone like me, who has watched trade negotiations closely for
more than a quarter-century, it is clear that US trade negotiators got most of what they wanted. The problem was with
what
they wanted. Their agenda was set, behind closed doors, by corporations. It was an agenda written by and for large
multinational companies, at the expense of workers and ordinary citizens everywhere.
Indeed, it often seems that workers, who have seen their wages fall
and jobs disappear, are just collateral damage – innocent but unavoidable victims in the inexorable march of economic
progress. But there is another interpretation of what has happened: one of the objectives of globalization was to weaken
workers' bargaining power. What corporations wanted was cheaper labor, however they could get it.
This interpretation helps explain some puzzling aspects of trade
agreements. Why is it, for example, that advanced countries gave away one of their biggest advantages, the rule of law?
Indeed, provisions embedded in most recent trade agreements give foreign investors more rights than are provided to
investors in the US. They are compensated, for example, should the government adopt a regulation that hurts their bottom
line, no matter how desirable the regulation or how great the harm caused by the corporation in its absence.
There are three responses to globalized discontent with
globalization. The first – call it the Las Vegas strategy – is to double down on the bet on globalization
as it has
been managed for the past quarter-century
. This bet, like all bets on proven policy failures (such as trickle-down
economics) is based on the hope that somehow it will succeed in the future.
The second response is Trump_vs_deep_state: cut oneself off from globalization,
in the hope that doing so will somehow bring back a bygone world. But protectionism won't work. Globally, manufacturing
jobs are on the decline, simply because productivity growth has outpaced growth in demand.
Even if manufacturing were to come back, the jobs won't. Advanced
manufacturing technology, including robots, means that the few jobs created will require higher skills and will be
placed at different locations than the jobs that were lost. Like doubling down, this approach is doomed to fail, further
increasing the discontent felt by those left behind.
Trump will fail even in his proclaimed goal of reducing the trade
deficit, which is determined by the disparity between domestic savings and investment. Now that the Republicans have
gotten their way and enacted a tax cut for billionaires, national savings will fall and the trade deficit will rise,
owing to an increase in the value of the dollar. (Fiscal deficits and trade deficits normally move so closely together
that they are called "twin" deficits.) Trump may not like it, but as he is slowly finding out, there are some things
that even a person in the most powerful position in the world cannot control.
There is a third approach: social protection without protectionism,
the kind of approach that the small Nordic countries took. They knew that as small countries they had to remain open.
But they also knew that remaining open would expose workers to risk. Thus, they had to have a social contract that
helped workers move from old jobs to new and provide some help in the interim.
The Nordic countries are deeply democratic societies, so they knew
that unless most workers regarded globalization as benefiting them, it wouldn't be sustained. And the wealthy in these
countries recognized that if globalization worked as it should, there would be enough benefits to go around.
American capitalism in recent years has been marked by unbridled
greed – the 2008 financial crisis provides ample confirmation of that. But, as some countries have shown, a market
economy can take forms that temper the excesses of both capitalism and globalization, and deliver more sustainable
growth and higher standards of living for most citizens.
We can learn from such successes what to do, just as we can learn
from past mistakes what not to do. As has become evident, if we do not manage globalization so that it benefits all, the
backlash – from the New Discontents in the North and the Old Discontents in the South – is at risk of intensifying.
"... In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries. And the initiative, Foreign Policy notes, 'is likely to grow'. This is not surprising: if Germany ('the EU') wants to become truly autonomous from the US, it needs to acquire military sovereignty, which it currently lacks. ..."
"... so many people in Europe will see it being necessitated by the growing chaos in the Middle East and in Africa. ..."
"... Never let a crisis go to waste ..."
"... Certainly not those of the inhabitants of the constituent "nations" of the EU (ironic quotation marks fully intended). And now Muti Merkel and the authoritarian scolds of Brussels are trying to force a quota of these migrants upon all of the "nations" – or should we say, the administrative zones – of the EU. Orban, Le Pen, the AfD, and ilk are not stupid, you know. ..."
"... I worked in and with "Brussels" for many years and can say that many, if not most, of the personnel involved with EU institutions are neo-liberals, neo-cons and deluded with the fantasy of an EU imperium, Greece to America's Rome. ..."
"... I think I concur with Mitchell that a Federal EU State is a big no no for Germany, based on the fact fiscal transfers would be out of the German coffers, and this fact is amplified by the exit of the UK, which was a big net EU contributor. The rumour mill has it that Jans Weidmann will be the next ECB Head, which means we can expect more, not less austerity imposed as the EU elite push further EMU, which, is certainly not in the interests of the average Joe across the Euro member states. ..."
"... Anyhow, check Bill Mitchell out, so decent material and nice to see people standing up for the Nation State, rather than supranational entities and corporations. ..."
"... If Germany is trying to build a mini-imperial system straddling all of Europe, then it would seek willing 'elites' in the small European countries to give a slice of pie to in exchange for their cooperation with that agenda. This is standard (neo)colonial policy today, which is best understood as the neocon/neoliberal approach the United States has taken to world domination – aka bad cop/good cop. "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we'll deliver a carpet of bombs", is another version of that offer. The one that can't be refused? ..."
"... This is because public debt in the eurozone is used as a political tool – a disciplining tool – to get governments to implement socially harmful policies (and to get citizens to accept these policies by portraying them as inevitable), which explains why Germany continues to refuse to seriously consider any form of debt relief for Greece, despite the various commitments and promises to that end made in recent years: debt is the chain that keeps Greece (and other member states) from straying 'off course'. ..."
"... That would be the neoliberal mechanism of control; notice here how debts assumed by small nations are not like debts assumed by the controlling powers, either. Rather like student loan holders vs. central banks – students can't print money to pay off their debts, that's the difference. ..."
"... So, if it is true in economics that stability creates instability, then the creation of a stable Europe will undo itself in the manner that this article appears to be saying. ..."
"... This corporate super-entity reminds me of "Omnius Prime" in the Dune universe – a computer with nearly total sociopathic control over humanity. The corporate super-entity, whose AI program's only concern is maximizing short term profits by inflating securities and equities, will eat the Earth if we allow it to continue – digesting and purging humans which have been commodified like everything else. ..."
"... Then we see power blocks aligning, the US (and it's proxies), the EU under Germany, Russia, and China. Clearly we are sitting on a powder keg that is the disintegrating neo-liberal world orde. What will serve as the spark that lights the fuse? Trump and North Korea? War for fun and profit in the Middle East? ..."
The basis of this thesis was plain when the ECB was placed in Germany.
The Economic regime is: Germany books the profits, and you lazy (non Germans) book the
losses.
Welcome to the neoliberal roots of the next 30 years war. The 30 years war was the
imposition of the ruler's denomination, Catholicism, on the people. This next 30 years one is
imposing asset stripping (rent extraction) on the people and enriching a few Aristocrats, as
a dogma.
Now do you understand Brexit? Do you believe the British could not see this coming?
I'll repeat: This was the obvious outcome when the ECB was placed in Germany. I'm English
and discussed this very topic with my family and friends there, and there was general
agreement that German ambition would pave the path.
Those who don't know their history are condemned to repeat it.
Now do you understand Brexit? Do you believe the British could not see this coming?
Exactly. Those average British voters weren't stupid as claimed. If the EU/Germans are
trying to do this whose aims are, and I quote:
"to further erode what little sovereignty and autonomy member states have left, particularly
in the area of fiscal policy, and to facilitate the imposition of neoliberal 'structural
reforms' – flexibilisation of labour markets, reduction of collective bargaining
rights, etc. – on reluctant countries." and the year is only 2017, then what would it
be like in the EU by the year, say, 2040?
Those British voters knew exactly what was coming down the turnpike and decided to bail and
accept a whole lot of present pain. It was not their fault that it turned out that their
leadership turned out to be a load of stuff-ups. To reinforce the point, look at the pain and
deaths that the American colonies had to endure to get out of the British Empire. Before 1777
that would not have seemed to be the logical thing to do.
Does this direction become a hazard to the United States? Mr. Putin appears to have an answer, but perhaps does not have ready yet the next step,
namely the needed set of trained personnel, trays, software, and printed pieces of paper, so
that one way or another a country that wants to jettison the Euro can convert its ATMs very
quickly to do so. Being set up to print very large stocks of Euros from the country that is
leaving also comes to mind. Readers will recognize other steps.
Unlike some years ago, fast air access from Russia to southern European countries by
overflying Mr Putin's friend Turkey is now probably available.
A good summary of a situation that is too complex to be neatly summarized – so many
political, historical, religious, cultural, etc. issues come into play not only for each
nation involved but also on an individual level for hundreds of millions of people. My most
immediate reaction to these suggestions that a militarily capable fourth Reich may be
emerging is that so many people in Europe will see it being necessitated by the growing chaos
in the Middle East and in Africa.
In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries.
And the initiative, Foreign Policy notes, 'is likely to grow'. This is not surprising: if
Germany ('the EU') wants to become truly autonomous from the US, it needs to acquire
military sovereignty, which it currently lacks.
And I seriously doubt that Germany really "controls" the armies of four countries.
The fact is that so far Germany's military strategy was conceived only within the NATO
framework -- where it could rely upon the heavy-lifting of the USA logistical train, the
ground experience and battle-readiness of the French and the British, and the availability of
the navies from Spain and Italy. Germany has neither the equipment, nor the personnel, nor
the experience to take the lead of a EU military, and other countries will probably
strenuously oppose such endeavours which would rob them from their last symbolic and
practical vestiges of sovereignty.
On the other hand, as the article explains, Germany is well on its way to assert its
complete dominion over the economic and institutional arrangements in the EU.
Ah, yes, a crisis greatly exacerbated by taking down Libya, a country which had served as
a bulwark against much of the tide of migration into Southern Europe from Sub-Saharan Africa,
as well as an enemy to Wahabbi/Salafist terror.
Not to mention the EU support for the dismemberment of Syria that launched its own tidal
wave of migration into Europe, whilst Syria was also an enemy of Wahabbi/Salafist terror.
In light of that, one must ask, in whose interest were these actions undertaken, and at
whose behest? Well?
Certainly not those of the inhabitants of the constituent "nations" of the EU (ironic
quotation marks fully intended). And now Muti Merkel and the authoritarian scolds of Brussels
are trying to force a quota of these migrants upon all of the "nations" – or should we
say, the administrative zones – of the EU. Orban, Le Pen, the AfD, and ilk are not
stupid, you know. Europeans, at least those of you who still possess a quantum of
self-respect, and who honor your histories and cultures, gather your courage and tell Muti
and the Commissars of Brussels that the game is over before they can inflict yet more damage.
But – perhaps – you are already too comfortably numb to remember why and how to
do this? Well, then, into the veal pen with you.
Further to "France's corporate offensive in Italy", one-sided as France took recent
exception to the take over of one its shipbuilders by an Italian rival, I would argue that
it's an offensive by the EU's 1%, a strategy of immiseration facilitated by the likes of Guy
Verhofstadt as per http://www.sofina.be/board-management/ . Sofina
is well-connected with the French establishment by way of Eurazeo and the Italian
establishment by way of Banca Leonardo.
I worked in and with "Brussels" for many years and can say that many, if not most, of
the personnel involved with EU institutions are neo-liberals, neo-cons and deluded with the
fantasy of an EU imperium, Greece to America's Rome. It suits them and their
cheerleaders, including in Blighty, to pretend that this is due to the malign influence of
Albion perfide or Anglo-Saxons. One should not expect a change of tack after Brexit. The
"racaille" are profit(eer)ing too much and are able to get away with it under the cover of
more Europe.
As far as EMU is concerned, monetarist economic thinking has been predominant in much of
the Europhiles output on monetary union since the 70s, that is, prior to the UK joining the
Community. Bill Mitchell has written concisely on this over the past week & is quite
scathing of Mitterrand and Delors for their embrace of what we now term 'neoliberalism',
combine this with a desire for an actual military arm & one really does worry about the
direction of the EU, with or without the UK.
Further, and within the lecture presented by Sir Ivan Rogers last week concerning Cameron
& Brexit, the fact remains both the UK Elite & Euro Elite were keen on pushing TTIP,
this despite the fact many believe it was the UK pushing neoliberalism on to Europe.
I think I concur with Mitchell that a Federal EU State is a big no no for Germany, based
on the fact fiscal transfers would be out of the German coffers, and this fact is amplified
by the exit of the UK, which was a big net EU contributor. The rumour mill has it that Jans
Weidmann will be the next ECB Head, which means we can expect more, not less austerity
imposed as the EU elite push further EMU, which, is certainly not in the interests of the
average Joe across the Euro member states.
Anyhow, check Bill Mitchell out, so decent material and nice to see people standing up for
the Nation State, rather than supranational entities and corporations.
I found the first about 1/3 of this post informative. But then the author gets to the main
thesis:
The process underway can only be understood through the lens of the
geopolitical-economic tensions and conflicts between leading capitalist states and regional
blocs, and the conflicting interests between the different financial/industrial capital
fractions located in those states , which have always characterised the European economy.
In particular, it means looking at Germany's historic struggle for economic hegemony over
the European continent.
This suggests that the national battles in Europe are battles between different national
"capital fractions," in particular German capital with its everlasting desire for economic
hegemony over Europe against (presumably) other European national capitals that are opposed
to Germany.
That does not strike me as an accurate description of the current status of Europe or the
EU, and nothing in the rest of the piece suggests that this is a (the most?) useful lens for
interpreting events. The author even admits that elites from smaller Euro countries are happy
in the role of compradors to Germany's economically dominant capitalists and that "European
elites" are united in their anti-democratic tendencies. Even the German election results show
this thesis to be dubious – if "Germany" is well on its way to it's long-cherished goal
of European economic hegemony, why on earth would voters be tired of Merkel? They should make
her Kaiser!
If Germany is trying to build a mini-imperial system straddling all of Europe, then it
would seek willing 'elites' in the small European countries to give a slice of pie to in
exchange for their cooperation with that agenda. This is standard (neo)colonial policy today,
which is best understood as the neocon/neoliberal approach the United States has taken to
world domination – aka bad cop/good cop. "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we'll
deliver a carpet of bombs", is another version of that offer. The one that can't be
refused?
Jump down a few paragraphs from your quote to this:
This is because public debt in the eurozone is used as a political tool – a
disciplining tool – to get governments to implement socially harmful policies (and to
get citizens to accept these policies by portraying them as inevitable), which explains why
Germany continues to refuse to seriously consider any form of debt relief for Greece,
despite the various commitments and promises to that end made in recent years: debt is the
chain that keeps Greece (and other member states) from straying 'off course'.
That would be the neoliberal mechanism of control; notice here how debts assumed by
small nations are not like debts assumed by the controlling powers, either. Rather like
student loan holders vs. central banks – students can't print money to pay off their
debts, that's the difference.
As far as Germany's voters, well, the reality of Empire is that trickle-down is a myth.
Empires always deliver the tribute from foreign holdings to a small circle of politically
connected elites – British lords, French aristocrats, Wall Street billionaires, Third
World tin-pot dictators, etc. The general public always suffers as a result; you have to fund
the foreign military adventures over the domestic infrastructure, health care and education
needs. Hence Empires always try to limit and undermine democratic rule; the German voters
probably see this as well.
So, if it is true in economics that stability creates instability, then the creation of a
stable Europe will undo itself in the manner that this article appears to be saying. In order
to avoid conflict, the European Union has created a trading zone that has a great deal of
inequality in it–not just in trade but inequality in the financial system that will
continue to grow as corporations merge and become ever larger and as banks become ever more
monolithic. Perhaps, national sovereignty will succumb to financial hegemony rather than
becoming the victims of German hegemony.
And what would have been the plans for Britain?
Big omission in the article. That was a damned if they do, damned if they don't option.
Isn't a lot of the EU's bill for Britain about making sure they pay for EU officials
pensions?
While everywhere else it is austerity for Eurozone and EU countries' pensioners
Although I found this article helpful in summarizing many of the changes in EU politics,
the author is incorrect in his premise that the German government is at the root of the
anti-democratic, neoliberal EU movement. The author ignores the dominant role that the
interconnected multinational corporations (
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/
) play in running the global political economy.
69 of the top 100 economies are now corporations (
https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/world-s-top-100-economies-31-countries-69-corporations
). National politics have become subservient to the interests of the financial economy which
can move money quickly and destroy a state's economy when political decisions do not follow
the neoliberal script of austerity. The author's premise that "Germany needs to seize control
of the most coveted institution of them all – the ECB –, which hitherto has never
been under direct German control" is backwards. It is the ECB that has had control of the
German political leaders for years. Whether "Merkel now has her eyes on the ECB's presidency"
or not does not matter. She is merely a cog in the corporate machine – easily replaced
if she fails to follow the neoliberal agenda of austerity.
Of course we must recognize that austerity is only imposed as an attempt to inflate the
debt bubble by squeezing those least capable of paying, those considered disposable in the
sociopathic and mechanistic corporate hive mind. The "automatic stabilizing mechanisms" that
"put the economy on 'autopilot', thus removing any element of democratic discussion and/or
decision-making" are really just manifestations of the emergent behavior that this corporate
super-organism expresses and imposes on the global economy. (
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/01/ai-has-already-taken-over-its-called-the-corporation/
)
This corporate super-entity reminds me of "Omnius Prime" in the Dune universe – a
computer with nearly total sociopathic control over humanity. The corporate super-entity,
whose AI program's only concern is maximizing short term profits by inflating securities and
equities, will eat the Earth if we allow it to continue – digesting and purging humans
which have been commodified like everything else.
This total corporatization is at the root of both existential threats to humanity –
nuclear war and climate change. The risk of nuclear war (primarily from some mistake or
miscalculation) results from the military-industrial complex's imperial program of
globalization to further multinational corporate profits and control, and climate change is a
cancer driven by corporate resource exploitation that will surely kill humanity if we don't
cut out the corporate tumors and stop smoking that oil.
I'm beginning to think that the only way to save humanity, to save the planet, will be a
"Butlerian Jihad" to rid us of the existential threat that corporations represent. I wonder
how many people will have to be consumed by this corporate monster before we rise up to kill
it. There will be a cost to eliminating corporations, to ending the limited liability of the
owners, but that cost will be well worth the price of saving humanity, civilization, and our
ecosystem. "There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation
of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by corporations. The power of all
corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never
fails to be a source of abuses." James Madison
Argument by assertion doesn't work here. There is no evidence whatsoever that the ECB has
influence over German leaders. More generally, German politics are dominated by industrial
capital, particularly its automakers, not financial capital. And in fact the Bundesbank has
disproportionate influence over the ECB. And Germany has repeatedly checked measures that
would provide more support to the banking system and lead to more Eurozone integration to
preserve its advantaged position.
In addition, the EU is perfectly willing to take on global corporations, contrary to your
claims. Did you miss the massive anti-trust fine it imposed on Microsoft, and the fines it
has imposed on Google? The EU competition ruling on Google will force Google to change how it
does business in a fundamental manner, and the fines (up to 10% of global revenues for a
violation in a single line of business) are high enough to bring Google to heel. The EU also
is requiring Apple to pay a ginormous tax bill for its special tax avoidance scheme in
Ireland.
If you are going to comment on European politics, you need to know the terrain. You don't,
and worse you say things that mislead readers.
Jeebus! I had no idea that Germany had extended it's claws so far into the affairs of
other countries as to be integrating their army units.
I suppose it's a much better strategy than attacking those armies and risking people
getting killed. :-/
But, seriously, Germany has moved far beyond it's mercantilist advantages and subjugation
of Greece and other periphery nations. It has become beyond obvious to me that they learned
from their experience in WWII and decided that economic hegemony was the way to go to achieve
de facto political hegemony. I think the Fourth Reich is fitting.
Thank you for having the courage to put those two words together so chillingly: "Fourth
Reich". You are not an alarmist to do so – you are right on the money. This has indeed
been a deliberate decades-long campaign to install German hegemony (no "accident"), and the
project is well along its way.
From here we can soberly project a future in which Europe *does* finally institute a
fiscal compact – wholly on Germany's terms. Is it too outrageous to suggest that there
will one day be a new Holy Roman Emperor to wear the crown of Charlemagne? And would it be
too forward to make guesses as to the nationality of said emperor?
Then we see power blocks aligning, the US (and it's proxies), the EU under Germany,
Russia, and China. Clearly we are sitting on a powder keg that is the disintegrating
neo-liberal world orde. What will serve as the spark that lights the fuse? Trump and North
Korea? War for fun and profit in the Middle East?
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left
behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that
rang true:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders
in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and
so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national
figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that
may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed
the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total
impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.
One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who
are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within
their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best
career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard
evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).
Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation:
that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations…
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous
Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic
audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is
quite downbeat:
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this
must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed
and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the
Cover-Up.
8 hours ago - With the Brexit repudiation
of the E.U. - in defiance of Establishment scare tactics - British voters stood up for common people
who face ...
By Brian O' Boyle on 24th June 2016 Comments Off on Brexit – A Blow Against Austerity And Neoliberalism.
Despite the onslaught of 'Project Fear', the British ...
Jun 27, 2016 - Huang Yiping, a member of China's central bank monetary policy committee, said
Brexit could mark a "reversal of globalisation", which would ...
Jun 25, 2016 - Even before Brexit, trade was falling as a share of the global economy. ... reversal
from the economic-integration trend of the past decades.
Jun 24, 2016 - For more on the financial implications of Brexit, Hari Sreenivasan talks to ...
people in a democracy voting to repudiate trade, globalization, immigration, .... of a tariff, I
don't see that the reversal will cause any major disruption.
Jun 27, 2016 - Millennials, Brexit and the Future of Globalization ... had "one foot in the EU
and one foot out" and in the event of Brexit, "it would be the reverse.
Jun 24, 2016 - Britain's vote to leave EU is latest sign that the world's post-WWII
march toward globalization is running into a populist backlash in Western ...
Apr 14, 2016 - While some aspects of globalisation are reversing - probably for ... FT View The
puzzle that baffles the world economy · G7 warns of Brexit ...
6 days ago - BREXIT does not signal the reversal of globalisation,
but exposes the failing of nation states and regional blocs to manage the negative effects ...
1 day ago - But attempting to reverse a Brexit would completely ruin the EU. ... oblivion, or disintegrating
under pressure from the forces of globalization.
5 days ago - Prof Chen Kang from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at NUS analysed the
effects of Brexit and opined that the world is starting to ...
Jun 26, 2016 - The age of globalisation began on the day the Berlin Wall came down. .... One response
to the Brexit vote from the rest of Europe has been that ...
Jun 26, 2016 - 'Brexit' in America: A Warning Shot Against Globalization .... Now, it is the reverse,
which is among the reasons a fifth generation of Stevensons ...
7 days ago - "We need to remind the parties involved [in Brexit] to support globalization. If
trade negotiations between the U.K. and EU go into reverse ...
6 days ago - Britain's Brexit vote was a victory of the old over the young, of the less ... fantasy:
a yearning to control immigration, reverse globalization and ...
May 27, 2016 - In a stunning reversal for an organization that rests
at the bedrock of the ... and its immediate offshoot, globalization and "financial openness", for
... are up 6% and 11% respectively since the seismic Brexit vote led to turmoil on ...
Jun 27, 2016 - BANGKOK (AP) - The head of Thailand's military government said Monday he will not
step down if an August referendum fails to approve a ...
4 days ago - Viewed in economic terms, however, the Brexit marks the first tangible retreat from
globalization since World War II. "For the first time, a major ...
Mondoweiss 2 days ago - The lesser-evil choice US progressives face between Trump's nativist populism
and Clinton's elitist neoliberalism was played out in the British ...
London School of Economics and Political Science Mar 15, 2016 - On
the left, it subscribes to an English exceptionalism that believes a federal Europe is incompatible
with the struggle against neoliberalism and ...
3 days ago - The issue that catalysed the vote
for Brexit was the massive, ... The neoliberal wing of the Labour Party needs to realise - it may
take them a ...
Democracy Now! 2 days ago - The so-called Brexit vote passed by 52 percent, and the United Kingdom
will now .... anti-racist and progressive vote against neoliberalism.
In other parts in this series, I have discussed the tools that the elite are using to achieve
their goals.
In part I, I talked about how debt is used as a tool of enslavement, and in
part II I explained how central banking is a system of financial control that literally dominates
the entire planet (
Part III and
Part IV here) Professor Quigley also mentioned this system of financial control
in his book
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create
a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each
country and the economy of the world as a whole."
Today, a system of interlocking global treaties is slowly but surely merging us into a global
economic system. The World Trade Organization was formed on January 1, 1995, and 164 nations now
belong to it. And every time you hear of a new "free trade agreement" being signed, that is another
step toward a one world economy.
Of course economics is just one element of their overall plan. Ultimately the goal is to erode
national sovereignty almost completely and to merge the nations of the world into a single unified
system of global governance.
... ... ...
Once you start looking into these things, you will see that the elite are very openly telling us
what they intend to do.
One of my favorite examples of this phenomenon is a quote from David Rockefeller's book entitled
Memoirs
Some even believe we are a part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United
States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around
the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you
will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it
As David Rockefeller openly admitted, they are "internationalists" that are intent on establishing
a one world system.
"... Google is algorithmically burying leftist news and opinion sources such as Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News, and Truthout, among others. ..."
"... my political essays are often reposted by right-wing and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists, socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin Luther Jesus-on-a-stick. ..."
"... What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature. They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism, and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment). ..."
"... Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary. ..."
"... Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy," as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural). ..."
"... Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies, mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war, like any other victorious force, it has been "clear-and-holding" the conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map, and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of extremism" propagated by the corporate media. ..."
"... Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism" will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology will be systematically marginalized and pathologized. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
"... That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening. ..."
"... Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what also the EU is, I would be worried. ..."
"... This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing & are infinitely flexible is central to their power. ..."
Back in October of 2016, I wrote
a somewhat divisive essay in which I suggested that political dissent is being systematically
pathologized. In fact, this process has been ongoing for decades, but it has been significantly accelerated
since the Brexit referendum and the Rise of Trump (or, rather, the Fall of Hillary Clinton, as it
was Americans' lack of enthusiasm for eight more years of corporatocracy with a sugar coating of
identity politics, and not their enthusiasm for Trump, that mostly put the clown in office.)
In the twelve months since I wrote that piece, we have been subjected to a concerted campaign
of corporate media propaganda for which there is no historical precedent. Virtually every major organ
of the Western media apparatus (the most powerful propaganda machine in the annals of powerful propaganda
machines) has been relentlessly churning out variations on a new official ideological narrative designed
to generate and enforce conformity. The gist of this propaganda campaign is that "Western democracy"
is under attack by a confederacy of Russians and white supremacists, as well as "the terrorists"
and other "extremists" it's been under attack by for the last sixteen years.
I've been writing about this campaign for a year now, so I'm not going to rehash all the details.
Suffice to say we've gone from
Russian operatives hacking the American elections to "Russia-linked" persons "apparently" setting
up "illegitimate" Facebook accounts, "likely operated out of Russia," and publishing ads that are
"indistinguishable from legitimate political speech" on the Internet. This is what the corporate
media is presenting as evidence of
"an unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy," a handful of political ads on Facebook.
In addition to the Russian hacker propaganda, since August, we have also been treated to relentless
white supremacist hysteria and daily reminders from the corporate media that
"white nationalism is destroying the West." The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been
blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably slouching its way towards the White House to officially
launch the Trumpian Reich.
At the same time, government and corporate entities have been aggressively restricting (and in
many cases eliminating) fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of expression, freedom of the
press, the right of assembly, the right to privacy, and the right to due process under the law. The
justification for this curtailment of rights (which started in earnest in 2001, following the September
11 attacks) is protecting the public from the threat of "terrorism," which apparently shows no signs
of abating. As of now, the United States has been in
a State of Emergency for over sixteen years. The UK is in
a virtual State of Emergency . France is now in the process of enshrining
its permanent State of Emergency into law. Draconian counter-terrorism measures have been
implemented throughout the EU . Not just
the notorious American police but
police
throughout the West have been militarized . Every other day we learn of some
new emergency security measure designed to keep us safe from "the terrorists," the "lone wolf
shooters," and other "extremists."
Conveniently, since the Brexit referendum and unexpected election of Trump (which is when the
capitalist ruling classes first recognized that they had a widespread nationalist backlash on their
hands), the definition of "terrorism" (or, more broadly, "extremism") has been expanded to include
not just Al Qaeda, or ISIS, or whoever we're calling "the terrorists" these days, but anyone else
the ruling classes decide they need to label "extremists." The FBI has designated Black Lives Matter
"Black Identity Extremists." The FBI and the DHS have designated Antifa
"domestic terrorists."
Whatever your opinion of these organizations and "extremist" persons is beside the point. I'm
not a big fan of neo-Nazis, personally, but neither am I a fan of Antifa. I don't have much use for
conspiracy theories, or a lot of the nonsense one finds on the Internet, but I consume a fair amount
of alternative media, and I publish in CounterPunch, The Unz Review, ColdType, and other non-corporate
journals.
I consider myself a leftist, basically, but my political essays are often reposted by right-wing
and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists,
socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately
agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none
of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and
looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on
effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin
Luther Jesus-on-a-stick.
What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power
in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature.
They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump
them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable
category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism,
and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment).
As I wrote in that essay a year ago, "a line is being drawn in the ideological sand." This line
cuts across both Left and Right, dividing what the capitalist ruling classes designate "normal" from
what they label "extremist." The traditional ideological paradigm, Left versus Right, is disappearing
(except as a kind of minstrel show), and is being replaced, or overwritten, by a pathological
paradigm based upon the concept of "extremism."
* * *
Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as
we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three
decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain
old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary.
In the early 1990s, as the U.S.S.R. disintegrated, and globalized Western capitalism became the
unrivaled global-hegemonic ideological system that it is today, a new concept was needed to represent
the official enemy and its ideology. The concept of "extremism" does that perfectly, as it connotes,
not an external enemy with a definable ideological goal, but rather, a deviation from the norm. The
nature of the deviation (e.g., right-wing, left-wing, faith-based, and so on) is secondary, almost
incidental. The deviation itself is the point. The "terrorist," the "extremist," the "white supremacist,"
the "religious fanatic," the "violent anarchist" these figures are not rational actors whose ideas
we need to intellectually engage with in order to debate or debunk. They are pathological deviations,
mutant cells within the body of "normality," which we need to identify and eliminate, not for ideological
reasons, but purely in order to maintain "security."
A truly global-hegemonic system like contemporary global capitalism (the first of this kind in
human history), technically, has no ideology. "Normality" is its ideology an ideology which erases
itself and substitutes the concept of what's "normal," or, in other words, "just the way it is."
The specific characteristics of "normality," although not quite arbitrary, are ever-changing. In
the West, for example, thirty years ago, smoking was normal. Now, it's abnormal. Being gay was abnormal.
Now, it's normal. Being transgender is becoming normal, although we're still in the early stages
of the process. Racism has become abnormal. Body hair is currently abnormal. Walking down the street
in a semi-fugue state robotically thumbing the screen of a smartphone that you just finished thumbing
a minute ago is "normal." Capitalism has no qualms with these constant revisions to what is considered
normal, because none of them are threats to capitalism. On the contrary, as far as values are concerned,
the more flexible and commodifiable the better.
See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny,
homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these
values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we
have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't
much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture
or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every
object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will
bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
Yes, we all want there to be other values, and we pretend there are, but there aren't, not really.
Although we're free to enjoy parochial subcultures based on alternative values (i.e., religious bodies,
the arts, and so on), these subcultures operate within capitalist society, and ultimately conform
to its rules. In the arts, for example, works are either commercial products, like any other commodity,
or they are subsidized by what could be called "the simulated aristocracy," the ivy league-educated
leisure classes (and lower class artists aspiring thereto) who need to pretend that they still have
"culture" in order to feel superior to the masses. In the latter case, this feeling of superiority
is the upscale product being sold. In the former, it is entertainment, distraction from the depressing
realities of living, not in a society at all, but in a marketplace with no real human values. (In
the absence of any real cultural values, there is no qualitative difference between Gerhard
Richter and Adam Sandler, for example. They're both successful capitalist artists. They're just selling
their products in different markets.)
The fact that it has no human values is the evil genius of global capitalist society. Unlike the
despotic societies it replaced, it has no allegiance to any cultural identities, or traditions, or
anything other than money. It can accommodate any form of government, as long as it plays ball with
global capitalism. Thus, the window dressing of "normality" is markedly different from country to
country, but the essence of "normality" remains the same. Even in countries with state religions
(like Iran) or state ideologies (like China), the governments play by the rules of global capitalism
like everyone else. If they don't, they can expect to receive a visit from global capitalism's Regime
Change Department (i.e., the US military and its assorted partners).
Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the
West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed
countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies.
The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature
of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global
capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy,"
as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural).
We haven't really got our minds around it yet, because we're still in the early stages of it,
but we have entered an epoch in which historical events are primarily being driven, and societies
reshaped, not by sovereign nation states acting in their national interests but by supranational
corporations acting in their corporate interests. Paramount among these corporate interests is the
maintenance and expansion of global capitalism, and the elimination of any impediments thereto. Forget
about the United States (i.e., the actual nation state) for a moment, and look at what's been happening
since the early 1990s. The US military's "disastrous misadventures" in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan,
Syria, and the former Yugoslavia, among other exotic places (which have obviously had nothing to
do with the welfare or security of any actual Americans), begin to make a lot more sense.
Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold
War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies,
mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war,
like any other victorious force, it has been
"clear-and-holding" the
conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map,
and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and
its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last
fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant
surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of
extremism" propagated by the corporate media.
I'm not suggesting there's a bunch of capitalists sitting around in a room somewhere in their
shiny black top hats planning all of this. I'm talking about systemic development, which is a little
more complex than that, and much more difficult to intelligently discuss because we're used to perceiving
historico-political events in the context of competing nation states, rather than competing ideological
systems or non-competing ideological systems, for capitalism has no competition . What it
has, instead, is a variety of insurgencies, the faith-based Islamic fundamentalist insurgency and
the neo-nationalist insurgency chief among them. There will certainly be others throughout the near
future as global capitalism consolidates control and restructures societies according to its values.
None of these insurgencies will be successful.
Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know,
violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless
interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism"
will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit
referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing
a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise
might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology
will be systematically marginalized and pathologized.
This won't happen right away, of course. Things are liable to get ugly first (as if they weren't
ugly enough already), but probably not in the way we're expecting, or being trained to expect by
the corporate media. Look, I'll give you a dollar if it turns out I'm wrong, and the Russians, terrorists,
white supremacists, and other "extremists" do bring down "democracy" and launch their Islamic, white
supremacist, Russo-Nazi Reich, or whatever, but from where I sit it looks pretty clear tomorrow belongs
to the Corporatocracy.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin.
His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut
novel,
ZONE
23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at
cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
Brilliant Article. But this has been going on for nearly a century or more. New York Jewish bankers
fund the Bolshevik revolution which gets rid of the Romanov dynasty and many of the revolutionaries
are not even Russian. What many people do not know is that many Western companies invested money
in Bolshevik Russia as the Bolsheviks were speeding up the modernising of the country. What many
do not know is that Feminism, destruction of families and traditional societies, homoerotic art
etc . was forced on the new Soviet population in a shock therapy sort of way. The same process
has been implemented in the West by the elites using a much slower 'boiling the frog' method using
Cultural Marxism. The aim of the Soviet Union was to spread Communism around the World and hence
bring about the One World Government as wished by the globalists. Their national anthem was the
'Internationale'. The globalists were funding revolutionary movements throughout Europe and other
parts of the world. One such attempt went extremely wrong and that was in Germany where instead
of the Communists coming in power, the National Socialists come in power which was the most dangerous
challenge faced by the Zio/globalists/elite gang. The Globalists force a war using false flag
events like Pearl Harbour etc and crushed the powers which challenged their rule i.e. Germany,
Japan and Italy. That is why Capitalist USA funded Communist Soviet Union using the land lease
program, which on the surface never makes any sense.
However in Soviet Russia, a power struggle leads to Stalin destroying the old Communist order
of Lenin Trotsky. Trotsky and his supporters leave the Soviet Union. Many of the present Neo Cons
are ex Trotskyites and hence the crazy hatred for Russia even today in American politics. These
Neocons do not have any principles, they will use any ideology such as Communism, Islam, twisted
Western Conservatism anything to attain their global goals.
Now with Stalin coming to power, things actually improved and the war with Hitler's Third Reich
gave Stalin the chance to purge many old school globalist commies and then the Soviet Union went
towards a more nationalist road. Jews slowly started losing their hold on power with Russians
and eventually other Soviets gaining more powerful positions. These folks found the ugly modern
art culture of the early Soviet period revolting and started a new movement where the messages
of Socialism can be delivered with more healthy beautiful art and culture. This process was called
'Social Realism'. So strangely what happened was that the Capitalist Christian West was becoming
more and more less traditional with time (Cultural Marxism/Fabien Socialism via media, education,
Hollywood) while the Eastern block was slowly moving in an opposite direction. The CIA (which
is basically the intelligence agency arm of Wall Street Bankers) was working to stop this 'Social
Realism' movement.
These same globalists also funded Mao and pulled the rug under Chiang Kai Shek who they were
supporting earlier. Yes, Mao was funded by the Rockerfeller/ Rothschild Cabal. Now, even if the
Globalists were not happy with Stalin gaining power in the Soviet Union (they preferred the internationalist
Trotskyites), they still found that they could work out with the Soviet Union. That is why during
the 2nd World war, the USA supports the USSR with money and material, Stalin gets a facelift as
'friendly Uncle Joe' for the Western audience. Many Cossack families who had escaped the Soviet
Union to the West were sent to their deaths after the War to the Soviet Union. Why? Mr. Eden of
Britain who could not stand Hitler wanted a New World Order where they could work with the more
murderous Soviet Union.
Now we have the cold war. What is not known is that behind the scenes at a higher level, the
Americans and the Soviets cooperated with each other exchanging technology, basically the cold
war was quite fake. But the Cold war gave the American government (basically the Globalists) to
take American Tax payers hard earned money to fund many projects such as Star Wars programme etc
All this was not needed, as a gentleman named Keenan had shown in his book that all the Americans
needed to do was to make sure Japan, Germany and Britain did not fall to the Soviets, that's it.
Thus trillions of American tax payer money would be saved. But obviously the Military Industrial
Complex did not like that idea. Both the Soviet and the American governments got the excuse spend
their people's hard money on weapons research as well as exchanging some of that technology in
the back ground. It is during this period that the precursor to the Internet was already developed.
Many of the technology we use today was already invented much earlier by government agencies but
released to the people later.
Then we have the Vietnam war. Now you must realise that the Globalist government of America
uses wars not only to change enemy societies but also the domestic society in the West. So during
the Vietnam War, the US government using the alphabet agencies such as the CIA kick start the
fake opposition hippie movements. The CIA not only drugged the Vietnamese population using drugs
from the Golden Triangle but later released them on the home population in the USA and the West.
This was all part of the Cultural Marxist plan to change or social engineer American/ Western
society. Many institutes like the Travestock Institute were part of this process. For example
one of the main hochos of the Cultural Marxism, a Mr. Aderno was closely related to the Beatles
movement.
Several experiments was done on mind control such as MK Ultra, monarch programming, Edward
Bernay's works etc Their aim was to destroy traditional Western society and the long term goal
is a New World Order. Blacks for example were used as weapons against Whites at the same time
the black social order was destroyed further via the media etc
Now, Nixon going to China was to start a long term (long planned) process to bring about Corporate
Communism. Yes that is going to be economic system in the coming New World Order. China is the
test tube, where the Worst of Communism and the Worst of Crony Capitalism be brought together
as an experiment. As the Soviet Union was going in a direction, the globalist was not happy about
(it was becoming more nationalist), they worked to bring the Soviet Union down and thus the Soviet
experiment ended only to be continued in China.
NATO today is the core military arm of the globalists, a precursor to a One World Military
Force. That explains why after the Warsaw pact was dismantled, NATO was not or why NATO would
interfere in the Middle East which is far away from the Atlantic Ocean.
The coming Cashless society will finally lead to a moneyless or distribution society, in other
words Communism, that is the long term plan.
My point is, many of the geo political events as well as social movements of the last century
(feminism for example) were all planned for a long time and are not accidents. The coming technologies
like the internet of things, 5G technology, Cashless society, biometric identification everywhere
etc are all designed to help bring about the final aim of the globalists. The final aim is a one
world government with Corporate ruled Communism where we, the worker bees will be living in our
shitty inner city like ghetto homes eating GM plastic foods and listening to crappy music. That
is the future they have planned for us. A inner city ghetto like place under Communism ruled by
greedy evil corporates.
"Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know,
violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its
ruthless interests."
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical
of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting
proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with
mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy
seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening.
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical
of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting
proles.
There must be some evidence for your assertions about the long term plans and aims of globalists
and others if there is truth in them. The sort of people you are referring to would often have
kept private diaries and certainly written many hundreds or thousands of letters. Can you give
any references to such evidence of say 80 to 130 years ago?
.. puzzling that the writer feels the need to virtue-signal by saying he "doesn't have much
time for conspiracy theories" while condemning an absolutely massive conspiracy to present establishment
lies as truth.
That is one of the most depressing demonstrations of the success of the ruling creeps that
I have yet come across.
Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last
French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU
parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what
also the EU is, I would be worried.
"See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny,
homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these
values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which
we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which
isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of
human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything,
everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what
the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value."
This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's
go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing
& are infinitely flexible is central to their power.
Mr Hopkins is also correct when he points out that Capitalism has essentially NO values (exchange
value is a value, but also a mechanism). Again, Capitalism stands for nothing: any form of government
is acceptable as long as it bows to neoliberal markets.
However, the author probably goes to far:
"Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies
are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every
developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony
I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony.
Systemic, supranational hegemony".
Capitalism has no values: however the Masters of the capitalist system most certainly do: Capitalism
is a means, the most thorough, profound means yet invented, for the attainment of that value which
has NO exchange value: POWER.
Capitalism is a supranational hegemony – yet the Elites which control it, who will act as one
when presented with any external threats to Capitalism itself, are not unified internally. Indeed,
they will engage in cut throat competition, whether considered as individuals or nations or as
particular industries.
US Imperialism is not imaginary, it is not a mere appearance or mirage of Capitalism, supranational
or not. US Imperialism in essence empowers certain sets of Capitalists over other sets. No, they
may not purposely endanger the System as a whole, however, that still leaves plenty of space for
aggressive competition, up to & including war.
Imperialism is the political corollary to the ultimate economic goal of the individual Capitalist:
Monopoly.
Psychologically daring (being no minstrel to corporatocracy nor irrelevant activism and other
"religions" that endorse the current world global system as the overhead), rationally correct,
relevant, core definition of the larger geo-world and deeper "ideological" grounding( in the case
of capitalism the quite shallow brute forcing of greed as an incentive, as sterile a society as
possible), and adhering to longer timelines of reality of planet earth. Perfectly captures the
"essence" of the dynamics of our times.
The few come to the authors' through-sites by many venue-ways, that's where some of the corporocratic
world, by sheer statistics wind up also. Why do they not get the overhand into molding the shallow
into anything better in the long haul. No world leader, no intellectual within power circles,
even within confined quarters, speaks to the absurdity of the ongoing slugging and maltering of
global human?
The elites of now are too dumb to consider the planet exo-human as a limited resource. Immigration,
migration, is the de facto path to "normalization" in the terms of the author. Reducing the world
population is not "in" the capitalist ideology. A major weakness, or if one prefers the stake
that pinches the concept of capitalism: more instead of quality principles.
The game changers, the possible game changers: eugenics and how they play out as to the elites
( understanding the genome and manipulating it), artificial intelligence ( defining it first,
not the "Elon Musk" definition), and as a far outlier exo-planetary arguments.
Confront the above with the "unexpected", the not-human engineered possible events (astroids
and the like, secondary effects of human induced toxicity, others), and the chances to get to
the author's "dollar" and what it by then might mean is indeed tiny.
As to the content, one of the utmost relevant articles, it is "art" to condense such broad
a world view into a few words, it requires a deep understanding foremost, left to wonder what
can be grasped by most reading above. Some-one try the numbers?, "big data" anyone, they might
turn out in favor of what the author undoubtedly absorbed as the nucleus of twenty-first thinking,
strategy and engineering.
This kind of thinking and "Harvard" conventionality, what a distance.
Great article, spot on. Indeed we are all at the mercy now of a relatively small clique of ruthless
criminals who are served by armies of desensitized, stupid mercenaries: MBAs, politicians, thugs,
college professors, "whorenalists", etc. I am afraid that the best answer to the current and future
dystopia is what the Germans call "innere Emigration," to psychologically detach oneself
from the contemporary world.
Thus, the only way out of this hellhole is through reading and thinking, which every self-respecting
individual should engage in. Shun most contemporary "literature" and instead turn to the classics
of European culture: there you will find all you need.
For an earlier and ever so pertinent analysis of the contemporary desert, I can heartily recommend
Umberto Galimberti's I vizi capitali e i nuovi vizi (Milan, 2003).
And yes, another verbally strong expression of the in your face truth, though for so few to
grasp. The author again has a deep understanding, if one prefers, it points to the venueway of
coming to terms, the empirical pathway as to the understanding.
"Plasticky" society is my preferred term for designating the aberrance that most (within the
elites), the rest who cares (as an historical truth), do not seem to identify as proper cluelessness
in the light of longer timelines. The current global ideology, religion of capitalism-democracy
is the equivalent of opportunistic naval staring of the elites. They are not aware that suffocation
will irreversibly affect oneself. Not enough air is the equivalent of no air in the end.
The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably
slouching its way towards the White House to officially launch the Trumpian Reich.
While the above is true, I hope most folks understand that the basic concept of controlling
people through fear is nothing new. The much vaunted constitution was crammed down our collective
throats by the rich scoundrels of the time in the words of more than one anti-federalist through
the conjuring of quite a set of threats, all bogus.
I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty
We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.
- Patrick Henry, Foreign Wars, Civil Wars, and Indian Wars -- Three Bugbears, June 5, 7,
and 9, 1788
Bottom line: Concentrated wealth and power suck.The USA was ruled by a plutoligarchy from its
inception, and the material benefits we still enjoy have occurred not because of it but
despite it.
For today's goofy "right wing" big business "conservatives" who think the US won WW2, I got news
for you. Monopoly capitalism, complete with increasing centralization of the economy and political
forces were given boosts by both world wars.
It was precisely in reaction to their impending defeat at the hands of the competitive storms
of the market tha t business turned, increasingly after the 1900′s, to the federal government
for aid and protection. In short, the intervention by the federal government was designed,
not to curb big business monopoly for the sake of the public weal, but to create monopolies
that big business (as well as trade associations smaller business) had not been able
to establish amidst the competitive gales of the free market. Both Left and Right have been
persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish
and anti-business. Hence the mythology of the New-Fair Deal-as-Red that is endemic on the Right.
Both the big businessmen, led by the Morgan interests, and Professor Kolko almost uniquely
in the academic world, have realized that monopoly privilege can only be created by the
State and not as a result of free market operations.
-Murray N. Rothbard, Rothbard Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, [Originally appeared
in Left and Right, Spring 1965, pp. 4-22.]
It was all about connecting the dots really. Connecting the dots of too many books I have gobe
through and videos I have seen. Too many to list here.
You can get a lot of info from the book 'Tragedy and Hope' by Carroll Quigley though he avoids
mantioning Jews and calls it the Anglo American establishment, Anthony Sutton however I completely
disagree about funding of the Third Reich but he does talk a lot about the secret relationship
between the USA and the USSR, Revilo Oliver etc.. etc Well you could read the Protocols. Now if
you think that the protocols was a forgery, you gotta see this, especially the last part.
Also check this out
Also check out what this Wall Street guy realised in his career.
Also this 911 firefighter, what he found out after some research
Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only
has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms
of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural
world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient
being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more,
no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
This looks like the "financialization" of society with Citizens morphing into Consumers.
And it's worth saying that Citizenship and Consumership are completely different concepts:
Citizenship – Dictionary.com
1. – the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen.
2. – the character of an individual viewed as a member of society;behavior in terms of the
duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen:
an award for good citizenship.
The Consumer – Dictionary.com
1. a person or thing that consumes.
2. Economics. a person or organization that uses a commodity or service.
A good citizen can then define themselves in a rather non-selfish, non-financial way as for
example, someone who respects others, contributes to local decisions (politically active), gains
respect through work and ethical standards etc.
A good consumer on the other hand, seems to be more a self-idea, essentially someone who buys
and consumes a lot (financial idea), has little political interest – and probably defines themselves
(and others) by how they spend money and what they own.
It's clear that US, and global capitalism, prefers active consumers over active citizens, and
maybe it explains why the US has such a worthless and dysfunctional political process.
Some folks are completely unable to connect the dots even when spoon fed the evidence. You'll
note that some, in risible displays of quasi-intellectual arrogance, make virtually impossible
demands for proof, none of which they'll ever accept. Rather, they flock to self aggrandizing
mythology like flies to fresh sewage which the plutoligarchy produces nearly infinitely.
Your observations appear pretty accurate and self justifying I'd say.
Look up the film director Aaron Russo (recently deceased), discussing how David Rockefeller
tried to bring him over to the dark side. Rockefeller discussed for example the women's movement,
its engineering. Also, there's Aldous Huxley's speech The Ultimate Revolution, on how drugs are
the final solution to rabble troubles–we will think we're happy even in the most appalling societal
conditions.
I can only say Beware of Zinn, best friend of Chomsky, endlessly tauted by shysters like Amy
Goodman and Counterpunch. Like all liberal gatekeepers, he wouldn't touch 911. I saw him speak
not long before he died, and when questioned on this he said, 'That was a long time ago, let's
talk about now.'
This from a professed historian, and it was only 7 years after 911. He seemed to have the same
old Jewish agenda, make Europeans look really bad at all times. He was always on message, like
the shyster Chomsky. Sincerely probing for the truth was not part of his agenda; his truths were
highly selective, and such a colossal event as 911 concerned him not at all, with the ensuing
wars, Patriot Acts, bullshit war on Terror, etc etc
" capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic
values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic
purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system."
This is a typical Left Lie. Capitalism in its present internationalist phase absolutely requires
Anti-Racism to lubricate sales uh, internationally and domestically. We are all Equal.
Then, the ticking-off of the rest of the bad isms, and labeling them 'despotic' is another
Leftwing and poetic attack on more or less all of us white folks, who have largely invented Capitalism,
from a racialist point of view.
"Poetic" because it is an emotional appeal, not a rational argument. The other 'despotisms'
are not despotic, unless you claim, like I do that racial personalities are more, or less despotic,
with Whites being the least despotic. The Left totalitarian thinks emotional despotism's source
is political or statist. It are not. However, Capitalism has been far less despotic than communism,
etc.
Emotional Despotism is part of who Homo Sapiens is, and this emotional despotism is not racially
equal. Whites are the least despotic, and have organized law and rules to contain such despotism.
Systems arise naturally from the Human Condition, like it or not. The attempt here is to sully
the Capitalist system, and that is all it is. This article itself is despotic propaganda.
Arguably, human nature is despotic, and White civilization has attempted to limit our despotic
nature.
This is another story.
As for elevating capitalism into a 'social system' .this is somewhat true. However, that is
not totally bad, as capitalism delivers the goods, which is the first thing, after getting out
of bed.
The second thing, is having a conformable social environment, and that is where racial accord
enters.
People want familiar and trustworthy people around them and that is just the way human nature
is genetic similarity, etc.
Beyond that, the various Leftie complaints-without-end, are also just the way it is. And yes
they can be addressed and ameliorated to some degree, but human nature is not a System to be manipulated,
even thought the current crop of scientistic lefties talk a good storyline about epigenetics and
other Hopes, false of course, like communist planning which makes its first priority, Social Change
which is always despotic. Society takes care of itself, especially racial society.
As Senator Vail said about the 1924 Immigration Act which held the line against Immigration,
"if there is going to be any changing being done, we will do it and nobody else." That 'we' was
a White we.
Capitalism must be national. International capital is tyranny.
US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US
Big Government taxes on a single gallon are around seventy-one cents for US states & rising, the
tax is now $1.00 per gallon for CA.
IOW, greedy US governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make, and it is
the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.
And that is just in the US. Have a look at Europe's taxes. My, my.
Some agendas require the "state sponsored" part to be hidden.
That is part of the reason why the constitutional convention was held in secret as well.
The cunning connivers who ram government down our throats don't like their designs exposed,
and it's an old trick which nearly always works.
Here's Aristophanes on the subject. His play is worth a read. Short and great satire on the
politicians of the day.
SAUSAGE-SELLER
No, Cleon, little you care for his reigning in Arcadia, it's to pillage and impose on the
allies at will that you reckon; y ou wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist,
that Demos may see nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for
his bread. But if ever peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort
himself once more with good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings
you have kept him out of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage,
he will rise, burning with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is
for this you rock him to sleep with your lies.
The first loyalty of jews is supposed to be to jews.
Norman Finkelstein is called a traitor by jews, the Dutch jew Hamburger is called a traitor
by Dutch jews, he's the chairman of 'Een ander joodse geluid', best translated by 'another jewish
opinion', the organisation criticises Israel.
Jewish involvement in Sept 11 seems probable, the 'dancing Israelis', the assertion that most
jews working in the Twin Towers at the time were either sick or took a day off, the fact that
the Towers were jewish property, ready for a costly demolition, much abestos in the buildings,
thus the 'terrorist' act brought a great profit.
Can one expect a jew to expose things like this ?
On his book, I did not find inconsistencies with literature I already knew.
The merit of the book is listing many events that affected common people in the USA, and destroying
the myth that 'in the USA who is poor has only himself to blame'.
This nonsense becomes clear even from the diaries of Harold L Ickes, or from Jonathan Raban
Bad Land, 1997.
As for Zinn's criticism of the adored USA constitution, I read that Charles A Beard already
in 1919 resigned because he also criticised this constitution.
Indeed, in our countries about half the national income goes to the governments by taxes, this
is the reason a country like Denmark is the best country to live in.
"... Following Frances Fox Piven, "neoliberal economic policies" refers to the set of policies carried out, in the name of individualism and unfettered markets, for "the deregulation of corporations, and particularly of financial institutions; the rollback of public services and benefit programs; curbing labor unions; 'free trade' policies that would pry open foreign markets; and wherever possible the replacement of public programs with private markets" (Piven, 2007: 13). ..."
"... The case of the United States is particularly useful to examine because its elites have projected themselves as "first among equals" of the globalization project ( Bello , 2006), and it is the place of the Global North where the neoliberal project has been pursued most resolutely and has advanced the farthest. In other words, the experiences of American workers illuminate the affects of the neoliberal project in the Global North to the greatest extent, and suggest what will happen to working people in other northern countries should they accept their respective government's adoption of such policies. ..."
"... However, it is believed that the implementation of these neoliberal economic policies and the cultural wars to divert public attention are part of a larger, conscious political program by the elites within this country that is intended to prevent re-emergence of the collective solidarity among the American people that we saw during the late 1960s-early 1970s (see Piven, 2004, 2007) -- of which the internal breakdown of discipline within the US military, in Vietnam and around the world, was arguably the most crucial (see Moser, 1996; Zeiger, 2006) -- that ultimately challenged, however inchoately, the very structure of the established social order, both internationally and in the United States itself. ..."
Most contemporary discussions of globalization, and especially of the impact of neoliberal economic
policies, focus on the countries of the Global South (see, for example, Bond, 2005; Ellner and Hellinger,
eds., 2003; a number of articles in Harris, ed., 2006; Klein, 2007; Monthly Review, 2007;
and, among others, see Scipes, 1999, 2006b). Recent articles arguing that the globalization project
has receded and might be taking different approaches (Bello, 2006; Thornton, 2007) have also focused
on the Global South. What has been somewhat discussed (see Giroux, 2004; Piven, 2004; Aronowitz,
2005) but not systematically addressed, however, is what has been the impact of globalization and
especially related neoliberal economic policies on working people in a northern country?
[i]
This paper specifically addresses this question by looking at the impact of neoliberal economic
policies on working people in the United States . Following Frances Fox Piven, "neoliberal economic
policies" refers to the set of policies carried out, in the name of individualism and unfettered
markets, for "the deregulation of corporations, and particularly of financial institutions; the rollback
of public services and benefit programs; curbing labor unions; 'free trade' policies that would pry
open foreign markets; and wherever possible the replacement of public programs with private markets"
(Piven, 2007: 13).
The case of the United States is particularly useful to examine because its elites have projected
themselves as "first among equals" of the globalization project ( Bello , 2006), and it is the place
of the Global North where the neoliberal project has been pursued most resolutely and has advanced
the farthest. In other words, the experiences of American workers illuminate the affects of the neoliberal
project in the Global North to the greatest extent, and suggest what will happen to working people
in other northern countries should they accept their respective government's adoption of such policies.
However, care must be taken as to how this is understood. While sociologically-focused textbooks
(e.g., Aguirre and Baker, eds., 2008; Hurst, 2007) have joined together some of the most recent thinking
on social inequality -- and have demonstrated that inequality not only exists but is increasing --
this has been generally presented in a national context; in this case, within the United States.
And if they recognize that globalization is part of the reason for increasing inequality, it is generally
included as one of a set of reasons.
This paper argues that we simply cannot understand what is happening unless we put developments
within a global context: the United States effects, and is affected by, global processes.
Thus, while some of the impacts can be understood on a national level, we cannot ask related questions
as to causes -- or future consequences -- by confining our examination to a national level: we absolutely
must approach this from a global perspective (see Nederveen Pieterse, 2004, 2008).
This also must be put in historical perspective as well, although the focus in this piece will
be limited to the post-World War II world. Inequality within what is now the United States today
did not -- obviously -- arise overnight. Unquestionably, it began at least 400 years ago in Jamestown
-- with the terribly unequal and socially stratified society of England's colonial Virginia before
Africans were brought to North America (see Fischer, 1989), much less after their arrival in
1619, before the Pilgrims. Yet, to understand the roots of development of contemporary social
inequality in the US , we must understand the rise of " Europe " in relation to the rest of the world
(see, among others, Rodney, 1972; Nederveen Pieterse, 1989). In short, again, we have to understand
that the development of the United States has been and will always be a global project and, without
recognizing that, we simply cannot begin to understand developments within the United States .
We also have to understand the multiple and changing forms of social stratification and resulting
inequalities in this country. This paper prioritizes economic stratification, although is not limited
to just the resulting inequalities. Nonetheless, it does not focus on racial, gender or any other
type of social stratification. However, this paper is not written from the perspective that economic
stratification is always the most important form of stratification, nor from the perspective
that we can only understand other forms of stratification by understanding economic stratification:
all that is being claimed herein is that economic stratification is one type of social stratification,
arguably one of the most important types yet only one of several, and investigates the issue of economic
stratification in the context of contemporary globalization and the neoliberal economic policies
that have developed to address this phenomenon as it affects the United States.
Once this global-historical perspective is understood and after quickly suggesting in the "prologue"
why the connection between neoliberal economic policies and the affects on working people
in the United States has not been made usually, this paper focuses on several interrelated issues:
(1) it reports the current economic situation for workers in the United States; (2) it provides a
historical overview of US society since World War II; (3) it analyzes the results of US Government
economic policies; and (4) it ties these issues together. From that, it comes to a conclusion about
the affects of neoliberal economic policies on working people in the United States .
Prologue: Origins of neoliberal economic policies in the United States
As stated above, most of the attention directed toward understanding the impact of neoliberal
economic policies on various countries has been confined to the countries of the Global South. However,
these policies have been implemented in the United States as well. This arguably began in 1982, when
the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, launched a vicious attack on inflation -- and
caused the deepest US recession since the Great Depression of the late 1920s-1930s.
However, these neoliberal policies have been implemented in the US perhaps more subtly than in
the Global South. This is said because, when trying to understand changes that continue to take place
in the United States, these economic policies are hidden "under" the various and sundry "cultural
wars" (around issues such as drugs, premarital sex, gun control, abortion, marriages for gays and
lesbians) that have been taking place in this country and, thus, not made obvious: most Americans,
and especially working people, are not aware of the changes detailed below.
[ii]
However, it is believed that the implementation of these neoliberal economic policies and
the cultural wars to divert public attention are part of a larger, conscious political program
by the elites within this country that is intended to prevent re-emergence of the collective solidarity
among the American people that we saw during the late 1960s-early 1970s (see Piven, 2004, 2007) --
of which the internal breakdown of discipline within the US military, in Vietnam and around
the world, was arguably the most crucial (see Moser, 1996; Zeiger, 2006) -- that ultimately challenged,
however inchoately, the very structure of the established social order, both internationally and
in the United States itself. Thus, we see both Democratic and Republican Parties in agreement
to maintain and expand the US Empire (in more neutral political science-ese, a "uni-polar world"),
but the differences that emerge within each party and between each party are generally confined to
how this can best be accomplished. While this paper focuses on the economic and social changes going
on, it should be kept in mind that these changes did not "just happen": conscious political decisions
have been made that produced social results (see Piven, 2004) that make the US experience -- at the
center of a global social order based on an "advanced" capitalist economy -- qualitatively different
from experiences in other more economically-developed countries.
So, what has been the impact of these policies on workers in the US?
1) The current situation for workers and growing economic inequality
Steven Greenhouse of The New York Times published a piece on September 4, 2006, writing
about entry-level workers, young people who were just entering the job market. Mr. Greenhouse noted
changes in the US economy; in fact, there have been substantial changes since early 2000, when the
economy last created many jobs.
Median incomes for families with one parent age 25-34 fell 5.9 per cent between 2000-2005.
It had jumped 12 per cent during the late '90s. (The median annual income for these families today
is $48,405.)
Between 2000-2005, entry-level wages for male college graduates fell by 7.3 per cent (to $19.72/hr)
Entry-level wages for female college graduates fell by 3.5 per cent (to $17.08)
Entry-level wages for male high school graduates fell by 3.3 per cent (to $10.93)
Entry-level wages for female high school graduates fell by 4.9 per cent (to $9.08)
Yet, the percentage drop in wages hides the growing gap between college and high school graduates.
Today, on average, college grads earn 45 per cent more than high school graduates, where the gap
had "only" been 23 per cent in 1979: the gap has doubled in 26 years (Greenhouse, 2006b).
A 2004 story in Business Week found that 24 per cent of all working Americans received
wages below the poverty line ( Business Week , 2004).
[iii] In January 2004, 23.5 million
Americans received free food from food pantries. "The surge for food demand is fueled by several
forces -- job losses, expired unemployment benefits, soaring health-care and housing costs, and the
inability of many people to find jobs that match the income and benefits of the jobs they had." And
43 million people were living in low-income families with children (Jones, 2004).
A 2006 story in Business Week found that US job growth between 2001-2006 was really based
on one industry: health care. Over this five-year period, the health-care sector has added 1.7 million
jobs, while the rest of the private sector has been stagnant. Michael Mandel, the economics editor
of the magazine, writes:
information technology, the great electronic promise of the 1990s, has turned into one of
the greatest job-growth disappointments of all time. Despite the splashy success of companies
such as Google and Yahoo!, businesses at the core of the information economy -- software, semi-conductors,
telecom, and the whole range of Web companies -- have lost more than 1.1 million jobs in the past
five years. These businesses employ fewer Americans today than they did in 1998, when the Internet
frenzy kicked into high gear (Mandel, 2006: 56) .
In fact, "take away health-care hiring in the US, and quicker than you can say cardiac bypass,
the US unemployment rate would be 1 to 2 percentage points higher" (Mandel, 2006: 57).
There has been extensive job loss in manufacturing. Over 3.4 million manufacturing jobs have been
lost since 1998, and 2.9 million of them have been lost since 2001. Additionally, over 40,000 manufacturing
firms have closed since 1999, and 90 per cent have been medium and large shops. In labor-import intensive
industries, 25 per cent of laid-off workers remain unemployed after six months, two-thirds of them
who do find new jobs earn less than on their old job, and one-quarter of those who find new jobs
"suffer wage losses of more than 30 percent" (AFL-CIO, 2006a: 2).
The AFL-CIO details the US job loss by manufacturing sector in the 2001-05 period:
Computer and electronics: 543,000 workers or 29.2 per cent
Semiconductor and electronic components: 260,100 or 36.7 per cent
Electrical equipment and appliances: 152,500 or 26 per cent
Vehicle parts: 153,400 or 18.6 per cent
Machinery: 289,400 or 19.9 per cent
Fabricated metal products: 235,200 or 13.3 per cent
Primary metals: 144,800 or 23.5 per cent
Transportation equipment: 246,300 or 12.1 per cent
Furniture products: 58,500 or 13.4 per cent
Textile mills: 158,500 or 43.1 per cent
Apparel 220,000 or 46.6 per cent
Leather products: 24,700 or 38.3 per cent
Printing: 159,300 or 19.9 per cent
Paper products: 122,600 or 20.4 per cent
Plastics and rubber products: 141,400 or 15 per cent
Chemicals: 94,900 or 9.7 per cent
Aerospace: 46,900 or 9.1 per cent
Textiles and apparel declined by 870,000 jobs 1994-2006, a decline of 65.4 per cent (AFL-CIO,
2006a: 2).
As of the end of 2005, only 10.7 per cent of all US employment was in manufacturing -- down from
21.6 per cent at its height in 1979 -- in raw numbers, manufacturing employment totaled 19.426 million
in 1979, 17.263 million in 2000, and 14.232 million in 2005.
[iv] The number of production workers
in this country at the end of 2005 was 9.378 million.
[v] This was only slightly above
the 9.306 million production workers in 1983, and was considerably below the 11.463 million as recently
as 2000 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006b). As one writer puts it, this is "the biggest long-term
trend in the economy: the decline of manufacturing." He notes that employment in the durable goods
(e.g., cars and cable TV boxes) category of manufacturing has declined from 19 per cent of all employment
in 1965 to 8 per cent in 2005 (Altman, 2006). And at the end of 2006, only 11.7 per cent of all manufacturing
workers were in unions (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007).
In addition, in 2004 and 2005, "the real hourly and weekly wages of US manufacturing workers have
fallen 3 per cent and 2.2 per cent respectively" (AFL-CIO, 2006a: 2).
The minimum wage level went unchanged for nine years: until recently when there was a small increase
-- to $5.85 an hour on July 24, 2007 -- US minimum wage had remained at $5.15 an hour since September
1, 1997 . During that time, the cost of living rose 26 percent. After adjusting for inflation, this
was the lowest level of the minimum wage since 1955. At the same time, the minimum wage was only
31 per cent of the average pay of non-supervisory workers in the private sector, which is the lowest
share since World War II (Bernstein and Shapiro, 2006).
In addition to the drop in wages at all levels, fewer new workers get health care benefits with
their jobs: [vi] in 2005, 64 per
cent of all college grads got health coverage in entry-level jobs, where 71 per cent had gotten it
in 2000 -- a 7 per cent drop in just five years. Over a longer term, we can see what has happened
to high school grads: in 1979, two-thirds of all high school graduates got health care coverage in
entry-level jobs, while only one-third do today (Greenhouse, 2006b). It must be kept in mind that
only about 28 per cent of the US workforce are college graduates -- most of the work force only has
a high school degree, although a growing percentage of them have some college, but not college degrees.
Because things have gotten so bad, many young adults have gotten discouraged and given up. The
unemployment rate is 4.4 per cent for ages 25-34, but 8.2 per cent for workers 20-24. (Greenhouse,
2006b).
Yet things are actually worse than that. In the US , unemployment rates are artificially low.
If a person gets laid off and gets unemployment benefits -- which fewer and fewer workers even get
-- they get a check for six months. If they have not gotten a job by the end of six months -- and
it is taking longer and longer to get a job -- and they have given up searching for work, then not
only do they loose their unemployment benefits, but they are no longer counted as unemployed: one
doesn't even count in the statistics!
A report from April 2004 provides details. According to the then-head of the US Federal Reserve
System, Alan Greenspan, "the average duration of unemployment increased from twelve weeks in September
2000 to twenty weeks in March [2004]" (quoted in Shapiro, 2004: 4). In March 2004, 354,000 jobs workers
had exhausted their unemployment benefits, and were unable to get any additional federal unemployment
assistance: Shapiro (2004: 1) notes, "In no other month on record, with data available back to 1971,
have there been so many 'exhaustees'."
Additionally, although it's rarely reported, unemployment rates vary by racial grouping. No matter
what the unemployment rate is, it really only reflects the rate of whites who are unemployed because
about 78 per cent of the workforce is white. However, since 1954, the unemployment rate of African-Americans
has always been more than twice that of whites, and Latinos are about 1 1/2 times that of whites.
So, for example, if the overall rate is five percent, then it's at least ten per cent for African-Americans
and 7.5 per cent for Latinos.
However, most of the developments presented above -- other than the racial affects of unemployment
-- have been relatively recent. What about longer term? Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning Princeton
University economist who writes for The New York Times, pointed out these longer term affects:
non-supervisory workers make less in real wages today (2006) than they made in 1973! So, after inflation
is taken out, non-supervisory workers are making less today in real terms that their contemporaries
made 33 years ago (Krugman, 2006b). Figures provided by Stephen Franklin -- obtained from the US
Bureau of Statistics, and presented in 1982 dollars -- show that a production worker in January 1973
earned $9.08 an hour -- and $8.19 an hour in December 2005 (Franklin, 2006). Workers in 2005 also
had less long-term job security, fewer benefits, less stable pensions (when they have them), and
rising health care costs. [vii]
In short, the economic situation for "average Americans" is getting worse. A front-page story
in the Chicago Tribune tells about a worker who six years ago was making $29 an hour, working
at a nuclear power plant. He got laid off, and now makes $12.24 an hour, working on the bottom tier
of a two-tiered unionized factory owned by Caterpillar, the multinational earth moving equipment
producer, which is less than half of his old wages. The article pointed out, "Glued to a bare bones
budget, he saved for weeks to buy a five-pack of $7 T-shirts" ( Franklin , 2006).
As Foster and Magdoff point out:
Except for a small rise in the late 1990s, real wages have been sluggish for decades. The
typical (median-income) family has sought to compensate for this by increasing the number of jobs
and working hours per household. Nevertheless, the real (inflation-adjusted) income of the typical
household fell for five years in a row through 2004 (Foster and Magdoff, 2009: 28).
A report by Workers Independent News (WIN) stated that while a majority of metropolitan
areas have regained the 2.6 million jobs lost during the first two years of the Bush Administration,
"the new jobs on average pay $9,000 less than the jobs replaced," a 21 per cent decline from $43,629
to $34,378. However, WIN says that "99 out of the 361 metro areas will not recover jobs before 2007
and could be waiting until 2015 before they reach full recovery" (Russell, 2006).
At the same time, Americans are going deeper and deeper into debt. At the end of 2000, total US
household debt was $7.008 trillion, with home mortgage debt being $4.811 trillion and non-mortgage
debt $1.749 trillion; at the end of 2006, comparable numbers were a total of $12.817 trillion; $9.705
trillion (doubling since 2000); and $2.431 trillion (US Federal Reserve, 2007-rounding by author).
Foster and Magdoff (2009: 29) show that this debt is not only increasing, but based on figures from
the Federal Reserve, that debt as a percentage of disposable income has increased overall from 62%
in 1975 to 96.8% in 2000, and to 127.2% in 2005.
Three polls from mid-2006 found "deep pessimism among American workers, with most saying that
wages were not keeping pace with inflation, and that workers were worse off in many ways than a generation
ago" (Greenhouse, 2006a). And, one might notice, nothing has been said about increasing gas prices,
lower home values, etc. The economic situation for most working people is not looking pretty.
In fact, bankruptcy filings totaled 2.043 million in 2005, up 31.6 per cent from 2004 (Associated
Press, 2006), before gas prices went through the ceiling and housing prices began falling in mid-2006.
Yet in 1998, writers for the Chicago Tribune had written, " the number of personal bankruptcy
filings skyrocketed 19.5 per cent last year, to an all-time high of 1,335,053, compared with 1,117,470
in 1996" (Schmeltzer and Gruber, 1998).
And at the same time, there were 37 million Americans in poverty in 2005, one of out every eight.
Again, the rates vary by racial grouping: while 12.6 per cent of all Americans were in poverty, the
poverty rate for whites was 8.3 percent; for African Americans, 24.9 per cent were in poverty, as
were 21.8 per cent of all Latinos. (What is rarely acknowledged, however, is that 65 per cent of
all people in poverty in the US are white.) And 17.6 per cent of all children were in poverty (US
Census Bureau, 2005).
What about the "other half"? This time, Paul Krugman gives details from a report by two Northwestern
University professors, Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon, titled "Where Did the Productivity Growth
Go?" Krugman writes:
Between 1973 and 2001, the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile
of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 per cent per year. But income at the
99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income
at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint. Just to give you a sense
of who we're talking about: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that this year, the 99th
percentile will correspond to an income of $402,306, and the 99.9th percentile to an income of
$1,672,726. The Center doesn't give a number for the 99.99th percentile, but it's probably well
over $6 million a year (Krugman, 2006a) .
But how can we understand what is going on? We need to put take a historical approach to understand
the significance of the changes reported above.
(2) A historical look at the US social order since World War II
When considering the US situation, it makes most sense to look at "recent" US developments, those
since World War II. Just after the War, in 1947, the US population was about six per cent of the
world's total. Nonetheless, this six per cent produced about 48 per cent of all goods and services
in the world! [viii] With Europe
and Japan devastated, the US was the only industrialized economy that had not been laid waste. Everybody
needed what the US produced -- and this country produced the goods, and sent them around the world.
At the same time, the US economy was not only the most productive, but the rise of the industrial
union movement in the 1930s and '40s -- the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) -- meant that
workers had some power to demand a share of the wealth produced. In 1946, just after the war, the
US had the largest strike wave in its history: 116,000,000 production days were lost in early 1946,
as industry-wide strikes in auto, steel, meat packing, and the electrical industry took place across
the United States and Canada , along with smaller strikes in individual firms. Not only that, but
there were general strikes that year in Oakland , California and Stamford , Connecticut . Workers
had been held back during the war, but they demonstrated their power immediately thereafter (Lipsitz,
1994; Murolo and Chitty, 2001). Industry knew that if it wanted the production it could sell, it
had to include unionized workers in on the deal.
It was this combination -- devastated economic markets around the world and great demand for goods
and services, the world's most developed industrial economy, and a militant union movement -- that
combined to create what is now known as the "great American middle class."
[ix]
To understand the economic impact of these factors, changes in income distribution in US society
must be examined. The best way to illuminate this is to assemble family data on income or wealth
[x] -- income data is more available,
so that will be used; arrange it from the smallest amount to the largest; and then to divide the
population into fifths, or quintiles. In other words, arrange every family's annual income from the
lowest to the highest, and divide the total number of family incomes into quintiles or by 20 percents
(i.e., fifths). Then compare changes in the top incomes for each quintile. By doing so, one can then
observe changes in income distribution over specified time periods.
The years between 1947 and 1973 are considered the "golden years" of the US society.
[xi] The values are presented
in 2005 dollars, so that means that inflation has been taken out: these are real dollar values,
and that means these are valid comparisons.
Figure 1: US family income, in US dollars, growth and istribution, by quintile, 1947-1973 compared
to 1973-2001, in 2005 dollars
Source: US Commerce Department, Bureau of the Census (hereafter, US Census Bureau) at
www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html
. All dollar values converted to 2005 dollars by US Census Bureau, removing inflation and comparing
real values. Differences and percentages calculated by author. Percentages shown in both rows labeled
"Difference" show the dollar difference as a percentage of the first year of the comparison.
Data for the first period, 1947-1973 -- the data above the grey line -- shows there was
considerable real economic growth for each quintile . Over the 26-year period, there was approximately
100 per cent real economic growth for the incomes at the top of each quintile, which meant incomes
doubled after inflation was removed; thus, there was significant economic growth in the society.
And importantly, this real economic growth was distributed fairly evenly . The data in
the fourth line (in parentheses) is the percentage relationship between the difference between 1947-1973
real income when compared to the 1947 real income, with 100 per cent representing a doubling of real
income: i.e., the difference for the bottom quintile between 1947 and 1973 was an increase
of $11,386, which is 97 per cent more than $11,758 that the top of the quintile had in 1947. As can
be seen, other quintiles also saw increases of roughly comparable amounts: in ascending order, 100
percent, 107 percent, 101 percent, and 91 percent. In other words, the rate of growth by quintile
was very similar across all five quintiles of the population.
When looking at the figures for 1973-2001, something vastly different can be observed. This is
the section below the grey line. What can be seen? First, economic growth has slowed considerably:
the highest rate of growth for any quintile was that of 58 per cent for those who topped the
fifth quintile, and this was far below the "lagger" of 91 per cent of the earlier period.
Second, of what growth there was, it was distributed extremely unequally . And the growth
rates for those in lower quintiles were generally lower than for those above them: for the bottom
quintile, their real income grew only 14 per cent over the 1973-2001 period; for the second quintile,
19 percent; for the third, 29 percent; for the fourth, 42 percent; and for the 80-95 percent, 58
percent: loosely speaking, the rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.
Why the change? I think two things in particular. First, as industrialized countries recovered
from World War II, corporations based in these countries could again compete with those from the
US -- first in their own home countries, and then through importing into the US , and then ultimately
when they invested in the United States . Think of Toyota : they began importing into the US in the
early 1970s, and with their investments here in the early '80s and forward, they now are the largest
domestic US auto producer.
Second cause for the change has been the deterioration of the American labor movement: from 35.3
per cent of the non-agricultural workforce in unions in 1954, to only 12.0 per cent of all American
workers in unions in 2006 -- and only 7.4 per cent of all private industry workers are unionized,
which is less than in 1930!
This decline in unionization has a number of reasons. Part of this deterioration has been the
result of government policies -- everything from the crushing of the air traffic controllers when
they went on strike by the Reagan Administration in 1981, to reform of labor law, to reactionary
appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees administration of labor law. Certainly
a key government policy, signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, has been the North American
Free Trade Act or NAFTA. One analyst came straight to the point:
Since [NAFTA] was signed in 1993, the rise in the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico
through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 US jobs. Most of
these lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is
just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the US economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed
to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective
bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits (Scott, 2003:
1).
These attacks by elected officials have been joined by the affects due to the restructuring of
the economy. There has been a shift from manufacturing to services. However, within manufacturing,
which has long been a union stronghold, there has been significant job loss: between July 2000 and
January 2004, the US lost three million manufacturing jobs, or 17.5 percent, and 5.2 million since
the historical peak in 1979, so that "Employment in manufacturing [in January 2004] was its lowest
since July 1950" (CBO, 2004). This is due to both outsourcing labor-intensive production overseas
and, more importantly, technological displacement as new technology has enabled greater production
at higher quality with fewer workers in capital-intensive production (see Fisher, 2004). Others have
blamed burgeoning trade deficits for the rise: " an increasing share of domestic demand for manufacturing
output is satisfied by foreign rather than domestic producers" (Bivens, 2005).
[xiii] Others have even attributed
it to changes in consumer preferences (Schweitzer and Zaman, 2006). Whatever the reason, of the 50
states, only five (Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming) did not see any job loss in manufacturing
between 1993-2003, yet 37 lost between 5.6 and 35.9 per cent of their manufacturing jobs during this
period (Public Policy Institute, 2004).
However, part of the credit for deterioration of the labor movement must be given to the labor
movement itself: the leadership has been simply unable to confront these changes and, at the same
time, they have consistently worked against any independent action by rank-and-file members.
[xiv]
However, it must be asked: are the changes in the economy presented herein merely statistical
manipulations, or is this indicating something real?
This point can be illustrated another way: by using CAGR, the Compound Annual Growth Rate. This
is a single number that is computed, based on compounded amounts, across a range of years, to come
up with an average number to represent the rate of increase or decrease each year across the entire
period. This looks pretty complex, but it is based on the same idea as compound interest used in
our savings accounts: you put in $10 today and (this is obviously not a real example) because you
get ten per cent interest, so you have $11 the next year. Well, the following year, interest is not
computed off the original $10, but is computed on the $11. So, by the third year, from your $10,
you now have $12.10. Etc. And this is what is meant by the Compound Annual Growth Rate: this is average
compound growth by year across a designated period.
Based on the numbers presented above in Figure 1, the author calculated the Compound Annual Growth
Rate by quintiles (Figure 2). The annual growth rate has been calculated for the first period, 1947-1973,
the years known as the "golden years" of US society. What has happened since then? Compare results
from the 1947-73 period to the annual growth rate across the second period, 1973-2001, again calculated
by the author.
Figure 2: Annual percentage of family income growth, by quintile, 1947-1973 compared to 1973-2001
What we can see here is that while everyone's income was growing at about the same rate in the
first period -- between 2.51 and 2.84 per cent annually -- by the second period, not only had growth
slowed down across the board, but it grew by very different rates: what we see here, again,
is that the rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.
If these figures are correct, a change over time in the percentage of income received by each
quintile should be observable. Ideally, if the society were egalitarian, each 20 per cent of the
population would get 20 per cent of the income in any one year. In reality, it differs. To understand
Figure 3, below, one must not only look at the percentage of income held by a quintile across the
chart, comparing selected year by selected year, but one needs to look to see whether a quintile's
share of income is moving toward or away from the ideal 20 percent.
Figure 3: Percentage of family income distribution by quintile, 1947, 1973, 2001.
Population by quintiles
1947
1973
2001
Top fifth (lower limit of top 5percent, or 95th Percentile)-- $184,500
[xv]
Unfortunately, much of the data available publicly ended in 2001. However, in the summer of 2007,
after years of not releasing data any later than 2001, the Census Bureau released income data up
to 2005. It allows us to examine what has taken place regarding family income inequality during the
first four years of the Bush Administration.
Figure 4: US family income, in US dollars, growth and distribution, by quintile,
2001-2005, 2005 US dollars
Lowest 20%
Second 20%
Middle 20%
Fourth 20%
Lowest level of top 5%
2001
$26,467
$45,855
$68,925
$103,828
$180,973
2005
$25,616
$45,021
$68,304
$103,100
$184,500
Difference
(4 years)
-$851
(-3.2%)
-$834
(-1.8%)
-$621
(-.01%)
-$728
(-.007%)
$3,527
(1.94%)
Source: US Census Bureau at
www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html
. (Over time, the Census Bureau refigures these amounts, so they have subsequently converted
amounts to 2006 dollar values. These values are from their 2005 dollar values, and were calculated
by the Census Bureau.) Differences and percentages calculated by author.
Thus, what we've seen under the first four years of the Bush Administration is that for at most
Americans, their economic situation has worsened: not only has over all economic growth for any quintile
slowed to a minuscule 1.94 per cent at the most, but that the bottom 80 per cent actually lost income;
losing money (an absolute loss), rather than growing a little but falling further behind the top
quintile (a relative loss). Further, the decrease across the bottom four quintiles has been suffered
disproportionately by those in the lowest 40 per cent of the society.
This can perhaps be seen more clearly by examining CAGR rates by period.
We can now add the results of the 2001-2005 period share of income by quintile to our earlier
chart:
Figure 5: Percentage of income growth per year by percentile, 1947-2005
As can be seen, the percentage of family income at each of the four bottom quintiles is less in
2005 than in 1947; the only place there has been improvement over this 58-year period is at the 95th
percentile (and above).
Figure 6: Percentage of family income distribution by quintile, 1947, 1973, 2001, 2005.
Population by quintiles
1947
1973
2001
2005
Top fifth (lower limit of top 5percent, or 95th Percentile)-- $184,500
What has been presented so far, regarding changes in income distribution, has been at the group
level; in this case, quintile by quintile. It is time now to see how this has affected the society
overall.
Sociologists and economists use a number called the Gini index to measure inequality. Family income
data has been used so far, and we will continue using it. A Gini index is fairly simple to use. It
measures inequality in a society. A Gini index is generally reported in a range between 0.000 and
1.000, and is written in thousandths, just like a winning percentage mark: three digits after the
decimal. And the higher the Gini score, the greater the inequality.
Looking at the Gini index, we can see two periods since 1947, when the US Government began computing
the Gini index for the country. From 1947-1968, with yearly change greater or smaller, the trend
is downward, indicating reduced inequality: from .376 in 1947 to .378 in 1950, but then downward
to .348 in 1968. So, again, over the first period, the trend is downward.
What has happened since then? From the low point in 1968 of .348, the trend has been upward. In
1982, the Gini index hit .380, which was higher than any single year between 1947-1968, and the US
has never gone below .380 since then. By 1992, it hit .403, and we've never gone back below .400.
In 2001, the US hit .435. But the score for 2005 has only recently been published: .440 (source:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f04.html
). So, the trend is getting worse, and with the policies established under George W. Bush, I
see them only continuing to increase in the forthcoming period. [And by the way, this increasing
trend has continued under both the Republicans and the Democrats, but since the Republicans have
controlled the presidency for 18 of the last 26 years (since 1981), they get most of the credit --
but let's not forget that the Democrats have controlled Congress across many of those years, so they,
too, have been an equal opportunity destroyer!]
However, one more question must be asked: how does this income inequality in the US, compare to
other countries around the world? Is the level of income inequality comparable to other "developed"
societies, or is it comparable to "developing" countries?
We must turn to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for our data. The CIA computes Gini scores
for family income on most of the countries around the world, and the last time checked in 2007 (August
1), they had data on 122 countries on their web page and these numbers had last been updated on July
19, 2007 (US Central Intelligence Agency, 2007). With each country listed, there is a Gini score
provided. Now, the CIA doesn't compute Gini scores yearly, but they give the last year it was computed,
so these are not exactly equivalent but they are suggestive enough to use. However, when they do
assemble these Gini scores in one place, they list them alphabetically, which is not of much comparative
use (US Central Intelligence Agency, 2007).
However, the World Bank categorizes countries, which means they can be compared within category
and across categories. The World Bank, which does not provide Gini scores, puts 208 countries into
one of four categories based on Gross National Income per capita -- that's total value of goods and
services sold in the market in a year, divided by population size. This is a useful statistic, because
it allows us to compare societies with economies of vastly different size: per capita income removes
the size differences between countries.
The World Bank locates each country into one of four categories: lower income, lower middle income,
upper middle income, and high income (World Bank, 2007a). Basically, those in the lower three categories
are "developing" or what we used to call "third world" countries, while the high income countries
are all of the so-called developed countries.
The countries listed by the CIA with their respective Gini scores were placed into the specific
World Bank categories in which the World Bank had previously located them (World Bank, 2007b). Once
grouped in their categories, median Gini scores were computed for each group. When trying to get
one number to represent a group of numbers, median is considered more accurate than an average, so
the median was used, which means half of the scores are higher, half are lower -- in other words,
the data is at the 50th percentile for each category.
The Gini score for countries, by Gross National Income per capita, categorized by the World Bank:
Figure 7: Median Gini Scores by World Bank income categories (countries selected by US Central
Intelligence Agency were placed in categories developed by the World Bank) and compared to 2004 US
Gini score as calculated by US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Income category
Median Gini score
Gini score, US (2004)
Low income countries (less than $875/person/year)
.406
.450
Lower-middle income countries (between $876-3,465/person/year)
.414
.450
Upper-middle income countries (between $3,466-10,725/person/year
.370
.450
Upper-income countries (over $10,726/person/year
.316
.450
As can be seen, with the (CIA-calculated) Gini score of .450, the US family income is more
unequal than the medians for each category, and is more unequal than some of the poorest countries
on earth, such as Bangladesh (.318 -- calculated in 2000), Cambodia (.400, 2004 est.), Laos (.370-1997),
Mozambique (.396, 1996-97), Uganda (.430-1999) and Vietnam (.361, 1998). This same finding also holds
true using the more conservative Census Bureau-calculated Gini score of .440.
Thus, the US has not only become more unequal over the 35 years, as has been demonstrated above,
but has attained a level of inequality that is much more comparable to those of developing countries
in general and, in fact, is more unequal today than some of the poorest countries on Earth. There
is nothing suggesting that this increasing inequality will lessen anytime soon. And since this increasing
income inequality has taken place under the leadership of both major political parties, there is
nothing on the horizon that suggests either will resolutely address this issue in the foreseeable
future regardless of campaign promises made.
However, to move beyond discussion of whether President Obama is likely to address these and related
issues, some consideration of governmental economic policies is required. Thus, he will be constrained
by decisions made by previous administrations, as well as by the ideological blinders worn by those
he has chosen to serve at the top levels of his administration.
3) Governmental economic policies
There are two key points that are especially important for our consideration: the US Budget and
the US National Debt. They are similar, but different -- and consideration of each of them enhances
understanding.
A) US budget. Every year, the US Government passes a budget, whereby governmental officials
estimate beforehand how much money needs to be taken in to cover all expenses. If the government
actually takes in more money than it spends, the budget is said to have a surplus; if it takes in
less than it spends, the budget is said to be in deficit.
Since 1970, when Richard Nixon was President, the US budget has been in deficit every year
except for the last four years under Clinton (1998-2001), where there was a surplus. But this
surplus began declining under Clinton -- it was $236.2 billion in 2000, and only $128.2 billion in
2001, Clinton 's last budget. Under Bush, the US has gone drastically into deficit: -$157.8 billion
in 2002; -$377.6 billion in 2003; -$412.7 billion in 2004; -$318.3 billion in 2005; and "only"-$248.2
billion in 2006 (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-78).
Now, that is just yearly surpluses and deficits. They get combined with all the other surpluses
and deficits since the US became a country in 1789 to create to create a cumulative amount, what
is called the National Debt.
B) US national debt. Between 1789 and1980 -- from Presidents Washington through
Carter -- the accumulated US National Debt was $909 billion or, to put it another way, $.909 trillion.
During Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981-89), the National Debt tripled, from $.9 trillion to $2.868
trillion. It has continued to rise. As of the end of 2006, 17 years later and after a four-year period
of surpluses where the debt was somewhat reduced, National Debt (or Gross Federal Debt) was $8.451
trillion (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-78).
To put it into context: the US economy, the most productive in the world, had a Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) of $13.061 trillion in 2006, but the National Debt was $8.451 trillion -- 64.7 per
cent of GDP -- and growing (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-1).
In April 2006, one investor reported that "the US Treasury has a hair under $8.4 trillion in outstanding
debt. How much is that? He put it into this context: " if you deposited one million dollars into
a bank account every day, starting 2006 years ago, that you would not even have ONE trillion dollars
in that account" (Van Eeden, 2006).
Let's return to the budget deficit: like a family budget, when one spends more than one brings
in, they can do basically one of three things: (a) they can cut spending; (b) they can increase taxes
(or obviously a combination of the two); or (c) they can take what I call the "Wimpy" approach.
For those who might not know this, Wimpy was a cartoon character, a partner of "Popeye the Sailor,"
a Saturday morning cartoon that was played for over 30 years in the United States . Wimpy had a great
love for hamburgers. And his approach to life was summed up in his rap: "I'll gladly give you two
hamburgers on Tuesday, for a hamburger today."
What is argued is that the US Government has been taking what I call the Wimpy approach to its
budgetary problems: it does not reduce spending, it does not raise taxes to pay for the increased
expenditures -- in fact, President Bush has cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans
[xvi] -- but instead it sells
US Government securities, often known as Treasuries, to rich investors, private corporations or,
increasingly, to other countries to cover the budget deficit. In a set number of years, the US Government
agrees to pay off each bond -- and the difference between what the purchaser bought them for and
the increased amount the US Government pays to redeem them is the cost of financing the Treasuries,
a certain percentage of the total value. By buying US Treasuries, other countries have helped keep
US interest rates low, helping to keep the US economy in as good of shape as it has been (thus, keeping
the US market flourishing for them), while allowing the US Government not to have to confront its
annual deficits. At the end of 2006, the total value of outstanding Treasuries -- to all investors,
not just other countries -- was $8.507 trillion (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-87).
It turns out that at in December 2004, foreigners owned approximately 61 per cent of all outstanding
US Treasuries. Of that, seven per cent was held by China ; these were valued at $223 billion (Gundzik,
2005).
The percentage of foreign and international investors' purchases of the total US public debt since
1996 has never been less than 17.7 percent, and it has reached a high of 25.08 per cent in September
2006. In September 2006, foreigners purchased $2.134 trillion of Treasuries; these were 25.08 per
cent of all purchases, and 52.4 per cent of all privately-owned purchases (Economic Report of the
President, 2007: Table B-89). [xvii]
Altogether, "the world now holds financial claims amounting to $3.5 trillion against the United
States , or 26 per cent of our GDP" (Humpage and Shenk, 2007: 4).
Since the US Government continues to run deficits, because the Bush Administration has refused
to address this problem, the United States has become dependent on other countries buying Treasuries.
Like a junky on heroin, the US must get other investors (increasingly countries) to finance
its budgetary deficits.
To keep the money flowing in, the US must keep interest rates high -- basically, interest rates
are the price that must be paid to borrow money. Over the past year or so, the Federal Reserve has
not raised interest rates, but prior to that, for 15 straight quarterly meetings, they did. And,
as known, the higher the interest rate, the mostly costly it is to borrow money domestically, which
means increasingly likelihood of recession -- if not worse. In other words, dependence on foreigners
to finance the substantial US budget deficits means that the US must be prepared to raise interests
rates which, at some point, will choke off domestic borrowing and consumption, throwing the US economy
into recession. [xviii]
Yet this threat is not just to the United States -- according to the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), it is a threat to the global economy. A story about a then-recently issued report by the IMF
begins, "With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the United States is running
up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of
the global economy ." The report suggested that net financial obligations of the US to the rest of
the world could equal 40 per cent of its total economy if nothing was done about it in a few years,
"an unprecedented level of external debt for a larger industrial country" according to the report.
What was perhaps even more shocking than what the report said was which institution said it: "The
IMF has often been accused of being an adjunct of the United States , its largest shareholder" (Becker
and Andrews, 2004).
Other analysts go further. After discussing the increasingly risky nature of global investing,
and noting that "The investor managers of private equity funds and major banks have displaced national
banks and international bodies such as the IMF," Gabriel Kolko (2007) quotes Stephen Roach, Morgan
Stanley's chief economist, on April 24, 2007: "a major financial crisis seemed imminent and that
the global institutions that could forestall it, including the IMF, the World Bank and other mechanisms
of the international financial architecture, were utterly inadequate." Kolko recognizes that things
may not collapse immediately, and that analysts could be wrong, but still concludes, "the transformation
of the global financial system will sooner or later lead to dire results" (Kolko, 2007: 5).
What might happen if investors decided to take their money out of US Treasuries and, say, invest
in Euro-based bonds? The US would be in big trouble, would be forced to raise its interest
rates even higher than it wants -- leading to possibly a severe recession -- and if investors really
shifted their money, the US could be observably bankrupt; the curtain hiding the "little man" would
be opened, and he would be observable to all.
Why would investors rather shift their investment money into Euro-bonds instead of US Treasuries?
Well, obviously, one measure is the perceived strength of the US economy. To get a good idea of how
solid a country's economy is, one looks at things such as budget deficits, but perhaps even more
importantly balance of trade: how well is this economy doing in comparison with other countries?
The US international balance of trade is in the red and is worsening: -$717 billion in
2005. In 1991, it was -$31 billion. Since 1998, the US trade balance has set a new record for being
in the hole every year, except during 2001, and then breaking the all time high the very next
year! -$165 B in 1998; -$263 B in 1999; -$378 B in 2000; only -$362 B in 2001; -$421 B in 2002;
-$494 B in 2003; -$617 B in 2004; and - $717 B in 2005 (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table
B-103). According to the Census Department, the balance of trade in 2006 was -$759 billion (US Census
Bureau, 2007).
And the US current account balance, the broadest measure of a country's international financial
situation -- which includes investment inside and outside the US in addition to balance of trade
-- is even worse: it was -$805 B in 2005, or 6.4 per cent of national income. "The bottom line is
that a current account deficit of this unparalleled magnitude is unsustainable and there is no hope
of it being painlessly resolved through higher exports alone," according to one analyst (quoted in
Swann, 2006). Scott notes that the current account deficit in 2006 was -$857 billion (Scott, 2007a:
8, fn. 1). "In effect, the United States is living beyond its means and selling off national assets
to pay its bills" (Scott, 2007b: 1).
[xix]
In addition, during mid-2007, there was a bursting of a domestic "housing bubble," which has threatened
domestic economic well-being but that ultimately threatens the well-being of global financial markets.
There had been a tremendous run-up in US housing values since 1995 -- with an increase of more than
70 per cent after adjusting for the rate of inflation -- and this had created "more than $8 trillion
in housing wealth compared with a scenario in which house prices had continued to rise at the same
rate of inflation," which they had done for over 100 years, between 1890 and 1995 (Baker, 2007: 8).
This led to a massive oversupply of housing, accompanied with falling house prices: according
to Dean Baker, "the peak inventory of unsold new homes of 573,000 in July 2006 was more than 50 per
cent higher than the previous peak of 377,000 in May of 1989" (Baker, 2007: 12-13). This caused massive
problems in the sub-prime housing market -- estimates are that almost $2 trillion in sub-prime loans
were made during 2005-06, and that about $325 billion of these loans will default, with more than
1 million people losing their homes (Liedtke, 2007) -- but these problems are not confined to the
sub-prime loan category: because sub-prime and "Alt-A" mortgages (the category immediately above
sub-prime) financed 40 per cent of the housing market in 2006, "it is almost inevitable that the
problems will spill over into the rest of the market" (Baker, 2007: 15). And Business Week
agrees: "Subprime woes have moved far beyond the mortgage industry." It notes that at least five
hedge funds have gone out of business, corporate loans and junk bonds have been hurt, and the leveraged
buyout market has been hurt (Goldstein and Henry, 2007).
David Leonhardt (2007) agrees with the continuing threat to the financial industry. Discussing
"adjustable rate mortgages" -- where interest rates start out low, but reset to higher rates, resulting
in higher mortgage payments to the borrower -- he points out that about $50 billion of mortgages
will reset during October 2007, and that this amount of resetting will remain over $30 billion monthly
through September 2008. "In all," he writes," the interest rates on about $1 trillion worth of mortgages
or 12 per cent of the nation's total, will reset for the first time this year or next."
Why all of this is so important is because bankers have gotten incredibly "creative" in creating
new mortgages, which they sell to home buyers. Then they bundle these obligations and sell to other
financial institutions and which, in turn, create new securities (called derivatives) based on these
questionable new mortgages. Yes, it is basically a legal ponzi scheme, but it requires the continuous
selling and buying of these derivatives to keep working: in early August 2007, however, liquidity
-- especially "financial instruments backed by home mortgages" -- dried up, as no one wanted to buy
these instruments (Krugman, 2007). The US Federal Research and the European Central Bank felt it
necessary to pump over $100 billion into the financial markets in mid-August 2007 to keep the international
economy solvent (Norris, 2007).
So, economically, this country is in terrible shape -- with no solution in sight.
On top of this -- as if all of this is not bad enough -- the Bush Administration is asking for
another $481.4 billion for the Pentagon's base budget, which it notes is "a 62 per cent increase
over 2001." Further, the Administration seeks an additional $93.4 billion in supplemental funds for
2007 and another $141.7 billion for 2008 to help fund the "Global War on Terror" and US operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan (US Government, 2007). According to Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute (SIPRI), in 2006, the US "defense" spending was equivalent to 46 per cent of all military
spending in the world, meaning that almost more money is provided for the US military in one year
than is spent by the militaries of all the other countries in the world combined (SIPRI, 2007).
And SIPRI's accounting doesn't include the $500 billion spent so far, approximately, on wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq .
In short, not only have things gotten worse for American working people since 1973 -- and especially
after 1982, with the imposition of neoliberal economic policies by institutions of the US Government
-- but on-going Federal budget deficits, the escalating National Debt, the need to attract foreign
money into US Treasuries, the financial market "meltdown" as well as the massive amounts of money
being channeled to continue the Empire, all suggest that not only will intensifying social problems
not be addressed, but will get worse for the foreseeable future.
4) Synopsis
This analysis provides an extensive look at the impact of neoliberal economic policies enacted
in the United States on American working people. These neoliberal economic policies have been enacted
as a conscious strategy by US corporate leaders and their governmental allies in both major political
parties as a way to address intensifying globalization while seeking to maintain US dominance over
the global political economy.
While it will be a while before anyone can determine success or failure overall of this elite
strategy but, because of is global-historical perspective, sufficient evidence is already available
to evaluate the affects of these policies on American working people. For the non-elites of this
country, these policies have had a deleterious impact and they are getting worse. Employment data
in manufacturing, worsening since 1979 but especially since 2000 (see Aronowitz, 2005), has been
horrific -- and since this has been the traditional path for non-college educated workers to be able
to support themselves and their families, and provide for their children, this data suggests social
catastrophe for many -- see Rubin (1995), Barnes (2005), and Bageant (2007), and accounts in Finnegan
(1998) and Lipper (2004) that support this -- because comparable jobs available to these workers
are not being created. Thus, the problem is not just that people are losing previously stable, good-paying
jobs -- as bad as that is -- but that there is nothing being created to replace these lost jobs,
and there is not even a social safety net in many cases that can generally cushion the blow (see
Wilson, 1996; Appelbaum, Bernhardt, and Murnane, eds., 2003).
Yet the impact of these social changes has not been limited to only blue-collar workers, although
the impact has been arguably greatest upon them. The overall economic growth of the society has been
so limited since 1973, and the results increasingly being unequally distributed since then, that
the entire society is becoming more and more unequal: each of the four bottom quintiles -- the bottom
80 per cent of families -- has seen a decrease in the amount of family income available to each quintile
between 2001-05. This not only increases inequality and resulting resentments -- including criminal
behaviors -- but it also produces deleterious affects on individual and social health (Kawachi, Kennedy
and Wilkinson, eds., 1999; Eitzen and Eitzen Smith, 2003). And, as shown above, this level of inequality
is much more comparable internationally to "developing" countries rather than "developed" ones.
When this material is joined with material on the US budget, and especially the US National Debt,
it is clear that these "problems" are not the product of individual failure, but of a social order
that is increasingly unsustainable. While we have no idea of what it will take before the US economy
will implode, all indications are that US elites are speeding up a run-away train of debt combined
with job-destroying technology and off-shoring production, creating a worsening balance of trade
with the rest of the world and a worsening current account, with an unstable housing market and intensifying
militarism and an increasingly antagonistic foreign policy: it is like they are building a bridge
over an abyss, with a train increasingly speeding up as it travels toward the bridge, and crucial
indicators suggest that the bridge cannot be completed in time.
Whether the American public will notice and demand a radical change in time is not certain --
it will not be enough to simply slow the train down, but it must turn down an alternative track (see
Albert, 2003; Woodin and Lucas, 2004; Starr, 2005) -- but it is almost certain that foreign investors
will. Should they not be able to get the interest rates here available elsewhere in the "developed"
parts of the world, investors will shift their investments, causing more damage to working people
in the United States .
And when this economic-focused analysis is joined with an environmental one -- George Monbiot
(2007) reports that the best science available argues that industrialized countries have to reduce
their carbon dioxide emissions by 90 per cent by the year 2030 if we are to have a chance to stop
global warming -- then it is clear that US society is facing a period of serious social instability.
5) Conclusion
This article has argued that the situation for working people in the United States, propelled
by the general governmental adoption of neoliberal economic policies, is getting worse -- and there
is no end in sight. The current situation and historical change have been presented and discussed.
Further, an examination and analysis of directly relevant US economic policies have been presented,
and there has been nothing in this analysis that suggests a radical, but necessary, change by US
elected officials is in sight. In other words, working people in this country are in bad shape generally
-- and it is worse for workers of color than for white workers -- and there is nothing within the
established social order that suggests needed changes will be effected.
The neoliberal economic policies enacted by US corporate and government leaders has been a social
disaster for increasing numbers of families in the United States .
Globalization for profit -- or what could be better claimed to be "globalization from above" --
and its resulting neoliberal economic policies have long-been recognized as being a disaster for
most countries in the Global South. This study argues that this top-down globalization and the accompanying
neoliberal economic policies has been a disaster for working people in northern countries as well,
and most particularly in the United States .
The political implications from these findings remains to be seen. Surely, one argument is not
only that another world is possible, but that it is essential.
[Kim Scipes is assistant professor of sociology , Purdue University, North Central, Westville
, IN 46391. The author's web site is at
http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes .This paper was given at the 2009 Annual Conference of the United
Association for Labor Education at the National Labor College in Silver Spring , MD. It has been
posted at Links International Journal of Socialist
Renewal with Kim Scipes' permission.]
* * *
Note to labor educators: This is a very different approach than you usually take. While
presenting a "big picture," this does not suggest what you are doing is "wrong" or "bad." What it
suggests, however, is that the traditional labor education approach is too limited: this suggests
that your work is valuable but that you need to put it into a much larger context than is generally
done, and that it is in the interaction between your work and this that we each can think out the
ways to go forward. This is presented in the spirit of respect for the important work that each of
you do on a daily basis.
As living standards continue to fall for the majority of their populations, tariff barriers will
start to go up to protect their societies from cheap imports or from the "offshoring" of jobs. The freewheeling
capitalism post 1979 is over. The crash of 2008 saw to that. Look at oil prices and global economic
growth.
Notable quotes:
"... First. You assume that neo-Liberal "Free Trade" globalisation is going to continue. It will
not. Trade blocs already exist e.g. the EU. As living standards continue to fall for the majority of
their populations, tariff barriers will start to go up to protect their societies from cheap imports
or from the "offshoring" of jobs. The freewheeling capitalism post 1979 is over. The crash of 2008 saw
to that. Look at oil prices and global economic growth. ..."
"... Cheap labour costs are irrelevant if the skills are low grade and you have low productivity.
Look at Germany. High quality skills, high quality manufacturing , high productivity and high wages.
..."
"... Manufacturers are already relocating closer to their markets where there is long term stability.
China has already become far less attractive because of rising wages and no added value. The level of
wealth inequity in China is also rising and China is heading for a demographic time bomb in the next
10 years which has already hit Japan. China will have its own serious problems in the next 10 years.
..."
The premise of your argument is on very shaky ground for several reasons.
First. You assume that neo-Liberal "Free Trade" globalisation is going to continue. It
will not. Trade blocs already exist e.g. the EU. As living standards continue to fall for the
majority of their populations, tariff barriers will start to go up to protect their societies
from cheap imports or from the "offshoring" of jobs. The freewheeling capitalism post 1979 is
over. The crash of 2008 saw to that. Look at oil prices and global economic growth.
The present levels of wealth inequality in European countries and even in the U.S.A. will not
be tolerated for much longer. The days of Gordon Gekko are numbered. Expect to see more State
intervention in the economy together with more international cooperation over tax evasion and
the systematic closing down of offshore, international tax havens.
Second. Education/Skills and Technology. Cheap labour costs are irrelevant if the skills
are low grade and you have low productivity. Look at Germany. High quality skills, high quality
manufacturing , high productivity and high wages.
Manufacturers are already relocating closer to their markets where there is long term stability.
China has already become far less attractive because of rising wages and no added value. The level
of wealth inequity in China is also rising and China is heading for a demographic time bomb in
the next 10 years which has already hit Japan. China will have its own serious problems in the
next 10 years.
The robots are already here and the investment is not in third world countries but in Europe
and the U.S.A. These robots will make most of the working populations redundant in the next 20
years especially in manufacturing. This, together with the needs of an ever ageing population
are going to be the real issues for the majority of us.
Third. The real elephant in the room which everyone is trying to ignore is climate change.
The tipping point has now passed. We are going to see radical and dramatic global climate change
in the next 10 years, not 20 or 30 years and with ever rising temperatures humanity is facing
extinction and no amount of human technology is going to save the majority of us.
I think we're seeing a regionalization of global power structures within the state system --
regional
hegemons like Germany in Europe, Brazil in Latin America, China in East Asia.
Obviously, the United States still has a global position, but times have changed. Obama can
go to the G20 and say, "We should do this," and Angela Merkel can say, "We're not doing that."
That would not have happened in the 1970s.
So the geopolitical situation has become more regionalized, there's more autonomy. I think
that's partly a result of the end of the Cold War. Countries like Germany no longer rely on the
United States for protection.
Furthermore, what has been called the "new capitalist class" of
Bill Gates , Amazon , and
Silicon
Valley has a different politics than traditional oil and energy.
As a result they tend to go their own particular ways, so there's a lot of sectional rivalry
between, say, energy and finance, and energy and the Silicon Valley crowd, and so on. There are
serious divisions that are evident on something like climate change, for example.
The other thing I think is crucial is that the neoliberal push of the 1970s didn't pass
without strong resistance. There was massive resistance from labor, from communist parties in
Europe, and so on.
But I would say that by the end of the 1980s the battle was lost. So to the degree that
resistance has disappeared, labor doesn't have the power it once had, solidarity among the
ruling class is no longer necessary for it to work. It doesn't have to get together and do
something about struggle from below because there is no threat anymore. The ruling class is
doing extremely well so it doesn't really have to change anything.
Yet while the capitalist class is doing very well, capitalism is doing rather badly. Profit
rates have recovered but reinvestment
rates are appallingly low, so a lot of money is not circulating back into production and is
flowing into land-grabs and asset-procurement instead.
"... But this is one of the good things about having a Deep State, the existence of which has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt since the intelligence community declared war on Trump last November. While it prevents Trump from reaching a reasonable modus vivendi ..."
"... If the U.S. says that Moscow's activities in the eastern Ukraine are illegitimate, then, as the world's sole remaining "hyperpower," it will see to it that Russia suffers accordingly. If China demands more of a say in Central Asia or the western Pacific, then right-thinking folks the world over will shake their heads sadly and accuse it of undermining international democracy, which is always synonymous with U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... There is no one – no institution – that Russia or China can appeal to in such circumstances because the U.S. is also in charge of the appellate division. It is the "indispensable nation" in the immortal words of Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, because "we stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future." Given such amazing brilliance, how can any other country possibly object? ..."
"... Next to go was Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, sent packing in October 2001, followed by Slobodan Milosevic, hauled before an international tribunal in 2002; Saddam Hussein, executed in 2006, and Muammar Gaddafi, killed by a mob in 2011. For a while, the world really did seem like " Gunsmoke ," and the U.S. really did seem like Sheriff Matt Dillon. ..."
"... Although The New York Times wrote that U.S. pressure to cut off North Korean oil supplies has put China "in a tight spot," this was nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. There is no reason to think that Xi is the least bit uncomfortable. To the contrary, he is no doubt enjoying himself immensely as he watches America paint itself into yet another corner. ..."
"... Unipolarity will slink off to the sidelines while multilateralism takes center stage. Given that U.S. share of global GDP has fallen by better than 20 percent since 1989, a retreat is inevitable. America has tried to compensate by making maximum use of its military and political advantages. That would be a losing proposition even if it had the most brilliant leadership in the world. Yet it doesn't. Instead, it has a President who is an international laughingstock, a dysfunctional Congress, and a foreign-policy establishment lost in a neocon dream world. As a consequence, retreat is turning into a disorderly rout. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
The bigger picture behind Official Washington's hysteria over Russia, Syria and North
Korea is the image of a decaying but dangerous American hegemon resisting the start of a new
multipolar order, explains Daniel Lazare.
By Daniel Lazare
September 9, 2017
The showdown with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a seminal event that can only
end in one of two ways: a nuclear exchange or a reconfiguration of the international order.
While complacency is always unwarranted, the first seems increasingly unlikely. As no less a
global strategist than Steven Bannon observed about the possibility of a
pre-emptive U.S. strike: "There's no military solution. Forget it. Until somebody solves the
part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30
minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about. There's no military
solution here. They got us."
This doesn't mean that Donald Trump, Bannon's ex-boss, couldn't still do something rash.
After all, this is a man who prides himself on being unpredictable in business negotiations, as
historian William R. Polk, who worked for the Kennedy administration during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, points out . So maybe
Trump thinks it would be a swell idea to go a bit nuts on the DPRK.
But this is one of the good things about having a Deep State, the existence of which has
been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt since the intelligence community declared war on Trump
last November. While it prevents Trump from reaching a reasonable modus vivendi with
Russia, it also means that the President is continually surrounded by generals, spooks, and
other professionals who know the difference between real estate and nuclear war.
As ideologically fogbound as they may be, they can presumably be counted on to make sure
that Trump does not plunge the world into Armageddon (named, by the way, for a Bronze Age city about 20 miles southeast of
Haifa, Israel).
That leaves option number two: reconfiguration. The two people who know best about the
subject are Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Both have been
chafing for years under a new world order in which one nation gets to serve as judge, jury, and
high executioner. This, of course, is the United States.
If the U.S. says that Moscow's activities in the eastern Ukraine are illegitimate, then, as
the world's sole remaining "hyperpower," it will see to it that Russia suffers accordingly. If
China demands more of a say in Central Asia or the western Pacific, then right-thinking folks
the world over will shake their heads sadly and accuse it of undermining international
democracy, which is always synonymous with U.S. foreign policy.
There is no one – no institution – that Russia or China can appeal to in such
circumstances because the U.S. is also in charge of the appellate division. It is the
"indispensable nation" in the immortal words of Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under
Bill Clinton, because "we stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future."
Given such amazing brilliance, how can any other country possibly object?
Challenging the Rule-Maker
But now that a small and beleaguered state on the Korean peninsula is outmaneuvering the
United States and forcing it to back off, the U.S. no longer seems so far-sighted. If North
Korea really has checkmated the U.S., as Bannon says, then other states will want to do the
same. The American hegemon will be revealed as an overweight 71-year-old man naked except for
his bouffant hairdo.
Not that the U.S. hasn't suffered setbacks before. To the contrary, it was forced to accept
the Castro regime following the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and it suffered a massive defeat
in Vietnam in 1975. But this time is different. Where both East and West were expected to parry
and thrust during the Cold War, giving as good as they got, the U.S., as the global hegemon,
must now do everything in its power to preserve its aura of invincibility.
Since 1989, this has meant knocking over a string of "bad guys" who had the bad luck to get
in its way. First to go was Manuel Noriega, toppled six weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall
in an invasion that cost the lives of as many as 500 Panamanian soldiers and
possibly thousands of civilians as well.
Next to go was Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, sent packing in October 2001, followed by
Slobodan Milosevic, hauled before an international tribunal in 2002; Saddam Hussein, executed
in 2006, and Muammar Gaddafi, killed by a mob in 2011. For a while, the world really did seem
like " Gunsmoke ," and the U.S. really did
seem like Sheriff Matt Dillon.
But then came a few bumps in the road. The Obama administration cheered on a
Nazi-spearheaded coup d'état in Kiev in early 2014 only to watch helplessly as Putin,
under intense popular pressure, responded by detaching Crimea, which historically had been part
of Russia and was home to the strategic Russian naval base at Sevastopol, and bringing it back
into Russia.
Backed by Russia, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dealt Washington another blow by driving
U.S.-backed, pro-Al Qaeda forces out of East Aleppo in December 2016. Predictably, the
Huffington Post compared the Syrian offensive to the fascist
bombing of Guernica .
Fire and Fury
Finally, beginning in March, North Korea's Kim Jong Un entered into a game of one-upmanship
with Trump, firing ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan,
test-firing an ICBM that might be capable
of hitting California , and then exploding a hydrogen warhead roughly
eight times as powerful as the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima in 1945. When Trump vowed
to respond "with fire, fury, and frankly power, the likes of which the world has never seen
before," Kim upped the ante by firing a missile over the northern Japanese island of
Hokkaido.
As bizarre as Kim's behavior can be at times, there is method to his madness. As Putin
explained during the BRICS summit with Brazil, India, China, and South Africa, the DPRK's
"supreme leader" has seen how America destroyed Libya and Iraq and has therefore concluded that
a nuclear delivery system is the only surefire guarantee against U.S. invasion.
"We all remember what happened with Iraq and Saddam Hussein," he
said . "His children were killed, I think his grandson was shot, the whole country was
destroyed and Saddam Hussein was hanged . We all know how this happened and people in North
Korea remember well what happened in Iraq . They will eat grass but will not stop their nuclear
program as long as they do not feel safe."
Since Kim's actions are ultimately defensive in nature, the logical solution would be for
the U.S. to pull back and enter into negotiations. But Trump, desperate to save face, quickly
ruled it out. "Talking is not the answer!" he tweeted . Yet the
result of such bluster is only to make America seem more helpless than ever.
Although The New York Times wrote
that U.S. pressure to cut off North Korean oil supplies has put China "in a tight spot," this
was nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. There is no reason to think that Xi is the
least bit uncomfortable. To the contrary, he is no doubt enjoying himself immensely as he
watches America paint itself into yet another corner.
The U.S. Corner
If Trump backs down at this point, the U.S. standing in the region will suffer while China's
will be correspondingly enhanced. On the other hand, if Trump does something rash, it will be a
golden opportunity for Beijing, Moscow, or both to step in as peacemakers. Japan and South
Korea will have no choice but to recognize that there are now three arbiters in the region
instead of just one while other countries – the Philippines, Indonesia, and maybe even
Australia and New Zealand – will have to follow suit.
Unipolarity will slink off to the sidelines while multilateralism takes center stage. Given
that U.S. share of global GDP has fallen
by better than 20 percent since 1989, a retreat is inevitable. America has tried to
compensate by making maximum use of its military and political advantages. That would be a
losing proposition even if it had the most brilliant leadership in the world. Yet it doesn't.
Instead, it has a President who is an international laughingstock, a dysfunctional Congress,
and a foreign-policy establishment lost in a neocon dream world. As a consequence, retreat is
turning into a disorderly rout.
Assuming a mushroom cloud doesn't go up over Los Angeles, the world is going to be a very
different place coming out of the Korean crisis than when it went in. Of course, if a mushroom
cloud does go up, it will be even more so.
* Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
As the forces of globalism retreat after numerous defeats in the United States, the United
Kingdom, Turkey, and other nations, there is a resurgent popularity in national, historical,
and cultural symbols. These include flags, statues of forbearers, place names, language, and,
in fact, anything that distinguishes one national or sub-national group from others. The
negative reactions to cultural and religious threats brought about by the manifestations of
globalism – mass movement of refugees, dictates from supranational organizations like the
European Union and the United Nations, and the loss of financial independence – should
have been expected by the globalists. Caught up in their own self-importance and hubris, the
globalists are now debasing the forces of national, religious, and cultural identity as threats
to the "world order."
The most egregious examples of globalist pushback against aspirant nationhood and the
symbols of national identity are Catalonia and Kurdistan. Two plebiscites on independence, a
September 25, 2017 referendum on the Kurdistan Regional Government declaring independence from
Iraq and an October 1 referendum on Catalonia beginning the process of breaking away from the
Kingdom of Spain, are expected to achieve "yes" votes. Neither plebiscite in binding, a fact
that will result in both votes being ignored by the mother countries.
Iraq, the United States, Turkey, and Iran have warned Kurdish Iraq against holding the
independence referendum. The United States is prepared to double-cross its erstwhile Kurdish
allies for a fourth time. President Woodrow Wilson, who has been cited as the "first
neoconservative or neocon, reneged on Kurdish independence during the post-World War I
Versailles peace conference. Henry Kissinger double-crossed Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani in
1975 with the Algiers Accord between Iraq and Iran, a perfidious act that forced 100,000 of
Barzani's Kurdish forces into exile in Iran. George H. W. Bush promised the Kurds help after
Operation Desert Storm in 1991 if they revolted against Saddam Hussein's government. US
military aid was not forthcoming and the Kurds were forced into a small sliver of northern
Iraq, over which a US "no-fly zone" was imposed. Now, Donald Trump's administration has warned
the Kurds not to even think about independence, even though the Kurdish peshmerga forces helped
the US and its allies to drive the Islamic State out of Kirkuk and the rest of northern
Iraq.
In Spain, the conservative prime minister is trying to emulate the Spanish fascist dictator
Generalissimo Francisco Franco in making threats against Catalonia's independence wishes.
In response to the Catalan Parliament's vote to hold an October 1 referendum on Catalonia's
independence from Spain, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and his People's Party government have
promised to round up the pro-independence members of the Catalan government, as well as
pro-independence legislators of the parliament and mayors, and criminally charge them with
sedition.
Rajoy's stance should be no surprise since his party, the Popular Party, is the political
heir of Franco's Falangist party. Franco's version of the Nazi Gestapo, the Guardia Civil,
brutally suppressed Catalan and Basque identity. Particular targets for suppression, according
to Falangist doctrine, were "anti-Spanish activists," "Reds," "separatists," "liberals,"
"Jews," "Freemasons," and "judeomarxistas."
The Falange was eventually replaced by the National Movement, which continued many of
Franco's policies, including repression of the Catalan and Basque culture, autonomy, and
language.
The Francoist People's Alliance, founded in 1989 by Franco's Interior Minister, Manuel Fraga
Iribarne, eventually morphed into the People's Party of Rajoy. The People's Party considers
itself "Christian Democratic," but it receives support from Franco's fascist Roman Catholic
order, the Opus Dei.
Rajoy is using a decision by Spain's Constitutional Court, suspending the independence
referendum in Catalonia, as justification for his threats against the region. Apparently, the
neo-fascist government of Spain has been trawling Twitter to collect the names of Catalan
mayors who have posted photographs of themselves and messages of support for the "Junts pel Si"
(Together for Yes) pro-independence coalition. The mayors, along with members of parliament and
the government in Barcelona, are being placed on a Guardia Civil list targeting them with
arrest and incarceration if the referendum is carried out.
Rajoy has also warned officials of local municipal councils that their cooperation in
holding a referendum vote will be considered an act of sedition and that they, too, face arrest
and detention.
Rajoy's channeling of Franco will only solidify anti-Spanish feelings in Catalonia, even
among those not keen on independence. The iron boot of Rajoy and the People's Party in
Catalonia will only boost support for Catalan independence from those mildly opposed to it or
neutral. If Catalonia's regional and local government leaders are paraded off to prisons, the
peaceful independence movement in the region could easily turn violent. There is also
widespread support for Catalan independence in the separatist Basque region, where parades have
been held in support of the Catalan cause. In August, 3000 pro-Catalan independence Basques
marched in the Basque city of San Sebastian. If Rajoy carries through with his threat against
Catalonia, the Basque region will also see it as a threat to them and join in a renewed
campaign of violence against the Madrid neo-fascists. The Basque secessionist terrorist group
ETA agreed to disarm in 2011 but it has not turned in all its weapons.
The Basque party EH Bildu has already submitted a bill in the regional Basque parliament
that is a copy of the Catalan independence referendum bill that passed the parliament in
Barcelona.
People around the world are rejecting the notion that states, harboring more than one
nation, ethnic group, or tribal entity, should be recognized by globalist institutions like the
EU and UN as representing all the constituent parts. Currently, the Republic of Macedonia is
negotiating with Greece, the EU, and NATO on membership under a nation-state name that suits
Greece. Greece does not recognize Macedonia by that name because it believes Macedonia harbors
irredentist designs on Greek Macedonia. Greece insists the country use the provisional name of
FYROM, which stands for the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." Macedonian nationalists
scoff at such a name, likening it to being forced to use the fictional Klingon language of
"Star Trek."
As a result of the United Kingdom's exit from the EU, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland
are demanding that London grant them the right to maintain their own economic and other links
with the Eurocrats in Brussels. Scotland may hold a second independence referendum with or
without the blessing of London. The Welsh Assembly in Cardiff is sounding more and more like
the Scottish Parliament in demanding a separate deal with the EU for Wales. Even in the heart
of the EU bureaucracy – Belgium – Flanders and Wallonia show no signs of abandoning
their march toward independence, leaving Brussels as its own independent city-state hosting the
headquarters of the EU, NATO, and Godiva Chocolatier. Rather than the Belgian flag, one is more
likely to find Flemish flags flying from poles in Antwerp and Walloon flags adorning buildings
in Liège.
Around the world, statues of historical figures are being defaced and removed by contrarian
groups who bear ethnic or political grudges. They include Confederate General Robert E. Lee
throughout the United States, Captain James Cook in Australia, Father Junipero Serra in
California, Christopher Columbus in New York, King Kamehameha in Hawaii, Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela, and Marthinus Pretorius and Paul Kruger in South Africa. This all represents the
trend toward dissolution of the nation-state. Nation-state flags, monuments of past political
and religious figures, and other nation-state symbols are not only being questioned but, in
some cases, ignored or cast aside completely. The world is "going tribal" and there is little
the governing globalists and elites can do about it. They brought this situation upon
themselves with their aloofness and ignorance. The UN General Assembly will soon welcome
193-member state leaders to its plenary session in New York. The UN may do well to plan for
future sessions at which 300 or more member-state leaders, from Åland to Zanzibar and
Baltistan to Mthwakazi, converge on New York.
Sovereignty is oppose of neoliberal globalization, so in a way this is an some kind of
affirmation of Trump election position. How serious it is is not clear. Probably not much as
Imperial faction now controls Trump, making him more of a marionette that a political leader of
the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He forgot to mention pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. ..."
"... The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in. ..."
"... There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you endanger yourself if you don't do as told". ..."
"... "The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in" ..."
"... The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005. The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had. ..."
"... He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the Libya invasion. ..."
"... Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to 2011. ..."
"... How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces. ..."
"... Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi gaining in economic, science and technology ..."
"... I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open. ..."
"... Trump - the Republican Obama ..."
"... "The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet to accept this new reality. ..."
"... The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well. Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the ship(s) materialize?" ..."
"... it seems to me with Trump an era of so-called globalization has come to its end. ..."
"... Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with sovereignty. They are ..."
"... baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking. ..."
"... In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
Today the President of the United States Donald Trump
spoke (rush transcript) to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech's main the me was sovereignty. The word occurs 18(!) times. It emphasized
Westphalian
principles .
[W]e do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties, to respect the
interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation
All leaders of countries should always put their countries first, he said, and "the nation
state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition ."
The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 - bigger
Sovereignty was the core message of his speech. It rhymed well with his somewhat
isolationist emphasis of "America first" during his campaign. The second part of the speech the first by threatened the sovereignty of several countries
the U.S. ruling class traditionally dislikes. This year's "axis of evil"
included North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba:
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket man is on a
suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able,
but hopefully this will not be necessary."
Many people will criticize that as an outrageous and irresponsible use of words. It is. But there is nothing new to it. In fact the U.S., acting on behalf of the UN, totally
destroyed Korea in the 1950s. The last U.S. president
made the same threat Trump made today:
President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to North Korea on Tuesday, reminding its
"erratic" and "irresponsible" leader that America's nuclear arsenal could "destroy" his
country.
The South Korean military sounds equally belligerent :
A military source told the Yonhap news agency every part of Pyongyang "will be completely
destroyed by ballistic missiles and high-explosives shells". ... The city, the source said,
"will be reduced to ashes and removed from the map".
Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem
in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an
economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He
forgot to mention
pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act
that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump
mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. There was essentially nothing in Trump's threats than the claptrap the last two U.S.
presidents also delivered. Trump
may be crazy, but the speech today is not a sign of that.
The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in.
Posted by b on September 19, 2017 at 01:05 PM | Permalink
There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the
sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like
is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you
endanger yourself if you don't do as told".
If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must
fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our
nations, their interests and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty from the
Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and
respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.
And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront
together those who threatens us with chaos, turmoil, and terror. The score of our planet
today is small regimes that violate every principle that the United Nations is based. They
respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries. If the
righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people
and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and
strength.
@2 somebody - yes, unaimed hostile prose from the speechwriter. Such is in the speech of
every U.S. president. But it is not the general theme of the Trump speech when one reads it
as one piece. The weight is put in the other direction (though the media will likely point to
the threats instead of reading the more extraordinary parts where Trump pushes national
sovereignty.)
"The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if
that it is something he genuinely believes in"
It appears that his generals are instructing him what to "believe in". At least, he
certainly doesn't seem to "believe in" most of his campaign promises, not unlike his recent
predecessors. The whole "democracy and freedom" thing in the US is just a charade, as far as
I am concerned.
The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN
Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005.
The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of
Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back
off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had.
I think this was a very good interview of Vijay Prashadby
by Chris Hedges
He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of
the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War
in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the
US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the
Libya invasion.
Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting
that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to
2011.
--------
The good news is that Syria is turning out much different than Libya. Would be great to see the US cooperate with the China/Russia etc economic goals rather
than stirring up trouble in the Phillippines, Myanmar etc. The first test will be to see if Trump can deliver single payer health care to the US. :)
ie start to back off on the anti socialism rhetoric
The "nation state" brought us the millions slaughtered in World War 1. The nation states
threatened by the internationalist communist ideology of the USSR (in its early days)
ultimately brought us World War 2. The hypertrophied nation state that is the United States
of America will bring us World War 3 in its drive to secure its total supremacy. Luckily for
us, there will be no World War 4.
How can a country A be "forced to defend itself" by a country B so weak comparatively to
country A it can actually be "totally destroyed" by country A?
How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the
nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is
rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less
taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces.
Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New
York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi
gaining in economic, science and technology
The United Nations is based upon the equal sovereignty of nations.
--from the UN Charter --
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act
in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its
Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from
membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with
the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations
Trump's speech seemed to represent an ignorant mouthy bully with a big stick who is
threatening any nation he is told to hate. I have to agree with Paveway IV that Trump is just
the announcer. The "national sovereignty" comments were just for internal consumption for his
base of supporters.
To a major extent Trump's focus on the "great leader" of countries opposed to the US helps
simplify the hate for the "little people" in the US. They have not noticed that the US (as in
most other Western countries) has many mini "great leaders" who work toward the same goals
while distracting the "little people" with political theatre.
I really don't know what the purpose of this rambling threat to the rest of the world was
supposed to accomplish.
Yes, it really was nothing new. The fundamental material of the speech was the very same
garbage written by the same Washington establishment of previous administrations -
essentially the nuclear armed US regime is 'special' and reserves the right to attack and
destroy any country it chooses to.
While the Trump speech is rightly being both ridiculed around the world, what is very
scary is the humiliated Trump base is seizing on it.
The Trump base is begging for their failed 'God Emperor' to attack someone to feel better
about their own humiliation.
Sovereignty is also an excuse for US intervention, get it? . . .Trump does....
America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty
is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety,
their interests, and their well-being, including their prosperity.
His speechwriters deserve to be fired and the text size on both teleprompters should have
been increased. Alternatively, he should wear glasses (along with a more suitably fitted
toupee). Sarah Palin would seem like Einstein at the side of this clown.
Trump's speech is Orwellian!
Not just generally-- it is arguably an elaboration of a close paraphase of an Orwell
quote, to wit: "All nations are sovereign, but some nations are more sovereign than others."
I have a strongly ambivalent reaction to Trump's UN appearance-- although I confess that I
can only stand to watch and listen to him for brief time periods. It's appalling and embarrassing to watch any of the US's seemingly inexhaustible supply of
lizard-brained degenerates at the UN. But part of me thinks it's better to have the quintessential Ugly Amerikan beating his
chest and engaging in rhetorical feces-flinging. At least the rest of the world won't be bamboozled, the way they might be by a smooth,
silver-tongued liar.
This is on the heels of Trump's threatening to exclude China from use of SWIFT (the USD)
and China's gold yuan oil futures contract coming mid October as opposed to USD. The
petro-yuan is a game changer; hitting the petro-dollar hegemony that keeps the dollar in
worldwide demand.
The toothless dog has only his bark. Are Americans prepared for hyper-inflation?
I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial
system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global
private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open.
The abuse of the term sovereignty by Trump is part of a crafted Big Lie message. Just like
Trump linking to the poster of him, with a rope over his shoulder, dragging a barge of
companies back to America......the internationalism genie will never go completely back into
the bottle and is counterproductive to all.
John Bolton and the moron, Sean Hannity, love the speech. That should be all anyone needs to
know. It was Orwellian, super-villain, double-speak.
If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.
Madman. How has Iran violated the U.N. charter? They were invited into Iraq and Syria by the UN
recognized govts. Okay, they make veiled threats against Israel, they get a demerit for that. Even if you
argue that they are 'predicting' rather can 'threatening to cause' Israel's demise, I'd take
that as a veiled threat. But Israel makes equally hostile comments towards Iran albeit, in a
passive / aggressive manner. Netanyahu, 'We recognize Iran's right to exist but truth be told
the planet, no wait, the entire universe itself would be better off if they disappeared'.
Well, it has finally arrived at the U.N. speech. Trump is showing his real colors, whether
they are forced or were originally his own. It doesn't matter. He is spouting the same
nonsenze as the neocons and the rest of them. He has crossed over - he maybe never knew the
way through, but was only parroting other's views. He is clearly a chameleon, willing to
change his stripes on a dime. The man is darkly lost in the woods, or is it the swamp?
While there have been hints that the Rohingya "rebels" are receiving funds from
expatriates in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is there anything concrete that connects the CIA to
the rebels?
Frankly Trump is a big mouth, but there's no evidence that he's more than that. If he wanted
war, we'd already be there. It's different from Saddam in the old days, who went to war
within a year of becoming leader, or the Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, who
launched the war against Yemen.
59 Tomahawks, that's the style. I haven't seen different from then.
The advantage of having Trump around is that he seems to diffuse energy. He is not building a
case against N. Korea like Bush did with Iraq, but instead he is big on bluster. There is no
appeal to the emotions of people and their fears and as such he is not marketing it,
something he knows a lot about. In his own way I believe he is defusing the situation by
talking big but remebering Bannon's comments when he left. And as a consummate player at the
table of power (unlike the novice Obama) he has his status.
What interests me is Tillerson and the State Department and its attitude to Israel. Syria
is where Israel met its match and was soundly thrashed. The world will never be the same
again, And the State Department is recognizing this reality. I think there is a recognition
in certain powerful quarters that whole neocon-Zionist shit has got America nowhere. As
Talking Heads said, "We're on the road to nowhere."
The speech (it reminds me on movie The Kings Speech https://youtu.be/PPLIw64rLJc TERRIBLE MOVIE) is for
internal the US purpose, for Amerikkaans. Majority of them, according to the Gov. media
outlets, support military action against DPRK and mostly likely against Iran (the most hatred
nation by far) as well. Amerikkaans will support any crime anywhere and probably destruction
of whole planet Earth.
In the same time his words and deeds are the most irrelevant of any US presidents. I bet
he never heard of that word "sovereignty" before nor for "nation state". This morning when
Trump woke up some member of National Security Council put sheet of paper with the speech on
his desk and tell him "Read this!". Just as they did to Obama in many occasions, one of
example is this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/may/04/obama-drinks-flint-water-video
There some people in the US who knows what is going on:
For all the very considerable expense, however, the American military does not have a very
impressive record of achieving victory. It has won no wars since 1945!especially if victory
is defined as achieving an objective at acceptable cost!except against enemy forces that
essentially didn't exist.
@7 financial matters.. good comment and relevant.. i agree with you.. unipolar no more..
however, not quite multipolar yet either... we are still in a transitional place.. syria is
no libya fortunately.. but causing this kind of shit around the globe is what the usa is
known for.. they will continue to make war projects, especially if you believe as b notes a
couple of threads ago - trump is no longer calling the shots.. it is military guys full on..
I rather liked the film "The King's Speech because it was about speech. Your English is
fucking awful Chancey, not good enough for this forum. Get some lessons and come back.
"The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall
Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet
to accept this new reality.
The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well.
Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but
shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia
and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired
an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert
dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the
ship(s) materialize?"
For a Nazi.
A question, do you believe in science? Here is one. But does one need to be scientist to
figure this out?"The Rise of Incivility and Bullying in America"
Violating the sovereign sanctity of nations is what the Outlaw US Empire has done without
parallel since the United Nation's formation. One of those nations was Vietnam, and a
somewhat respected documentary film maker looks like he's going to try--again--to pull wool
over the eyes of his intended audience by trying to legitimate the Big Lie that provided the
rationale for the Outlaw US Empire's illegal war against Vietnam. The detailed argument
regarding Ken Burns's effort to "correct" the actual historical record can be read here,
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/19/getting-the-gulf-of-tonkin-wrong-are-ken-burns-and-lynn-novick-telling-stories-about-the-central-events-used-to-legitimize-the-us-attack-against-vietnam/
and it is probably the sort of history Trump would enjoy since he doesn't seem to know any
better.
How many nick/names do you have? You may hide under this and that stupid but your
associations are still here. You stay stupid. I know, I know the truth hurts. You Amerikkaans are not used to it. Go and watch a porn,
before de-dollarization is in full swing. Than you are going to stave to death, no more
credit cards and quantitative easing. That's is Trump's speech for.
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 19, 2017 2:22:58 PM | 7
Nice interview from a couple of years back. Prashad's worldview is worthy of reposting.
Enjoyable. Cheers.
US Americans might have proved themselves very adept at destroying both nation states and
the English language, though it will be Syria who restores true meaning to the word
'sovereign' - with some collective help of course.
The almost failed state will emerge from this steeled with a sense of identity, pride and
purpose. The minnow that refused to buckle.
The Don putting together some performances that finally warrant the unified, rabid
reaction from the press....
"But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in."
Are you serious? Everything coming out of DC is still the same - sanctions against other
sovereign countries who do not tow the line the US demands, cruise missiles for the little
guys, disavowing and de-legitimizing the JCPOA, unrelenting 'freedom of navigation' patrols,
threats to cut nations off from the SWIFT system, every word out of Nikki Haleys' mouth...
It's really easy to go on and on, and his first year isn't even done.
The amount of disrespect for other sovereign nations by the USA is mind boggling, and that
is only the official stuff. Throw in CIA ops and NGO ops and there you have an entire other
level of the failure to recognize sovereignty.
Can you send me some of what you are smoking? Because it obviously makes you oblivious to
the obvious, and that may help my mood...
Obviously, the UN has became an arena of the one country show and that country puppets.
Zionist PM, the West most "faithful ally" on Middle East, and his speech. Mix of infantilism,
rhetoric and implicit racism of "God Chosen People". And sea of self-congratulating lies.
Great comment re: Vietnam. The Ken Burns documentary is just one more fairy tale of the
U.S. involvement/war in Vietnam.
Among the many myths, foremost is that Ho Chi Minh was a communist; he most assuredly was
not. Yes, he was a member of the party in France, but it is irrelevent to history (Ho was a
nationalist).
Did you know he tried to engage FDR?
Below is a remarkable interview with John Pilger on the real history of the U.S. and Vietnam;
it ain't pretty. Even Mao tried to engage the U.S., which the U.S. duly ignored.
Why is everyone hating on Trump? Be realistic: sometimes you have to genocide 25 million
people to save them. We're the God damn hero here - you bastards should be thanking
the USA.
Well, I guess we're really not trying to save the North Koreans at all. But they refuse to
leave the buffer zone (all of North Korea) that is protecting the world from red Chinese
expansion south. Worse than that, the North Koreans insist on protecting themselves BY FORCE
from the US. How evil is that?
Reminds me of those evil Syrians and Iraqis who refuse to vacate the buffer zone
protecting Israel from Iran. The nerve!
Only US lapdog nations have the right to defend themselves - as long as its with US-made
weapons and they're protecting themselves from anybody except the US. And we get to
build US bases on their soil. Who wouldn't want that? Because the US is... what did Trump
say... RIGHTEOUS. You know:
Tell me which one of those synonyms DOES NOT apply to the US? I prefer 'angelic'.
The first thing psychopaths do when they attain any measure of power and control is to
redefine evil as anything that threatens their power and control. Then constantly
hammer that threat into the minds of the little people so the little people don't think too
hard about stringing them up from the lamp posts.
Everything the US has done in my lifetime has been about preserving and protecting the
US government no matter how corrupt, evil or immoral it acts. Protecting the people is
only given lip service when it can be used to justify further protections for the state.
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security Stazi is probably the end stage for
full-spectrum dominance over the little people - it is slowly morphing (as planned) into a
federal armed force to protect the US government FROM the little people. I guess the
FBI wasn't up to the task.
"The government you elect is the government you deserve" Thomas Jefferson, Founding
Terrorist.
Do you agree that to point of National Interest article seem to be that the US is not
capable of invading and controlling non-European countries?
I did find the Cato Institute author to be very poorly informed about the US invasions of
Granada and Panama, the Balkan wars, the Kosovo invasion and the Syrian war.
As for ISIS, the author does not know anything about the incubation of ISIS by the US
administrations and the Libyan war (Hillary/Obama/Sarkozy) connection . He also does not
discuss the billions in military hardware that the US allowed ISIS to capture in Iraq.
As for the US efforts they are more about preventing the formation of an integrated
economic sphere between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanese Republic. The war efforts by the US in
fighting ISIS are minimal compared to the Syrian and Russian efforts, yet he lies by omission
to pump up the US efforts. At least he didn't attempt to praise Turkey (sic) for their
efforts in cutting off aid to ISIS and Al Qaeda (under all its names).
Remember that the Cato Institute is another flavor of the NGO spider supporting the deep
state!
Please understand that this is not a personal attack as I am here to learn and share.
Canada's Trudeau will follow Trump at the UN on Thursday. Today he received an award from the
Atlantic Council: 'Worldwide the long established international order is being tested..' And
obviously the sexy northern selfie-king knows his place in it... https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kp49TFRMR8g
@ 49
Yes, to save the 25 million North Koreans the US must destroy them!
"No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people
than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of
millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of
countless more."
. ..but there are limits. . .
"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
So give me that "no more contempt" line again, Donald?
(Personally, I can't imagine Hillary doing any less. So much for elections.)
"Why is everyone hating on Trump?"
Preposterous. You give him too much importance. He is rather the object of ridicule.
"The word occurs 18(!) times."
While the word Sovereignty
Sovereignty is actually main subject of the Russian president Putin and he never miss
opportunity to emphasize that. He put it so forcefully in this speech. https://youtu.be/Yumaa4pkxMU
Maybe by accident maybe not just conspicuous coincidence. But it seems to me with Trump an
era of so-called globalization has come to its end. With self-inflicted wounds ($20T Gov.
debt) and new president who is (initially) inward looking, it is time to talk about old
stuff. As if the US statehood has been in question for a moment. Old trick of capitalist
class.
Targeting Iran was never about nuclear weapons (the U.S. let Pakistan expand its nuclear
weapons program without interfering, despite knowing all about the AQ Khan network, because
Pakistan was cooperating with the U.S. agenda in Afghanistan and elsewhere), it was about the
Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (during the GW Bush era) and the expansion of economic ties with
Syria (during the Obama era).
Now, with the easing of sanctions, Iran's pipeline deals have been revived, such as
Iran-Pakistan,
or Iran-India (undersea) , Iran-Europe, with China and Russia and Turkey as potential
partners. Meanwhile, the proposed TAPI pipeline backed by the Clinton, Bush & Obama State
Departments, as well as Chevron and Exxon, from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean, is still
held up due to instability in Afghanistan (i.e. the Taliban would immediately blow it up).
Obama's 30,000 troop surge to 100,000 couldn't solve that, and the recent Trump troop surge
(much smaller) will have little effect on that either. TAPI pipe dreams
continue, Sep 17 2017
There's no way Trump or Tillerson would ever be honest about this in an international
forum, any more than Obama and Clinton would, or Bush and Condi Rice, but it's the same old
"great game" for Central Asian oil and gas that's dominated U.S. regional foreign policy
since the end of the Cold War.
@ 54/55 Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with
sovereignty. They are subject to baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking.
It is foolish to consider the trumpet's lunatic ravings in isolation, according to that organ
of empire
foreign policy dot com , the amerikan airforce is ready and rearing to go and blast the
bejeezuz outta North Korea.
Sure it may be bluster when they come out with seeming tosh like:
""We're ready to fight tonight," Gen. Robin Rand, commander of the Air Force's Global
Strike Command, told reporters at an Air Force conference in Washington on Monday. "We
don't have to spin up, we're ready.""
Because everyone knows that a manned tactical airforce is on the way out, that bombing a
population has only ever served to strengthen resolve within that population, but the first
point that the airforce of jocks n fighters is verging on obsolescence, might just drive the
generals of middle management, concerned that their career is about to hit a brick wall, to
go for one last roll of the dice. Blow some shit up, create a few heroes and maybe the
inevitable can be staved off for long enough for their scum to rise to the surface, jag a
great gig with a contractor, then retire in luxury. I mean to say it's gotta be worth a shot
right? The alternative of layoffs and all the sexy fighting stuff being done by unsexy
drones, is just too awful to consider.
So what if Guam gets wasted, a good memorial at Arlington will balance that shit and when
it is all said and done, most of the people who will get nuked by DPRK aren't amerikans - but
here's the best bit, we can sell them to the idjits just like they were, while we build the
anger and bloodlust, then backpedal on that when it comes down to lawsuits, compensation or
whatever it is those whale-fuckers whine about - right?
A pre-emptive attack based on the possibility that DPRK hasn't yet developed nuke tech
sufficiently, but will do so "if we continue to sit on our asses" would be an easy sell to an
orange derp whose access to alternative points of view has been cut off.
The only real question is whether the rest of the military (the non-airforce parts) go for
it.
The navy likely will because they are in the same boat (pun intended) as the airforce when it
comes down to usefulness as a front line conflict agent and they too will
likely get a role to play in the destruction of North Korea - at the very least as a weapons
platform (just like with the mindless Syria aggression) and may even get to be the forward
C&C base since South Korea isn't mobile and may cop a fair amount of DPRK reaction.
Only the army for whom a pre emptive attack on the people of North Korea has little
upside, but lots of downside, may oppose this insane butchery. The army will be tasked with
neutralising a population whose innate loathing of all things amerikan has just been raised
by about ten notches. So soon after the Iraq debacle, they may see an attack as all negative
in that once again they will cop the blame and even worse the old enemies - the airforce and
navy - will come out smelling like roses. It is true that the bulk of the yellow monkey's
'advisors' are army types, so under normal circumstances they would obstruct any such
bullshit grabs for the brass ring by the navy & airforce upstarts - but there is a high
probability that the army leadership will do no such thing.
The reason for that is as old as humanity itself and I was sad to see that it copped little
mention in the last thread about the 'soft' coup at the whitehouse.
Many people were cheering the takeover by the military doubtless the same people who
imagine that "amerika could be great again - if only we go back to the way it was in the
1950's and 60's". What they miss is that everything is fluid; nothing is held in stasis as a
proof that perfection has been reached. The 'eisenhower/johnson years were merely steps on
the path, the world was never gonna stay in white bourgeois contentment no matter whether
unwhites kicked up or not. There are diverse reasons for that from ambitious careerism
forcing change so a lucky few can ascend one more rung on the ladder, to the reality that it
is impossible for all humans to be content all the time -some groups will be disadvantaged,
advertise that then be 'adopted' by careerists as an excuse for forcing change. That is
inevitable - as inevitable as the reality that once the military gained power, their next
move would be to consolidate it and to try ensure that they kept it for ever.
In other words the initial coup may have been largely bloodless (altho several million
dead mid easterners would strongly disagree if they could) but any study of human behavior
reveals that it is the need to hold on to power which is what really incites oppression
violence and mass murder.
The Pennsylvania Avenue generals understand that the simplest way of retaining control is
gonna be if the orange 'whipped* gains re-election. If the orange chunder is gonna win the
next one he needs to hit some home runs and have a lot less ties or outright defeats.
At this stage it doesn't matter what turkey kicked up the Korea bizzo, or even it it has
any moral dimension at all, what matters is that the trumpet has made it a major issue and if
he doesn't 'prevail' in the short-term, the odds of him retaining support much less gaining
more support, are gone - very likely for the duration of the tangerine prezdency. It's not as
if the ME situation offers the slightest chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Syria is
history now and that Iran thing has a good chance of dividing europe from amerika, just as
climate change has. I reckon that the junta who, individually & institutionally have a
big investment in Nato, will be looking to steer the orange nit away from inciting a
confrontation over the nuke deal. Korea could be the alternate shiny thing the junta draws
trumpet's attention to in order to distract the dingbat.
So even though it is a total cleft stick that the junta is in, I reckon it is extremely
probable that the army branch of the amerikan government will allow the airforce and possibly
the navy as well, their moment in the sun.
The way this fuckwittery is shaping up, people of Korea are more likely to be enduring
Predators up their jacksies than not, before the end of "the
summer of '18'
*anyone who doesn't see that the trumpet displays all the signs (boasting of alleged
performance, number of 'conquests' size of penis etc) of a man who is unable to have his
voice heard above the demands of the women around him, doesn't comprehend the nature of
inter-gender relationships (doncha love 'inter-gender' it sounds exactly like the type of
pallid word the identity-ists would use heheh).
The main problem I have with your post is China. You do not say anything about China.
The Chinese made it clear that if the U.S. pre-emptively attacks the DPRK; China will get
involved; and I should think Russia will be somehow involved as well.
Moon Jae-In has told the U.S. it (SK) will be the one to decide on an attack, as it
should.
But, I do get your drift; I just hope the U.S. will not act...for once.
That said; I do think the U.S. lost its tether decades ago...
There's one little factor about getting it on with DPRK, besides the ones mentioned, and that
is that SecDef Gates several years ago declared that Korea was safe enough to allow it to be
an accompanied tour, i.e. soldiers could have their families join them in the Land of the
Morning Calm. This coincided with the consolidation of US bases, with a ten billion dollar
expansion of Camp Humphreys about seventy miles south of the DMZ. So now we have high-rise
apartments with wives, kids, pets, etc. in this "safe" place, now 35,000 strong including
all. They practice evacuation. From a recent report --
The noncombatant evacuation operations, or NEO, are aimed at making sure everybody knows
their roles in the event of a noncombatant evacuation, which may be ordered in the event of
war, political or civil unrest, or a natural or man-made disaster. "I liken the NEO operation
to being a scaffolding. It's not a fully fleshed out plan because it's preparing for a
million different worst-case scenarios," 1st Lt. Katelyn Radack, a spokeswoman for the 2nd
Combat Aviation Brigade, told Stars and Stripes. ... Brandy Madrigal, 32, was participating
in her third NEO -- so she knew exactly what to pack when she got the call to report to the
Assembly Point at the main gym at Camp Humphreys on June 5. She ticked off the list -- clothes, food for the kids, documents, phone, toiletries
-- before driving with her two
children from their first-floor apartment to the base to be processed.
Imagine that -- all those people assembling in one place for "processing." They'd get
processed, all right. So the US Army won't be red-hot for the mighty US Air Force to (again)
conduct its aerial murder in North Korea, with their loved ones being in rocket range of a
counter-attack. That's in addition to any feelings people have for the ten million plus South
Koreans in Seoul, close to the border.
re: Ken Burns Viet Nam -- one only has to look at the sponsors. Burns will cleave to the
line only more so. Darling of the aristocratic charities. Somehow reaching the glory 50 years
later. Now that Agent Orange has nearly completed the harvest.
Action against Iran and NK, could it really be termed "war", anymore?
I deliberately left China outta the equation because the conflict with DPRK will be
engineered to be kicked off with a provocation allegedly committed by DRPK, amerika will
'respond' andthe war will quickly escalate. Yes PRC may become involved, but getting into a
war with amerika right now is not great for the PRC either, if the most vital concern is the
proximity of amerikan troops to the China border, amerika can give an agreement signed in
blood that amerikan military will pull back behind the 38th parallel once the 'regime has
been changed' and that only Korean men and equipment will remain.
Of course China would be smart to distrust that but sold correctly with incentives and maybe
even the use of some mutually trusted referee, China might decide that is a superior option
to kicking off ww3.
As for the enlisted mens families somehow I doubt that the military cares any more about them
than it does the men and women they have in their forces - so not very much - smart officer
class types will be considering the need to 'further their children's education back home'
right now, whether or not the trump decides to go for broke. As I pointed out before, the
plan will require that DRPK feels trapped into committing some type of really egregious
provocation, or false flagging such a provocation.
Imagine Guam got nuked and all initial evidence pointed to DRPK, China is in a tough spot
plus most amerikans will be of the opinion that protecting the families in South Korean
barracks comes second to vengeance. That would be an easy sell on fox and msnbc.
Amerika seemingly being attacked is also gonna end msnbc & the rest's potshots at the
orange derp, just as 911 halted just about all reference to the view shrub stole the election
from Gore in the MSM.
What scares me the most about the US regime's threats to attack and destroy North Korea is
I had naively assumed that all the talk was just the standard game theory back and forth.
There never was any real threat beyond the occasional minor incident like there have been in
the past few decades.
And I didn't understand why China would so openly and absolutely support North Korea with
any sort of attack by the US regime.
But then I read some of the neocon online postings or writings about North Korea and it
was a sickening shock to realize that I had been so foolish to believe the Korean crisis was
not about Korea, but China.
Getting the US regime's military directly on the Chinese border is something the
neocons are perfectly willing, and most likely gleefully happy, to trade millions to tens of
millions of North and South Korean lives for.
I can't imagine the revulsion and horror the rest of the world must be feeling towards the
United States right now.
The German philosopher and sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855 – 1936)
distinguished between two types of social groupings. Gemeinschaft (often translated as
community or left untranslated) and Gesellschaft (often translated as society). Gemeinschaft
and Gesellschaft describe the crucial distinction between community and "Civil Society";
community being characterized by a dispensationalist consensus or a sacred communal consensus
on a dispensation sent down from on high, and the latter being characterized as a consensus
to "agree to disagree" and to agree that a consensus in any meaningful form can no longer be
reached, paving the way to a "conventional" polity (agreed to by secular-humanist
convention). This "agreement to disagree" which crystalized between the Peace of Augsburg
(1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1644 – 1648) was, in effect, the West's long and
excruciating decision to throw out the baby of Community with the bathwater of the Church's
malfeasance in the revolutionary fervor of the Reformation and the "Enlightenment" that
followed in its wake. But whereas the integrality of church and state was lost with the Peace
of Westphalia circa 1648 whereat pre-Westphalian communities gave way to the Westphalian
order of "Civil Societies", the Islamic Revolution of 1979 restored community to the Moslem
nation of Iran.
I posted this comment over in the latest Syria summary thread but then thought that it
belongs here as an example of the craven duplicity of empire about Syria sovereignty.
The following is a link and article quote from China news that says Russia is accusing the
US of chickenshit (my term) tactics in Syria
"He said the advancing Syrian government troops supported by the Russian Air Force managed to
break the fierce resistance and liberate more than 60 square km of territory on the left bank of the Euphrates River in the last 24
hours.
But their advance was hampered by a sudden rise of the water level in the Euphrates and a
two-fold increase of the speed of its current after the government troops started crossing the river, Konashenkov said.
In the absence of precipitation, the only source of such changes in the water level could be
a man-made discharge of water at the dams north of the Euphrates, which are held by the opposition formations controlled by the
international coalition led by the United States, he said. "
What's worries me the most in Trumps speech, sounds actually ominously, is the phrases
"dead Poles, fighting [???!!!] French, strong[!] English" ... Is this what's planned
for the near future? I'm not liking it a bit.
Situation in the US is getting worse, seems that this Fall big changes are coming, and no
lies can hide the truth: LIES, LIES & OMG
MORE LIES Who is the enemy? Some names can be found here (and in a recent Eric Zuesse piece):
The Borg, the AngloZio pedo-satanic cabal of the City of London Crown Corporation, the web
of merchants of death and corporate oligarchy have been doing whatever possible to help her
stay relevant and expand information war, blame Russia:
Nice summary but I disagree with the dedollarization part. To me, ending the US dollar as
reserve Currency is just a part of the issue. If that occurs American paper money becomes
worthless as the article states. While this bankrupts the US, what will it do to the global
world of private finance, BIS, SWIFT, IMF, etc.? Does private finance, private property and
inheritance all get dealt with in this adjustment? How long will the adjustment period
take?
What is clear though now is that there are two factions that are moving in "opposite"
directions and the implications will lock up global commerce at some point....fairly soon
(weeks/months)......and hopefully adults from all sides will work things out peacefully.
these 16 years of bin laden wars constitute the most concerted assault on sovereignty
since time out of mind. conspicuously in the cradle of civilization...cultural harmonies
undermined and religious sects set at each others throats, tribes ripped from their roots,
their facilities and systems desecrated, their families ravaged by rack and ruin and
displacement, an alien scourge unleashed on their landscape.
but as someone upstream suggested, the window on these destructive incursions might be
closing, what with Russia and China being unconquerable and all.
of course there are other dark forces gnawing at sovereignty , possibly even more
stealthily treacherous ones...
On the one hand, Trump defended sovereignty as a universal ideal. On the other, he demanded
that America's enemies stop mistreating their people. The result was gobbledygook.
...
to make his incoherence even more explicit, Trump declared that "our respect for
sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their
safety, their interests and their well-being." That's like saying that my respect for your
right to do whatever you want in your garden should be a call to action for you to stop
growing weed.
...
For Trump, by contrast, sovereignty means both that no one can tell the United States what
to do inside its borders and that the United States can do exactly that to the countries it
doesn't like. That's not the liberal internationalism that Obama espoused. Nor is it the
realism of some of Obama's most trenchant critics. It is imperialism. General Pershing, in
the Philippines, would have approved.
In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the
planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and
made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come
to a virtual standstill. Sure, the Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing
nothing. That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting, is a
blessing for the rest of the planet because it allows everybody else to get things done.
Pressure will be intense on U S business in east coast China to refrain from converting their
'yuan' profits into gold .
What a contradictory set of pressures much
"... Yes, in the sense that it had nothing to do with fulfilling the expectations of people who voted for it. But certainly it may had something to do with weakening the EU under German and to lesser extent French leadership. Releasing thousands of refugees from Turkey to Europe in 2015 in the direction of Germany was probably also a part of weakening the EU plan. The wholehearted welcoming of refugees by Merkel and German elites is a part of a theater as well but for a different audience. ..."
"... What about Viktor Orbán? What about the whole Visegrad Group? What about Marine Le Pen? Do you side with them, or against them, in their struggle against the wholesale cultural transformation of Europe through mass immigration? ..."
"... The Empire "lowerarchy" only needs entertain the voter masses during the theatric event popularly known as POTUS elections. They know that the People never get a candidate choice which is not pre-approved. ..."
"... In fact, I intuit that The Empire appreciates having even major "idiot" donors to their uni-Party campaign theater. ..."
Good points, Priss Factor, and I will add one for your consideration.
At Davos 2017, Anthony Scaramucci assured the congregation that "President Trump is
the last hope of the globalists."
I am mindful how powerful forces of Deception can cunningly co-opt populism /
nationalism to their N.W.O. advantage.
A question.
Do you believe international banksters gave the Brits an opportunity to decide whether
"in or out" of the EUROPEAN UNION?
I think the Brexit outcome was theater, a globalist "invasion" & occupation of
planet-scale perception.
Thanks and I trust you will reply!
===
I think the Brexit outcome was theater
Yes, in the sense that it had nothing to do with fulfilling the expectations of people
who voted for it. But certainly it may had something to do with weakening the EU under
German and to lesser extent French leadership. Releasing thousands of refugees from Turkey
to Europe in 2015 in the direction of Germany was probably also a part of weakening the EU
plan. The wholehearted welcoming of refugees by Merkel and German elites is a part of a
theater as well but for a different audience.
@Vinteuil If The Powers That
Be (TPTB) in Europe constantly attacked Islam & demanded the repatriation of Muslims to
their homelands, the Dinh/Revusky thesis would at least *make sense.* The hatred of Muslims
by TPTB would explain why they go to such trouble to fake all these attacks.
But, in fact, said powers endlessly insist that Not All Muslims Are Like That, and do
everything they can to import more of them.
Angela Merkel, anybody? Jean-Claude Juncker? The entire European MSM? I mean, hello?
And they stigmatize anybody who doubts the wisdom of this policy - like, say, Marine Le
Pen or Viktor Orbán - as "far right" extremists! Serious question, VD/JR:
What about Viktor Orbán? What about the whole Visegrad Group? What about Marine
Le Pen? Do you side with them, or against them, in their struggle against the wholesale
cultural transformation of Europe through mass immigration?
Yes, in the sense that it had nothing to do with fulfilling the expectations of people
who voted for it. But certainly it may had something to do with weakening the EU under
German and to lesser extent French leadership. Releasing thousands of refugees from Turkey
to Europe in 2015 in the direction of Germany was probably also a part of weakening the EU
plan. The wholehearted welcoming of refugees by Merkel and German elites is a part of a
theater as well but for a different audience. Utu,
For me, the title of this article alone is a learning experience.
The Empire "lowerarchy" only needs entertain the voter masses during the theatric event
popularly known as POTUS elections. They know that the People never get a candidate choice
which is not pre-approved.
In fact, I intuit that The Empire appreciates having even major "idiot" donors to their
uni-Party campaign theater.
Ecomonist is a propaganda venue not so much about globalism as about
neoliberalism. This is one of the leading neoliberal publications.
Notable quotes:
"... Mr Derbyshire is wrong to say that the Antifa and their like are funded by the "Billionaire Left". They do fund them, but to call them the Billionaire Left is incorrect. These people are best described as Corporatist Oligarchs, aided and created by Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is not liberal, it is thoroughly illiberal and unconcerned about free markets or free societies. As an example, SABMiller and Anheuser-Busch are merging. They will have 45% of the US beer market, when merged. 30 years, when the US still had competition laws, this would not be permitted. Indeed, it would not even be attempted. ..."
Given that
The Economist
is a major journalistic voice for the globalist,
nation-hating, open-borders, anti-Trump club of
the Billionaire
Left
; and given that
AntiFa
is the "
muscle
" of that club; it's not very surprising that when our President attacks AntiFa,
The Economist
pulls out all the stops.
The cover
of the current
(August 19th-25th) issue tells you all you need to know. Trump is bellowing into a megaphone
drawn as a sideways-lying KKK hood.
The accompanying editorial is what you'd expect.
His unsteady response [i.e. to the riot engineered by state and city authorities in
Charlottesville last week] contains a terrible message for Americans. Far from being the
savior of the Republic, their President is politically inept, morally barren and
temperamentally unfit for office.
It comes of course with a doctored version of history to conform to current CultMarx
dogmas.
White supremacists and neo-Nazis yearn for a society based on race, which America fought a
world war to prevent.
If you had asked 1,000 Americans in 1945 what they had been fighting for, then ranked their
responses by common themes, I venture to suggest that "to prevent a society based on race"
would not have been anywhere near the top of the rankings. I wonder if it would even have
figured at all.
And what a great many white Americans today yearn for is a society
not
based on
race: one in which their own race is
not
constantly belittled and insulted by talk of
"white privilege," one
not
riddled with preferences and favoritism on behalf of other
races, one in which
multicultural
triumphalists
do
not
crow over whites' impending replacement, and elites do
not
seem hell-bent on
bringing about that
replacement
.
The Economist
tells us that defending Confederate statues!a cause which, for 150
years, was not even
present
in the collective American consciousness because those
statues were not threatened!is a rearguard action by the evil, bitter past against
the Radiant
Future
.
Mr Trump's seemingly heartfelt defence of those marching to defend Confederate statues
spoke to the degree to which white grievance and angry, sour nostalgia is part of his world
view.
Perhaps one man's "angry, sour nostalgia" is another man's natural reaction to great but
unnecessary social changes undertaken to the advantage of people who hate him.
What do you have to drink to get through
Economist
drivel/propaganda? I'm spending
some time in a hotel where we have CNN. I can't watch more than two to three
minutes–nothing but Trump criticism. The Russian news channels are more informative
even though my Russian is very rudimentary
Mr Derbyshire is wrong to say that the Antifa and their like are funded by the
"Billionaire Left". They do fund them, but to call them the Billionaire Left is
incorrect.
These people are best described as Corporatist Oligarchs, aided and created by Neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is not liberal, it is thoroughly illiberal and unconcerned about free markets
or free societies. As an example, SABMiller and Anheuser-Busch are merging. They will have
45% of the US beer market, when merged. 30 years, when the US still had competition laws,
this would not be permitted. Indeed, it would not even be attempted.
Effective competition laws are one of the cornerstones of a Capitalist society, or even
one with a more Mixed Economy. Large areas of the US economy are now dominated by
oligopolies: individual companies are often largely owned or controlled by one person,
sometimes a few. These oligopolists seek cheap labour, open borders, free trade and exemption
from the laws of the state. Indeed, as the TPTA made explicit, they wanted to be subject to
rules made by themselves, not any state.
Their aims cannot be said to be left wing. These policies benefit a small number of oligarchs
and their associates, whose income has risen enormously. Most of the rest of us suffer as a
result.
These oligarchs not only fund dim-witted left wing groups to do their bidding, they
control most of the media and the political parties. They constitute a very serious threat to
the State, Society and ordinary people.
These oligopolies must be broken up and sold in parts to a wide range of new owners.
Effective Competition Laws must be reinstated and anti-completion laws ( e.g.
Telecommunications Act 1996 ) rescinded. The holdings of individual oligarchs should be
confiscated without compensation and the worst offenders (Soros, Bezos, Zuckerberg et al )
sent to Work Camps in Northern Alaska, along with all the staff of $PLC. The money so
confiscated should be donated to charitable funds, e.g. VDARE, The John Derbyshire Retirement
Fund.
As a previous 20 year subscriber to the Economist magazine, this article touches a raw
nerve in me. There was a time when I had a fascination with the world of globalism and the
Economist was a source of great wisdom to be cherished on a Sunday morning. But as the real
world of globalism started showing its ugly head, I started getting tired of this mouthpiece
of the Illuminati and their mega sophisticated propaganda news of which I will expose some of
the important myths they have acclaimed during the 90′s and in the first decade of the
21st century. Unfortunately, I don't have the references for these articles as I am drawing
from my long memory:
-In one of their articles about the falling crime rate in America, they credited Roe vs Wade
for legalizing abortion " which led to a marked decline in undesired children and therefore a
reduced crime rate". Indicting innocent unborn children as potential criminals is the
Economist way. It escaped them, that had abortion been legal when Steven Jobs saw the light
of day, chances are the man would have not lived as a child born out of wedlock.
-The Economist called for Arab oil producers to reduce the price of a barrel of oil to USD
5.00 to drive all potential non OPEC competitors out of the market in order to survive the
coming drop in the price of oil. What happened after this article is that oil prices kept
creeping up until it reached the price of USD 147.
-The Economist was a supporter of the abrogation of the Glass Steegal Act that separated
commercial banking from investment banking calling it an outdated law. Needless to remind the
reader that the cancellation of the law by the Clinton Administration at the behest of Robert
Rubin who had been appointed as Citi Chair while still working for the U S government was a
case of conflict of interest and the reason for the 2008 financial crisis and the phony
legacy of " too big to fail" and " too big to jail".
- The Economist was as big of a supporter of the war on Iraq just as its ilk The New York
Slimes, a war that has killed millions and cost the American tax payer trillions of
Dollars.
I will limit my critique of the Economist to the above points while hoping that other new
doubters in the authenticity of this propaganda machine will contribute theirs.
The New Yorker used a similar Trump/KKK cover. These people have such original minds. My
guess is there's a new Journolist site somewhere that hasn't been smoked out yet, because the
coordination is clear as day.
@Diversity Heretic
What do you have to drink to get through
Economist
drivel/propaganda? I'm spending some time in a hotel where we have CNN. I can't watch more
than two to three minutes--nothing but Trump criticism. The Russian news channels are more
informative even though my Russian is very rudimentary A life-long friend visiting from Italy
this past December, while staying in a Manhattan hotel, noted that the CNN programming was
all anti-Trump, all the time. He wondered if they reported any news.
Yes some percentage are probably racist. But majority of people who are voted again globalism in the USA in the recent election,
sending Hillary packing, are not.
The death of Heather Heyer allow media to paint alt-right as 'domestic terrorists.' Hysteria wipe out by the media, the political
establishment, and the technocracy in Silicon Valley moved into over-drive and rached the proportion of an entirely artificial moral
panic.
M edia attention to the non-event in Charlottesville lasted an astonishing three full days. It completely displaced coverage devoted
to instances of Islamic terror and eclipses Western coverage devoted to serious terrorist incidents in the Middle East. Charlottesville
has been packaged for mass consumption as even that proved that anti-globalization forces are illegitimate and need to be procecuted.
Media has been attempting to spin this incident as some kind of defining historical moment -- a litmus test for the tolerance of
contemporary society.
Notable quotes:
"... The anti-globalization movement is a loose coalition of many, very diverse groups that are fighting the government/corporate
alliance and their corporate globalization agenda. They have different end goals and different tactics, but all have the purpose to
stop the course of corporate globalization. The diverse nature of the anti-globalization movement has resulted in some unique strengths
and weaknesses of the movement. An understanding of the nature of these groups is necessary to try to understand the movement and to
understand what the movement is doing. ..."
Original title: The Protests of the Anti-Globalization Movement
A new social movement is gaining strength. This movement is commonly referred to as the anti-globalization movement, although
it might more correctly be referred to as the anti-corporate globalization movement. This movement gained notoriety at the WTO protests
in Seattle on November 30 th , 1999. On this day approximately 60,000 people took to the streets of Seattle and used peaceful
protest and civil disobedience to shut down the WTO negotiations. Since then similar protests have occurred across North America
and Europe. With each protest the movement gains support from the public and solidarity among its members. And with each protest
the police state oppression grows as well.
The anti-globalization movement is a loose coalition of many, very diverse groups that are fighting the government/corporate
alliance and their corporate globalization agenda. They have different end goals and different tactics, but all have the purpose
to stop the course of corporate globalization. The diverse nature of the anti-globalization movement has resulted in some unique
strengths and weaknesses of the movement. An understanding of the nature of these groups is necessary to try to understand the movement
and to understand what the movement is doing.
The groups that make up the anti-globalization movement can be split into six categories. There are the environmental and social
justice movements, the third world groups, the organized labour groups, the indigenous rights movement, the nationalist groups, and
the moral majority movement. These categories are not strict divisions. Some groups may have ideologies common to two different categories,
and individuals may be sympathetic to the ideologies of one category while actively working with a group from another. But these
simple divisions serve to help understand this diverse group.
The visible groups in the anti-globalization movement that get identified by the public as the trouble causing protestors are
the environmental and social justice groups. These groups can be grouped together as they have a common complaint about corporate
globalization -- it destroys the environment and social justice. Concerns that these groups are fighting against include species
and habitat loss, pollution, unsustainable resource use, loss of democracy, loss of human rights, gender and race inequality, and
restriction of sexuality. Individual groups may be more specific in their concerns and deal with only one aspect of the environment
or social justice or more general and include the entire gambit. But these groups would agree on all of the issues presented above,
they merely have different focuses.
These groups are predominantly white middle-class activists that have the resource base to mobilize against the system. A common
criticism of these groups is the lack of participation of people from other ethnic or socio-economic backgrounds in a movement that
claims to represent the people. However, this is a strong and well organized part of the anti-globalization movement that has had
some success in bringing about change. The environmental and social justice groups can be divided into two broad sub-categories based
on their proposed solution: there are the anarchist groups and the neo-liberal reform groups.
The anarchist segment is different from other activist segments because they are not striving for reform. The anarchists, more
than any other group, includes a very diverse number of autonomous groups but some generalizations can be made. These groups think
that the hierarchical consumerist driven system is the problem. The solution is not to get some political change, but rather to change
the entire framework that the system works in. This philosophy incorporates Thoreau and his anti-growth, small is beautiful ideas,
Gandhi's ideas of Swadeshi, and ecofeminist antipatriarchical and antihierarchical ideas.
... ... ...
The anarchist groups are fundamentally against hierarchy.
... ... ...
All of these anarchist groups are non-violent, but there is some disagreement in what that means. Some groups say that property
damage is not violence, while others say that violence is violence whether directed against people or property. Proponents of property
damage say that the only way to stop corporations is to hurt them financially and property damage hurts them financially. The most
well publicized of these groups are the militant anarchists of Eugene, but there are many such groups across North America and Europe.
These groups are usually referred to as the Black Bloc. The Black Bloc refers to a commonality in ideology, not a formal organization.
Any one group within the Black Bloc may consist of 10 to 20 individuals and there is no formal organization between groups (Warcry
(4) , on
Breaking the Spell ).
... ... ...
The anarchist subcategory of the environmental and social justice movement is visible and intriguing, but at least as powerful
are the neo-liberal reformist environmental and social justice movements. These groups want to reform of the capitalist system to
include protections for the environment and to ensure social justice. These groups are traditional, hierarchical, top-down organizations.
They are the publically known activist groups with the majority of the public finding, but not the strength behind the anti-globalization
protests.
Some neo-liberal reform groups can be very radical. They can propose radical political change (such as the cessation of all logging).
What differentiates neo-liberal reform groups is that they propose to achieve their goals through regulations imposed within the
existing system. They are in support of the neo-liberal economic agenda, they just want to be able to add in certain regulations
to protect those things that they value. It is important to note that these groups may not consider themselves to be in favor of
neo-liberalism. But they are in support of it in that they wish to use its existing framework and build on it to make it more palatable.
Also, many individuals within some of the more radical neo-liberal reform groups (i.e. Greenpeace, Sierra Club) may actually have
personal anarchist philosophies but are working within a neo-liberal reform organization.
Neo-liberal reform groups do use traditional political channels to try to effect traditional political change. They will attempt
to influence elections and they will use lobbying. Some neo-liberal reform groups will also support civil disobedience or diversity
of tactics (Loretta Gerlach
(9) , personal
communication). Those that do use them hope to cause political change through the same three mechanisms that the anarchist groups
were using to create cultural change.
Another broad category of anti-globalization movements are the third world groups. Groups of people who are directly and immediately
harmed by globalization organize against imperialism in other countries. They have much less strength on the international level.
They have dedicated people but not the resources to mobilize. Other groups (especially the neo-liberal reform groups mentioned above)
may sponsor individuals from these third world groups to come to Canada to speak. Both Berta Caceras of the Lenca people in Honduras
(sponsored by Rights Action) and Alberto Achito of the Embera Katio of Colombia (sponsored by the Inter Church Committee on Human
Rights) have came to the U of L this semester. Some first world activist groups send aid to these third world groups as well. And
some groups have worked to sponsor third world representatives to the protests at Seattle and Quebec City.
The third world groups are involved in a very different scale of protest against globalization. People in these groups are manufacturing
discontent at a considerable risk to their own life. These groups are striving for very immediate practical solutions to specific
problems (i.e. getting killed by US funded paramilitary forces). There has been some work to try to use these dedicated third world
groups to create lasting political change. There has been student activist education of FARC (Force of Armed Revolutionaries of Colombia)
in political theory (Oscar Guzman
(10) , personal
communication).
A third category of anti-globalization movements are the labour movements. The labour movement is a very strong movement with
a large vested interest in the process of globalization. These groups range from groups with Marxist end goals (conventional organized
unions) to anarcho-syndicate end goals (Industrial Workers of the World). The tactics employed by labour movements range from very
conventional to civil disobedience. The Steelworkers Union was a civil disobedience force in the November 30 th protests
in Seattle, and CUPE National is organizing for the Summit of the Americas protests in Quebec City.
Many of the groups within the environmental and social justice movements are attempting to forge alliances with groups within
the labour movement. This has been actively hindered by both government and corporate forces, especially in the labour industry.
Both government and corporate forces work hard to manufacture hatred towards environmentalists within the logging community and encourage
and aid vigilante behaviour amoung the loggers (Bryce Gilroy-Scott
(11) , personal
communication).
The indigenous rights movement is another category of activists groups within the anti-globalization movement. The goal of this
movement is indigenous sovereignty. The indigenous rights movement is also against the corporate/government alliance and shares many
common values with anarchist groups (such as community empowerment and social justice). Indigenous rights groups have yet to become
very active in the anti-globalization movement but they have made some notable contributions and interest in the movement is growing.
... ... ...
A very different category of anti-globalization groups are the nationalist groups. These are movements to protect the sovereignty
of nations that is eroded by international trade agreements. This is a strong movement that generally comes from the right end of
the political spectrum. It generally has very little in common with the internationalist focused movements of the other groups. Many
of the nationalist groups are strong supporters of democracy and do connect with the other anti-globalization movements in this respect.
The main unifying force between the nationalist groups and the previously mentioned groups is that they have the common goal of fighting
corporate power. The tactics of this group can include property damage in some of the more militant groups.
The moral majority is another category of anti-globalization groups that has even less in common with the above mentioned groups
than the nationalist groups. These are ultra-right wing groups that are generally Christian. These groups had a presence in Seattle
(Stu Crawford, personal experience). These groups may feel that the corporatization of the planet results in an erosion of their
strong family values. Generally the only commonality that they have with the other anti-globalization groups is that they have a
common enemy.
This wide diversity of groups reviewed above creates a very unique movement.
"... Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power. ..."
"... "That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying." ..."
"... The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free. I've got my hands back on my weapons ..."
Axios:
that part of that war effort might include a brand new cable news network to the right of Fox
News.
Axios' Jonathan Swan hears Bannon has told friends he sees a massive opening to the right of
Fox News , raising the possibility that he's going to start a network. Bannon's friends are speculating about whether it will be a standalone TV network, or online
streaming only.
Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a
channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist
direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power.
Now he has the means, motive and opportunity: His chief financial backer, Long Island hedge
fund billionaire Bob Mercer, is ready to invest big in what's coming next, including a huge
overseas expansion of Breitbart News. Of course, this new speculation comes after Bannon declared last Friday that he was "
going to war" for
Trump ...
" If there's any confusion out there, let me clear it up. I'm leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents... on Capitol
Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,
Meanwhile, with regard his internal adversaries , at the departments of State and Defense,
who think the United States can enlist Beijing's aid on the North Korean standoff, and at
Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system,
Bannon was ever harsher...
"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which
was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only
temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has
big plans to marginalize their influence.
"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury
and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."
Finally, perhaps no one can summarize what Bannon has planned for the future than Bannon
himself:
"The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free.
I've got my hands back on my weapons.
I am definitely going to crush the opposition. There's no
doubt. I built a f***ing machine at Breitbart. And now we're about to rev that machine up."
But mainstream economists and organizations are now starting to say that globalization
increases inequality.
The
National Bureau of
Economic Research
– the largest economics research organization in the United States,
with many Nobel economists and Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers as members –
published
, a report in May finding:
Recent globalization trends have increased U.S. inequality by disproportionately raising top
incomes.
***
Rising import competition has adversely affected manufacturing employment, led firms to
upgrade their production and caused labor earnings to fall.
NBER
explains
that
globalization allows executives to gain the system to their advantage:
This paper examines the role of globalization in the rapid increase in top incomes. Using a
comprehensive data set of thousands of executives at U.S. firms from 1993-2013, we find that
exports, along with technology and firm size, have contributed to rising executive
compensation. Isolating changes in exports that are unrelated to the executive's talent and
actions, we show that globalization has affected executive pay not only through market channels
but also through non-market channels. Furthermore, exogenous export shocks raise executive
compensation mostly through bonus payments in poor-governance settings, in line with the
hypothesis that globalization has enhanced the executive's rent capture opportunities. Overall,
these results indicate that globalization has played a more central role in the rapid growth of
executive compensation and U.S. inequality than previously thought, and that rent capture is an
important part of this story.
A World Bank document
says
globalization "may have led to rising wage
inequality". It notes:
Recent evidence for the US suggests that adjustment costs for those employed in sectors
exposed to import competition from China are much higher than previously thought.
***
Trade may have contributed to rising inequality in high income economies .
The World Bank also
cites
Nobel prize-winning economist Eric Maskin's view that globalization increases
inequality because it increases the mismatch between the skills of different workers.
A report by the International Monetary Fund
notes
:
High trade and financial flows between countries, partly enabled by technological advances,
are commonly cited as driving income inequality . In advanced economies, the ability of firms
to adopt laborsaving technologies and offshoring has been cited as an important driver of the
decline in manufacturing and rising skill premium (Feenstra and Hanson 1996, 1999, 2003) .
***
Increased financial flows, particularly foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio flows
have been shown to increase income inequality in both advanced and emerging market economies
(Freeman 2010). One potential explanation is the concentration of foreign assets and
liabilities in relatively higher skill- and technology-intensive sectors, which pushes up the
demand for and wages of higher skilled workers. In addition, FDI could induce skill-specific
technological change, be associated with skill-specific wage bargaining, and result in more
training for skilled than unskilled workers (Willem te Velde 2003). Moreover, low-skill,
outward FDI from advanced economies may in effect be relatively high-skilled, inward FDI in
developing economies (Figini and Görg 2011), thus exacerbating the demand for high-skilled
workers in recipient countries. Financial deregulation and globalization have also been cited
as factors underlying the increase in financial wealth, relative skill intensity, and wages in
the finance industry, one of the fastest growing sectors in advanced economies (Phillipon and
Reshef 2012; Furceri and Loungani 2013).
The Bank of International Settlements – the "Central Banks' Central Bank" – also
notes that globalization isn't all
peaches
and
cream
. The Financial Times
explains
:
A trio of recent papers by top officials from the Bank for International Settlements goes
further, however, arguing that financial globalisation itself makes booms and busts far more
frequent and destabilising than they otherwise would be.
Most economists have been blindsided by the backlash [against globalization]. A few saw it
coming. It is worth studying their reasoning .
***
Branko Milanovic of the City University of New York believes such costs perpetuate a cycle
of globalisation. He argues that periods of global integration and technological progress
generate rising inequality .
Supporters of economic integration underestimated the risks that big slices of society would
feel left behind .
Were the experts wrong about the benefits of trade for the American economy?
***
Voters' anger and frustration, driven in part by relentless globalization and technological
change [has made Trump and Sanders popular, and] is already having a big impact on America's
future, shaking a
once-solid consensus
that freer trade is, necessarily, a good thing.
"The economic populism of the presidential campaign has forced the recognition that expanded
trade is a double-edged sword,"
wrote Jared Bernstein
, former economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
What seems most striking is that the angry working class -- dismissed so often as myopic,
unable to understand the economic trade-offs
presented by trade -- appears to have
understood what the experts are only belatedly finding to be true: The benefits from trade to
the American economy may not always justify its costs.
I
n
a recent study
, three
economists -- David Autor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David Dorn at the
University of Zurich and Gordon Hanson at the University of California, San Diego -- raised a
profound challenge to all of us brought up to believe that economies quickly recover from trade
shocks. In theory, a developed industrial country like the United States adjusts to import
competition by moving workers into more advanced industries that can successfully compete in
global markets.
They examined the experience of American workers after China erupted onto world markets some
two decades ago. The presumed adjustment, they concluded, never happened. Or at least hasn't
happened yet. Wages remain low and unemployment high in the most affected local job markets.
Nationally, there is no sign of offsetting job gains elsewhere in the economy. What's more,
they found that sagging wages in local labor markets exposed to Chinese competition reduced
earnings by $213 per adult per year.
In
another
study
they wrote with Daron Acemoglu and Brendan Price from M.I.T., they estimated that
rising Chinese imports from 1999 to 2011 cost up to 2.4 million American jobs.
"These results should cause us to rethink the short- and medium-run gains from trade," they
argued. "Having failed to anticipate how significant the dislocations from trade might be, it
is incumbent on the literature to more convincingly estimate the gains from trade, such that
the case for free trade is not based on the sway of theory alone, but on a foundation of
evidence that illuminates who gains, who loses, by how much, and under what conditions."
***
The case for globalization based on the fact that it helps expand the economic pie by 3
percent becomes much weaker when it also changes the distribution of the slices by 50 percent,
Mr. Autor argued.
And Steve Keen – economics professor and Head of the School of Economics, History and
Politics at Kingston University in London –
notes
:
Plenty of people will try to convince you that globalization and free trade could benefit
everyone, if only the gains were more fairly shared. The only problem with the party, they'll
say, is that the neighbours weren't invited. We'll share the benefits more equally now, we
promise.
Let's keep the party going. Globalization and Free Trade are good.
This belief is shared by almost all politicians in both parties, and it's an article of
faith for the economics profession.
***
It's a fallacy based on a fantasy, and it has been ever since David Ricardo dreamed up the
idea of "Comparative Advantage and the Gains from Trade" two centuries ago.
***
[Globalization's] little shell and pea trick is therefore like most conventional economic
theory: it's neat, plausible, and wrong. It's the product of armchair thinking by people who
never put foot in the factories that their economic theories turned into rust buckets.
So the gains from trade for everyone and for every country that could supposedly be shared
more fairly simply aren't there in the first place. Specialization is a con job!but one that
the Washington elite fell for (to its benefit, of course). Rather than making a country better
off, specialization makes it worse off, with scrapped machinery that's no longer useful for
anything, and with less ways to invent new industries from which growth actually comes.
Excellent real-world research by Harvard University's "
Atlas of Economic Complexity
" has found diversity, not
specialization, is the "magic ingredient" that actually generates growth. Successful countries
have a diversified set of industries, and they grow more rapidly than more specialized
economies because they can invent new industries by melding existing ones.
***
Of course, specialization, and the trade it necessitates, generates plenty of financial
services and insurance fees, and plenty of international junkets to negotiate trade deals. The
wealthy elite that hangs out in the Washington party benefits, but the country as a whole
loses, especially its working class.
Some Big Companies Losing Interest In
Globalization
Ironically, the Washington Post
noted
in 2015 that the giant multinational corporations themselves are losing interest in
globalization and many are starting to bring the factories back home:
Yet despite all this activity and enthusiasm, hardly any of the promised returns from
globalization have materialized, and what was until recently a taboo topic inside
multinationals -- to wit, should we reconsider, even rein in, our global growth strategy? -- has
become an urgent, if still hushed, discussion.
***
Given the failures of globalization, virtually every major company is struggling to find the
most productive international business model.
***
Reshoring -- or relocating manufacturing operations back to Western factories from emerging
nations -- is one option. As labor costs escalate in places such as China, Thailand, Brazil and
South Africa, companies are finding that making products in, say, the United States that are
destined for North American markets is much more cost-efficient. The gains are even more
significant when productivity of emerging countries is taken into account.
***
Moreover, new disruptive manufacturing technologies -- such as 3-D printing, which allows
on-site production of components and parts at assembly plants -- make the idea of locating
factories where the assembled products will be sold more practicable.
***
GE, Whirlpool, Stanley Black & Decker, Peerless and many others have reopened shuttered
factories or built new ones in the United States.
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately
understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together,
into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History
makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations
cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so
that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts
about those international events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented
(via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the
current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S.
federal government and
press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance
from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly
called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance
presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which
is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The
MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely
drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get
overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires
behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC.
The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the
American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around
the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes
a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from
the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those
privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it
protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the
U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's
super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly
as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means)
as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies
in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats
with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy
resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced
against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is
the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's
billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents .
The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand
current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control
of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately
replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances
between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy
over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining
the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often
referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has
been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come."
To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable."
All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for
the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise.
Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money,
to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit
their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been
central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being
increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking
up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed
and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without
any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into.
Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will
against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief
locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the
MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic
sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are
increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the
backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately,
a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread
like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from
Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part
of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.)
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum,
then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them
protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law
right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia
and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty"
over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans
by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet
era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around
the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships
even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have
asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization
of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed
control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right
Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what
Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's
vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted
overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive
rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government
and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this
had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western
press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a
secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though
the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined
on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the
bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed
it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage --
the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under
Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this
hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also
backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear
weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian
people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western
press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments
have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online,
by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of
the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that
are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being
referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to
on this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other
nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of
the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another,
so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military)
aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights
concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining
why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations
regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such
as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in
the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned.
So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading
this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is
being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break
their existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type,
such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia.
The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on
the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never
expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian
edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war
on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian
but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed
Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign
to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's
Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" ,
and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29
showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the
way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent
were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's
performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his
single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME
cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires
are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin
, because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like
finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely
done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval
of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about
this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the
ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is
a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue
a study,
"Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results
of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear
exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded
that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing
words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence
of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid
to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown
by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to
overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende,
Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and
against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always
claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have
been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed
by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government
has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted.
Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces
only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments
the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they
order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened
when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60%
.
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not
as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to
be, he is fascist ; just
not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular
among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their
'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad --
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His
fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media,
which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President,
Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy
itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret,
of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy
has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling
its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of
CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic
government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the
correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been
fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise
the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium
it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The
claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer
a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance
of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised
by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic
public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it
clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs
Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador
for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should
be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump
does not hold her hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly
during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old
Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely
integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered
by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state
of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing
as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that
since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore
the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever
since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not
so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and
beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein
running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th
Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and
anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity,
the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians,
it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very
hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini
was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their
hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what
nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true
fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the
nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it
might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia,
deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews,
BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran,
Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be
different from Jewish obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be
very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat'
around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But
Hitler had Rohm wiped out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's
piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants.
But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists'
wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what
is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling
goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek
ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never
been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites
is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate
sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi."
I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments
against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the
master-aristocracy's will.
They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon
media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads
skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe,
as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has
been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's
economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.
No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering
sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations
given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine
private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him:
one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed
his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage
the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One
solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology,
and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political
candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy,
narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come
from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the
likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would
be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most.
Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity
and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock
being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good
deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by
Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst
kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because
if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be
trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the
little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of
WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite
Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3%
of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be
closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them
blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State
Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics
– is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against
the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry
for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are
far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the
American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem
'immigrant' as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and
America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should
need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's
non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville
was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all.
This story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling
"aristocracy." Lots of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians
mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of
Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer
Lansky and many many others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
"... Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one. ..."
"... Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense. ..."
"... Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual. ..."
"... n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills. ..."
"... The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland. ..."
"... I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it. ..."
"... As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration. ..."
"... In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway. ..."
"... The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise. ..."
"... The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots. ..."
The announcement of the
'resignation' of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon represents the culmination of a process which began with the equally
forced 'resignation' of President Trump's first National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.
Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people
like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one.
Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican
conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands:
General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the
Secretary of Defense.
In the case of Bannon, it is his clear that his ousting was insisted on by General Kelly, who is
continuing to tighten
his control of the White House.
Bannon's removal – not coincidentally – has come at the same time that General H.R. McMaster is
completing his purge of
the remaining Flynn holdovers on the staff of the National Security Council.
Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior
official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual.
I n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be
no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than
rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated.
Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political
skills.
Bannon is sometimes credited as being the author of the President's two travel ban Executive Orders. I am sure this wrong. The
Executive Orders clearly originate with the wishes of the President himself. If Bannon did have any role in them – which is possible
– it would have been secondary to the President's own. I would add that in that case Bannon must take some of the blame for the disastrously
incompetent execution of the first of these two Executive Orders, which set the scene for the legal challenges that followed.
The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President
delivered during his recent trip to Poland.
I have already made known my views of this speech
. I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points,
and the President has derived no political benefit from it.
However it is the closest thing to an ideological statement the President has made since he took office, and Bannon is widely
believed – probably rightly – to have written it.
As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and
appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible
since the inauguration.
In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump
administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to
know much about Bannon anyway.
It is in a completely different respect – one wholly independent of President Trump's success or failure as President – that the
events of the last few weeks give cause for serious concern.
The events of the last year highlight the extent to which the US is in deep political crisis.
The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are
openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both
now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise.
All this is happening at the same time that there is growing criticism of the economic institutions of the US government, which
since the 2008 financial crisis have seemed to side with a wealthy and unprincipled minority against the interests of the majority.
The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure
of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots.
It is striking that the only officials President Trump can nominate to senior positions who do not immediately run into bitter
opposition have been – apart from General Flynn, who was a special case – senior soldiers.
Now the military in the persons of Kelly, McMaster and Mattis find themselves at the heart of the US government to an extent that
has never been true before in US history, even during the Presidencies of former military men like Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant
or Dwight Eisenhower.
The last time that happened in a major Western nation – that the civilian institutions of the state had become so dysfunctional
that the military as the only functioning institution left ended up dominating the nation's government and deciding the nation's
policies – was in Germany in the lead up to the First World War.
Time will show what the results will be this time, but the German example is hardly a reassuring one.
To a certain extent Bannon symbolized backlash against neoliberal globalization, that is mounting in the USA. With him gone Trump
is a really emasculated and become a puppet of generals, who are the only allies left capable to run the show. Some of them are real
neocons. What a betrayal of voters who are sick and tired of wars for expansion and protection of global neoliberal empire.
Notable quotes:
"... What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit. ..."
"... The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies). ..."
"... Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters hate the idea of taking it away. ..."
"... So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump is now bankrupt. ..."
"... with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars. ..."
Everyone seems to be reporting that Steve Bannon is out. I have no insights about the palace intrigue; and anyone who thinks
Trump will become "presidential" now is an idiot. In particular, I very much doubt that the influence of white supremacists and
neo-Nazis will wane.
What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different
from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit.
The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance
company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies).
Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what
we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama
paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters
hate the idea of taking it away.
So what's a tax-cutter to do? His agenda is fundamentally unpopular; how can it be sold?
One long-standing answer is to muddy the waters, and make elections about white resentment. That's been the strategy since
Nixon, and Trump turned the dial up to 11. And they've won a lot of elections -- but never had the political capital to reverse
the welfare state.
Another strategy is to invoke voodoo: to claim that taxes can be cut without spending cuts, because miracles will happen. That
has sometimes worked as a political strategy, but overall it seems to have lost its punch. Kansas is a cautionary tale; and under
Obama federal taxes on the top 1 percent basically went back up to pre-Reagan levels.
So what did Trump seem to offer that was new? First, during the campaign he combined racist appeals with claims that he wouldn't
cut the safety net. This sounded as if he was offering a kind of herrenvolk welfare state: all the benefits you expect, but only
for your kind of people.
Second, he offered economic nationalism: we were going to beat up on the Chinese, the Mexicans, somebody, make the Europeans
pay tribute for defense, and that would provide the money for so much winning, you'd get tired of winning. Economic nonsense,
but some voters believed it.
Where are we now? The herrenvolk welfare state never materialized, in part because Trump is too lazy to understand policy at
all, and outsourced health care to the usual suspects. So Trumpcare turned out to be the same old Republican thing: slash benefits
for the vulnerable to cut taxes for the rich. And it was desperately unpopular.
Meanwhile, things have moved very slowly on the economic nationalism front -- partly because a bit of reality struck, as export
industries realized what was at stake and retailers and others balked at the notion of new import taxes. But also, there were
very few actual voices for that policy with Trump's ear -- mainly Bannon, as far as I can tell.
So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump
is now bankrupt.
But he does have the racism thing. And my prediction is that with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually
double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such
a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars.
"... The recently-deceased Mr. Rockefeller, whose elders turned to banking seeing in it a source of lucre far greater than what had been available in oil, who resided at the helm of Chase Bank, and chaired the Council on Foreign Relations for many years, had the wealth and contacts necessary to pursue a purposeful agenda beyond the needs of mere international trade. It is said he had a rolodex containing over 10,000 names. ..."
"... But globalism as an ideology long predates today's advanced technology. It has been around for close to 250 years -- at least since the five scions of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 – 1812) were directed to found banks in four of the biggest cities in Europe (the fifth remaining in Frankfurt-am-Main ), all remaining in communication with Dad and with each other. ..."
"... "Give me control of a nation's currency," Mayer Amschel is alleged to have said, "and I care not who makes the laws." Kings and other political figures who in one way or another crossed a Rothschild found themselves in one of many (fomented) regional wars of nineteenth century Europe. ..."
"... Globalism piggybacked on the relative success of the mixed economy that grew out of the New Deal, post-war Keynesianism, and the understandable desire to avoid another world war. The idea of a mixed economy (private and public, profit-driven enterprises encircled by and sometimes assisted by politically-created regulations, are what is "mixed," after all) returns us to political economy , which is what Adam Smith and other classical writers considered their subject to be. There was no such thing, in other words, as nontrivial "economic law," comparable to physics, abstracted from political and related considerations particular to time and place. ..."
"... Globalist machinations have empowered a superelite -- whose members move capital across borders and cut deals that affect the lives of millions of people as easily as we cross the room. Their nemeses include the distrustful national footdraggers who loused up the Doha Round and "populists" like Trump who roused the rabble against, e.g., NAFTA and the (now dead) TPP, and who question the wisdom of open borders policies which, arguably, have caused chaos all across Europe -- outside the protected enclaves of EU banking titans and globalists such as Angela Merkel. ..."
"... Globalist political economy has left people behind, because in the globalist worldview, people are as disposable as cheaply made Chinese products. ..."
"... Mishra's key observation (my way of putting it): globalization created expectations around the world that have been thwarted by globalist reality : impoverishment of former middle classes; chronic instability; incompatible cultures thrown into involuntary contact, some of them refugees of wars of choice; and a loss of autonomy for all involved, amidst a massive and growing consolidation of wealth at the top. ..."
"... The real 'clash of civilizations' is thus between incompatible visions of the future of civilization: between that of globalists and those I will call localists . What I have in mind here incorporates nationalists and those who want still smaller forms of governance, because for them the nation-state is too large. ..."
"... Globalists want to dominate the world by dominating its financial systems and, through those, its political economy -- visible politicians being vetted and controlled, and a "mainstream" media owned by their corporations. They want a mass consumption monoculture, cultural differences being cosmetic rather than substantive. Education must be tailored to this, and not toward graduating students with thinking skills apart from the mass. ..."
"... Globalists sing the praises of "democratic capitalism," but there is no reason to believe their vision has anything to do with either democracy, conceived as a political system answering to its people, or free markets. For under the mixed economy it became a given that markets needed regulating if only to improve the health and safety of an often-uninformed public (unless you really believe, e.g., that cigarette manufacturers would put warning labels on their products voluntarily, this being just one example). It was then just one step to global markets needing regulators with global reach, and other global problems (e.g., alleged man-made climate change) requiring coordinated global solutions. "Free trade" has evolved considerably since Ricardo schooled us about comparative advantage. It is now freedom for billionaires to do as they please, often at the expense of the livelihoods of millions! ..."
"... Opposing globalism openly is risky in any event. An academic who defended economic nationalism would likely be forced from his job in the present environment. Independent commentators may have the Internet but can forget about being published in well-paying markets. ..."
"... Trump's campaign was self-funded, and this was one source of his appeal. His present travails are proof of how hard it is to oppose globalism even in one of the world's most powerful offices. ..."
"... The "swamp" is proving deeper, wider, and more venomous than I think he imagined in his worst nightmares! ..."
"... By a long shot, globalist ideology is driven by western nations, especially America. The west needs moral and philosophical reformations, new ways of thinking that respect identity without the paranoid screeching about bigotry. The alt-right, with its pure focus on whiteness, is not going to be able to do this. It takes a broader vision to create and propagate new ideologies that can be applied to society in general. ..."
"... As Socrates observed, many people who claimed to know about some particular thing erred–committed "original sin" in the Greek, not Old Testament sense–when they generalized, on the basis of their limited knowledge, and thinking that they knew a lot about a lot, talked authoritatively about that with which they were not familiar. ..."
The attacks came at once, as if on cue. Consider Eugene Robinson's
op-ed in the ever-reliably Trump-hating Washington Post . Robinson asked snarkily, "Triumph
over whom?"
Let's treat this as a fair question. Over ISIS? North Korea? Russia? Those being the villains
of the moment, they are easy to single out. Trump did not name the real enemy in this speech:
globalism (he did say, in his
acceptance speech
, "Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo!"). Despite struggling with allegations (still with
the flimsiest of evidential support) that Russia interfered with the 2016 election and that his campaign
staff now including his son Don Jr. colluded with them, Trump is still seen as a major threat to
globalist interests.
As I use the term, globalism is not the same thing as globalization . In many respects,
globalization goes back millennia. It emerged with explorers of ancient times wanting to know what
was over the horizon, and who lived there. In modern times it involves advances in technology, especially
communications, that facilitate cross-border trade. None of these need erase national borders or
a people's cultural identity; through consciousness of differences it might even enhance them.
Globalism is a more specific ideology holding that economies should integrate, that borders should
be dissolved, culture is irrelevant, and that peoples can be moved around like chess pieces "reinventing
themselves," merged into a monoculture of mass consumption and disposability. The process needs transnational
regulation and so must culminate in a world state, de facto or de jure , with a single
global currency -- digital rather than physical, so that all transactions can be recorded and monitored
(even those involving cryptos!)
The global system would be ruled by an elite superclass (in my book
Four Cardinal Errors: Reasons for the Decline of the American Republic I call this entity
the superelite to distinguish it from more visible national elites) overseeing a hierarchy
of administrators and technocrats. This superclass already controls most of the world's wealth. The
"developed" world is easily four fifths of the way to this kind of system, referred to as the "liberal
order" or the "international order" or with some similar euphemism. The Brexiteers, Donald Trumps,
Geert Wilders, and Marine Le Pens of the world are dragging their feet. The first two of these succeeded -- at least for the moment. The latter lost major elections, placing their causes on hold.
Does globalism actually exist as I describe it, or is it a "
conspiracy theory "? Let's consult two architects of globalist thought. Zbigniew Brzezinski stated
in his 1970 book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era (p. 56-62 of 1970
ed.):
The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal
creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in
terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state .
A global human conscience is for the first time beginning to manifest itself . Today we are
witnessing the emergence of transnational elites composed of international businessmen, scholars,
professional men, and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries,
their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and their interests are more functional
than national. These global communities are gaining in strength and it is likely that before long
the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist
in spirit and outlook
The new global consciousness, however, is only beginning to become an influential force. It
still lacks identity, cohesion, and focus. Much of humanity -- indeed, the majority of humanity -- still neither shares nor is prepared to support it. Science and technology are still used to
buttress ideological claims, to fortify national aspirations, and to reward narrowly national
interests . The new global unity has yet to find its own structure, consensus, and harmony.
David Rockefeller Sr. read the above, contacted the author, and with Henry Kissinger they organized
the Trilateral Commission to address the problem identified in the final paragraph. Rockefeller was
quoted two decades later telling a Bilderberg assembly (June 1991):
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great
publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion
for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is
now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational
sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination
practiced in past centuries."
This is probably the most famous David Rockefeller quote. There's no hard proof he actually said
it, though. He might have said it. We don't know. What it says is not foreign to his thinking. He
did assert the following, in his
Memoirs (2002, pp. 404-05), in the context of a riposte against "populists," and this
time there is no doubt:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have
seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence
they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are
part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing
my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build
a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's
the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
The recently-deceased Mr. Rockefeller, whose elders turned to banking seeing in it a source
of lucre far greater than what had been available in oil, who resided at the helm of Chase Bank,
and chaired the Council on Foreign Relations for many years, had the wealth and contacts necessary
to pursue a purposeful agenda beyond the needs of mere international trade. It is said he had a rolodex
containing over 10,000 names.
We can thus rest our case that globalism is a real phenomenon. Is it a conspiracy? Conspiracies,
by definition, are hidden from you. As two of the above statements indicate, its leaders have hardly
been hiding. Perhaps the reading public can be faulted for preferring glitzy bestsellers to books
about reality.
The question before us: what is the alternative to it? One can almost hear the chorus: There
Is No Alternative . Writers such as Robinson above are very good at invoking "economic theory"
against "populism." He had previously said: "The speech Trump delivered had nothing useful to say
about today's interconnected world in which goods, people and ideas have contempt for borders." He
elaborated: "Industrial supply chains cross borders and span oceans. Words and images flash around
the globe at the speed of light. Global issues, such as nuclear proliferation and climate change,
demand global solutions. Like it or not, we are all in this together."
In this case, who laid down those supply chains, and why must they invite "contempt for borders"?
Are these aspects of a natural, deterministic dynamic that a technologically advancing, creative-destruction
driven civilization is bound to follow? It is easy to argue that there is such a dynamic,
in which case globalists are being carried along with the rest of us and are identifiable only because
they are smarter than we mere mortals and therefore more conscious of the process than we are -- not
to mention better situated to profit from it.
But globalism as an ideology long predates today's advanced technology. It has been around
for close to 250 years -- at least since the five scions of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 – 1812)
were directed to found banks in four of the biggest cities in Europe (the fifth remaining in Frankfurt-am-Main
), all remaining in communication with Dad and with each other. The coldly talented Nathan established
himself as a dominant player in the City of London and succeeded his father as family patriarch as
he built up N.M. Rothschild & Sons; his eldest son Lionel would succeed him. What ensued was not
merely amassing wealth but accruing power, the power of private banking, international moneylending,
and investment. "Give me control of a nation's currency," Mayer Amschel is alleged to have said,
"and I care not who makes the laws." Kings and other political figures who in one way or another
crossed a Rothschild found themselves in one of many (fomented) regional wars of nineteenth century
Europe.
There is a longstanding debate over what drives history: material forces (economic ones, blood
ties, etc.) or ideas and worldviews (e.g., Christianity -- or Judaism -- or materialism). I hold out
for the latter, because most material forces of modern times would not exist without men of power
putting them in place guided by an idea or worldview (and
materialism is a worldview,
not a fact established by any science).
Globalism piggybacked on the relative success of the mixed economy that grew out of the New
Deal, post-war Keynesianism, and the understandable desire to avoid another world war. The idea of
a mixed economy (private and public, profit-driven enterprises encircled by and sometimes
assisted by politically-created regulations, are what is "mixed," after all) returns us to political
economy , which is what Adam Smith and other classical writers considered their subject to be.
There was no such thing, in other words, as nontrivial "economic law," comparable to physics, abstracted
from political and related considerations particular to time and place.
But the mixed economy has been a mixed blessing. It created prosperity and the largest middle
class the world had ever seen, but had numerous costs. One was that individuals, including those
in that middle class, became increasingly dependent on its systems. This is a separate article; for
now we will just observe that these systems, which over a period lasting more than a century intertwined
the political economy of the changing workplace with advancing technology, mass media culture, and
family dynamics, diminished real individual freedoms as people were encircled by its effects
and its products -- their lives made less and less convenient if they did not cooperate and consume.
Brzezinski foresaw the culmination of these changes:
Another threat confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology,
it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would
be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific
know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate
to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior
and keeping society under surveillance and control (pp. 252-53).
There can be no doubt this has happened. Globalist machinations have empowered a superelite -- whose members move capital across borders and cut deals that affect the lives of millions of people
as easily as we cross the room. Their nemeses include the distrustful national footdraggers who loused
up the Doha Round and "populists" like Trump who roused the rabble against, e.g., NAFTA and the (now
dead) TPP, and who question the wisdom of open borders policies which, arguably, have caused chaos
all across Europe -- outside the protected enclaves of EU banking titans and globalists such as Angela
Merkel.
Globalist political economy has left people behind, because in the globalist worldview, people
are as disposable as cheaply made Chinese products. Those left behind now have voices of various
stripes across the ideological spectrum -- people like Trump and Le Pen on the right, Bernie Sanders
on the left, and writers such as Pankaj Mishra who aren't easily classifiable but whose
Age of Anger: A History of the Present is, in my humble opinion, a must read. Mishra's
key observation (my way of putting it): globalization created expectations around the world
that have been thwarted by globalist reality : impoverishment of former middle classes; chronic
instability; incompatible cultures thrown into involuntary contact, some of them refugees of wars
of choice; and a loss of autonomy for all involved, amidst a massive and growing consolidation of
wealth at the top.
The real 'clash of civilizations' is thus between incompatible visions of the future
of civilization: between that of globalists and those I will call localists . What I have
in mind here incorporates nationalists and those who want still smaller forms of governance, because
for them the nation-state is too large.
Globalists want to dominate the world by dominating its financial systems and, through those,
its political economy -- visible politicians being vetted and controlled, and a "mainstream" media
owned by their corporations. They want a mass consumption monoculture, cultural differences being
cosmetic rather than substantive. Education must be tailored to this, and not toward graduating students
with thinking skills apart from the mass.
Localists want autonomy: freedom from encircling forces they had no say in and no control over,
whether created by "free trade" deals or open borders policies they did not sign off on. They want
control over their lives, families, communities, economies, and nations.
Globalists sing the praises of "democratic capitalism," but there is no reason to believe
their vision has anything to do with either democracy, conceived as a political system answering
to its people, or free markets. For under the mixed economy it became a given that markets needed
regulating if only to improve the health and safety of an often-uninformed public (unless you really
believe, e.g., that cigarette manufacturers would put warning labels on their products voluntarily,
this being just one example). It was then just one step to global markets needing regulators with
global reach, and other global problems (e.g., alleged man-made climate change) requiring coordinated
global solutions. "Free trade" has evolved considerably since Ricardo schooled us about comparative
advantage. It is now freedom for billionaires to do as they please, often at the expense of the livelihoods
of millions!
The globalists world state would answer primarily to their corporations because the latter have
the money, having profited from those global supply lines and from having moved operations to where
labor is cheapest -- before, that is, labor is replaced altogether by technology and thrown
to the wolves.
The problem is again, many of these groups want nothing to do with one another. Readers of this
essay may be antiglobalists but want nothing to do with most of them. Some are not even aware of
others. This lack of any semblance of unity does not bode well for any strategy of opposition.
Opposing globalism openly is risky in any event. An academic who defended economic nationalism
would likely be forced from his job in the present environment. Independent commentators may have
the Internet but can forget about being published in well-paying markets. Candidates for public
office who speak openly of globalism being an enemy of freedom in America can forget about being
able to raise the money and gain the visibility necessary to run credible campaigns. Funding sources
tend to be wired into globalist interests. They would not be where they are otherwise. As for visible
figures who don't need the money, e.g., Trump, if his enemies should succeed in taking him down,
whether via substanceless Russia allegations or by some other ploy, we might see how risky! We might
see whether Trump's election was more than a speed bump on the road towards a global state. Things
are getting late, after all! Were this a baseball game, we'd be starting the ninth inning!
Trump's campaign was self-funded, and this was one source of his appeal. His present travails
are proof of how hard it is to oppose globalism even in one of the world's most powerful offices.
The "swamp" is proving deeper, wider, and more venomous than I think he imagined in his worst
nightmares!
... ... ... ...
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Steven Yates is a writer with a Ph.D. in philosophy. He is the author of the books Civil Wrongs:
What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Four Cardinal Errors: Reasons for the Decline of
the American Republic (2011), approximately two dozen articles and reviews in academic journals and
anthologies, and over a hundred articles of online commentary, especially on
NewsWithViews.com . Dr. Yates taught
philosophy at several colleges and universities in the Southeast. In 2012 he moved from South Carolina
to Santiago, Chile, where he has taught periodically at two universities there, as well as having
involved himself in teaching English and operating a small editing business,
Final Draft Editing Service
. He is married to a Chilean, and at present writes almost full time. He blogs about philosophy and
the foibles of academia at
Lost Generation Philosopher
.
He(Yates) blogs about philosophy and the foibles of academia at Lost Generation Philosopher.
His Patreon donation page is here. Is Patreon reliable? Not to Lauren Southern. Speaking of endangering lives, it is globalist wars and the open borders policy that are leading
to killings, rapes, violence, but never mind. Patreon is just a globalist corporation.
" The real 'clash of civilizations' is thus between incompatible visions of the future of civilization:
between that of globalists and those I will call localists. "
This clash now is quite visible over new Polish legislation.
A new law creates democratic control over the nomination of judges, something the USA has for
high court judges since the USA exists.
But Brussels opposes this, threatens with taking away Poland's voting right in EU decisions, stopping
EU subsidies to Poland.
A similar clash is over Hungary, the country has enough of Soros' propaganda university.
But Soros visited Juncker and Tusk, Hungary was put under pressure, and now I'm not sure if Soros'
institutions will be expelled or not.
Then there is the clash over immigration, the orthodox catholic E European countries refuse
Muslim migrants.
And of course we see this clash over Brexit, the EU is of the opinion that the European High
Court after Brexit still has jurisdiction in GB.
Brussels does not see that the Anglican Church was created to stop the pope interfering in British
affairs.
Excuse me not having taken time to finish reading your article before responding to the stimulus
of your (apprpriately) distinguishing globalisation and globalism. As one who generally supports
the standard argùments for free trade despite also wanting to do a quality check on immigrants
to my proserous and fairly law abiding country I would be pleased to see a study of the problems
of small countries and what ordering of the world could and should mitigate them.
Establlished small countries seem to be OK. But what about the Greeces? Especially, what about
an African small country possibly with only one major mineral deposit as a source of wealth and
inevitable volatity in its commodity's price?
The super-elite are rapidly losing their grip on the hearts & minds of the populace. This will
accelerate as they move to implement more coercive measures (already happening) so it's only a
matter of time before some mass-depopulation program becomes desirable.
By a long shot, globalist ideology is driven by western nations, especially America. The west needs moral and philosophical reformations, new ways of thinking that respect identity
without the paranoid screeching about bigotry. The alt-right, with its pure focus on whiteness,
is not going to be able to do this. It takes a broader vision to create and propagate new ideologies
that can be applied to society in general.
I live in Poland and the story with the legislation is different and a bit
more complex.The problem is that it's basically putting judges under direct political control of the ruling
party with no checks and balances in their choice or dismissal. Lots of people would be in favor of some reform of the judiciary which is fairly terrible but
this is an obvious power grab (the government would also appoint those in charge of verifying
elections).
Scuttlebut is that the purpose is to trump up legal charges against opposition candidates to
keep them out of future elections.
Wandering Jews have long been labeled "rootless cosmopolitans". Their culture is an adaption
to their lifestyle, is this lifestyle. (Largely Jewish) Globalists take a model that works in
the particular case of the Jewish people and try to generalize it to apply to the whole world.
But what works as an exception is made possible by the existence of the base upon which it rests.
The rule that governs the exception cannot in and of itself build or sustain the foundation upon
which the exception rests.
Humans are personal animals who need an intimate connection with their environs and other people.
A mathematic model based on the economic principles of banking cannot be the base upon which human
societies are created.
As Socrates observed, many people who claimed to know about some particular thing erred–committed
"original sin" in the Greek, not Old Testament sense–when they generalized, on the basis of their
limited knowledge, and thinking that they knew a lot about a lot, talked authoritatively about
that with which they were not familiar.
Bankers are ill equipped to construct the Ideal Society.
@Michael Kenny You're wrong. The US (and the EU) is fully controlled by the supranational
globalists. At least it was until Trump but that battle is still to be decided. The EU was not
created to make the member nations stronger – it was designed to remove the sovereignty from the
populace while they're being genocided. Open your eyes.
The idea of globalism is much older. The ottoman empire was an example of globalism. The mongol
empire before that, was globalism. Heck even the roman empire was globalistic in a way. Globalistic
forces have always existed alongside localistic forces. And it was a form of globalism (colonialisation)
that also helped make the west wealthy. It is also globalism that helped make the united states
a super-power by helping its dollar become the global reserve currency.
Thats globalism right there.
But localism is also important because sometimes leaders of countries know whats best for their
people better than some foreign person. Even if the foreign-persons have good intentions, they
may not 'get it right' as native born leaders do. A lot of people in the world might not have
achieved the living standards they have now ..if it was not for the development of 'nation-states'
in the first place.
So i think a 'balance' of globalism and localism is better over one or the other.
@Jason Liu By a long shot, globalist ideology is driven by western nations, especially America.
The west needs moral and philosophical reformations, new ways of thinking that respect identity
without the paranoid screeching about bigotry. The alt-right, with its pure focus on whiteness,
is not going to be able to do this. It takes a broader vision to create and propagate new ideologies
that can be applied to society in general. Every minority pressure group out there is a reliable
source of virulent anti-white hatred.
Diversity did not have to be but those who brought it about were unwise. The idea that America
should be anything other than a white majority nation is absurd. Hosannas issue when hostile minorities
and unassimilable foreigners talk about ethnic and racial interests but whites are just supposed
to fade gracefully to khaki. And shut up about it. Reassert ourselves? The horror.
Economic collapse will flush a lot of stupidity from the system. It will be a giant game of
52 Pick Up but better chaos soon than certain degradation later.
Populism is a weasel word that is use by neoliberal MSM to delitimize the resistance. This is a typical neoliberal thinking.
Financial globalization is different from trade. It is more of neocolonialism that racket, as is
the case with trade.
Notable quotes:
"... Financial globalisation appears to have produced adverse distributional impacts within countries as well, in part through its effect on incidence and severity of financial crises. Most noteworthy is the recent analysis by Furceri et al. (2017) that looks at 224 episodes of capital account liberalisation. They find that capital-account liberalisation leads to statistically significant and long-lasting declines in the labour share of income and corresponding increases in the Gini coefficient of income inequality and in the shares of top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income. Further, capital mobility shifts both the tax burden and the burden of economic shocks onto the immobile factor, labour. ..."
"... I suggest that the fact that these two countries are arguably the most unequal in the advanced world has something to do with this. Also, on many measures I believe these two countries appear to be the most 'damaged' societies in the advanced world – levels of relationship breakdown, teenage crime, drug use, teenage pregnancies etc. I doubt this is a coincidence. ..."
"... Forced Free Trade was intended to be destructive to American society, and it was . . . exactly as intended. Millions of jobs were abolished here and shipped to foreign countries used as economic aggression platforms against America. So of course American society became damaged as the American economy became mass-jobicided. On purpose. With malice aforethought. ..."
"... "Populism" seems to me to be a pejorative term used to delegitimize the grievances of the economically disenfranchised and dismiss them derision. ..."
"... In the capitalist economies globalization is/was inevitable; the outcome is easy to observe ..and suffer under. ..."
"... they never get into the nitty-gritty of the "immobility" of the general populations who have been crushed by the lost jobs, homes, families, lives ..."
"... This piece was a lengthy run-on Econ 101 bollocks. Not only does the writer dismiss debt/interest and the effects of rentier banking, but they come off as very simplistic. Reads like some sheltered preppy attempt at explaining populism ..."
"... But like almost all economists, Rodrik is ignoring the political part of political economy. Historically, humanity has developed two organizational forms to select and steer toward preferred economic destinies: governments of nation states, and corporations. ..."
"... The liberalization of trade has come, I would argue, with a huge political cost no economist has reckoned yet. Instead, economists are whining about the reaction to this political cost without facing up to the political cost itself. Or even accept its legitimacy. ..."
"... Second, there are massive negative effects of trade liberalization that economists simply refuse to look at. Arbitration of environmental and worker safety laws and regulations is one. ..."
"... As I have argued elsewhere, the most important economic activity a society engages in us the development and diffusion of new science and technology. ..."
"... Rodrik is also wrong about the historical origins of agrarian populism in USA. It was not trade, but the oligopoly power of railroads, farm equipment makers, and banks that were the original grievances of the Grangers, Farmers Alliances after the Civil War. ..."
"... The salient characteristic of populism is favoring the people vs. the establishment. The whole left/right dichotomy is a creation of the establishment, used to divide the public and PREVENT an effective populist backlash. As Gore Vidal astutely pointed out decades ago, there is really only one party in the U.S. – the Property Party – and the Ds and Rs are just two heads of the same hydra. Especially in the past 10 years or so. ..."
'Populism' is a loose label that encompasses a diverse set of movements. The term originates from
the late 19th century, when a coalition of farmers, workers, and miners in the US rallied against
the Gold Standard and the Northeastern banking and finance establishment. Latin America has a long
tradition of populism going back to the 1930s, and exemplified by Peronism. Today populism spans
a wide gamut of political movements, including anti-euro and anti-immigrant parties in Europe, Syriza
and Podemos in Greece and Spain, Trump's anti-trade nativism in the US, the economic populism of
Chavez in Latin America, and many others in between. What all these share is an anti-establishment
orientation, a claim to speak for the people against the elites, opposition to liberal economics
and globalisation, and often (but not always) a penchant for authoritarian governance.
The populist backlash may have been a surprise to many, but it really should not have been in
light of economic history and economic theory.
Take history first. The first era of globalisation under the Gold Standard produced the first
self-conscious populist movement in history, as noted above. In trade, finance, and immigration,
political backlash was not late in coming. The decline in world agricultural prices in 1870s and
1880s produced pressure for resumption in import protection. With the exception of Britain, nearly
all European countries raised agricultural tariffs towards the end of the 19th century. Immigration
limits also began to appear in the late 19th century. The United States Congress passed in 1882 the
infamous Chinese Exclusion Act that restricted Chinese immigration specifically. Japanese immigration
was restricted in 1907. And the Gold Standard aroused farmers' ire because it was seen to produce
tight credit conditions and a deflationary effect on agricultural prices. In a speech at the Democratic
national convention of 1896, the populist firebrand William Jennings Bryan uttered the famous words:
"You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
To anyone familiar with the basic economics of trade and financial integration, the politically
contentious nature of globalisation should not be a surprise. The workhorse models with which international
economists work tend to have strong redistributive implications. One of the most remarkable theorems
in economics is the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, which generates very sharp distributional implications
from opening up to trade. Specifically, in a model with two goods and two factors of production,
with full inter-sectoral mobility of the factors, owners of one of the two factors are made necessarily
worse off with the opening to trade. The factor which is used intensively in the importable good
must experience a decline in its real earnings.
The Stolper-Samuelson theorem assumes very specific conditions. But there is one Stolper-Samuelson-like
result that is extremely general, and which can be stated as follows. Under competitive conditions,
as long as the importable good(s) continue to be produced at home – that is, ruling out complete
specialisation – there is always at least one factor of production that is rendered worse off by
the liberalisation of trade. In other words, trade generically produces losers. Redistribution is
the flip side of the gains from trade; no pain, no gain.
Economic theory has an additional implication, which is less well recognised. In relative terms,
the redistributive effects of liberalisation get larger and tend to swamp the net gains as the trade
barriers in question become smaller. The ratio of redistribution to net gains rises as trade liberalisation
tackles progressively lower barriers.
The logic is simple. Consider the denominator of this ratio first. It is a standard result in
public finance that the efficiency cost of a tax increases with the square of the tax rate. Since
an import tariff is a tax on imports, the same convexity applies to tariffs as well. Small tariffs
have very small distorting effects; large tariffs have very large negative effects. Correspondingly,
the efficiency gains of trade liberalisation become progressively smaller as the barriers get lower.
The redistributive effects, on the other hand, are roughly linear with respect to price changes and
are invariant, at the margin, to the magnitude of the barriers. Putting these two facts together,
we have the result just stated, namely that the losses incurred by adversely affected groups per
dollar of efficiency gain are higher the lower the barrier that is removed.
Evidence is in line with these theoretical expectations. For example, in the case of NAFTA, Hakobyan
and McLaren (2016) have found very large adverse effects for an "important minority" of US workers,
while Caliendo and Parro (2015) estimate that the overall gains to the US economy from the agreement
were minute (a "welfare" gain of 0.08%).
In principle, the gains from trade can be redistributed to compensate the losers and ensure no
identifiable group is left behind. Trade openness has been greatly facilitated in Europe by the creation
of welfare states. But the US, which became a truly open economy relatively late, did not move in
the same direction. This may account for why imports from specific trade partners such as China or
Mexico are so much more contentious in the US.
Economists understand that trade causes job displacement and income losses for some groups. But
they have a harder time making sense of why trade gets picked on so much by populists both on the
right and the left. After all, imports are only one source of churn in labour markets, and typically
not even the most important source. What is it that renders trade so much more salient politically?
Perhaps trade is a convenient scapegoat. But there is another, deeper issue that renders redistribution
caused by trade more contentious than other forms of competition or technological change. Sometimes
international trade involves types of competition that are ruled out at home because they violate
widely held domestic norms or social understandings. When such "blocked exchanges" (Walzer 1983)
are enabled through trade they raise difficult questions of distributive justice. What arouses popular
opposition is not inequality per se, but perceived unfairness.
Financial globalisation is in principle similar to trade insofar as it generates overall economic
benefits. Nevertheless, the economics profession's current views on financial globalisation can be
best described as ambivalent. Most of the scepticism is directed at short-term financial flows, which
are associated with financial crises and other excesses. Long-term flows and direct foreign investment
in particular are generally still viewed favourably. Direct foreign investment tends to be more stable
and growth-promoting. But there is evidence that it has produced shifts in taxation and bargaining
power that are adverse to labour.
The boom-and-bust cycle associated with capital inflows has long been familiar to developing nations.
Prior to the Global Crisis, there was a presumption that such problems were largely the province
of poorer countries. Advanced economies, with their better institutions and regulation, would be
insulated from financial crises induced by financial globalisation. It did not quite turn out that
way. In the US, the housing bubble, excessive risk-taking, and over-leveraging during the years leading
up to the crisis were amplified by capital inflows from the rest of the world. In the Eurozone, financial
integration, on a regional scale, played an even larger role. Credit booms fostered by interest-rate
convergence would eventually turn into bust and sustained economic collapses in Greece, Spain, Portugal,
and Ireland once credit dried up in the immediate aftermath of the crisis in the US.
Financial globalisation appears to have produced adverse distributional impacts within countries
as well, in part through its effect on incidence and severity of financial crises. Most noteworthy
is the recent analysis by Furceri et al. (2017) that looks at 224 episodes of capital account liberalisation.
They find that capital-account liberalisation leads to statistically significant and long-lasting
declines in the labour share of income and corresponding increases in the Gini coefficient of income
inequality and in the shares of top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income. Further, capital mobility shifts both
the tax burden and the burden of economic shocks onto the immobile factor, labour.
The populist backlash may have been predictable, but the specific form it took was less so. Populism
comes in different versions. It is useful to distinguish between left-wing and right-wing variants
of populism, which differ with respect to the societal cleavages that populist politicians highlight
and render salient. The US progressive movement and most Latin American populism took a left-wing
form. Donald Trump and European populism today represent, with some instructive exceptions, the right-wing
variant (Figure 2). What accounts for the emergence of right-wing versus left-wing variants of opposition
to globalization?
Figure 2 Contrasting patterns of populism in Europe and Latin America
Notes : See Rodrik (2017) for sources and methods.
I suggest that these different reactions are related to the forms in which globalisation shocks
make themselves felt in society (Rodrik 2017). It is easier for populist politicians to mobilise
along ethno-national/cultural cleavages when the globalisation shock becomes salient in the form
of immigration and refugees. That is largely the story of advanced countries in Europe. On the other
hand, it is easier to mobilise along income/social class lines when the globalisation shock takes
the form mainly of trade, finance, and foreign investment. That in turn is the case with southern
Europe and Latin America. The US, where arguably both types of shocks have become highly salient
recently, has produced populists of both stripes (Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump).
It is important to distinguish between the demand and supply sides of the rise in populism. The
economic anxiety and distributional struggles exacerbated by globalisation generate a base for populism,
but do not necessarily determine its political orientation. The relative salience of available cleavages
and the narratives provided by populist leaders are what provides direction and content to the grievances.
Overlooking this distinction can obscure the respective roles of economic and cultural factors in
driving populist politics.
Finally, it is important to emphasise that globalization has not been the only force at play -
nor necessarily even the most important one. Changes in technology, rise of winner-take-all markets,
erosion of labour market protections, and decline of norms restricting pay differentials all have
played their part. These developments are not entirely independent from globalisation, insofar as
they both fostered globalization and were reinforced by it. But neither can they be reduced to it.
Nevertheless, economic history and economic theory both give us strong reasons to believe that advanced
stages of globalisation are prone to populist backlash.
One question he does not address is why the opposition to globalization has had its most obvious
consequences in two countries:- the US and the UK with Trump and Brexit respectively.
I suggest
that the fact that these two countries are arguably the most unequal in the advanced world has
something to do with this. Also, on many measures I believe these two countries appear to be the
most 'damaged' societies in the advanced world – levels of relationship breakdown, teenage crime,
drug use, teenage pregnancies etc. I doubt this is a coincidence.
For me the lessons are obvious
– ensure the benefits of increased trade are distributed among all affected, not just some; act
to prevent excessive inequality; nurture people so that their lives are happier.
re: "ensure the benefits of increased trade are distributed among all affected"
Note that for the recent TPP, industry executives and senior government officials were well
represented for the drafting of the agreement, labor and environmental groups were not.
There simply may be no mechanism to "ensure the benefits are distributed among all affected"
in the USA political climate as those benefits are grabbed by favored groups, who don't want to
re-distribute them later.
Some USA politicians argue for passing flawed legislation while suggesting they will fix it
later, as I remember California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein stating when she voted for
Bush Jr's Medicare Part D ("buy elderly votes for Republicans").
It has been about 15 years, and I don't remember any reform efforts on Medicare Part D from
Di-Fi.
Legislation should be approached with the anticipated inequality problems solved FIRST when
wealthy and powerful interests are only anticipating increased wealth via "free trade". Instead,
the political process gifts first to the wealthy and powerful first and adopts a "we'll fix it
later" attitude for those harmed. And the same process occurs, the wealthy/powerful subsequently
strongly resist sharing their newly acquired "free trade" wealth increment with the free trade
losers..
If the USA adopted a "fix inequality first" requirement, one wonders if these free trade bills
would get much purchase with the elite.
Forced Free Trade was intended to be destructive to American society, and it was . . . exactly
as intended.
Millions of jobs were abolished here and shipped to foreign countries used as economic aggression
platforms against America. So of course American society became damaged as the American economy
became mass-jobicided. On purpose. With malice aforethought.
NAFTA Bill Clinton lit the fuse to the bomb which finally exploded under his lovely wife Hillary
in 2016.
The big problem I find in this analysis is that it completely forgets how different countries
use fiscal/financial policies to play merchantilistic games under globalization.
Yves, thanks for posting this from Dani Rodrik - whose clear thinking is always worthwhile.
It's an excellent, succinct post. Still, one 'ouch': "Redistribution is the flip side of the gains
from trade; no pain, no gain."
This is dehumanizing glibness that we cannot afford. The pain spreads like wildfire. It burns
down houses, savings, jobs, communities, bridges, roads, health and health care, education, food
systems, air, water, the 'real' economy, civility, shared values - in short everything for billions
of human beings - all while sickening, isolating and killing.
The gain? Yes, as you so often point out, cui bono? But, really it goes beyond even that question.
It requires asking, "Is this gain so obscene to arguably be no gain at all because its price for
those who cannot have too many homes and yachts and so forth is the loss of humanity?
Consider, for example, Mitch McConnell. He cannot reasonably be considered human. At all. And,
before the trolls create any gifs for the Teenager-In-Chief, one could say the same - or almost
the same - for any number of flexians who denominate themselves D or R (e.g. Jamie Gorelick).
No pain, no gain? Fine for getting into better shape or choosing to get better at some discipline.
It's an abominable abstraction, though, for describing phenomena now so far along toward planet-o-cide.
"Populism" seems to me to be a pejorative term used to delegitimize the grievances of the economically
disenfranchised and dismiss them derision.
Another categorization that I find less than apt, outmoded
and a misnomer is the phrase "advanced economies", especially given that level of industrialization
and gdp per capita are the key metrics used to arrive at these classifications. Globalization
has shifted most industrial activity away from countries that invested in rapid industrialization
post WW2 to countries with large pools of readily exploitable labour while gdp per capita numbers
include sections of the population with no direct participation in creating economic output (and
the growth of these marginalized sections is trending ever upward).
Meanwhile the financial benefits
of growing GDP numbers gush ever upwards to the financial-political elites instead of "trickling
downwards" as we are told they should, inequality grows unabated, stress related diseases eat
away at the bodies of otherwise young men and women etc. I'm not sure any of these dynamics, which
describe perfectly what is happening in many so called advanced economies, are the mark of societies
that should describe themselves as "advanced"
Sorry, but the original populist movement in the US called themselves the Populists or the
Populist Party. Being popular is good. You are the one who is assigning a pejorative tone to it.
Populism is widely used in the mainstream media, and even in the so called alternative media,
as a really pejorative term. That is what he means (I would say).
"What all these share is an anti-establishment orientation, a claim to speak for the people
against the elites, opposition to liberal economics and globalisation, and often (but not always)
a penchant for authoritarian governance."
On the other hand:
"What all these share is an establishment orientation, a claim to speak for the elites against
the people, support for liberal economics and globalisation, and always a penchant for authoritarian
governance."
"Financial globalisation appears to have produced adverse distributional impacts within countries
as well, in part through its effect on incidence and severity of financial crises. Most noteworthy
is the recent analysis by Furceri et al. (2017) that looks at 224 episodes of capital account
liberalisation. They find that capital-account liberalisation leads to statistically significant
and long-lasting declines in the labour share of income and corresponding increases in the Gini
coefficient of income inequality and in the shares of top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income. Further,
capital mobility shifts both the tax burden and the burden of economic shocks onto the immobile
factor, labour."
So, translated, Rodrick is saying that the free flow of money across borders, while people
are confined within these artificial constraints, results in all the riches flowing to the fat
cats and all the taxes, famines, wars, droughts, floods and other natural disasters being dumped
upon the peasants.
The Lakota, roaming the grassy plains of the North American mid-continent, glorified their
'fat cats,' the hunters who brought back the bison which provided food, shelter and clothing to
the people. And the rule was that the spoils of the hunt were shared unequally; the old, women
and children got the choice high calorie fatty parts. The more that a hunter gave away, the more
he was revered.
The Lakota, after some decades of interaction with the European invaders, bestowed on them
a disparaging soubriquet: wasi'chu. It means 'fat-taker;' someone who is greedy, taking all the
best parts for himself and leaving nothing for the people.
"So, translated, Rodrick is saying that the free flow of money across borders, while people
are confined within these artificial constraints .."
Nailed it!!
That's something that has always bothered me it's great for the propagandists to acclaim globalization
but they never get into the nitty-gritty of the "immobility" of the general populations who have
been crushed by the lost jobs, homes, families, lives .there should be a murderous outrage against
this kind of globalized exploitation and the consequent sufferings. Oh, but I forgot! It's all
about the money that is supposed to give incentive to those who are left behind to "recoup",
"regroup" and in today's age develop some kind of "app" to make up for all those losses .
In the
capitalist economies globalization is/was inevitable; the outcome is easy to observe ..and suffer
under.
they never get into the nitty-gritty of the "immobility" of the general populations who
have been crushed by the lost jobs, homes, families, lives
That's a feature, not a bug. Notice that big corporations are all in favor of globalization
except when it comes to things like labor law. Then, somehow, local is better.
"The economic anxiety and distributional struggles exacerbated by globalization generate a
base for populism, but do not necessarily determine its political orientation. The relative salience
of available cleavages and the narratives provided by populist leaders are what provides direction
and content to the grievances. "
Excellent and interesting point. Which political party presents itself as a believable tool
for redress affects the direction populism will take, making itself available as supply to the
existing populist demand. That should provide for 100 years of political science research.
Anonymous2 : "For me the lessons are obvious – ensure the benefits of increased trade are distributed
among all affected, not just some; act to prevent excessive inequality; nurture people so that
their lives are happier."
It ought to be but sadly I fear our politicians are bought. I am unsure I have the solution
. In the past when things got really bad I suspect people ended up with a major war before these
sorts of problems could be addressed. I doubt that is going to be a solution this time.
This piece was a lengthy run-on Econ 101 bollocks. Not only does the writer dismiss debt/interest
and the effects of rentier banking, but they come off as very simplistic. Reads like some sheltered
preppy attempt at explaining populism
Yep, Rodrik has been writing about these things for decades and has a remarkable talent for
never actually getting anywhere. He's particularly enamored by the neoliberal shiny toy of "skills",
as if predation, looting, and fraud simply don't exist.
This is a prime example of what is wrong with professional economic thinking. First, note that
Rodrik is nominally on our side: socially progressive, conscious of the increasingly frightful
cost of enviro externalities, etc.
But like almost all economists, Rodrik is ignoring the political
part of political economy. Historically, humanity has developed two organizational forms to select
and steer toward preferred economic destinies: governments of nation states, and corporations.
Only nation states provide the mass of people any form and extent of political participation in
determining their own destiny. The failure of corporations to provide political participation
can probably be recited my almost all readers of NC. Indeed, a key problem of the past few decades
is that corp.s have increasingly marginalized the role of nation states and mass political participation.
The liberalization of trade has come, I would argue, with a huge political cost no economist has
reckoned yet. Instead, economists are whining about the reaction to this political cost without
facing up to the political cost itself. Or even accept its legitimacy.
Second, there are massive negative effects of trade liberalization that economists simply refuse
to look at. Arbitration of environmental and worker safety laws and regulations is one. Another
is the aftereffects of the economic dislocations Rodrik alludes to.
One is the increasing constriction
of government budgets. These in turn have caused a scaling back of science R&D which I believe
will have huge but incalculable negative effects in coming years. How do you measure the cost
of failing to find a cure for a disease? Or failing to develop technologies to reverse climate
change? Or just to double the charge duration of electric batteries under load? As I have argued
elsewhere, the most important economic activity a society engages in us the development and diffusion
of new science and technology.
Intellectually poisoned by his social environment perhaps. The biggest problems with this piece
were its sweeping generalizations about unquantified socio-political trends. The things that academic
economists are least trained in; the things they speak about in passing without much thought.
I.e. Descriptions of political 'populism' that lumps Peronists, 19th century U.S. prairie populists,
Trump, and Sanders all into one neat category. Because, social movements driven by immiseration
of the common man are interchangeable like paper cups at a fast food restaurant.
Agree with much of what you comment .I believe that the conditions you describe are conveniently
dismissed by the pro economists as: "Externalities" LOL!! They seem to dump everything that doesn't
correlate to their dream of "Free Markets", "Globalization", etc .into that category .you gotta
love 'em!!
Rodrik is also wrong about the historical origins of agrarian populism in USA. It was not trade,
but the oligopoly power of railroads, farm equipment makers, and banks that were the original
grievances of the Grangers, Farmers Alliances after the Civil War.
In fact, the best historian of USA agrarian populism, Lawrence Goodwyn, argued that it was
exactly the populists' reluctant alliance with Byran in the 1896 election that destroyed the populist
movement. It was not so much an issue of the gold standard, as it was "hard money" vs "soft money"
: gold AND silver vs the populists' preference for greenbacks, and currency and credit issued
by US Treasury instead of the eastern banks.
A rough analogy is that Byran was the Hillary Clinton
of his day, with the voters not given any way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or
the House of Morgan.
"the oligopoly power of railroads, farm equipment makers, and banks that were the original
grievances "
That power was expressed in total control of the Congress and Presidential office. Then, as
now, the 80-90% of the voters had neither R or D party that represented their economic, property,
and safety interests. Given the same economic circumstances, if one party truly pushed for ameliorating
regulations or programs the populist movement would be unnecessary. Yes, Bryan was allowed to
run (and he had a large following) and to speak at the Dem convention, much like Bernie today.
The "Bourbon Democrats" kept firm control of the party and downed Jennings' programs just as the
neolib Dem estab today keep control of the party out of the hands of progressives.
an aside: among many things, the progressives pushed for good government (ending cronyism),
trust busting, and honest trade, i.e not selling unfit tinned and bottled food as wholesome food.
Today, we could use an "honest contracts and dealings" act to regulate the theft committed by
what the banks call "honest contract enforcement", complete with forges documents. (Upton Sinclair
wrote The Jungle (1906) about the meatpacking industry. What would he make of today's mortgage
industry, or insurance industry, for example.)
For an author and article so interested in international trade, I'm fascinated by the lack
of evidence or argumentation that trade is the problem. The real issue being described here is
excessive inequality delivered through authoritarianism, not international trade. The intra-city
divergence between a hospital administrator and a home health aid is a much bigger problem in
the US than trade across national borders. The empire abroad and the police state at home is a
much bigger problem than competition from China or Mexico. Etc. Blaming international trade for
domestic policies (and opposition to them) is just simple misdirection and xenophobia, nothing
more.
I take exception to most of Prof. Rodrik's post, which is filled with factual and/or logical
inaccuracies.
"Populism appears to be a recent phenomenon, but it has been on the rise for quite some time
(Figure 1)."
Wrong. Pretending that a historical generic is somehow new Populism has been around since
at least the time of Jesus or William Wallace or the American Revolution or FDR.
"What all these share is an anti-establishment orientation, a claim to speak for the people
against the elites, opposition to liberal economics and globalisation, and often (but not always)
a penchant for authoritarian governance."
Wrong. Creating a straw man through overgeneralization. Just because one country's "populism"
appears to have taken on a certain color, does not mean the current populist movement in another
part of the world will be the same. The only essential characteristics of populism are the anti-establishment
orientation and seeking policies that will redress an imbalance in which some elites have aggrandized
themselves unjustly at the expense of the rest of the people. The rest of the items in the list
above are straw men in a generalization. Rise of authoritarian (non-democratic) governance after
a populist uprising implies the rise of a new elite and would be a failure, a derailing of the
populist movement – not a characteristic of it.
"Correspondingly, the efficiency gains of trade liberalisation become progressively smaller
as the barriers get lower."
If, in fact, we were seeing lower trade barriers, and this was driving populism, this whole
line of reasoning might have some value. But as it is, well over half the US economy is either
loaded with barriers, subject to monopolistic pricing, or has not seen any "trade liberalization".
Pharmaceuticals, despite being commodities, have no common global price the way, say, oil does.
Oil hasn't had lowered barriers, though, and thus doesn't count in favor of the argument either.
When China, Japan and Europe drop their import barriers, and all of them plus the U.S. get serious
about antitrust enforcement, there might be a case to be made
"It is useful to distinguish between left-wing and right-wing variants of populism"
Actually it isn't. The salient characteristic of populism is favoring the people vs. the establishment.
The whole left/right dichotomy is a creation of the establishment, used to divide the public and
PREVENT an effective populist backlash. As Gore Vidal astutely pointed out decades ago, there
is really only one party in the U.S. – the Property Party – and the Ds and Rs are just two heads
of the same hydra. Especially in the past 10 years or so.
About the only thing the author gets right is the admission that certain economic policies
unjustly create pain among many groups of people, leading to popular retribution. But that's not
insightful, especially since he fails to address the issue quantitatively and identify WHICH policies
have created the bulk of the pain. For instance, was more damage done by globalization, or by
the multi-trillion-$ fleecing of the U.S. middle class by the bankers and federal reserve during
the recent housing bubble and aftermath? What about the more recent ongoing fleecing of the government
and the people by the healthcare cartels, at about $1.5-2 trillion/year in the U.S.?
What arouses popular opposition is not inequality per se, but perceived unfairness.
Which is the primary worldview setting for the neo-reactionary right in America. Everything
is a question of whether or not ones income was "fairly earned."
So you get government employees
and union members voting for politicians who've practically declared war against those voters'
class, but vote for them anyway because they set their arguments in a mode of fairness morality:
You can vote for the party of hard workers, or the party of handouts to the lazy. Which is why
China keeps getting depicted as a currency manipulator and exploiter of free trade agreements.
Economic rivals can only succeed via "cheating," not being industrious like the US.
That describes a number of my relatives and their friends. They are union members and government
employees yet hold hard right-wing views and are always complaining about lazy moochers living
on welfare. I ask them why they love the Republicans so much when this same party demonizes union
members and public employees as overpaid and lazy and the usual answer is that Republicans are
talking about some other unions or other government employees, usually teachers.
I suspect that the people in my anecdote hate public school teachers and their unions because
they are often female and non-white or teach in areas with a lot of minority children. I see this
a lot with white guys in traditional masculine industrial unions. They sometimes look down on
unions in fields that have many female and non-white members, teachers being the best example
I can think of.
"... Nobody should have any doubts about the determination of this former Rothschild banker to carry out his mission, which is none other than to be the Margaret Thatcher of France. In any case, if he was chosen for this role, it is precisely because he has been trained for decades in the most absolute discipline and because he does not seem to have any particular emotional ties with his own country. It is not a professional politician but a man of "the markets" and of Finance who has come to govern France. If there is anyone who is determined to display as much harshness as is necessary and to take as many risks as are necessary, that person is Macron. ..."
"... Macron's appearance, the day that he won the election, was flawless. Even his arrogance evidently served as a reminder to the French that he came from the class that is destined to govern. His speech was a series of generalities, which could have been delivered a century in the past or a century in the future. Except at one point: where he skewered via the terms "extremisms" the Left and the far Right, serving notice that his aim was war against them. ..."
"... The banker-President has come to disencumber the country of all of this type of thing. His amazing success: entering politics and becoming President of France within three years, is a reflection of the massive power, influence and potential of finance capital, the Empire of Davos, in our era. ..."
"... This is probably Finance Capital's "Plan B". But after the election of Trump and the Brexit there came the Dutch, and now the French, elections, to curb (temporarily?) its impetus. ..."
"... Macron's victory gives the EU a reprieve, staving off the likelihood of a sudden death, even though it would be a mistake for anyone to assume that its crisis has been overcome. ..."
"... In the final analysis Macron probably won because France did not trust (this time) a lady of the far right, which seemed dangerous to it, but also because it felt the Left is not yet ready. This delay in the manifestation of the crisis will most probably contribute to its revealing itself more powerfully at a certain point. ..."
"... This is ensured in any case by today's European elites, who are more than ever dependent on, and guided by Finance and so persist in precisely the policies that caused the crisis, the discontent and the rebellion. ..."
Macron "scooped the pool and decamped" in the second round of the French presidential elections,
scoring an easy victory over Marine Le Pen. Her performance was in any case so bad in the last week
of the pre-election campaign that it led some commentators to the conclusion that the National Front
did not want to be required to govern.
We have to wait and see if Macron consolidates his victory in the parliamentary elections also.
But already both the Socialist Party and the Right, the two traditional parties of power in the country,
project a picture of total disintegration and decay, with their cadres leaping into the water like
rodents from a sinking ship and heading for the safety of Macron.
Consummating the humiliation of France's political class, former "socialist" Prime Minister Manuel
Valls pronounced the Socialist Party dead and affirmed his transposition to the party of Macron,
for which he said he intended to be a parliamentary candidate. Only to receive the public answer
from the party of his former Minister that he must submit his application through the Internet, following
the procedures applicable for everyone. Finally they told him that his services are not required.
But even if in the parliamentary elections he achieves the institutional omnipotence that is his
dream, Macron and his ideas remain isolated and espoused by a minority in French society, as indicated
by analysis of the results of the first and second round of the presidential elections. The capture
of the GS & M factory by its workers, who threaten to blow it up as these lines are being written,
is a reminder that the tasks the new President has been set, or has set himself, will not be in any
way easy.
A man of the "Markets" and of "Finance"
Nobody should have any doubts about the determination of this former Rothschild banker to carry
out his mission, which is none other than to be the Margaret Thatcher of France. In any case, if
he was chosen for this role, it is precisely because he has been trained for decades in the most
absolute discipline and because he does not seem to have any particular emotional ties with his own
country. It is not a professional politician but a man of "the markets" and of Finance who has come
to govern France. If there is anyone who is determined to display as much harshness as is necessary
and to take as many risks as are necessary, that person is Macron.
His hagiographers are now proliferating in the French press at the speed of mushrooms in the forest
after rain. Many would like to liken him to Napoleon. Aware, though, that they would run the risk
of being ridiculed, they confine themselves to reminders that since the Emperor the country has never
had such a young ruler.
But this Napoleon does not plan to start any war with the monarchs of Europe, who linked themselves
together, funded – it is said – by Rothschild, to strangle revolutionary France. His campaigns will
be on the domestic front, like those of Thiers. Recall also that the Paris Commune emerged from the
refusal of the people of France to accept their country's capitulation to Germany.
Macron's appearance, the day that he won the election, was flawless. Even his arrogance evidently
served as a reminder to the French that he came from the class that is destined to govern. His speech
was a series of generalities, which could have been delivered a century in the past or a century
in the future. Except at one point: where he skewered via the terms "extremisms" the Left and the
far Right, serving notice that his aim was war against them.
The only half-way human spontaneous element of M. Macron on his day of victory was at the end
of celebrations, his embarrassed laugh when he was the only one in the group not to sing the Marseillaise.
Either he did not know the words or he could not sing them.
If there is one song that the ruling class of France hates it is the country's national anthem,
summoning the citizenry "to arms". And the same applies for the national rallying emblem
"Liberté,
égalité, fraternité."
The banker-President has come to disencumber the country of all of this type of thing. His amazing
success: entering politics and becoming President of France within three years, is a reflection of
the massive power, influence and potential of finance capital, the Empire of Davos, in our era.
At the international level, Macron's victory discontinues, at least temporarily, the string of
successes of the most radical wing of the Western establishment which, persuaded that Fukuyama-type
"benign globalization" is not making much progress, decided to place its bets on the "Huntington
model" of the war of civilizations.
This is probably Finance Capital's "Plan B". But after the election of Trump and the Brexit there
came the Dutch, and now the French, elections, to curb (temporarily?) its impetus.
Macron's victory gives the EU a reprieve, staving off the likelihood of a sudden death, even though
it would be a mistake for anyone to assume that its crisis has been overcome.
And how could it overcome it when the predominant political forces on the continent, Berlin and
the Commission, persist with insouciance of a Marie Antoinette, in the same policies of administering
to the patient the medicine that is killing him.
A minority president
The new president was elected by a minority of French voters in absolute terms and many who voted
for him did not endorse his program but wanted to block Le Pen.
* In contrast to Chirac, who won 82% of the vote against Jean-Marie Le Pen in 2002, Macron
obtained only 65%.
* For the first time since 1969 participation in the second round smaller (by 3%) than in the
first.
* Τhe 12% figure for spoiled or blank ballots was an absolute record for the Fifth Republic
(in 2012 it was 5.8%)
* 42% of those with the right to vote supported Macron and of those, according to public opinion
polls, only 55% agreed with his ideas.
The results of the first round are genuinely representative of the political preferences of the
French, half of whom voted for political forces opposed to the European Union in its present form.
If we factor in the votes for "La France Insoumise", Mélenchon, the left-wing Socialist Hamon
and the two Trotskyist candidates, we see that they account for 27% of the votes in the first round,
slightly more than the proportion of votes that went to the far right and the anti-systemic Right
Gaullists of Dupon-Aignan. Even if we do not count Hamon, we are still speaking of more than 50%
"anti-systemic" votes, in a European country of central importance.
Hamon, remember, supported policies which, if implemented, would have led to clashes with Brussels.
The reason that we include him in an intermediate category is that he was clearly unwilling to proceed
to a break with the EU for the sake of imposing them.
In other words 50-55% of voters favor "antisystemic" parties, whether of the Left, the Right or
the extreme Right.
55% was also the percentage of the French who voted against the draft European Constitutional
Treaty (in essence the Maastricht structure) in the 2005 referendum. But at that time there were
no political subjects in France to articulate this "No". And the deep structural economic crisis
of 2008 had not yet broken.
France became the second country in the EU, after Greece, where the majority of citizens voted
for parties declaring themselves to be "antisystemic". Confirming that we are in a situation of profound
and intensifying structural, not cyclical, crisis of Western capitalism and its political system,
of a depth, though not of an intensity, comparable to that of the 1929 crisis.
As occurred in the 1930s, the crisis tends to generate radical political subjects on the left
and the far right, particularly in relatively stronger countries such as France, Britain and the
United States, which can more easily imagine relying on their own forces. In weaker countries radicalization
has manifested itself mainly on the Left, as with SYRIZA and PODEMOS.
A geopolitical Weimar
Not only are there significant structural similarities between the socio-political crisis of today's
Europe and that of the Weimar Republic (1919-33) in interwar Germany. Geopolitically today Europe
is also reminiscent of the 1930s and early 1940s . By all indications it is under German hegemony,
with only two countries at the opposite extremes challenging the desiderata of Berlin: Putin's Russia
to the east, obliged almost against its will to resist the West. And to the west Britain, whose ruling
class dreams of a more powerful role for London, for the benefit always of the rising "Empire of
Finance" and the USA.
Italy comes over as the perennial opportunist and vacillator, as in the time of Mussolini, prior
to his final decision to side with Hitler. Poland reminds us in some ways of Pilsudski's heyday.
Spain seems to have withdrawn into its own peninsula, as it did then. A special case on the European
periphery is Turkey, which is bargaining for its international position, not to mention another non-European
country, which did not exist in the interwar period, Israel, but exerts massive influence over European,
and even more so Mediterranean, developments.
Of course "German hegemony" over Europe always remains under the supervision of Finance, of the
IMF, of the USA and NATO, which take care from time to time to remind Berlin of the limits of the
permissible, and to impose them.
France has for some time positioned itself in a stance of submission and subordination to Germany,
somewhat reminiscent – naturally with all due allowances for the very different conditions – of the
Vichy regime of General Petain.
France is now , mutandis mutandis , in the position Germany was towards the victors of
the First World War. This is why there is a potential for developing both a leftist radical and a
far right answer, as happened with Germany in the intrawar period, when it vacillated between the
Left and Hitler, ending with the Nazis, given the incompetence and betrayal of both German Social
Democrats and Communists.
France, Germany and the EU
In Berlin signs of relief greeted the election of Macron in preference to Le Pen. They were soon
followed, however, by warnings both from Germany and from the Brussels Commission to the newly elected
President not to expect relaxation of "fiscal discipline".
Macron has the support of the "International of Finance", of which he is any case a representative.
But despite the fact that Berlin allied itself with this "International" to impose its priorities
on Europe, the German Right has no desire to expend the German surpluses on assisting its allies
or the revival of the European and international economy, despite the fact that Mr. Gabriel (but
not Mr. Schulz) and certain Green politicians are beginning to flirt with the idea, judging that
the maintenance of German hegemony requires somewhat greater flexibility.
It remains to be seen what Macron is going to do, given that he must on the one hand confront
a very real, albeit dissimulated, "civilized" German nationalism and on the other prepare to proceed
with the demolition of labour law in his own country.
The resurrection of the Left
France is a country that has made ten revolutions in two centuries. From the Popular Front to
the post-war predominance of the Communist Party, from the Trotskyists' struggle for the Algerian
Revolution up to May 1968 and the Socialist Party's electoral victory in 1981, the Left has set its
seal on the country's history.
Many believed that this tradition has died, along with the distinction between Left and Right,
with the total capitulation of the Socialist Party to neoliberalism, in conditions of progressive
cultural decline and "Americanization". The traditional socialist culture of the popular classes
survived, but in a state of perennial defensiveness, without ideological-political representatives
or a presence in the media. What remained of social revolt began to emigrate to the far right, the
National Front of Marine Le Pen.
Until the underlying social demand for a true, authentic left met up with the political drive
of Mélenchon and a miracle, a resurrection, occurred, a Left was born that has some connection with
its name.
Mélenchon's result in the first round must be seen as historic. It brings to a close the era of
Socialist Party hegemony that opened with the Epinay congress in 1971, a development analogous to
SYRIZA's eclipse of PASOK.
There is nothing accidental about this result for Mélenchon. It reflects the enormous demand in
all of the Western world for an authentic Left wing. A recent poll showed that 45% of American youth
would vote socialist and 21% communist, although socialists and communists are almost non-existent
in the US (or perhaps also because they are non-existent!). A few days ago a majority of British
people opted in opinion polls for the Leftist electoral program of the Labour Party, which provides
for renationalization of the railways, the Post Office and water, with corresponding measures to
that effect.
It appears to have been pre-planned from the outset that the electoral game in France would go
the way it went, with a match between Macron and Le Pen. Only against Le Pen was Macron assured of
victory. Only against the Macron-Rothschild and deploying every dissident element in her arsenal
could Le Pen have any hope of attaining credibility.
Mélenchon's performance, challenging Le Pen's monopoly over expression of social dissent and revolt,
changed the situational data. And we cannot know what would have happened if the terrorist attack
had not taken place on the eve of the first round, strengthening Macron, stabilizing Fillon and assisting
with exclusion of Mélenchon.
"La France Insoumise" won more than three times as many votes as the Socialist candidate. Its
rise has been as spectacular as that of SYRIZA, Corbyn and Sanders. Of course getting off to a very
good start by no means ensures that the sequel will be as propitious. Problems frequently arise in
the next stage as the tragic experience of the Greek betrayal and disaster has already amply proven.
In the case of France the problems emerged immediately with the sectarianism and the inability
of the French Left as a whole to coalesce for the parliamentary elections. Given France's super-majoritarian,
two-round, profoundly undemocratic electoral system, this failure may have adverse consequences when
it comes to the final number of left-wing members in parliament.
In the final analysis Macron probably won because France did not trust (this time) a lady of the
far right, which seemed dangerous to it, but also because it felt the Left is not yet ready. This
delay in the manifestation of the crisis will most probably contribute to its revealing itself more
powerfully at a certain point.
This is ensured in any case by today's European elites, who are more than ever dependent on, and
guided by Finance and so persist in precisely the policies that caused the crisis, the discontent
and the rebellion.
Dimitris Konstantakopoulos is a journalist and writer, former Secretary of the Independent
Citizens Movement, former member SYRIZA's Central Committee, current editorial board member of the
international magazine Utopia Review, ex-chief of the Greek Press Agency office in Moscow, formerly
served as Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou's adviser in East-West relations and arms control.
Le Pen was similar to Trump in her desire to improve the relations with Russia and generally more
realistic view of recent events. she is not a USA stooge. That probably a partial reason why she lost.
Macron is somewhat like French Obama a shadow figure who is a marionette of forces behind him, not a
actual politician.
Notable quotes:
"... the 'abstain in disgust' demographic has been over-hyped from the day after results were announced. ..."
"... the abstain thing was overhyped for one and only reason, put the "shame" on the the left so that'll cut their chances for the June Legsilatives election (the one that counts contrary to the sunday joke). ..."
"... It's the only reason all major tv/radio/newspapers spent the last 2 weeks vociferating against Melenchon & his voters as "irresponsible" while 90% of those insulted will NOT vote for Le Pen. That would be total nonsense if the thing those media were fighting was Le Pen... ..."
"... Problem is with the media and the establishment EU globalists, all dissenting and opposite views will be quashed even further under the 'fighting terrorism' guise. People will be smeared, fined, arrested, jailed, whatever it takes for them to maintain a grip on power. ..."
"... Yes the russian-hating-blaming-millionare Macron will win no doubt, the election is more or less fixed after the propaganda campaing for him everywhere in the west. The same Macron and MSM are already cooking up disinformation about russian hackers, theese people are insane, and its also a sign of what policy he will carry out. ..."
"... Long term though? Next election Le Pen or whoever rule her party will win. It will also cause more extremism because the elite under Macron wont deal with regular people and their problems but with the elite. ..."
"... to be fair though, those emails leaks seem totally dull. I browsed what I could, it's just generic staff chat, campaign bills to pay, bills to make, yadda yadda Whoever got the mail passwords few months ago must have waited for something juicy to land and since nothing really interesting came up, they're just posting the whole stock as is. Won't make the slightest difference on sunday. ..."
"... Exactly. I wouldnt be surprised if its Macron team itself that leaked this dull, uninportant stuff to show that "russians have interfered". ..."
"... Macron won 1st step with the intense fear campaign spammed on our heads during 6 months. I know plenty reasonable people who voted Macron while they hardly can stand his program, because they were told hundreds times he was the "best choice" to beat Le Pen. ..."
"... That's so absurd Macron got the most votes last sunday AND at the same time got the LOWEST "adhesion" (adherence ? not sure in english) rate of all 11 candidates, basically nearly half of "his" voters put the bulletin with his name for reasons that have nothing to do with him. ..."
"... they're both pro-Zionist. Just another shell game of an election whilst the media does its assigned job of shouting loudly about some supposed vast gulf existing between the 2 candidates. Having said that, if I was French there's just no way I could vote for a slimy Rothschild banking reptile like Macron. At least Le Pen appears to be an actual human. ..."
"... Without Trump's 100 first days, le Pen would probably have done better, possibly even taken it. The French have been given full flood propaganda that Marine le Pen is the equivalent of Donald Trump. She is not. There are some similarities, but le Pen is more nuanced than Trump, far more experienced in politics, and would be at least somewhat more consistent with her campaign promises. ..."
"... That said, she is not the economic "populist" many imagine and many more hope for. Her actual platform would be remarkably like that of Obama or Hillary; neoliberal. ..."
"... she might make improvements in, and the emphasis should be on "might", one of them is avoiding participation in every war that the US starts up in the Middle East as well as all the Putin bashing that is de rigeur for US allies ..."
"... long term outcome of globalists verses nationalists? the globalists are going to win, and full on slavery will continue to ensue.. the younger generations will not see the comforts and lifestyle their parents enjoyed - far from it in fact.. freedoms will be clamped down, alternative views will be made illegal and stuff like that.. after that, there is a small chance people will possibly wake up, but i wouldn't count on it.. ..."
"... " the epic fight of globalists versus nationalists" No. It is the epic fight of corporatists versus nationalists. ..."
"... Corporations are trying to assert themselves as bigger, better and more powerful than states. Time to remind corporatists that they exist only at the will and control of a state. By allowing a corporation to establish themselves, the state should be their front, Potemkin village or not. ..."
"... A strand in F politics / commentators etc. brands him as a candidat fabriqué , a candidat du système a sort of cut-out ersatz pol, created and boosted by the financial elites, Mega Corps., banking - as he worked for Rotschild, etc. The MSM, particularly magazines... ensuring his win with 24/24 favorable coverage. Sure, he is young, good-looking, etc. ..."
"... Some gays support Macron as rumors about him being gay with his older wife as a 'mommy type cover' indulging in an affair with some sultry media guy. ..."
"... Macron is an opportunist taking advantage of the break-down of trad. F politics - death of the Socialist party, divisions on the right, oppos parties no clout, Sarkozy despised, Hollande then more so.. to present a quasi 'evangelical' solution as a last ditch effort against decline, sinking GDP per capita, > as 'collaborationist' with the US-EU-NATO - etc. He is most likely quite, or semi-sincere, in his desire to fix it all. A 'maverick' who is yet 'hyper conventional' - a very conventional profile! ..."
"... You're right about Trump I think. Even if the 100 day benchmark is arbitrary it's something that's paid a lot of attention. It's been very unsettling for a lot of Americans. Other countries have been watching closely. They watched as Trump front loaded his cabinet with bankers and generals. They wondered whatever happened to nonintervention and draining the swamp. They wondered if the demonization of certain religious and ethnic groups was the harbinger of a brave new world that wasn't all that brave or all that new. His attack on all things environmental, while weather events become worse year by year, strictly to accommodate big business is another problem. So is the new health bill that gives the coup de grâce to any idea that he's the champion of the common man. ..."
"... In any case the French election will go a long way to determining if the new philosophy of undoing all the constructs since WW11 is what the people want. it's starting to look like it isn't. The losers are sure to cry that big finance and the press skewered the vote but it might just be that the French are happy the way things are. ..."
"... Macron will be to France what Obama has been to the US. Just like Obama's presidency made possible Trump's victory four years later, Macron's presidency will make possible a Front National victory in five years. ..."
"... The Chancellors of the French universities have asked their students to vote Macron. (Link in French) Not a single Chancellor has asked students to vote Le Pen. The same can be said of the French press. The media barrage in favor of Macron has been so one-sided, some Frenchmen call their country jokingly "East Corea" ..."
"... I find it difficult to hear people praising Le Pen who won't have to live under her presidency. Let me remind you that Europe had more than its share of nationalist wars, and the last thing the continent needs are governments adding fuel to the fire of existing tensions. Macron is a puppet, but in the end he'll do what's necessary to stabilize things. Le Pen might well blow things up and lead to civil war. ..."
"... I am not a supporter of Le Pen and hell no, not supporter of a "French Trump" Macron, Yes, it is Macron in my opinion that is French Trump, a Flaccid Clown of Global Oligarchy while Le Pen is slightly reversed Sanders as far as elements of political platform that matter for ordinary people in France and the US. ..."
"... Brilliant move by Marine Le Pen was to campaign on her own more centrist platform and not be obliged to follow strictly FN platform as a FN leader would have to follow. ..."
"... In fact as Macron was first who shed his discrediting Socialist label as hated Hollande minister, now Le Pen shed her FN right-wing and neo-fascist label to commence entirely new campaign as true French populist and nationalist. ..."
"... She already told French that they have a clear choice between neoliberal oligarchic rule of globalists under a thieving investment banker or French people rule under populist leader liken to de Gaulle. ..."
"... Does she have a chance against unified block of French MSM media and Globalist media worldwide, against slander, lies and fake news, against 95% of largest French press being against her? Not likely, especial that as it was documented CIA has capabilities and used them to manipulate french elections already in the past. But it is more complicated than that and Marine Le Pen is not Trump. ..."
"... The Macron campaign identified the first tweet referring to the documents as coming from the Twitter account of Nathan Damigo , a far-right activist and convicted felon based in northern California. Damigo is known on social media for punching a female anti-fascist in the face at a Berkeley protest. ..."
"... Originated online in California, just before the 2.5 hour debate between Le Pen and Macron. ..."
"... Melenchon is the one to listen to to understand the situation in France. While he didn't make it into round two, he has a good chance of a large parliamentary victory in the round of elections after the presidential one. He's been locked out of the English-language press in the U.S. and Britain (he falls outside their narrow spectrum of acceptable political views) so you have to read the French press (I use Google Translate) or watch his youtube (with subcaptions) channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsGkA4TXqyw ..."
"... In order to combat mass immigration, which is mainly internal to developing countries, the causes of migration must be tackled: the impossibility of any development in the countries of departure, due to debts and Structural adjustment policies imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, the plundering of resources by multinationals and free trade. ..."
"... Outside the fact most media pre-prepare their headlines for such occasions when time does not allow for late information to be disseminated by normal publishing procedures, the Dewey / Truman was marked by the media believing their own propaganda to the extent they became divorced from reality. This recently has shown its tracks in the Clinton / Trump campaign with 'interesting result' - the Russians did it! ..."
"... Macron has no effective political party in the French parliament, the fictional party he was supported by has no parliamentary standing and is unlikely to obtain standing. ..."
"... she has said that she won't allow French citizens to have Israeli passports ..."
"... Those Francophone African countries that are part of the West African and Central African Franc currency zones were among the most enthusiastic backers of Colonel Muammar Gaddhafi's pan-African "gold dinar" economic market. No wonder Nicolas Sarkozy signed onto the US no-fly zone over Libya idiocy tout de suite in 2011. ..."
"... The relative lack of power of France made me wonder the real reason why they led the NATO attack on Libya. Was it the financial dealings between Sarkozy and Gaddhafi like some sites say or were they really prodded by the US to lead the way of the overall game plan? ..."
"... Macron's dirty secrets according to The Duran: http://theduran.com/breaking-macron-emails-lead-to-allegations-of-drug-use-homosexual-adventurism-and-rothschild-money/ ..."
"... Le Pen voters, who decry globalisation, foreignors, terrorists, muslims, etc. / the remnants of the left (socialist - Trotskyist - add anarchist - ..), who voted Mélenchon or not at all / those who are 'foreign' - outcasts in any case - and thus can't rally to Le Pen or to anyone.. and just keep their heads down. ..."
"... The divide-to-rule strategy has worked perfectly on these workers. In two factories I know of, the 3 different groups don't speak to each other, except as routine politeness / ugly jokes small skirmish etc., as they are all in the same boat, subject to the same oppressive rules, etc. though some contacts/friendships cross these lines. ..."
"... Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to vomit. Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the crap people post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they are to believe the lies. ..."
"... As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that I find rather rational considering all the craziness taking place. ..."
"... Good short summmary: The Truth About Macron https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6H0cjIN4gw ..."
"... n America, American Voters in the USA elections, are allowed to elect by majority vote, either of two persons(for each position); but the between candidate platforms, boil down to the same side of two identical coins. Those elected are paid a salary to operate the USA for the benefit of, and "according to" the "allowed policy" established by, those in control of the national policy. ..."
"... The French election is not about choice of platforms, but instead, the French election is about choice of persons to be paid to execute the allowed platforms. The range of choices in the French election.. and in republics throughout the world, has been and is, limited to candidates who subscribe to "allowed platforms". It is clear to me, the policies the candidates will be paid, if elected, to execute are, all the same in every Republic, around the globe. ..."
"... That all the evils in western society are the fault of the external bogeyman. Putin, ISIS Refugees, Asian footwear makers, whatever. ..."
"... Is that your services & politicians Would never pull a false leak or a controlled leak or a limited hangout. That they are angels that sit on their hands. ..."
"... These two underpin the absolute lunacy we have seen unfold before our eyes. An extraordinarily dangerous situation to be in which is getting worse fast. ..."
"... Everyone backed the wrong horse. Instead of pushing for JL Melenchon who's also a non-interventionist on foreign policy from the very beginning as opposed to the unpopular candidate of Sarkozy's party, F. Fillon, and then the Islamophobe Le Pen, you'all had to back Le Pen who had no chance in hell of winning because she scared not only Muslims but many on the Left. ..."
"... Obomo praises Emmanuel Macron well run campaign and like Emmanuel Macron's "Liberal value" . Good ridden! ..."
"... Last year, when Joe visited the US, we were discussing the US presidential campaign and Bernie Sanders. Joe and I agreed that the West is experiencing a general political meltdown. Joe then went on to describe the default pattern that EU elections follow: ..."
"... The prospective candidates are inevitably the "Usual Suspects", i.e. centrist/moderate careerist technocrats, the odd "maverick" or two with limited, cultlike support-- and The Extremist ..."
"... The Establishment power elite, institutions, and complicit mass-media begin an orchestrated howling: "Anybody But [insert Extremist du jour here]!" ..."
"... The "Anybody But!" coalition throws massive resources into a public relations campaign to generate mass hysterical fear at the prospect that The Extremist may win and lead the nation straight to Hell. ..."
"... The terrified, confused, hysterical, panic-stricken public accordingly falls in line and elects the favorite centrist/moderate careerist technocrat who will perpetuate the neoliberal status quo. ..."
"... The Establishment power elite and its mass-media megaphone will effusively praise the inconquerable wisdom and good sense of The People in once again Saving the Republic by rejecting a dangerous Extremist. ..."
"... Macron is a shark (report from the family), not a victim of the banksters. He followed May's strategy in UK of staying quiet till elected. Future policy: not merely a bankster, but also the son of a conservative family of doctors from Amiens. So not a pure neo-liberal, as has been suggested, but someone who is forced by his family background to take their point of view into account. ..."
"... The prospect is not too bad. Other than in foreign policy, where he has declared himself against the Asad regime in Syria. I don't take that too seriously. Once in power, he may discover what is implied in attacking Asad, that is war against Russia, and he may hesitate. ..."
"... I am French. Macron won because of an unprecedented media onslaught that led 25% of voters who don't know their heads for their a... to vote for him in the first round, while the media had blocked anyone but Macron and Le Pen from getting to the second round. That's because they know that people would elect a head of lettuce if that head of lettuce was running against Le Pen. ..."
"... You see, the US only stopped major civil war kind of s... because Trump won, which disarmed the anger of the disenfranchised masses. Unfortunately, in France, Emmanuel Clinton won. And the French extreme left wing, who hates Macron's guts, can be dangerous. I mean, physically dangerous. Other clear-headed observers than Gave are already mumbling words like "barricades" and "civil war". ..."
"... What does that say about any French thinking their vote matters? Look at the choices they were "offered". ..."
"... the parallels between obama and micro seem very strong ... someone linked elsewhere - on the open thread - to a biography of obama that had him making decisions with an eye to future "political showbiz" career at an early age. ..."
"... the 'destiny' of the 'political' showbiz - class seems now to be to surf the waves of financial power, all pretense to politics long gone. probably always thus, to a great extent. but with the need for real politics so striking now - the disaster to be had for relying on autopilot more apparent than ever - so too is the self-centeredness of the showbiz personalities. ..."
"... If Macron manages to trick the French fools again and his non-existing party actually gets a majority in parliament, I expect things to go South before his first mandate is over. ..."
"... A total of 4.2 million of French voters cast empty ballots in the presidential run-off on Synday, a survey conducted by Ispos and Sopra Steria said ....8.9 percent of the total of 47.6 million voters cast empty ballots, refusing to give their support to either of the candidates." ..."
The French 2017 election has become the battle of the status quo; one a historical myth (La Pen)
providing some comfort from a perceived tradition, the other of hidden political power looking
to perpetuate itself by stealth and deception (Macron). Should the French electorate decide that
silence can be an effective form of a lie, they can support the candidate which best meets the
voter's best interests. La Pen is a candidate of a legitimate but small political party; Macron
has, like any good magician, produced a facsimile political group, a crypto-political party. Taking
a page from U.S. political history, lies never produce the results they promise. Good luck France,
reach into your conscious and vote your best interests Sunday. The world awaits your collective
decision if politics still operates in France.
"It seems clear so far the the synthetic Rothschild candidate will win this round."
That's the way it's shaping up, despite the weirdness of Obama adding his name to the Kiss
Of Death list of pro-Micron Swamp Dwellers headed by such unpopular has-beens as Hollande, Sarkozy
et al.
There's too much contrived 'flexibility' in this charade. In Round 1 the voter-participation
rate settled at 77.1% after early cites that it was a fraction under 70%. That's a huge jump in
a factor which normally reveals reliable trends. Also the 'abstain in disgust' demographic has
been over-hyped from the day after results were announced.
The final outcome will hinge on how gullible/docile French voters are, historically-speaking.
the abstain thing was overhyped for one and only reason, put the "shame" on the the left so that'll
cut their chances for the June Legsilatives election (the one that counts contrary to the sunday
joke).
It's the only reason all major tv/radio/newspapers spent the last 2 weeks vociferating
against Melenchon & his voters as "irresponsible" while 90% of those insulted will NOT vote for
Le Pen. That would be total nonsense if the thing those media were fighting was Le Pen...
France will be rudderless, adrift, enduring a exponential increase in violence and internal political
and cultural strife. Then, next election Le Pen will nab it. They aren't there yet.
Problem is with the media and the establishment EU globalists, all dissenting and opposite
views will be quashed even further under the 'fighting terrorism' guise. People will be smeared,
fined, arrested, jailed, whatever it takes for them to maintain a grip on power.
I see the UK is now wanting to introduce more investigatory powers on the web essentially eliminating
end to end encryption. The EU countries are going to go full Big Brother before they let the populist
right movement gain any more traction. Again, they may only be delaying the inevitable.
Yes the russian-hating-blaming-millionare Macron will win no doubt, the election is more or
less fixed after the propaganda campaing for him everywhere in the west.
The same Macron and MSM are already cooking up disinformation about russian hackers, theese people
are insane, and its also a sign of what policy he will carry out.
Pro-bankers
Pro-war
Pro-establishment
Anti-Russia
Pro-Nato
Pro EU
Long term though? Next election Le Pen or whoever rule her party will win. It will also cause
more extremism because the elite under Macron wont deal with regular people and their problems
but with the elite.
I cant see why anyone would vote for Macron, even his eyes/looks are slimy.
Another Leaks about emails, this time about Macron. The difference is that nobody is allowed to
publish any part of it by the electoral commission (15,000 euros fine). No doubt there will be
a huge crackdown on alt media once he gets elected.
France is an occupied country, much more than the US
to be fair though, those emails leaks seem totally dull. I browsed what I could, it's just
generic staff chat, campaign bills to pay, bills to make, yadda yadda Whoever got the mail passwords
few months ago must have waited for something juicy to land and since nothing really interesting
came up, they're just posting the whole stock as is. Won't make the slightest difference on sunday.
@jen : what possibility ? none Macron won 1st step with the intense fear campaign spammed on our heads during 6 months. I
know plenty reasonable people who voted Macron while they hardly can stand his program, because
they were told hundreds times he was the "best choice" to beat Le Pen. And that's it. They
probably don't fully believe it, but the doubt was hammered deep in their mind, and they won't
take the (imaginary) risk to appear the on "wrong" side of history and be shamed for years...
And the same thing will obviously happen tomorrow.
That's so absurd Macron got the most votes last sunday AND at the same time got the LOWEST
"adhesion" (adherence ? not sure in english) rate of all 11 candidates, basically nearly half
of "his" voters put the bulletin with his name for reasons that have nothing to do with him.
they're both pro-Zionist. Just another shell game of an election whilst the media does its assigned
job of shouting loudly about some supposed vast gulf existing between the 2 candidates. Having
said that, if I was French there's just no way I could vote for a slimy Rothschild banking reptile
like Macron. At least Le Pen appears to be an actual human.
Without Trump's 100 first days, le Pen would probably have done better, possibly even taken
it. The French have been given full flood propaganda that Marine le Pen is the equivalent of Donald
Trump. She is not. There are some similarities, but le Pen is more nuanced than Trump, far more
experienced in politics, and would be at least somewhat more consistent with her campaign promises.
That said, she is not the economic "populist" many imagine and many more hope for. Her
actual platform would be remarkably like that of Obama or Hillary; neoliberal. Of the two
areas she might make improvements in, and the emphasis should be on "might", one of them is
avoiding participation in every war that the US starts up in the Middle East as well as all the
Putin bashing that is de rigeur for US allies . The other is possibly succeeding in upending
the European Union and the Eurozone - which as it stands, does everything for rapacious banks
and an export at any cost dependent Germany, and nothing for anyone else other than a small group
of plutocrats.
long term outcome of globalists verses nationalists? the globalists are going to win, and full
on slavery will continue to ensue.. the younger generations will not see the comforts and lifestyle
their parents enjoyed - far from it in fact.. freedoms will be clamped down, alternative views
will be made illegal and stuff like that.. after that, there is a small chance people will possibly
wake up, but i wouldn't count on it..
in france, terrorism will continue.. in europe a greater
malaise will prevail.. in the world, things look to be falling apart.. maybe more war for all
the wrong reasons, if nothing else.. macron will be onside with global dominance thru the west
of syria.. the usual lame excuses will be trotted out..
" the epic fight of globalists versus nationalists" No. It is the epic fight of corporatists
versus nationalists.
Corporations are trying to assert themselves as bigger, better and more powerful than states.
Time to remind corporatists that they exist only at the will and control of a state. By allowing
a corporation to establish themselves, the state should be their front, Potemkin village or not.
This US has ceded much of their power to corporations. Past time to take it back.
Macron, next Pres. of France, an exceptional person. (I am not a fan.)
A strand in F politics / commentators etc. brands him as a candidat fabriqué , a
candidat du système a sort of cut-out ersatz pol, created and boosted by the financial
elites, Mega Corps., banking - as he worked for Rotschild, etc. The MSM, particularly magazines...
ensuring his win with 24/24 favorable coverage. Sure, he is young, good-looking, etc.
This pov is conveniently conspiratorial, and the media support is real; yet, the MSM merely
follow and go for the winner, in kind of positive feed-back loop, pretty mindless.
"Manu" - pour les intimes - is very clever, tough, and determined to rise / become powerful
since he was a precocious child, attracted to and competing within the world of adults, since
the age of 5? Yes, a psych profile approach is superficial, junky, or only one aspect.
The 'parental' love of his life was his grand-mother. Manu took decisions about his life very
young. At 12 he was baptised Catholic, by his decision. Pic in church first from coll. of pix
young Macron, Gala gossip mag.
At 15 -17 he decided he would marry the teacher B. Trogneux (24 years older than him, with
one child older than him, another the same age and in his class at school), and he managed that.
The 'unconventional' marriage is now 100% accepted, and even a I'd say a 'plus' point, in the
sense that 'different love-lives' tinged with trangression attract support from certain quarters.
Some gays support Macron as rumors about him being gay with his older wife as a 'mommy type
cover' indulging in an affair with some sultry media guy.
Macron is an opportunist taking advantage of the break-down of trad. F politics - death
of the Socialist party, divisions on the right, oppos parties no clout, Sarkozy despised, Hollande
then more so.. to present a quasi 'evangelical' solution as a last ditch effort against decline,
sinking GDP per capita, > as 'collaborationist' with the US-EU-NATO - etc. He is most likely quite,
or semi-sincere, in his desire to fix it all. A 'maverick' who is yet 'hyper conventional' - a
very conventional profile!
@ Gravatomic at 6. Le Pen will never win, the FN will never have a 'prez.' About the social
unrest, yes.
You're right about Trump I think. Even if the 100 day benchmark is arbitrary it's something
that's paid a lot of attention. It's been very unsettling for a lot of Americans. Other countries
have been watching closely. They watched as Trump front loaded his cabinet with bankers and generals.
They wondered whatever happened to nonintervention and draining the swamp. They wondered if the
demonization of certain religious and ethnic groups was the harbinger of a brave new world that
wasn't all that brave or all that new. His attack on all things environmental, while weather events
become worse year by year, strictly to accommodate big business is another problem. So is the
new health bill that gives the coup de grâce to any idea that he's the champion of the common
man.
This whole idea of turning everything upside down to spark some kind of political renewal has
taken a few hits of late. After Trump's election and Brexit the there was a school of thought
that had it that upcoming elections in Europe would fall in line with the new political philosophy.
First would be The Netherlands, that didn't happen. Then it would be France, unless something
very drastic and unexpected happens then that's another bad bet. Nobody's yet surmising that Merkel
is toast. In spite of the unpopularity of her immigration policy at its outset it may be that
Germans are ready to forgive her that and stick with the status quo. I don't know enough about
English politics to guess if any party can unseat May but it's evident that a lot of Brits are
wishing that Brexit had failed.
In any case the French election will go a long way to determining if the new philosophy
of undoing all the constructs since WW11 is what the people want. it's starting to look like it
isn't. The losers are sure to cry that big finance and the press skewered the vote but it might
just be that the French are happy the way things are.
Emmanuel Macron will have to make a decisive move on Europe The most exciting promise of his candidacy is the agenda for eurozone reform
--Wolfgang Münchau Emmanuel Macron has a convincing lead in the polls, but a low turnout among his more reluctant
supporters could still produce a result too close for comfort.
The final round of the French presidential election on May 7 should not really be a contest.
Mr Macron has the backing of more or less the entire political establishment - from the left to
the centre-right. But events can intrude even in such a situation and already have. His decision
to celebrate his first-round victory in a smart brasserie in Paris's sixth arrondissement was
politically illiterate. During a visit to a Whirlpool factory in Amiens, northern France, Mr
Macron was upstaged by his opponent, Marine Le Pen, leader of the far right National Front.
As a political campaigner she is in a different league. If she crushes him in Wednesday's television
debate, she might have a chance.
The problem with Mr Macron's agenda is that nobody really knows how he can make it work. The
role of the French president is powerful, but the fate of François Hollande should serve as a
cautionary tale of the limits of what a president can do. Mr Hollande's Socialists at least had
a majority in the National Assembly, the French parliament. It is not clear whether Mr Macron
will have a single MP after the legislative elections in June. Will he end up as a mere figurehead
- like the German president - whose job is to shake hands and give grand speeches? Or can he find
a way to force change?
Macron will be to France what Obama has been to the US.
Just like Obama's presidency made possible Trump's victory four years later, Macron's presidency
will make possible a Front National victory in five years.
Here's my prediction: five years from now, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen will win the presidential
elections.
sounds like the french will find in micro endless, magnificent diversion from the collapse
of their republic at the hands of his puppet masters the financiers. had he a religion at all
before choosing to become a catholic at 12? or just ambition?
The Chancellors of the French universities have asked their students to vote Macron.
(Link in French) Not a single Chancellor has asked students to vote Le Pen. The same can be
said of the French press. The media barrage in favor of Macron has been so one-sided, some Frenchmen call their country
jokingly "East Corea"
I find it difficult to hear people praising Le Pen who won't have to live under her presidency.
Let me remind you that Europe had more than its share of nationalist wars, and the last thing
the continent needs are governments adding fuel to the fire of existing tensions.
Macron is a puppet, but in the end he'll do what's necessary to stabilize things.
Le Pen might well blow things up and lead to civil war.
Truth be told, even if she hadn't much chance of winning, Le Pen could've hoped to go close to
45% if she had played it right and campaigned well. She totally blew it with an awful performance
in the debate, though, while Macron was probably a bit better than expected.
The most worrying bit is that voters who sided with Macron might feel compelled to give him a
majority in parliament, which is the key. Considering how human psychoology tends to work too
often, there will be a follower/commitment effect with some voters, who have crossed a line by
voting for him and will find it less abhorrent to back him again in the legislative elections.
If that happens, imho, it would mean France had just gone through a coup, and democracy is dead
there. The good news is that it means that sooner or later, bloody revolution will sweep the country
- but it might take time and, as most if not all revolutions, will probably not be thorough enough
in wiping out the ruling elites.
@33 smuks quote "Macron is a puppet, but in the end he'll do what's necessary to stabilize things."
there is stability and then there is stability.. if a house of cards needs to be held up - macron
is the man, lol..
Will people of France show that they are worthy their great sons like Voltaire and vote their
conscience or will they vote out of fear and intimidation?
That is the question.
I admit that French people or EU citizen may have totally different view of the French political
process from perspective of the details and particularities they are acutely aware of, than my
view from The US, by may be this very distance and emotionally cold judgment of outsider is needed
as well to have truly a big picture of what is going on.
I am not a supporter of Le Pen and hell no, not supporter of a "French Trump" Macron, Yes,
it is Macron in my opinion that is French Trump, a Flaccid Clown of Global Oligarchy while Le
Pen is slightly reversed Sanders as far as elements of political platform that matter for ordinary
people in France and the US.
None of them are politically radical in any shape or form, and definitely not Marine Le Pen
who just want to ask French people what to do since they never had really a chance to do so. Either
to support continuing pauperization of society and allowing for further collapse of French sovereignty
and cultural autonomy which is one of the pillars of European culture and western tradition and
hence retain status quo or reject it by demanding EU to return to its EEC roots and give up on
a superstate projects like Euro or banking unity/ECB. And that is the highest crime in Brussels
and hence she was set for at least metaphorical assassination of her character and her populist
appeal.
Brilliant move by Marine Le Pen was to campaign on her own more centrist platform and not be
obliged to follow strictly FN platform as a FN leader would have to follow.
In fact as Macron was first who shed his discrediting Socialist label as hated Hollande minister,
now Le Pen shed her FN right-wing and neo-fascist label to commence entirely new campaign as true
French populist and nationalist.
She already told French that they have a clear choice between neoliberal oligarchic rule of
globalists under a thieving investment banker or French people rule under populist leader liken
to de Gaulle.
Does she have a chance against unified block of French MSM media and Globalist media worldwide,
against slander, lies and fake news, against 95% of largest French press being against her? Not
likely, especial that as it was documented CIA has capabilities and used them to manipulate french
elections already in the past. But it is more complicated than that and Marine Le Pen is not Trump.
The real issue in these elections though will be how strong roots of sociopolitical/economic
dependency on EU imperial clique are in France and believe me they are strong.
Millions of French know or feel there are dependent of Brussels and will vote status-quo regardless
even of their suffering, threatened with supposedly worse alternative under Le Pen.
How strong such a calcifying paralysis may be was shown in Roman empire collapsing over two
centuries only because people supported status-quo in fear of change into unknown, even when the
world around them was collapsing.
But if Le Pen thinks she can do without a sort of "revolution" metaphorically breaking legs
and heads, she is not gonna get anywhere since the autocratic EU system is designed to prevent
popular upheavals and drastic changes to the EU imperial order of bureaucratic rule.
EU has all the money, power, courts and propaganda machine to derail Le Pen presidency without
another French revolution to defend it.
Even case of Brexit showed that EU turned from happy family of loving EU nations to a pool
of viscous brats, little puny weasels, exhibiting embarrassing insecure teenage hysteria, wanting
revenge and nursing their personal hurt feelings, pretending to be conducting supposedly rational
and serious international negotiations among formally at least, sovereign countries.
This Sunday we will know if in France once again fear prevailed over courage.
The Macron campaign identified the first tweet referring to the documents as coming
from the Twitter account of
Nathan Damigo , a far-right activist and convicted felon based in northern California.
Damigo is known on social media for punching a female anti-fascist in the face at a Berkeley
protest.
Melenchon is the one to listen to to understand the situation in France. While he didn't make
it into round two, he has a good chance of a large parliamentary victory in the round of elections
after the presidential one. He's been locked out of the English-language press in the U.S. and
Britain (he falls outside their narrow spectrum of acceptable political views) so you have to
read the French press (I use Google Translate) or watch his youtube (with subcaptions) channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsGkA4TXqyw
Melenchon is the only one who points out the realities (translate from Lemonde):
In order to combat mass immigration, which is mainly internal to developing countries, the
causes of migration must be tackled: the impossibility of any development in the countries
of departure, due to debts and Structural adjustment policies imposed by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, the plundering of resources by multinationals and free
trade.
Here's Melenchon on Africa, LeMonde Feb 17:
"We are part of the political camp that was against colonialism and for the self-determination
of peoples. We know the misfortunes endured, but we consider that it is up to historians to
write history and not to politicians to instrumentalize it. It seems to us more urgent to fight
the scourge of ultraliberal predation that is falling on Africa."
"The best advantage that France can derive from it is the harmonious and successful development
of African societies. If we consider only the climatic risk, it is 250 million migrants whose
humanity will have to deal with by 2050. It is time to ensure a balanced development that does
not aggravate the state of the planet. But the condition for achieving this is to return Africa
to the Africans, to ensure national and popular sovereignty on the bases advocated by Thomas
Sankara or Patrice Lumumba." [Notably Lumumba was overthrown and killed in a CIA-supported
coup in 1961]
"The defense agreements, and in particular their secret clauses – which have the real objective
of controlling popular movements for the benefit of dictators – must be denounced by democratic
scrutiny by Parliament. In the event that some of these bases are maintained, military cooperation
can only be envisaged with democracies, with priority being given to the formation of an
independent national republican army."
Can you imagine any U.S. politician pledging to end military cooperation with Saudi Arabia
unless it converts to a democratic form of government? Maybe Tulsi Gabbard, I don't know.
Outside the fact most media pre-prepare their headlines for such occasions when time does not
allow for late information to be disseminated by normal publishing procedures, the Dewey / Truman
was marked by the media believing their own propaganda to the extent they became divorced from
reality. This recently has shown its tracks in the Clinton / Trump campaign with 'interesting
result' - the Russians did it! It also had effect in Brexit as well and may be at work in France,
though time will tell the better story there. Propaganda may be omnipotent in many ways, it certainly
isn't omniscient and predicting the future of things that haven't happened is notoriously difficult.
Whoever wins the French presidency can be helped or hobbled by other factors. Macron has no effective
political party in the French parliament, the fictional party he was supported by has no parliamentary
standing and is unlikely to obtain standing. M. Le Pen's party has been on the margins of the
French political spectrum but does have an identifiable political history that is evolving from
its origins. Of the two, the least likely to effect disastrous policy on the French public is
the FN of Le Pen, it is a known and does have knowledgable opposition to waywardness; not so Macron
who hasn't revealed who supports or funds his candidacy for the office. That would be the greatest
danger to the French Republic. About this time tomorrow, the electorate will have spoken.
The French still collect billions of whatever currency you want to use from their ex-African colonies.
An agreement for paying the French for leaving and for the "benefits of colonialism". It's a big
% of the French government budget - straight from the poorest countries on the planet. This is
why I hate France with all my heart.
Macron is an opportunist taking advantage of the break-down of trad. F politics.
With regards to FN's steady rise over decades, this really is well forecasted opportunism at
work here. Spot climate trending too far in one direction, find slogan like 'never le pen', install
manufactured centre left/right cardboard cutout.
And (as far as the west goes with it's super concentrated media power nearly running off one
script) it could nearly be cut and pasted into any race where one side strays too far from centre.
I'm sure there is a couple of seminars at Davos about it.
When far-right National Front leader Marine Le Pen Marine made it through to the run-off
of the French presidential election on Sunday, some powerful people in the United States were
celebrating.
One is hoping to be celebrating in Paris tomorrow.
BTW: The dual nationals : French -Israeli may have to rethink in which country they would want
to live should Marine become Mme La Présidente ( she has said that she won't allow French
citizens to have Israeli passports )
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen is [allegedly] the daughter of
Roger Auque:
Roger Auque died from brain cancer on September 8, 2014, at the age of 58. He revealed
in a book that was published posthumously in 2015 that he had been a Mossad agent.
. . . . .
In 1989, he is said to have fathered a child with Yann, the daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen.
This daughter, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, elected deputy in 2012, was born out of wedlock
and subsequently recognized by Yann's husband, Samuel Maréchal, a fact only revealed publicly
in 2013 in a book by Christine Clerc titled "Les Conquérantes."[6]
Mischi @ 48: Those Francophone African countries that are part of the West African and Central
African Franc currency zones were among the most enthusiastic backers of Colonel Muammar Gaddhafi's
pan-African "gold dinar" economic market. No wonder Nicolas Sarkozy signed onto the US no-fly
zone over Libya idiocy tout de suite in 2011.
In these times, it really shows how small influence people have, it is media and their
millionaire
candidate that have already fixed the election with their huge power. Quite sad.
@46 anon.. that macron leak story has legs! i like what some guy on twitter said - "Amazing that
the French government and media now stand as enemies of freedom of speech." who whudda thunk it?
lol... remind anyone of any other countries?
AKSA 8 The relative lack of power of France made me wonder the real reason why they led the NATO attack
on Libya. Was it the financial dealings between Sarkozy and Gaddhafi like some sites say or were
they really prodded by the US to lead the way of the overall game plan?
USA will win anyway. Macron and Dupont-Aignan (prime minister of Le Pen) was both member of the
program of "The Young Leaders : French-American Foundation France":
http://french-american.org/en/initiatives/young-leaders/
Its means neoliberalism, NATO and free finance.
Well well well... you know... its France... le pen's mother made nacked pictures for french playboy
when she divorced the father... another one is on x... just pawns.
The MSM are going to be embarassed with the leaks. On one side they keep referring to the Ruskies
and Trump, and on the other no one among the Western politicians has a B plan in case Trump continues
to wreck havoc (and he will).
Next week, he goes to KSA before Israel and since the Saudi prince said it would be 'historical'
we can bet KSA will announce the recognizance of Israel
Then step 2 will be to say Syria and Iran: you recognize or we turn you to Somalia.
And where will Junker, Hollande, Macron and co go then?
even Wikileaks says the metadata is full of cyrillic. clumsiness or the will to point towards
the usual culprits?
not sure if Hollande has really turned into a Machiavel but that sounds like him
More broadly, the U.S. should reconsider whether blindly supporting the EU is in America's
best interests. The EU is a supranational organization that infringes on national sovereignty.
It prevents the creation of genuine transatlantic free trade areas, harms transatlantic security,
distorts European immigration policies, and wastes taxpayer money.
jfl @ 30. Something like that yes! - no religion afaik before 12 yrs. (Macron.)
jen wrote: "What's the possibility that le Pen will receive a large proportion of her votes
from people who would vote for anyone who looks like a winner, regardless of political and ideological
affiliations, simply to stop Macron from winning?"
MLP will not attract votes as 'the winner' as it is known that she is, and probably always
will be - a loser. Yet, some Mélenchon - Fillon, 'other' voters, who are rabidly against Macron,
will vote Le Pen. The anti-Macron crowd was discussing voting MLP/abstention/nul vote to death
on boards, and some said, heh go for MLP.
My prediction was that the outcome would be closer to 70-30 than 60-40, in favor of Macron;
for sure MLP will pick up some anti-M voters, not enough though imho to change that prediction,
but who knows, trivial details, no matter.
More seriously.. It is generally assumed, or put forward, that Le Pen voters are the poor,
the unemployed, the ugly racists, etc. - see Trump and Brexit. While the correlation with region/unemployment
is high (as in GB and rust-belt US), for the rest it doesn't hold.
The poor - those under the poverty line or severely disadvantaged, vote exactly the same as
the national average, that is, not more for the FN, Le Pen, or FN candidates. (no link..)
Le Pen's *presumed electorate* in the worker category, i.e. low-paid private-sector
employees (factories, supermarkets, services, small biz, agri, etc.; *State* personnel votes socialist)
is imho made up of roughly 3 equal parts.
Le Pen voters, who decry globalisation, foreignors, terrorists, muslims, etc. / the remnants
of the left (socialist - Trotskyist - add anarchist - ..), who voted Mélenchon or not at all /
those who are 'foreign' - outcasts in any case - and thus can't rally to Le Pen or to anyone..
and just keep their heads down.
The divide-to-rule strategy has worked perfectly on these workers. In two factories I know
of, the 3 different groups don't speak to each other, except as routine politeness / ugly jokes
small skirmish etc., as they are all in the same boat, subject to the same oppressive rules, etc.
though some contacts/friendships cross these lines.
Marine is not pro-worker, and 2/3 ppl working one or two jobs of that type or those wanting
to actually GET a job like that are aware. The last third grabs an opportunity to make noise,
be heard, posture, play some kind of role, etc.
Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to vomit.
Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the crap people
post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they are to believe
the lies.
Started watching 500 Nations
about Europeans 'discovering' the Americas and all the brutality that came from it... had
to turn it off because it isn't the sort of program a person wants to watch right before bed (unless
one likes horror tales before sleep)
All Spanish, English, French, South American, Central American and North American people should
be required to watch it and contemplate our future based on this terrible past. Brutal thugs is
what most of our supposed 'hero/discoverers' were, just like now.
We continue to repeat the past, doing the same stupid crap that brought us to this moment in
time when we have the ability to wipe our species off the face of the planet (as well as most
other too). Will we continue on the road to mutually assured destruction, or will we try something
new?
As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp
of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is
the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how
nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that I find
rather rational considering all the craziness taking place.
Every nation in Europe and the USA have at least 25-30% nativist, nationalist, (name of country
here)-first voters. Trump managed to take advantage of a nearly dysfunctional electoral system,
a fawning, celebrity-obsessed media and a highly disliked opposition candidate to gain enough
popular votes to win. Other systems are not as dysfunctional, nor are their media as useless,
but they will remain a presence on the political landscape, ready to exploit any weaknesses they
can use to their advantage.
Everybody expected Le Pen to be much stronger than Macron for the debate on Wednesday. Instead,
she made a fool of herself and certainly lost a number of her own voters. check "Macron Le Pen
débat" on google you will probably find videos. the image and sounds should be enough without
need of subtitles.
Really? Asking the question of what will be the long term result of elections within the bailiwick
of the western plutocracy? I believe it is long past the time of crystal ball gazing and time
to grow up and face the reality of the situation. Any political entity that is not issuing from
a grassroots spontaneous popular grievance is completely suspect. When any of these candidates
can have a million or more people accompany them as they march on the plutocracy's seat of power
at the site of government and more importantly the site of their central banks then I will believe
their message that they mean to clean house and usher in the necessary changes needed. Otherwise
we must assume that an illusion is being presented as a deception to bestow legitimacy, via false
democratic institutions, on an illegitimate system of plutocratic rule conducted with a carrot
and stick structure that permeates all levels of civil society.
The EU is drawing up a tax haven blacklist, due to be finalized by the end of 2017, with the
intention of preventing money from being diverted to avoid taxation. It is also compiling a
list sanctions it will take against any country or jurisdiction that ends up on the EU tax
haven blacklist.
I think the between nation comparison of platforms shows, except for the individuals named to
play the role of candidate, in each of the respective countries, the role of the candidates is
the same, to carry out "allowed policy". Further, the "allowed policy" seems nearly always the
same in all of the Republic nations. Some-how the "allowed policies" are being established globally
and mandated locally?
I n America, American Voters in the USA elections, are allowed to elect by majority vote,
either of two persons(for each position); but the between candidate platforms, boil down to the
same side of two identical coins. Those elected are paid a salary to operate the USA for the benefit
of, and "according to" the "allowed policy" established by, those in control of the national policy.
The French election is not about choice of platforms, but instead, the French election is
about choice of persons to be paid to execute the allowed platforms. The range of choices in the
French election.. and in republics throughout the world, has been and is, limited to candidates
who subscribe to "allowed platforms". It is clear to me, the policies the candidates will be paid,
if elected, to execute are, all the same in every Republic, around the globe.
Candidate A or Candidate B may seem to be a choice: but either, if elected, will be obligated
to execute only the "allowed platforms" established by those in control of these Republics. Candidates
seeking to present non-allowed platforms, are nearly always silenced and defeated. Example: the
policy allowed by the hidden powers is that the target nation, is slated to go to war. That "go
to war" policy may or may not be articulated by the viable person candidates, but the election
is not about whether or not "perpetual war should be the policy of the nation" instead the election
is about which candidate should be paid to operate the war time government in accord to "globally
determined, locally allowed policy".
On election day citizens may choose; but if they don't, make a choice on election day, the
choice of elected persons will be made for them; either way the winning candidate is obligated
to execute only the "allowed policy".
Maybe it would be useful to concentrate discussions, not to the person of the candidates, but
to "allowed policy", such person candidates, if elected, will be obligated to accord with, when
talking about national elections.
Politics is always a 'house of cards'. A political/ societal system exists as long as most
everyone believes in its legitimacy; once this is no longer the case, it can rapidly disintegrate.
And don't say 'things can't get worse', they definitely can - would you prefer living in a delicate
'house of cards' or in a civil war?
@somebody 70
Exactly. There is no more profits/ capital yield under stable conditions ('new normal'), so
let's create a huge crisis to reap the benefits. It's strange how many people hate the 'deep state'
in their own country, yet wilfully support its agenda in other parts of the world.
@jfl 72
It's not a question of belief, but of analysing what's actually going on. Don't let prejudice
get in the way of a rational view. It's still a long way to go, but there are important first
and second steps. What do you think why the right-wing (=pro-capital) media is so anti-EU?
The title is misleading (typical with France Culture) what the journalist says is that no actual
figures exist for the expenses of each ministries. She had been trying to find the figures dealing
with the decrease of subsidies for culture in the last 5 years and could not get a single document
from the gov. When you start the famous ENA school, the first thing you are told is that all the
number are fakes. The journalist of this piece i linked to ends up her paper saying that in the
end, discussing the few figures mentioned here and there without any support by the officials
is equivalent to spreading fake news.
None of it makes sense, yet everyone laps it up like mother's milk. This is the 1st of these
leaks to have obvious forgeries in it.
The release date makes no sense, there appears to be nothing damaging in it, the speed at
which the trusties found the Cyrillic metadata says they were looking for it / told where to
look / not looking for damaging material.
The sheer scale of the breach from what must be the closely monitored mail server in political
history.
None of it adds up if you look at it with an open mind. This is dangerous slavish behavior
from infosec, the media and public. If you will swallow this hook, line & sinker then your
parliaments need more fire extinguishers
Everything is based on two enormous falacies.
1. That all the evils in western society are the fault of the external bogeyman. Putin,
ISIS Refugees, Asian footwear makers, whatever. That the Trumps, Le Pens, Farages are
not a native virus.
2. Is that your services & politicians Would never pull a false leak or a controlled
leak or a limited hangout. That they are angels that sit on their hands.
These two underpin the absolute lunacy we have seen unfold before our eyes. An extraordinarily
dangerous situation to be in which is getting worse fast.
"You can flood these [phishing] addresses with multiple passwords and log-ins, true ones, false
ones, so the people behind them use up a lot of time trying to figure them out," Mounir Mahjoubi,
the head of Macron's digital team, told The Daily Beast for its earlier article on this subject.
In the end, whoever made the dump may not have known what is real and what is false, which
would explain in part the odd timing. After the disruptive revelations of the Democratic National
Committee hacks in the United States, the public is conditioned to think that if there's a
document dump like this, it has to be incriminating. By putting it out just before the news
blackout, when Macron cannot respond in detail, the dump becomes both the medium and the message.
...
>> The relative lack of power of France
>> wonder the real reason why they
>> led the NATO attack on Libya.
Because they were the only unit Oceania could field safely at the time without potentially
undermining its political regime.
"War weary" populations oppose overt war. (When populations oppose more overt war, regimes
start or continue wars un-overtly.) Sizable percentages of the populations in the rest of NATO
realized they'd been conned. What would be the domestic reaction if those NATO countries "led"
another effort against an "enemy" generally considered even less dangerous than the prior one
(whom the populations learned wasn't a threat)?
In contrast, because France didn't join in on the most recent invasion of Iraq, their population
was not as "war weary" and thus did not protest/oppose overt war.
>> Was it the financial dealings between
>> Sarkozy and Gaddhafi like some sites say
What do they say? Heard that G gave money to S's campaign. I didn't read anything into that
other than "another example of why never again to trust or give money to a politician".
>> or were they really prodded by the US to
>> lead the way of the overall game plan?
Think about "the dogs that did not bark".
What do EU leaders do in response to allegations of being bugged? They blame Eurasia for interfering
with elections! That tells me Oceania is their master.
Everyone backed the wrong horse. Instead of pushing for JL Melenchon who's also a non-interventionist
on foreign policy from the very beginning as opposed to the unpopular candidate of Sarkozy's party,
F. Fillon, and then the Islamophobe Le Pen, you'all had to back Le Pen who had no chance in hell
of winning because she scared not only Muslims but many on the Left.
So now the result is this - more of the same shit. Ugh.
Emmanuel Macron victory speech praising 5-years François Hollande's regime.
Good luck good ridden!
exiled off mainstreet | May 7, 2017 3:21:46 PM |
106
It is unfortunate that the propaganda globalist state now appears unassailable. How anyone of
intelligence could support such a fascist empty suit carrying his baggage is beyond me, unless
propaganda received wisdom has reached such a level. I agree that it would have been better if
Melenchon or Fillon had been the opponent, since Le Pen carries the baggage of her family inheritance.
It seems to me that an undoubted status of being part of a present day fascist structure is
more relevant than having an inheritance of collaboration with a prior regime a lifetime ago.
It is also obvious that Le Pen's positions were in the interest of the French people rather than
the unelected international power structure. I see little future for anything after this result.
I wonder when Israel will start sweating. The idea is to make the use of lethal force against
Muslims acceptable in the NATO countries with mass influx of them that will not assimilate but
go to war on their host one way or another. Good plan but...
Plans could go awry as there is a real danger of a Sharia Europe if they forgotten how to be
a barbarian.
the media in unison crowing over the result of course. Was at a lunch today and all the obedient
little Europhiles there watching the media talking heads were delighted.
I'm not even a Le Pen supporter in particular but merely by questioning Macron's agenda, where
he came from, etc, I was met with mock Nazi salutes and snide remarks. The ideologues amongst
the middle classes who back the EU/Globalist project are genuine fanatics, I can see it with my
own eyes with every passing week. They won't accept any counter arguments or dissenting voices.
They refuse to think critically but merely rehash whatever the Guardian, New York Times or BBC
say. The level of pro-Brussels tribalism is astonishing, even as someone who has grown up with
and befriended many of these people down the years. One day their bubble will burst though but
unlike them I'll have the good grace to smile inside and whisper "I told you so" under my breath.
Indeed, these people are brainwashed, they have no idea whats going on in the world, just watching
msm and like you say you cant debate with people like these. The worst is that the left is the
most brainwashed by this liberal right-wing propaganda. Thats why leftists parties are so weak
today.
I know that France attempts to rigorously regulate "their" French language, so I presume that
the Académie française prohibits the importation of the US colloquial term "sheeple".
So we won't see any French newspapers or websites proudly proclaiming " La Sheeple Ont Parlé!
"
This is an utterly predictable, even routine tragicomedy. But I must post this to give credit
to an expatriate relative I'll call "Joe"; Joe lives in France, and has proved to be a prophet.
Last year, when Joe visited the US, we were discussing the US presidential campaign and
Bernie Sanders. Joe and I agreed that the West is experiencing a general political meltdown. Joe
then went on to describe the default pattern that EU elections follow:
1) The prospective candidates are inevitably the "Usual Suspects", i.e. centrist/moderate
careerist technocrats, the odd "maverick" or two with limited, cultlike support-- and The Extremist
(s).
2) The Establishment power elite, institutions, and complicit mass-media begin an orchestrated
howling: "Anybody But [insert Extremist du jour here]!"
3) The "Anybody But!" coalition throws massive resources into a public relations campaign
to generate mass hysterical fear at the prospect that The Extremist may win and lead the nation
straight to Hell.
4) The terrified, confused, hysterical, panic-stricken public accordingly falls in line
and elects the favorite centrist/moderate careerist technocrat who will perpetuate the neoliberal
status quo.
5) The Establishment power elite and its mass-media megaphone will effusively praise the
inconquerable wisdom and good sense of The People in once again Saving the Republic by rejecting
a dangerous Extremist.
________________________________________________
At the time, Joe offered this scenario to explain why Bernie Sanders wouldn't be allowed to
succeed. As it turned out, there are many reasons why the US debacle didn't precisely conform
to this pattern.
But Joe's description perfectly fits what's happened in France.
The French elections are also the end of the post-world war 2 world order. Until now, the elections
were left against right, socialists against conservatives.
In these elections both socialists and conservatives lost out. Now it's nationalism against
globalisation.
So Macron 65%, and Le Pen has already conceded. Campaign well run. Macron is a shark (report
from the family), not a victim of the banksters. He followed May's strategy in UK of staying quiet
till elected. Future policy: not merely a bankster, but also the son of a conservative family
of doctors from Amiens. So not a pure neo-liberal, as has been suggested, but someone who is forced
by his family background to take their point of view into account.
The prospect is not too bad. Other than in foreign policy, where he has declared himself
against the Asad regime in Syria. I don't take that too seriously. Once in power, he may discover
what is implied in attacking Asad, that is war against Russia, and he may hesitate.
"The worst is that the left is the most brainwashed by this liberal right-wing propaganda.
Thats why leftists parties are so weak today."
couldn't have put it better. As many have commented on, the notion of left vs right is dying.
In Europe it has morphed into something akin to pro-EU vs pro-nation state. The levels of cognitive
dissonance from people of the traditional left is truly astonishing.
I am French. Macron won because of an unprecedented media onslaught that led 25% of voters
who don't know their heads for their a... to vote for him in the first round, while the media
had blocked anyone but Macron and Le Pen from getting to the second round. That's because they
know that people would elect a head of lettuce if that head of lettuce was running against Le
Pen.
There is a very good interview of a French liberal (as in "proponent of free-market rather
than big State". Americans would call him "a libertarian"), Charles Gave, who gives a clear vision
of the whole shebang, and of why this could be getting out of control in the near future.
You see, the US only stopped major civil war kind of s... because Trump won, which disarmed
the anger of the disenfranchised masses. Unfortunately, in France, Emmanuel Clinton won. And the
French extreme left wing, who hates Macron's guts, can be dangerous. I mean, physically
dangerous. Other clear-headed observers than Gave are already mumbling words like "barricades"
and "civil war".
@90, smuks, 'It's not a question of belief, but of analysing what's actually going on. ...'
righto ... you offer an assertion with zero analysis. meanwhile the rothschilds guy is president
of france. superficial analysis, sure, but hard to walk around. or is big finance our friend?
seems to be yours.
the parallels between obama and micro seem very strong ... someone linked elsewhere - on
the open thread - to a biography of obama that had him making decisions with an eye to future
"political showbiz" career at an early age.
the 'destiny' of the 'political' showbiz - class seems now to be to surf the waves of financial
power, all pretense to politics long gone. probably always thus, to a great extent. but with the
need for real politics so striking now - the disaster to be had for relying on autopilot more
apparent than ever - so too is the self-centeredness of the showbiz personalities.
@119 Psychohistorian: the other way around. High turnout compared to your average election in
Western democracies, moderate turnout for France. Macron still got more than 40% of all possible
voters' approval.
Which leads me to:
@117 Lea: If Macron manages to trick the French fools again and his non-existing party actually gets
a majority in parliament, I expect things to go South before his first mandate is over. As
in major demonstrations. And unlike Nick, I'll make my best to remind to all my acquaintances
who voted Macron by default / because their friends/significant others were brainwashed idiots
who would've killed them otherwise that they did vote for the guy and are to be blamed for that
shit. I want all those who voted for him without considering him worthy of the office and despite
considering his opinions as utter shit to actually hate themselves for what they've just done,
and then to hate him for what they did. And I mean *hate*, not dislike.
I'm also not sure it's hardcore leftists who would go the farthest in violence; antifas and
similar groups mostly seem to focus on soft targets and heavily outnumbered cops. FN guys are
just as tough and desiring violence, they just don't dare to risk it now considering how everyone
else suspects them of being closer fascists; and the longer they're kept out of any significant
power, the closer they'll come to giving in to violence.
" ...PARIS (Sputnik) - A total of 4.2 million of French voters cast empty ballots in
the presidential run-off on Synday, a survey conducted by Ispos and Sopra Steria said ....8.9
percent of the total of 47.6 million voters cast empty ballots, refusing to give their support
to either of the candidates."
Kind of a new French Trump with Goldman Sachs flavor -- the person who never hold a
political office. this is a configuration the neoliberalism is still strong and can
counterattack and win. In this sense French election are somewhat similar to Argentinean elections.
Notable quotes:
"... It was globalization against nationalism. ..."
"... Emmanuel Macron, the centrist who has never held elected office, won because he was the beneficiary of a uniquely French historic and cultural legacy ..."
The French presidential runoff transcended national politics. It was globalization against
nationalism. It was the future versus the past. Open versus closed.
But in his resounding victory on Sunday night, Emmanuel Macron, the centrist who has never
held elected office, won because he was the beneficiary of a uniquely French historic and
cultural legacy, where many voters wanted change but were appalled at the type of populist
anger that had upturned politics in Britain and the United States. He trounced the far-right
candidate Marine Le Pen, keeping her well under 40 percent, even as her aides said before the
vote that anything below that figure would be considered a failure.
His victory quickly brought joy from Europe's political establishment, especially since a Le
Pen victory would have plunged the European Union into crisis. But in the end, Mr. Macron, only
39, a former investment banker and an uninspired campaigner, won because of luck, an unexpected
demonstration of political skill, and the ingrained fears and contempt that a majority of French
still feel toward Ms. Le Pen and her party, the National Front.
... ... ...
But he also played his limited hand with great skill from the beginning, outmaneuvering his
elders. First, he wisely renounced the man who had given him his break, the deeply unpopular
Socialist president François Hollande, quitting his post as economy minister in Mr. Hollande's
government before it was too late. Then, he refused to take part in the Socialist Party primary
in January, rightly judging that party activists would dominate and choose a far-left candidate
on the fringes, who would then be devoured by Mr. Mélenchon - exactly what happened.
Mr. Macron's final correct bet was that French voters, like those elsewhere, were disgusted by
the mainstream parties, having judged the policy prescriptions of both the establishment right
and left as failures in dealing with France's multiple ills. He positioned himself in the center,
drawing on left and right, balancing protection of the French welfare state with mild
encouragement for business, in an attempt to break through France's employment and productivity
stagnation.
But Mr. Macron's pro-market views stirred much opposition. Mr. Mélenchon not only refused to
endorse him, but also encouraged the idea that Mr. Macron and Ms. Le Pen were equivalent menaces
- a calculation endorsed by many far-left voters. Nearly half the first-round electorate voted
for candidates hostile to the free market and to capitalism. Even if they voted for Mr. Macron on
Sunday to save the country from Ms. Le Pen, they did so without enthusiasm.
Some of the antipathy sprang from his hermetic persona, as a caricature of the elite-educated,
know-it-all technocrats, perpetually encased in a dark suit, who have guided France for much its
postwar history, usually from behind the scenes, and whose record is mixed.
"He's not someone I feel a lot of conviction for," said Thomas Goldschmidt, a 26-year-old
architectural firm employee in Paris who voted for Mr. Macron after supporting the Socialist
Benoît Hamon in the first round. "He's someone who raises a lot of questions. It's a vision of
society that is too business-friendly," Mr. Goldschmidt said. "It's this whole idea of making
working life more uncertain. We just can't bet on it, that everyone out there can be an
entrepreneur. Society isn't built like that."
... ... ...
The National Front could win as many as 100 seats in the new Parliament, according to some
analyses, making it a formidable opposition party. Indeed, even as Ms. Le Pen was soundly
defeated on Sunday, she still managed a showing that not too long ago would have been
unthinkable. And in her concession, she made it clear that she was already looking toward the
parliamentary elections, and the future.
Then there is the potential opposition represented by Mr. Mélenchon, who won in some of
France's biggest cities - Marseilles, Toulouse and Lille - and is already claiming the mantle of
Mr. Macron's principal opponent on the left. His voters, as much as Ms. Le Pen's, do not trust
Mr. Macron.
"... This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left' is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism, mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. ..."
"... The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases than they make in outsourcing and insourcing. ..."
"... And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. ..."
"... The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think) ..."
Introduction: Every day in unimaginable ways, prominent leaders from the left and the right,
from bankers to Parisian intellectuals, are fabricating stories and pushing slogans that denigrate
presidential candidate Marine Le Pen.
They obfuscate her program, substituting the label 'extremist' for her pro-working class and anti-imperialist
commitment. Fear and envy over the fact that a new leader heads a popular movement has seeped into
Emmanuel "Manny" Macron's champagne-soaked dinner parties. He has good reason to be afraid: Le Pen
addresses the fundamental interests of the vast- majority of French workers, farmers, public employees,
unemployed and underemployed youth and older workers approaching retirement.
The mass media, political class and judicial as well as street provocateurs savagely assault Le
Pen, distorting her domestic and foreign policies. They are incensed that Le Pen pledges to remove
France from NATO's integrated command – effectively ending its commitment to US directed global wars.
Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched
bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum over the
EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and, instead, increase
trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine.
Le Pen is committed to Keynesian demand-driven industrial revitalization as opposed to Emmanuel
Macron's ultra-neoliberal supply-side agenda.
Le Pen's program will raise taxes on banks and financial transactions while fining capital flight
in order to continue funding France's retirement age of 62 for women and 65 for men, keeping the
35 hour work-week, and providing tax free overtime pay. She promises direct state intervention to
prevent factories from relocating to low wage EU economies and firing French workers.
Le Pen is committed to increasing public spending for childcare and for the poor and disabled.
She has pledged to protect French farmers against subsidized, cheap imports.
Marine Le Pen supports abortion rights and gay rights. She opposes the death penalty. She promises
to cut taxes by 10% for low-wage workers. Marine is committed to fighting against sexism and for
equal pay for women.
Marine Le Pen will reduce migration to ten thousand people and crack down on immigrants with links
to terrorists.
Emmanuel Macron: Macro Billionaire and Micro Worker Programs
Macron has been an investment banker serving the Rothschild and Cie Banque oligarchy, which profited
from speculation and the pillage of the public treasury. Macron served in President Hollande's Economy
Ministry, in charge of 'Industry and Digital Affairs' from 2014 through 2016. This was when the 'Socialist'
Hollande imposed a pro-business agenda, which included a 40 billion-euro tax cut for the rich.
Macron is tied to the Republican Party and its allied banking and business Confederations, whose
demands include: raising the retirement age, reducing social spending, firing tens of thousands of
public employees and facilitating the outflow of capital and the inflow of cheap imports.
Macron is an unconditional supporter of NATO and the Pentagon. He fully supports the European
Union. For their part, the EU oligarchs are thrilled with Macron's embrace of greater austerity for
French workers, while the generals can expect total material support for the ongoing and future US-NATO
wars on three continents.
Propaganda, Labels and Lies
Macron's pro-war, anti-working class and 'supply-side' economic policies leave us with only one
conclusion: Marine Le Pen is the only candidate of the left. Her program and commitments are pro-labor,
not 'hard' or 'far' right – and certainly not 'fascist'.
Macron, on the other hand is a committed rightwing extremist, certainly no 'centrist', as the
media and the political elite claim! One has only to look at his background in banking, his current
supporters among the oligarchs and his ministerial policies when he served Francois Holland.
The 'Macronistas' have accused Marine Le Pen of extreme 'nationalism', 'fascism', 'anti-Semitism'
and 'anti-immigrant racism'. 'The French Left', or what remains of it, has blindly swallowed the
oligarchs' campaign against Le Pen despite the malodorous source of these libels.
Le Pen is above all a 'sovereigntist': 'France First'. Her fight is against the Brussels oligarchs
and for the restoration of sovereignty to the French people. There is an infinite irony in labeling
the fight against imperial political power as 'hard right'. It is insulting to debase popular demands
for domestic democratic power over basic economic policies, fiscal spending, incomes and prices policies,
budgets and deficits as 'extremist and far right'.
Marine Le Pen has systematically transformed the leadership, social, economic program and direction
of the National Front Party.
She expelled its anti-Semites, including her own father! She transformed its policy on women's
rights, abortion, gays and race. She won the support of young unemployed and employed factory workers,
public employees and farmers. Young workers are three times more likely to support her national industrial
revitalization program over Macron's 'free market dogma'. Le Pen has drawn support from French farmers
as well as the downwardly mobile provincial middle-class, shopkeepers, clerks and tourism-based workers
and business owners.
Despite the trends among the French masses against the oligarchs, academics, intellectuals and
political journalists have aped the elite's slander against Le Pen because they will not antagonize
the prestigious media and their administrators in the universities. They will not acknowledge the
profound changes that have occurred within the National Front under Marine Le Pen. They are masters
of the 'double discourse' – speaking from the left while working with the right. They confuse the
lesser evil with the greater evil.
If Macron wins this election (and nothing is guaranteed!), he will certainly implement his 'hard'
and 'extreme' neo-liberal agenda. When the French workers go on strike and demonstrators erect barricades
in the streets in response to Macron's austerity, the fake-left will bleat out their inconsequential
'critique' of 'impure reason'. They will claim that they were right all along.
If Le Pen loses this election, Macron will impose his program and ignite popular fury. Marine
will make an even stronger candidate in the next election if the French oligarchs' judiciary does
not imprison her for the crime of defending sovereignty and social justice.
This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left'
is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism,
mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. Thus any salves by the 'left'
or 'far-left' (Hi Syriza and your blanket amnesty of illegal immigrants at a time of 40% unemployment
in Greece!) will be temporary at best. No amount of welfare will make up for increased unemployment,
lowered wages, a lack of housing, a lack of affordable family foundation and ethnic displacement.
It makes me sick when I see so-called socialists making energetic campaigns to stop failed asylum
seekers being deported.
The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore
welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more
an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases
than they make in outsourcing and insourcing.
And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so
many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the
working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. It's painful to watch. One's ethnic
group having a majority and centrality in it's homeland is the most valuable thing imaginable.
The wealthy whites who sneer pay an exorbitant tax to insulate their children and raise them among
their own kind, but don't ever seem to realise.
The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often
exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they
don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and
thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think)
Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after seeing this short
video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting World War III with
Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and then asking for a comment:
The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:
the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
the German occupation was relatively benign.
Both statements are objectively true.
Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the
Present', San Francisco 1997
Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
@Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after
seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting
World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and
then asking for a comment:
@Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after
seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting
World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and
then asking for a comment:
The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though opinion polls suggest
most French people support immigration restrictionism.
The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so
easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?
In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen
for two reasons:
1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists)
and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote
2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically
inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.
"Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have
enriched bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum
over the EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and,
instead, increase trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran
and Palestine."
Do you remember anybody from recent history who also made similar lofty promises, but found
himself neutered by invisible rulers?
France (that hypocrite nation) is a proud part of the western civilisation, which thrives on
hegemony. So, LePen-the-cursed will not do anything to change that fundamental world order. Therein
lies the rub.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
True but misleading. Most of those deaths were due to accidentally introduced diseases. North
America, in particular, was largely emptied out by waves of new diseases that struck down tribes
that had never seen or heard of the white man.
Yes, there was some fighting, though much of it was factional rather than racial - eg, the
abused slaves of the Aztecs sided with the Spaniards for good reason . the Spaniards, at least,
weren't cannibals (except in the transubstantiational sense.) Yes, there were a few cases where
- after the vast accidental wipeout - whites noticed the disease vulnerability of the natives
and intentionally exploited it (smallpox tainted blankets).
But even if none of the deliberate massacres had been done, the demographics wouldn't look
much different - a Europe teeming with starving peasants simply wasn't going to stay put while
the recently-emptied North America sat mostly idle. Nature abhors a vacuum and adverse-possession
laws exist for a reason.
Today, of course, whites in Europe and America contracept themselves to extinction and then
bitch and moan about Moslem and Mexican invasion . silly people. At least the American Indians
didn't do it to themselves.
@Z-man Amanpour isn't a Neocon, per say, as she isn't genetically a Jew. However since she
married and had an offspring with a Jew and from this interview's tone she now qualifies. lol
She is also a beast to look at or listen to. (Grin)
@jilles dykstra The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:
- the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
- the German occupation was relatively benign.
Both statements are objectively true.
Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the
Present', San Francisco 1997
Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
@unpc downunder The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though
opinion polls suggest most French people support immigration restrictionism.
The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so
easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?
In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen
for two reasons:
1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists)
and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote
2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically
inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.
"... [Neo]liberalism that needs monsters to destroy can never politically engage with its enemies. It can never understand those enemies as political actors, making calculations, taking advantage of opportunities, and responding to constraints. It can never see in those enemies anything other than a black hole of motivation, a cesspool where reason goes to die. ..."
"... Hence the refusal of empathy for Trump's supporters. Insofar as it marks a demand that we not abandon antiracist principle and practice for the sake of winning over a mythicized white working class, the refusal is unimpeachable. ..."
"... Such a [neo]liberalism becomes dependent on the very thing it opposes, with a tepid mix of neoliberal markets and multicultural morals getting much-needed spice from a terrifying right. Hillary Clinton ran hard on the threat of Trump, as if his presence were enough to authorize her presidency. ..."
"... Clinton waged this campaign on the belief that her neoliberalism of fear could defeat the ethnonationalism of the right. ..."
"... In the novel, what begins as a struggle against inherited privilege results in the consolidation of a new ruling class that derives its legitimacy from superior merit. This class becomes, within a few generations, a hereditary aristocracy in its own right. Sequestered within elite institutions, people of high intelligence marry among themselves, passing along their high social position and superior genes to their progeny. Terminal inequality is the result. The gradual shift from inheritance to merit, Young writes, made "nonsense of all their loose talk of the equality of man": ..."
"... Losing every young person of promise to the meritocracy had deprived the working class of its prospective leaders, rendering it unable to coordinate a movement to manifest its political will. ..."
"... A policy of benign neglect of immigration laws invites into our country a casualized workforce without any leverage, one that competes with the native-born and destroys whatever leverage the latter have to negotiate better terms for themselves. The policy is a subsidy to American agribusiness, meatpacking plants, restaurants, bars, and construction companies, and to American families who would not otherwise be able to afford the outsourcing of childcare and domestic labor that the postfeminist, dual-income family requires. At the same time, a policy of free trade pits native-born workers against foreign ones content to earn pennies on the dollar of their American counterparts. ..."
"... Four decades of neoliberal globalization have cleaved our country into two hostile classes, and the line cuts across the race divide. On one side, college students credential themselves for meritocratic success. On the other, the white working class increasingly comes to resemble the black underclass in indices of social disorganization. On one side of the divide, much energy is expended on the eradication of subtler inequalities; on the other side, an equality of immiseration increasingly obtains. ..."
[Neo]liberalism that needs monsters to destroy can never politically engage with its enemies.
It can never understand those enemies as political actors, making calculations, taking advantage
of opportunities, and responding to constraints. It can never see in those enemies anything other
than a black hole of motivation, a cesspool where reason goes to die.
Hence the refusal of empathy for Trump's supporters. Insofar as it marks a demand that we
not abandon antiracist principle and practice for the sake of winning over a mythicized white working
class, the refusal is unimpeachable. But like the know-nothing disavowal of knowledge after
9/11, when explanations of terrorism were construed as exonerations of terrorism, the refusal of
empathy since 11/9 is a will to ignorance. Far simpler to imagine Trump voters as possessed by a
kind of demonic intelligence, or anti-intelligence, transcending all the rules of the established
order. Rather than treat Trump as the outgrowth of normal politics and traditional institutions -
it is the Electoral College, after all, not some beating heart of darkness, that sent Trump to the
White House - there is a disabling insistence that he and his forces are like no political formation
we've seen. By encouraging us to see only novelty in his monstrosity, analyses of this kind may prove
as crippling as the neocons' assessment of Saddam's regime. That, too, was held to be like no tyranny
we'd seen, a despotism where the ordinary rules of politics didn't apply and knowledge of the subject
was therefore useless.
Such a [neo]liberalism becomes dependent on the very thing it opposes, with a tepid mix of
neoliberal markets and multicultural morals getting much-needed spice from a terrifying right. Hillary
Clinton ran hard on the threat of Trump, as if his presence were enough to authorize her presidency.
Where Sanders promised to change the conversation, to make the battlefield a contest between a
multicultural neoliberalism and a multiracial social democracy, Clinton sought to keep the battlefield
as it has been for the past quarter-century. In this single respect, she can claim a substantial
victory. It's no accident that one of the most spectacular confrontations since the election pitted
the actors of Hamilton against the tweets of Trump. These fixed, frozen positions - high
on rhetoric, low on action - offer an almost perfect tableau of our ongoing gridlock of recrimination.
Clinton waged this campaign on the belief that her neoliberalism of fear could defeat the
ethnonationalism of the right. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Let us not be addicted
to "the drug of danger," as Athena says in the Oresteia, to "the dream of the enemy that
has to be crushed, like a herb, before [we] can smell freedom."
The term "meritocracy" became shorthand for a desirable societal ideal soon after it was coined
by the British socialist Sir Michael Young. But Young had originally used it to describe a dystopian
future. His 1958 satirical novel, The Rise of the Meritocracy, imagines the creation and growth of
a national system of intelligence testing, which identifies talented young people from every stratum
of society in order to install them in special schools, where they are groomed to make the best use
possible of their innate advantages.
In the novel, what begins as a struggle against inherited privilege results in the consolidation
of a new ruling class that derives its legitimacy from superior merit. This class becomes, within
a few generations, a hereditary aristocracy in its own right. Sequestered within elite institutions,
people of high intelligence marry among themselves, passing along their high social position and
superior genes to their progeny. Terminal inequality is the result. The gradual shift from inheritance
to merit, Young writes, made "nonsense of all their loose talk of the equality of man":
Men, after all, are notable not for the equality, but for the inequality, of their endowment.
Once all the geniuses are amongst the elite, and all the morons are amongst the workers, what meaning
can equality have? What ideal can be upheld except the principle of equal status for equal intelligence?
What is the purpose of abolishing inequalities in nurture except to reveal and make more pronounced
the inescapable inequalities of Nature?
I thought about this book often in the years before the crack-up of November 2016. In early 2015,
the Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam published a book that seemed to tell as history the same story
that Young had written as prophecy. Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis opens with an evocation
of the small town of Port Clinton, Ohio, where Putnam grew up in the 1950s - a "passable embodiment
of the American Dream, a place that offered decent opportunity for all the kids in town, whatever
their background." Port Clinton was, as Putnam is quick to concede, a nearly all-white town in a
pre-feminist and pre-civil-rights America, and it was marked by the unequal distribution of power
that spurred those movements into being. Yet it was also a place of high employment, strong unions,
widespread homeownership, relative class equality, and generally intact two-parent families. Everyone
knew one another by their first names and almost everyone was headed toward a better future; nearly
three quarters of all the classmates Putnam surveyed fifty years later had surpassed their parents
in both educational attainment and wealth.
When he revisited it in 2013, the town had become a kind of American nightmare. In the 1970s,
the industrial base entered a terminal decline, and the town's economy declined with it. Downtown
shops closed. Crime, delinquency, and drug use skyrocketed. In 1993, the factory that had offered
high-wage blue-collar employment finally shuttered for good. By 2010, the rate of births to unwed
mothers had risen to 40 percent. Two years later, the average worker in the county "was paid roughly
16 percent less in inflation-adjusted dollars than his or her grandfather in the early 1970s."
Young's novel ends with an editorial note informing readers that the fictional author of the text
had been killed in a riot that was part of a violent populist insurrection against the meritocracy,
an insurrection that the author had been insisting would pose no lasting threat to the social order.
Losing every young person of promise to the meritocracy had deprived the working class of its
prospective leaders, rendering it unable to coordinate a movement to manifest its political will.
"Without intelligence in their heads," he wrote, "the lower classes are never more menacing
than a rabble."
We are in the midst of a global insurrection against ruling elites. In the wake of the most destructive
of the blows recently delivered, a furious debate arose over whether those who supported Donald Trump
deserve empathy or scorn. The answer, of course, is that they deserve scorn for resorting to so depraved
and false a solution to their predicament - and empathy for the predicament itself. (And not just
because advances in technology are likely to make their predicament far more widely shared.) What
is owed to them is not the lachrymose pity reserved for victims (though they have suffered greatly)
but rather a practical appreciation of how their antagonism to the policies that determined the course
of this campaign - mass immigration and free trade - was a fully political antagonism that was disregarded
for decades, to our collective detriment.
A policy of benign neglect of immigration laws invites into our country a casualized workforce
without any leverage, one that competes with the native-born and destroys whatever leverage the latter
have to negotiate better terms for themselves. The policy is a subsidy to American agribusiness,
meatpacking plants, restaurants, bars, and construction companies, and to American families who would
not otherwise be able to afford the outsourcing of childcare and domestic labor that the postfeminist,
dual-income family requires. At the same time, a policy of free trade pits native-born workers against
foreign ones content to earn pennies on the dollar of their American counterparts.
In lieu of the social-democratic provision of childcare and other services of domestic support,
we have built a privatized, ad hoc system of subsidies based on loose border enforcement - in effect,
the nation cutting a deal with itself at the expense of the life chances of its native-born working
class. In lieu of an industrial policy that would preserve intact the economic foundation of their
lives, we rapidly dismantled our industrial base in pursuit of maximal aggregate economic growth,
with no concern for the uneven distribution of the harms and the benefits. Some were enriched hugely
by these policies: the college-educated bankers, accountants, consultants, technologists, lawyers,
economists, and corporate executives who built a supply chain that reached to the countries where
we shipped the jobs. Eventually, of course, many of these workers learned that both political parties
regarded them as fungible factors of production, readily discarded in favor of a machine or a migrant
willing to bunk eight to a room.
Four decades of neoliberal globalization have cleaved our country into two hostile classes,
and the line cuts across the race divide. On one side, college students credential themselves for
meritocratic success. On the other, the white working class increasingly comes to resemble the black
underclass in indices of social disorganization. On one side of the divide, much energy is expended
on the eradication of subtler inequalities; on the other side, an equality of immiseration increasingly
obtains.
Even before the ruling elite sent the proletariat off to fight a misbegotten war, even before
it wrecked the world economy through heedless lending, even before its politicians rescued those
responsible for the crisis while allowing working-class victims of all colors to sink, the working
class knew that it had been sacrificed to the interests of those sitting atop the meritocratic ladder.
The hostility was never just about differing patterns in taste and consumption. It was also about
one class prospering off the suffering of another. We learned this year that political interests
that go neglected for decades invariably summon up demagogues who exploit them for their own gain.
The demagogues will go on to betray their supporters and do enormous harm to others.
If we are to arrest the global descent into barbarism, we will have to understand the political
antagonism at the heart of the meritocratic project and seek a new kind of politics. If we choose
to neglect the valid interests of the working class, Trump will prove in retrospect to have been
a pale harbinger of even darker nightmares to come.
"Okay, step back and
absorb this one. Mr. Prasad is saying that millions of manufacturing workers in the Midwest lost
their jobs and saw their communities decimated because the Bush administration wanted to press China
to enforce Pfizer's patents on drugs, Microsoft's copyrights on Windows, and to secure better access
to China's financial markets for Goldman Sachs.
This is not a new story, in fact I say it all the time. But it's nice to have the story confirmed
by the person who occupied the International Monetary Fund's China desk at the time.
Porter then jumps in and gets his story completely 100 percent wrong:
"At the end of the day, economists argued at the time, Chinese exchange rate policies didn't cost
the United States much. After all, in 2007 the United States was operating at full employment. The
trade deficit was because of Americans' dismal savings rate and supercharged consumption, not a cheap
renminbi. After all, if Americans wanted to consume more than they created, they had to get it somewhere."
Sorry, this was the time when even very calm sensible people like Federal Reserve Board Chair
Ben Bernanke were talking about a "savings glut." The U.S. and the world had too much savings, which
lead to a serious problem of unemployment. Oh, we did eventually find a way to deal with excess savings.
Anyone remember the housing bubble?"
I don't remember Krugman or PGL saying China or trade policy was a problem at the time. They'd
just argue the Fed needs to lower rates to compensate.
Trump Isn't Wrong on China Currency Manipulation, Just Late
by Eduardo Porter
ECONOMIC SCENE APRIL 11, 2017
Has the United States mismanaged the ascent of China?
By April 15, the Treasury Department is required to present to Congress a report on the
exchange rate policies of the country's major trading partners, intended to identify manipulators
that cheapen their currency to make their exports more attractive and gain market share in
the United States, a designation that could eventually lead to retaliation.
It would be hard, these days, to find an economist who feels China fits the bill. Under
a trade law passed in 2015, a country must meet three criteria: It would have to have a "material"
trade surplus with the rest of the world, have a "significant" surplus with the United States,
and intervene persistently in foreign exchange markets to push its currency in one direction.
While China's surplus with the United States is pretty big - almost $350 billion - its global
surplus is modest, at 2.4 percent of its gross domestic product last year. Most significant,
it has been pushing its currency up, not down. Since the middle of 2014 it has sold over $1
trillion from its reserves to prop up the renminbi, under pressure from capital flight by Chinese
companies and savers.
Even President Trump - who as a candidate promised to label China a currency manipulator
on Day 1 and put a 45 percent tariff on imports of Chinese goods - seems to be backing away
from broad, immediate retaliation.
And yet the temptation remains. "When you talk about currency manipulation, when you talk
about devaluations," the Chinese "are world champions," Mr. Trump told The Financial Times,
ahead of the state visit of the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, to the United States last week.
For all Mr. Trump's random impulsiveness and bluster - and despite his lack of a coherent
strategy to engage with what is likely soon to become the world's biggest economy - he is not
entirely alone with his views.
Many learned economists and policy experts ruefully acknowledge that the president's intuition
is broadly right: While labeling China a currency manipulator now would look ridiculous, the
United States should have done it a long time ago.
"With the benefit of hindsight, China should have been named," said Brad Setser, an expert
on international economics and finance who worked in the Obama administration and is now at
the Council on Foreign Relations.
There were reasonable arguments against putting China on the spot and starting a process
that could eventually lead to American retaliation.
Yet by not pushing back against China's currency manipulation, and allowing China to deploy
an arsenal of trade tactics of dubious legality to increase exports to the United States, successive
administrations - Republican and Democratic - arguably contributed to the economic dislocations
that pummeled so many American workers over more than a decade. Those dislocations helped propel
Mr. Trump to power.
From 2000 to 2014 China definitely suppressed the rise of the renminbi to maintain a competitive
advantage for its exports, buying dollars hand over fist and adding $4 trillion to its foreign
reserves over the period. Until 2005, the Chinese government kept the renminbi pegged to the
dollar, following it down as the greenback slid against other major currencies starting in
2003.
American multinationals were flocking into China, taking advantage of its entry into the
World Trade Organization in December 2001, which guaranteed access to the American and other
world markets for its exports. By 2007, China's broad trade surplus hit 10 percent of its gross
domestic product - an unheard-of imbalance for an economy this large. And its surplus with
the United States amounted to a full third of the American deficit with the world.
Though the requirement that the Treasury identify currency manipulators "gaining unfair
competitive advantage in international trade" dates back to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
Act of 1988, China was never called out.
There were good reasons. Or at least they seemed so at the time. For one, China hands in
the administration of George W. Bush argued that putting China on the spot would make negotiations
more difficult, because even Chinese leaders who understood the need to allow their currency
to rise could not be seen to bow to American pressure.
Labeling China a manipulator could have severely hindered progress in other areas of a complex
bilateral economic relationship. And the United States had bigger fish to fry.
"There were other dimensions of China's economic policies that were seen as more important
to U.S. economic and business interests," Eswar Prasad, who headed the China desk at the International
Monetary Fund and is now a professor at Cornell, told me. These included "greater market access,
better intellectual property rights protection, easier access to investment opportunities,
etc."
At the end of the day, economists argued at the time, Chinese exchange rate policies didn't
cost the United States much. After all, in 2007 the United States was operating at full employment.
The trade deficit was because of Americans' dismal savings rate and supercharged consumption,
not a cheap renminbi. After all, if Americans wanted to consume more than they created, they
had to get it somewhere.
And the United States had a stake in China's rise. A crucial strategic goal of American
foreign policy since Mao's death had been how to peacefully incorporate China into the existing
order of free-market economies, bound by international law into the fabric of the postwar multilateral
institutions.
And the strategy even worked - a little bit. China did allow its currency to rise a little
from 2005 to 2008. And when the financial crisis hit, it took the foot off the export pedal
and deployed a giant fiscal stimulus, which bolstered internal demand.
Yet though these arguments may all be true, they omitted an important consideration: The
overhaul of the world economy imposed by China's global rise also created losers.
In a set of influential papers that have come to inform the thinking about the United States'
relations with China, David Autor, Daron Acemoglu and Brendan Price from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; Gordon Hanson from the University of California, San Diego; and David
Dorn from the University of Zurich concluded that lots of American workers, in many communities,
suffered a blow from which they never recovered.
Rising Chinese imports from 1999 to 2011 cost up to 2.4 million American jobs, one paper
estimated. Another found that sagging wages in local labor markets exposed to Chinese competition
reduced earnings by $213 per adult per year.
Economic theory posited that a developed country like the United States would adjust to
import competition by moving workers into more advanced industries that competed successfully
in global markets. In the real world of American workers exposed to the rush of imports after
China erupted onto world markets, the adjustment didn't happen.
If mediocre job prospects and low wages didn't stop American families from consuming, it
was because the American financial system was flush with Chinese cash and willing to lend,
financing their homes and refinancing them to buy the furniture. But that equilibrium didn't
end well either, did it?
What it left was a lot of betrayed anger floating around among many Americans on the wrong
end of these dynamics. "By not following the law, the administration sent a political signal
that the U.S. wouldn't stand up to Chinese cheating," said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations. "As we can see now, that hurt in terms of maintaining political
support for open trade."
If there was a winner from this dynamic, it was Mr. Trump.
Will Mr. Trump really go after China? In addition to an expected executive order to retaliate
against the dumping of Chinese steel, he has promised more. He could tinker with the definitions
of "material" and "significant" trade surpluses to justify a manipulation charge.
And yet a charge of manipulation would add irony upon irony. "It would be incredibly ironic
not to have named China a manipulator when it was manipulating, and name it when it is not,"
Mr. Setser told me. And Mr. Trump would be retaliating against the economic dynamic that handed
him the presidency.
"What it left was a lot of betrayed
anger floating around among many Americans on the wrong end of these dynamics. "By not following
the law, the administration sent a political signal that the U.S. wouldn't stand up to Chinese
cheating," said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "As we can
see now, that hurt in terms of maintaining political support for open trade."
If there was
a winner from this dynamic, it was Mr. Trump."
So PGL the Facile and Krugman - the New Democrats - helped elect with their corporate free
trade.
International Trade Lessons for the New York Times
The New York Times told readers * that Mexico is preparing to "play the corn card" in its negotiations
with Donald Trump. The piece warns:
"Now corn has taken on a new role - as a powerful lever for Mexican officials in the run-up
to talks over Nafta, the North American Free Trade Agreement.
"The reason: Much of the corn that Mexico consumes comes from the United States, making it
America's top agricultural export to its southern neighbor. And even though President Trump appears
to be pulling back from his vows to completely overhaul Nafta, Mexico has taken his threats to
heart and has begun flexing its own muscle.
"The Mexican government is exploring buying its corn elsewhere - including Argentina or Brazil
- as well as increasing domestic production. In a fit of political pique, a Mexican senator even
submitted a bill to eliminate corn purchases from the United States within three years."
It then warns of the potential devastation from this threat:
"The prospect that the United States could lose its largest foreign market for corn and other
key products has shaken farming communities throughout the American Midwest, where corn production
is a vital part of the economy. The threat is particularly unsettling for many residents of the
Corn Belt because much of the region voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump in the presidential election.
" 'If we lose Mexico as a customer, it will be absolutely devastating to the ag economy,' said
Philip Gordon, 68, who grows corn, soybeans and wheat on a farm in Saline, Mich., that has been
in his family for 140 years."
Okay, I hate to spoil a good scare story with a dose of reality, but let's think this one through
for a moment. According to the piece, instead of buying corn from the United States, Mexico might
buy it from Argentina or Brazil. So, we'll lose our Mexican market to these two countries.
But who is buying corn from Argentina and Brazil now? If this corn had previously been going
to other countries, then presumably these other countries will be looking to buy corn from someone
else, like perhaps U.S. farmers?
It is of course possible that Argentina and Brazil will switch production away from other crops
to corn to meet Mexico's demand, but that would likely leave openings in these other crops for
U.S. farmers. The transition to new markets for corn crops or a switch from corn to the crops
vacated by Brazil and Argentina would not be costless, but it also may not imply the sort of devastation
promised by the New York Times.
See, market economies are flexible. This is something that economists know, as should reporters
who write on economic issues. This may undermine scare stories that are being told to push an
agenda, but life is tough.
Not mentioned is that Mexico is the home of corn, that thousands of farmers who used to make their
livings raising native corns lost their farms to market rate competition from the USA under NAFTA.
Nick Begich - Wikipedia
Dr. Nick Begich
is the eldest son of the late United States Congressman from Alaska, Nick Begich Sr., and political
activist Pegge Begich. He is well known in Alaska for his own political activities. He was twice
elected President of both the Alaska Federation of Teachers and the Anchorage Council of Education.
He has been pursuing independent research in the sciences and politics for most of his adult life.
Begich received Doctor of Medicine (Medicina Alternitiva), honoris causa, for independent work in
health and political science, from The Open International University for Complementary Medicines,
Colombo, Sri Lanka, in November 1994.
Yes, There Really Are Things We Can Do to Reduce the Trade Deficit
Donald Trump's bluster about imposing large tariffs and force companies to make things in America
has led to backlash where we have people saying things to the effect that we are in a global economy
and we just can't do anything about shifting from foreign produced items to domestically produced
items. Paul Krugman's blogpost * on trade can be seen in this light, although it is not exactly what
he say and he surely knows better.
The post points out that imports account for a large percentage of the cost of many of the goods
we produce here. This means that if we raise the price of imports, we also make it more expensive
to produce goods in the United States.
This is of course true, but that doesn't mean that higher import prices would not lead to a shift
towards domestic production. For example, if we take the case of transport equipment he highlights,
if all the parts that we imported cost 20 percent more, then over time we would expect car producers
in the United States to produce with a larger share of domestically produced parts than would otherwise
be the case. This doesn't mean that imported parts go to zero, or even that they necessarily fall,
but just that they would be less than would be the case if import prices were 20 percent lower. This
is pretty much basic economics -- at a higher price we buy less.
While arbitrary tariffs are not a good way to raise the relative price of imports, we do have
an obvious tool that is designed for exactly this purpose. We can reduce the value of the dollar
against the currencies of our trading partners. This is probably best done through negotiations,
** which would inevitably involve trade-offs (e.g. less pressure to enforce U.S. patents and copyrights
and less concern about access for the U.S. financial industry). Loud threats against our trading
partners are likely to prove counter-productive. (We should also remove the protectionist barriers
that keep our doctors and dentists from enjoying the full benefits of international competition.)
Anyhow, we can do something about our trade deficits if had a president who thought seriously
about the issue. As it is, the current occupant of the White House seems to not know which way is
up when it comes to trade.
The post points out that imports account for a large percentage of the cost of many of the
goods we produce here. This means that if we raise the price of imports, we also make it more
expensive to produce goods in the United States.
== end of quote ==
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ...
The problems is that many strategically important, high technology components production
is offshored.
"... " This looks more like what you'd see in a banana republic, " says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group. " You've got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business. " ..."
"... In the first paragraph, we're told that jobs are moving to Mexico -- as usual. It's taken for granted (and without much concern here from Krugman) that US employers are going to keep exporting manufacturing jobs. This is followed by a defense of NAFTA, an attack on protectionism, and the suggestion that there is no alternative better than the status quo. And Democrats wonder why they're losing the Rust Belt states? ..."
"... The governmental action that was probably most important in creating the rust belt was the Reagan tax cuts. Those came as the Volcker effort to end inflation was still happening. That had to be continued, so the Reagan deficit could not be paid by inflating the money supply, and the necessary US bond sales kept our interest rate up, making the US the best place in the world to park money. Foreign exchange poured in, and the dollar's value soared by 70%. That rise made foreign production cheaper to Americans, and made US production uncompetitive elsewhere. ..."
"... Isn't this the same question that the British asked in 1845. The only thing we really know is that there are millions who no longer have a role in our economy. ..."
"... Liberals and Conservatives will not emerge until after the purge. Paul Krugman and Paul Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism. The belong to the same Tory Party of Robert Peel the only debate is about how best to grow the economy. ..."
"... The world's financial elite all fly the same flag called the Jolly Roger and finally we have a US government not ashamed to unfurl it. ..."
"... globalization has clearly not produced the promised big boost in overall growth in this country - economists would not be talking about "secular stagnation" if it had. ..."
"... Instead of denying the obvious facts and trying to divert the discussion with false claims about robots, why don't US economist try to work through the complications of trade and aim at policies which really would benefit US workers and might reduce the ever-growing inequality? Do they need to devote all their attention to defending the Democratic political establishment and their own failed theories and assumptions? ..."
"... It is obvious to most that the huge trade surge with China disrupted many commodity industries, steel, solar cells, electronics. ..."
"... If you do not see nothing obviously wrong, when a US company , bailed out by the US taxpayer, thanks the tax payer by importing cars made at Chinese wages to the US, putting out of work US workers, you must be a macro economist. ..."
"... Nowhere on the GM website is mentioned that those cars are made in China. Check ..."
"... the effective ban on big Western internet services like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, as well as local data storage rules for those who are allowed to operate. It's all done in the name of security ..."
Amazing how so many conservatives dismiss what Krugman as to say since he's so clearly a 'commie.'
Then they support Trump the capitalist businessman who will get things done.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Krugman is writing capitalist essays on his blog about the benefits
of Trade, and trump is running a kleptocracy that seeks to bring back a disproven form of protectionism
that would be much more at home among early 20th century socialists than with Milton Freedman
or Adam Smith.
It goes to show that the Republicans are a party without a purpose. They have given up on their
capitalist roots and instead just cater to the whims of the highest bidding campaign contributors
and the worst instincts of their bigoted base.
Paul Mathisis a trusted commenter Fairfax, Virginia
1 day ago
Nobody Knew Trade Could Be So Complicated!
Actually everybody knows that negotiating trade deals takes years of intensive efforts because
there are many moving parts that all affect each other.
Since Trump has the attention span of the average 3 year old, he has no time for anything more
complicated than banning Muslims from traveling to America. That simple "solution" did not work
out either.
So Trump is not going to do anything on trade simply because it is way too complicated and
time consuming. After all, he couldn't even spend 3 weeks on replacing Obamacare with his "fantastic"
plan. One month ago:
"We have a plan that I think is going to be fantastic. . . . I think it's going to be something
special ... I think you're going to like what you hear." --CNN
Re: "Oh, and China currency manipulation was an issue 5 years ago - but isn't now." I find
this interesting. Five years ago China was building up their reserves by purchasing US government
and agency bonds to keep their exchange rate low. Today those reserves of government and agency
bonds are falling as they are converted into US real estate and corporate assets while the trade
deficit remains at some $500 billion. This is supposed to make everything OK. What am I missing
here? http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm
China has more than 1.3 billion people, and wages in China have risen faster for a longer period
of time than anywhere ever.
It's not a mystery why wages in China are what they are. It started as a poor country with
an enormous, mostly rural population. If anything, the surprise is that they have managed to increase
wages so strongly for so long.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about trade and immigration, of course, but understanding
Trump requires one to abandon the notion that he is appealing to legitimate concerns.
He is appealing to spite. Anything resembling a legitimate concern is pretense, to give cover
to what would otherwise be recognized as ugly and deplorable. He says the spiteful parts loudly
and doesn't even feign competence or coherence on policy.
Once this is fully recognized, all that he says and does makes sense. It also suggests that
people interested in real substantive policy discussions should disregard Trump entirely.
Dr. K. is correct we should watch what DJT actually does, instead of what he says, though what
DJT says is designed to whip up his partisans by pointing to real issues, but instead of blaming
the ' lost factories ' and ' stripped wealth ' on the portion of economic strata DJT inhabits
- which is where the wealth stripping/lost factory hedgies and sacrosanct banker pay contract
holders also exist - DJT always points somewhere else.
Somewhere else is a moving target that can shift each time a new sun rises on the Twitter-verse.
And it's hard to see how everyone will continue to admire the Emperor's new clothes when the
stock markets reverse course, or if there is a 2011 re-dux next month over House GOP'ers raising
the debt ceiling.
Anyhoooo, the best indicator of how things are going regarding economic policies at the White
House is to see how DJT adviser Carl Icahn has benefited from specific policy carve-outs:
" This looks more like what you'd see in a banana republic, " says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen,
a liberal watchdog group. " You've got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or
wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business. "
Though DJT may be correct there are issues with NAFTA and at WTO, those issues are preferable
to bald-faced kleptocracy.
In the first paragraph, we're told that jobs are moving to Mexico -- as usual. It's taken for
granted (and without much concern here from Krugman) that US employers are going to keep exporting
manufacturing jobs. This is followed by a defense of NAFTA, an attack on protectionism, and the
suggestion that there is no alternative better than the status quo. And Democrats wonder why they're
losing the Rust Belt states?
Trump's record low approval rating is likely to take a further hit in the near future from
deteriorating economic conditions. Measures of consumer and business confidence soared since the
election yet hard economic data continues to weaken with the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow estimate of
first quarter GDP growth falling to just 0.9%, after this morning's weak personal income and spending
report. Indeed, growth in real personal consumption expenditures peaked way back in January 2015.
While there was a mild rebound that started in March 2016 the trend has since turned negative
since the start of the 2017. See chart:
Interesting fact is the recent polarization of consumer confidence readings. Democrats are
generally pessimists while Republicans are optimistic about the economy. That suggests consumer
confidence readings will fall when Republicans get over their infatuation with Trump. And will
most likely be driven by disappointing economic growth -- actual growth and not empty promises.
Trump promised 4% growth which is impossible over the long term due to slow population growth.
Yet, that growth rate now looks far out of reach even for a single quarter and fiscal stimulus
looks less and less likely to happen even if some tax cuts for the wealthy do manage to pass Congress.
Tax cuts are not stimulative if they heavily favor the wealthy. Probably the opposite is true
considering the Bush tax cuts were so ineffective.
Krugman is an economist; he's not merely trying to sway voters. And he knows that the decline
in industrial jobs is more due to productivity gains than factories' moving abroad. In any case,
measures like Trump's scolding businessmen is not and will not be important in keeping jobs from
leaving. More important is the exchange rate.
The governmental action that was probably most important in creating the rust belt was the
Reagan tax cuts. Those came as the Volcker effort to end inflation was still happening. That had
to be continued, so the Reagan deficit could not be paid by inflating the money supply, and the
necessary US bond sales kept our interest rate up, making the US the best place in the world to
park money. Foreign exchange poured in, and the dollar's value soared by 70%. That rise made foreign
production cheaper to Americans, and made US production uncompetitive elsewhere.
But the decline in manufacturing would be happening regardless. It is the same process that
did in most US family farms throughout the 20th century. US farming is now so efficient that farmers,
once 3/4 of us, are now as small a fraction of Americans as "gardeners, groundskeepers, and growers
of ornamental plants." The same thing is now happening to factories; we're just too efficient
at making things to require the number of manufacturing workers we once did.
Ron Cohenis a trusted commenter Waltham, MA
20 hours ago
Prof. Krugman, in your column today about Coal Country, you rightfully identify it as a state
of mind. But that state of mind is not nostaglia as you argue. Rather, it is a profound cultural
resentment that motivates the voters of West Virginia.
For perspective on this subject, I urge you to read Arlie Hochschild's, widely praised, "Strangers
in Their Own Land." http://thenewpress.com/node/10362
.
All but one of the columns, below, are from The New York Times. Taken together, they form a
coda to Hochschild's book. I suggest you start with the last one, Sabrina Tavernise's piece.
Bernie Sanders Has A Plan To Win Back Trump Voters, The Huffington Post, March 9, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/zy2nzxh
Trump Budget Proposal Reflects Working-Class Resentment of the Poor, Eduardo Porter, March
7, 2017 http://tinyurl.com/ho5zkha
Thank you or the opportunity of answering your question with my question.
Isn't this the same question that the British asked in 1845. The only thing we really know
is that there are millions who no longer have a role in our economy.
Liberals and Conservatives will not emerge until after the purge. Paul Krugman and Paul
Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism.
The belong to the same Tory Party of Robert Peel the only debate is about how best to grow the
economy.
The question that comes to my mind is why do we want to grow an economy where production exceeds
demand every day and our ideological Dogma says we must work even harder than ever to increase
the inequality between supply and demand?
We have ceded control to the Whigs and I fear it isn't only 3 million Irish peasants who will
disappear. The conversion of dollars into real estate really struck a high note as those worthless
hovels that housed 3 million economically worthless peasants provided room for what was most important
in the Irish economy pigs and cattle. Again I feel I must repeat there was no famine in Ireland
it was a failure of potato crops and each year Ireland exported enough food to feed all of Ireland's
hungry for seven potatoless years. Then as now the bible was The Economist.
The world's financial elite all fly the same flag called the Jolly Roger and finally we
have a US government not ashamed to unfurl it.
A good start would be to insist on living wages in mexico and Asia along with humane working
conditions. That's a starting position a trump or Clinton administration would never consider,
but Sanders would have. Bringing those changes about would create more of a level playing field
for US workers. Also if China isn't controlling currency anymore why is labor still so cheap.?
It can't be fully explained by excess labor supply. Something must be going on, and we should
be trying to figure it out.
skeptonomistis a trusted commenter Tennessee
1 day ago
lt's true that modern trade is very complicated but certain things are obvious. One is that
the US runs huge trade deficits, amounting to nearly $750 billion in goods. Yes, this is obviously
bigly unfair to the United States, that is considering the majority of its citizens and especially
wage earners, who have been put into competition with those in developing countries, rather than
the capitalists whose profits have been increased by the lower wage costs. Those goods represent
a very large number of jobs that are now in other countries. Another is that globalization has
clearly not produced the promised big boost in overall growth in this country - economists would
not be talking about "secular stagnation" if it had.
Instead of denying the obvious facts and trying to divert the discussion with false claims
about robots, why don't US economist try to work through the complications of trade and aim at
policies which really would benefit US workers and might reduce the ever-growing inequality? Do
they need to devote all their attention to defending the Democratic political establishment and
their own failed theories and assumptions?
Trade is a tough policy to debate with people and come to consensus. It is obvious to most
that the huge trade surge with China disrupted many commodity industries, steel, solar cells,
electronics. More should have been done to minimize the disruption. That said we are where we
are.
Our manufacturing now is higher up the value chain. Our commodity mills now need to innovate
to take advantage of niche higher value low volume markets that big producers can't supply effectively.
Innovate to develop new materials and specialized processes that displace current materials. Innovation,
flexibility and agility is our competitive advantage. Time to make the jobs of the future, commodity
production is in the past.
"But even there it's not obvious what you would demand from a new agreement."
Let me help out the professor with an article from the NY Times 3/30/17 and provide an obvious
example
"China's Taxes on Imported Cars Feed Trade Tensions With U.S."
reporting that a Jeep retailing for $ $40,530 in the US cost in China , quote " $ $71,000,
mostly because of taxes that Beijing charges on every car, minivan and sport utility vehicle that
is made in another country"
Meanwhile , quote "General Motors started shipping the Buick Envision model from a factory
in eastern China's Shandong Province to the United States last year. That decision irritated the
United Automobile Workers union"
But that is not all. The NY Times reported on 1/29/16 that GM's Cadillac devision started to
import its " plug-in hybrid version of its new CT6 flagship sedan from China " and "A PEEK under
the hood of three new cars from Buick and Cadillac will not reveal a Made in China label"
If you do not see nothing obviously wrong, when a US company , bailed out by the US taxpayer,
thanks the tax payer by importing cars made at Chinese wages to the US, putting out of work US
workers, you must be a macro economist.
Either US consumer win (cheaper cars) or US companies (more profit for the stock holders).
Final Note
Nowhere on the GM website is mentioned that those cars are made in China. Check
Ron,
Europe's parliamentary democracies have always given the 20% an outsized role in elections and
governance because coalitions are the rule not the exception and 20% is a lot of seats.
From here on a less than 4 hour drive to Waltham it looks like your 20% has the house, the senate,
the executive and soon the courts and the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump was a wake-up call for the world's 80% as Europe like North America is over 80% urban.
If Trump had the attention span and work ethic needed to become a dictator, he would seek the
confrontation over expelling the undocumented, not over trade. Trade isn't visceral enough, not
existential enough, to sustain the fear of the Other a dictator needs.
On China, there actually are a few obvious imbalances that affect the tech industry, though
it's doubtful the US has the leverage to change them.
The first comes from the Chinese government's drive to build their domestic tech industry by
coercing technology transfer from Western firms outsourcing manufacturing in China.
The second is the effective ban on big Western internet services like Google, Facebook, and
Twitter, as well as local data storage rules for those who are allowed to operate. It's all done
in the name of security (and censorship), of course, but it's also an obvious form of protectionism. Baidu and Weibo might not exist otherwise.
The government is also investing in a Chinese variant
of Linux, no doubt with the ultimate goal of gaining complete control over all software running
inside the country.
"... What's more, the overall numbers hide serious declines in most areas of manufacturing. A 2013 paper by Susan Houseman, Timothy Bartik and Timothy Sturgeon found that strong growth in computer-related manufacturing obscured a decline in almost all other areas. "In most of manufacturing," they write, "real GDP growth has been weak or negative and productivity growth modest." ..."
"... And, more troubling, the U.S. is now losing computer manufacturing. Houseman et al. show that U.S. computer production began to fall during the Great Recession. In semiconductors, output has grown slightly, but has been far outpaced by most East Asian countries. Meanwhile, trade deficits in these areas have been climbing. ..."
"... He cites Sematech, a government-led consortium that tried to help the U.S. retain its lead in semiconductor manufacturing in the 1980s and 1990s, as a successful example of high-tech industrial policy. ..."
Staying Rich
Without Manufacturing
Will Be Hard
MARCH 28, 2017 8:00
AM EDT
Discussions about
manufacturing tend to
get very contentious.
Many economists and
commentators believe
that there's nothing
inherently special
about making things
and that efforts to
restore U.S.
manufacturing to its
former glory reek of
industrial policy,
protectionism,
mercantilism and
antiquated thinking.
But in their
eagerness to guard
against the return of
these ideas,
manufacturing's
detractors often
overstate their case.
Manufacturing is in
bigger trouble than
the conventional
wisdom would have you
believe.
One common
assertion is that
while manufacturing
jobs have declined,
output has actually
risen. But this piece
of conventional wisdom
is now outdated. U.S.
manufacturing output
is almost exactly the
same as it was just
before the financial
crisis of 2008:
[chart]
In the 1990s, it
really was true that
manufacturing
production was booming
even though employment
in the sector was
falling. During that
decade, output rose by
almost half. That's
almost a 4 percent
annualized growth
rate. The expansion of
the early 2000s, in
contrast, saw
manufacturing increase
by only about 15
percent peak-to-peak
over eight years --
less than a 2 percent
annual growth rate.
And in the eight years
between 2008 and 2016,
the growth rate has
averaged zero.
But even this may
overstate U.S.
manufacturing's
performance. An
alternative measure,
called industrial
production, shows an
outright decrease from
a decade ago:
[chart]
So it isn't just
manufacturing
employment and the
sector's share of
gross domestic product
that are hurting in
the U.S. It's total
output. The U.S.
doesn't really make
more stuff than it
used to.
What's more, the
overall numbers hide
serious declines in
most areas of
manufacturing. A 2013
paper by Susan
Houseman, Timothy
Bartik and Timothy
Sturgeon found that
strong growth in
computer-related
manufacturing obscured
a decline in almost
all other areas. "In
most of
manufacturing," they
write, "real GDP
growth has been weak
or negative and
productivity growth
modest."
And, more
troubling, the U.S. is
now losing computer
manufacturing.
Houseman et al. show
that U.S. computer
production began to
fall during the Great
Recession. In
semiconductors, output
has grown slightly,
but has been far
outpaced by most East
Asian countries.
Meanwhile, trade
deficits in these
areas have been
climbing.
In other words,
Asia is still
solidifying its place
as the workshop of the
world, while the U.S.
de-industrializes. The
1990s provided a brief
respite from this
trend, as new
industries arose to
replace the ones that
had been lost. But the
years since the turn
of the century have
reversed this short
renaissance, and
manufacturing is once
more migrating
overseas.
Manufacturing
skeptics often draw
parallels to what
happened to
agriculture in the
Industrial Revolution.
But the two situations
aren't analogous. In
the 20th century, U.S.
agricultural output
soared even as it shed
jobs and shrank as a
percent of GDP.
Machines replaced most
human farmers, but the
total value of U.S.
crops kept climbing.
Meanwhile, the U.S.
to this day runs a
trade surplus in
agriculture even as it
runs a huge deficit in
manufactured products.
America pays for
computers and cars and
phones with soybeans
and corn and beef.
So U.S.
manufacturing is
hurting in ways that
U.S. agriculture never
did. The common
refrain that the
modern shift to
services parallels the
earlier shift to
industry might turn
out to be true, but
the parallels are not
encouraging.
Faced with this
evidence, many
skeptics will question
why the sector is
important at all. Why
should a country
specialize in making
things, when it can
instead specialize in
designing, marketing
and financing the
making of things?
This is a
legitimate question,
but there are reasons
to think a successful
developed nation still
needs a healthy
manufacturing sector.
Harvard University's
Kennedy School of
Government economist
Ricardo Hausmann
believes that a
country's economic
development depends
crucially on where it
lies in the so-called
product space. If a
country makes complex
products that are
linked to many other
industries -- such as
computers, cars and
chemicals -- it will
be rich. But if it
makes simple products
that don't have much
of a supply chain --
soybeans or oil -- it
will stay poor. In the
past, the U.S. was
very successful at
positioning itself at
the top of the global
value chain. But with
manufacturing's
decline, the rise of
finance, real estate
and other orphaned
service industries may
not be enough to keep
the country rich in
the long run.
More top economists
are starting to come
around to the view
that manufacturing is
important.
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology economist
David Autor, in a
recent phone
conversation, told me
he now believes that
the U.S. should focus
more on industrial
policy designed to
keep cutting-edge
manufacturing
industries in the
country. He cites Sematech, a
government-led
consortium that tried
to help the U.S.
retain its lead in
semiconductor
manufacturing in the
1980s and 1990s, as a
successful example of
high-tech industrial
policy.
The stellar
performance of
semiconductor
manufacturing in the
1990s and 2000s
relative to other
industries in the
sector, as reported by
Houseman et al., seems
like something the
U.S. should aim to
emulate with
next-generation
industries.
So U.S. leaders
should listen to
manufacturing skeptics
a little bit less, and
pay more attention to
those who say the
sector is crucial.
It's worth noting that
President Donald
Trump, who was elected
on a promise to
restore American
manufacturing, has
shown more interest in
cutting government
programs designed to
give industry a
helping hand. If
there's going to be a
U.S. industrial policy
renaissance, it might
not be his
administration that
leads it.
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern
Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
By Dean Baker
The Old Technology and Inequality Scam: The Story of
Patents and Copyrights
One of the amazing lines often repeated by people in
policy debates is that, as a result of technology, we are
seeing income redistributed from people who work for a living
to the people who own the technology. While the
redistribution part of the story may be mostly true, the
problem is that the technology does not determine who "owns"
the technology. The people who write the laws determine who
owns the technology.
Specifically, patents and copyrights give their holders
monopolies on technology or creative work for their duration.
If we are concerned that money is going from ordinary workers
to people who hold patents and copyrights, then one policy we
may want to consider is shortening and weakening these
monopolies. But policy has gone sharply in the opposite
direction over the last four decades, as a wide variety of
measures have been put into law that make these protections
longer and stronger. Thus, the redistribution from people who
work to people who own the technology should not be
surprising - that was the purpose of the policy.
If stronger rules on patents and copyrights produced
economic dividends in the form of more innovation and more
creative output, then this upward redistribution might be
justified. But the evidence doesn't indicate there has been
any noticeable growth dividend associated with this upward
redistribution. In fact, stronger patent protection seems to
be associated with slower growth.
Before directly considering the case, it is worth thinking
for a minute about what the world might look like if we had
alternative mechanisms to patents and copyrights, so that the
items now subject to these monopolies could be sold in a free
market just like paper cups and shovels.
The biggest impact would be in prescription drugs. The
breakthrough drugs for cancer, hepatitis C, and other
diseases, which now sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of
dollars annually, would instead sell for a few hundred
dollars. No one would have to struggle to get their insurer
to pay for drugs or scrape together the money from friends
and family. Almost every drug would be well within an
affordable price range for a middle-class family, and
covering the cost for poorer families could be easily managed
by governments and aid agencies.
The same would be the case with various medical tests and
treatments. Doctors would not have to struggle with a
decision about whether to prescribe an expensive scan, which
might be the best way to detect a cancerous growth or other
health issue, or to rely on cheaper but less reliable
technology. In the absence of patent protection even the most
cutting edge scans would be reasonably priced.
Health care is not the only area that would be transformed
by a free market in technology and creative work. Imagine
that all the textbooks needed by college students could be
downloaded at no cost over the web and printed out for the
price of the paper. Suppose that a vast amount of new books,
recorded music, and movies was freely available on the web.
People or companies who create and innovate deserve to be
compensated, but there is little reason to believe that the
current system of patent and copyright monopolies is the best
way to support their work. It's not surprising that the
people who benefit from the current system are reluctant to
have the efficiency of patents and copyrights become a topic
for public debate, but those who are serious about inequality
have no choice. These forms of property claims have been
important drivers of inequality in the last four decades.
The explicit assumption behind the steps over the last
four decades to increase the strength and duration of patent
and copyright protection is that the higher prices resulting
from increased protection will be more than offset by an
increased incentive for innovation and creative work. Patent
and copyright protection should be understood as being like
very large tariffs. These protections can often the raise the
price of protected items by several multiples of the free
market price, making them comparable to tariffs of several
hundred or even several thousand percent. The resulting
economic distortions are comparable to what they would be if
we imposed tariffs of this magnitude.
The justification for granting these monopoly protections
is that the increased innovation and creative work that is
produced as a result of these incentives exceeds the economic
costs from patent and copyright monopolies. However, there is
remarkably little evidence to support this assumption. While
the cost of patent and copyright protection in higher prices
is apparent, even if not well-measured, there is little
evidence of a substantial payoff in the form of a more rapid
pace of innovation or more and better creative work....
In the GE Aviation
lobby, as Indiana
Governor Holcomb
rocked slightly in
custom-made cowboy
boots – black, pointed
toes, an outline of
Indiana on the front
of the shaft – and the
sound of the ignition
of his SUV signaling
the end of a Wednesday
afternoon at the GE
plant, Plant Manager
Matteson added one
more thing:
Immigration reform
would really help on a
number of fronts,
starting with clearing
the way for the talent
pool coming out of
Indiana Universities
and other engineering
schools.
This is the
new manufacturing that
is replacing the
factories being
shuttered. They are
run by engineers, many
of them foreign. They
hire workers who they
will train and workers
must be capable of
learning and fitting
in with the work
culture. Manufacturing
is locating in urban
areas and near
Universities where
they can find a pool
of high skill talent
and a workforce that
is accustomed to
diversity. They will
NOT go to a redneck
sundown town where the
Indian engineers are
going to be harassed
and maybe shot. The
Sundown towns are
chasing away the very
people they need to
save their
communities. The
denigrate education
and fail to teach
their children the
math skills they would
need to become high
skill engineering
talent. Low skill jobs
cannot have high pay
without unions. These
voters have voted for
politicians who have
destroyed their unions
with Right to Work
laws and other bad
policy.
They are egged on
by Trump who
understands none of
this and promises to
return their low skill
jobs. The GOP and
Trump blame trade and
immigrants, pushing
the cultural buttons
to deflect attention
to their complicity in
destroying unions,
underfunding education
and failure to invest
in the workforce
Yep. There is certainly a roach motel policy aspect to
globalization. Dependencies upon existing supply chains both
for wage and regulatory arbitrage pricing and for invested
fixed capital stock impose yuuge drags on on-shoring efforts.
The poverty economics from 40 acres and mule all the way to
single parent eligibility requirements and subsequent
"reforms" for family financial aid were also roach motel
economics. Now we have the irony of the sharing economy
further suppressing wages.
Thought-provoking, wide-ranging blog post by Jared* on
international trade. I guess PGL only had time to read Timmy
Taylor in his rush to post first.
He disagrees with
Navarro** about trade deficits always being a problem and
notes that there are two sides or aspects to the equation.
"As long as the world's excess global savings continue to
flow to our shores, our trade deficit will persist, and going
after bilateral deficits one at a time becomes a game of
whack-a-mole that we can't win."
Jared notes how Brad Setser suggests a solution: "As Brad
Setser convincingly argues, encouraging countries with large
surpluses (which must show up as deficits somewhere else) to
engage in more internal investment is a far preferable way to
reduce our own imbalances than tariffs and trade barriers."
Too bad we don't have a WTO that could force surplus
nations like Germany and China to do this.
But Jared admits Navarro isn't always wrong (something PGL
can't bring himself to do given his hateful nature.)
"Second, Navarro is not wrong to worry about the drag on
demand from negative net exports, but only when there's
nothing in the pipeline to offset it. The Federal Reserve can
lower interest rates to offset the drag, but not if they're
near zero, or in "normalization" mode (raising rates), both
of which are operative today. Fiscal policy can pick up the
slack, but not if Congress refuses to step up.
So yeah, today's trade deficits are a problem. They've not
been large enough to keep the economy from growing and
unemployment from falling, but remember, it's year eight of
an economic expansion and we've still not fully closed the
GDP output gap (and that's even the case as potential GDP has
been lowered). In the absence of offsets, we could have used
that extra demand."
This is what the neoliberals like PGL and Sanjait don't
understand or can't admit. Why? Because of politics and how
Democrats like Bill Clinton and Obama pushed corporate free
trade deals and trade policy. Because critics like Navarro
and Bernie Sanders have struck a cord with populist voters
concerned about corporate trade.
Jared Bernstein wraps up with a plea for infrastructure
spending given the threat of the SecStags.
"But given the existential threat of climate change, or
for that matter, the general state of our public goods, I
find it awfully hard to accept the contention that there's
nothing productive in which to invest the excess savings
surplus countries continue to send our way."
Compare with Hillary' modest fiscal action which Alan
Blinder said wouldn't effect the Fed's reaction function.
DeLong still backed her over Sanders despite the threat of
the Secstags. Critics of Fed policy like Sanjait and PGL
still backed Hillary even though she had no criticisms of the
Fed or plans to reform its policy.
* like PGL, I pretend to know the write to give myself the
appearance more authority.
** PGL's bete noir.
Washington Post Lies to Readers Again: Job Loss in
Manufacturing Due to Trade, not Automation
The Washington Post must think that U.S. trade policy
is really awful. Why else would they continually lie to
their readers * and claim that the cause of the sharp job
loss in manufacturing in recent years was automation?
For fans of data rather than myths, the basic story is
that manufacturing has been declining as a share of total
employment since 1970. However there was relatively little
change in the number of jobs until the trade deficit
exploded in the last decade. Here's the graph.
[Manufacturing Employment, 1970-2017]
And, there was no great uptick in productivity **
coinciding with the plunge in employment at the start of
the last decade. It would be nice if the Washington Post
could discuss trade honestly. This sort of reporting gives
fuel to the Donald Trumps of the world.
In this context it is probably worth once again
mentioning that the Washington Post still refuses to
correct its pro-NAFTA editorial in which it made the
absurd claim *** that Mexico's GDP quadrupled from 1987 to
2007. The actual figure was 83 percent, according to the
International Monetary Fund.
"... He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated" anti-neoliberal sentiments. ..."
"... And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals: ..."
"... Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism ..."
"... Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization itself. ..."
"... "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," ..."
"... This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980. So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at ..."
The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president. What would motivate
many people to go out for weekend rallies now?
libezkova -> cm... , -1
"The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president."
You are absolutely wrong. Mission is not accomplished. It is not even started.
Trump IMHO was just a symbol of resistance against neoliberalism that is growing in the USA.
He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal
movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis
of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated"
anti-neoliberal sentiments.
And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals:
Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve
détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and
hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism
(despite
being neoliberal country with neoliberal President -- Putin is probably somewhat similar to Trump
"bastard neoliberal" a strange mixture of neoliberal in domestic politics with "economic nationalist"
on international arena that rejects neoliberal globalization, on term favorable to multinational
corporations).
Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on
Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization
itself.
The problem is there is extremely powerful and influential "fifth column" of globalization
within the country and they can't allow Trump to go this path. As Senator Dick Durbin said about
banks and the US Congress
== quote ==
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been battling the banks the last few weeks in an effort to
get 60 votes lined up for bankruptcy reform. He's losing.
On Monday night in an interview with a radio host back home, he came to a stark conclusion:
the banks own the Senate.
"And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many
of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly
own the place,"
== end of the quote ==
This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980.
So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to
return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at
Not every globalist is a (((globalist))), but an important globalist is usually a (((globalist))).
Thank you if you are really fighting globalism and not being just another controlled opposition.
+Jake Coughlin People like Clinton and Merkel don't truly believe in globalism either, they
are just opportunists. I like to look at them as just pawns in this game. Clinton could never
be an independent politician, since she is receiving so much money from very controversial sources.
I really like Ron Paul too, he is awesome and he is addressing some very important subjects.
Thanks to globalism, The Rebel has media outlets that can transmit to other countries. Thanks
to globalism, they can buy high performance cameras to film their anti-globalism videos.
Thanks to globalism, you can buy a vast variety of products at a cheap price. Globalism is
what makes free markets possible.
In other words globalism is the very definition of freedom of businesses. Thanks to globalism,
you don't have to live in a primitive, nationalist, isolated, 1800s society where you have Kings
and Queens who rule like conservative tyrants and keep the population ignorant as peasants. Globalism
is capitalism, the very value that made America so notorious.
Nationalism is feeling that one's country is superior to another. That's not pride in one's
country, don't get it twisted. Patriotism is pride in one's country and its values. Don't let
the nationalist confuse you with their twisted definitions of globalism.
Nationalism is what tyrants during WW1 and WW2 fed to the people in order to make them sign
up for a war that would only benefit those monarchies. Nationalism appeals to a very primitive
feeling of pride instead of logic and progress. Nationalism goes hand in hand with isolationism
which prevents small businesses to grow and limits the country to a very small group of overpriced
home products. Nationalism is regressive thinking. It opposes development and growth.
Technological progress is not globalism. Trade agreements between countries are not globalism.
You don't have to destroy all independent countries to have free markets. Poor kid... this is
how severe case of globalist brainwashing looks like.
"... US companies were always able to offshore work. Before commodity internet, telecom, and international transport (OK in good part enabled by international trade/etc. deals), that was much more costly. ..."
"... IT has made it possible to effectively manage larger business/institutional aggregate than before on an industrial scale and using industrial management paradigms. Others and I have made that case before. ..."
"... Put yourself in 1980, though. Think about the coordination you can organize. Think about sending components to a low labor cost jurisdiction for assembly. Perhaps paying a tariff and transportation to get there, then a tariff and transportation to get back. The labor is essentially free, but the other is real money. Ten years later the tariffs start to disappear. Containerization continues to drive down transport per unit. ..."
"... Sure, by now the best manufacturers are often foreign. They did not get there without our help. ..."
"... In the case of subsidiaries, this requires international legal frameworks allowing US companies to operate foreign subsidiaries, or buying foreign companies, with low enough overheads ("compliance" etc.) to make distributing work worthwhile. ..."
"... The general sentiment seems to be that people in "low cost geographies" are of lesser quality at least as concerns the subject matter. This is not my experience. What used to lack (as of today I would doubt even that) is years of experience, as the offshoring industry branches hadn't existed in the remote locations, so all you could hire was freshers; or a lag in access to bleeding edge Western technology and research literature. This is no longer the case, and hasn't been the case for about a decade. ..."
"... That IN THEORY, the exchange rate and other prices should adjust to any change in tax or regulatory regime to at least partly offset it. A lot of the practical problems arise, because price adjustments do not actually seem to happen to the extent predicted, and large financial imbalances are seen to become secular features of the economic landscape. ..."
"Revoking Trade Deals Will Not Help American Middle Classes."
Brad lives in a world with jump discontinuities in the distribution of expected returns from
labor arbitrage. That changing the cost of doing a deal will not reduce or unwind deals because
the gains from trade individually exceed any costs that could be imposed. So he can say, elsewhere,
the jobs ain't coming back, full stop.
"If the United States had imposed barriers to the construction of intercontinental value chains
would the semi-skilled and skilled manufacturing workers of the U.S. be better off?"
Brad does not find any relation between "imposing barriers" and "removing subsidy". Or in establishing
the older trade deals, between "removing barriers" and "subsidizing foreign labor". Where the
foreign labor operated in a low environmental protection environment, a low labor protection environment,
and probably others, it seems enabling US firms to invest in foreign operations to reap the savings
of less protection should be seen as subsidy.
US companies were always able to offshore work. Before commodity internet, telecom, and
international transport (OK in good part enabled by international trade/etc. deals), that was
much more costly.
IMO, offshoring has largely been an automation and IT story.
Likewise domestic/national level business consolidation.
IT has made it possible to effectively manage larger business/institutional aggregate than
before on an industrial scale and using industrial management paradigms. Others and I have made
that case before.
This is not a new insight, but probably still not an obvious one.
Put yourself in 1980, though. Think about the coordination you can organize. Think about sending
components to a low labor cost jurisdiction for assembly. Perhaps paying a tariff and transportation
to get there, then a tariff and transportation to get back. The labor is essentially free, but
the other is real money. Ten years later the tariffs start to disappear. Containerization continues
to drive down transport per unit.
Point one is that Brad assumes there is no one doing this now who is near break-even and would
go upside down with any change in tariff regime, so there is no one to relocate to the USA.
Point two is that we import environmental degradation and below market labor when we allow/encourage
these to be part of the ROI calculation through tariff policy.
Sure, by now the best manufacturers are often foreign. They did not get there without our help.
Well, one can argue that environmental improvements credited to regulation were in part exporting
environmental degradation, simply by moving polluting production facilities "over there".
E.g. I have seen it in my own work and with many others: companies can farm out any work to foreign
subsidiaries or contractors they don't want to keep stateside for some reason. In the case of
subsidiaries, this requires international legal frameworks allowing US companies to operate foreign
subsidiaries, or buying foreign companies, with low enough overheads ("compliance" etc.) to make
distributing work worthwhile.
Considering the case of US vs. Asia - depending on where you are in the US, Asia/PAC (India/Far
East/Pacific) business hours are off by about a half day because of time zone effects. To a lesser
but similar degree this applies to Europe and the Middle East.
The general sentiment seems to be that people in "low cost geographies" are of lesser quality
at least as concerns the subject matter. This is not my experience. What used to lack (as of today
I would doubt even that) is years of experience, as the offshoring industry branches hadn't existed
in the remote locations, so all you could hire was freshers; or a lag in access to bleeding edge
Western technology and research literature. This is no longer the case, and hasn't been the case
for about a decade.
Then there is the aspect that people in "some" geographies are more habituated to top-down
management styles, talking back less, etc. which may be an advantage or liability depending on
what the business requires of them.
I think one thing that is forgotten almost always in such discussions is that the arguments for
or against trade start with barter not so much with monetary exchange.
That IN THEORY, the exchange
rate and other prices should adjust to any change in tax or regulatory regime to at least partly
offset it. A lot of the practical problems arise, because price adjustments do not actually seem
to happen to the extent predicted, and large financial imbalances are seen to become secular features
of the economic landscape.
This is why I'm inclined to say that trade barriers are a bit of red
herring, the really big issues are financial (including the need for finding ways to repair damaged
middle class balance sheets). We need to stop seeing redistribution as a dirty word. It is what
democratic governments worth the name should be doing.
"... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
"... From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto. ..."
"... Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make or shipbuilding in Asia. ..."
"... Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the past? ..."
"... Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization. Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts, already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise? ..."
"... Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing else. ..."
"... So proof is required to rollback globalization, but no proof was required to launch it or continue dishing it out? It's good to be the King, eh? ..."
"... America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico, you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak English. How do you make this work? ..."
"... The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. ..."
"... There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve. ..."
"... When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to production problems and issues. ..."
"... After his speech he took questions. I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing to Asia. "No" was his answer. ..."
"... In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control. ..."
"... How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the wind. ..."
"... The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved. ..."
"... I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying ..."
"... "Right to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive pay." ..."
"... I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not under threat from it. ..."
"... First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem", where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk. ..."
"... So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden? ..."
"... One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to the 3rd in the past. ..."
"... And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately played the global guilt card in response. ..."
"... During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders. ..."
"... Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast returns that way but that's just the point. ..."
"... China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on. ..."
"... In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. ..."
"... "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system." ..."
"... The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian. Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread subsidy. Ciao. ..."
"... 80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country! ..."
"... Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political platforms. ..."
"... Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction. ..."
"... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers' ..."
"... and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. ..."
"... The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
Definitely a pleasant read but IMHO wrong conclusion: Yet, a return to protectionism is
not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate
compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The
world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.
From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels
that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making
this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto.
We need a world where goods move little as possible (yep!) when smart ideas and technology
(medical, science, industry, yep that's essential) move as much as possible. Internet makes this
possible. This is no dream but a XXIth century reality.
Work – the big one – is required and done where and when it occurs. That is on all continents
if not in every country. Not in an insanely remote suburbs of Asia.
Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their
views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make
or shipbuilding in Asia.
Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not
create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the
past?
Yves Smith can have nasty words when it comes to discussing massive trade surplus and policies
that supports them. That's my single most important motivation for reading this challenging blog,
by the way.
Another thing is that reliance on complex supply chains is risky. The book 1177 B.C.: The Year
Civilization Collapsed describes how the ancient Mediterranian civilization collapsed when the
supply chains stopped working.
Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization.
Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts,
already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise?
Is Finland somehow supposed to force the US and China to adopt similar worker rights and environmental
protections? No, globalization, no matter how you slice it,is a race to the bottom.
I do not agree with the article's conclusion either.
Reshoring would have 1 of 2 outcomes:
Lots of manufacturing jobs and a solid middle class. We may be looking at more than 20
percent total employment in manufacturing and more than 30 percent of our GDP in manufacturing.
If the robots take over, we still have a lot of manufacturing jobs. Japan for example has
the most robots per capita, yet they still maintain very large amounts of manufacturing employment.
It does not mean the end of manufacturing at all, having worked in manufacturing before.
Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing
else.
The conclusion is the least important thing. Conclusions are just interpretations, afterthoughts,
divagations (which btw are often just sneaky ways to get your work published by TPTB, surreptitiously
inserting radical stuff under the noses of the guardians of orthodoxy).
The value of these reports is in providing hardcore statistical evidence and quantification
for something for which so many people have a gut feeling but just cann't prove it (although many
seem to think that just having a strong opinion is sufficient).
Yes, correct. Intuition is great for coming up with hypotheses, but it is important to test
them. And while a correlation isn't causation, it at least says the hypothesis isn't nuts on its
face.
In addition, studies like this are helpful in challenging the oft-made claim, particularly
in the US, that people who vote for nationalist policies are bigots of some stripe.
You are missing the transition costs, which will take ten years, maybe a generation.
America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors
and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico,
you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to
the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some
would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak
English. How do you make this work?
The only culture with demonstrated success in working with supposedly hopeless US workers is
the Japanese, who proved that with the NUMMI joint venture with GM in one of its very worst factories
(in terms of the alleged caliber of the workforce, as in many would show up for work drunk). Toyota
got the plant to function at better than average (as in lower) defect levels and comparable productivity
to its plants in Japan, which was light years better than Big Three norms.
I'm not sure any other foreign managers are as sensitive to detail and the fine points of working
conditions as the Japanese (having worked with them extensively, the Japanese hear frequencies
of power dynamics that are lost on Westerners. And the Chinese do not even begin to have that
capability, as much as they have other valuable cultural attributes).
That is really interesting about the Japanese sensitivity to detail and power dynamics. If
anyone has managed to describe this in any detail, I would love to read more, though I suppose
if their ability is alien to most Westerners the task of describing it might also be too much
to handle.
I lean more to ten years than a generation. And in the grand scheme of things, 10 years is
nothing.
The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies
are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. Which means having a sense
that the US government is serious, and will continue to be serious, about penalizing off-shoring.
Regardless of Trump's bluster, which has so far only resulted in a handful of companies halting
future offshoring decisions (all to the good), we are nowhere close to that yet.
There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products
arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one
has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve.
When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to
production problems and issues.
Sometimes the solution to these problems can lead to new products outside of one's main
business, for example the USA's Kingsford Charcoal arose from a scrap wood disposal problem that
Henry Ford had.
If one googles for "patent applications by countries" one gets these numbers, which could be
an indirect indication of some of the manufacturing shift from the USA to Asia.
Patent applications for the top 10 offices, 2014
1. China 928,177
2. US 578,802
3. Japan 325,989
4. South Korea 210,292
What is not captured in these numbers are manufacturing processes known as "trade secrets"
that are not disclosed in a patent. The idea that the USA can move move much of its manufacturing
overseas without long term harming its workforce and economy seems implausible to me.
While a design EE at HP, they brought in an author who had written about Toyota's lean design
method, which was currently the management hot button du jour. After his speech he took questions.
I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing
to Asia. "No" was his answer.
In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer
in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around
that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And
when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control.
And BTW, after manufacturing went overseas, management told us for costing to assume "Labor
is free". Some level playing field.
Oh gawd! The man talks about the effects of globalization and says that the solution is a "a
more inclusive model of globalization"? Seriously? Furthermore he singles out Chinese imports
as the cause of people being pushed to the right. Yeah, right.
How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants
to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in
both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western
countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the
wind.
This study is so incomplete it is almost useless. The only thing that comes to mind to say
about this study is the phrase "Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" And what form
of appropriate compensation of its 'losers' would they suggest? Training for non-existent jobs?
Free moving fees to the east or west coast for Americans in flyover country? Subsidized emigration
fees to third world countries where life is cheaper for workers with no future where they are?
Nice try fellas but time to redo your work again until it is fit for a passing grade.
Aw jeez, mate – you've just hurt my feelings here. Take a look at the actual article again.
The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It
is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they
did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved.
Hey, here is an interesting thought experiment for you. How about we apply the scientific method
to the past 40 years of economic theory since models with actual data strike your fancy. If we
find that the empirical data does not support a theory such as the theory of economic neoliberalism,
we can junk it then and replace it with something that actually works then. So far as I know,
modern economics seems to be immune to scientific rigour in their methods unlike the real sciences.
Not all relevant factors need to be included for a statistical analysis to be valid, as long
as relevant ignored factors are randomized amongst the sampling units, but you know that of course.
Thanks for you kind words about the real sciences, we work hard to keep it real, but once again,
in all fairness, between you and me mate, is not all rigour, it is a lot more Feyerabend than
Popper.
What you say is entirely true. The trouble has always been to make sure that that statistical
analysis actually reflects the real world enough to make it valid. An example of where it all
falls apart can be seen in the political world when the pundits, media and all the pollsters assured
America that Clinton had it in the bag. It was only after the dust had settled that it was revealed
how bodgy the methodology used had been.
By the way, Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend sound very interesting so thanks for the heads
up. Have you heard of some of the material of another bloke called Mark Blyth at all? He has some
interesting observations to make on modern economic practices.
I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment
over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying and
I immediately thought of Blyth who laments the whole phylogeny of economics as more or less serving
the rich.
The one solution he offered up a while ago was (paraphrasing) 'don't sweat the deficit spending
because it is all 6s in the end' which is true if distribution doesn't stagnate. So as it stands
now, offshoring arms, legs and firstborns is like 'nothing to see here, please move on'. The suggestion
that we need a more inclusive form of global trade kind of begs the question. Made me uneasy too.
"Gut things like unions." How so? In my recent interaction with my apartment agency's preferred
contractors, random contractors not unionized, I experienced a 6 month-long disaster.
These construction workers bragged that in 2 weeks they would have the complete job done -
a reconstructed deck and sunroom. Verbatim quote: "Union workers complete the job and tear it
down to keep everyone paying." Ha Ha! What a laugh!
Only to have these same dudes keep saying "next week", "next week", "next week", "next week".
The work began in August and only was finished (not completely!) in late January. Sloppy crap!
Even the apartment agency head maintenance guy who I finally bitched at said "I guess good work
is hard to come by these days."
Of the non-union guys he hired.
My state just elected a republican governor who promised "right to work." This was just signed
into law.
Immigrants and Mexicans had nothing to do with it. They're not an impact in my city. "Right
to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive
pay."
Now I await whether my rent goes up to pay for this nonsense.
They look at the labor cost, assume someone can do it cheaper. They don't think it's that difficult.
Maybe it's not. The hard part of any and all construction work is getting it finished. Getting
started is easy. Getting it finished on time? Nah, you can't afford that.
I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not
under threat from it. Beyond that, I think the flood of cheap Chinese goods is actually helping
suppress populist anger by allowing workers whose wages are dropping in real value terms to maintain
the illusion of prosperity. To me, a more "inclusive" form of globalization would include replacing
every economist with a Chinese immigrant earning minimum wage. That way they'd get to "experience"
how awesome it is and the value of future economic analysis would be just as good.
I'm going to question a few of the author's assumptions.
First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify
Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza
and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would
say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem",
where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk.
Secondly, when discussing the concept of economic nationalism and the nation of China, it would
be interesting to discuss how these two things go together. China has more billionaires than refugees
accepted in the past 20 years. Also it is practically impossible for a non Han Chinese person
to become a naturalized Chinese citizen. And when China buys Boeing aircraft, they wisely insist
on the production being done in China. A close look at Japan would yield similar results.
So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get
to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden?
One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty
which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great
War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for
the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to
the 3rd in the past.
Of course during colonialism the costs were socialized within colonizing states and so it was
the people of the colonial power who paid those costs that weren't borne by the colonial subjects
themselves, who of course paid dearly, and it was the oligarchic class that privatized the colonial
profits. But the 1st world oligarchs and their urban bourgeoisie are in strong agreement that
the deplorable working classes are to blame for systems that hurt working classes but powerfully
enriched the wealthy!
And so with the recent rebellions against Globalization, the 1st and 3rd world oligarchs are
convinced these are nothing more than the 1st world working classes attempting to shirk their
historic guilt debt by refusing to pay the rightful reparations in terms of standard of living
that workers deserve to pay for the crimes committed in the past by their wealthy co-nationals.
And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders
denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately
played the global guilt card in response.
Interesting. Another way to look at it is from the point of view of entropy and closed vs open
systems. Before globalisation the 1st world working classes enjoyed a high standard of living
which was possible because their system was relatively closed to the rest of the world. It was
a high entropy, strongly structured socio-economic arrangement, with a large difference in standard
of living between 1st world and 3rd world working classes. Once their system became more open
by virtue (or vice) of globalisation, entropy increased as commanded by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
so the 1st world and 3rd world working classes became more equalised. The socio-economic arrangements
became less structured. This means for the Trumpening kind of politicians it is a steep uphill
battle, to increase entropy again.
Yes, I agree, but if we step back in history a bit we can see the colonial period as a sort
of reverse globalization which perhaps portends a bit of optimism for the Trumpening.
I use the term open and closed borders but these are not precise. What I am really saying is
that open borders does not allow a country to filter out negative flows across their border. Closed
borders does allow a nation to impose a filter. So currently the US has more open borders (filters
are frowned upon) and China has closed borders (they can filter out what they don't want) despite
the fact that obviously China has plenty of things crossing its border.
During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial
powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world
themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist
movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the
boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders.
So the 3rd world to some extent (certainly in China at least) was able to overcome entropy
and regain control of their borders. You are correct in that it will be an uphill struggle for
the 1st world to repeat this trick. In the ideal world both forms of globalization (colonialism
and the current form) would be sidelined and all nations would be allowed to use the border filters
they think would best protect the prosperity of their citizens.
Another good option would be a version of the current globalization but where the losers are
the wealthy oligarchs themselves and the winners are the working classes. It's hard to imagine
it's easy if you try!
What's interesting about the concept of entropy is that it stands in contradiction to the concept
of perpetual progress. I'm sure there is some sort of thesis, antithesis, synthesis solution to
these conflicting concepts.
To overcome an entropy current requires superb skill commanding a large magnitude of work applied
densely on a small substratum (think of the evolution of the DNA, the internal combustion engine).
I believe the Trumpening laudable effort and persuasion would have a chance of success in a country
the size of The Netherlands, or even France, but the USA, the largest State machinery in the world,
hardly. When the entropy current flooded the Soviet system the solution came firstly in the form
of shrinkage.
We need to think more about it, a lot more, in order to succeed in this 1st world uphill struggle
to repeat the trick. I am pretty sure that as Pierre de Fermat famously claimed about his alleged
proof, the solution "is too large to fit in the margins of this book".
My little entropy epiphany goes like this: it's like boxes – containers, if you will, of energy
or money, or trade goods, the flow of which is best slowed down so everybody can grab some. Break
it all down, decentralize it and force it into containers which slow the pace and share the wealth.
Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other
people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast
returns that way but that's just the point.
Don't you mean "It was a LOWER entropy (as in "more ordered"), strongly structured socio-economic
arrangement, with a large difference in standard of living between 1st world"?
The entropy increased as a consequence of human guided globalization.
Of course, from a thermodynamic standpoint, the earth is not a closed system as it is continually
flooded with new energy in the form of solar radiation.
The Globalized Versailles Treaty -- Permit me a short laughter . The terms of the crippling
treaty were dictated by the victors largely on insecurities of France.
The crimes of the 1st against the 3rd go on even now- the only difference is that some of the
South like China and India are major nuclear powers now.
The racist crimes in the US are even more flagrant- the Blacks whose labour as slaves allowed
for cotton revolution enabling US capitalists to ride the industrial horse are yet to be rehabilitated
, Obama or no Obama. It is a matter of profound shame.
The benefits of Globalization have gone only to the cartel of 1st and 3rd World Capitalists.
And they are very happy as the lower classes keep fighting. Very happy indeed.
The gorgon cry of the past is all over the present , including in " unsuspecting" paying folks
of today! Blacks being brought to US as slave agricultural labour was Globalisation. Their energy
vibrated the machinery of Economics subsequently. What Nationalism and where is it hiding pray?
Bogus analysis here , yes.
The reigning social democratic parties in Europe today are not the Swedish traditional parties
of yesteryear they have morphed into neoliberal austerians committed to globalization and export
driven economic models at any cost (CETA vote recently) and most responsible for the economic
collapse in the EU
I wonder they chose Chinese imports as the cause of the right-wing shift, when they themselves
admit that the shift started in the 1990s. At that time, there were few Chinese imports and China
was not even part of the WHO.
If they are thinking of movements like the Lega Nord and Vlaams Blok, the reasons are clearly
not to be found in imports, but in immigration, the welfare state and lack of national homogeneity,
perceived or not.
And the beginnings of the precariat.
So it is not really the globalization of commerce that did it, but the loss of relevance of
national and local identities.
Correlation does not imply causation, but lack of correlation definitely excludes it.
The Lega was formed in the 1980s, Vlaams Blok at the end of the '70s. They both had their best
days in the 1990s. Chinese imports at the time were insignificant.
I cannot find the breakdown of Chinese imports per EU country, but here are the total Chinese
exports since 1983:
China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly
have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even
for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the
same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on.
The timescales just do not match. Whatever was causing "populism", it was not Chinese imports,
and I can think of half a dozen other, more likely causes.
Furthermore, the 1980s and 1990s were something of an industrial renaissance for Lombardy and
Flanders: hardly the time to worry about Chinese imports.
And if you look at the map. the country least affected by the import shock (France) is the
one with the strongest populist movement (Le Pen).
People try to conflate Trump_vs_deep_state and Brexit with each other, then try to conflate this "anglo-saxon"
populism with previous populisms in Europe, and try to deduce something from the whole exercise.
That "something" is just not there and the exercise is pointless. IMHO at least.
European regionalism is often the result of the rise of the EU as a new, alternative national
government in the eyes of the disgruntled regions. Typically there are three levels of government,
local, regional (states) and national. With the rise of the EU we have a fourth level, supra-national.
But to the Flemish, Scottish, Catalans, etc, they see the EU as a potential replacement for the
National-level governments they currently are unhappy being under the authority of.
Capitalism should be evolving but it went backwards. Keynesian capitalism evolved from the
free market capitalism that preceded it. The absolute faith in markets had been laid low by 1929
and the Great Depression.
After the Keynesian era we went back to the old free market capitalism of neoclassical economics.
Instead of evolving, capitalism went backwards. We had another Wall Street Crash that has laid
low the once vibrant global economy and we have entered into the new normal of secular stagnation.
In the 1930s, Irving Fisher studied the debt deflation caused by debt saturated economies. Today
only a few economists outside the mainstream realise this is the problem today.
In the 1930s, Keynes realized only fiscal stimulus would pull the US out of the Great Depression,
eventually the US implemented the New Deal and it started to recover. Today we use monetary policy
that keeps asset prices up but cannot overcome the drag of all that debt in the system and its
associated repayments.
In the 1920s, they relied on debt based consumption, not realizing how consumers will eventually
become saturated with debt and demand will fail. Today we rely on debt based consumption again,
Greece consumed on debt. until it maxed out on debt and collapsed.
In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a
sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. Keynes was involved with
the Bretton-Woods agreement after the Second World War and recycled the US surplus to Europe to
restore trade when Europe lay in ruins. Europe could rebuild itself and consume US products, everyone
benefitted.
Today there are no direct fiscal transfers within the Euro-zone and it is polarizing. No one
can see the benefits of rebuilding Greece, to allow it to carry on consuming the goods from surplus
nations and it just sinks further and further into the mire. There is a lot to be said for capitalism
going forwards rather than backwards and making the same old mistakes a second time.
The ECB didn't listen and killed Greece with austerity and is laying low the Club-Med nations.
Someone who knows what they are doing, after studying the Great Depression and Japan after 1989.
Let's keep him out of the limelight; he has no place on the ship of fools running the show.
DEBT on Debt with QEs+ ZRP ( borrowing from future) was the 'solution' by Bernanke to mask
the 2008 crisis and NOT address the underlying structural reforms in the Banking and the Financial
industry. He was part of the problem for housing problem and occurred under his watch! He just
kicked the can with explosive credit growth ( but no corresponding growth in the productive Economy!)and
easy money!
We have a 'Mother of all bubbles' at our door step. Just matter of time when it will BLOW and
NOT if! There is record levels of DEBT ( both sovereign, public and private) in the history of
mankind, all over the World.
DEBT has been used as a panacea for all the financial problems by CBers including Bernanke!
Fed's balance sheet was than less 1 Trillion in 2008 ( for all the years of existence of our Country!)
but now over 3.5 Trillions and climbing!
Kicking the can down the road is like passing the buck to some one (future generations!). And
you call that solution by Mr. Bernanke? Wow!
Will they say again " No one saw this coming'? when next one descends?
The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their
track record.
The FED presided over the dot.com bust and 2008, unaware that they were happening and of their
consequences. Alan Greenspan spots irrational exuberance in the markets in 1996 and passes comment.
As the subsequent dot.com boom and housing booms run away with themselves he says nothing.
The money supply is flat in the recession of the early 1990s.
Then it really starts to take off as the dot.com boom gets going which rapidly morphs into
the US housing boom, courtesy of Alan Greenspan's loose monetary policy.
When M3 gets closer to the vertical, the black swan is coming and you have an out of control
credit bubble on your hands (money = debt).
We can only presume the FED wasn't looking at the US money supply, what on earth were they
doing?
The BoE is aware of how money is created from debt and destroyed by repayments of that debt.
"Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without
limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive
banking system."
The BoE's statement was true, but is not true now as banks can securitize bad loans and get
them off their books. Before 2008, banks were securitising all the garbage sub-prime mortgages,
e.g. NINJA mortgages, and getting them off their books. Money is being created freely and without
limit, M3 is going exponential before 2008.
Bad debt is entering the system and no one is taking any responsibility for it. The credit
bubble is reflected in the money supply that should be obvious to anyone that cares to look.
Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression and doesn't appear to have learnt very much.
Irving Fisher studied the Great Depression in the 1930s and comes up with a theory of debt
deflation. A debt inflated asset bubble collapses and the debt saturated economy sinks into debt
deflation. 2008 is the same as 1929 except a different asset class is involved.
1929 – Margin lending into US stocks
2008 – Mortgage lending into US housing
Hyman Minsky carried on with his work and came up with the "Financial Instability Hypothesis"
in 1974.
Steve Keen carried on with their work and spotted 2008 coming in 2005. We can see what Steve
Keen saw in 2005 in the US money supply graph above.
The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their
track record.
Good to see studies confirming what was already known.
This apparently surprised:
On the contrary, as globalisation threatens the success and survival of entire industrial
districts, the affected communities seem to have voted in a homogeneous way, regardless of
each voter's personal situation.
It is only surprising for people not part of communities, those who are part of communities
see how it affects people around them and solidarity with the so called 'losers' is then shown.
Seems like radical right is the preferred term, it does make it more difficult to sympathize
with someone branded as radical right . The difference seems to be between the radical liberals
vs the conservative. The radical liberals are too cowardly to propose the laws they want, they
prefer to selectively apply the laws as they see fit. Either enforce the laws or change the laws,
anything else is plain wrong.
Socialism for the upper classes, capitalism for the lower classes? That will turn out well.
Debt slaves and wage slaves will revolt. That is all the analysis the OP requires. The upper class
will respond with suppression, not policy reversal every time. Socialism = making everyone equally
poor (obviously not for the upper classes who benefit from the arrangement).
Regrettably today we have socialism for the wealthy, with all the benefits of gov regulations,
sympathetic courts and legislatures etc. etc.
Workers are supposed to take care for themselves and the devil take the hind most. How many
workers get fired vs the 1%, when there is a failure in the company plan?
The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian.
Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread
subsidy. Ciao.
Globalization created winners and losers throughout the world. The winners liked it, the losers
didn't. Democracy is based on the support of the majority.
The majority in the East were winners. The majority in the West were losers.
The Left has maintained its support of neoliberal globalisation in the West. The Right has
moved on. There has been a shift to the Right. Democracy is all about winners and losers and whether
the majority are winning or losing. It hasn't changed.
Globalization( along with communication -internet and transportation) made the Labor wage arbitration,
easy in favor of capital ( Multi-Nationals). Most of the jobs gone overseas will NEVER come back.
Robotic revolution will render the remaining jobs, less and less!
The 'new' Economy by passed the majority of lower 80-90% and favored the top 10%. The Losers
and the Winners!
80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of
global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country!
The Rich became richer!
The tension between Have and Have -Nots has just begun, as Marx predicted!
I think it's about time that we stopped referring to opposition to globalization as a product
or policy of the "extreme right". It would be truer to say that globalization represents a temporary,
and now fading, triumph of certain ideas about trade and movement of people and capital which
have always existed, but were not dominant in the past. Fifty years ago, most mainstream political
parties were "protectionist" in the sense the word is used today. Thirty years ago, protectionism
was often seen as a left)wing idea, to preserve standards of living and conditions of employment
(Wynne Godley and co). Today, all establishment political parties in the West have swallowed neoliberal
dogma, so the voters turn elsewhere, to parties outside the mainstream. Often, it's convenient
politically to label them "extreme right", although in Europe some left-wing parties take basically
the same position. If you ignore peoples' interests, they won't vote for you. Quelle surprise!
as Yves would say.
Yes, there are many reasons to be skeptical of too much globalization such as energy considerations.
I think another interesting one is exchange rates.
One of the important concepts of MMT is the importance of having a flexible exchange rate to
have full power over your currency. This is fine as far as it goes but tends to put hard currencies
against soft currencies where a hard currency can be defined as one that has international authority/acceptance.
Having flexible exchange rates also opens up massive amounts of financial speculation relative
to fluctuations of these currencies against each other and trying to protect against these fluctuations.
""Keynes' proposal of the bancor was to put a barrier between national currencies, that is
to have a currency of account at the global level. Keynes warned that free trade, flexible exchange
rates and free movement of capital globally were incompatible with maintaining full employment
at the local level""
""Sufficiency provisioning also means that trade would be discouraged rather than encouraged.""
Local currencies can work very well locally to promote employment but can have trouble when
they reach out to get resources outside of their currency space especially if they have a soft
currency. Global sustainability programs need to take a closer look at how to overcome this sort
of social injustice. (Debt or Democracy)
As has already been pointed out so eloquently here in the comments section, economic nationalism
is not necessarily the preserve of the right, nor is it necessarily the same thing as nationalism.
In the UK the original, most vociferous objectors to EEC membership in the 70s (now the EU)
were traditionally the Left, on the basis that it would gradually erode labour rights and devalue
the cost of labour in the longer term. Got that completely wrong obviously .
In the same way that global trade has become synonymous with globalisation, the immigration
debate has been hijacked and cynically conflated with free movement of (mainly low cost, unskilled)
labour and race when they are all VERY different divisive issues.
The other point alluded to in the comments above is the nature of free trade generally. The
accepted (neoliberal) wisdom being that 'collateral damage' is unfortunate but inevitable, but
it is pretty much an unstoppable or uncontrollable force for the greater global good, and the
false dichotomy persists that you either embrace it fully or pull up all the drawbridges with
nothing in between.
One of the primary reasons that some competing sectors of some Western economies have done
so badly out of globalisation is that they have adhered to 'free market principles' whilst other
countries, particularly China, clearly have not with currency controls, domestic barriers to trade,
massive state subsidies, wage suppression etc
The China aspect is also fascinating when developed nations look at the uncomfortable 'morality
of global wealth distribution' often cited by proponents of globalisation as one of their wider
philanthropic goals. Bless 'em. What is clear is that highly populated China and most of its people,
from the bottom to the top, has been the primary beneficiaries of this global wealth redistribution,
but the rest of the developing world's poor clearly not quite so much.
The map on it's own, in terms of the English one time industrial Midlands & North West being
shown as an almost black hole, is in itself a kind of " Nuff Said ".
It is also apart from London, where the vast bulk of immigrants have settled.
The upcoming bye-election in Stoke, which could lead to U-Kip taking a once traditionally always
strong Labour seat, is right in the middle of that dark cloud.
The problem from the UK 's position, I suggest, is that autarky is not a viable proposition
so economic nationalism becomes a two-edged sword. Yes, of course, the UK can place restrictions
on imports and immigration but there will inevitably be retaliation and they will enter a game
of beggar my neighbour. The current government talks of becoming a beacon for free trade. If we
are heading to a more protectionist world, that can only end badly IMHO.
Unless we get some meaningful change in thinking on a global scale, I think we are heading
somewhere very dark whatever the relative tinkering with an essentially broken system.
The horse is long gone, leaving a huge pile of shit in it's stable.
As for what might happen, I do not know, but I have the impression that we are at the end of
a cycle.
This is quite interesting, but only part of the story. Interestingly the districts/provinces
suffering the most from the chinese import shock are usually densely populated industrial regions
of Europe. The electoral systems in Europe (I think all, but I did not check) usually do not weight
equally each district, favouring those less populated, more rural (which by the way tend to be
very conservative but not so nationalistic). These differences in vote weigthing may have somehow
masked the effect seen in this study if radical nationalistic rigth wing votes concentrate in
areas with lower weigthed value of votes. For instance, in Spain, the province of Soria is mostly
rural and certainly less impacted by chinese imports compared with, for instance, Madrid. But
1 vote in Soria weigths the same as 4 votes in Madrid in number of representatives in the congress.
This migth, in part, explain why in Spain, the radical rigth does not have the same power as in
Austria or the Netherlands. It intuitively fits the hypothesis of this study.
Nevertheless, similar processes can occur in rural areas. For instance, when Spain entered
the EU, french rural areas turned nationalistic against what they thougth could be a wave of agricultural
imports from Spain. Ok, agricultural globalization may have less impact in terms of vote numbers
in a given country but it still can be politically very influential. In fact spanish entry more
that 30 years ago could still be one of the forces behind Le Penism.
All this statistical math and yada yada to explain a rise in vote for radical right from 3%
in 1985 to 5% now on average? And only a 0.7% marginal boost if your the place really getting
hammmered by imports from China? If I'm reading it right, that is, while focusing on Figure 2.
The real "shock" no pun intended, is the vote totals arent a lot higher everywhere.
Then the Post concludes with reference to a "surge in support" - 3% to 5% or so over 30 years
is a surge? The line looks like a pretty steady rise over 3 decades.
Maybe I'm missing sommething here.
Also what is this thing they're callling an "Open World" of the past 30 years? And why is that
in danger from more balanced trade? It makes no sense. Even back in the 60s and 70s people could
go alll over the world for vacations. Or at least most places they coould go. If theh spent their
money they'd make friends. Greece even used to be a goood place people went and had fun on a beach.
I think this one is a situation of math runing amuck. Math running like a thousand horses over
a hill trampling every blade of grass into mud.
I bet the China factor is just a referent for an entire constellatio of forces that probably
don't lend themselves (no pun intended) partiicularly well to social science and principal component
analysis - as interesting as that is for those who are interested in that kind of thing (which
I am acctually).
Also, I wouldn't call this "free trade". Not that the authors do either, but trade means reciprocity
not having your livelihood smashed the like a pinata at Christmas with all your candy eaten by
your "fellow countrymen". I wouldn't call that "trade". It's something else.
Regarding your first point, it is a small effect but it is all due to the China imports impact,
you have to add the growth of these parties due to other reasons such as immigration to get the
full picture of their growth. Also I think the recent USA election was decided by smaller percentage
advantages in three States?
Globalisation is nothing but free trade extended to the entire world. Free trade is a tool
used to prevent competition. By flooding countries with our cheaper exports, they do not develop
the capacity to compete with us by making their own widgets. So, why are we shocked when those
other countries return the favor and when they get the upper hand, we respond in a protectionist
way? It looks to me that those countries who are now competing with us in electronics, automobiles,
etc. only got to develop those industries in their countries because of protectionism.
Refugees in great numbers are a symptom of globalization, especially economic refugees but
also political and environmental ones. This has strained the social order in many countries that
have accepted them in and it's one of the central issues that the so-called "right" is highlighting.
It is no surprise there has been an uproar over immigration policy in the US which is an issue
of class as much as foreign policy because of the disenfranchisement of large numbers of workers
on both sides of the equation - those who lost their jobs to outsourcing and those who emigrated
due to the lack of decent employment opportunities in their own countries.
We're seeing the tip of the iceberg. What will happen when the coming multiple environmental
calamities cause mass starvation and dislocation of coastal populations? Walls and military forces
can't deter hungry, desperate, and angry people.
The total reliance and gorging on fossil energy by western countries, especially the US, has
mandated military aggression to force compliance in many areas of the world. This has brought
a backlash of perpetual terrorism. We are living under a dysfunctional system ruled by sociopaths
whose extreme greed is leading to world war and environmental collapse.
Who created the REFUGEE PROBLEMS in the ME – WEST including USA,UK++
Obama's DRONE program kept BOMBING in SEVEN Countries killing innocents – children and women!
All in the name of fighting Terrorism. Billions of arms to sale Saudi Arabia! Wow!
Where were the Democrats and the Resistance and Women's march? Hypocrites!
Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political
platforms.
Just a reminder that nationalism doesn't have to be associated with the radical right. The left
is not required to reject it, especially when it can be understood as basically patriotism, expressed
as solidarity with all of your fellow citizens.
Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction.
Well, that may be true as far as Trump's motivations are concerned, but a major component (the
most important?) of the TPP was strong restraint of trade, a protectionist measure, by intellectual
property owners.
Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost
ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers'
Japan has long been 'smart' protectionist, and this has helped prevent the 'loser' problem, in
part because Japan, being nationalist, makes it a very high priority to create/maintain a society
in which almost all Japanese are more or less middle class. So, it is a fact that protectionism
has been and can be associated with more egalitarian societies, in which there are few 'losers'
like we see in the West. But the U.S. and most Western countries have a long way to go if they
decide to make the effort to be more egalitarian. And, of course, protectionism alone is not enough
to make most of the losers into winners again. You'll need smart skills training, better education
all around, fewer low-skill immigrants, time, and, most of all strong and long-term commitment
to making full employment at good wages national priority number one.
and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies.
Growth has been week since the 2008, even though markets are as free as they've ever been. Growth
requires a lot more consumers with willingness and cash to spend on expensive, high-value-added
goods. So, besides the world finally escaping the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, exporting
countries need prosperous consumers either at home or abroad, and greater economic security. And
if a little bit of protectionism generates more consumer prosperity and economic stability, exporting
countries might benefit overall.
The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.
Well, yes, the world needs more inclusivity, but globalization doesn't need to be part of the
picture. Keep your eyes on the prize: inclusivity/equality, whether latched onto nationally, regionally,
'internationally' or globally, any which way is fine! But prioritization of globalization over
those two is likely a victory for more inequality, for more shoveling of our wealth up to the
ruling top 1%.
"... In the conclusion, he says "I argued that it is the roach motel of currencies. Like the Hotel
California of the song: you can check in, but you can't check out." To be precise, that's true of the
Roach Motel (see here , if you don't know what that's all about), but, according to the Eagles, you
can actually check out of the Hotel California, though you can never leave (hmm... sounds kind of like
"Brexit"...). ..."
"... In any case, the fact it hangs together because eurozone members feel trapped by the costs
of exit is hardly an affirmative case for the single currency. ..."
Barry Eichengreen column headlined "Don't Sell the Euro Short. It's Here to Stay"
He writes:
Two forms of glue hold the euro together. First, the economic costs of break-up would be great.
The minute investors heard that Greece was seriously contemplating reintroducing the drachma with
the purpose of depreciating it against the euro, or against a "new Deutsche mark," they would
wire all their money to Frankfurt. Greece would experience the mother of all banking crises. The
"new Deutsche mark" would then shoot through the roof, destroying Germany's export industry.
More generally, those predicting, or advocating, the euro's demise tend to underestimate the
technical difficulties of reintroducing national currencies.
In the conclusion, he says "I argued that it is the roach motel of currencies. Like the Hotel
California of the song: you can check in, but you can't check out." To be precise, that's true of
the Roach Motel (see here
, if you don't know what that's all about), but,
according to the Eagles,
you can actually check out of the Hotel California, though you can never leave (hmm... sounds
kind of like "Brexit"...).
In any case, the fact it hangs together because eurozone members feel trapped by the costs
of exit is hardly an affirmative case for the single currency. In Greece's case, its hard to
believe that the costs of exit really would have been higher than the costs of staying; this
FT Alphablog post by Matthew Klein pointed out this figure from the
IMF's Article IV report :
The fact that the eurozone rolls on with no sign that a depression in one of its smaller constituent
economies is enough to bring about a fundamental change is disturbing. It wouldn't be able to ignore
an election of Marine LePen as President of France -
Gavyn Davies
considers the consequences of that.
"The fact that the eurozone rolls on with no sign that a depression in one of its smaller
constituent economies is enough to bring about a fundamental change is disturbing."
Why so? Isn't it in fact encouraging, a sign that the eurozone can withstand such problems
(especially a problem in one of its smaller economies)? There's scant reason to think it would
be a good thing if the eurozone opted for "fundamental change" every time one of its constituent
nations experienced a problem.
Fair enough - it is true that the Greek crisis didn't cause the euro to break up at least.
But I think what happened in Greece (and Ireland to an extent) is more than a local problem; it
revealed a fundamental design flaw which they haven't fully confronted - the lack of a "banking
union". From the outset, economists doubted whether the euro area met the traditional criteria
for an optimum currency area (OCA), and those issues are relevant, but I think Greece shows that
a banking union (i.e., shared lender of last resort, banking regulation and deposit insurance)
is necessary to make it work. I.e., if Greek banks were european banks, the bank-sovereign "doom
loop" could be circumvented. The euro area needs a way for countries to go bankrupt without bringing
their banks down with them.
I tend to agree with you regarding the necessity for a "banking union"; not having one is
indeed a design flaw, and no, it hasn't been confronted. Does that mean the eurozone's days are
numbered? Could be, but of course we won't know for certain-sure until the breakup does (or doesn't)
happen. So it goes.
...So my question for the degrowth community is whether declining investment is an occasion
for celebration? Does this mean that economic policy is actually getting something right?
Here's one answer I won't accept: we don't care about growth in general, just growth of bad
stuff, like fossil fuels, accumulation of waste, destruction of coastlines, etc. That isn't a
degrowth position. Everyone wants more of the good and less of the bad, however they define it.
I'm in favor of only toothsome pizza crusts and I'm dead set against the soggy kind, but that's
not the same as being on a diet.
This is a practical, policy-relevant question. There are many smart economists trying to understand
the investment slump so they can devise policies to turn it around. You'll notice this concern
is prominent in the writing on increasing industrial concentration, the shareholder value obsession,
globalization and outsourcing, and other topics. The goal of these researchers is to reform corporate
and market structure in order to restore a higher rate of investment, among other things. That
of course would tend to accelerate economic growth. So what's the degrowth position on all this?
Should economists be looking for additional measures to discourage investment?
Again, please don't tell me that it's just investment in "bads" that needs to be discouraged.
That's a given across the entire spectrum of economic rationality (which is admittedly somewhat
narrower than the political spectrum). In the aggregate, is it good that investment is trending
down?
My own view, as readers of this blog will know (see here and here), is that degrowth is a suicide
cult masquerading as a political position. I'm pretty sure that radically transforming our economy
to make it sustainable will involve a tremendous amount of investment and new production, and
it seems clear to me that boosting living standards through more and better consumption is both
politically and ethically essential. But I could be wrong. I would sincerely appreciate intelligent
arguments from the degrowth side.
[Asked and answered, sort of. Degrowth or beneficial degrowth is relative to what metrics (i.e.,
resources rather than capital) and realistically a far enough ways from where we are now to be
moot.]
I think this is too simplistic. There is (and has always been) a growing realization that more
is not always better. This insight is not uniform for any given geographic or socioeconomic population
group, but often informed by how one relates to the economic process (which correlates with age),
individually as well as at the peer group level.
When a larger group is exposed to a situation where the trappings of success are hard to obtain
(e.g. younger people coming out of school/college into a bad job market), or where there is an
appearance that new technology/gadgets may be initially exciting but don't really translate into
better quality of life or better effectiveness of work/activities ("productivity"), or even degrade
either (more typical for older people who are not seeing new gadgets/technologies for the first
time?), then rejection of whatever is proclaimed as "improvement" can become socially acceptable.
I'm also at the point where I don't really want new stuff, because my impression is that it
is generally not better than the previous edition, or if better, then not better in a write-home-about-it
way. And the realization many acquisitions create more liabilities than benefits in the long term
(for one thing, accumulation of junk and need to throw out "something" - which I may not really
want to throw out).
A problem with today's views about globalization is that they look backward rather than forward.
The future's globalization is much different from the past's globalization. In particular, growing
nationalism is the future in the places, such as China, that have benefited from globalization.
By that I mean China is beginning to produce goods for China firms rather than for western firms
to compete with goods produced for western (American) firms including goods produced in China
for western firms.
It's a much different dynamic than what we have experienced in the past 30 years. And the response
to the new globalization should (and will) be much different.
Ironically, Trump's views about globalization come closer to what will be the response as western
firms adjust to the new globalization. Is Trump that smart? No, it's just that everybody else
is that dumb.
1) Mexican workers are paid ~$1 an
hour and US workers doing the same work are paid ~$13 hour
and US plants are closing and moving to Mexico
and
2) ..."But some companies that produce goods in Mexico say
there's no going back to the U.S. That includes Delphi.
The company just announced a plan for more layoffs in
Warren, where only 1,500 employees remain.
Speaking at Barclay's Global Automotive Conference in New
York in December, Delphi's chief financial officer Joe
Massaro explained what he thought would happen to Delphi
under several Trump trade scenarios.
If Trump were to close the border with Mexico outright,
"in less than a week, all the people who voted for him in
Michigan and Ohio would be out of work," Massaro argued,
underscoring the fact that many factories in the U.S.,
including car makers in Detroit, depend on parts made in
Mexico.
If the United States were to withdraw from NAFTA and start
taxing imports from Mexico again, Delphi would continue doing
business in Mexico, he said. The company would pass on the
extra cost to its suppliers or to consumers, or would find a
way to reduce its production costs - which could mean layoffs
or salary cuts in Mexico."...
Trump can't fix that discrepancy in worker pay. Reagan's
so-called Free Trade began a race to the bottom for US
workers. It was known and discussed at the time. Reagan and
the Republican Party did not stand up for US workers and
neither did the Democrats in the day. Workers pay was
bartered off for cheaper goods to be bought at our stores.
That's the bargain made by Wall Street and D.C. and accepted
by American Workers who liked paying less at the store, not
realizing it meant they would be paid less - eventually.
And they certainly never dreamed it meant that in 20+
years their jobs would disappear overseas too.
BY: Right. Brexit and maybe even Trump's
victory say something about the arrogance of the elite.
Bankers say that free trade should prevail. Even we,
academics-how many of us are actually looking into
distribution and redistribution? Few. We're still spending
time on writing dynamic models to talk about the gains of
trade.
Even if old-fashioned free trade is correct, the speed of
adjustment is very important. We know that rapid adjustment
is no good. How many of us ask ourselves what should be the
adjustment in trade? We rarely talk about that.
The world may have changed. I gave you my conjecture. But we
are also arrogant. We hold on to our old beliefs on the gains
of trade.
----
Very Dani Rodrick, I thought. Interesting stuff.
Also, this is something that I think you'll like. I have not
read all of it yet but here is the link and an excerpt:
http://evonomics.com/time-new-economic-thinking-based-best-science-available-not-ideology/
"Some will cling on to the idea that the consensus can be
revived. They will say we just need to defend it more
vigorously, the facts will eventually prevail, the populist
wave is exaggerated, it's really just about immigration,
Brexit will be a compromise, Clinton won more votes than
Trump, and so on. But this is wishful thinking. Large swathes
of the electorate have lost faith in the neoliberal
consensus, the political parties that backed it, and the
institutions that promoted it. This has created an
ideological vacuum being filled by bad old ideas, most
notably a revival of nationalism in the US and a number of
European countries, as well as a revival of the hard
socialist left in some countries."
I think Peter K has been making similar points for a long
time now. Interesting stuff.
Consensus among whom? The economic-political elite? Maybe;
but certainly not among the general electorate. Most voters
were voting for parties out of habit, or on cultural issues
(for or against diversity and civil rights), or bread &
butter economic issues ("the Republicans will cut my taxes
and the regulation of my business" versus "the Democrats will
preserve my Medicare and Social Security"). I don't think
most voters had/have any clue of what neoliberalism is.
Well, you raise an excellent point. I don't have a solid
rejoinder but I will note that if even 5% of the electorate
changes its mind an election result can flip one way or the
other. But, yes, I agree with you that most voters are not
selecting a candidate based on which candidate's economic
philosophy is most closely aligned with theirs. Still,
especially in the primaries, where the voters are a different
population than the general, it could make a difference. I
would argue that it was just this difference that made
Sanders surprisingly popular among the Democratic primary
voters.
The question is to what extent people were voting FOR a
candidate, as AGAINST a candidate or the status quo. That's
the only point I was trying to make.
Most voters have neither the time, energy, inclination, or
knowledge base to delve into the issues to make an informed
decision on which candidate/platform most reflects their
values and aspirations. They subcontract out that vetting of
individual candidates to parties that they believe are
broadly reflective of their views.
This past general election, and its preceding primaries,
was the result of a broad revolt against the candidates
anointed by the parties' elites, indicating deep
dissatisfaction with the status quo.
"I think Peter K has been making similar points for a long
time now. Interesting stuff."
Yes I liked the as well.
Luigi Zingales is a member of the editorial board for Pro
Market and he had some piece published in the New York Times
about economics and politics (specifically Italian I think).
He was the first I read who compared Trump with Silvio
Berlusconi. Zingales discussed how Berlusconi was brought
down, by being treated as an ordinary conservative
politician. Perhaps the same will work with Trump.
Yes, I had read the evonomics piece and thought it was good.
Thanks. Eric Beinhocker makes some good points. I liked his
optimism as far as some forms of populism were concerned, and
had a slight hope that Donald Trump might turn into a
Theodore Roosevelt type of populist. That hope has
disappeared completely and now we face the realization that
we are truly completely screwed.
asymmetric information, and the recent illuminating example
of Wells Fargo's excellence in pushing products that
customers did not want nor need.
BY: Some financial "innovation" is faddish. It does not
create value.
GR: Approximately 9 percent of U.S. GDP is finance. Some
economists argue that probably 3-5 percent is useful for
allocating capital, storing value, smoothing consumptions,
and creating competition, and the rest is preying on
asymmetric information
"
~~Guy Roinik~
Do you see how this asymmetric information
plays out?
It is the retail vendor who keeps better information than
the retail customer. It is the vendor's expectations of
disinflation vs inflation rather than the customer's
expectations that control the change in M2V. Got it?
When vendor expects deflation he dumps inventory, but when
he expects inflation he holds on to inventory as he waits for
higher profit margins to arrive. He holds onto merchandise by
simply raising prices. But why do economists advertise the
reverse mechanism? Why does the status quo have a need for
distorting truth?
Inflation is offered to the proles as a substitute for tax
relief to the impoverished. Do you see how it works?
"
Tax relief for the wealthy will give you delicious inflation.
Now jump for it!
"
~~The Yea Sayers~
... A 2015 survey by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation
found there are more than 450 structurally deficient bridges
in the state, although the number is down from previous
years. Every working day, nearly 10 million cars, trucks, and
school buses cross these deteriorating overpasses. And then
there's the nation's rail system and airports, which lag far
behind other nations in speed, efficiency, and modernization.
...
Bridgework and a partial plate! Should we shift gears on
our interstate construction?
By building our long haul interstates as one-way roads
interleaved with roads going in other direction, we could
have twice as many roads but intersections could be much
simpler, efficient, and less confusing. Freeflow
overpass/underpass with turning ramps will save fuel thus
environment. Sure!
We waste lot of traffic control man hours and squad cars
that could be otherwise deployed towards solving crime and
crushing the mob. By proper design and construction of speed
bumps some of this highway patrol could be eliminated. Ceu!
Rather that short 2 foot bumps in the road, build smooth
slow and long valley and knoll that will not rattle your
frame and bill you for steering realignment but instead send
an 18 wheeler up into the air for a half gainer. This kind of
speed trap could eliminate lot of bad
"... And I am not sure that it was neoliberal globalization as the only factor in rasining the standards of living in case of China. They have also industrialization process going on, give or take. Chinese maquiladoras were allowed under strict conditions of transferring technology. That's what distinguishes China from India or Mexico, where neoliberal administrations were much less protective of interest of their nations and allowed Western monopolies more freedom. ..."
"... On the basis of careful empirical work, Rodrik concluded that "globalization makes it difficult to sustain the postwar social bargain" of labor peace in exchange for "steadily improving worker pay and benefits." ..."
"... It's not globalization, it's "neoliberal globalization" and neoliberalism in general which killed the New Deal capitalism. As soon as the US elite realized the cookies are not enough for everybody they start withdrawing them from the table. Stagnation and the subsequent collapse of the USSR also played an important role, allowing neoliberal propagandists to claim the victory. ..."
""seem unimpressed by the fact that globalization has lifted
hundreds of millions of desperately poor people in China and
India into the global middle class. ""
Ergo enabling the savaging
of working class people in the US was worth it.
And I am not sure that it was neoliberal globalization as the
only factor in rasining the standards of living in case of China. They have also industrialization process going on, give or
take. Chinese maquiladoras were allowed under strict conditions
of transferring technology. That's what distinguishes China from
India or Mexico, where neoliberal administrations were much less
protective of interest of their nations and allowed Western monopolies
more freedom.
After all the Communist Party is still a ruling Party of China.
With a neoliberal twist yes, but they still adhere to the ideas
of Marx.
Kuttner really captures the contributions of Dani Rodrik. If
I had to pick one sentence to capture this review - it would
be this:
On the basis of careful empirical work, Rodrik concluded
that "globalization makes it difficult to sustain the postwar
social bargain" of labor peace in exchange for "steadily
improving worker pay and benefits."
libezkova -> pgl...
, -1
It's not globalization, it's "neoliberal globalization" and neoliberalism
in general which killed the New Deal capitalism. As soon as the US elite realized the cookies are not enough
for everybody they start withdrawing them from the table.
Stagnation and the subsequent collapse of the USSR also played
an important role, allowing neoliberal propagandists to claim
the victory.
As President Donald Trump prepares - in the words of his
chief of staff - "a buffet of options" for dealing with
Mexico, trade and immigration, it's time for the Texas
congressional delegation to make a strong statement in
support of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Though much of Trump's focus last week was on the border
wall (and ways to make Mexico pay for it), his focus next
week is expected to be on trade.
"President Trump has taken his first steps toward an
'America first' approach to international trade, pulling out
of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on Monday and reaffirming
his intent to renegotiate NAFTA, the North American Free
Trade Agreement," the Boston Globe reports. "What does this
mean for U.S. companies and American workers? Trump's
executive order to withdraw from the TPP is anticlimactic.
That agreement was already a dead-letter, having been
disclaimed by both presidential candidates and never ratified
by Congress. But a new NAFTA could upend U.S.-Mexican
relations and disrupt whole sectors of the US economy."
And that would be disastrous for Texas.
Texas companies, big and small, export a total of $92.5
billion worth of goods to Mexico each year. That figure
dwarfs second-place California, which exports just $26.8
billion of goods.
"From the booming border city of Laredo to the bustling
trading hub of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas has become the
nation's top exporter of goods, according to the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Mexico is its biggest customer,"
the Wall Street Journal explains. "Some 382,000 jobs in Texas
alone depend on trade with Mexico, according to 2014 data
released this month by the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, a nonpartisan global research group.
Goods exported from Texas help support more than a million
jobs across the U.S., according to the U.S. Commerce
Department."
Texas' top exports to Mexico are computer and electronic
products, petroleum and coal products, chemicals, machinery
and transportation equipment.
As University of Oregon economist Mark Thoma points out,
"NAFTA isn't the problem, and tariffs aren't the answer."
He says Trump believes that NAFTA is the reason the U.S.
has lost manufacturing jobs. But that's not the case, he
explains.
"Domestic manufacturing's employment decline began long
before NAFTA came along," Thoma wrote for CBS News.
"According to University of California Berkeley professor
Brad DeLong's calculations, 'A sector of the economy that
provided three out of 10 nonfarm jobs at the start of the
1950s and one in four nonfarm jobs at the start of the 1970s
now provides fewer than one in 11 nonfarm jobs today.
Proportionally, the United States has shed almost two-thirds
of relative manufacturing employment since 1971.' In
addition, much of that drop can be attributed to
technological change - the rise of robots and digital
technology - rather than globalization. Renegotiating trade
agreements can't change this."
It's time for the Texas delegation to Washington to stand
up and say they won't support Trump's short-sighted attempts
to kill NAFTA. Ditching NAFTA would be a mistake.
What is the answer? Seems to me that 'liberal' economists are
convinced that they know what we should NOT be doing, but
come up short on proposals that will actually solve the
problem.
All the focus on blaming trade for loss of manufacturing
distracts from the real conversation needed: How can we
better address the dislocation of workers due to advances in
technology?
Trump and the right blame trade and believe
that better trade policies or tariffs or "shaking up the
markets?" will miraculously bring back coal mining and
manufacturing.
The anti-NAFTA left is focusing on the ant and ignoring
the elephant. This enables Trump by placing all focus on
trade. Why focus on government programs to help the
dislocated if the dislocation problem can be fixed by
renegotiating NAFTA? Serious ideas such as green energy jobs
are dismissed in favor of fixing trade instead. The
conversation will never turn to real solutions about how
modern manufacturing jobs increasingly require computer
skills, education and training.
Most small towns have lost jobs because the manufacturers
they do have are hiring fewer workers or not net expanding
their workforce. At the same time, service sector jobs remain
low pay and much opposition to raising minimum wage or
Obamacare to provide them with health insurance.
Having the comparative data on manufacturing employment as a
percent of total employment for the United States, Canada,
United Kingdom, Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands,
Australia and Japan, running from 1970 through 2012, what is
striking is the similarity of pattern.
Also striking is the
relation between gains in manufacturing productivity and
decline in percent manufacturing employment in the United
States.
Mark Thoma, Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman would appear to
be right about trade relations having fairly little to do
with the long term decline of percent of employment in
manufacturing in the United States or other developed
countries.
What Happened to Automation and Robots: WaPo Tells of
Labor Shortage in Japan
Wow, things just keep getting worse. Automation is taking
all the jobs, and the aging of the population means we won't
have any workers. Yes, these are completely contradictory
concerns, but no one ever said that our policy elite had a
clue. (No, I'm not talking about Donald Trump's gang here.)
Anyhow, the Washington Post had a front page story *
telling us how older people are now working at retirement
homes in Japan as a result of the aging of its population.
The piece includes this great line:
"That means authorities need to think about ways to keep
seniors healthy and active for longer, but also about how to
augment the workforce to cope with labor shortages."
You sort of have to love the first part, since folks might
have thought authorities would have always been trying to
think about ways to keep seniors healthy and active longer.
After all, isn't this a main focus of public health policy?
The part about labor shortages is also interesting. When
there is a shortage of oil or wheat the price rises. If there
were a labor shortage in Japan then we should be seeing
rapidly rising wages. We aren't. Wages have been virtually
flat in recent years. That would seem to indicate that Japan
doesn't have a labor shortage -- or alternatively it has
economically ignorant managers who don't realize that the way
to attract workers is to offer higher pay.
"... most reports on Mexican employment aggregate manufacturing jobs with "industry", which would include oil gas drilling and construction...i did find one graph that shows a 20%, 5 million job jump in Mexican industrial employment in the first six years after NAFTA, but they never reached their prior peak, and i find the rest of the period inconclusive, not knowing much about Mexican business cycles: ..."
The percentage of employees working in manufacturing in the
US fell in a long surprisingly straight line from the late
1960s. The big drop in employee count in 2000 was a result of
the collapse of the dot-com boom. There has been a long,
steady downward pressure on manufacturing jobs, but we see
big drops in their absolute numbers in just about every
recession.
I do know that the 1990s were a big decade for increased
manufacturing efficiency. Supercomputers and
micro-controllers changed the way we designed and built cars,
cans and washing machines, for example. I know Silicon Valley
was rapidly changing the way computers were assembled as
design rules made chip design easier and new techniques made
chip placement and connection simpler. Does anyone even use a
wire wrap gun anymore? There was also the impact of the
Japanese challenge of the 1980s which made manufacturers
rethink their supply chain and encouraging robotics and
continuous inspection.
The official story is that the adoption of computers
didn't show up in productivity figures, but if you looked at
manufacturing, their impact was pervasive. Not every industry
is going to advance at the same time, and improvements that
helped one often lower costs and help others.
If you look at the chart, the big drop in 2000 rivals the
drop in the early 1980s and the similar drop during the most
recent crash. It's like a strong gust of wind knocking down
an old tree trunk. The trunk was rotting and weakening for
years, but it was the wind storm that knocked it down.
Nope. As you say, "the 1990s were a big decade for increased
manufacturing efficiency."
And yet the number of jobs in
manufacturing in the U.S. Actually *increased* slightly. And
the increase was worldwide.
"In November 1999, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene
Barshefsky and Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji made a trade deal
that led to China's admission into the World Trade
Organization (WTO) on November 10, 2001."
Offshoring intensified, according to the official
statistics of the U.S. Trade Representative. Here's the link,
showing that offshoring doubled by 2001:
http://www.trivisonno.com/offshoring
What happened that caused the decline in employment in the
U.S. To be so much more severe than in any other
industrialized country was China.
most reports on Mexican employment aggregate manufacturing
jobs with "industry", which would include oil gas drilling
and construction...i did find one graph that shows a 20%, 5
million job jump in Mexican industrial employment in the
first six years after NAFTA, but they never reached their
prior peak, and i find the rest of the period inconclusive,
not knowing much about Mexican business cycles:
Increases in productivity (technology is a broad term)
likely explain the bulk of the massive decrease in
manufacturing in both the USA and Japan. Furriners certainly
make good scapegoats, however.
"... Loss of one business is OK, two -- the same. But at some point quantity turns into quality and you get entirely new situation. Point of no return. ..."
"... If too many business close you not only lose the whole sector and but you suffer additional loses from the destruction of vertically integrated suppliers. You might lose the whole chain. ..."
"... And your "more technologically advanced facilities" will close too. I saw such a chain of event in chemical industry. And then you will get polluted ingredients from China and lose your customers to Germany. ..."
"... Looks like you do not understand the complexity of of manufacturing chains and thinking in very simplistic terms. ..."
"... And remember that your "high technological sector" is not immune. IT can be and is outsourced to India. Computers for Dell are now assembled in Taiwan. Gradually the design will move too as the best design is when you are close to production facility and understand complex processes involved in production. ..."
The problem is that you don't have the ability to compare what would have happened without NAFTA.
There is no doubt that the pain is real in those communities that saw their factory shut down
and the product being produced in Mexico instead. But would that factory have been shut down anyway
if NAFTA had not been? We know that a lot of manufacturing related to cars moved from the north
to the south within US - and from solid middle class salaries to $10-14/hour. Efficiencies and
hunts for lower cost would have continued regardless of NAFTA. So even though we know some effects
are real we don't know how much they count in the bigger picture of change.
Good point
Carrier will keep jobs here (for now) Will automate later
Try this scenario:
American businesses under pressure from shareholders and corporate raiders underinvest in their
manufacturing facilities and milk the profits. Meanwhile, new more productive competitors are
built incorporating technological advances many of them in developing countries that have strong
growth.
Recession hits and the least competitive businesses close. Those are primarily the rust belt
dinosaurs. After the recession ends, it is more competitive to increase production at more technologically
advanced facilities than to try to restart the dinosaurs. There is net loss of jobs to foreign
competition but much is due to misguided industrial and tax policy, not trade deals.
"Recession hits and the least competitive businesses close. Those are primarily the rust belt
dinosaurs. After the recession ends, it is more competitive to increase production at more
technologically advanced facilities than to try to restart the dinosaurs. There is net loss
of jobs to foreign competition but much is due to misguided industrial and tax policy, not
trade deals."
That't pure neoliberal baloney. Free market propaganda.
Loss of one business is OK, two -- the same. But at some point quantity turns into quality
and you get entirely new situation. Point of no return.
If too many business close you not only lose the whole sector and but you suffer additional
loses from the destruction of vertically integrated suppliers. You might lose the whole chain.
And your "more technologically advanced facilities" will close too. I saw such a chain
of event in chemical industry. And then you will get polluted ingredients from China and lose
your customers to Germany.
Looks like you do not understand the complexity of of manufacturing chains and thinking
in very simplistic terms.
And remember that your "high technological sector" is not immune. IT can be and is outsourced
to India. Computers for Dell are now assembled in Taiwan. Gradually the design will move too as
the best design is when you are close to production facility and understand complex processes
involved in production.
There was recently a story how Intel lost serious money just trying to move the process from
one place to another.
Another factor that outsourcing of manufacturing radically changes the balance of power between
the capital and the labor. It helped to decimate the power of organized labor, which was the explicit
goal of neoliberalism: atomization of labor force and conversion of them into autonomous "self-enhancing"
(via education and training at your own expense) units, competing with each other in the (pretty
unfair) "labor market".
It's simply amazing how many factors played in hand for neoliberal coup d'état of 1980th: computer
revolution, Internet and related communication revolution, financialization ( 401(k) plans were
enacted into law in 1978), dissolution of the USSR, outsourcing and related decimation on trade
unions power. And then came Clinton and officially buried the New Deal.
"... "[T]he decline in manufacturing employment ... is driven mainly by the secular trend of labor-saving technological progress." At this point I call nonsense. Until somebody shows me the "technological progress" that hit precisely like a tsunami in the year 2000, The argument made by DeLong and Rodrick is nonsense. I already debunked the "but, Germany!" Argument the other day, so don't even try that. ..."
"... The U.S. went from 30% of its nonfarm employees in manufacturing to 12% because of rapid growth in manufacturing productivity and limited demand, yes? The U.S. went from 12% to 9% because of stupid and destructive macro policies--the Reagan deficits, the strong-dollar policy pushed well past its sell-by date, too-tight monetary policy--that diverted it from its proper role as a net exporter of capital and finance to economies that need to be net sinks rather than net sources of the global flow of funds for investment, yes? The U.S. went from 9% to 8.7% because of the extraordinarily rapid rise of China, yes? The U.S. went from 8.7% to 8.6% because of NAFTA, yes? ..."
"... And yet the American political system right now is blaming all, 100%, every piece of that decline from 30% to 8.6% and every problem that can be laid its door on brown people from Mexico. ..."
"... Sanders addressed the issue too and for that he's insulted by the likes of Sanjait and other progressive neoliberals. ..."
What did NAFTA really do? : Brad De Long has written a
lengthy essay that defends NAFTA (and other trade deals) from the charge that they are responsible
for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. I agree with much that he says – in particular
with the points that the decline in manufacturing employment has been a long-term process that
predates NAFTA and the China shock and that it is driven mainly by the secular trend of labor-saving
technological progress. There is no way you can hold NAFTA responsible for employment de-industrialization
in the U.S. or expect that a "better" deal with Mexico will bring those jobs back.
At the same time, the essay leaves me frustrated and uneasy. It seems to gloss over the distributional
pain of NAFTA and overstate the overall gains.
So what does the evidence say on these issues? ...
A recently published academic study by Lorenzo Caliendo and Fernando Parro uses all the bells-and-whistles
of modern trade theory to produce the estimate that these overall gains amount to a "welfare"
gain of 0.08% for the U.S. That is, eight-hundredth of 1 percent! ... Trade volume impacts were
much larger: a doubling of U.S. imports from Mexico.
What is equally interesting is that fully half of the miniscule 0.08% gain for US is not an
efficiency gain, but actually a benefit due to terms-of-trade improvement. That is, Caliendo and
Parro estimate that the world prices of what the U.S. imports fell relative to what it exports.
These are not efficiency gains, but income transfers from other countries (here principally Mexico
and Canada). These gains came at the expense of other countries.
A gain, no matter how small, is still a gain. What about the distributional impacts?
The most detailed empirical analysis of the labor-market effects of NAFTA is contained in a
paper by John McLaren and Shushanik Hakobyan. They find that the aggregate effects were rather
small (in line with other work), but that impacts on directly affected communities were quite
severe. It is worth quoting John McLaren at length, from an
interview : ...
In other words, those high school dropouts who worked in industries protected by tariffs prior
to NAFTA experienced reductions in wage growth by as much as 17 percentage points relative to
wage growth in unaffected industries. I don't think anyone can argue that a 17 percentage drop
is small. As McLaren and Hakobyan emphasize, these losses were then propagated throughout the
localities in which these workers lived.
So here is the overall picture that these academic studies paint for the U.S.: NAFTA produced
large changes in trade volumes, tiny efficiency gains overall, and some very significant impacts
on adversely affected communities.
The consequences of NAFTA for Mexico are another topic which would require a separate post.
Let me just say that the great expectations the country's policy makers had for NAFTA
have not been fulfilled . ...
So is Trump deluded on NAFTA's overall impact on manufacturing jobs? Absolutely, yes.
Was he able to capitalize on the very real losses that this and other trade agreements produced
in certain parts of the country in a way that Democrats were unable to? Again, yes.
Tell me something! Who was the biggest friend NRA ever garnered?
44th President? When weapons industry was under Democratic threat of gun control did you see
lot and lot of folks rushing down to the firearms dealer for a final purchase of their favourite
hardware?
Same thing with the wall-around-USA? Under threat, consumers are now buying up all the running-shoes
in China and considering the purchase of all the tea in China-cups.
Even the wholesalers are filling their warehouse with new products from Pacific avenue in hopes
of avoiding the import duty about to befall us. Is that why all the consumer non-cyclical stocks
have shown such a splendid performance? From the expected profit on warehoused products that avoided
the new tariff If, will same trend boost same equities until the rumour becomes yesterday's news?
"[T]he decline in manufacturing employment ... is driven mainly by the secular trend of labor-saving
technological progress." At this point I call nonsense. Until somebody shows me the "technological
progress" that hit precisely like a tsunami in the year 2000, The argument made by DeLong and
Rodrick is nonsense. I already debunked the "but, Germany!" Argument the other day, so don't even
try that.
Let's try again with this fact: "the decline in manufacturing employment has been a long-term
process that predates NAFTA and the China shock". Did manufacturing employment peak exactly in
2000?
It seems manufacturing peaked during the Carter years. And then came Reagan and his toxic macroeconomic
mix which led to a massive dollar appreciation. What Krugman just wrote.
Good point. Manufacturing employment fell when Reagan came into power and it fell again after
2000. I guess the NAFTA bashers have some weird lag and lead model.
Yep. A new President Bush looking backward from the early '00s probably said, "Man, technology
is wreaking havoc on the working man. If this continues it's going to be real bad."
No, let's try again with THIS fact: manufacturing employment fell 12% during the 1980-82 recesions,
then remained stable until 2000.
Then it fell by over 30% in 10 years.
Please tell me exactly what technology improvement washed over manufacturing employment *precisely*
in the year 2000 to make it fall off a cliff exactly then? Oh and by the way, during that decade
the US$ declined in value on a trade weighted basis.
And while I am at it, Japan, Canada, France and Italy had far smaller % declines than the U.S.
C.mon, tell me what happened in the year 2000 that has made the decline in U.S. manufacturing
employment such a big outlier since then. Surely the free trade apologists here can name the productivity
improvement in the year 2000. What was it?
using the 2000 bubble is some nice cherry picking. if ones chooses the two previous recessions
the trends are very similar. there was also a distinct change in the slope of productivity per
hour starting in the late 80s so i think this is a more appropriate starting point
The U.S. Was not the only country that had a recession in 2001. Why the collapse *only* in the
U.S.?
I will move on when people admit that collapse was not due to an overnight spike in productivity.
We have double the loss of nearly any other industrialised country.
Was there possibly something else that happened in the year 2000?
ironically, i'm probably more opposed to so-called "free trade" deals than NDD. i've been gassed,
shot at, and even voted for perot despite his *repugnant* social conservatism. imo, the decimation
of labor rights and deregulation were major contributors to the ratification of trade agreements
that harmed working class people while benefiting the rich. i also believe the irrational black-white
position of many sanders social democrats on trade only helps trumpists promote america first
nationalism. union-busters, deregulators, and "job-creating" CEOs should not get a get-out-of-jail-free
card!
The percentage of employees working in manufacturing in the US fell in a long surprisingly straight
line from the late 1960s. The big drop in employee count in 2000 was a result of the collapse
of the dot-com boom. There has been a long, steady downward pressure on manufacturing jobs, but
we see big drops in their absolute numbers in just about every recession.
I do know that the 1990s were a big decade for increased manufacturing efficiency. Supercomputers
and micro-controllers changed the way we designed and built cars, cans and washing machines, for
example. I know Silicon Valley was rapidly changing the way computers were assembled as design
rules made chip design easier and new techniques made chip placement and connection simpler. Does
anyone even use a wire wrap gun anymore? There was also the impact of the Japanese challenge of
the 1980s which made manufacturers rethink their supply chain and encouraging robotics and continuous
inspection.
The official story is that the adoption of computers didn't show up in productivity figures,
but if you looked at manufacturing, their impact was pervasive. Not every industry is going to
advance at the same time, and improvements that helped one often lower costs and help others.
If you look at the chart, the big drop in 2000 rivals the drop in the early 1980s and the similar
drop during the most recent crash. It's like a strong gust of wind knocking down an old tree trunk.
The trunk was rotting and weakening for years, but it was the wind storm that knocked it down.
Nope. As you say, "the 1990s were a big decade for increased manufacturing efficiency."
And yet the number of jobs in manufacturing in the U.S. Actually *increased* slightly. And
the increase was worldwide.
"In November 1999, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky and Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji
made a trade deal that led to China's admission into the World Trade Organization (WTO) on November
10, 2001."
Offshoring intensified, according to the official statistics of the U.S. Trade Representative.
Here's the link, showing that offshoring doubled by 2001:
http://www.trivisonno.com/offshoring
What happened that caused the decline in employment in the U.S. To be so much more severe than
in any other industrialized country was China.
Increases in productivity (technology is a broad term) likely explain the bulk of the massive
decrease in manufacturing in both the USA and Japan. Furriners certainly make good scapegoats,
however.
"So here is the overall picture that these academic studies paint for the U.S.: NAFTA produced
large changes in trade volumes, tiny efficiency gains overall, and some very significant impacts
on adversely affected communities."
Yes the free trade cheerleaders always miss the distributional impacts. But I do remember a
few international economists when NAFTA first passed saying the efficiency gains would be only
modest. I guess they were not heard over the cheerleading.
But one should also note that shot across the bow of Team Trump that Dani took. As always -
one of the best on the issue of globalization.
Technological advances also have uneven distributional pain
Job losses to strong dollar policy have uneven distributional pain
Trump tells the lie that better Trade agreements will fix the distributional pain.
It won't because trade agreements only create a small fraction of that pain.
The elephant in the room is Technological advances. It is unwise and undesirable to fight progress
(as in Luddite)
The question obscured by scapegoating NAFTA is what policies will address dislocation? Clinton
proposed shifting dislocated miners to clean energy jobs. Dislocated miners rejected that idea
in favor of an empty promise to return mining jobs. The conversation will return to square one,
"What policies will address dislocation?" only after Trump trade policy upheaval fails because
it addresses the wrong problem
I'm not a Luddite but we could and should address those distributional consequences that you properly
note. And you are spot on - Trump is creating more dislocations with his stupid bluster.
I agree. The march of technology is responsible for the productivity gains, and those gains led
to the majority of the job losses.
But it is an economic argument that simply will not win elections when we say "only 5% of the
folks lost their jobs in manufacturing due to trade, so our recommended trade policy to you, the
American people, is to keep doing what we have been doing for the last 25 years, because it only
substantially harms a small number of Americans."
To the extent Americans vote based on trade considerations in the first place (which is unclear
to me), to win elections we need to be proposing plans for trade surpluses or balanced trade.
(My preference is to seek balanced trade.).
This is why I have been beating a drum about the Buffett plan
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf
trying to get you smart folks here to critique it and try to get some energy behind it, in
my own small (and ineffective way).
It is kind of hard to talk about a 13 year old plan when the updated numbers for today are much
more in favor of US. Today, if we just balanced our trade with China we would no longer have a
trade deficit.
This is a fair point. But it could be that 10 years from now we have some other cause of concern.
I seem to recall in the late 80's the concern was Japan taking over and a huge trade deficit with
Japan. That concern has receded but now the lion's share of the imbalance is with China. Can we
fix it once and for all? Also, what sort of policy proposals should people get behind that are
(A) winners politically/ help win elections, (B) economically sound, and (C) good for US workers
/ reduce inequality?
It would be great if some small group of smart folks like those who comment here could develop
such a policy prescription in the coming months by arguing and discussing amongst ourselves. If
we could do that then we could try to infect some unsuspecting politicians with the ideas, and
who knows, maybe in 4 years it could make a difference for our world.
The trade deficit is actually not that important nor is manufacturing. We are moving towards a
"Star Trek" like future where food and things can be delivered on demand without people having
to do anything. If we continue to want people to acquire those things using money, we have to
find ways to provide people with money. The reason we provide people with money via a job is that
we think there is a societal value to connecting work with getting money (to acquire stuff). I
am not sure how we can get out of that primitive mindset of "deserving" and spend our time on
something more meaningful.
"So is Trump deluded on NAFTA's overall impact on manufacturing jobs? Absolutely, yes. Was
he able to capitalize on the very real losses that this and other trade agreements produced in
certain parts of the country in a way that Democrats were unable to? Again, yes."
I guess Trump is not going to invite Dani to work for his CEA. Which is a loss for the nation.
"[H]igh school dropouts who worked in industries protected by tariffs prior to NAFTA experienced
reductions in wage growth by as much as 17 percentage points relative to wage growth in unaffected
industries."
And those high school drop outs all voted for Trump. So the bottom line is that high school
drop outs rule the nation because the rest of us don't vote as a bloc.
The problem is that you don't have the ability to compare what would have happened without NAFTA.
There is no doubt that the pain is real in those communities that saw their factory shut down
and the product being produced in Mexico instead. But would that factory have been shut down anyway
if NAFTA had not been? We know that a lot of manufacturing related to cars moved from the north
to the south within US - and from solid middle class salaries to $10-14/hour. Efficiencies and
hunts for lower cost would have continued regardless of NAFTA. So even though we know some effects
are real we don't know how much they count in the bigger picture of change.
Good point
Carrier will keep jobs here (for now) Will automate later
Try this scenario:
American businesses under pressure from shareholders and corporate raiders underinvest in their
manufacturing facilities and milk the profits. Meanwhile, new more productive competitors are
built incorporating technological advances many of them in developing countries that have strong
growth.
Recession hits and the least competitive businesses close. Those are primarily the rust belt
dinosaurs. After the recession ends, it is more competitive to increase production at more technologically
advanced facilities than to try to restart the dinosaurs. There is net loss of jobs to foreign
competition but much is due to misguided industrial and tax policy, not trade deals.
While he is generally right, this is rather disingenuous, since offshoring jobs started long before
NAFTA. It began with the maquiladora system in Mexico and by the 1990s had largely shifted to
SE Asia (anybody remember the Asian Tigers?). Even many maquiladoras relocated there. By the late
1990s, when NAFTA was signed, most of those jobs had already gone. As I keep saying, you need
to look at the details and not just the aggregates. Most the labor intensive industries relocated
to low wag/benefit countries with no labor or environmental protections before NAFTA, leaving
only those most amenable to automation. Blaming automation only works if you ignore the first
part.
The maquiladora system did start well before NAFTA. But note China has taken business away from
those maquiladoras. Putting that 20% border tax on Mexico that Trump wants means more business
for Asia.
I remember studying a prototype computer at an MIT lab in the mid-1980s. All of the chips (mainly
7400 series) were marked with Central American country names. One guy joked that he was glad we
had the contras fighting against freedom down there so we didn't have to worry about our supply
of 7404s.
What productivity increase hit like a tsunami in the U.S. and only the U.S. Precisely in the year
2000? Not in 1999 or any other year in the 1990s, but starting precisely in the year 2000.
If you can't name it, the thick skull is not mine.
"Hey look, there Dani Rodrik saying exactly what I've been saying for a while."
LOL no he's not!!!
"At the same time, the essay leaves me frustrated and uneasy. It seems to gloss over the distributional
pain of NAFTA and overstate the overall gains."
"Was he able to capitalize on the very real losses that this and other trade agreements produced
in certain parts of the country in a way that Democrats were unable to? Again, yes."
I don't want to cause more fights, and also I don't want to be the target of ridicule, but...
what is it that Dani Rodrick is saying that agrees with what you've said? I am not disputing you,
just asking for clarification, as he says several things here.
The consequences of NAFTA for Mexico are another topic which would require a separate post. Let
me just say that the great expectations the country's policy makers had for NAFTA have not been
fulfilled....
Between 1992 and 2015, real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Mexico increased slower than
in any country in Central America, any country in south America save for unfortunate Venezuela
and slower than in Canada or the United States.
Between 1992 and 2014, total factor productivity for Mexico actually decreased. Mexico fared
more poorly in productivity than in any country for which there are records in Central America,
any country in South America other than Venezuela and more poorly than in Canada or the US.
Between 1992 and 2015, real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Mexico increased slower than
in any country in Central America, any country in South America save for unfortunate Venezuela
and slower than in Canada or the United States.
Between 1992 and 2014, total factor productivity for Mexico actually decreased. Mexico fared
more poorly in productivity than in any country for which there are records in Central America,
any country in South America other than Venezuela and more poorly than in Canada or the US.
Between 1992 and 2015, real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Mexico increased slower than
in the Dominican Republic or Trinidad. Jamaica however grew more slowly.
Between 1992 and 2013, the last year for which there are records, real per capita Gross Domestic
Product for Mexico increased slower than in Puerto Rico or Cuba, despite the US embargo of trade
with Cuba.
Between 1992 and 2015, real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Mexico increased slower than
in language related Spain, Portugal, Angola or the Philippines.
Anne - Google processed trade. A big deal in China. And exactly what maquiladoras are. Yes they
do compete. And workers in these sectors are making around $3 an hour regardless of nation.
Google processed trade. A big deal in China. And exactly what maquiladoras are. Yes they do compete.
And workers in these sectors are making around $3 an hour regardless of nation.
Trump wants border taxes aka tariffs. Paul Ryan wants the Destination Based Cash Flow Tax aka
border adjustments. If Trump does not know they are different, his advisers are lying to him.
Of course I am no fan of that border adjustments idea Speaker Ryan is pushing. But that is a much
deeper conversation. Let's just say - Ryan is lying every time the weasel smiles.
Trump wants border taxes aka tariffs. Paul Ryan wants the Destination Based Cash Flow Tax aka
border adjustments....
[ I am only interested in understanding the difference between a tariff and a destination tax
and who pays each. The point is to understand each of the 2 possibilities and who will pay in
each case. Tariffs are paid by consumers. Who will pay a destination tax?
Yes I am sure they understand that this will reduce the value of the peso at least by 20% so in
the end US will end up paying for the wall and then some. It is just that low information voters
and low information Presidents will think we made Mexico pay for it.
"At the same time, [DeLong's] essay leaves me frustrated and uneasy. It seems to gloss over
the distributional pain of NAFTA and overstate the overall gains."
He's a neoliberal like PGL and Sanjait.
They don't care about the distributional pain. They're hacks defending hack centrist politicians.
The distributional pain helped elect Trump and the neoliberals can't admit it.
"At the same time, [DeLong's] essay leaves me frustrated and uneasy. It seems to gloss over the
distributional pain of NAFTA and overstate the overall gains."
Rodrik could have substituted PGL or Krugman for DeLong.
"The distributional pain helped elect Trump and the neoliberals can't admit it."
Distributional pain aka the Stopler Samuelson theorem. I talk about this often. Krugman does
too. But then this requires a little bit of analytical ability which serial idiots like you don't
do. Rage on - troll.
All you and Krugman do is mock Bernie Sanders and his supporters, people who would actually
do something about the distributional pain Rodrik talks about.
Rodrik:
"At the same time, [DeLong's] essay leaves me frustrated and uneasy. It seems to gloss over
the distributional pain of NAFTA and overstate the overall gains."
Just like PGL and Krugman. That's why neoliberal Hillary lost. It's why Trump won. And the
neoliberals still won't admit it.
In short, it's complicated – not all bad, by any means, but not the pure uprising of idealists
the more enthusiastic supporters imagine.
The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have an illuminating discussion
of Sanders support. The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is this:
Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger,
authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to
which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected
white men.
The point is not to demonize, but, if you like, to de-angelize. Like any political movement
(including the Democratic Party, which is, yes, a coalition of interest groups) Sandersism has
been an assemblage of people with a variety of motives, not all of them pretty. Here's a short
list based on my own encounters:
1.Genuine idealists: For sure, quite a few Sanders supporters dream of a better society, and
for whatever reason – maybe just because they're very young – are ready to dismiss practical arguments
about why all their dreams can't be accomplished in a day.
2.Romantics: This kind of idealism shades over into something that's less about changing society
than about the fun and ego gratification of being part of The Movement. (Those of us who were
students in the 60s and early 70s very much recognize the type.) For a while there – especially
for those who didn't understand delegate math – it felt like a wonderful joy ride, the scrappy
young on the march about to overthrow the villainous old. But there's a thin line between love
and hate: when reality began to set in, all too many romantics reacted by descending into bitterness,
with angry claims that they were being cheated.
3.Purists: A somewhat different strand in the movement, also familiar to those of us of a certain
age, consists of those for whom political activism is less about achieving things and more about
striking a personal pose. They are the pure, the unsullied, who reject the corruptions of this
world and all those even slightly tainted – which means anyone who actually has gotten anything
done. Quite a few Sanders surrogates were Naderites in 2000; the results of that venture don't
bother them, because it was never really about results, only about affirming personal identity.
4.CDS victims: Quite a few Sanders supporters are mainly Clinton-haters, deep in the grip of
Clinton Derangement Syndrome; they know that Hillary is corrupt and evil, because that's what
they hear all the time; they don't realize that the reason it's what they hear all the time is
that right-wing billionaires have spent more than two decades promoting that message. Sanders
has gotten a number of votes from conservative Democrats who are voting against her, not for him,
and for sure there are liberal supporters who have absorbed the same message, even if they don't
watch Fox News.
5.Salon des Refuses: This is a small group in number, but accounts for a lot of the pro-Sanders
commentary, and is of course something I see a lot. What I'm talking about here are policy intellectuals
who have for whatever reason been excluded from the inner circles of the Democratic establishment,
and saw Sanders as their ticket to the big time. They typically hold heterodox views, but those
views don't have much to do with the campaign – sorry, capital theory disputes from half a century
ago aren't relevant to the debate over health reform. What matters is their outsider status, which
gives them an interest in backing an outsider candidate – and makes them reluctant to accept it
when that candidate is no longer helping the progressive cause.
So how will this coalition of the not-always disinterested break once it's over? The genuine
idealists will probably realize that whatever their dreams, Trump would be a nightmare. Purists
and CDSers won't back Clinton, but they were never going to anyway. My guess is that disgruntled
policy intellectuals will, in the end, generally back Clinton.
The question, as I see it, involves the romantics. How many will give in to their bitterness?
A lot may depend on Sanders – and whether he himself is one of those embittered romantics, unable
to move on.
I guess I am a little confused by the way this article is laid out. The article says the overall
picture is Large trade volume change, little gain (insignificant gain) and large wage drop for
poor.
Meaning, trade has increased but it has little efficiency gain on the economy and it mainly
just depressed wages for the poor in the US. So, am I missing something here?
I thought the whole point of free trade was to lower tariffs/quotas/taxes to allow for each
country to specialize based off their advantages/cost...resulting in a lower price in the international
market. This lower price would then result in benefiting everyone that has to buy that product
ie cars. So, even though you lost your job in automobiles to Mexico you would be able to buy a
new car much cheaper because labor cost is extremely cheap in Mexico. The end result would be
short term unemployment rise but given you could find another job the medium/long run unemployment
would be in equilibrium. Thus, everyone in the medium/long run are better off because of free
trade.
Does the term, "tiny efficiency gains" mean that jobs went to mexico because it was cheaper
labor/regulations and in turn the final product came back to the U.S. virtually the same price
as it was before NAFTA? If that is the case it would make sense to scrap NAFTA.
My understanding is that the benefit of NAFTA or any free trade agreement is essentially going
to be lower cost. This is because inefficient companies or rich countries like U.S. have high
living wage causing the final product to cost more and its all protected from international prices
with quotas/tariffs/import taxes. Thats not to neglect the wage drop in the US due to free trade,
but the argument is that cheaper products is far superior than a small amount of job loss/wage
drop.
I thought the whole point of free trade was to lower tariffs/quotas/taxes to allow for each country
to specialize based off their advantages/cost...resulting in a lower price in the international
market. This lower price would then result in benefiting everyone that has to buy that product
ie cars. So, even though you lost your job in automobiles to Mexico you would be able to buy a
new car much cheaper because labor cost is extremely cheap in Mexico. The end result would be
short term unemployment rise but given you could find another job the medium/long run unemployment
would be in equilibrium. Thus, everyone in the medium/long run are better off because of free
trade....
[ I need to understand this better, but I would agree and argue the adjustment process would
have occurred had the high employment years of the Clinton presidency continued to the Bush presidency
but that was not the case. The problem of trade dislocations that were not compensated for is
found during the Bush years. ]
"The idea here is to explain why targeting the economically large and persistent US trade deficit
is a reasonable policy goal.
This view is not widely accepted among economists. Everyone gets the by identity, the trade
deficit is a drag on growth, but numerous arguments push back on the idea that it's a problem.
Dean Baker and I tackle the issue here. The punchline, as suggested above, is not that the
drag impact of the trade deficit never gets offset. It clearly does, at times. But when offsets
are less forthcoming–the Fed's run out of ammo; the fiscal authorities have gone all austere–the
demand-reducing drag from trade imbalances is a problem.
Second, even in flush times, the trade deficit, which is exclusively in manufactured goods,
affects the industrial composition of employment, and it is in this regard that Trump has been
able to so effectively tap its politics. While high-ranking democrats were running around pushing
the next trade deal, he was talking directly to those voters who clearly perceived themselves
far more hurt than helped by globalization."
The U.S. went from 30% of its nonfarm employees in manufacturing to 12% because of rapid
growth in manufacturing productivity and limited demand, yes? The U.S. went from 12% to 9% because
of stupid and destructive macro policies--the Reagan deficits, the strong-dollar policy pushed
well past its sell-by date, too-tight monetary policy--that diverted it from its proper role as
a net exporter of capital and finance to economies that need to be net sinks rather than net sources
of the global flow of funds for investment, yes? The U.S. went from 9% to 8.7% because of the
extraordinarily rapid rise of China, yes? The U.S. went from 8.7% to 8.6% because of NAFTA, yes?
And yet the American political system right now is blaming all, 100%, every piece of that
decline from 30% to 8.6% and every problem that can be laid its door on brown people from Mexico.
By not making it clear that you are talking about 0.1%-points of a 21.4%-point phenomenon,
I think you are enabling that. I don't think this is a good thing to do...
"Was Trump able to capitalize on the very real losses that this and other trade agreements produced
in certain parts of the country in a way that Democrats were unable to? Again, yes."
How did he capitalize? By addressing the issue unlike the progressive neoliberals DeLong and
PGL's candidate Hillary.
Just talking about the Stopler Samuelson theorem every now and then doesn't address the issue.
"... If the American peasants were going to revolt they would have done it already. Fortunately for the rich, the peasants have been mollified by opiates, marijuana, cheap industrial calories, videogames and unlimited trash entertainment, and a fawning endless adoration for the rich and famous. And when that fails theyve got mega churches spouting hopium too. ..."
"... By the way, look around most of the country. It's designed without public squares which are necessary for protest and assembly. Look at the BLM protests, they tried to take the freeways and the whites just got furious that their fat SUVs were impeded. ..."
"... Americans are the most apathetic population on earth ..."
"... Peasants do not start revolutions. It is members of the enlightened elite who clap their hands and trigger the avalanche. Their attempts at gradual reform begin by harnessing, and thereby empowering, the threatened, desperate lower-middle class, which turns and rends their fellows and their superiors (the 90-99% in today's jargon). The breakdown of consensus in the middle orders creates chaos, which in turn empowers those who benefit from instability, especially psychopaths, who cannot last long in places with community or corporate memory, but who flourish in civil disorder. ..."
"... They are right. A french-revolution-style reckoning is coming. We will have to dismantle and redistribute their fortunes. And those that resist will not survive. ..."
"... They should be afraid, and they should know that the later the reckoning, the angrier the mob. The angrier the mob, the likelier accidents happen. ..."
"... They are mostly blind to the need to redistribute, and those that are not are blocked by the system (the neoliberal world order) from acting. ..."
"... I guess they adhere that now-old adage: He who dies with the most toys WINS. ..."
"... This very day, NYT reports that Peter Thiel has (i.e., "bought") New Zealand citizenship. And then hilariously goes on to suggest that this expedient could well be thanks to Thiel's adolescent enthusiasm for "Lord of the Rings", which is where they produced the movie, so "becoming a citizen might be the next best thing to living in Middle-earth itself ." ..."
"... The Masque of the Red Death ..."
"... And therein lies the error: they don't judge themselves by the norms they sold (or failed to sell) to us. ..."
"... I'd count the Zuck's purchase of 700 acres (similar acreage to Central Park) as a bolt-hole. And peter Thiel's in New Zealand. Guess the help will be relegated to the Blueseed floating city ..."
"... The French aristocracy was pretty surprised in 1789 how unprepared they were. I'd tend to put them in the former group. Our oligarchy? Definitely psychopaths. ..."
"... The current hedgies should watch Adam Curtis's 4 part docu "The MayFair Set". It's on utube. Or, if 4 hours is too long, they could watch just part 2, notice James Goldsmith, and then watch part 4 starting at about minute 23. Another prepper. Why all the paranoia and prepping? ..."
"... Lavish follies apparently become tiresome or expensive to maintain or lonely or in some other way unappealing after they're built. So now one can rent a villa at Goldsmith's Mexican hideaway, for a considerable sum of course. ..."
"... IF collapse came, I absolutely WOULD go on a 1%er hunt. Open season. ..."
"... Sarcasm on. Hedge fund managers anticipate They're so good at that. That's why hedge fund yields for pension funds are so much better than other fund yields for pension funds. (8^)) Sarcasm off. ..."
"... I don't understand why these pampered, self-worshipping, self-entitled rich scumbags think that New Zealanders will welcome them with open arms if SHTF. ..."
"... Yes, that's the flaw. New Zealand would be great for their purposes if not for the small problem that it's full of New Zealanders. The society is strongly egalitarian, much more so than the US, and has different core values (less about freedom and more about fairness). ..."
"... Thiel's land purchase in the South Island has been front page news lately, along with the news that he didn't have to comply with foreign investment criteria because he is a NZ citizen (which just raised the question of how and why he received citizenship). ..."
"... "What does that really tell us about our system? It's a very odd thing. You're basically seeing that the people who've been the best at reading the tea leaves-the ones with the most resources, because that's how they made their money-are now the ones most preparing to pull the rip cord and jump out of the plane." ..."
"... buying airstrips and farms ..."
"... Prime Minister Bill English has defended a decision to grant citizenship to American tech billionaire Peter Thiel, saying "a little bit of flexibility" is useful when it comes to citizenship laws. ..."
"... English said there needed to be a balance between giving everyone a fair chance of citizenship, and encouraging those who would make a positive difference to New Zealand. ..."
"... "If people come here and invest and get into philanthropy and are supportive of New Zealand, then we're better off for their interest in our country, and as a small country at the end of the world, that's not a bad thing. ..."
"... NZ First leader Winston Peters' suggestion that the Government was selling citizenship was "ridiculous", English said. ..."
If the American peasants were going to revolt they would have done it already. Fortunately
for the rich, the peasants have been mollified by opiates, marijuana, cheap industrial calories,
videogames and unlimited trash entertainment, and a fawning endless adoration for the rich and
famous. And when that fails theyve got mega churches spouting hopium too.
By the way, look around most of the country. It's designed without public squares which
are necessary for protest and assembly. Look at the BLM protests, they tried to take the freeways
and the whites just got furious that their fat SUVs were impeded.
If you want to see the future watch Idiocracy not the French Revolution. Americans are
the most apathetic population on earth .
Maybe they just have different priorities? Maybe they have come from countries where life looks
like "the s hit the f" is the norm, but still manage to make do?
Peasants do not start revolutions. It is members of the enlightened elite who clap their
hands and trigger the avalanche. Their attempts at gradual reform begin by harnessing, and thereby
empowering, the threatened, desperate lower-middle class, which turns and rends their fellows
and their superiors (the 90-99% in today's jargon). The breakdown of consensus in the middle orders
creates chaos, which in turn empowers those who benefit from instability, especially psychopaths,
who cannot last long in places with community or corporate memory, but who flourish in civil disorder.
Is Trump the reformer who triggers the avalanche – our Duc D'Orleans, later Philippe Egalite,
under which name he was guillotined? The looks on the faces of Louis XVI and Hillary Clinton were
probably equally dumbfounded when they found themselves stymied by their respective rivals at
the "Assembly of Notables."
They are right. A french-revolution-style reckoning is coming. We will have to dismantle and
redistribute their fortunes. And those that resist will not survive.
They should be afraid, and they should know that the later the reckoning, the angrier the mob.
The angrier the mob, the likelier accidents happen.
At this point, I do not see another option. They are mostly blind to the need to redistribute,
and those that are not are blocked by the system (the neoliberal world order) from acting.
A truly nutty non-solution from the greediest nastiest bastards on the planet. Just frickin
great. They know what they should do, but they adamantly refuse to do it in order to remain mired
in the greedy proflgate ways.
I guess they adhere that now-old adage: He who dies with the most toys WINS.
I wonder when the elites will make themselves Pyramids? Or are they planning to bury themselves
inside these damn bunkers instead? Using the bunkers as necropoli probably makes more sense than
what they're actually planning to use them for.
This very day, NYT reports that Peter Thiel has (i.e., "bought") New Zealand citizenship. And
then hilariously goes on to suggest that this expedient could well be thanks to Thiel's adolescent
enthusiasm for "Lord of the Rings", which is where they produced the movie, so "becoming a citizen
might be the next best thing to living in Middle-earth itself ."
The good news is, these guys will doubtless revert to cannibalism in short order .
I guess they haven't read The Masque of the Red Death .
The story takes place at the castellated abbey of the "happy and dauntless and sagacious"
Prince Prospero. Prospero and 1,000 other nobles have taken refuge in this walled abbey to
escape the Red Death, a terrible plague with gruesome symptoms that has swept over the land.
Victims are overcome by "sharp pains", "sudden dizziness", and hematidrosis, and die within
half an hour. Prospero and his court are indifferent to the sufferings of the population at
large; they intend to await the end of the plague in luxury and safety behind the walls of
their secure refuge, having welded the doors shut.
They don't subscribe to the propertarian patriarchal norms that they sold to the public, except
for appearances, which are often cited as pretexts for ejection from the halls of power. They
owe the public cultural shibboleths no real honor, especially not within their private practices.
They are not obligated to enact the stories they write or take to heart the submission they counsel
to us. They didn't get to group hegemony by competing.
I see the paralogic. They're American. Therefore, adversity and competition is the normal posture
for every interaction. Therefore, everything is a fair contest which they won fair and square
against us. Which suggests that they probably subscribe more perfectly to the same alleged social
"norms" they impose on us. And therein lies the error: they don't judge themselves by the norms
they sold (or failed to sell) to us.
If they were as crippled by someone having fun without them when there is plenty of fun to
be had, there would be no ruling class.
on the other hand they have more time and money to gain actually useful skills than wage slaves
EVER will. A variant of the rich get richer phenomena which seems to be how things usually work
out, rather than the poor getting even as mostly happens only in morality tales. Now get to work
and shut up about it!
I'd count the Zuck's purchase of 700 acres (similar acreage to Central Park) as a bolt-hole.
And peter Thiel's in New Zealand. Guess the help will be relegated to the Blueseed floating city
Jet = high time preference
Amel 64= low time preference, in fact not even so relevant to insist on staying on course to NZ.
http://www.amel.fr/en/amel-64/
W. Somerset Maugham's retelling of the tale (1933) "An Appointment in Samarra" comes to mind:
There was a merchant in Bagdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little
while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the
marketplace I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled
me.
She looked at me and made a threatening gesture, now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away
from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me.
The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks
and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the marketplace
and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, Why did you make a threatening
gesture to my servant when you saw him this morning?
That was not a threatening gesture, I said, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished
to see him in Bagdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra.
Examine the mentality of planning for a "collapse."
The hedge fund managers above all are escaping to rural areas, with clean water and air. They've
planned on how to get by with less for themselves and their families.
The article also spoke of bunkers of under ground apartment complexes, silos, etc that would be
enclaves for communities of wealthy citizens where they would ration, learn how to ration, share,
get by with less.
They all think it will be temporary while the ignorant masses destroy each other without their
surperior leadership. They imagine being able to return and begin the hard work of returning things
to the way they were, with themselves back in elite positions.
Just think. If they could imagine maybe getting by on less and used that sense of community
they expect to magically develop in their bunkers, there wouldn't be amy "collapse" to fear anyway.
If they could imagine their clean water and air natural retreats, with food, are simple things
the rest of the planet would like to enjoy and should be able to enjoy without exploitation, there
wouldn't be any collapse to fear.
So not only will their getaways be big failures, but the imagined return to the world after
the crisis is also naive.
Not only would things not be the same, you'd have to be a special kind of idoit or psycopath
to think anything would still be hunky dory with a return to the status quo..
if you survive the carnage they imagine in some kind of collapse.
"you'd have to be a special kind of idiot or psychopath"
The French aristocracy was pretty surprised in 1789 how unprepared they were. I'd tend
to put them in the former group. Our oligarchy? Definitely psychopaths.
The 0.01 percenters would much rather create doomsday bunkers than fix their own greed and
power lust. I guess they know themselves well.
I could poke so many what if holes into their daydream scenarios. Hours of fun since their
most of their scenarios depend on order and business as usual ultimately being restored. I guess
they learned nothing from what typically happens to refugees regardless of their class and they
assume that the "problem" will be localized instead of global and that their assets will be worth
more with them alive than dead.
It is impossible to convince someone afflicted with the greatest pandemic in human history
- Greed - that they are better off having a smaller % of a growing pie than a larger % of a stagnant
or shrinking pie.
The epicenters for the global pandemic are London, New York, and Washington D.C., though not
necessarily in that order.
Wait, I thought Trump was going to revoke federal funding for "sanctuary cities", as well as
the governor of Texas at the state level. Oh, wrong group?
This elite fear and their related actions have been "out there" for years. Puzzling me is what
has changed to elevate this topic in their Davos 2017 discussions?
The current hedgies should watch Adam Curtis's 4 part docu "The MayFair Set". It's on utube.
Or, if 4 hours is too long, they could watch just part 2, notice James Goldsmith, and then watch
part 4 starting at about minute 23. Another prepper. Why all the paranoia and prepping?
Maybe they should just stop destroying companies and pay taxes. They might sleep better if
they felt they were part of the country instead of pirates living apart. imo.
Lavish follies apparently become tiresome or expensive to maintain or lonely or in some other
way unappealing after they're built. So now one can rent a villa at Goldsmith's Mexican hideaway,
for a considerable sum of course.
They can never actually "go Galt" because they need us. If I remember correctly, Galt was some
sort of industrialist who built and manufactured actual things. What do most of these billionaires
provide us? It's difficult to imagine a hedge fund going very well after the apocalypse. Will
people continue updating their facebook pages when the world collapses? Can I paypal my tribal
wasteland overlord his tribute after our government has collapsed?
I suppose they'll just sitting around looking at all bank statements, bored out of their minds
waiting for the power to come back on.
It isn't just elite anxiety, this has been playing out among the lower classes as well. It's
not just prepper reality shows either; we've had almost 10 years now of zombie apocalypse themed
entertainment and a general revival of the post-apocalypse genre across multiple entertainment
platforms.
We know the empire is collapsing, we just wont acknowledge it out loud.
[Reddit CEO Steve] Huffman has calculated that, in the event of a disaster, he would seek
out some form of community: "Being around other people is a good thing. I also have this somewhat
egotistical view that I'm a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge, or at least not
a slave, when push comes to shove."
Yeah, your skills running a content aggregate site that's become a haven for the alt-right,
that's going to be the things the masses will be looking for in a leader in a post-apocalyptic
society.
What if the guy fueling the jet pours some sugar into the tank? What if the guy who drives
the fuel truck to the airstrip gets "lost" on the day of the apocalypse? What if your driver on
the way to the airport pulls a gun on you? You better get a jumbo jet to fit everyone on that
could spoil your plan. It'll be like the end of the "Jerk". It is just terrible to have to rely
on people and to need all these badges of affluence. Why can't a rich soul be a rapacious rich
jerk, in peace?
What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
These stories really make me hope that the collapse that these people are preparing for is
a flu pandemic. In that case, no one is going anywhere as the first thing that will be done by
states is close the borders to slow down transmission of the virus. Good luck getting to New Zealand
then!
Also, let's not forget the Archdruid's (accurate) contention that the (presumably very well
armed) security staff will be eager to hunt down the elites after society collapses.
Charles Hugh Smith in his book Survival+ however does offer some good advice for elites who
want to survive collapse indefinitely: find a tight-knit community and immediately use all the
money and resources at your disposal to make sure that they're self-sustaining, well-armed and
grateful. Then learn some useful skills like playing musical instruments or blacksmithing and
move on in. Maybe someone should send these poor deluded bunker builders a copy!
"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any
material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason.
But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others,
are a solemn, basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing
compared with that of the rich.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
"The Age of Uncertainty" 1977
If this is a true quote, it does indeed make the blood come out one's ears that Galbraith could
have said it. It is so wrong that its vast wrongness can only be explained by knowing that the
guy was an economist by training. If he had bothered to learn any history–any history at all,
whatsoever, in any way, of any kind–he would never have been able to spout that inane nugget of
anti-truth.
Let's see: August 4, 1789. Just one notable one, among about 47 bajillion counterexamples to
bonehead Galbraith's alleged quotation.
Why don't they bail on the rest of the world now? They might as well get while the getting
is good, and the rest of the world will benefit from their absence. Seems like a win/win to me.
Ahem. This is part of the reason that some rich folks (*COUGH* Elon Musk *COUGH*) is pushing
so hard for (rich) people to pony up and help pay for a one-way trip to Mars. A bunch of pampered
rich people bailing out on Earth to go to the ULTIMATE gated community on Mars where they can
claim all the land from their feet to the horizon.
A pipe dream, of course. Such an endeavor would be ABSOLUTELY dependent upon continued upkeep
and support from Earth, AND Mars is NOT hospitable, at all Nonetheless, the impulse is there
for all to see: use your accumulated (unearned) wealth to get away from the Earth you have raped
to get where you are, before it's too late! Take all your marbles and just up and leave everyone
else to cook in the sewage and heat you've left behind. But at least your pillaging made it possible
for you and a select few others to get out.
As for fancy bunkers like converted missile silos. Note: as a veteran of the cold war and all
that nuke war shit, I KNOW how those things work (and don't work). Fancy air filters on missile
silos will filter out radiation, biological, and MOST chemical agents, but they will not, they
CANNOT, filter out oxygen displacing chemicals (carbon monoxide, halon, ammonia, etc). Some cluster
of rich douchebags and their immediate families think they can hide out for up to 5 years in a
luxury converted missile silo. Well I will just pull a car up to one of your air intakes, run
a line from my exhaust pipe to your intake, and pump your luxury bunker full of carbon monoxide.
Sleep the sleep of the dead, motherf*ckers.
BTW – many of the dystopian authors of the 40s, 50s, and 60s served in the military in WW II.
It is not an accident that they wrote these types of novels and short stories. They had observed
dystopian societies and their outcomes personally. I think the current 1% think they can control
the future in the same way that many of them thought in the 1780s and 1910-1945.
In Jack Womack's Dryco novels, Dryco (a kind of uber-Walmart-cum-Raytheon that owns everything)
becomes worried about CEO safety and covertly engineers a citizen "rebellion" on Long Island,
necessitating a permanently-stationed US military in Manhattan, to protect the elite. The Dryco
inner circle begins moving operations north, to the Bronx and Westchester County, to stay ahead
of rising sea levels. Those books were written mostly in the late '80s/early '90s but still resonate.
Sarcasm on. Hedge fund managers anticipate They're so good at that. That's why hedge fund yields for pension funds are so much better
than other fund yields for pension funds. (8^)) Sarcasm off.
Perhaps they have been reading too much economic doomer porn?
Just three months ago anybody who even considered voting for Sanders, Green, or Trump was a
selfish fool who just wanted to see the world burn. For the sake of our fellow man – consider
the children! – we were encouraged to fall in line to prevent our society from collapsing into
war and economic ruin. If only we'd have know that some of the wealthiest and most influential
people in the country were literally bracing themselves for the apocalypse with absolutely no
intention of helping a single soul escape or doing a thing to prevent the disaster. I guess if
you're rich enough it's OK not to give a shit about destroying the world.
It's important that as many people as possible read the NYT article to see just how crazy and
how horrifyingly self-serving the 1% really is. The idea that anybody will need bunkers or private
airstrips is stupid as hell and straight out of a zombie movie, but it's a perfect illustration
of how little these people care about the world around them.
Spread the word. This is the time to bail. Donald Trump is President. He is at war with corporate
media moguls. Even Bloomberg published an article on America's carnage. The suicide rate of women
under 75 is increasing. The cover-up of the neoliberal looting is collapsing. The millions of
refugees flooding Europe can't be hidden. Blaming Russia doesn't work. A world war is an extinction
event.
Who will be on the last plane out of East Hampton?
I don't understand why these pampered, self-worshipping, self-entitled rich scumbags think
that New Zealanders will welcome them with open arms if SHTF.
If the US were to go tits up the
way they fear. to such an extent that they actually felt the need to flee, the entire world would
get hit hard too. These same clowns talk about globalization and how the world is, and NEEDS to
be, interconnected. Well, you don't get to have it both ways. The US is a huge economic chunk
of the world. If it bites it, then so will a LOT of other nations, and New Zealand is not some
self-sufficient paradise that would be left untouched.
The LEGITIMATE people, the LEGITIMATE citizens of New Zealand, wouldn't take these leeches
in with open arms, strewing their walking paths with flowers and candy, if they abandon the US
in a collapse THAT THEY WERE LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR. They cannot run away and escape their culpability
and the fruits of their unending greed and selfishness.
Yes, that's the flaw. New Zealand would be great for their purposes if not for the small problem
that it's full of New Zealanders. The society is strongly egalitarian, much more so than the US,
and has different core values (less about freedom and more about fairness). If these people had
what it takes to be New Zealanders they would not need to leave the USA in the first place. Failing
that, they are going to be constantly under siege if they move here, in a figurative sense and
possibly a literal one if they try to engage in the same kind of behaviour that required them
to flee the USA.
Thiel's land purchase in the South Island has been front page news lately, along with the news
that he didn't have to comply with foreign investment criteria because he is a NZ citizen (which
just raised the question of how and why he received citizenship).
deep down they know they are a bunch of grifters who have produced nothing of any real value.
some of them are deluded but many know it has all been one big debt fueled scam, involving predatory
behavior (pirate equity) and risk free gambling (hedge scum managers, you lose and they still
win) further abetted by tax avoidance and other shifty activity.
[ "What does that really tell us about our system? It's a very odd thing. You're basically
seeing that the people who've been the best at reading the tea leaves-the ones with the most resources,
because that's how they made their money-are now the ones most preparing to pull the rip cord
and jump out of the plane." ]
The "Peak Oil Doomers" know very well why hedge fund jack offs are " buying airstrips and
farms "
"supposedly" (so take w/salt), the entire food supply of the Northeast flows through 4 highways
(I 90/80/76/95--sounds plausible). Ain't too hard to seize those chokepoints and disrupt the entire
Northeast.
Similarly the crossings of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers also are major chokepoints for
our just-in-time way of life.
We've all seen the empty bread shelves when 12″ of snow are forecast. I imagine that would
be nothing in the 1:1,000,000 chance civilization truly goes pear-shaped.
Prime Minister Bill English has defended a decision to grant citizenship to American tech billionaire
Peter Thiel, saying "a little bit of flexibility" is useful when it comes to citizenship laws.
(he didn't meet the criteria for citizenship under the law)
English said there needed to be a balance between giving everyone a fair chance of citizenship,
and encouraging those who would make a positive difference to New Zealand.
"If people come here and invest and get into philanthropy and are supportive of New Zealand,
then we're better off for their interest in our country, and as a small country at the end of
the world, that's not a bad thing.
(but he has money and spread a lot of it around and we like that)
NZ First leader Winston Peters' suggestion that the Government was selling citizenship
was "ridiculous", English said.
(even though everything I just said appears to confirm it)
"... Krugman dislikes Trump (as do I). He seems motivated to find fault with Trump's policies. In
fuzzy things like economics and their intersection with politics it is challenging, and perhaps actually
impossible, for most of us to remain balanced. If someone as smart and knowledgeable as Paul Krugman
subconsciously decides to dislike a policy, his brain is more than clever enough to invent reasonable
economic arguments against the policy. ..."
"... Cognitive bias. Using % of jobs that are manufacturing is relative to what was happening in
other job areas: like Reagan building up the military and civil service to buy weapons a tiny part of
the growth in that sector was manufacturing. ..."
"... I understand the textbook story is the Fed raises rates when the budget deficit increases.
I am not sure if the empirical data supports that though. Perhaps the Fed cares more about inflation
than budget deficits and perhaps budget deficits do not directly result in inflation? But if that is
correct, what is the basis for Professor Krugman's assertion that Trump's budget will push up interest
rates? ..."
"... It's like how Greenspan and Rubin told Clinton he had to drop his middle class spending bill
in order to focus on deficit reduction. Greenspan was threatening to raise rates and Clinton bent the
knee to the "independent" Fed. ..."
"... Krugman should remember that "Integrity, once sold, is difficult to repurchase - even at 10x
the original sales price." ..."
Reagan, Trump, and Manufacturing : It's hard to focus on ordinary economic analysis amidst this
political apocalypse. But ... like it or not the progress of
CASE NIGHTMARE
ORANGE may depend on how the economy does. So, what is actually likely to happen to trade and
manufacturing over the next few years?
As it happens, we have what looks like an unusually good model in the Reagan years... - it's not
part of the Reagan legend, but the import quota on Japanese automobiles was one of the biggest protectionist
moves of the postwar era.
I'm a bit uncertain about the actual fiscal stance of Trumponomics: deficits will surely blow
up, but I won't believe in the infrastructure push until I see it, and given savage cuts in aid to
the poor it's not entirely clear that there will be
net stimulus . But suppose there is. Then what?
Well, what happened in the Reagan years was "twin deficits": the budget deficit pushed up interest
rates, which caused a strong dollar, which caused a bigger trade deficit, mainly in manufactured
goods (which are still most of what's tradable.) This led to an accelerated decline in the industrial
orientation of the U.S. economy:
And people did notice. ...
Again, this happened despite substantial protectionism.
So Trump_vs_deep_state will probably follow a similar course; it will actually shrink manufacturing despite
the big noise made about saving a few hundred jobs here and there.
On the other hand, by then the BLS may be thoroughly politicized, commanded to report good news
whatever happens.
Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports. The agreement set total Japanese auto exports
at 1.68 million
vehicles in 1981-82, 8 percent below 1980 exports. Two years later the level was permitted to
rise to 1.85 million.(33)
Clifford Winston of the Brookings Institution found that the import limits have actually cost
jobs in the U.S. auto
industry by making it possible for the sheltered American automakers to raise prices and limit
production. In 1984,
Winston writes in Blind Intersection? Policy and the Automobile Industry, 32,000 jobs were lost,
U.S. production fell
by 300,000 units, and profits for U.S. firms increased $8.9 billion. The quotas have also made
the Japanese firms
potentially more formidable rivals because they have begun building assembly plants in the United
States.(34) They
also shifted production to larger cars, introducing to American firms competition they did not
have before the quotas
were created. In 1984, it was estimated that higher prices for domestic and imported cars cost
consumers $2.2 billion a
year.(35) At the height of the dollar's exchange rate with the yen in 1984-85, the quotas were
costing American
consumers the equivalent of $11 billion a year
The Reagan Record on Trade: Rhetoric vs. Reality
By Sheldon L. Richman
Executive Summary
When President Reagan imposed a 100 percent tariff on selected Japanese electronics in 1987,
he and the press gave the impression that this was an act of desperation. Pictured was a long-forbearing
president whose patience was exhausted by the recalcitrant and conniving Japanese. After trying
for years to elicit some fairness out of them, went the story, the usually good-natured president
had finally had enough.
When newspapers and television networks announced the tariffs, the media reminded the public
that such restraints were imposed by a staunch free trader. The less-than-subtle message was that
if "Free Trader" Ronald Reagan thought the tariff necessary, then Japan surely deserved it. After
more than seven years in office, Ronald Reagan is still widely regarded as a devoted free trader.
A typical reference is that of Mark Shields, a Washington Post columnist, to Reagan's "blind devotion
to the doctrine of free trade."
If President Reagan has a devotion to free trade, it surely must be blind, because he has been
off the mark most of the time. Only short memories and a refusal to believe one's own eyes would
account for the view that President Reagan is a free trader. Calling oneself a free trader is
not the same thing as being a free trader. Nor does a free-trade position mean that the president,
but not Congress, should have the power to impose trade sanctions. Instead, a president deserves
the title of free trader only if his efforts demonstrate an attempt to remove trade barriers at
home and prevent the imposition of new ones.
By this standard, the Reagan administration has failed to promote free trade. Ronald Reagan
by his actions has become the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover, the heavyweight
champion of protectionists.
[ I appreciate this reference, which is in turn extensively referenced. ]
This is simple. It means instead of shipping low end Toyota Corolla's that were small, manual
transmission, no A/C, etc., the Japanese started to make larger, more expensive cars, even luxury
cars like Lexis, etc.
If this helps, think of Volkswagen being limited to shipping 1,000 cars to the US. They would
probably send us only the top-end Porsches (VW owns that brand) and none of the more middle class
cars.
To Anne's point on whether this is an accurate portrayal of what happened: I have no recollection
and no knowledge about this.
What really happened is simple. The Japanese car companies got that quota rents (Menzie Chinn
documented this recently) from what was effectively a quota on the imports of Japanese cars. American
consumers instead imported European cars. Any benefits to US car manufacturing was trivial and
totally undo for the aggregate US economy by the massive dollar appreciation. All one has to do
is to look at the exchange rate back then and one gets why net exports fell dramatically.
Japanese manufacturers exported more expensive models in the 1980s due to voluntary export
restraints, negotiated by the Japanese government and U.S. trade representatives, that restricted
mainstream car sales. ...
Acura holds the distinction of being the first Japanese automotive luxury brand. ... In its
first few years of existence, Acura was among the best-selling luxury marques in the US. ...
In the late 1980s, the success of the company's first flagship vehicle, the Legend, inspired
fellow Japanese automakers Toyota and Nissan to launch their own luxury brands, Lexus and Infiniti,
respectively. ...
I am reluctant to disagree with Paul Krugman, as he has forgotten more economics than I'll ever
know. But my first thought as I read this was: motivated reasoning. It is quite interesting, and
affects all of us, and the brilliant folks seem to be more susceptible to it than the average
folks.
Krugman dislikes Trump (as do I). He seems motivated to find fault with Trump's policies.
In fuzzy things like economics and their intersection with politics it is challenging, and perhaps
actually impossible, for most of us to remain balanced. If someone as smart and knowledgeable
as Paul Krugman subconsciously decides to dislike a policy, his brain is more than clever enough
to invent reasonable economic arguments against the policy.
Of course, none of this implies that Krugman is actually wrong in this case.
One question for folks. Krugman says "the budget deficit pushed up interest rates, which caused
a strong dollar, which caused a bigger trade deficit, mainly in manufactured goods (which are
still most of what's tradable.)" I am wondering why a budget deficit has to push up interest rates?
In 2009 we ran a large budget deficit at low interest rates. In WW 2 we did as well (I think,
not really sure about this). Is it well established that budget deficits push up interest rates?
Cognitive bias. Using % of jobs that are manufacturing is relative to what was happening in
other job areas: like Reagan building up the military and civil service to buy weapons a tiny
part of the growth in that sector was manufacturing.
What else was going on in late 70's early 80's... a lot of growth on service sector.
It is called cherry picking the chart to make a point with non thinkers.
Right, I think the answer is that budget deficits only push up interest rates if the Fed allows
that to happen. The Fed could keep rates low if they wanted by signaling a willingness to buy
up as much federal debt as is needed to hit some low target rate. So I think Krugman is, in effect,
predicting that they will not do that, and that they will instead counteract the fiscal expansion
with tighter monetary policy on the theory that this is needed to counteract potential "overheating".
I bought a house in 1985, I bet interest rates would go down by taking a 1 year ARM. I did quite
well each year it adjusted! I sold it in 1990 and rates were low enough to go fixed conventional
on the "trade up".
It is reputed the high rates helped cause the "Volcker" recession in the gray around 82.
Thinking about it some more. If I understand this correctly, the thought is that deficit spending
is stimulative, and the economy is already at full employment, so the Fed will raise interest
rates to prevent the economy from "overheating." The increase in rates slows the economy down
by two mechanisms:
(1) when the cost of capital is higher, fewer investments get made than when it is lower (say,
a business needs to see a higher ROI when interest rates are high than when they are low). (As
an aside, outside of the housing market, I don't think this effect is very strong. Real businesses
don't change their approach to investment if rates change by, say, 100%; from 2% to 4%. At least,
not the ones I have been exposed to, which are generally looking for ~ 15% IRR on investments.)
(2) People globally may be more inclined to hold dollars when the risk-free rate is higher,
which increases demand for the currency, which means the currency gets stronger, and exports are
less competitive and imports more competitive, counter-acting the stimulus.
The thing I don't like about this line of thought is that it is fatalist. It suggests that
fiscal policy really does not matter, it will all be offset by monetary policy. There is no real
impact to the economy whether we run huge budget deficits or surpluses. Me not liking it does
not mean it is wrong, obviously, but I just don't buy it. When I run into things like this in
economics I really start to wonder how much of macro is based on empirical observations and correlations
versus 'models.'
I think I ought to take an intro econ course and actually learn something. Or read an introductory
macro text book...
Krugman says "the budget deficit pushed up interest rates, which caused a strong dollar, which
caused a bigger trade deficit, mainly in manufactured goods (which are still most of what's tradable.)"
I am wondering why a budget deficit has to push up interest rates?
In 2009 we ran a large budget deficit at low interest rates.... Is it well established that
budget deficits push up interest rates?
[ Here then is the relevant matter to be analyzed. ]
Anne, thank you. From this plot I see that during Clinton's presidency we went from a budget deficit
to a surplus. And interest rates dropped. During the George W. Bush presidency we went from a
surplus to a deficit. And interest rates dropped.
There does not appear to be any obvious correlation between the budget deficit and interest
rates.
I understand the textbook story is the Fed raises rates when the budget deficit increases.
I am not sure if the empirical data supports that though. Perhaps the Fed cares more about inflation
than budget deficits and perhaps budget deficits do not directly result in inflation? But if that
is correct, what is the basis for Professor Krugman's assertion that Trump's budget will push
up interest rates?
With war looming, it's time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage.
It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once
financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.
From a fiscal point of view the impending war is a lose-lose proposition. If it goes badly,
the resulting mess will be a disaster for the budget. If it goes well, administration officials
have made it clear that they will use any bump in the polls to ram through more big tax cuts,
which will also be a disaster for the budget. Either way, the tide of red ink will keep on rising.
Last week the Congressional Budget Office marked down its estimates yet again. Just two years
ago, you may remember, the C.B.O. was projecting a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now it projects
a 10-year deficit of $1.8 trillion.
And that's way too optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office operates under ground rules
that force it to wear rose-colored lenses. If you take into account - as the C.B.O. cannot - the
effects of likely changes in the alternative minimum tax, include realistic estimates of future
spending and allow for the cost of war and reconstruction, it's clear that the 10-year deficit
will be at least $3 trillion.
So what? Two years ago the administration promised to run large surpluses. A year ago it said
the deficit was only temporary. Now it says deficits don't matter. But we're looking at a fiscal
crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.
A leading economist recently summed up one reason why: "When the government reduces saving
by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises." Yes, that's from a textbook by the chief
administration economist, Gregory Mankiw.
But what's really scary - what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea - is
the looming threat to the federal government's solvency.... ]
Yes, thank you for that column from 2003. Yes, Prof. K was correct about the future trend in deficits
back then, but incorrect about the future trend in interest rates.
It is certainly conceivable that he is wrong now as well.
Krugman captures very well what happened in the 1980's. He went to work for the CEA hoping to
undo this disaster. Of course the political hacks in the Reagan White House did not listen to
the CEA. Now he watches people in the Trump White House that are even more insane than these political
hacks. You draw whatever conclusion you want but his concerns strike me as real from someone who
has been there.
pgl - thank you. I am not drawing any hard and fast conclusions, just trying to learn. I appreciate
your comment that is based on both education and experience.
I am still thinking about this Buffett proposal on trade with import certificates.
http://fortune.com/2016/04/29/warren-buffett-foreign-trade/
Jared Bernstein mentioned it in passing in an opinion piece in the NY Times yesterday. I put
a comment on his website asking him to share more of his thoughts on it, and he said that he will
if/when he has time. I hope he does.
No. Budget deficits for a country such as the US do not push up interest rates. They would in
fact lower the interbank rate if not countered by Federal Reserve actions.
If budget deficits added to aggregate demand to the point that the Fed thought its inflation
target was in jeopardy, the Fed might raise its target rate of interest in the hopes of quelling
demand.
The Fed has almost complete control over the interest rate paid by the Federal government when
it decides to issue new debt. WWII is a great example of this. So is our most recent depression.
Will Fiscal Policy Really Be Expansionary?
By Paul Krugman
It's now generally accepted that Trump_vs_deep_state will finally involve the kind of fiscal stimulus
progressive economists have been pleading for ever since the financial crisis. After all, Republicans
are deeply worried about budget deficits when a Democrat is in the White House, but suddenly become
fiscal doves when in control. And there really is no question that the deficit will go up.
But will this actually amount to fiscal stimulus? Right now it looks as if Republicans are
going to ram through their whole agenda, including an end to Obamacare, privatizing Medicare and
block-granting Medicaid, sharp cuts to food stamps, and so on. These are spending cuts, which
will reduce the disposable income of lower- and middle-class Americans even as tax cuts raise
the income of the wealthy. Given the sharp distributional changes, looking just at the budget
deficit may be a poor guide to the macroeconomic impact.
Given the extent to which things are in flux, I can't put numbers on what's likely to happen.
But I was able to find matching analyses by the good folks at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
of tax * and spending ** cuts in Paul Ryan's 2014 budget, which may be a useful model of things
to come.
If you leave out the magic asterisks - closing of unspecified tax loopholes - that budget was
a deficit-hiker: $5.7 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years, versus $5 trillion in spending cuts.
The spending cuts involved cuts in discretionary spending plus huge cuts in programs that serve
the poor and middle class; the tax cuts were, of course, very targeted on high incomes.
The pluses and minuses here would have quite different effects on demand. Cutting taxes on
high incomes probably has a low multiplier: the wealthy are unlikely to be cash-constrained, and
will save a large part of their windfall. Cutting discretionary spending has a large multiplier,
because it directly cuts government purchases of goods and services; cutting programs for the
poor probably has a pretty high multiplier too, because it reduces the income of many people who
are living more or less hand to mouth.
Taking all this into account, that old Ryan plan would almost surely have been contractionary,
not expansionary.
Will Trumponomics be any different? It would matter if there really were a large infrastructure
push, but that's becoming ever less plausible. There will be big tax cuts at the top, but as I
said, the push to dismantle the safety net definitely seems to be on. Put it all together, and
it's extremely doubtful whether we're talking about net fiscal stimulus.
Now, you might think that someone will explain this to Trump, and that he'll demand a more
Keynesian plan. But I have two words for you: Larry Kudlow.
In looking at economic trends, the other issue to take into account is private lending. Individual
debt (credit cards, etc.) is already back up to the levels before the financial crisis and Trump's
appointees are determined to deregulate financial institutions, which may contribute to a return
to the predatory lending that created the last set of booms and busts. *
It's hard to focus on ordinary economic analysis amidst this political apocalypse. But getting
and spending will still consume most of peoples' energy and time; furthermore, like it or not
the progress of CASE NIGHTMARE ORANGE may depend on how the economy does. So, what is actually
likely to happen to trade and manufacturing over the next few years?
As it happens, we have what looks like an unusually good model in the Reagan years - minus
the severe recession and conveniently timed recovery, which somewhat overshadowed the trade story.
Leave aside the Volcker recession and recovery, and what you had was a large move toward budget
deficits via tax cuts and military buildup, coupled with quite a lot of protectionism - it's not
part of the Reagan legend, but the import quota on Japanese automobiles was one of the biggest
protectionist moves of the postwar era.
I'm a bit uncertain about the actual fiscal stance of Trumponomics: deficits will surely blow
up, but I won't believe in the infrastructure push until I see it, and given savage cuts in aid
to the poor it's not entirely clear that there will be net stimulus. * But suppose there is. Then
what?
Well, what happened in the Reagan years was "twin deficits": the budget deficit pushed up interest
rates, which caused a strong dollar, which caused a bigger trade deficit, mainly in manufactured
goods (which are still most of what's tradable.) This led to an accelerated decline in the industrial
orientation of the U.S. economy:
[Graph]
And people did notice. Using Google Ngram, we can watch the spread of terms for industrial
decline, e.g. here:
[Graph]
And here:
[Graph]
Again, this happened despite substantial protectionism.
So Trump_vs_deep_state will probably follow a similar course; it will actually shrink manufacturing despite
the big noise made about saving a few hundred jobs here and there.
On the other hand, by then the Bureau of Labor Statistics may be thoroughly politicized, commanded
to report good news whatever happens.
RMO declines sharply during recessions and the worse the downturn, the harder manufacturing
gets hit. Ergo, avoiding recessions is the absolute best policy for manufacturing. Trade and the
dollar's value don't have nearly as strong correlations.
RMWW rise strongly during sustained expansions of private industry employment.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRIV
Trade deficits have little correlation but the correlation with private industry employment growth
is strong: 16 million new jobs since 1Q2010.
All of this should be obvious, as Keynes said: "The ideas (about economics) . . . are extremely
simple and should be obvious."
"Well, what happened in the Reagan years was "twin deficits": the budget deficit pushed up
interest rates, which caused a strong dollar, which caused a bigger trade deficit, mainly in manufactured
goods (which are still most of what's tradable.)"
Deficit spending would always stimulate an economy except the Fed controls the brakes.
The Fed is especially worried about wage price inflation spirals
When inflation pops its head above target, the Fed slams on the brakes.
At the ZLB, inflation is far below target so the Fed has its foot off the brakes.
Deficit spending is stimulatory because the Fed does not apply the brakes by raising interest
rates.
This is textbook economics
The first intelligent comment here. Yes Volcker kept real interest rate very high for a while
which led to a dramatic appreciation of the dollar. But even as Volcker took off the monetary
brakes to let the economy get back to full employment, real interest rates stayed elevated and
the real appreciation was not entirely reversed. So we got a sustained trade deficit even in the
face of trade protection. That is the simple point that some here wish to duck.
Yes but historically it does not seem like it has worked that way. There does not appear to be
an obvious correlation between budget deficits and either (a) interest rates themselves, or (b)
the change in interest rates.
It seems like the Fed is acting on inflation signals. It is not so clear that (changes in)
budget deficits necessarily result in (changes in) inflation. Unless there is a direct link between
budget deficits and inflation it is hard to credibly argue that increasing the budget deficit
results in increased inflation results in Federal Reserve raising rates to choke off inflation.
The history of budget deficits and interest rates that Anne showed above don't provide much
support for Prof. Krugman's point.
Krugman is predicting that the Fed will raise rates to counter Trump's fiscal expansion and will
appreciate the dollar. That's what happened with Volcker jacking rates to fight inflation.
He doesn't spell this out exactly.
It's like how Greenspan and Rubin told Clinton he had to drop his middle class spending
bill in order to focus on deficit reduction. Greenspan was threatening to raise rates and Clinton
bent the knee to the "independent" Fed.
That's when Clinton threw a tantrum about being an "Eisenhower Republican."
The Senate Democrats like Schumer get what the populist backlash is about. That's why they're
promising $1 trillion over 10 years in government spending rather than Hillary's $275 over 5 years.
They can do the math. They know what happened in the election. It wasn't just about Comey or
the DNC hack. The election shouldn't have been that close.
"the budget deficit pushed up interest rates" We had large budget deficits during the Great Recession
and they didn't push up interest rates. In fact Obama focused too much on deficit reduction.
"... Trump may be a Nationalist, but he is also an anti-regulatory elite with no regard for business ethics or accountability to the community. He is also for "greedy take all" and against fair distribution of profits in the economy. ..."
"... The key point here is that as long as there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism, nationalism is the only game in town for the opposition forces. That's why trade union members now abandoned neoliberal (aka Clintonized ) Democratic Party. ..."
"... Traditionally, Neoliberalism espouses privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade and reduction in government spending. ..."
"... One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings. Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and a half centuries. ..."
"... As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field is somewhere else, in the realm of actual economic exchange-which is not, however, the market. We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is often described-and this creates a lot of confusion-as "market fundamentalism," and while this may be true for neoliberal's self-promotion and self-presentation, i.e., the market as the ultimate and only myth, as were the gods of the past, I would argue that in neoliberalism there is no such thing as the market as we have understood it from previous ideologies. ..."
"... it seeks to leave no space for individual self-conception in the way that classical liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree, were willing to allow. ..."
"... I am suggesting that the issue is not how strong the state is in the service of neoliberalism, but whether there is anything left over beyond the new definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market has become the state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them. ..."
I will go with worth reading. I don't think that is controversial at all and there is way more
than an element of truth in it. But knowing is one thing and organizing politically in a manner
sufficient to bring about change is entirely another.
They are correct. We need an alternative to Nationalism and Trump.
They are not correct about mysterious elites controlling things.
The elites pursued anti-regulatory policies that allowed them to reap short term profits without
regard for stability or sustainability. It is not government control but lack of regulation that
allowed BIgF to run wild and unaccountable.
Trump may be a Nationalist, but he is also an anti-regulatory elite with no regard for
business ethics or accountability to the community. He is also for "greedy take all" and against
fair distribution of profits in the economy.
The plant closures are headlined and promote the mistaken belief that globalization is the
prime cause of job loss. These large closures are only 1/10th of the job losses and dislocations
due to automation and transformation from manufacturing to service economies. Wealthy elites are
allowed to greedily hoard all the profits from automation and not enough is being invested in
the service economy. Austerity is not a policy to control the masses, it is a policy to protect
the wealth accumulated by elites from fair distribution.
Trump is not going to bring manufacturing plants back to American rural backwaters. Those left
behind must build their own service economy or relocate to a sustainable region that is making
the transition.
The key point here is that as long as there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism,
nationalism is the only game in town for the opposition forces. That's why trade union members
now abandoned neoliberal (aka Clintonized ) Democratic Party.
All Western societies now, not only the USA, experience nationalist movements Renaissance.
And that's probably why Hillary lost as she represented "kick the can down the road" neoliberal
globalization agenda.
An important point also is that nationalism itself is not monolithic. There are at least two
different types of nationalism in the West now:
ethnic nationalism (old-style), where the "ethnicity" is the defining feature of belonging
to the "in-group"
cultural nationalism (new style), where the defining traits of belonging to the "in-group"
is the language and culture, not ethnicity.
As for your statement
"Trump may be a Nationalist, but he is also an anti-regulatory elite with no regard for
business ethics or accountability to the community. He is also for "greedy take all" and against
fair distribution of profits in the economy."
This might be true, but might be not. It is not clear what Trump actually represents. Let's
give him the benefit of doubt and wait 100 days before jumping to conclusions.
Traditionally, Neoliberalism espouses privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free
trade and reduction in government spending.
What exactly did Clinton want to privatize? What budget did she propose slashing? Did
she want to deregulate banks or environmental regulations?
She supported some trade liberalization, but also imposing sanctions. What government spending
did she want to reduce?
Fact: She supported the opposite of most of these policies.
Donald Trump promised to pursue all of these Neoliberal policies. The GOP and their propaganda
megaphone is very good at tarring the opposition as supporting the very policies they are enacting.
They made Al Gore into a liar, John Kerry into a coward with a purple band aid and Hillary into
a Wall Street shill. None of this is true. But Trump and his GOP are doing all the things you
accuse Democrats of doing.
You are wrong. Your definition of neoliberalism is formally right and we can argue along those
lines that Hillary is a neoliberal too (Her track record as a senator suggests exactly that),
it is way too narrow. There is more to it:
"One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over
in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings."
(see below)
"Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market has become the
state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them."
"In the current election campaign, Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment
of neoliberalism among all the candidates, she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe
this explains, even if not articulated this way, the widespread discomfort among the populace
toward her ascendancy. People can perceive that her ideology is founded on a conception of
human beings striving relentlessly to become human capital (as her opening campaign commercial
so overtly depicted), which means that those who fail to come within the purview of neoliberalism
should be rigorously ostracized, punished, and excluded.
This is the dark side of neoliberalism's ideological arm (a multiculturalism founded on
human beings as capital), which is why this project has become increasingly associated with
suppression of free speech and intolerance of those who refuse to go along with the kind of
identity politics neoliberalism promotes.
And this explains why the 1990s saw the simultaneous and absolutely parallel rise, under
the Clintons, of both neoliberal globalization and various regimes of neoliberal disciplining,
such as the shaming and exclusion of former welfare recipients (every able-bodied person should
be able to find work, therefore under TANF welfare was converted to a performance management
system designed to enroll everyone in the workforce, even if it meant below-subsistence wages
or the loss of parental responsibilities, all of it couched in the jargon of marketplace incentives)."
In this sense Hillary Clinton is 100% dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and neocon ("neoliberal with
the gun"). She promotes so called "neoliberal rationality" a perverted "market-based" rationality
typical for neoliberalism:
== quote ==
When Hillary Clinton frequently retorts-in response to demands for reregulation of finance,
for instance-that we have to abide by "the rule of law," this reflects a particular understanding
of the law, the law as embodying the sense of the market, the law after it has undergone a
revolution of reinterpretation in purely economic terms.
In this revolution of the law persons have no status compared to corporations, nation-states
are on their way out, and everything in turn dissolves before the abstraction called the market.
One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over
in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings.
Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic
theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and
a half centuries.
As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field
is somewhere else, in the realm of actual economic exchange-which is not, however, the market.
We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface.
Neoliberalism is often described-and this creates a lot of confusion-as "market fundamentalism,"
and while this may be true for neoliberal's self-promotion and self-presentation, i.e., the
market as the ultimate and only myth, as were the gods of the past, I would argue that in neoliberalism
there is no such thing as the market as we have understood it from previous ideologies.
The neoliberal state-actually, to utter the word state seems insufficient here, I would
claim that a new entity is being created, which is not the state as we have known it, but an
existence that incorporates potentially all the states in the world and is something that exceeds
their sum-is all-powerful, it seeks to leave no space for individual self-conception in
the way that classical liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree, were willing
to allow.
There are competing understandings of neoliberal globalization, when it comes to the question
of whether the state is strong or weak compared to the primary agent of globalization, i.e.,
the corporation, but I am taking this logic further, I am suggesting that the issue is
not how strong the state is in the service of neoliberalism, but whether there is anything
left over beyond the new definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the state has
become the market, the market has become the state, and therefore both have ceased to exist
in the form we have classically understood them.
Of course the word hasn't gotten around to the people yet, hence all the confusion about
whether Hillary Clinton is more neoliberal than Barack Obama, or whether Donald Trump will
be less neoliberal than Hillary Clinton.
The project of neoliberalism-i.e., the redefinition of the state, the institutions of society,
and the self-has come so far along that neoliberalism is almost beyond the need of individual
entities to make or break its case. Its penetration has gone too deep, and none of the democratic
figureheads that come forward can fundamentally question its efficacy.
"... The era of neoliberalism ended in the autumn of 2008 with the bonfire of financialisation's illusions. The fetishisation of unfettered markets that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan brought to the fore in the late 1970s had been the necessary ideological cover for the unleashing of financiers to enable the capital flows essential to a new phase of globalisation in which the United States deficits provided the aggregate demand for the world's factories (whose profits flowed back to Wall Street closing the loop nicely). ..."
"... when the bottom fell out of this increasingly unstable feedback loop, neoliberalism's illusions burned down and the west's working class ended up too expensive and too indebted to be of interest to a panicking global establishment. ..."
"... Thatcher's and Reagan's neoliberalism had sought to persuade that privatisation of everything would produce a fair and efficient society unimpeded by vested interests or bureaucratic fiat. That narrative, of course, hid from public view what was really happening: a tremendous buildup of super-state bureaucracies, unaccountable supra-state institutions (World Trade Organisation, Nafta, the European Central Bank), behemoth corporations, and a global financial sector heading for the rocks. ..."
"... Their purpose was to impose acquiescence to a clueless establishment that had lost its ambition to maintain its legitimacy. When the UK government forced benefit claimants to declare in writing that "my only limits are the ones I set myself", or when the troika forced the Greek or Irish governments to write letters "requesting" predatory loans from the European Central Bank that benefited Frankfurt-based bankers at the expense of their people, the idea was to maintain power via calculated humiliation. Similarly, in America the establishment habitually blamed the victims of predatory lending and the failed health system. ..."
"... It was against this insurgency of a cornered establishment that had given up on persuasion that Donald Trump and his European allies rose up with their own populist insurgency. They proved that it is possible to go against the establishment and win. Alas, theirs will be a pyrrhic victory which will, eventually, harm those whom they inspired. The answer to neoliberalism's Waterloo cannot be the retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the pitting of "our" people against "others" fenced off by tall walls and electrified fences. ..."
"... This is all about globalisation, specifically wage deflation for the working classes from competing with emerging markets and freedom of movement, and also from offshoring of working class jobs to emerging markets. ..."
"... Until there is a viable alternative economic philosophy, nationalism is the future, whether we like it or not. ..."
"... Enough is enough. Globalisation is now only working for the rich and powerful. The model is simple - globalisation lowers the cost for consumers of everything, because the lowest cost geography produces everything (China, India etc), which is great until nobody has a job any more, so nobody can afford anything. ..."
"... The challenge is not to stick with the status quo, it's to find an alternative to nationalism that works for everyone. ..."
"... Fine words, but we're along way from that right now. What's happening in Europe, and across the Atlantic, is really only just getting started. Our elites may well be suffering from a crisis of legitimacy, and yet they are still very much in control. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is based on the acceptance that the rich elite are deserving of their wealth and privileges. The elite have used their mouthpieces, such as tabloids and think tanks, to ram this home; but the banking crisis of 2008 helped disabuse people of this myth that justifies rampant inequality in the US and the UK in particular. ..."
"... Trump and Brexit are expressions of the paradigm shift that is underway; but up till now, rather ironically, a billionaire and a rich former stockbroker have been the voice of protest, because it is they who have the money, connections and vanity to ensure they are heard. ..."
"... These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation. But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization. ..."
"... Some of the gains of the top 5 percent could go toward alleviating the anger of the lower- and middle-class rich world's "losers." ..."
"... the history of the last quarter century during which the top classes in the rich world have continually piled up larger and larger gains, all the while socially and mentally separating themselves from fellow citizens, does not bode well for that alternative ..."
"... Social Neoliberals (mass immigration, family breakdown, individualism etc) combine with economic Neoliberals (profit maximisation, global capital movements etc) to get their way. ..."
"... I'm fairly sure that in time it will be shown that thier is a cabal of think-tanks and supranationalists who have perverted everything to thier own benefit. How and why does a Labour Peer get free accomodation on Baron Rothschilds' estate? How and why does the royal bank Coutts get bailed out by the taxpayer with no strings attached? ..."
The answer to neoliberalism's Waterloo cannot be a retreat to barricaded nation-states and the pitting
of 'our' people against 'others' fenced off by high walls
A clash of two insurgencies is now shaping the west. Progressives on both sides of the Atlantic
are on the sidelines, unable to comprehend what they are observing. Donald Trump's inauguration marks
its pinnacle.
One of the two insurgencies shaping our world today has been analysed ad nauseum. Donald Trump,
Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and the broad Nationalist International that they are loosely connected
to have received much attention, as has their success at impressing upon the multitudes that nation-states,
borders, citizens and communities matter.
However, the other insurgency that caused the rise of this Nationalist International has remained
in the shadows: an insurrection by the global establishment's technocracy whose purpose is to
retain control at all cost. Project Fear in the UK, the troika in continental Europe and the unholy
alliance of Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the surveillance apparatus in the United States are
its manifestations.
The era of neoliberalism ended in the autumn of 2008 with the bonfire of financialisation's
illusions. The fetishisation of unfettered markets that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan brought
to the fore in the late 1970s had been the necessary ideological cover for the unleashing of financiers
to enable the capital flows essential to a new phase of globalisation in which the United States
deficits provided the aggregate demand for the world's factories (whose profits flowed back to Wall
Street closing the loop nicely).
Meanwhile, billions of people in the "third" world were pulled out of poverty while hundreds of
millions of western workers were slowly sidelined, pushed into more precarious jobs, and forced to
financialise themselves either through their pension funds or their homes. And when the bottom
fell out of this increasingly unstable feedback loop, neoliberalism's illusions burned down and the
west's working class ended up too expensive and too indebted to be of interest to a panicking global
establishment.
Thatcher's and Reagan's neoliberalism had sought to persuade that privatisation of everything
would produce a fair and efficient society unimpeded by vested interests or bureaucratic fiat. That
narrative, of course, hid from public view what was really happening: a tremendous buildup of super-state
bureaucracies, unaccountable supra-state institutions (World Trade Organisation, Nafta, the European
Central Bank), behemoth corporations, and a global financial sector heading for the rocks.
After the events of 2008 something remarkable happened. For the first time in modern times the
establishment no longer cared to persuade the masses that its way was socially optimal. Overwhelmed
by the collapsing financial pyramids, the inexorable buildup of unsustainable debt, a eurozone in
an advanced state of disintegration and a China increasingly relying on an impossible credit boom,
the establishment's functionaries set aside the aspiration to persuade or to represent. Instead,
they concentrated on clamping down.
In the UK, more than a million benefit applicants faced punitive sanctions. In the Eurozone, the
troika ruthlessly sought to reduce the pensions of the poorest of the poor. In the United States,
both parties promised drastic cuts to social security spending. During our deflationary times none
of these policies helped stabilise capitalism at a national or at a global level. So, why were they
pursued?
Their purpose was to impose acquiescence to a clueless establishment that had lost its ambition
to maintain its legitimacy. When the UK government forced benefit claimants to declare in writing
that "my only limits are the ones I set myself", or when the troika forced the Greek or Irish governments
to write letters "requesting" predatory loans from the European Central Bank that benefited Frankfurt-based
bankers at the expense of their people, the idea was to maintain power via calculated humiliation.
Similarly, in America the establishment habitually blamed the victims of predatory lending and the
failed health system.
It was against this insurgency of a cornered establishment that had given up on persuasion
that Donald Trump and his European allies rose up with their own populist insurgency. They proved
that it is possible to go against the establishment and win. Alas, theirs will be a pyrrhic victory
which will, eventually, harm those whom they inspired. The answer to neoliberalism's Waterloo cannot
be the retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the pitting of "our" people against "others" fenced
off by tall walls and electrified fences.
The answer can only be a Progressive Internationalism that works in practice on both sides of
the Atlantic. To bring it about we need more than fine principles unblemished by power. We need to
aim for power on the basis of a pragmatic narrative imparting hope throughout Europe and America
for jobs paying living wages to anyone who wants them, for social housing, for health and education.
Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and Europeans can
restore to a billion people living in the west sovereignty over their lives and communities.
bag0shite
This is all about globalisation, specifically wage deflation for the working classes
from competing with emerging markets and freedom of movement, and also from offshoring of
working class jobs to emerging markets.
Liberalism has created so much wealth for the west and has dramatically reduced inequality
over the last century, however it is no longer working for those on lower incomes in the west.
Until there is a viable alternative economic philosophy, nationalism is the future,
whether we like it or not.
chantaspell -> bag0shite 1d ago
nationalism is the future, whether we like it or not.
No it's not. Because what we've got, although flawed, is far superior to Nationalism's
false promises. Nationalism will, or perhaps already has, peaked.
bag0shite -> chantaspell
... go and tell that to all the families who don't have a job because their roles were
offshored to Eastern Europe or China. Got and tell that to truck drivers who earn a pittance
because there is essentially an infinite supply of Poles willing to do it for peanuts.
Enough is enough. Globalisation is now only working for the rich and powerful. The model
is simple - globalisation lowers the cost for consumers of everything, because the lowest cost
geography produces everything (China, India etc), which is great until nobody has a job any
more, so nobody can afford anything.
The challenge is not to stick with the status quo, it's to find an alternative to
nationalism that works for everyone.
MMGALIAS -> bag0shite 1d ago
This is all about globalisation, specifically wage deflation for the working classes
from competing with emerging markets and freedom of movement, and also from offshoring of
working class jobs to emerging markets.
The working classes have voted against their own interests in the last 3 decades, now we
are all supposed to feel sorry for them when the neoliberal policies they have voted for have
come back to bite them?
Northman1
"The answer can only be a Progressive Internationalism that works in practice on both sides
of the Atlantic. To bring it about we need more than fine principles unblemished by power. We
need to aim for power on the basis of a pragmatic narrative imparting hope throughout Europe
and America for jobs paying living wages to anyone who wants them, for social housing, for
health and education.
Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and Europeans
can restore to a billion people living in the West sovereignty over their lives and
communities".
These are fine aspirations. You precede them by saying that we cannot:
"...retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the pitting of 'our' people against 'others'
fenced off by tall walls and electrified fences".
This presumably refers to physical barriers to prevent illegal immigration and tariff barriers
to prevent free trade.
Tell me though how you can achieve the aspirations you set out whilst allowing millions of
people from the third world to flood into Europe at an enormous economic and social cost and
also trading freely with countries that don't trade fairly (e.g. China with its currency
manipulation, government subsidies, product dumping and lack of environmental/ safety/ worker
protection regulations)
greenwichite -> Northman1
He's brilliant on the problem...lame on the solution.
And wrong.
The answer is to only trade freely with countries that play by the same environmental,
currency and labour-rights rules as we do.
Otherwise, we are just allowing ourselves to be undercuts by cheats.
That's not "barricading" oneself anywhere...it's basic common sense, which has
unfortunately eluded our leaders for decades. In Thatcher's case, I think she was quite happy
for mercantilist, protectionist Asian powers to destroy our industry, for her own
party-political purposes.
MMGALIAS -> Northman1
and also trading freely with countries that don't trade fairly (e.g. China with its
currency manipulation, government subsidies, product dumping and lack of environmental/
safety/ worker protection regulations)
The West doesn't trade freely either, just ask the African farmers who are tariffed into
poverty by the EU.
Tiresius -> legalizefreedom
I agree. It's a well argued piece and I agree with the conclusion that neither the neo
liberal free trade consensus , nor its reaction , will provide an answer to the worsening
economic condition of the blue collar west. I also am convinced that in the longer term the
only real answer is a return to the principles of social democracy and equity of opportunity.
This will however be a long march. Neo liberalism has been in the ascendant for over 30
years , it has brought some significant benefits to a few in the west , and many elsewhere ,
and of course a lot of Chinese billionaires , a large number of western voters have lost or
are losing faith in a system that has failed to deliver rising living standards for them ,
incurred high levels of debt and reduced social mobility.
It is a failure of the narrative of the centre left that those people are persuaded by
increasing protectionism rather than social democracy. So now we will see where the reaction
to free trade liberalism takes us , it has to run its course before the prescriptions of
social democracy can be reformulated , hopefully with more inspiring leaders than at present.
Andrew Skidmore
'Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and
Europeans can restore to a billion people living in the West sovereignty over their lives
and communities.'
Fine words, but we're along way from that right now. What's happening in Europe, and
across the Atlantic, is really only just getting started. Our elites may well be suffering
from a crisis of legitimacy, and yet they are still very much in control.
From the Trump administration Whitehouse website:
'The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration. President Trump
will honor our men and women in uniform and will support their mission of protecting the
public. The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration
will end it.'
Hmmmmmm....?
thetowncrier -> Andrew Skidmore
As ever, a master of subtlety. I expect the American Stasi to come into being by the end of
next week, with a brand new special 'badge' to go with their black shirts.
2bveryFrank
Neoliberalism is based on the acceptance that the rich elite are deserving of their
wealth and privileges. The elite have used their mouthpieces, such as tabloids and think
tanks, to ram this home; but the banking crisis of 2008 helped disabuse people of this myth
that justifies rampant inequality in the US and the UK in particular.
Trump and Brexit are expressions of the paradigm shift that is underway; but up till
now, rather ironically, a billionaire and a rich former stockbroker have been the voice of
protest, because it is they who have the money, connections and vanity to ensure they are
heard.
They, however, are very unlikely to deliver and then true and genuine voices of the people
will emerge - voices that will target the root causes of discontent rather than convenient,
nationalistic scapegoats such as immigration.
ReasonableSoul -> 2bveryFrank
"and then true and genuine voices of the people will emerge - voices that will target
the root causes of discontent rather than convenient, nationalistic scapegoats such as
immigration."
So working class people who struggle to compete for the low wage jobs and strained welfare
services that are taken by migrants are not allowed to protest immigration policy?
Recent mass migrations (of the last 30 years) are unprecedented.
In Europe, whole towns have been transformed, particularly culturally.
Imposing huge demographic changes on a people is a form of authoritarian social
engineering.
SeenItAlready
This is covered by a report in YaleGlobal (and a similar one in the Harvard Business
Review) from 2014 which adds a few stats showing how middle-class salaries in the 'Western
World' were the only ones to stagnate in the period 1998 to 2008 (and obviously drop post
2008, but that isn't covered):
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/tale-two-middle-classes
This is the last section of that report:
The populists warn disgruntled voters that economic trends observed during the past
three decades are just the first wave of cheap labor from Asia pitted in direct competition
with workers in the rich world, and more waves are on the way from poorer lands in Asia and
Africa. The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or
more.
This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or
the sustainability of globalization.
If globalization is derailed, the middle classes of the West may be relieved from the
immediate pressure of cheaper Asian competition. But the longer-term costs to themselves
and their countries, let alone to the poor in Asia and Africa, will be high. Thus, the
interests and the political power of the middle classes in the rich world put them in a
direct conflict with the interests of the worldwide poor.
These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had
little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against
globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to
control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of
the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they
have keen interest in its continuation. But while their use of political power has enabled
the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved
many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either
plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization.
Another solution, one that involves neither populism nor plutocracy, would require enormous
effort at the understanding of one's own longer-term self-interest. It would imply more
substantial redistribution policies in the rich world. Some of the gains of the top 5
percent could go toward alleviating the anger of the lower- and middle-class rich world's
"losers." These need not nor should be mere transfers of money from one group to
another.
Instead, money should come in the form of investments in public education, local
infrastructure, housing and preventive health care. But the history of the last quarter
century during which the top classes in the rich world have continually piled up larger and
larger gains, all the while socially and mentally separating themselves from fellow
citizens, does not bode well for that alternative
Personally I see the whole US election here... written a couple of years before it
happened:
Hillary as Globalisation
Trump as Populism
And Bernie (who as the report suggests wasn't even allowed by the Globalist forces to -
present himself) as Redistribution
moranet -> Rusty Woods
Just as in the 1920s early 30s, when centrist governments attempting mild redistributive
banking reforms -MacDonald, Herriot, Van Zeeland, Azaña- came up against a "Wall of Money"
when the financial markets reacted, and were overthrown in favour of orthodox liberal
governments (the 'technocratic insugency' described by Prof. Varoufakis). And when public
opinion inevitably lost its patience, propelling harder nosed reformers close to power...
that's when political and financial elites discovered rule by executive decree and the
adjournment of parliaments.
So we know very well what happens next in Europe, when liberal capitalism and
liberal-democracy find themselves on opposing teams.
anewdawn
There are two sorts of nationalism in my view. There is the nasty, evil, Nazi style that
promotes the insane social darwinism, and superiority, but a hypocritical imperialism towards
other states and countries.
There is another type of nationalism that good decent people who really care about
democracy would approve of however. It is the sort that seeks to protect the poor and the
middle classes by stopping global corporations from off shoring their jobs to sweatshops in
countries that have lower human rights records for the purpose of cheap labour and more
profit. There is the sort of nationalism that promotes local democracy as opposed to tying
countries up to TTIP and TPP which undermines the governments and laws of individual
countries. There is a type of nationalism that seeks to protect their neighbors by insisting
on fair trade and good treatment of workers in other countries.
If you listen to Trumps speech, he seems to be the second type when he promises to bring
back jobs to the rust belt, but only time will tell if he really is of the first type - it
will surface soon in his attitude to invasions of the middle east and control of the global
corporations.
ID0118186 -> anewdawn
But those same middle classes are part of the problem, they want their consumer goods,
their iPods and iPhones and iPads, but they don't want to pay the real cost of them if they
were made by well-paid and well-trained skilled workers in their own country.
You have to address the whole issue: you can't have cheap prices and protectionism, unless you
let wages fall to near the same level that they are in developing countries - also unpopular.
So if you want nationalism as you describe it, be willing to pay 50 to 100% more for many
goods and services; or buy a lot less, which kills your economy anyway.
epidavros -> anewdawn
And then there is also the phoney internationalism of the EU - which is really a turbo
charged nationalism of what will soon be 27 countries bent on protectionism, technocratic rule
and a firmly closed mindset with a firmly debunked ideology.
toadalone -> anewdawn
I like your description of the two nationalisms. I think Varoufakis' point is that that
kind of nationalism can't survive on its own, as an island in a globalised world: nationalists
of that kind have to work together with their neighbouring counterparts to make their
respective benign nationalisms function. It's a very difficult proposal to bring to fruition,
even though I think it's right.
As for Trump: I think that seasoning campaign speeches with a flavour of benign nationalism
is, sadly, little more than a well-established PR technique. I don't believe what Trump says
for an instant (partly because he constantly breaks the fourth wall by saying the complete
opposite a few days later).
Other leaders who deploy this flavour of nationalism are more complicated. Viktor Orbán, for
instance. It's very difficult to tell, with him, how much of his protectionist-nationalist
rhetoric is genuine (but impossible to implement, given Hungary's membership of the EU), and
how much of it is just more of the same
dangle-shiny-things-in-front-of-the-voters-while-doing-what-you-want. And as with Trump,
Orbán's "benign" nationalism comes as just one flavour in a dish also heavily flavoured with
demented backward-looking authoritarian nationalism, with Kulturkampf and all the other
trimmings.
The weird thing about Trump is how he turns these contradictions into a kind of conscious
performance art. It's possible to view Orbán as someone who's cracking up a bit under the
pressure of believing six impossible things before breakfast. Trump is more healthy (from the
Trump's own point of view, of course, not from ours). He's embraced the crazy completely, and
revels in it. While probably reserving some quiet time for himself, in which he can privately
drop the mask, or rather the 500 different masks.
QuayBoredWarrior -> ReubenK1
Perhaps you should read this bit again:
The answer can only be a Progressive Internationalism that works in practice on both
sides of the Atlantic. To bring it about we need more than fine principles unblemished by
power. We need to aim for power on the basis of a pragmatic narrative imparting hope
throughout Europe and America for jobs paying living wages to anyone who wants them, for
social housing, for health and education.
Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and Europeans
can restore to a billion people living in the West sovereignty over their lives and
communities.
If you need to know what the New Deal involved, I suggest you Google it or buy a book about
it. If there is a library still open near you, you might able to borrow a book for free.
I think what is suggested is a new New Deal, an interventionist strategy to replace the
laissez-faire, the-market-knows-best approaches of the 80s/90s/00s. The details of which will
need to be hammered out as we progress. BTW, the New Deal was a haphazard and piecemeal
programme that was often based on hope over accepted wisdom. The aim was stabilisation and an
end to the mass impoverishment of American workers. If we have this aim, I'm sure we can work
out what needs to be done. It won't only be professors who come up with suggestions but all
those who coalesce behind these aims.
The first thing necessary is to loosen the grip of those who bang on about deficit
reduction above all else. This counter-productive approach needs to be crushed. It works for
no one and it doesn't work for the future. The services being destroyed will have to be built
up again and the deficit-above-all-else proselytisers have no strategy for this at all. It's
as if their true aim is to see them destroyed forever.
SeenItAlready
Their purpose was to impose acquiescence to a clueless establishment that had lost
its ambition to maintain its legitimacy. When the UK government forced benefit claimants to
declare in writing that "my only limits are the ones I set myself", or when the troika
forced the Greek or Irish governments to write letters "requesting" predatory loans from
the European Central Bank that benefited Frankfurt-based bankers at the expense of their
people, the idea was to maintain power via calculated humiliation. Similarly, in America
the establishment habitually blamed the victims of predatory lending and the failed health
system.
Not only that...
They also came out with the wheeze of getting the poor to fight amongst themselves
I'm convinced that is what is behind the explosion in Identity Politics we have seen over the
last few years - where different groups are encouraged to dislike each other on gender,
gender-orientation and and racial lines. Of course social class is kept well out of any of
these discussions... in spite of it being the source of most of the real repression
SeenItAlready -> SeenItAlready
different groups are encouraged to dislike each other on gender, gender-orientation and and
racial lines. Of course social class is kept well out of any of these discussions... in spite
of it being the source of most of the real repression
Likewise immigration where the immigrants themselves are made an issue of and blamed or
defended... of course in reality salary dumping and job losses have nothing to do with them
The wealthy class who encouraged the immigration of cheap labour, who did not provide any
protection for workers impacted by it and who then effectively sacked local workers in favour
of cheaper labour have again pulled-off a very neat trick by shifting the terms of the debate
to the innocent immigrants who were simply following opportunity and invitations. Likewise the
immigrants feel that they are being persecuted by the locals...
And so the rich sit back and rub their hands with glee... poor immigrants and poor locals
fighting, poor men and poor women fighting, poor whites and poor non-whites fighting. No
chance of the pitchforks arriving for quite a while, if ever...
FreddySteadyGO -> SeenItAlready
And so the rich sit back and rub their hands with glee... poor immigrants and poor
locals fighting, poor men and poor women fighting, poor whites and poor non-whites
fighting. No chance of the pitchforks arriving for quite a while, if ever...
Absolutely, its all far too convenient.
Social Neoliberals (mass immigration, family breakdown, individualism etc) combine with
economic Neoliberals (profit maximisation, global capital movements etc) to get their way.
I'm fairly sure that in time it will be shown that thier is a cabal of think-tanks and
supranationalists who have perverted everything to thier own benefit. How and why does a
Labour Peer get free accomodation on Baron Rothschilds' estate? How and why does the royal
bank Coutts get bailed out by the taxpayer with no strings attached?
SeenItAlready -> FreddySteadyGO
My reply to you got totally deleted, it seems that saying to much about this subject is not
acceptable to these people, which I guess is no surprise considering...
I said in my removed message that I didn't think there was any 'conspiracy' and that it was
the normal divide-and-conquer behaviour which people in power have applied since time
immemorial to those they would wish to control
Now I've changed my mind...
mysterycalculator
Could it be that Francis Fukuyama got it wrong with his historicist vision of liberal
democracy as the final stage in a Hegelian dialectic? Should he have gone with Marx's
interpretation of Hegel's dialectic instead, arguing that political freedom without economic
freedom is not enough? If so, then the argument for a redistributive social justice has to be
the way forward. Though as Karl Popper was keen to point out, Hegal and historicist visions
are bunk. Though interestingly Popper had much more time for Marx. A redistributive social
justice within the checks and balances of a liberal democratic internationalist social order -
that might be a way forward!
Sven Ringling
As long as this problem is seen as a left vs right, we won't address it. Trump's ideas are
in many cases very left. He wants to subsidise jobs through tarifs/trade wars/ anything that
reduces imports and therefore benefits job creation in their large market with a large trade
deficit in the short run.
Corbyn wants to subsidise the poorer part of the population directly or through public
services taking the money directly from businesses and the rich - though he is not disinclined
to isolationism either.
Both recipies work in the short run, both are likely to backfire in the long run the way
they are currently pushed.
It was Labour's big mistake to think UKIP is on the right and therefore a risk for the
Tories only.
And this Greek clown considered left is not far from that American clown. Clowny-ness is
actually their mist defining feature.
ReasonableSoul
Maintaining funcional borders is not a "retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the
pitting of 'our' people against 'others' fenced off by tall walls and electrified fences."
Even liberal Sweden became so overwhelmed by the endless stream of migrants/refugees
arriving that it had to shut the border.
ID614534 1d ago
2
3
Why does every debate about the nation state have to be economic? Peoples of the world are
often tied to their places of birth by language religion and culture. Not every song has to be
sung in an American accent and we don't all want to replace Nan's pie recipe with a Big Mac
and fries.
Share
Facebook Twitter
Report
epidavros 1d ago
6
7
Fine words, but the problem is that there is no progressive internationalism and there are no
real progressives. The response to the EU referendum widely seen to have been a call to end
unmanaged migration and undue interference of those very supra national, unaccountable elite
bodies you mention has been to call for the UK to be punished, to pay the price, to be treated
entirely differently from trade partners like Canada and dealt with as a pariah. Not
progressive. Not international. And very much the problem, not the cure.
The huge irony here is that with all this talk of populism and barricading behind borders the
UK and USA are seeking to tear theirs down, while the EU is erecting ideological barricades to
protect its elite and their project.
One thing is for sure - the solution is not the status quo. Either in the USA or the EU.
From amazon review of his book
In the Jaws of the Dragon "Anyone who has read "The World is Flat" should also read "In The
Jaws Of The Dragon" to understand both sides of the issues involved in offshoring. Eamon Fingleton clearly
defines the differences between the economic systems in play in China and Japan and the United States
and how those differences have damaged the United States economy. The naive position taken by both the
Republicans and the Democrats that offshoring is good for America is shown to be wrong because of a
fundamental lack of knowledge about who we are dealing with. Every member of Congress and the executive
branch should read this book before ratifying any more trade agreements. The old saying of the marketplace
applies: Take advantage of me once, shame on you. Take advantage of me twice, shame on me."
Notable quotes:
"... Similar miscommunication probably helps explain the European media's unreflective scorn for Donald Trump. Most European commentators have little or no access to the story. They have allowed their views to be shaped largely by the American press. ..."
"... That's a big mistake. Contrary to their carefully burnished self-image of impartiality and reliability, American journalists are not averse to consciously peddling outright lies. This applies even in the case of the biggest issues of the day, as witness, for instance, the American press's almost unanimous validation of George Bush's transparently mendacious case for the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... Most of the more damning charges against Trump are either without foundation or at least are viciously unfair distortions. Take, for instance, suggestions in the run-up to the election that he is anti-Semitic. In some accounts it was even suggested he was a closet neo-Nazi. Yet for anyone remotely familiar with the Trump story, this always rang false. After all he had thrived for decades in New York's overwhelmingly Jewish real estate industry. Then there was the fact that his daughter Ivanka, to whom he is evidently devoted, had converted to Judaism. ..."
"... In appointing Jared Kushner his chief adviser, he has chosen an orthodox Jew (Kushner is Ivanka's husband). Then there is David Friedman, Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an outspoken partisan of the Israeli right and he is among other things an apologist for the Netanyahu administration's highly controversial settlement of the West Bank. ..."
"... As is often the case with Trumpian controversies, the facts are a lot more complicated than the press makes out. ..."
"... So far, so normal for the 2016 election campaign. But it turned out that Kovaleski was no ordinary Trump-hating journalist. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are malformed. For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if troubling, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking someone's disability. ..."
"... In any case in responding directly to the charge of mocking Kovaleski's disability, Trump offered a convincing denial. "I would never do that," he said. "Number one, I have a good heart; number two, I'm a smart person." ..."
"... other much discussed Trumpian controversies such as his disparaging remarks about Mexicans and Muslims. In the case of both Mexican and Muslims, an effort to cut back immigration is a central pillar of Trump's program and his remarks, though offensive, were clearly intended to garner votes from fed-up middle Americans. ..."
"... In reality, as the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital evidence in the Kovaleski affair. ..."
Battlefield communications in World War I sometimes left something to be desired. Hence a famous
British anecdote of a garbled word-of-mouth message. As transmitted, the message ran, "Send reinforcements,
we are going to advance." Superior officers at the other end, however, were puzzled to be told: "Send
three and four-pence [three shillings and four-pence], we are going to a dance!"
Similar miscommunication probably helps explain the European media's unreflective scorn for
Donald Trump. Most European commentators have little or no access to the story. They have allowed
their views to be shaped largely by the American press.
That's a big mistake. Contrary to their carefully burnished self-image of impartiality and
reliability, American journalists are not averse to consciously peddling outright lies. This applies
even in the case of the biggest issues of the day, as witness, for instance, the American press's
almost unanimous validation of George Bush's transparently mendacious case for the Iraq war in 2003.
Most of the more damning charges against Trump are either without foundation or at least are
viciously unfair distortions. Take, for instance, suggestions in the run-up to the election that
he is anti-Semitic. In some accounts it was even suggested he was a closet neo-Nazi. Yet for anyone
remotely familiar with the Trump story, this always rang false. After all he had thrived for decades
in New York's overwhelmingly Jewish real estate industry. Then there was the fact that his daughter
Ivanka, to whom he is evidently devoted, had converted to Judaism.
Now as Trump embarks on office, his true attitudes are becoming obvious – and they hardly lean
towards neo-Nazism.
In appointing Jared Kushner his chief adviser, he has chosen an orthodox Jew (Kushner is Ivanka's
husband). Then there is David Friedman, Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an outspoken
partisan of the Israeli right and he is among other things an apologist for the Netanyahu administration's
highly controversial settlement of the West Bank. Trump even wants to move the American embassy
in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This position is a favourite of the most ardently pro-Israel
section of the American Jewish community but is otherwise disavowed as insensitive to Palestinians
by most American policy analysts.
Many other examples could be cited of how the press has distorted the truth. It is interesting
to revisit in particular the allegation that Trump mocked a disabled man's disability. It is an allegation
which has received particular prominence in the press in Europe. But is Trump really such a heartless
ogre? Hardly.
As is often the case with Trumpian controversies, the facts are a lot more complicated than
the press makes out. The disabled-man episode began when, in defending an erstwhile widely ridiculed
contention that Arabs in New Jersey had publicly celebrated the Twin Towers attacks, Trump unearthed
a 2001 newspaper account broadly backed him up. But the report's author, Serge Kovaleski, demurred.
Trump's talk of "thousands" of Arabs, he wrote, was an exaggeration.
Trump fired back. Flailing his arms wildly in an impersonation of an embarrassed, backtracking
reporter, he implied that Kovaleski had succumbed to political correctness.
So far, so normal for the 2016 election campaign. But it turned out that Kovaleski was no
ordinary Trump-hating journalist. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are
malformed. For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York
real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if troubling, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they
could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking someone's disability.
Trump's plea that he hadn't known that Kovaleski was handicapped was undermined when it emerged
that in the 1980s the two had not only met but Kovaleski had even interviewed Trump in Trump Tower.
That is an experience I know something about. I, like Kovaleski, once interviewed Trump in Trump
Tower. The occasion was an article I wrote for Forbes magazine in 1982. If Trump saw my by-line today,
would he remember that occasion 35 years ago? Probably not. The truth is that Trump, who has been
a celebrity since his early twenties, has been interviewed by thousands of journalists over the years.
A journalist would have to be seriously conceited – or be driven by a hidden agenda – to assume that
a VIP as busy as Trump would remember an occasion half a lifetime ago.
In any case in responding directly to the charge of mocking Kovaleski's disability, Trump
offered a convincing denial. "I would never do that," he said. "Number one, I have a good heart;
number two, I'm a smart person." Setting aside point one (although to the press's chagrin, many
of Trump's acquaintances have testified that a streak of considerable private generosity underlies
his tough-guy exterior), it is hard to see how anyone can question point two. In effect Trump is
saying he had a strong self-interest in not offending the disabled lobby let alone their millions
of sympathisers.
After all it was not as if there were votes in dissing the disabled. This stands in marked contrast
to other much discussed Trumpian controversies such as his disparaging remarks about Mexicans
and Muslims. In the case of both Mexican and Muslims, an effort to cut back immigration is a central
pillar of Trump's program and his remarks, though offensive, were clearly intended to garner votes
from fed-up middle Americans.
In reality, as the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital
evidence in the Kovaleski affair.
For a start Trump's frenetic performance bore no resemblance to arthrogryposis. Far from frantically
flailing their arms, arthrogryposis victims are uncommonly motionlessness. This is because relevant
bones are fused together. As Catholics 4 Trump pointed out, the media should have been expected to
have been chomping at the bit to interview Kovaleski and thus clinch the point about how ruthlessly
Trump had ridiculed a disabled man's disability.
The website added: "If the media had a legitimate story, that is exactly what they would have
done and we all know it. But the media couldn't put Kovaleski in front of a camera or they'd have
no story."
Catholics 4 Trump added that, in the same speech in which Trump did his Kovaleski impression,
he offered an almost identical performance to illustrate the embarrassment of a U.S. general with
whom he had clashed. In particular Trump had the general wildly flailing his arms. It goes without
saying that this general does not suffer from arthogryposis or any other disability. The common thread
in each case was merely an embarrassed, backtracking person. To say the least, commentators in Europe
who have portrayed Trump as having mocked Kovaleski's disability stand accused of superficial, slanted
reporting.
All this is not to suggest that Trump does not come to the presidency unencumbered with baggage.
He is exceptionally crude – at least he is in his latter-day reality TV manifestation (the Trump
I remember from my interview in 1982 was a model of restraint by comparison and in particular never
used any expletives). Moreover the latter-day Trump habit of picking Twitter fights with those who
criticize him tends merely to confirm a widespread belief that he is petty and thin-skinned.
Many of his pronouncements moreover have been disturbing and his abrasive manner will clearly
prove on balance a liability in the White House. That said, the press has never worked harder or
more dishonestly to destroy a modern American leader.
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, therefore, as he sets out to make America great again.
The truth is that American decline has gone much further than almost anyone outside American industry
understands. Trump's task is a daunting one.
Eamonn
Fingleton is an expert on America's trade problems and is the author of In Praise of Hard Industries:
Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity (Houghton Mifflin,
Boston). A version of this article appeared in the Dublin Ireland Sunday Business Post.
America's fate looks dicey in the showdown with the Chinese juggernaut, warns this vigorous jeremiad.
Fingleton (In Praise of Hard Industries) argues that China's "East Asian" development model of aggressive
mercantilism and a state-directed economy "effortlessly outperforms" America's fecklessly individualistic
capitalism
"... In Europe and the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass
immigration and military intervention abroad. ..."
"... Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three buttons, the importance
of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking their cue from their donors
rather than potential voters, never appreciated. ..."
"... The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa
is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important
example being the Kurds. ..."
"... Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited
in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. ..."
"... It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on
Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian leaders whose regimes were more the
symptom than the cause of division. ..."
"... Political divisions in the US are probably greater now than at any time since the American
Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity in both countries betray a deepening disunity and
alarm as people sense that they are moving in the dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible
and may no longer exist. ..."
"... Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication
of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia ..."
"... But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading for Central Europe and the
terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle East could not be contained.
They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian nationalist right and made them
real contenders for power. ..."
"... One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far he succeeds in closing down these wars,
something that is now at last becoming feasible. ..."
In the US, Europe and the Middle East there were many who saw themselves as the losers from globalisation,
but the ideological vehicle for protest differed markedly from region to region. In Europe and
the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass immigration and military
intervention abroad. The latter theme is much more resonant in the US than in Europe because
of Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three
buttons, the importance of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking
their cue from their donors rather than potential voters, never appreciated.
The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa
is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important
example being the Kurds. This is a big change from 50 years ago when revolutionaries in the
region were usually nationalists or socialists, but both beliefs were discredited by corrupt and
authoritarian nationalist dictators and by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited
in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. When Isis
forces were advancing on Baghdad after taking Mosul in June 2014, it was a fatwa from the Iraqi Shia
religious leader Ali al-Sistani that rallied the resistance. No non-religious Iraqi leader could
have successfully appealed to hundreds of thousands of people to volunteer to fight to the death
against Isis. The Middle East differs also from Europe and the US because states are more fragile
than they look and once destroyed prove impossible to recreate. This was a lesson that the foreign
policy establishments in Washington, London and Paris failed to take on board after the invasion
of Iraq in 2003, though the disastrous outcome of successful or attempted regime change has been
bloodily demonstrated again and again. It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the
troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian
leaders whose regimes were more the symptom than the cause of division.
But it is not only in the Middle East that divisions are deepening. Whatever happens in Britain
because of the Brexit vote or in the US because of the election of Trump as president, both countries
will be more divided and therefore weaker than before. Political divisions in the US are probably
greater now than at any time since the American Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity
in both countries betray a deepening disunity and alarm as people sense that they are moving in the
dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible and may no longer exist.
The mainline mass media is finding it difficult to make sense of a new world order which may or
may not be emerging. Journalists are generally more rooted in the established order of things than
they pretend and are shocked by radical change. Only two big newspapers – the Florida Times-Union
and the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Trump before the election and few of the American
commentariat expected him to win, though this has not dented their confidence in their own judgement.
Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication
of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia, but there is also genuine uncertainty
about whether he will be a real force for change, be it good or ill.
Crises in different parts of the world are beginning to cross-infect and exacerbate each other.
Prior to 2014 European leaders, whatever their humanitarian protestations, did not care much what
happened in Iraq and Syria. But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading
for Central Europe and the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle
East could not be contained. They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian
nationalist right and made them real contenders for power.
The Middle East is always a source of instability in the world and never more so than over the
last six years. But winners and losers are emerging in Syria where Assad is succeeding with Russian
and Iranian help, while in Iraq the Baghdad government backed by US airpower is slowly fighting its
way into Mosul. Isis probably has more fight in it than its many enemies want to believe, but is
surely on the road to ultimate defeat. One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far
he succeeds in closing down these wars, something that is now at last becoming feasible.
"... The strongest advocates for bringing offshore manufacturing back to the United States acknowledge automation's effect on the workforce but say it doesn't negate the need for more domestic factories. Harry Mosser, founder of the Reshoring Institute, which encourages companies to bring manufacturing operations back to the United States, said that even a highly automated factory is better for workers than no factory at all. ..."
"... These days it is more about planned/welcomed obsolescence - the product basically works, but some critical parts may be low grade, making it break after a while so you have to buy something new. This also affects "brands that used to be good". ..."
"... The internet also has played a role - online stores could underbid brick and mortar, then the latter had to cheapen and cut their offerings, driving more customers to the internet, etc. ..."
SOUTHBRIDGE - A mainstay of Massachusetts manufacturing since
the late 1800s, the Hyde Group tool company made a big leap
overseas in 2010, when it outsourced production of its mass
market putty knives and wallpaper blades to China.
"At
heart, we're manufacturers. It was the hardest thing for us
to do, us in a fourth-generation family," said Bob Clemence,
vice president of sales at Hyde Group, and great-grandson of
the man who bought the company in the 1890s. "In order for us
to stay in business and still employ people, we had to move
our low-end business off-shore. It really was like a stab in
the heart."
But the cost advantage of China has been steadily shrinking;
it's now 40 percent cheaper to make the tools there than in
Southbridge. And if that continues to fall, then Hyde might
be able to help President Donald Trump fulfill a central
campaign promise: bringing manufacturing back to the United
States.
"Forty percent [savings] is a huge number to overcome,"
Clemence said. "We've determined that if it's 20 percent or
less, we're going to do it domestically."
As Trump cajoles American companies into returning
production to US soil, experiences like Hyde's illustrate the
complex, multifaceted decisions manufacturers face as they
choose where to build their products.
The president has talked of using lower taxes, fewer
regulations, and higher tariffs to bring about a renaissance
of American manufacturing. But for factory owners, it's not
simply about cheaper labor. The costs of energy and raw
materials, the emergence of global competitors, and the
location and demands of suppliers and customers all weigh on
these decisions, a myriad of cross currents that will make it
difficult to fix the factory economy with just a few bold
prescriptions.
"It's going to be not an easy job," said Enrico Moretti,
professor of economics at the University of California,
Berkeley, who predicted that even if factories stay in the
United States, production will be increasingly automated.
"I'm not sure there is one explicit policy, a magic switch,
that executive power in Washington can switch to retain jobs
in the US."
In the eyes of factory owners, singling them out won't
necessarily solve the problem. Some say they were forced to
move production overseas by their customers. At Hyde, it was
the retail stores that carry its tools demanding lower
prices.
"It doesn't matter what they say about made in the USA,
it's all about price," Clemence said. "They've taken some
basic items and said there are commodity products and said,
'We only buy them by price.' "
In Norwood, the Manufacturing Resource Group opened a
second factory just across the US border in Mexico in 2011
because customers demanded cheaper versions of its cable
assemblies, wire harnesses, and other electric components.
"The decision to open in Mexico wasn't ours," MRG
president Joe Prior said. "We were told that, 'You need to
have a low-cost option, or we're not going to be able to do
business with you.' "
The Norwood and Mexico factories nearly mirror one
another, each employing about 70 people, with mostly the same
equipment and capabilities. The Norwood factory still
accounts for most of its business, as MRG's local customers
are willing to pay more for quicker shipping and customer
service. But other customers simply want a cheaper product -
wages at the Mexico factory are a quarter the cost of
Norwood, while health care costs about 90 percent lower.
Prior said if Trump does impose a high tariff on imported
products, as he has threatened, then that cost would probably
be shouldered by customers of the Mexican factory.
"If there is a tax, it just has to be passed on to our
customers and they'd have to make a decision about whether it
makes sense for them anymore," he said.
Since many US companies sell to customers around the
world, a high tariff might bring some production back home -
but at a cost. For Eastern Acoustic Works, that might mean
losing international customers for its sound equipment.
The Whitinsville company is closing its factory here,
laying off 27 workers and outsourcing most production of
speaker systems and subwoofers to a contract manufacturer in
China. There were just too many competitors around the world
making similar equipment for Eastern Acoustic to justify
charging higher prices for its US-made products, general
manager TJ Smith said. Eastern Acoustic will instead
concentrate on new sales, marketing, and R&D initiatives,
creating white-collar jobs that will help it grow.
"Running a factory takes a lot of focus and energy," Smith
said. "We have to ask ourselves, what are we good at? What do
we want to call our competencies?"
Smith said Eastern Acoustic might be forced to bring
production back to the United States if the Trump tariff goes
into effect. However, that move might also prompt the company
to drop its international clients - Asia accounts for 30
percent of Eastern Acoustic's sales - because the US-made
products wouldn't be competitive in overseas markets.
"It would split my business up too much, so I couldn't
support" an overseas factory, Smith said. "For our scale, I
would lean toward [choosing] the domestic market at this
point because that's what I know and I'm closer to it."
But the higher tariffs might help Eastern Acoustic in
another way - by raising prices on products its European
competitors are selling to US customers. "So that might
increase my near-term opportunity domestically," Smith said.
Raw materials, such as steel or energy, is another area
Trump would have to address. Foreign steel, especially, is so
much cheaper that it is very difficult for manufacturers not
to use. But Trump's promise to promote more domestic oil and
gas production could be a major boon to factories.
For example, US companies are benefiting from very cheap
domestic natural gas; that's especially important in
processing industries that use a lot of chemicals in their
production. ...
President Donald Trump has spoken often about trade's
effect on US manufacturing employment but has said
comparatively little about another economic force that has
caused factories to shed jobs: high-tech machines and
automation.
At the Hyde Group's Southbridge factory, the amount of
work that 100 employees do now would have required 180
workers more than a decade ago, said Bob Clemence, the
company's vice president of sales.
While the number of blue-collar assembly-line jobs at US
factories has been dropping in huge numbers for decades,
Enrico Moretti, a professor at the University of California,
Berkeley, said the number of engineers working in factories
has about doubled. Future manufacturing jobs will probably
require engineering skills and training, Moretti said.
At Hyde, the typical factory worker might operate two or
three computerized machines at a time, and the work generally
requires an associate's degree or some college education,
Clemence said. That's a far cry from 20 years ago, when the
factory used to host night classes to help employees earn
high school degrees.
"We could still do the GED," Clemence said. "But I need
someone coming in the door that already has that degree
information. I don't need somebody that is only running a
fork truck."
In his presidential farewell address Jan. 10, President Obama
highlighted the effects of technology on the workforce,
noting "the relentless pace of automation that makes a lot of
good middle-class jobs obsolete." He also called for ensuring
higher-level education, as well as stronger labor unions, to
blunt the effect.
Even if future manufacturing employees are trained to
handle robots and high-tech machines, the math is simple
enough: Machines and robots require fewer workers on factory
floors. When the appliance maker Carrier, a division of
United Technologies Corp., agreed to keep in Indiana about
800 jobs it had planned to send to Mexico, it marked an early
public relations win for Trump. Within days, however, United
Technologies' chief executive said new investments in the
Indiana factory would probably result in automation and
eventual job losses.
The strongest advocates for bringing offshore manufacturing
back to the United States acknowledge automation's effect on
the workforce but say it doesn't negate the need for more
domestic factories. Harry Mosser, founder of the Reshoring
Institute, which encourages companies to bring manufacturing
operations back to the United States, said that even a highly
automated factory is better for workers than no factory at
all.
"If you bring back any manufacturing, you bring back some
employment," he said.
"At Hyde, the typical factory
worker might operate two or three computerized machines at a
time, and the work generally requires an associate's degree
or some college education,"
What are "computerized machines," Fred? and why only two
or three?
In my personal experience (as an IT guy)
observing electronic techs in computer
manufacturing (some decades ago) monitoring
several 'computerized' testing machines at once. (Made for
interesting challenges trying to measure productivity.)
Why
only two or three? When an 'event' happens,
prompt operator response is usually called for.
No, a cnc cell will typically have 4 or 5 cnc
machines. You just need labor to feed, stack and turn one off
if there is an issue. One will do. Injection molding can be 2 to 4 presses. This is why Labor
should have been paid more as they are replacing 3 and 4
people.
We already have this environment and plants are not
crawling with engineers. They are needs for programming only
and even then an operator might be able to do it.
"We could still do the GED," Clemence said. "But I need
someone coming in the door that already has that degree
information. I don't need somebody that is only running a
fork truck."
Translation: "We will not pay for upgrading
the skills of fresh hires as long as we still have older
workers in their 50's+ with existing skills *who are not
leaving*."
And that aspect is hinted at right above - 20+ years ago,
when today's 50+ were 20/30-ish, they paid for their
education, and those people are still in the accessible labor
pool.
But they *will* age out, and then they hand wringing and
wailing about skill shortages will intensify (and you better
believe companies will *then* arrange the skill upgrades).
> In the eyes of factory owners, singling them out won't
necessarily solve the problem. Some say they were forced to
move production overseas by their customers. At Hyde, it was
the retail stores that carry its tools demanding lower
prices. "It doesn't matter what they say about made in the
USA, it's all about price," Clemence said. "They've taken
some basic items and said there are commodity products and
said, 'We only buy them by price.' "
Yup. Consumers matter.
So long as we care more about getting the lowest price than
whether the workers who made the widget were getting a fair
deal the problem will persist.
It was said elsewhere in the article that "customers"
actually meant retail chains.
With many products, including
food, the origin of the product or its ingredients is not
properly disclosed. "Made for", "distributed by", "packed
in", "packaging printed in", are not actionable.
Then with advances in manufacturing and material sciences,
it has become harder to judge the expected quality and
workmanship of a product by its external appearance - most
look well finished and spiffy, parts are fitting well, etc.
About 20+ years that wasn't the case, and it was much
easier to tell that something is cheap junk (when looking
good on the outside it may still be junk inside, but at least
there was a way of identifying the lowest category).
These days it is more about planned/welcomed obsolescence
- the product basically works, but some critical parts may be
low grade, making it break after a while so you have to buy
something new. This also affects "brands that used to be
good".
Then one can only go by price, as that's a difference that
can still be discerned. And obviously there is a feedback
dynamic - stores observe what sells, and slowly remove
variety and "mid range" products.
The internet also has played a role - online stores could
underbid brick and mortar, then the latter had to cheapen and
cut their offerings, driving more customers to the internet,
etc.
From comments: "Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity
about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble
is, Davos ain't fiction." "The biggest cabal of sociopathic criminals the world has ever
known."
Notable quotes:
"... This is not new. Klaus Schwab, the man who founded the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s, warned as long ago as 1996 that globalisation had entered a critical phase. "A mounting backlash against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a very disruptive impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries," he said. ..."
"... Schwab's warning was not heeded. There was no real attempt to make globalisation work for everyone. Communities affected by the export of jobs to countries where labour was cheaper were left to rot. The rewards of growth went disproportionately to a privileged few. Resentment quietly festered until there was a backlash. For Schwab, Brexit and Trump are a bitter blow, a repudiation of what he likes to call the spirit of Davos. ..."
"... It would be wrong, however, to imagine that business is terrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency. Boardrooms rather like the idea of a big cut in US corporation tax. They favour deregulation. They purr at plans to spend more on infrastructure. Wall Street is happy because it thinks the new president will mean stronger growth and higher corporate earnings. ..."
"... 'Policy decisions-not God, nature, or the invisible hand-exposed American manufacturing workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition, but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to keep them largely protected.' ..."
"... Good article by the way. Recommend others to read. Thanks. ..."
"... Stop trying to shackle every conservative to the desperate and ugly views of the few. Deplorables and their alt-right kin, are so small in number. We ought keep an eye on the Deplorables but little else ... they're politically insignificant. I wish you'd stop trying to throw the average Republican voter into the basket of bigoted, racist rednecks. It's deplorable! ..."
"... Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble is, Davos ain't fiction. ..."
"... Why would Daniel go into the lion's den? Trump is committed to stopping the excesses of the "swamp rats" most of whom are at Davos. The world will be turned on its head in 2017; it is going to be interesting to watch the demise of those at the top of the pyramid. ..."
"... What exactly is the "Spirit of Davos" then? A bunch of fat, rich elderly men and their hangers-on troughing themselves to the point of bursting on fine wines and gourmet food, while paying lip-service to the poor? ..."
"... One question for Davos might be: how are you going to resolve differences between the vast majority of people who exist as national citizens, and the multinational elite? It's not a new question. ..."
"... Multinationals, corporate and individuals, can dodge the taxes which pay for services we all rely on but especially citizens. ..."
"... Davos is not restricting attendance to high office bearers. Trump could have gone, had he wanted to, or he could have sent one of his family/staff - that's how Davos works. ..."
"... Bilderberg is by invitation, as far as I know, Davos by application and paying a high membership, plus fee. But the fact he is not represented could be a good sign if it means that the focus is on solving domestic issues as opposed to spending so much time and resources on international ones. ..."
"... My own take on the annual Davos circus is as follows:. It is a totally useless conclave and has never achieved anything tangible since its inception. ..."
"... This gives an excellent opportunity for those who hold so-called "numbered" or other secret bank accounts in the proverbially secretive Swiss banks to have their annual tete-a-tete with their bankers and carry out whatever maintenance has to be done to their bank accounts. After all, in tiny Switzerland, it is only a hop from one town to another. No one will miss you if you are not visible for a day or two. If any nosy taxman back home asks: "What was the purpose of your visit to Switzerland?", one can say with a straight face: "Oh, I was invited to be a keynote speaker at Davos to talk about the increasing income disparity in the world and on what steps to take to mitigate it."! ..."
"... I think globalisation is inhumane. Someone calculated that if labour were to follow capital flows we would see one third of the globe move around on a constant basis. One son in Cape Town a daughter in New York and a brother in Tokyo. It's not how human societies operate we are group animals like herds of cows. We need to be firmly rooted in order to build functioning and humane societies. That is the migration aspect of globalization the other aspect is the complete destruction of diverse cultures. ..."
Trump's influence can also be felt in other ways. The manner in which he won the US election,
tapping in to deep-seated anger about the unfair distribution of the spoils of economic growth,
has been noted. There is talk in Davos of the need to ensure that globalisation works for everyone.
This is not new. Klaus Schwab, the man who founded the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s,
warned as long ago as 1996 that globalisation had entered a critical phase. "A mounting backlash
against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a very disruptive
impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries," he said.
Schwab's warning was not heeded. There was no real attempt to make globalisation work for everyone.
Communities affected by the export of jobs to countries where labour was cheaper were left to
rot. The rewards of growth went disproportionately to a privileged few. Resentment quietly festered
until there was a backlash. For Schwab, Brexit and Trump are a bitter blow, a repudiation of what
he likes to call the spirit of Davos.
It would be wrong, however, to imagine that business is terrified at the prospect of a Trump
presidency. Boardrooms rather like the idea of a big cut in US corporation tax. They favour deregulation.
They purr at plans to spend more on infrastructure. Wall Street is happy because it thinks the
new president will mean stronger growth and higher corporate earnings.
In Trump's absence, it has been left to two senior members of the outgoing Obama administration
– his vice-president, Joe Biden, and secretary of state John Kerry – to fly the US flag.
Just
as significantly, Xi Jinping is the first Chinese premier to attend Davos and has made it clear
that, unlike Trump, he has no plans to resile from international obligations. The sense of a changing
of the guard is palpable.
missuswatanabe
It's the way globalisation has been managed for the benefit of the richest in the developed
world that has been bad for the masses rather than globalisation itself.
I thought this was an interesting, if US-centric, perspective on things:
'Policy decisions-not God, nature, or the invisible hand-exposed American manufacturing
workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could
have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition,
but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to
keep them largely protected.'
Good article by the way. Recommend others to read. Thanks.
Paul Paterson -> ConBrio
Decent, hardworking Americans facing social and economic insecurity, whether on the right
or left, ought to be the focus. We need to deal with the concerns of the average citizen, however
it is they vote. Fringe groups don't serve our attention given tbe very real problems the country
faces.
Stop trying to shackle every conservative to the desperate and ugly views of the few. Deplorables
and their alt-right kin, are so small in number. We ought keep an eye on the Deplorables but
little else ... they're politically insignificant. I wish you'd stop trying to throw the average
Republican voter into the basket of bigoted, racist rednecks. It's deplorable!
What we should concern ourselves with is the very real social and economic insecurity felt
by many in red states and blue states alike. Those decent and hardworking Americans, regardless
of party, are joined in much. Deplorables aren't the average Republican voter and didn't win
Trump an election - they are too few to win much of anything.
What you keep referring to as Deplorables are decent Americans seeking change and socioeconomic
justice. You are mixing up citizens who happen to vote for the GOP withbwhite nationalist scum.
How dare you tar all conservatives with the hate monger brush!
Spunky325 -> Paul Paterson
Actually, before taking office, Trump strong-armed Ford and GM into putting more money in
their American plants, instead of moving more production to Mexico. He's also questioned cost-overruns
on Air Force One and several military projects which is causing companies to back off. I can't
think of another American president who has felt it was important to keep jobs in America or
who has questioned military spending. Good for him!
Paul Paterson -> Spunky325
You've made it quite clear "you can't think" as you've bought into the ruse. The question
is why are you so boastful about it? Trump's policies are even seen by economists on the right
as creating staggering levels of debt, creating more economic inequality and unlikely to increase
jobs.
Among many flaws, they point out tax proposals that hurt the poor and middle class to such
a degree it almost seems targeted. This is the same economic plot that has failed working Americans
repeatedly. You folks are getting caught up in a time share pitch and embracing policy that
has little chance to help the average American - however it is they vote. It isn't supposed
to but y'all are asleep at the wheel.
DrBlamm0
Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about
the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble
is, Davos ain't fiction.
johhnybgood
Why would Daniel go into the lion's den? Trump is committed to stopping the excesses
of the "swamp rats" most of whom are at Davos. The world will be turned on its head in 2017;
it is going to be interesting to watch the demise of those at the top of the pyramid.
bilyou
What exactly is the "Spirit of Davos" then? A bunch of fat, rich elderly men and their
hangers-on troughing themselves to the point of bursting on fine wines and gourmet food, while
paying lip-service to the poor?
Maybe Trump just decided to trough it at his tower and avoid hanging out with a grotesque
bunch of insufferable see you next Tuesdays.
Ricardo_K
One question for Davos might be: how are you going to resolve differences between the
vast majority of people who exist as national citizens, and the multinational elite? It's not
a new question.
Multinationals, corporate and individuals, can dodge the taxes which pay for services we
all rely on but especially citizens.
James Patterson
Xi's statements on a trade war are completely self serving. But his assertions that he is
against protectionism and unfair trading practices is laughably hypocritical. China refuses
to let any Silicon Valley Internet company one inch past the Great Firewall. Under his direction
the CCP has imposed draconian regulations, which change by the week, on American Companies
operating in China making fair competition with local Chinese companies impossible.
The business climate in China is reprehensible. The CCP has resorted to extortion, requiring
that U.S. tech companies share their most sensitive trade secrets and IP with Chinese state
enterprises or get barred from conducting business there. Sadly, U.S. companies entered China
with high expectations and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in factories, labs and
equipment. This threat has caused many CEO's to sacrifice their company's long term viability
by transferring their most closely guarded technological advances to China or face the loss
their entire investment in China. Even so, multinationals are beginning the Chinese exodus
led by those with less financial exposure soon to be followed by companies like Apple despite
significant economic ties.
True, most people believe a 'trade war' with China means America is the defacto loser because
of dishonest reporting. The truth is that America's economic exposure to China is extremely
limited. U.S. exports to China represent only 7% of America's total exports worldwide; which
in turn accounts for less than 1% of total U.S. GDP (Wells Fargo Economics Group 2015). Most
of America's exports to China are raw materials, which can be redirected to other markets with
some effort. So even if China blocked all U.S. exports tomorrow, America's economy could absorb
the blow with minimal damage. This presents the U.S. government with a wide range of options
to deal with China's many trade infractions and unfair practices as aggressively or punitively
as it wishes.
europeangrayling
Poor Davos attendees. You feel for them at their fancy alpine Bilderberg. It's like the
meeting of the mafia organizations, if the mafia became legal and respected now and ran the
world economy. And I don't think those economic royalists at Davos miss Trump, Trump was a
small fish compared to the Davos people. They make Trump look like a dishwasher.
They are just pissed Trump came out against the TPP and those globalist 'free trade' deals,
and doesn't want more regime change maybe. They like everything else about Trump's policies,
the big tax cuts, environmental and banking deregulations galore, it's like Reagan 2.0, without
the 'free trade'. But they really want that 'free trade' though, those guys are used to getting
everything. Imagine if Bernie won, they would really hate that guy, he is also against the
TPPs and trade, and for less war, and against everything else they are used to. And that's
good, if those honorable brilliant Davos gentleman don't like you, that's not a bad thing.
soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs
With secular stagnation we should all be asking why is economics so bad?
Keynesian redistributive capitalism went out with Margaret Thatcher and inequality has been
rising ever since (there is a clue there for the economists amongst us).
How did these new ideas rise to prominence?
"There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics
It's awarded by Sweden's central bank, foisted among the five real prizewinners, often to economists
for the 1% -- and the surviving Nobel family is strongly against it."
"The award for economics came almost 70 years later-bootstrapped to the Nobel in 1968 as a
bit of a marketing ploy to celebrate the Bank of Sweden's 300th anniversary." Yes, you read
that right: "a marketing ploy."
Today's economics rose to prominence by awarding its economists Nobel Prizes that weren't Nobel
Prizes.
No wonder it's so bad.
Global elites can use all sorts of trickery to put their ideas in place, but economics is economics
and if doesn't reflect how the economy operates it won't work.
Secular stagnation – what more evidence do we need?
HauptmannGurski -> bcarey
Davos is not restricting attendance to high office bearers. Trump could have gone, had
he wanted to, or he could have sent one of his family/staff - that's how Davos works.
Bilderberg is by invitation, as far as I know, Davos by application and paying a high membership,
plus fee. But the fact he is not represented could be a good sign if it means that the focus
is on solving domestic issues as opposed to spending so much time and resources on international
ones.
Meanwhile, alibaba's Jack Ma said in Davos that the US had spent many trillions on wars in
the last 30 years and neglected their own infrastructure. Money is for people, or some such
like, he said. Just mentioning it here, because the MSM tend to dislike running this kind of
remark.
Rajanvn -> HauptmannGurski
My own take on the annual Davos circus is as follows:. It is a totally useless conclave
and has never achieved anything tangible since its inception.
Did it, in any way, with all the stars in the financial galaxy gathered in one place, warn
against the 2008 global financial meltdown? The real reason why so many moneybags congregate
at a place which would be shunned by all who have no affinity for snow sports may be, according
to my own reckoning, may not be that innocent and may even be quite sinister.
This gives an excellent opportunity for those who hold so-called "numbered" or other
secret bank accounts in the proverbially secretive Swiss banks to have their annual tete-a-tete
with their bankers and carry out whatever maintenance has to be done to their bank accounts.
After all, in tiny Switzerland, it is only a hop from one town to another. No one will miss
you if you are not visible for a day or two. If any nosy taxman back home asks: "What was the
purpose of your visit to Switzerland?", one can say with a straight face: "Oh, I was invited
to be a keynote speaker at Davos to talk about the increasing income disparity in the world
and on what steps to take to mitigate it."!
Roland33
I think globalisation is inhumane. Someone calculated that if labour were to follow capital
flows we would see one third of the globe move around on a constant basis. One son in Cape
Town a daughter in New York and a brother in Tokyo. It's not how human societies operate we
are group animals like herds of cows. We need to be firmly rooted in order to build functioning
and humane societies. That is the migration aspect of globalization the other aspect is the
complete destruction of diverse cultures.
If everyone drives Toyota and everyone drinks Starbucks
we lose the diversity of culture that people claim they find so valuable. And replaces it with
a mono-culture of Levi jeans and McDonalds. Wealth inequality is really something that can
be reduced if you look various countries score higher in this regard than others while still
being highly successful market economies but I think money is secondary to the displacement
and alienation that come with the first two aspects of globalisation. I find it strange that
it is now the right that advocates reversing these neoliberal trends and the left that seems
to champion it. I was conscious during the 90's and anti-globalisation was clearly a left wing
issue. For whatever reason the left just leaves room for the right to harvest the grapes of
wrath they warned about many years ago. Don't blame the "populist" right ask why the left left
them the space.
Taking the UK out of the EU single
market would be "the greatest job-killing act in Welsh
economic history", Plaid Cymru has said.
Several of Sunday's newspapers claim Prime Minister
Theresa May will signal the move in a speech on Tuesday.
Plaid's treasury spokesman Jonathan Edwards told the BBC's
Sunday Politics Wales programme the impact on Wales would be
"devastating".
Downing Street has described the reports as "speculation".
The Carmarthen East and Dinefwr MP said pulling out of the
single market and customs union would have a "huge impact on
jobs and wages in Wales".
"The reality of what we're going to hear from [Theresa
May] on Tuesday, it's going to be the greatest job-killing
act in Welsh economic history, probably in British economic
history," he added. ...
It's a shorthand reference to one possible outcome of
negotiations between the U.K. and the EU -- the U.K. giving
up its membership in Europe's single market for goods and
services in return for gaining full control over its own
budget, its own law-making, and most importantly, its own
immigration. If that happens, British leaders will be under
pressure to quickly land a new trade pact or individual
industry-by-industry deals with the EU. Otherwise, companies
will be subjected to standard World Trade Organization rules,
which would impose tariffs on them. Banks would lose the easy
access they now enjoy to the bloc.
2. How would that differ from a softer Brexit?
A softer form would see the U.K. maintain some tariff-free
access to the single market of some 450 million consumers.
The U.K. would likely still have to contribute to the EU
budget, allow some freedom of labor movement and follow some
EU rules. That's what Norway does, as a member of the
European Economic Area but not of the EU. ...
Plaid Cymru: the Party of Wales, often referred to simply as
Plaid) is a social-democratic political party in Wales
advocating for Welsh independence from the United Kingdom
within the European Union. ... (Wikipedia)
'How can the United Kingdom possibly gain economically from
completely leaving the
European Union?'
Voters decided that the UK was paying
more to be 'in the EU' than they were
receiving (in subsidies, etc.) for
*being* members. That and they were
expected by Way Too European, welcome
foreign workers, obey crazy regulations
imposed by foreigners, yada yada yada.
(Wales, BTW, gets/got lots of aid from the EU.)
Or, is the key word 'completely'?
It was said months ago by the other major
EU members that they want Britain *out*, so
that alone should be a reason for PM May
to demand a very Soft Brexit.
After these months since the vote to leave the European
Union, where the United Kingdom had special privileges to
begin with, I still find no coherent rationale to the
decision. There is no reason to think the cost of being an EU
member was anywhere near the benefits to the UK, and evidence
to the contrary that was repeatedly promised has never been
produced.
Simon Wren-Lewis has written often on Brexit and
seems as puzzled as I am by the seeming toughness as well as
the determination of Teresa May on the leaving.
It would seem UK voters were bamboozled about
the finances. They do pay a lot *in* to be
EU members, as do other large/wealthy
members, but they also got a lot back.
They were told it was costing too much.
'they were
expected (to be) Way Too European, welcome
foreign workers, obey crazy regulations
imposed by foreigners, etc.'
Britain has always had mixed feelings
about being 'European' it seems, since
the end of their empire.
No worries. There will
still be The Five Eyes,
the 'Special Relationship'.
An exclusive club: The 5 countries that don't spy on each
other
http://to.pbs.org/2iv8mNk
via @PBS NewsHour - October 25, 2013
It was born out of American and British intelligence
collaboration in World War II, a long-private club nicknamed
the "Five Eyes." The members are five English-speaking
countries who share virtually all intelligence - and pledge
not to practice their craft on one another. A former top U.S.
counter-terrorism official called it "the inner circle of our
very closest allies, who don't need to spy on each other."
This is the club that German chancellor Angela Merkel and
French President Francois Hollande say they want to join - or
at least, win a similar "no-spying" pact with the U.S.
themselves.
It all began with a secret 7-page agreement struck in 1946
between the U.S. and the U.K., the "British-US Communication
Agreement," later renamed UKUSA. At first their focus was the
Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites. But after
Canada joined in 1948, and Australia and New Zealand in 1956,
the "Five Eyes" was born, and it had global reach. They
pledged to share intelligence - especially the results of
electronic surveillance of communications - and not to
conduct such surveillance on each other. Whiffs of the club's
existence appeared occasionally in the press, but it wasn't
officially acknowledged and declassified until 2010, when
Britain's General Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ,
released some of the founding documents. The benefits of
membership are immense, say intelligence experts. While the
U.S. has worldwide satellite surveillance abilities, the club
benefits from each member's regional specialty, like
Australia and New Zealand's in the Far East. "We practice
intelligence burden sharing," said one former U.S. official.
"We can say, 'that's hard for us cover, so can you?'" The
ease and rapidity of information-sharing among the five
"makes it quicker to connect the dots," said another
intelligence veteran. "You can't underestimate the importance
of the common language, legal system and culture," said
another. "Above all, there is total trust." ...
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for the United States
had by 2014 recovered from the international recession to the
level of 2007. Recovery for the United Kingdom came in 2015.
The recession and recovery obviously were socially difficult
and took an extended time.
Then too, there had been a time
of war from the US and UK extending from 2001.
An extended period of social turmoil that is difficult to
grasp or shut out.
PM May is in way over her head and does not know what she is
doing. Nor does she know what she says has meaning and
effects. She's not long for office, imo of course.
Brexit: The Story on Tariffs and Currency Fluctuations
The New York Times decided to tout the risks * that higher
tariffs could cause serious damage to industry in the UK
following Brexit:
For Mr. Magal [the CEO of an engineering company that
makes parts for the car industry], the threat of trade
tariffs is forcing him to rethink the structure of his
business. The company assembles thermostatic control units
for car manufacturers, including Jaguar Land Rover in Britain
and Daimler in Germany.
"Tariffs could add anything up to 10 percent to the price
of some of his products, an increase he can neither afford to
absorb nor pass on. 'We don't make 10 percent profit - that's
for sure,' he said, adding, 'We won't be able to increase the
price, because the customer will say, "We will buy from the
competition."' "
The problem with this story, as conveyed by Mr. Magal, is
that the British pound has already fallen by close to 10
percent against the euro since Brexit. This means that even
if the European Union places a 10 percent tariff on goods
from the UK (the highest allowable under the World Trade
Organization), his company will be in roughly the same
position as it was before Brexit. It is also worth noting
that the pound rose by roughly 10 percent against the euro
over the course of 2015. This should have seriously hurt Mr.
Magal's business in the UK if it is as sensitive to relative
prices as he claims.
[Graph]
It is likely that Brexit will be harmful to the UK economy
if it does occur, but many of the claims made before the vote
were wrong, most notably there was not an immediate
recession. It seems many of the claims being made now are
also false.
"... In the case of the US, a Republican donor-class candidate should have been a Democrat donor-class candidate. Owing to the particular corruption of the Democratic party over the last 8 years, effectively run by the Clinton crime family, the field was unofficially limited to just one. The collapse of the Republican establishment from below still makes my heart sing. Would that the same might occur among Democrats. ..."
"... `I do not understand the pushback [against transnational causes for these events]. Do they really believe that Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, the rise of many right-wing populist parties in Europe etc. have nothing to do with economics? That suddenly all these weird nationalists and nativists got together thanks to the social media and decided to overthrow the established order? People who believe this remind me of Saul Bellow's statement that "a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is strong."' ..."
"... These are not idiomatic one-off events due to contingent political situations peculiar to each individual country. ..."
"... Something bigger is going on. If Marine LePen wins in France (and I predict she will), that will provide even more evidence. This looks like a global rebellion against globalization + neoliberal economics because the bottom 96% are realizing they're getting screwed and all the benefits are going to the top 6% of professional class + licensed professionals + top 1% in the financial robber barony. ..."
"... Because the 'soft' left, in collaboration with the soft right (and the hard right) have worked assiduously since roughly about 1979 to destroy the 'hard left'. ..."
"... If you help crush the communists then don't be surprised if, in 20 years time, you get the Nazis, because people who hate the system will vote to destroy it, and they will use whatever weapons are to hand to do so . If 'left wing' options aren't available, they will choose 'right wing' ones. ..."
"... I think that the Democratic Party is unlikely to hand over power to the average man and woman in America, but I'm sure that the Republican Party is even less likely to do so; anybody who voted Republican in 2016 because it seemed the best chance of getting power for the average man and woman was played for a sucker. ..."
"... The original Nazis emerged and rose to power in a context where the Communists were trying to destroy the system, and also seeking to crush the Social-democrats; close to the opposite of the pattern you're describing. ..."
"... And Trump, as we all know, is highly suspicious of the EU. Moreover, there is likely to be a battle between the 'liberal (in the highly specific American sense) leaning' intelligence services (the CIA etc.) and the Trump administration. ..."
"... And, thanks to Obama, the CIA, NSA etc. have far more leeway and freedom to act than they did even 20 years ago. It is also possible/likely that MI5/MI6 might be 'let off the leash' by a British (or English) nationalist orientated Conservative Government. ..."
"... you must know why you yourself aren't doing it, and the reasons that apply to you could easily apply to other people as well. ..."
"... There are people making statements daily about how what the Tories are doing is not in the interest of the vast majority of people; but with what effect? ..."
by Henry on January 5, 2017 A piece I wrote on Brexit and the
UK party system has
just come out
in Democracy. More than anything else, I wrote the article to get people to read Peter
Mair. I didn't know Mair at all well – he was another Irish political scientist, but was based in
various European universities and in a different set of academic networks than my own. I met him
once and liked him, and chatted briefly a couple of times after that about email. I wish I'd known
him better – his posthumously edited and published book,
Ruling the Void is the single most compelling
account I've read of what has gone wrong in European politics, and in particular what's gone wrong
for the left. It's still enormously relevant years after his death. The ever ramifying disaster that
is the British Labour party is in large part the working out of the story that Mair laid out – how
party elites became disconnected from their base, how the EU became a way to kick issues out of politics
into technocracy, and how it all went horribly wrong.
The modern Labour Party is caught in an especially unpleasant version of Mair's dilemma. Labour's
leaders tried over decades to improve the party's electoral prospects in a country where its traditional
class base was disappearing. They sought very deliberately and with some success to weaken its
party organization in order to achieve this aim. However, their success created a new governing
class within Labour, one largely disconnected from the party grassroots that it is supposed to
represent. Ed Miliband recognized this problem as party leader and tried to rebuild the party's
connection to its grassroots. However, as Mair might have predicted, there weren't any traditional
grassroots out there to cultivate. Mair argued that the leadership and the base were becoming
disengaged from each other, so that traditional parties were withering away. Labour has actually
taken this one stage further, creating a party in which the leadership and membership are at daggers
drawn, each able to stymie the other, but neither able to prevail or willing to surrender.
This has all changed. Class and ethnic and religious identities no longer provide secure
foundations for European parties, which have more and more tried to become "catchalls," appealing
to wide and diffuse groups of voters. People are not attached to parties for life anymore,
often waiting until just before Election Day to decide whom to vote for. Party membership figures
across Western Europe have shrunk by more than half in a generation.
Do you evaluate this change (on balance) positively or negatively? and why?
Also, since I'm commenting anyway, one minor query:
(Some European countries had different parties for Catholics and Protestants.)
Which countries did you have in mind? There are few European countries that have (or had) both
enough Catholics for a significant Catholic party and enough Protestants for a significant Protestant
party.
I know about the Netherlands, which had separate Catholic and Protestant parties until
the 1970s, when the Catholic party merged with the main Protestant parties (although there's
still a small Protestant party on the margins), but that's just one country.
Germany had a distinct Catholic party (but no specifically Protestant party) under the
Wilhelmine Reich and the Weimar Republic, but not the Federal Republic;
Switzerland has a Catholic-based party but no specifically Protestant-based party; where
else? (There's Northern Ireland, of course, but that's a bit different.) What am I missing?
The Labour Party is so weak that the Conservatives do not need to worry about Labour defeating
them in the next election, or perhaps in the election after that.
I don't think this is obvious, precisely because of the volatility of the situation. I remember
people saying this about the Cameron government in 2015 and I objected at the time that no-one
knew how the Brexit referendum will turn out. Now Cameron is gone and just about forgotten. It's
true that the Conservatives are still in, but it's a very different crew.
More importantly, we haven't yet seen what Brexit means, in any sense. May has been coasting
on the referendum result, and Labour has been wedged, unable to oppose the referendum outcome
and also unable to criticise May's Brexit policy because she either doesn't have one or isn't
telling. This can't continue forever (presumably not beyond March), and when the situation changes,
anything can happen.
Some scenarios where the Conservatives could come badly unstuck
(a) they put up a "have cake and eat it" proposal that is rejected so humilatingly that they
look like fools, then cave in and accept minor concessions on migration in return for a face-saving
soft Brexit
(b) hard Brexit becomes inevitable and the financial sector flees en masse
(c) train-crash Brexit with no agreement and a massive depression
The only scenarios I can see that would cement the current position are
(a) a capitulation by the EU on migration etc, with continued single market access
(b) an economically successful hard Brexit/non-fatal train crash
It seems to me that (a) is politically infeasible and (b) is economically unlikely
That's not to gloss over Labour's problems or your diagnosis, with which I generally agree.
" how party elites became disconnected from their base, how the EU became a way to kick issues
out of politics into technocracy, and how it all went horribly wrong."
This sounds exactly like what has happened to the Democratic party in America. Which suggests
that there's something transnational going on, much larger than the specific political situation
in any given country
The essay is excellent as we might expect, Henry. I'm not convinced that Labour had any other
choice but to elect Corbyn. Single data points are always suspect, but the decision by the Labor
bigwig (have succeeded in forgetting which) to mock 'white-van man' clearly suggests she was playing
to a constituency within Labour primed to share in a flash-sneer at the prols. I'd have
expected as much from any Tory. I have other quibbles, the decision by Labour to take a position
on the referendum and on Remain always seemed critical to forcing Labour to adopt anti-immigrant
Tory-light postures in order to have it both ways with working-class voters hostile to London
and Brussels.
More problematic is this paragraph: "Research by Tim Bale, Monica Poletti, and Paul Webb shows
that these new members tend to be well-educated and heavily left-wing. They wanted to join the
Labour Party to remake it into an unapologetically left-leaning party. However, the research suggests
that they aren't prepared to put in the hard grind. While most of them have posted about Labour
on social media or signed a petition, more than half have never attended a constituency meeting,
and only a small minority have gone door to door or delivered leaflets. They are at best a shaky
foundation for remaking the Labour Party." Your questionable decision to deploy 'they' and 'them'
muddies the reality a bit, as does your decision to rely on metrics from the past to predict future
behavior.
I take your point that failing to attend a political rally, or go door-to-door, means something
in a time when populist parties are in the 'ascent.' But as you point out this rise can only occur
because the 'old parties' have failed so badly to connect activists and members. Again, that said,
I'm still not convinced all is doom and gloom. Labour activists opposed to EU membership were
effectively gagged/shamed by the elite right up to the present. It is only now this week, that
Labour has elected to make English compulsory for new immigrants:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chuka-umunna-immigrants-should-be-made-to-learn-english-on-arrival-in-uk-classes-esol-social-a7509666.html
Labour wasn't anything but Tory-lite until Jeremy and the new influx of members. I'm not personally
in favor of the new policy. It does seem to me more Tory-lite. But the battles are now more out
in the open. My guess is that Labour will survive and will rule again, but only if the party can
persuade Scotland and Wales to remain part of the UK. Adopting Tory-lite policies is precisely
what alienated Scots Labour voters and drove them into the arms of the SNP, so that's that the
PLP gives you.
Britain is entering a period of flux: jobs, housing, respect for all – including all those
dead, white people who made such a mess of the world, and respect for all forms of work, and greater
social and economic movement within Britain will likely go over quite well with large sections
of the electorate. Strong borders and a sensible immigration policy is part of that.
@10 "This sounds exactly like what has happened to the Democratic party in America. Which suggests
that there's something transnational going on, much larger than the specific political situation
in any given country"
"This sounds " Yes, in general terms. Yet, the donor-class candidates could have and should
have won in Brexit and in the US.
In the case of the Brexit, I argued before and after that simply allowing Labour candidates
and members to express their own views publicly, rather than adhere to a (sufficiently unpopular)
particular policy set by Henry's elite would have negated the need to adopt anti-immigrant Tory
lite stances – a straddle that fooled nobody and drove Labour voters to UKIP in not insignificant
numbers.
In the case of the US, a Republican donor-class candidate should have been a Democrat donor-class
candidate. Owing to the particular corruption of the Democratic party over the last 8 years, effectively
run by the Clinton crime family, the field was unofficially limited to just one. The collapse
of the Republican establishment from below still makes my heart sing. Would that the same might
occur among Democrats.
Had, however, the Clinton campaign actually placed the candidate in Wisconsin, in Michigan,
and in Pennsylvania rather than bank on turning off voters, we'd be looking at a veneer of stability
covering up the rot now on display.
The point being: there's always something transnational going on. I explained Brexit to my
own students as a regional rebellion against London, as much as Brussels. Henry's essay is good
on Brexit and UKIP. Both the US and UK outcomes could have been avoided.
Britain is entering a period of flux: jobs, housing, respect for all – including all those
dead, white people who made such a mess of the world, and respect for all forms of work, and
greater social and economic movement within Britain will likely go over quite well with large
sections of the electorate.
If Britain were to enter a period of jobs, housing, and respect for all, with greater social
and economic mobility, it would be reasonable to expect most people to be pleased; but there's
no evidence that anything of the kind is happening, or is going to happen.
"The PLP didn't opt to get along, they opted to fight, and got mauled."
They lost the battle but are winning the war.
Corbyn has been keeping a very low profile since his re-election, proposals for reform such
as mandatory reselection seem to have been dropped, and the left of the party is squabbling over
whether it remains a Corbyn fan club or an active agent for the democratisation of the party.
Party policy remains inchoate and receives little media publicity.
Michels hasn't been disproved just yet, and I suspect the party remains immune to lasting reform,
short of a major split.
I suspect the party remains immune to lasting reform, short of a major split.
There are plenty of examples from the UK and other countries, including the Labour Party itself,
of parties undergoing major splits, and the evidence doesn't suggest that the experience is conducive
to lasting reform.
Yes, after the second election, the PLP have opted for the long game, with the expectation
that a disastrous General Election (one of the reasons why the talk up the possibility of an early
one at every opportunity) will see a return to "normality". In the meantime, the strategy is to
make Corbyn an irrelevance, hence the lack of coverage in the MSM, except for a drip of mocking
articles of which today's by Gaby Hinsliff in the Graun is typical.
Corbyn and his organisation don't help themselves but, faced with such irredentism, they have
little leverage on the situation.
You don't make a single mention of Scotland, which is a massive omission to make. (And frankly,
it's a particularly odd mistake for an Irishman: it's supposed to be the English who blithely
assume that where they live is coterminous with the whole United Kingdom).
I like a lot of the essay, but it's gravely weakened by the fact that you're prepared to discuss
things like political elites and class allegiance- and, in a European context, religious allegiance-
but you don't mention national or regional political identities. You really can't leave those
things out and give an accurate picture of current British politics.
I agree that a Labour revival isn't coming along soon. The problem is that a lot of people in
Labour think and hope that it might, and that makes them very unwilling to start thinking about
electoral alliances, because they are committed to standing candidates everywhere.
Labour, imo, needs some further and serious bad shocks to get them into the frame of mind that
could make an anti-Tory alliance possible. Once it is, FPTP could turn from the secret of Tory
success into the mechanism for their destruction. But 2020 might be too soon.
Forming coalitions and alliances requires negotiation and making trade-offs and active listening:
unfortunately there are probably too many people in the Labour Party who would find that very
difficult. They appear not to be willing to negotiate even with their own members.
I really can't see the obsession with an 'anti-Tory alliance'. Given that it involves allying
with a party who recently were effectively part of a pro-Tory alliance, it only works in any sense
if you think that the Tories have morphed into the far-right, or if you have a well-worked out
programme of constitutional reform you want to implement.
The bit that concerns involving the SNP particularly baffles me. Given that they have been
at daggers drawn with the Labour Party in Scotland, and that they are highly unlikely to step
aside from any of their 90-odd % of Scottish seats to give their alliance partner a few more MPs,
it seems a non-starter. This impression is magnified when you consider that the spectre of a Labour-SNP
minority government was thought to have scared off potential Labour voters at the last election.
Corbyn is just awful. A toxic mix of naivity, ego, and blundering stupidity.
His concept of role is almost non-existant. He walks onto a train without having pre-booked,
finds it difficult getting two seats together, and decides on the spot that all trains must be
nationalised. He spots a man sleeping rough and decides ending rough sleeping is his top priority.
He blunders around like he's just landed from another planet, sees an injustice and thinks he,
Jeremy, is the first person ever to see such a terrible thing, and decides on the spot to make
it his top priority to eliminate this evil by the simple policy expedient of saying he will eliminate
it.
He doesn't do policy in any recognisable sense. He does positioning statements which he assembles
with mates and puts on his personal web site. Take his "Manifesto for Digital Democracy". It claims
to be a policy, but in reality its just a list of Things That Jeremy Thinks Are Good. It doesn't
appear to have gone through a discussion process or approval process. It is not clear if this
is a party policy or just a personal document.
His position on Brexit is a disaster. On the issue which is coming to define politics in the
UK he is neither clearly for it nor clearly against it. He gives the impression he finds it a
dull subject. He is at best second choice for everyone, first choice for no-one; at worst, he
is an irrelevance.
Worse, he appears completely oblivious to the power games being played out in his name. Neighbouring
constituencies are to be carved up so Jeremy's seat can be preserved. His son Seb is given a job
in John McDonnell's office. He is effectively held captive by a North London clique who look after
him, tell him he's great, and then use his "policies" as a checklist against which to assess conformance
of MPs to The One True Corbyn Way and pursue vendettas.
His personality is completely unsuited to the job of Leader, let alone Prime Minister. Even
if you believe in Jeremy's policies you need to find someone else to implement them because he
lacks any of the requisite capabilities.
Nothing is going to magically get better.
No matter how bad things get, under Jeremy they can always get worse.
'Unofficially limited' dies give one the wiggle room to assert just about anything. It's a way
of lying which can't be rebutted. If you say 'but there were 3 candidates', he'll respond that
he did say 'unofficially' limited. If you say 'but two of them did quite well', he'll respond
that he did, after all, say 'unofficially' limited. So he can take a case where there was actually
a competitive race, and make it seem like there was never a competitive race. Of course, his post
is, officially, approved by the moderators
While most of them have posted about Labour on social media or signed a petition, more than
half have never attended a constituency meeting, and only a small minority have gone door to door
or delivered leaflets.
There's a strong feel of "young folks aren't doing politics the way my generation used to do
politics" about this, especially given the activities you're complaining they're not doing. Is
posting on social media achieving more or less than posting leaflets to fill up people's recycling
bins?
kidneystones @14 claims: "I explained Brexit to my own students as a regional rebellion against
London, as much as Brussels."
If that's correct, why did we get: [1] Trump/Sanders in the U.S., [2] Brexit in the UK, [3]
repudiation of Matteo Renzi along with the referendum in Italy, [4] a probable win for Marine
LePen in France (wait for it, you'll be oh-so-shocked when it happens)?
`I do not understand the pushback [against transnational causes for these events]. Do they
really believe that Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, the rise of many right-wing populist parties in Europe
etc. have nothing to do with economics? That suddenly all these weird nationalists and nativists
got together thanks to the social media and decided to overthrow the established order? People
who believe this remind me of Saul Bellow's statement that "a great deal of intelligence can be
invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is strong."'
I would suggest kidneystones is simply wrong. These are not idiomatic one-off events due
to contingent political situations peculiar to each individual country.
Something bigger is going on. If Marine LePen wins in France (and I predict she will),
that will provide even more evidence. This looks like a global rebellion against globalization
+ neoliberal economics because the bottom 96% are realizing they're getting screwed and all the
benefits are going to the top 6% of professional class + licensed professionals + top 1% in the
financial robber barony.
@43 Actually, I make no claim against trans-national developments. Quite the opposite.
Elsewhere, I've written that we are dealing with a world-wide tension between advocates of
globalization and their opponents. Where you differ is in determinations and outcomes, which I
argue are based on the actors, actions and dynamics of each state and which are, as such, unique.
There is nothing at all inevitable about any of this and JQ very sensibly reminds us of the volatility
of the present moment.
What is clear to me at least is that ideas and actions matter. Labour need not have decided
in 2014, or so, to ban members from advocating either a referendum, or leaving the EU. I dug all
this up at the time and the timeline is easy enough to recreate.
Austria stepped back from the brink, as did Greece when it repudiated Golden Dawn. The French
right and left worked together to keep the presidency out of the hands of the FN, although it's
less clear how that successful these efforts will be in the future.
The next few years will be telling. I see no reliable evidence to indicate good fortune, or
end times. The safest bet is more of the same, repackaged, with all the predictable shrieks and
yells about 'never before' etc. that usually accompanies the screwing of the lower orders. The
donor class is utterly dedicated to retaining power. I think JQ is spot on regarding alliances.
We didn't come this far just to have the wheels fall off.
The populism of the right (which I support in large measure) points the way. I'd have preferred
to see a populism of the left win, but too many are/were unwilling to burn down establishment
with the same willingness and enthusiasm of those on the right. Indeed, this thread has several
vocal defenders of an utterly corrupt Democratic party apparatus busted cold for colluding to
steal the nomination. There's a reason donors forked over 1.2 billion to the Clinton crime family
and it wasn't to help Hillary turn over power to the average woman and man in America.
Because the 'soft' left, in collaboration with the soft right (and the hard right) have
worked assiduously since roughly about 1979 to destroy the 'hard left'.
'High points' in this 'epic battle' include Neil Kinnock's purging of Militant, the failure
of the trade union establishment to (in any meaningful sense) support the miners' strike (1984),
the failure of the Democratic party establishment to get behind McGovern (1972), Carter's rejections
of Keynesianism (and de facto espousal of monetarism) in roughly 1977, Blair's war on 'Bennism',
the tolerance of/espousal of Reaganite anti-Communism by most sectors of the British left by the
late 1980s/early 1990s, and so on.
So what we are left with nowadays is angry working class people who would, in previous generations
(i.e. the 1950s, and 1960s) have voted Communist or chosen some other 'radical' left wing option
(and who did vote in such a way in the 1950s/1960s) no longer have that option.
What the 'soft left' hoped is that, with 'radical' left wing options off the table, the proles
would STFU and stop voting, or at least continue to vote for a 'nice' 'respectable' soft left
party.
What they failed to predict is that (as they were designed to do) neo-liberal policies immiserated
the working class, leaving that class angrier than ever before.
And so, the working class wanted to lash out, to register their anger, their fury. But, as
noted before, the 'traditional' way to do that was off the table. Ergo: Trump, Brexit etc.
If you help crush the communists then don't be surprised if, in 20 years time, you get
the Nazis, because people who hate the system will vote to destroy it, and they will use whatever
weapons are to hand to do so . If 'left wing' options aren't available, they will choose 'right
wing' ones.
We have all read this story book before: the 'social democrats' connived with the German state
to crush the 1918/1919 working class uprising, and then were led, blubbering, to Dachau 20 years
later. One wonders how many of them reflected that they themselves might be partially responsible
for their fate.
In the same way: the 'soft left' connived and collaborated with the Right to crush the 'radical
left' in the US and the UK (and worldwide) and then were SHOCKED!! and AMAZED!! that the Right
don't really like them very much and were only using them as a tool to defeat the organised
forces of the working class, and that with the 'radicals' out of the way, the parties of the 'soft
left' (with no natural allies left) can now be picked off one by one, at the Right's leisure.
I think that the Democratic Party is unlikely to hand over power to the average man and
woman in America, but I'm sure that the Republican Party is even less likely to do so; anybody
who voted Republican in 2016 because it seemed the best chance of getting power for the average
man and woman was played for a sucker.
(Incidentally, if 'the donor class' means the same thing as 'rich people', wouldn't it be clearer
to refer to them as 'rich people'? and if 'the donor class' means something different from 'rich
people', what constitutes the difference?)
Any tirade against Corbyn is entirely pointless, because you're not addressing the reasons
why he was elected, or what he represents. I think most of those that support him have a varying
degree of criticism, and many would prefer a more able leader. The problem for Labour is that
there is not a more able leader available that understands the need to ditch Third Way nonsense.
If any of the PLP "big beasts" had done this in any meaningful way, instead of plotting against
him, they would be leader by now.
So what we are left with nowadays is angry working class people who would, in previous generations
(i.e. the 1950s, and 1960s) have voted Communist or chosen some other 'radical' left wing option
(and who did vote in such a way in the 1950s/1960s) no longer have that option.
In the US, only tiny numbers of voters supported Communist candidates in the 1950s and 1960s.
It's true that the option of voting Communist no longer exists, because the Communist Party has
stopped running candidates, but that seems to be a realistic response by the party to its derisory
level of voter support. If there are people who still want to follow the Communist line, what
they would have done in 2016 is turn out to vote against Trump (that's what the party was urging
on its website; the information is still accessible).
In Italy, on the other hand, it's true that large numbers of voters supported Communist candidates
in the 1950s and 1960s; and in Italy, voters still have the option of supporting Communist candidates,
but the numbers of those who choose to do so have become much smaller.
People who voted for Trump weren't doing so because they were denied the option of voting Communist;
and people who voted 'No' in the Italian referendum weren't doing so because they were denied
the option of voting Communist.
If you help crush the communists then don't be surprised if, in 20 years time, you get the
Nazis, because people who hate the system will vote to destroy it, and they will use whatever
weapons are to hand to do so.
The original Nazis emerged and rose to power in a context where the Communists were trying
to destroy the system, and also seeking to crush the Social-democrats; close to the opposite of
the pattern you're describing.
Yes, and another situation where 'mostpeople' have failed to follow the logic of a situation
through. Many intellectuals can see that it is not in the EU's interests for the UK to prosper
out of the EU lest it 'encourager les autres'. Fewer have pointed out that this works the other
way, too. It is no longer in the UK's interests for the EU to prosper (or, indeed, to continue),
and a new nationalist orientated Conservative government might make moves in this direction.
As Jeremy Corbyn alone has had the perspicacity to point out, insofar as there is a political
movement in the UK that is most closely aligned with Donald Trump's Republicanism, it is the Conservatives
under May (the UK's latest intervention vis a vis the UN and Israel was a blatant attempt to curry
favour with the new American administration).
And Trump, as we all know, is highly suspicious of the EU. Moreover, there is likely to
be a battle between the 'liberal (in the highly specific American sense) leaning' intelligence
services (the CIA etc.) and the Trump administration. Assuming Trump wins (not a certainty)
it is possible/likely that Trump will use the newly 'energised' intelligence services to pursue
a more 'American nationalism' orientated policy, and it is likely that this new approach will
see the EU being viewed as much more of an economic competitor to the US, rather than a tool for
the containment of Russia, as it is primarily seen at the moment.
And, thanks to Obama, the CIA, NSA etc. have far more leeway and freedom to act than they
did even 20 years ago. It is also possible/likely that MI5/MI6 might be 'let off the leash' by
a British (or English) nationalist orientated Conservative Government.
It is not implausible, therefore, that the US and the UK will use what 'soft' power they have
to weaken the EU and sow division wherever they can. And of course the EU has enough problems
of its own, such that these tactics might work. Certainly it is highly possible that the EU will
simply not exist by 2050, or at least, not in the form that we have it at present.
"One of the consequences of the phenomenon you're discussing is that volatility is incredibly
high. I'd never before seen a politically party as totally, irredeemably fecked as Fianna Fail
in 2010, but look at them now."
I think this is just one of the features of postmodern politics. For potential governmental
parties they only have to retain enough support to be a realistic alternative, and even with 20%
of the vote Fianna Fail had enough of a profile that an opportunistic campaign of opposition could
lead to them recovering their fortunes to some extent at the next election. I suspect that even
PASOK and New Democracy will receive a similar bounce at the next Greek election.
These kind of stances usually involve avoiding too close a link to certain social groups and
maintaining a distance from potentially principled and activist party memberships. This explains
the hostility of Labour MPs towards Corbyn and the left of the party. They feel that ideological
commitments and an orientation towards the poor and disadvantaged will reduce the party's freedom
of maneuver, damaging their chances of capitalizing electorally on Tory failure.
Of course, they have not provided any reason why anyone of a left-wing persuasion should support
such a cynical and opportunistic worldview, apart from the fact that the Tories are evil. And
they then wonder why many people are alienated from politics.
"Fewer have pointed out that this works the other way, too. It is no longer in the UK's interests
for the EU to prosper (or, indeed, to continue) "
Interesting, I'd not seen that elsewhere. I'd be pretty certain that this is the objective
of people like Hannan.
".. and it is likely that this new approach will see the EU being viewed as much more of an
economic competitor to the US, rather than a tool for the containment of Russia, as it is primarily
seen at the moment."
Maybe less to do with competition than regulation? The Trump view is presumably that anything
that restricts continued plundering of the economy, especially transnational institutions.
@Igor
"I think this is just one of the features of postmodern politics. For potential governmental
parties they only have to retain enough support to be a realistic alternative "
"This explains the hostility of Labour MPs towards Corbyn and the left of the party. They feel
that ideological commitments and an orientation towards the poor and disadvantaged will reduce
the party's freedom of manoeuvre, damaging their chances of capitalising electorally on Tory failure."
"Perhaps these parties are in fact in sync with global political trends because they are
all nationalist parties and nationalism is clearly on the rise at the moment. "
Yes, they are clearly part of the nationalist turn. Or at least I assume that is true of Plaid
Cymru and the SNP, but it definitely is of Sinn Fein, who are policy wise a leftist party, but
ideologically first and foremost a nationalist one. You can see this in polling on their support
base, which tends to be more reactionary* and culturally conservative than even the irish centre
right parties, yet Sinn Fein as a political party often takes position (such as their strong support
for gay marriage) in opposition to the preferences of a large chunk of their base.
This Is particularly the case with immigration, where for going on a decade local politicians
have noted that this is one of the concerns they often hear in constituency work that they don't
make a priority in national politics. It's difficult to (as Sinn Fein does) see yourself (rightly
or wrongly) as the nationalism of a historically oppressed minority, and to support the rights
of that minority in the north (I'm making no normative claims on the correctness of their interpretation)
and then attack other minorities. This is why they're institutionally , and seemingly ideologically,
commited to diversity and multiculturalism in the south of ireland, while also being fundamentally
a nationalist party. (Question is (1) does this posture survive the current leadership , and (2)
is it enough to stave off explicitly nativist parties**) Afaict this is also true of the snp,
I don't know about PC.
But there's still a lot of poison in it. "Anti englishness" , which a lot of this, (at least
implicitly") can encourage , might be more acceptable than anti immigrant sentiment, but it's
still qualitatively the same mind set.
*this is 're a big chunk if their base, but by no means the full story.
**basically what happens to the independent vote, which is (afaict)possibly the real populist
turn in ireland.
At the risk of sounding like I'm simply saying 'but Ireland is special!' I think the (partial)
resurgence of Fianna Fail is a bit of a sui generis phenomenon. Irish politics have historically
been tribal in a way that makes UK voters look like an exemplar of rational choice theory. It
is only the very slightest exaggeration to say that my father's vote in every general election
he has participated in was determined in 1922, several decades before his birth – I'm sure other
Irish Timberteers have experienced similar. Even then, FF is still far away from the kind of hegemonic
dominance it enjoyed prior to the crash – when a poll result of 38% would have been regarded as
disastrous – and the FF/FG combined vote total is still struggling to hit 60%. While I'd agree
that this looks like pretty strong evidence for the 'resurgence of the right' thesis of European
politics at first glance, the failure of the left in Ireland is more due to a) Sinn Fein and Labour
being deeply imperfect vessels for the transmission of left-wing politics (albeit for very different
reasons) b) the low-cost of entry into the Irish political system due to PR-STV leading to a splintering
of the political left.
Additionally, the attempt by former Fine Gael deputy Lucinda Creighton to tap into the supposed
right-wing resurgence via the Renua party ended in an electoral curb-stomping as comprehensive
as it was satisfying to witness. So I don't think a surge in popularity for 'the right' is what's
going on here.
It should also be noted that Michael Martin is an infinitely more talented politician than
Enda Kenny (even though that is a bit of a 'world's tallest dwarf' comparison), and has explicitly
positioned FF to the left of FG, but also as a fundamentally 'centrist' and 'moderating' force.
In other words, he's pursuing a political strategy similar to that of Tony Blair, and is reaping
political dividends for doing so. Shocking, I know! (And FWIW – I have a deep, fundamental dislike
of FF and all it stands for and would never consider voting for them, lest anyone think I'm here
to carry water for Martin).
Unfortunately, for those arguing the 'Jeremy Corbyn is only getting clobbered in the polls
because of the perfidy of the PLP/the biased right-wing media/dark forces within MI5' the Irish
experience doesn't offer much comfort. After 2010 the various hard-left groupuscules in Ireland
put aside their factional differences and were able to mount a relatively united front in two
successive elections, and under leaders like Richard Boyd Barrett, Joe Higgins and Clare Daly.
All of these individuals are relatively charismatic, as well as possessing strong skills as political
communicators (attributes even Corbyn's most ardent defenders would admit he is lacking in).
They also had an issue, in the form of water charges, that allowed them to develop an extremely
clear, very popular political position which resonated with large swathes of the electorate in
every region of the country (again, something UK Labour is severely missing).
The results? Just over 5% of the vote in the last election for a total of 10 TDs, and basically
zero influence over the actual governance of the country.
This is not because of some vast array of structural forces and barriers are arrayed against
them (as discussed above, PR-STV makes the barrier to entry into Irish politics very low). It
is because, as with Corbyn, the electorate neither trusts them to competently administer the
state, nor supports their vision for its future socio-economic development. You can argue
that the electorate are ignorant, or mistaken in this regard, but given that Corbyn has at various
points in his career argued that East Germany, Cuba and Venezuela represent optimal socio-economic
systems, I would argue that they're probably right on this particular question.
In the US, only tiny numbers of voters supported Communist candidates in the 1950s and 1960s.
The effect is not direct. It comes down to the fact that for the average working person, there
two main ways they could be significantly better or worse off; wages could be higher, or tax could
be lower.
One of those is a thing that is promised by political parties, one isn't.
The actual rate of tax, or the feasibility or secondary effects of changing, don't really matter.
Leaving the EU, whatever else it means, means not paying tax to it. A belief that the tax paid
to the EU ends up as a net benefit to the payee requires a level of trust in the system that is
easy to argue against.
The US has lower taxes than any other developed democracy, and so presumably wouldn't carry
on functioning as one if you cut further. Which means to deliver further tax cuts, you need a
politician who doesn't understand, doesn't care, or just possibly is in hock to those who wish
the US harm.
Traditional Communists similarly considered the collapse of the system to be more of a goal
than a worry. Without them, arguments against higher wages always prevail.
Kidneystones: "Owing to the particular corruption of the Democratic party over the last 8 years,
effectively run by the Clinton crime family, the field was unofficially limited to just one."
Seconding Belle here – 'effectively run' means 'defeated by another, and forced to work your
way back up'.
The Labour Party as a functioning opposition seems to have vanished – seriously: what did the
general public hear from them over the last year or so apart from party infighting and accusations
of anti-semitism?
I still support many of Corbyn's policies and ironically
so does much of the general public . But he lost my trust with his ridiculous wavering over
Brexit and ineffectiveness as a politician in general.
I actually don't think it would be too hard to organize an effective opposition considering
the fact that the Tories have no idea at all what they are doing and their policies are not in
the interest of the vast majority of people. But you have to hit them over the head with this
on a daily basis and I have no idea why nobody does it.
Well I wouldn't say it was entirely pointless. It is important to establish a baseline, and
in this case the baseline is that Corbyn's leadership is most unlikely to deliver electoral success
for Labour.
But your main point is a fair one, so time to try a different tack.
Policy is a misleading guide to whether a party is left or right. The current conservative
party is running a significant deficit, is committed to maintaining the NHS free at the point
of use, has implemented a living wage, has introduced same-sex marriage, and at the last election
touted state spending as the way to improve economic performance. all these policies were traditionally
associated with left-wing parties.
Policy is free, and it isn't particularly sticky. Given those features, policy is not a particularly
reliable feature. No private company would make policy its chief USP as it can easily be replicated
and customers show little loyalty based on policy. So if policy is not a route to political identity,
what is?
What voters want from a political party is that the party holds them and their interests paramount
as it goes about its business. When it implements a policy, it makes sure that policy is implemented
in a way that benefits them and their group. They want to be sure that in the difficult and complex
world of politics, the people they have voted for will look after their interests. The modern
Conservative party understand this. So Teresa May puts her target market – Just managing families
– dead centre in her Downing Street speech. And so far she has very high levels of public support.
By contrast, Labour doesn't seem to know who it represents, who it is batting for, and what
it wants for them. It doesn't give clear signals about where British workers stand in its hierarchies
of priorities. Until someone stands up and clearly articulates a vision of ambition for the mass
of the people then Labour will get out-fought in all significant political debates.
Certainly it is highly possible that the EU will simply not exist by 2050, or at least,
not in the form that we have it at present.
What a weak and trivial assertion.
It is possible that the US will not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. It
is possible that the UK will not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. It is possible
that the Conservative Party [the Democratic Party] [the Labour Party] [the Republican Party] will
not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. It is possible that MI5 [MI6] [the CIA]
[the NSA] will not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. [Lather, rinse, repeat.]
'The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extremes, in which the fear of being
contradicted leads the writer to strip himself of almost all sense and meaning.' (Winston Churchill,
A History Of The English-Speaking Peoples )
@52
Yeah maybe I should clarify that. Obviously much of the UK's trade is done with the EU so in that
sense the UK does have an economic interest in the EU prospering, but only in terms of
individual states. The UK (arguably) does not have an interest, any more in the EU as a unified
political/economic entity and if, as seems plausible, the UK now moves in a more Trumpian
direction, this tendency might well continue.
@55 Your evidence argues against your own argument. You have persistently argued, across many
CT threads, that the only and sole reason that Labour is doing badly right now is because of Corbyn.
And then the evidence you provide is that the left is doing badly in Ireland too. Do you see the
problem?
The fact is that if there was any serious alternative to Corbyn, the PLP would have put him
or her forward in the recent leadership election, and s/he would probably have won. But there
is no such candidate because the problems the Labour party face are much more deeply rooted than
the current crisis caused by the Corbyn leadership and these problems are faced by almost every
centre-left political party in the West . (The 'radical' left, as I pointed out above, having
essentially vanished in almost all of the developed world).
Let's not forget that as recently as the late 1990s, almost every country in Europe was governed
by the centre left. Now, almost none* of them are. That's the scale of the collapse. Indeed the
usual phrase for this phenomenon is 'Pasokification'. Not Corbynification (at least not yet).
Corbyn certainly doesn't have a solution to this problem but then nobody else does either,
so there you go.
All elections for the last few decades:
Many people in the UK: "Can we have our share of the benefits of globalisation?"
Tacit cartel: "After the City has taken the lion's share and we've had our cut, there might be
something left that you can have."
Referendum:
Tacit cartel: "Vote Remain or everybody will lose the benefits of globalisation!"
It's obviously in the interests of (hard) Brexiteers that the EU should fail, but it's not clear
what they can do to promote this end, except in the sense that hard Brexit itself will be mutually
damaging. Supporting ideological soulmates like Le Pen might help but could be a two edged sword
(do Le Pen voters welcome British support?)
By contrast, there's a great deal that the EU can do to harm the UK at modest cost, for example,
by objecting whenever they try to carry over existing WTO arrangements made under EU auspices.
Of course, they have not provided any reason why anyone of a left-wing persuasion should
support such a cynical and opportunistic worldview, apart from the fact that the Tories are
evil.
Preventing people from doing evil seems like a powerful motivation to me.
Traditional Communists similarly considered the collapse of the system to be more of a goal
than a worry. Without them, arguments against higher wages always prevail.
It's commonplace for minimum wages to be increased without Communists playing any role.
Yes, there's a definite thread of wanting to make the EU fail from the Brexiters (at the same
time as believing that it's going to fail anyway, which is why we should get out). As you say,
it's not clear what the UK could do to make this happen, especially from the outside pissing in.
Vice versa, whatever "the EU" thinks about wanting the UK to fail, "the EU" can't do much about
it, and the interests of the member states' governments may or may not be the same. On the other
hand, if there's one way to get them to respond with one voice, the UK attempting to damage Germany's
relationship with France might be it.
What voters want from a political party is that the party holds them and their interests
paramount as it goes about its business. When it implements a policy, it makes sure that policy
is implemented in a way that benefits them and their group. They want to be sure that in the
difficult and complex world of politics, the people they have voted for will look after their
interests. The modern Conservative party understand this. So Teresa May puts her target market
– Just managing families – dead centre in her Downing Street speech.
Anybody who thinks that the Conservatives are going to hold paramount the interests of 'just
about managing' families has been played for a sucker.
Corbyn, like Trump, is the consequence – not the cause of the some twenty years of failed policies.
Vastly more popular than Corbyn isn't saying much. Some 20 percent of those who pulled the lever
in November for Trump don't believe he's qualified for his new position.
Henry's essay does a good job, I think, of identifying the general problem Labour faces. As
for the leadership, it's going go be extremely difficult to find a senior Labour PLP big beast
who did not vote for the Iraq war/Blairites, or who did not oppose even the referendum on Brexit,
not to mention Leave. Both of these issues are deal-breakers, it seems, for some of the more active
members still remaining in Labour. Left-leaning Labour voters, especially those in Scotland, are
unhappy with Tory-lite and with the pro-war positions of the Blairites. Labour voters hostile
to London generally (many in Wales), and to the focus on Europe, rather than depressed regions
of Britain, are unlikely to rally around PLP figures who spent much of the run-up to the vote
calling Leave supporters closet racists.
Actions and decisions have consequences and the discussions that seem to distress a few here
and there (not to mention Labour's low-standing in the polls) are both long overdue and essential
if Labour plans on offering a coherent platform on anything. Running on the NHS and education
and even housing was fine for a while, and might still be so. Intervening in Syria, Libya, and
Iraq complicates matters considerably, as does forcing Labour supporters to adhere to either side
of the Remain/Leave case.
A little civility and good will here and there would do a world of good, but I'm aware that
discussion is better suited to Henry's earlier post on science fiction.
"It's obviously in the interests of (hard) Brexiteers that the EU should fail, but it's not clear
what they can do to promote this end, except in the sense that hard Brexit itself will be mutually
damaging."
I don't think this is right. Australia has neighbours that we aren't in a trade and currency
and migration zone with, but I don't think Australia wants these countries to fail economically
or any other way. I don't see why Britain would want the EU to fail - the UK is better off being
neighbours with stable prosperous countries in the EU than a lot of failed states pulling out
of the EU I would think .??
"While most of them have posted about Labour on social media or signed a petition, more than
half have never attended a constituency meeting, and only a small minority have gone door to door
or delivered leaflets."
My observations is that people do more voluntary work of this hands on kind with non-profit
advocacy groups than political parties.
Maybe as the major political parties became more similar, and weren't polarised in the sense
they were in the post-war era to the 80s, people prefer to volunteer for specific causes they
believe in, rather than for major political parties.
It's not 'Britain' that wants the EU to fail; it's the people who were strong supporters of
UK withdrawal from the EU who want that, because to them failure of the EU would provide vindication,
or at least a plausible appearance of it.
you must know why you yourself aren't doing it, and the reasons that apply to you could easily
apply to other people as well.
I wasn't aware that I was supposed to organize the opposition.
There are people making statements daily about how what the Tories are doing is not in
the interest of the vast majority of people; but with what effect?
Seriously, I don't see that. Now there might be a big media conspiracy to drown out these voices,
but I think it's more plausible that the current Labour leadership is just not very good at this
game.
'I don't see why Britain would want the EU to fail - the UK is better off being neighbours with
stable prosperous countries in the EU than a lot of failed states pulling out of the EU I would
think .??'
Yeah just to be absolutely precise (again) I don't think the UK would ever want the EU to fail,
exactly. But if the perception gains ground that the EU is trying to shaft the UK (and remember
it's in the EU's interests to do just that) 'tit for tat' moves can spiral out of control and
might be politically popular.
The joker in the pack is the new Trump Presidency. Almost all American Presidents since the
war have been (either de facto or de jure) pro-EU for reasons of realpolitik. Trump might go either
way but we know he holds grudges. In recent months Angela Merkel chose to give Trump veiled lessons
on human rights, whereas the May administration has done its utmost to ditch all its previous
'opinions' and fawn all over him.Who is Trump likely to like most?
If the UK goes to Trump and begs for help in its economic war with the EU, Trump might listen.
More generally (and a propos of nothing, more or less), it might be 'number magic' but at least
since the late 19th century 'Western' history tends to divide into 30 year blocks (more or less).
You had the 40 year bloc between the Franco-Prussian war and 1914. Then of course the 30 years
of chaos between 1914 and 1945. Then the Trente Glorieuses between 1945 and 1975. Finally we had
the era of the 'two neos': neoliberalism at home, and neoconservatism abroad (AKA the 'let them
eat war' period) between 1976 and 2006.
We now seem to be moving into a new era of Neo-Nationalism, with a concommitant suspicion of
trans-national entities (e.g. the EU), a rise in interest in economic protectionism, and increasing
suspicion of immigration. Needless to say, this is not a Weltanschauung that makes things easy
either for the Left or for Liberals. One might expect both the soft and hard right to thrive,
on the other hand.
"Preventing people from doing evil seems like a powerful motivation to me."
The problem is that merely asserting that the Tories are bad does not necessarily mean that
people will (or even should) automatically assume that you are a viable or less evil alternative.
Indeed, the response of the Labour Party's leading lights after the 2015 election was to minimise
the distance between themselves and the Tories, and their actions during the 'interregnum' between
Miliband and Corbyn demonstrated that they were quite willing to connive with evil in the shape
of Tory welfare policy as they assumed it would appease 'aspirational voters'.
This is the crux of the divide within the Labour Party. Corbyn's political career has concentrated
on defending those at home or abroad who cannot or find it difficult to defend themselves. The
majority of Labour's career politicians argue that these people are politically marginal and defending
their interests will not win elections or achieve political power. To some extent they have a
point, but they fail to acknowledge that their own brand of cynical opportunism has alienated
not just many Labour members but also many potential voters.
The accusations of anti-Semitism and sympathy for dictators made by Corbyn's enemies were so
virulent not just in an attempt to smear his reputation, but also to try and salve their own consciences,
having thrown so many of their moral scruples aside in an increasing futile quest to secure the
support of the mythical median voter.
"Policy is a misleading guide to whether a party is left or right."
You what?
I would have thought that policy, by which I mean actually implemented policies and actions,
with real effects, rather than rhetoric, sound-bites or general bullshit, is precisely how we
determine if a party is left or right.
As for the remainder of that paragraph:
"The current conservative party is running a significant deficit "
As any decent economist, and even George Osborne, will tell you, the deficit is an outcome
of the economy, not under the direct control of the chancellor so, despite the rhetoric, it's
not really meaningful to use as a policy target. Further, IIRC, in the history of modern advanced
economies, I believe they have run deficits in something like 98% of years, so the presence of
a deficit is hardly unusual if you're in government.
" is committed to maintaining the NHS free at the point of use "
This is just a bullshit phrase and, in the context of actual policy, entirely meaningless.
The Tory party has a long term project to privatise large sections of the NHS, and is currently
driving it into the ground as a means to this end. New Labour laid the foundations for this to
happen, so is equally to blame. No self-respecting left party would go anywhere near those policies.
" at the last election touted state spending as the way to improve economic performance."
More sound-bites. Nothing is delivered. Believe it or not, the state spends money with this
aim all of the time. The scope of what new spending is to be delivered is likely to be small.
The other items sound like you think that we are still in the centrist liberal nirvana of Blair/Clegg/Cameron
where we were governed by managerialist technocrats, concerned with "what works", delivering much
the same policy no matter who was elected, only competing with each other on the basis of media
platitudes. But that has caused massive resentment, failed, and is the reason for Brexit and Corbyn.
Precisely because none of those parties were delivering policies that benefited most people.
Indeed, I think that you will find that 600,000 Labour Party members believe that there is,
or rather should be, a big dividing line in policy between themselves and the Tory Party.
"The modern Conservative party understand this. So Teresa May puts her target market – Just
managing families – dead centre in her Downing Street speech."
This reads like it has come directly from Central Office. Do you really believe that the Tories
give two hoots about "just managing families"? Did Hammond reduce Osborne's austerity plan in
any way in the last Budget?
Labour, as a whole, certainly doesn't seem to know who it represents ATM. There are multiple
reasons for that: an irredentist PLP, a media sympathetic to the PLP and determined to trivialise
or ignore Corbyn, and the disorganisation and incoherence of Corbyn and his organisation amongst
them. But deposing Corbyn and returning to neoliberal bullshit won't solve the reasons why he
exists.
Brexit has not happened yet, so it can be whatever you want it to be: that freedom to project
counterfactuals tends to accentuate the centrifugal not the consensual as far as diversity of
opinion is concerned. I actually think Corbyn is unusually wise for a Labour leader to mumble
and fumble a lot at this stage. If it is a personal failing, it is appropriate to circumstances.
The Tories have given themselves a demolition job to do. If your opponent is handling dynamite,
best not to get close and certainly a bad idea to try to snatch it from them.
From the standpoint of Labour constituencies like Corbyn's own in North London, taking The
City down a peg or three would possibly be a means of relief, but if any Brexit negotiating "event"
triggered an exodus of financial sector players the immediate political fallout would be akin
to the sky falling and certainly would cause consternation among Tory donor groups not that supportive
of May's brand. And, failing to invoke Article 50 is likely to be corrosive to the Tories in ways
that benefit Labour as much as the Liberal Democrats only if Labour refrains from expressions
of hostility to Leave voters - a point too subtle for some Blairites, apparently.
There are a lot of different ways for Brexit to sink the Tory ship. May could be forced to
procrastinate on invoking Article 50. Invoking Article 50 by Royal Prerogative could bring on
a constitutional crisis, or at least a dispute over whether Article 50 has been invoked at all
in a way that satisfies the Treaty. Having invoked, the EU may well step in their own dog poop,
with overtly hostile or simply opportunistic gambits, underestimating the costs imo but otherwise
as JQ suggests.
The whole negotiating scheme will almost certainly run aground on sheer complexity and the
unworkable system of decision-making in the European Council. That could result in procrastination
in an endless series of extensions that keep Britain effectively in for years and years. Or, one
side or both could just let the clock run out, with or without formally leaving negotiations.
Meanwhile, at home, in addition to The City, Scotland and Ireland are going to be nervous, possibly
hysterical.
I suppose if you think the EU is fine just as it is, it is easy to overlook the glaring defects
in its design, particularly the imperviousness to reformist, adaptive politics. The EU looks to
go down with the neoliberal ship - hell, it is the neoliberal ship! I suppose the sensible Labour
position on the EU would be a set of reform proposals that would paper over different viewpoints
within the Labour Party, but that is not possible, because EU reform is not possible, which is
why Brexit is the agenda. Corbyn's instincts seem right to me; Labour should not prematurely oppose
Brexit alienating Leave voters nor should it start a love-fest for an EU that might very shortly
make itself very ugly toward Britain.
The Euro certainly and the EU itself may well break before the next General Election in Britain
opening up policy possibilities for Tories or Labour that can scarcely be imagined now. It is
not inconceivable to me that Scandanavia, Netherlands and Switzerland might be persuaded to form
a downsized EU2 sans Euro with Britain and a reluctant Ireland.
In my view, Corbyn as a political personality is something of a stopped clock, but as others
have pointed out, Labour like other center-left neoliberal parties have been squandering all their
credibility in post-modern opportunism. A stopped clock is right more often than one perpetually
fast or slow.
Labour has a chance to remake itself as a membership party while the Tories play with Brexit
c4 (PE-4). Membership support is what distinguishes Labour from the Liberals and transforming
Labour into a new Liberal party is apparently what Blair had in mind. Let Brexit mature as an
issue and let Labour try out the alternative model of an active membership base.
I wasn't aware that I was supposed to organize the opposition.
You're not, of course. But when you wrote 'I have no idea why nobody does it', it wasn't immediately
clear to me that what you meant was 'I have no idea why the Labour leadership doesn't do it' (where
'it' referred back to 'hit them over the head with this', and 'them' referred back to 'the vast
majority of people' and 'this' referred back to 'the fact that the Tories have no idea at all
what they are doing and their policies are not in the interest of the vast majority of people').
There are people making statements daily about how what the Tories are doing is not in the
interest of the vast majority of people; but with what effect?
Seriously, I don't see that.
Perhaps that's a result of where you've chosen to look. Seriously, where have you looked? have
you, for example, looked at the Labour Party's website?
Igor Belanov
If you think Labour is just as evil as the Conservatives, then obviously you have no motivation
to support Labour against the Conservatives.
Is that what you think, that Labour is just as evil as the Conservatives?
Sidenote to J-D @ 8 on parties with religious identification
The disappearance of religious affiliation or identity as an organizing principle in Europe
is interesting. You might recall that the British Tory Party was an Anglican Party, committed
to establishment and the political disability of Catholics and Dissenters, as defining elements
of their credo. Despite the extreme decline in religious observance in Britain, I imagine there
remain strong traces of religious identity in British party identification patterns.
Elsewhere in Europe, the Greek Orthodox Church plays a political role in Greece and Cyprus,
though the current SYRIZA government is somewhat anti-clerical. Anti-clerical doctrines have been
revived in France by tensions with Muslims.
Are we Remainers making a simple
mistake about Brexit?
What I mean is that we think of
Brexit in consequentialist terms – its effects upon
trade
, productivity
and
growth
. But many Brexiters instead regard Brexit as an
intrinsic good, something desirable in itself in which
consequences are of secondary importance.
Thinking of Brexit in this way
explains a lot of otherwise strange behaviour:
- Why the Tories have a big poll
lead even though voters
think
they're doing a lousy job of managing the Brexit
process. If you think Brexit is worth having for its own sake,
then you'll be pleased the Tories are getting on with it,
because a second-best Brexit is better than none.
- Why most Brexiters had no plan
for the process. They just weren't thinking in consequentialist
terms.
- Why Theresa May says "Brexit
means Brexit". To consequentialists, this is pure gibberish.
From the perspective of those who want Brexit as a matter of
principle, it's not: it's an assurance they'll get what they
want.
- Why
preparations
for
Brexit
are so
chaotic
. If you regard Brexit as an intrinsic good, then
it's not so important how we achieve it. Of course, there are
good and less good types of Brexit. But if you prefer to
satisfice than optimize, this isn't necessarily decisive.
= Why the government is
offering ad hoc support to businesses likely to be hit by
Brexit, be it handouts to
Nissan
or assurances to farmers that they'll still be able
to hire cheap foreign
labour
. There isn't a systematic plan here or conception of
what Brexit should look like, just one-by-one attempts to buy
off specific discontents.
- Why technocrats and Brexiters
have a mutual incomprehension and loathing. Technocrats haven't
grasped that because Brexit is a good in itself, the process of
achieving it is a secondary detail. And Brexiters have had
enough of experts because they are irrelevant as consequences
(up to a point) don't much matter.
Of course, Brexiters might well
be under-estimating those consequences. But if so, they are not
the first people whose wishful thinking causes them to
under-estimate the force of Isaiah Berlin's
point (pdf)
that "some among the great goods cannot live
together".
All this poses the question: what
is the nature of this intrinsic good? I suspect it's to do with
self-image. Brexiters want to think of themselves as independent
people free of the yoke of Brussels, an image that trumps
technocratic consequentialist considerations – or at least is
incommensurable with them. The fact that many cannot
say
what exactly they'll be free to do after Brexit isn't
important: freedom can be desired for its own sake.
In this sense, Brexit is another
form of identity politics. Remainers who complain about its
adverse effects might be making a point that satisfies
themselves, but not one that has much influence upon many of
their opponents. As with so much identity politics, we're left
with a rather futile dialogue of the deaf.
Blissex |
January 08, 2017 at 01:32 PM
Looking at it as to the long run, "Leave" is a reverberation of
the impact of England's (and France's) defeat in WW2. Losing
that war became undeniable (for some) and at the same time
insufferable (for others) with the strategic defeat at Suez.
My
usual humorous take on the "self-image" aspect is that if the EU
were merely renamed "The English Empire of Great Britain and the
Continent" and Her Majesty were appointed as its figurehead and
opened each year the proceedings of the Imperial Parliament in
Strasbourg or Brussels, with no substantial changes, a lot of
"Leavers" would stop objecting...
:-)
One would have also to rename the European Commission as
the "HM Imperial Civil Service" and the Council of EU ministers
as "HM Imperial Council" :-).
The Daily Mail would then have fawning articles like
"Imperial Lead Minister Angela Merkel attends HM's speech at the
Imperial Parliament's opening in Brussels" and "Boris Johnson,
Imperial Commissioner for Entertainment, reports to the English
Parliament the success of the Imperial Council's policy of
banana standardization that he has promoted". :-)
"May says "Brexit means Brexit". To consequentialists, this is
pure gibberish."
Well, maybe, but for my "Remain" and
mostly-consequentialist ears it clearly means "Article 50", that
is no second referendum, no fudging with a treaty revision. Then
once Article 50 is invoked, everything else is up for grabs, but
Article 50 is the point-of-no-return that "Leavers" want to be
reassured about.
The Leavers from all voting analysis were less educated, more
rural , less prosperous and definitely older voters. They
swallowed the Brexit Tabloid media which distorted all things EU
, immigrant and economic. Now as we exit 500 million other
consumers and undo 45 years we shall know the full consequences.
Is it that the English and Welsh are just politically,
economically and socially less educated than other Northern and
Western Europeans. I think so- our tabloid media and supplicant
'Daily Express on legs' BBC is likely the worst in EU.
Spot on. Sums up this leaver's position very well. EU membership
is a historic error for the island nation, and it is well worth
paying a price to correct that error.
it
is so interesting to note that Brexiteers and Remainers seem to
be living in parallel universes with regards to the Brexit
narrative. Here in the article again: Brexiteers DO NOT see the
brexit process as being chaotic at all. This is entirely a
remainer view, not shared by brexiteers (i.e. the majority of
voters).
Yes. This would also perhaps partly explain the dishonesty with
respect to campaigning by the Leavers. The truth (or at least,
rational good faith argument) to them is less important than the
act of leaving in itself.
They see it as a fight, they want to
have a sense of the UK gaining autonomy and control, and to hell
with the consequences. I suspect this 'us vs them' identity
politics has grown out of the financial crisis and austerity.
"
- Why most Brexiters had no plan for the process. They just
weren't thinking in consequentialist terms."
They were
absolutely thinking in consequential terms:
They believed £350M a week would go to NHS etc. They believed
the EU/Euro was about to collapse and UK was better to leave
asap. They believed 400-600K immigrants would arrive each year,
for ever, and housing, medical treatment etc. would be
impossible to achieve. Those in non-immigrant areas believed
they would be next in the migrant wave queue. They believed they
had the power to eject non-performing MPs at elections. They
believed that UK would thrive once free of the EU. The Tories
are delivering all that for them.
What they do not want to believe, so will not easily change
their minds, is that the Government only wants to control
migration - not reduce it. That no one will lose their jobs, and
jobs will become even more soul destroying. That housing will be
even scarcer and more costly. That proper training and career
progression is a thing of the past. That primacy will not be
revived and they will not be first in the queue for everything.
That neither the Conservative nor Labour parties will do a thing
for the left behind and JAMs.
Once they do realise they have been taken for a ride yet
again, the anger may flow over into extremes.
Many Brexiteers, when arguing for Brexit, flip backwards and
forwards between consequentialist arguments and arguments for
Brexit as an intrinsic good. As Dominic Cummings admits, "Leave"
would not have won if they hadn't lied about the money that
could be spent in the NHS and the status of Turkey - and,
apparently, the facts that these were lies doesn't bother him.
It's bizarre, though, how a newspaper like the Daily Mail
spent 10 years pre-1973 campaigning for entry to the Common
Market and now finds everything European to be suspect. Does it
really think that neighbouring countries in Europe, that share
many of our traditions and culture, are really less congenial
trading partners than other global trading states?
"Many Brexiteers, when arguing for Brexit, flip backwards and
forwards between consequentialist arguments and arguments for
Brexit as an intrinsic good."
They are addressing both of
their main constituencies...
"neighbouring countries in Europe, that share many of our
traditions and culture, are really less congenial trading
partners than other global trading states?"
For "self-image" based "Leavers", giving up a global empire
to be just one of many "neighbouring countries" in a mere
regional alliance is simply foolish or a betrayal; the economic
or trade aspect is not that important.
For consequentialist "Leavers" trade/immigration matters but
negatively, and they weren't given an opportunity to vote
against global trade/immigration making them poorer, only
against east european trade/immigration making them poorer. They
surely would have voted against too much trade/immigration with
the other "global trading states" though.
"They believed 400-600K immigrants would arrive each year, for
ever,"
That was the big hope of the rentier/neoliberal voters
and politicians in both New Labour and Conservatives: to replace
ever more the native "uppity, lazy, exploitative" low-income
classes with ever larger numbers of docile cheap non voting
servants.
"and housing, medical treatment etc. would be impossible to
achieve."
The rentier/neoliberal voters and politicians never had such
concerns: they would be very happy to pack immigrants 4-8 to a
room everywhere paying top rents and give them minimal access to
a cut-down NHS.
"Those in non-immigrant areas believed they would be next in
the migrant wave queue."
* Those in rich non-immigration areas are simply outraged
that foreigners can move and work to *their* England without
begging for a visa. They have the attitude of landlords who want
to make sure their tenants understand that they can throw them
out anytime.
* Those in poor non-immigration areas often do look for jobs
in rich immigration areas know very well how much of a
competition even poorer eastern europeans are for jobs in rich
immigration areas. Even many polish immigrants complain about
the romanians after all.
During his recent visit to Turkey our
darling Boris Johnson stated that the UK government supported
visa-free travel for turks and EU membership for Turkey.
Probably this was said a bit mischievously, but the prospect
of a mass immigration of millions of docile cheap turkish
servants and workers make the UK (and EU) property and business
owners very excited.
They know how much money the german property and business
owners made in the 1950-1970s from cheap docile turkish "guest
workers", and are envious of the potential massive profits
today's german property and business owners are going to make
from the "syrian" refugees.
Blissex: "That was the big hope of the rentier/neoliberal voters
and politicians in both New Labour and Conservatives: to replace
ever more the native "uppity, lazy, exploitative" low-income
classes with ever larger numbers of docile cheap non voting
servants."
Agreed, when we consider British anti-poor
political rhetoric, the above does really seem to follow quite
naturally.
And I'd agree it's vital in this analysis to explicitly
identify the political class as the rentier/neoliberal class.
And I'm not even remotely a Marxist btw. It's just fact.
"explicitly identify the political class as the
rentier/neoliberal class. And I'm not even remotely a Marxist
btw."
The irony is that instead many in that
"rentier/neoliberal class" are pretty much marxists, in the
sense that they have come to much the same analysis as Karl
himself, the difference being their point of view as
beneficiaries.
FORD CITY, Pa. - He is old and gray now, he struggles
sometimes to hear, but if he closes his eyes the burly man
can easily conjure that young boy again, a lad at work in a
bustling factory that for a century formed the strong,
straight economic backbone of this proud industrial borough.
"We were poor, but we didn't realize it because all our
neighbors were, too,'' Paul Hromadik said as he gazed across
a rainy town common here at what used to be the Pittsburgh
Plate Glass works.
In 1953, Hromadik was among thousands who flooded through
a pedestrian tunnel at the corner of Third Avenue and Ninth
Street and into the glassworks. He made rear windows for cars
and trucks before he left for a stint in the Army and then a
life as a power company supervisor, father, and grandfather.
"This town is dying now,'' the 81-year-old Hromadik said
softly. "All the young people are moving out.''
That Pittsburgh Plate Glass plant is long gone, an early
harbinger of an economic collapse that has decimated the
region's manufacturing base and fueled a resentment,
particularly acute among white working-class voters, that has
become an emblem of Donald Trump's America.
And that's why I am here along the banks of the Allegheny
River, talking to Hromadik and others like him. I have
cowered under the covers long enough. Denial does no one any
good. Donald Trump is going to put his left hand on the Bible
in a couple weeks and repeat the oath of office administered
by Chief Justice John Roberts.
I do not live in Donald Trump's America, but I aim to
learn from those who do. I've rented a sturdy car. I've
enlisted a wingman with serious driving chops. And I've
pointed myself west to the land Trump found so fertile and
tilled with such skill and in a rough-shod style all his own.
West beyond Hartford. West over the Hudson River. West
through snow-dusted farmlands and tree-studded mountains and
along the vast interstate highway system named for another
Republican and political newcomer, Dwight Eisenhower.
Trump lost the popular vote, but he won the land, 3
million square miles and 80 percent of the nation's counties.
This is one of them. Forty miles northeast of Pittsburgh,
Ford City's population of 3,000 is about half the number who
lived here a century ago, when John B. Ford built what was
said to be one of the planet's biggest plate-glass factories.
There is a statue of Ford in the central park where he
stands forever staring at the factory that once was a roaring
economic engine but is now a hulking and empty reminder that
this is a city whose glory days are in the rear-view mirror.
It's not difficult to understand the appeal here of Trump,
who shakes his fist at foreign economic interlopers and
pledges at every turn to make America great again.
Make Ford City great again? That's what has Sheri Humenik
animated these days.
I encountered her at the local library last week, where
she was replenishing the racks of magazines and periodicals
and evangelizing about the beauty and the allure of
small-town life.
"I believe in this community,'' said Humenik, a
40-something full-time mom and part-time pharmacist. "This
town is the best-kept secret. Where Pittsburgh Plate Glass
was would be the perfect place for some new high-tech
business. It would bring our town back to life.''
All of Armstrong County could certainly use a lift.
Downsizing bulletins from local employers are routine. The
economic decline has been paralleled by the fading fortunes
of the local Democratic Party, whose members outnumbered
Republicans until 12 years ago. Republicans now dominate,
20,600 to 15,880. "For every Armstrong County Republican that
became a Democrat since January, three Democrats have gone in
the opposite direction,'' the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
reported last spring.
That trend does not surprise people like Humenik, who grew
up here and intends to stay put. Trump's message, she said,
was a warm and welcome salve.
"I felt like that he wants to revitalize places just like
this,'' she told me. "He wants to invest in people. He brings
a fire that has reignited hope in people. We need investments
in the small towns, not just the big cities. The small towns
are suffering. We need to recognize the hidden gems and bring
them back. I'm upbeat. I'm encouraged. I'm looking forward.''
I nearly looked over my shoulder to see if someone from
the Trump communications office was getting all of this on
film. It was so perfectly rendered. And it all felt so
genuine, which is going to take some getting used to. Because
back where I live, there you don't run into many who would
say out loud what she just did, even if they think it. And
there are plenty of disbelievers who can't bear the thought
of a President Trump.
And, truth be told, you don't have to look very far to
find them here either. The Trump-is-a-snake-oil-salesman
caucus is alive and well on the steps of the county
courthouse, where attorney Chuck Pascal has sneaked outside
for a late-morning smoke as a soft rain falls over
Kittanning, the Armstrong County seat.
"These are dangerous times,'' said Pascal, a former
Leechburg mayor and a member of the Democratic State
Committee. "I don't think Trump knows anything and I don't
think he knows that he doesn't know anything.''
But Pascal understands the allure of Trump. Comfortable
blue-collar jobs are gone. There's been an exodus of the
professional class. People wanted change. They were willing
to roll the dice on Trump.
Pascal, a Bernie Sanders supporter and delegate, knows it
is now wasted breath to dissect and analyze what went so
wrong. Hillary Clinton "was such a horrible candidate, and
now we're all going to suffer for it,'' he said. "I've never
been scared before, but this is so scary to me.''
It's scary to me, too. But that's not why I'm here. I want
reassurance that everything is going to work out fine. I want
to understand why so many of my fellow Americans have
embraced a man whose every Cabinet appointment seems like a
middle finger fiercely extended to the non-adherents he calls
enemies.
It's time to jump back into the SUV. It's a big red
country out there.
"What do you think? Ohio? Michigan?" I ask my monosyllabic
wingman.
Last week we were
surprised to learn that demand for hotel rooms at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in
Davos, where the world's billionaires, CEOs, politicians, celebrities and oligarchs mingle every
year (while regaled by their public relations teams known as the "media", for whom getting an invite
to the DJ event du jour is more important than rocking the boat by asking unpleasant questions) was
so great, not only are hotel rooms running out, but local employees may be put up in
shipping containers in car parks to free up much needed accommodations.
This scramble to attend what has traditionally been perceived as the hangout for those who have
benefited the most from "peak globalization" was in some ways surprising: coming after a year in
which "populism" emerged as a dominant global force, while sending establishment politics, legacy
policies and even globalization reeling, the message - in terms of lessons learned from 2016 - sent
to the masses from the world's 0.1% was hardly enlightened.
However, while most Davos participants remain tone deaf, one person has gotten the message loud
and clear.
According to
Reuters
, German Chancellor Angela Merkel - who faces a crucial election this year as she runs for her
4th term as German chancellor amid sagging approval ratings - is steering clear of the World Economic
Forum in Davos, a meeting expected to be dominated by debate over the looming presidency of Donald
Trump "and rising public anger with elites and globalization", which is ironic because just two years
prior, the topic was rising wealth inequality which the world's billionaires blasted, lamented and,
well, got even richer as nothing at all changed. What is surprising about Merkel's absence in 2017
is that the Chancellor has been a regular at the annual gathering of political leaders, CEOs and
celebrities, traveling to the snowy resort in the Swiss Alps seven times since becoming chancellor
in 2005. But her spokesman told Reuters she had decided not to attend for a second straight year.
This year's conference runs from Jan. 17-20 under the banner "Responsive and Responsible Leadership".
Trump's inauguration coincides with the last day of the conference.
"It's true that a Davos trip was being considered, but we never confirmed it, so this is not a
cancellation," the spokesman said.
Reuters adds that this is the first time Merkel has missed Davos two years in a row since taking
office over 11 years ago and her absence may come as a disappointment to the organizers because her
reputation as a steady, principled leader fits well with the theme of this year's conference.
There was little additional information behind her continued absencea the government spokesman
declined to say what scheduling conflict was preventing her from attending, nor would it say whether
the decision might be linked to the truck attack on a Berlin Christmas market that killed 12 people
in mid-December.
The reason for her absence, however, may be far more prosaic: as Reuters echoes what we said previously,
"after the Brexit vote in Britain and the election of Trump were attributed to rising public anger
with the political establishment and globalization, leaders may be more reluctant than usual to travel
to a conference at a plush ski resort that has become synonymous with the global elite. "
Another potential complication is that this year's Davod event concludes just hours before Trump's
inauguration. As a result, one European official suggested to Reuters that "the prospect of having
to address questions about Trump days before he enters the White House might also have dissuaded
Merkel, whose politics is at odds with the president-elect on a broad range of issues, from immigration
and trade, to Russia and climate change."
During the U.S. election campaign, Trump described Merkel's refugee policies as "insane". Like
Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, who announced in early December that he would not seek
a second term next year, will not be in Davos.
Most other European political leaders are expected to be present, despite the furious changes
in Europe's political landscape in the past year: the Forum had hoped to lure Matteo Renzi, but he
resigned as Italian prime minister last month. European leaders that are expected include Mark Rutte
of the Netherlands and Enda Kenny of Ireland. British Prime Minister Theresa May could also be there.
German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, who was elected to the WEF board of trustees last
year, is expected to attend, as are senior ministers from a range of other European countries, as
well as top figures from the European Commission.
Members of Donald Trump's team, including Davos regulars like former Goldman Sachs president Gary
Cohn and fund manager Anthony Scaramucci, are also expected. Reuters reminds us that WEF Chairman
Klaus Schwab was invited to Trump Tower last month, although the purpose of the visit was unclear.
Although the WEF does not comment on which leaders it is expecting until roughly a week before
the meeting, the star attraction is expected to be Xi Jinping, the first Chinese president to attend.
Meanwhile, it is was highly unlikely that the one person everyone would like to seek answers from
at Davos, Russian president Vladimir Putin, will be present.
This is an interesting development. Despite the use of epithets like "cunt" and "bitch" in the
oh, so valuable discussion contributions above, the German head of state is quite astute and living
in the real world. She has decided that association with the most elite of global meetings is
a negative. Don't you consider that significant?
Hardly. There are "leaks" of German Govt cables to NDR revealing how far Juncker obstructed crackdown
on corporate tax evasion when PM of Luxembourg. Clear indication Germany wants Juncker gone before
BreXit negotiations start and Wilders gains votes in NL in March.
1st Quarter in Europe is dynamite.
Davos is fluff and irrelevant.
Once UK SC delivers opinion in Jan 2017 there is a 1-line Bill to go through both Houses of
Parliament. If the Lords blocks the Bill it will lead to a 1910 Constitutional Crisis and either
Election, or abolition of House of Lords. UK is especially volatile in 2017 especially if Queen
dies.
Merkel sees nothing but danger ahead. Ukraine will probably implode and set of a refugee wave
into Germany. Turkey could well crash and burn. UK is going to be a very difficult situation.
33% French farmers reportedly earning <350 Euros/month as exports to Russia collapsed. French
election could be volatile. Italy is heading for meltdown.
Merkel is going to burn - she has failed to head off any problem
Davos doesn't care about politicians. Politicians are merely banker's puppets. Look
no further than Trump. He gets to be POTUS and what is his first act of business?
To put Goldman Sachs in charge of his Treasury and put JP Morgan in charge of White House policy.
If anyone thinks a politician will change anything, you are wrong. The banks make the
orders and plans, everything else is theatre.
It's been said that the captain of the Titanic was drunk before the ship struck the iceberg.
Given the above, maybe the Davosians are also equally intoxicated as they helm an economic ship
that's about to go under. Whether it's by psychotropics or just plain hubris, they certainly
don't seem to understand the depth of the danger they are in.
I wonder what facts you have to label Trump's team "globalist shills".
Robert W. Merry in his National Interest article disagrees with you
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-vs-hillary-nationalism-vs-globalism-2016-16041
=== start of the quote ===
Globalists captured much of American society long ago by capturing the bulk of the nation's elite
institutions -- the media, academia, big corporations, big finance, Hollywood, think tanks, NGOs,
charitable foundations. So powerful are these institutions -- in themselves and, even more so,
collectively -- that the elites running them thought that their political victories were complete
and final. That's why we have witnessed in recent years a quantum expansion of social and political
arrogance on the part of these high-flyers.
Then along comes Donald Trump and upends the whole thing. Just about every major issue that this
super-rich political neophyte has thrown at the elites turns out to be anti-globalist and pro-nationalist.
And that is the single most significant factor in his unprecedented and totally unanticipated
rise. Consider some examples:
Immigration: Nationalists believe that any true nation must have clearly delineated and protected
borders, otherwise it isn't really a nation. They also believe that their nation's cultural heritage
is sacred and needs to be protected, whereas mass immigration from far-flung lands could undermine
the national commitment to that heritage.
Globalists don't care about borders. They believe the nation-state is obsolete, a relic of
the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which codified the recognition of co-existing nation states.
Globalists reject Westphalia in favor of an integrated world with information, money, goods
and people traversing the globe at accelerating speeds without much regard to traditional concepts
of nationhood or borders.
=== end of the quote ===
I wonder how "globalist shills" mantra correlates with the following Trump's statements:
=== start of quote ===
"Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but
it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters
during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.
In a speech devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again," Trump offered a
series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called [Obama] "failed trade policies"
- including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations
and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico,
withdrawing from it if necessary.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would pursue bilateral trade agreements
rather than multi-national deals like TPP and NAFTA.
In addition to appointing better trade negotiators and stepping up punishment of countries
that violate trade rules, Trump's plans would also target one specific economic competitor: China.
He vowed to label China a currency manipulator, bring it before the World Trade Organization and
consider slapping tariffs on Chinese imports coming into the U.S.
"... We have a dollar democracy that protects the economic interest of the elite class while more than willing to let working class families lose their homes and jobs on the back end of wide scale mortgage fraud. Then the fraud was perpetuated in the mortgage default process just to add insult to injury. ..."
"... One thing that Trump certainly got wrong that no one ever points out is that there is a lot more murder than rape crossing the Mexican-American border in the drug cartel operations ..."
"... The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. People's actual experience in their lives has been different. ..."
"... Centrist Democrat partisans with their increasinly ineffectual defenses of the establishment say it's only about racism and xenophobia, but it's more than that. ..."
Assaults on democracy are working because our current political elites have no idea how to
defend it.
[There are certainly good points to this article, but the basic assumption that our electorally
representative form of republican government is the ideal incarnation of the democratic value
set is obviously incorrect. We have a dollar democracy that protects the economic interest of
the elite class while more than willing to let working class families lose their homes and jobs
on the back end of wide scale mortgage fraud. Then the fraud was perpetuated in the mortgage default
process just to add insult to injury.
One thing that Trump certainly got wrong that no one ever points out is that there is a lot
more murder than rape crossing the Mexican-American border in the drug cartel operations:<) ]
The author fails to mention the Sanders campaign. An elderly socialist Jew from Brooklyn was able
to win 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to Clinton's 55%.
This despite a nasty, hostile campaign against him and his supporters by the Clinton campaign
and corporate media.
There's also Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Podemos, Syriza, etc.
Italy's 5 Star movement demonstrates a hostility to technocrats as well.
The author doesn't really focus on how the technocrats have failed.
The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. People's actual experience
in their lives has been different.
Trump scapegoated immigrants and trade, as did Brexit, but what he really did was channel hostility
and hatred at the elites and technocrats running the country.
Centrist Democrat partisans with their increasinly ineffectual defenses of the establishment
say it's only about racism and xenophobia, but it's more than that.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Peter K.... , -1
"Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but
it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters
during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.
In a speech devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again," Trump offered a series
of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called "failed trade policies" - including rejection
of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would pursue bilateral trade agreements
rather than multi-national deals like TPP and NAFTA.
In addition to appointing better trade negotiators and stepping up punishment of countries that violate
trade rules, Trump's plans would also target one specific economic competitor: China. He vowed to
label China a currency manipulator, bring it before the World Trade Organization and consider slapping
tariffs on Chinese imports coming into the U.S.
Fred C. Dobbs -> Peter K....
December 26, 2016 at 07:15 AM neopopulism: A cultural and political movement, mainly in Latin
American countries, distinct from twentieth-century populism in radically combining classically opposed
left-wing and right-wing attitudes and using electronic media as a means of dissemination. (Wiktionary)
"... Democratic party under Bill Clinton became yet another neoliberal party (soft neoliberals) and betrayed both organized labour and middle class in favour of financial oligarchy. ..."
"... The cynical calculation was that "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrats anyway. And that was true up to and including election of "change we can believe in" guy. After this attempt of yet another Clinton-style "bait and switch" trick failed. ..."
"... Now it is clear that far right picked up large part of those votes. So in a way Bill Clinton is the godfather of the US far right renaissances. The same is true for Hillary: her "kick the can down the road" stance made victory of Trump possible (although it surprised me; I expected that neoliberals were still strong enough to push their candidate down the US people throat) ..."
"... Under "democrat" Obama the USA pursued imperial policy of creating global neoliberal empire. The foreign policy remained essentially unchanged. Neocons were partially replaced with "liberal interventionists" which is the same staff in a different bottle. This policy costs the US tremendous amount of money and it is probable that the US is going the way British empire went -- overextending itself. ..."
"... Regional currency blocks are now a reality and arrangements bypass the usage of US dollar if international trade are common. They are now in place between several large countries such as Russia and China and absolutely nothing can reverse this trend. So dollar became virtualized -- a kind of "conversion gauge" but without profits for real conversion national currency to dollars for major TBTF banks. ..."
This Washington Post article on Poland - where a right-wing, anti-intellectual, nativist party
now rules, and has garnered a lot of public support - is chilling for those of us who worry that
Trump_vs_deep_state may really be the end of the road for US democracy. The supporters of Law and Justice
clearly looked a lot like Trump's white working class enthusiasts; so are we headed down the same
path?
(In Poland, a window on what happens when
populists come to power http://wpo.st/aHJO2
Washington Post - Anthony Faiola - December 18)
Well, there's an important difference - a bit of American exceptionalism, if you like. Europe's
populist parties are actually populist; they pursue policies that really do help workers, as long
as those workers are the right color and ethnicity. As someone put it, they're selling a herrenvolk
welfare state. Law and Justice has raised minimum wages and reduced the retirement age; France's
National Front advocates the same things.
Trump, however, is different. He said lots of things on the campaign trail, but his personnel
choices indicate that in practice he's going to be a standard hard-line economic-right Republican.
His Congressional allies are revving up to dismantle Obamacare, privatize Medicare, and raise
the retirement age. His pick for Labor Secretary is a fast-food tycoon
who loathes minimum wage hikes. And his pick for top economic advisor is the king of trickle-down.
So in what sense is Trump a populist? Basically, he plays one on TV - he claims to stand for
the common man, disparages elites, trashes political correctness; but it's all for show. When
it comes to substance, he's pro-elite all the way.
It's infuriating and dismaying that he managed to get away with this in the election. But that
was all big talk. What happens when reality begins to hit? Repealing Obamacare will inflict huge
harm on precisely the people who were most enthusiastic Trump supporters - people who somehow
believed that their benefits would be left intact. What happens when they realize their mistake?
I wish I were confident in a coming moment of truth. I'm not. Given history, what we can count
on is a massive effort to spin the coming working-class devastation as somehow being the fault
of liberals, and for all I know it might work. (Think of how Britain's Tories managed to shift
blame for austerity onto Labour's mythical fiscal irresponsibility.) But there is certainly an
opportunity for Democrats coming.
And the indicated political strategy is clear: make Trump and company own all the hardship
they're about to inflict. No cooperation in devising an Obamacare replacement; no votes for Medicare
privatization and increasing the retirement age. No bipartisan cover for the end of the TV illusion
and the coming of plain old, ugly reality.
Democratic party under Bill Clinton became yet another neoliberal party (soft neoliberals)
and betrayed both organized labour and middle class in favour of financial oligarchy.
The cynical calculation was that "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrats
anyway. And that was true up to and including election of "change we can believe in" guy. After
this attempt of yet another Clinton-style "bait and switch" trick failed.
Now it is clear that far right picked up large part of those votes. So in a way Bill Clinton
is the godfather of the US far right renaissances. The same is true for Hillary: her "kick the
can down the road" stance made victory of Trump possible (although it surprised me; I expected
that neoliberals were still strong enough to push their candidate down the US people throat)
Point 2:
Under "democrat" Obama the USA pursued imperial policy of creating global neoliberal empire.
The foreign policy remained essentially unchanged. Neocons were partially replaced with "liberal
interventionists" which is the same staff in a different bottle. This policy costs the US tremendous
amount of money and it is probable that the US is going the way British empire went -- overextending
itself.
Regional currency blocks are now a reality and arrangements bypass the usage of US dollar
if international trade are common. They are now in place between several large countries such
as Russia and China and absolutely nothing can reverse this trend. So dollar became virtualized
-- a kind of "conversion gauge" but without profits for real conversion national currency to dollars
for major TBTF banks.
So if we think about Iraq war as the way to prevent to use euro as alternative to dollar in
oil sales that goal was not achieved and all blood and treasure were wasted.
In this sense it would be difficult to Trump to continue with "bastard neoliberalism" both
in foreign policy and domestically and betray his election promises because they reflected real
problems facing the USA and are the cornerstone of his political support.
Also in this case neocons establishment will simply get rid of him one way or the other. I
hope that he understand this danger and will avoid trimming Social Security.
Returning to Democratic Party betrayal of interests of labour, Krugman hissy fit signifies
that he does not understand the current political situation. Neoliberal wing of Democratic Party
is now bankrupt both morally and politically. Trump election was the last nail into Bill Clinton
political legacy coffin.
Now we returned to essentially the same political process that took place after the Great Depression,
with much weaker political leaders, this time. So this is the time for stronger, more interventionist
in internal policy state and the suppression of financial oligarchy. If Trump does not understand
this he is probably doomed and will not last long.
That's why I think Trump inspired far right renaissance will continue and the political role
of military might dramatically increase. And politically Trump is the hostage of this renaissance.
Flint appointment in this sense is just the first swallow of increased role of military leaders
in government.
"... Democracy is inevitably going to clash with the demands of Globalization as they are opposite. Globalization requires entrepreneurs to search cheaper means of production worldwide. ..."
"... In practice, this means moving capital out of the USA. ..."
"... To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to make money. ..."
"... American capitalism from its very beginning was based on the assumption that what was good for business was good for America. Until 1929 it more or less worked. The robber barons were robbing other entrepreneurs and workers but at least they reinvested their ill gained profits in America. The crash of 1929 showed that the interests of Big Banks clashed with the interest of American society with devastating results. ..."
"... The decades after WWII have seen a slow and steady erosion of American superiority in technology and productivity and slow and steady flight of capital from the USA. Globalization has been undermining America. From the point of view of Global prosperity if it is cheaper to produce in China, production should relocate to China. From the point of view of American worker, this is treason, a policy destroying the United States as an industrial power, as a nation, and as a community of citizens. Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact. The vote for Donald Trump has been a protest against Globalization, immigration, open borders, capital flight, multiculturalism, liberalism and all the values American Liberal establishment has been preaching for 60 years that are killing the USA. ..."
"... Donald Trump wants to arrest the assault of Globalization on America. He promised to reduce taxes, and to attract business back to the USA. However, reduced taxes are only one ingredient in incentives. For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force, steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods, among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing. ..."
"... Dr. Brovkin is a historian, formerly a Harvard Professor of History. He has published several books and numerous articles on Russian History and Politics. Currently, Dr. Brovkin works and lives in Marrakech, Morocco. ..."
"... This is an interesting question: is it possible to contain neoliberal globalization by building walls, rejecting 'trade' agreement, and so on. I get the feeling that a direct attack may not work. Water will find a way, as they say. With a direct attack against globalization, what you're likely to face is major capital flight. ..."
In his election campaign Donald Trump has identified several key themes that defined American malaise.
He pointed to capital flight, bad trade deals, illegal immigration, and corruption of the government
and of the press. What is missing in Trump's diagnosis though is an explanation of this crisis. What
are the causes of American decline or as Ross Pero used to say: Let's look under the hood.
Most of the challenges America faces today have to do with two processes we call Globalization
and Sovietization. By Globalization we mean a process of externalizing American business thanks to
the doctrine of Free trade which has been up to now the Gospel of the establishment. By Sovietization
we mean a process of slow expansion of the role of the government in economy, education, business,
military, press, virtually any and every aspect of politics and society.
Let us start with Globalization.
Dani Rodrick (
The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy) has argued that
it is impossible to have democracy and globalization at the same time. Democracy is inevitably
going to clash with the demands of Globalization as they are opposite. Globalization requires entrepreneurs
to search cheaper means of production worldwide.
In practice, this means moving capital out of the USA. For fifty years economists have
been preaching Free trade, meaning that free unimpeded, no tariffs trade is good for America. And
it was in the 1950s, 60s and 1970s that American products were cheaper or better than those overseas.
Beginning with the 1970s, the process reversed. Globalization enriched the capitalists and impoverished
the rest of Americans. To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive
and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and
with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier
to make money.
American capitalism from its very beginning was based on the assumption that what was good
for business was good for America. Until 1929 it more or less worked. The robber barons were robbing
other entrepreneurs and workers but at least they reinvested their ill gained profits in America.
The crash of 1929 showed that the interests of Big Banks clashed with the interest of American society
with devastating results.
The decades after WWII have seen a slow and steady erosion of American superiority in technology
and productivity and slow and steady flight of capital from the USA. Globalization has been undermining
America. From the point of view of Global prosperity if it is cheaper to produce in China, production
should relocate to China. From the point of view of American worker, this is treason, a policy destroying
the United States as an industrial power, as a nation, and as a community of citizens. Donald Trump
is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact. The vote for Donald Trump
has been a protest against Globalization, immigration, open borders, capital flight, multiculturalism,
liberalism and all the values American Liberal establishment has been preaching for 60 years that
are killing the USA.
Donald Trump wants to arrest the assault of Globalization on America. He promised to reduce
taxes, and to attract business back to the USA. However, reduced taxes are only one ingredient in
incentives. For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force,
steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods,
among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing.
To fight Globalization Donald Trump announced in his agenda to drop or renegotiate NAFTA and TPP.
That is a step in the right direction. However, this will not be easy. There are powerful vested
interests in making money overseas that will put up great resistance to America first policy. They
have powerful lobbies and votes in the Congress and it is by far not certain if Trump will succeed
in overcoming their opposition.
Another step along these lines of fighting Globalization is the proposed building of the Wall
on Mexican border. That too may or may not work. Powerful agricultural interests in California have
a vested interest in easy and cheap labor force made up of illegal migrants. If their supply is cut
off they are going to hike up the prices on agricultural goods that may lead to inflation or higher
consumer prices for the American workers.
... ... ...
The Military: Americans are told they have a best military in the world. In fact, it is not the
best but the most expensive one in the world. According to the National priorities Project, in fiscal
2015 the military spending amounted to 54% of the discretionary spending in the
amount of 598.5 billion dollars . Of those almost 200 billion dollars goes for operations and
maintenance, 135 billion for military personnel and 90 billion for procurement (see
Here is How the US Military Spends its Billions )
American military industrial complex spends more that the next seven runners up combined. It is
a Sovietized, bureaucratic structure that exists and thrives on internal deals behind closed doors,
procurement process closed to public scrutiny, wasted funds on consultants, kickbacks, and outrageous
prices for military hardware. Specific investigations of fraud do not surface too often. Yet for
example, DoD Inspector General reported:
Why is it that an F35 fighter jet should cost 135 million apiece and the Russian SU 35 that can
do similar things is sold for 35 million dollars and produced for 15 million? The answer is that
the Congress operates on a principle that any price the military asks is good enough. The entire
system of military procurement has to be scrapped. It is a source of billions of stolen and wasted
dollars. The Pentagon budget of half a trillion a year is a drain on the economy that is unsustainable,
and what you get is not worth the money. The military industrial complex in America does not deliver
the best equipment or security it is supposed to.(on this see:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/cutting-waste-isnt-enough-curb-pentagon-spending-18640
)
Donald Trump was the first to his credit who raised the issue: Do we need all these bases overseas?
Do they really enhance American security? Or are they a waste of money for the benefit of other countries
who take America for a free ride. Why indeed should the US pay for the defense of Japan? Is Japan
a poor country that cannot afford to defend itself? Defense commitments like those expose America
to unnecessary confrontations and risk of war over issues that have nothing to do with America's
interests. Is it worth it to fight China over some uninhabitable islands that Japan claims? (See
discussion:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/should-the-us-continue-guarantee-the-security-wealthy-states-17720
)
Similarly, Trump is the first one to raise the question: What is the purpose of NATO? ( see discussion
of NATO utility:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-president-trump-renegotiate-the-nato-treaty-18647
) Yes the Liberal pro-Clinton media answer is: to defend Europe from Russian aggression. But
really what aggression? If the Russians wanted to they could have taken Kiev in a day two years ago.
Instead, they put up with the most virulently hostile regime in Kiev. Let us ask ourselves would
we have put up with a virulently anti-American regime in Mexico, a regime that would have announced
its intention to conclude a military alliance with China or Russia? Were we not ready to go to nuclear
war over Soviet missiles in Cuba? If we would not have accepted such a regime in Mexico, why do we
complain that the Russians took action against the new regime in Ukraine. Oh yes, they took Crimea.
But the population there is Russian, and until 1954 it was Russian territory and after Ukrainian
independence the Russians did not raise the issue of Crimea as Ukrainian territory and paid rent
for their naval base there The Russians took it over only when a hostile regime clamoring for NATO
membership settled in Kiev. Does that constitute Russian aggression or actually Russian limited response
to a hostile act? (see on this Steven Cohen:
http://eastwestaccord.com/podcast-stephen-f-cohen-talks-russia-israel-middle-east-diplomacy-steele-unger/
) As I have argued elsewhere Putin has been under tremendous pressure to act more decisively
against the neo-Nazis in Kiev. (see Vlad Brovkin: On Russian Assertiveness in Foreign Policy. (
http://eastwestaccord.com/?s=brovkin&submit=Search
)
With a little bit of patience and good will a compromise is possible on Ukraine through Minsk
accords. Moreover, Ukraine is not in NATO and as long as it is not admitted to NATO, a deal with
the Russians on Ukraine is feasible. Just like so many other pro-American governments, Ukraine wants
to milk Uncle Sam for what it is worth. They expect to be paid for being anti/Russian. (See discussion
on need of enemy:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/does-america-need-enemy-18106
) Would it not be a better policy to let Ukraine know that they are on their own: no more subsidies,
no more payments? Mend your relations with Russia yourselves. Then peace would immediately prevail.
If we admit that there is no Russian aggression and that this myth was propagated by the Neo/Cons
with the specific purpose to return to the paradigm of the cold war, i.e. more money for the military
industrial complex, if we start thinking boldly as Trump has begun, we should say to the Europeans:
go ahead, build your own European army to allay your fears of the Russians. Europe is strong enough,
rich enough and united enough to take care of its defense without American assistance. (See discussion
of Trumps agenda:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/course-correction-18062
)
So, if Trump restructures procurement mess, reduces the number of military bases overseas, and
invests in high tech research and development for the military on the basis of real competition,
hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved and the defense capability of the country would increase.
... ... ...
Dr. Brovkin is a historian, formerly a Harvard Professor of History. He has published several
books and numerous articles on Russian History and Politics. Currently, Dr. Brovkin works and lives
in Marrakech, Morocco.
This is a bit too much, Volodya. Maybe you should've taken one subject – globalization, for
example – and stop there.
This is an interesting question: is it possible to contain neoliberal globalization by
building walls, rejecting 'trade' agreement, and so on. I get the feeling that a direct attack
may not work. Water will find a way, as they say. With a direct attack against globalization,
what you're likely to face is major capital flight.
You might be able to make neoliberal globalization work for you (for your population, that
is), like Germany and the Scandinavians do, but that's a struggle, constant struggle. And it's
a competition; it will have to be done at the expense of other nations (see Greece, Portugal,
Central (eastern) Europe). And having an anti-neoliberal president is not enough; this would require
a major change, almost a U turn, in the whole governing philosophy. Forget the sanctity of 'free
market', start worshiping the new god: national interest
What an INTERESTING article -- So much that is right, so much that is wrong. An article you
can get your teeth into.
On globalisation: pretty spot-on (although I believe he exaggerates the US weakness in what he
calls "preconditions": there are still many well educated Americans, still good neighborhoods
(yes, sure it could be a lot better). He's against NAFTA & other neoliberal Trade self indulgences.
But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but
I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.
Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been
slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"
This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide
goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government
function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much
legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical
laws ?)
Of course, the author is correct on the US military-industrial complex: it is a sump of crime
& corruption. Yet he seems not to grasp that the problem is regulative capture. How is the Fiasco
of the F35 & MacDonald Douglas merely an issue for the Legislature alone & how does this circus
resemble the Soviet Union, beyond the fact that BOTH systems (like most systems) are capable of
gross negligence & corruption ?
I like what the author says about NATO, Japan, bases etc. Although he's a little naive if he
thinks NATO for instance is about "protecting" Europe. Yes, that's a part of it: but primarily
NATO etc exist as a tool/mask behind which the US can exert it's imperial ambitions against friend
& for alike.
The author does go off against welfare well that's to be expected: sadly I don't think he quite
gets the connection between globalisation & welfare .He also legitimately goes after tertiary
education, but seems to be (again) confused as to cause & effect.
The author is completely spot on with his sovietization analogy when he comes to the US security
state. Only difference between the Soviets & the US on security totalitarianism ? The US is much
better at it (of course the US has technological advantages unimaginable to the Soviets)
• Replies:
@Randal I agree with you that it's a fascinating piece, and I also agree with many of the points
you agree with.
But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but
I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.
Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they
have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"
This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide
goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government
function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much
legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical
laws ?)
I think part of the problem here might be a mistaken focus on "the government" as an independent
actor, when in reality it is just a mechanism whereby the rulers (whether they are a dictator,
a political party or an oligarchy or whatever), and those with sufficient clout to influence them,
get things done the way they want to see them done.
As such there is really not much difference between the government directly employing the people
who do things (state socialism), and the government paying money to companies to get the same
things done. Either way, those who use the government to get things done, get to say what gets
done and how. There are differences of nuance, in terms of organizational strengths and weaknesses,
degrees of corruption and of efficiency, but fundamentally it's all big government.
A more interesting question might be - how really different are these big government variants
from the small government systems, in which the rulers pay people directly to get things done
the way they want them to be done?
An excellent article. The points that resonated the most were:
For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force,
steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods,
among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing.
This is an enormously difficult problem that will take years to resolve, and it will need a
rethink of education from the ground up + the political will to fight the heart of Cultural Bolshevism
and the inevitable 24/7 Media assault.
Drain the swamp in Washington: ban the lobbyists, make it a crime to lobby for private interest
in a public place, restructure procurement, introduce real competition, restore capitalism,
phase out any government subsidies to Universities, force them to compete for students, force
hospitals to compete for patients. Cut cut cut expenditure everywhere possible, including welfare.
Banning lobbyists should be possible but draining the rest of the swamp looks really complicated.
Each area would need to be examined from the ground up from a value for money – efficiency viewpoint.
It doesn't matter which philosophy each one is run on – good value healthcare is desirable whichever
system produces it.
Could we have ever imagined in our worst dreams that a system of mass surveillance would
be created and perfected in the USA. (see discussion on this in: Surveillance State, in
http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/surveillance-state
This one should be easy. The Constitution guarantees a right to privacy so just shut down the
NSA. Also shut down the vast CIA mafia (it didn't exist prior to 1947) and the expensive and useless
FED (controlling the money supply isn't the business of a group of private banks – an office in
the Treasury could easily match the money supply to economic activity).
This one should be easy. The Constitution guarantees a right to privacy so just shut down the
NSA. Also shut down the vast CIA mafia (it didn't exist prior to 1947) and the expensive and useless
FED (controlling the money supply isn't the business of a group of private banks – an office in
the Treasury could easily match the money supply to economic activity).
From Unz, I have learned that the US actually has a four-part government: the "Deep State"
part which has no clear oversight from any of the other three branches.
To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came
into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the
capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to
make money.
Another add-on contradiction, comrade, is that the selfsame capitalist class expect their host
nation to defend their interests whenever threatened abroad. This entails using the resources
derived from the masses to enforce this protection including using the little people as cannon
fodder when deemed useful.
Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact.
Come now, do you really believe that all these politicians who have gone to these world-class
schools don't know this? They simply don't care. They're working on behalf of the .1% who are
their benefactors and who will make them rich. They did not go into politics to take vows of poverty.
They just realize the need to placate the masses with speeches written by professional speechwriters,
that's all.
Insofar as Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid goes, those are the most democratic institutions
of all. It's money spent on ourselves, internally, with money being cycled in and out at the grassroots
level. Doctors, nurses, home-care providers, etc etc, all local people get a piece of the action
unlike military spending which siphons money upwards to the upper classes.
I'd rather be employed in a government job than unemployed in the private sector. That's not
the kind of "freedom" I'm searching for comrade.
@animalogic What an INTERESTING article -- So much that is right, so much that is wrong. An
article you can get your teeth into.
On globalisation: pretty spot-on (although I believe he exaggerates the US weakness in what
he calls "preconditions": there are still many well educated Americans, still good neighborhoods
(yes, sure it could be a lot better). He's against NAFTA & other neoliberal Trade self indulgences.
But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but
I find the concept... incoherent...& suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.
Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they
have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"
This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide
goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government
function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much
legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical
laws ?)
Of course, the author is correct on the US military-industrial complex: it is a sump of crime
& corruption. Yet he seems not to grasp that the problem is regulative capture. How is the Fiasco
of the F35 & MacDonald Douglas merely an issue for the Legislature alone...& how does this circus
resemble the Soviet Union, beyond the fact that BOTH systems (like most systems) are capable of
gross negligence & corruption ?
I like what the author says about NATO, Japan, bases etc. Although he's a little naive if he
thinks NATO for instance is about "protecting" Europe. Yes, that's a part of it: but primarily
NATO etc exist as a tool/mask behind which the US can exert it's imperial ambitions ...against
friend & for alike.
The author does go off against welfare...well that's to be expected: sadly I don't think he quite
gets the connection between globalisation & welfare....He also legitimately goes after tertiary
education, but seems to be (again) confused as to cause & effect.
The author is completely spot on with his sovietization analogy when he comes to the US security
state. Only difference between the Soviets & the US on security totalitarianism ? The US is much
better at it (of course the US has technological advantages unimaginable to the Soviets)
I agree with you that it's a fascinating piece, and I also agree with many of the points you
agree with.
But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics,
but I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.
Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been
slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"
This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide
goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government
function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how
much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush
pharmaceutical laws ?)
I think part of the problem here might be a mistaken focus on "the government" as an independent
actor, when in reality it is just a mechanism whereby the rulers (whether they are a dictator,
a political party or an oligarchy or whatever), and those with sufficient clout to influence them,
get things done the way they want to see them done.
As such there is really not much difference between the government directly employing the people
who do things (state socialism), and the government paying money to companies to get the same
things done. Either way, those who use the government to get things done, get to say what gets
done and how. There are differences of nuance, in terms of organisational strengths and weaknesses,
degrees of corruption and of efficiency, but fundamentally it's all big government.
A more interesting question might be – how really different are these big government variants
from the small government systems, in which the rulers pay people directly to get things done
the way they want them to be done?
Donald Trump won the electoral college at least in part by promising to bring coal jobs
back to Appalachia and manufacturing jobs back to the Rust Belt. Neither promise can be honored
– for the most part we're talking about jobs lost, not to unfair foreign competition, but to
technological change. But a funny thing happens when people like me try to point that out:
we get enraged responses from economists who feel an affinity for the working people of the
afflicted regions – responses that assume that trying to do the numbers must reflect contempt
for regional cultures, or something.
Is this the right narrative? I am no longer comfortable with this line:
for the most part we're talking about jobs lost, not to unfair foreign competition, but
to technological change.
Try to place that line in context with this from
Noah Smith:
Then, in the 1990s and 2000s, the U.S opened its markets to Chinese goods, first with Most
Favored Nation trading status, and then by supporting China's accession to the WTO. The resulting
competition from cheap Chinese goods contributed to vast inequality in the United States, reversing
many of the employment gains of the 1990s and holding down U.S. wages. But this sacrifice on
the part of 90% of the American populace enabled China to lift its enormous population out
of abject poverty and become a middle-income country.
Was this "fair" trade? I think not. Let me suggest this narrative: Sometime during the
Clinton Administration, it was decided that an economically strong China was good for both the
globe and the U.S. Fair enough. To enable that outcome, U.S. policy deliberately sacrificed manufacturing
workers on the theory that a.) the marginal global benefit from the job gain to a Chinese worker
exceeded the marginal global cost from a lost US manufacturing job, b.) the U.S. was shifting
toward a service sector economy anyway and needed to reposition its workforce accordingly and
c.) the transition costs of shifting workers across sectors in the U.S. were minimal.
As a consequence – and through a succession of administrations – the US tolerated implicit
subsidies of Chinese industries, including national industrial policy designed to strip production
from the US.
And then there was the currency manipulation. I am always shocked when international economists
claim "fair trade," pretending that the financial side of the international accounts is irrelevant.
As if that wasn't a big, fat thumb on the scale. Sure, "currency manipulation" is running the
other way these days. After, of course, a portion of manufacturing was absorbed overseas. After
the damage is done.
Yes, technological change is happening. But the impact, and the costs, were certainly accelerated
by U.S. policy.
It was a great plan. On paper, at least. And I would argue that in fact points a and b above
were correct.
But point c. Point c was a bad call. Point c was a disastrous call. Point c helped deliver
Donald Trump to the Oval Office. To be sure, the FBI played its role, as did the Russians. But
even allowing for the poor choice of Hilary Clinton as the Democratic nominee (the lack of contact
with rural and semi-rural voters blinded the Democrats to the deep animosity toward their candidate),
it should never have come to this.
As the opioid epidemic sweeps through rural America, an ever-greater number of drug-dependent
newborns are straining hospital neonatal units and draining precious medical resources.
The problem has grown more quickly than realized and shows no signs of abating, researchers
reported on Monday. Their study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, concludes for the first time
that the increase in drug-dependent newborns has been disproportionately larger in rural areas.
The latest causalities in the opioid epidemic are newborns.
The transition costs were not minimal.
My take is that "fair trade" as practiced since the late 1990s created another disenfranchised
class of citizens. As if we hadn't done enough of that already. Then we weaponized those newly
disenfranchised citizens with the rhetoric of identity politics. That's coming back to bite us.
We didn't really need a white nationalist movement, did we?
Now comes the big challenge: What can we do to make amends? Can we change the narrative? And
here is where I agree with Paul Krugman:
Now, if we want to have a discussion of regional policies – an argument to the effect that
my pessimism is unwarranted – fine. As someone who is generally a supporter of government activism,
I'd actually like to be convinced that a judicious program of subsidies, relocating government
departments, whatever, really can sustain communities whose traditional industry has eroded.
The damage done is largely irreversible. In medium-size regions, lower relative housing
costs may help attract overflow from the east and west coast urban areas. And maybe a program
of guaranteed jobs for small- to medium-size regions combined with relocation subsidies for very
small-size regions could help. But it won't happen overnight, if ever. And even if you could reverse
the patterns of trade – which wouldn't be easy given the intertwining of global supply chains
– the winners wouldn't be the same current losers. Tough nut to crack.
Bottom Line: I don't know how to fix this either. But I don't absolve the policy community
from their role in this disaster. I think you can easily tell a story that this was one big policy
experiment gone terribly wrong.
Vladimir Putin's Valdai Speech at the XIII Meeting (Final Plenary Session) of the Valdai International
Discussion Club (Sochi, 27 October 2016)
As is his usual custom, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the final session
of the annual Valdai International Discussion Club's 13th meeting, held this year in Sochi, before
an audience that included the President of Finland Tarja Halonen and former President of South Africa
Thabo Mbeki. The theme for the 2016 meeting and its discussion forums was "The Future in Progress:
Shaping the World of Tomorrow" which as Putin noted was very topical and relevant to current developments
and trends in global politics, economic and social affairs.
Putin noted that the previous year's Valdai Club discussions centred on global problems and crises,
in particular the ongoing wars in the Middle East; this fact gave him the opportunity to summarise
global political developments over the past half-century, beginning with the United States' presumption
of having won the Cold War and subsequently reshaping the international political, economic and social
order to conform to its expectations based on neoliberal capitalist assumptions. To that end, the
US and its allies across western Europe, North America and the western Pacific have co-operated in
pressing economic and political restructuring including regime change in many parts of the world:
in eastern Europe and the Balkans, in western Asia (particularly Afghanistan and Iraq) and in northern
Africa (Libya). In achieving these goals, the West has either ignored at best or at worst exploited
international political, military and economic structures, agencies and alliances to the detriment
of these institutions' reputations and credibility around the world. The West also has not hesitated
to dredge and drum up imaginary threats to the security of the world, most notably the threat of
Russian aggression and desire to recreate the Soviet Union on former Soviet territories and beyond,
the supposed Russian meddling in the US Presidential elections, and apparent Russian hacking and
leaking of emails related to failed US Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's conduct as
US Secretary of State from 2008 to 2012.
After his observation of current world trends as they have developed since 1991, Putin queries
what kind of future we face if political elites in Washington and elsewhere focus on non-existent
problems and threats, or on problems of their own making, and ignore the very real issues and problems
affecting ordinary people everywhere: issues of stability, security and sustainable economic development.
The US alone has problems of police violence against minority groups, high levels of public and private
debt measured in trillions of dollars, failing transport infrastructure across most states, massive
unemployment that either goes undocumented or is deliberately under-reported, high prison incarceration
rates and other problems and issues indicative of a highly dysfunctional society. In societies that
are ostensibly liberal democracies where the public enjoys political freedoms, there is an ever-growing
and vast gap between what people perceive as major problems needing solutions and the political establishment's
perceptions of what the problems are, and all too often the public view and the elite view are at
polar opposites. The result is that when referenda and elections are held, predictions and assurances
of victory one way or another are smashed by actual results showing public preference for the other
way, and polling organisations, corporate media with their self-styled "pundits" and "analysts" and
governments are caught scrambling to make sense of what just happened.
Putin points out that the only way forward is for all countries to acknowledge and work together
on the problems that challenge all humans today, the resolution of which should make the world more
stable, more secure and more sustaining of human existence. Globalisation should not just benefit
a small plutocratic elite but should be demonstrated in concrete ways to benefit all. Only by adhering
to international law and legal arrangements, through the charter of the United Nations and its agencies,
can all countries hope to achieve security and stability and achieve a better future for their peoples.
To this end, the sovereignty of Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen should be
respected and the wars in those countries should be brought to an end, replaced by long-term plans
and programs of economic and social reconstruction and development. Global economic development and
progress that will reduce disparities between First World and Third World countries, eliminate notions
of "winning" and "losing", and end grinding poverty and the problems that go with it should be a
major priority. Economic co-operation should be mutually beneficial for all parties that engage in
it.
Putin also briefly mentioned in passing the development of human potential and creativity, environmental
protection and climate change, and global healthcare as important goals that all countries should
strive for.
While there's not much in Putin's speech that he hasn't said before, what he says is typical of
his worldview, the breadth and depth of his understanding of current world events (which very, very
few Western politicians can match), and his preferred approach of nations working together on common
problems and coming to solutions that benefit all and which don't advantage one party's interests
to the detriment of others and their needs. Putin's approach is a typically pragmatic and cautious
one, neutral with regards to political or economic ideology, but one focused on goals and results,
and the best way and methods to achieve those goals.
One interesting aspect of Putin's speech comes near the end where he says that only a world with
opportunities for everyone, with access to knowledge to all and many ways to realise creative potential,
can be considered truly free. Putin's understanding of freedom would appear to be very different
from what the West (and Americans in particular) understand to be "freedom", that is, being free
of restraints on one's behaviour. Putin's understanding of freedom would be closer to what 20th-century
Russian-born British philosopher Isaiah Berlin would consider to be "positive freedom", the freedom
that comes with self-mastery, being able to think and behave freely and being able to choose the
government of the society in which one lives.
The most outstanding point in Putin's speech, which unfortunately he does not elaborate on further,
given the context of the venue, is the disconnect between the political establishment and the public
in most developed countries, the role of the mass media industry in reducing or widening it, and
the dangers that this disconnect poses to societies if it continues. If elites continue to pursue
their own fantasies and lies, and neglect the needs of the public on whom they rely for support (yet
abuse by diminishing their security through offshoring jobs, weakening and eliminating worker protection,
privatising education, health and energy, and encouraging housing and other debt bubbles), the invisible
bonds of society – what might collectively be called "the social contract" between the ruler and
the ruled – will disintegrate and people may turn to violence or other extreme activities to get
what they want.
An English-language transcript of the speech can be found at
this link .
I have spent the better
part of the last 10 years working diligently to investigate and relate information on
economics and geopolitical discourse for the liberty movement. However, long before I
delved into these subjects my primary interests of study were the human mind and the
human "soul" (yes, I'm using a spiritual term).
My fascination with economics and sociopolitical events has always been rooted in the
human element.
That is to say, while economics is often treated as a
mathematical and statistical field, it is also driven by psychology.
To know
the behavior of man is to know the future of all his endeavors, good or evil.
Evil is what we are specifically here to discuss.
I have touched on
the issue in various articles in the past including
Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood
, but with extreme tensions taking shape
this year in light of the U.S. election as well as the exploding online community
investigation of "Pizzagate," I am compelled to examine it once again.
I will not be grappling with this issue from a particularly religious perspective.
Evil applies to everyone regardless of their belief system, or even their lack of
belief. Evil is secular in its influence.
The first and most important thing to understand is this - evil is NOT simply
a social or religious construct, it is an inherent element of the human psyche.
Carl Gustav Jung was one of the few psychologists in history to dare write extensively
on the issue of evil from a scientific perspective as well as a metaphysical
perspective. I highly recommend a book of his collected works on this subject titled
'Jung On Evil', edited by Murray Stein, for those who are interested in a deeper view.
To summarize, Jung found that much of the foundations of human behavior are rooted in
inborn psychological contents or "archetypes." Contrary to the position of Sigmund
Freud, Jung argued that while our environment may affect our behavior to a certain
extent, it does not make us who we are. Rather, we are born with our own individual
personality and grow into our inherent characteristics over time. Jung also found that
there are universally present elements of human psychology. That is to say, almost every
human being on the planet shares certain truths and certain natural predilections.
The concepts of good and evil, moral and immoral, are present in us from birth and
are mostly the same regardless of where we are born, what time in history we are born
and to what culture we are born. Good and evil are shared subjective experiences. It is
this observable psychological fact (among others) that leads me to believe in the idea
of a creative design - a god. Again, though, elaborating on god is beyond the scope of
this article.
To me, this should be rather comforting to people, even atheists. For if there is
observable evidence of creative design, then it would follow that there may every well
be a reason for all the trials and horrors that we experience as a species. Our lives,
our failures and our accomplishments are not random and meaningless. We are striving
toward something, whether we recognize it or not. It may be beyond our comprehension at
this time, but it is there.
Evil does not exist in a vacuum; with evil there is always good, if one looks
for it in the right places.
Most people are readily equipped to recognize evil when they see it
directly. What they are not equipped for and must learn from environment is how to
recognize evil disguised as righteousness.
The most heinous acts in
history are almost always presented as a moral obligation - a path towards some "greater
good." Inherent conscience, though, IS the greater good, and any ideology that steps
away from the boundaries of conscience will inevitably lead to disaster.
The concept of globalism is one of these ideologies that crosses the line of
conscience and pontificates to us about a "superior method" of living.
It
relies on taboo, rather than moral compass, and there is a big difference between the
two.
When we pursue a "greater good" as individuals or as a society, the means are just as
vital as the ends. The ends NEVER
justify the means. Never. For if we
abandon our core principles and commit atrocities in the name of "peace," safety or
survival, then we have forsaken the very things which make us worthy of peace and safety
and survival. A monster that devours in the name of peace is still a monster.
Globalism tells us that the collective is more important than the individual,
that the individual owes society a debt and that fealty to society in every respect is
the payment for that debt.
But inherent archetypes and conscience tell us
differently. They tell us that society is only ever as healthy as the individuals
within it, that society is only as free and vibrant as the participants. As the
individual is demeaned and enslaved, the collective crumbles into mediocrity.
Globalism also tells us that humanity's greatest potential cannot be reached without
collectivism and centralization. The assertion is that the more single-minded a society
is in its pursuits the more likely it is to effectively achieve its goals. To this end,
globalism seeks to erase all sovereignty. For now its proponents claim they only wish to
remove nations and borders from the social equation, but such collectivism never stops
there. Eventually, they will tell us that individualism represents another nefarious
"border" that prevents the group from becoming fully realized.
At the heart of collectivism is the idea that human beings are "blank
slates;" that we are born empty and are completely dependent on our environment in order
to learn what is right and wrong and how to be good people or good citizens. The
environment becomes the arbiter of decency, rather than conscience, and whoever controls
the environment, by extension, becomes god.
If the masses are convinced of this narrative then moral relativity is only a short
step away. It is the abandonment of inborn conscience that ultimately results in evil.
In my view, this is exactly why the so called "elites" are pressing for globalism in the
first place. Their end game is not just centralization of all power into a one world
edifice, but the suppression and eradication of conscience, and thus, all that is good.
To see where this leads we must look at the behaviors of the elites
themselves, which brings us to "Pizzagate."
The exposure by Wikileaks during the election cycle of what appear to be coded emails
sent between John Podesta and friends has created a burning undercurrent in the
alternative media. The emails consistently use odd and out of context "pizza"
references, and independent investigations have discovered a wide array connections
between political elites like Hillary Clinton and John Podesta to James Alefantis, the
owner of a pizza parlor in Washington D.C. called Comet Ping Pong. Alefantis, for
reasons that make little sense to me, is listed as number 49 on GQ's
Most Powerful People In Washington list
.
The assertion according to circumstantial evidence including the disturbing child and
cannibalism artwork collections of the Podestas has been that Comet Ping Pong is somehow
at the center of a child pedophilia network serving the politically connected. Both
Comet Ping Pong and a pizza establishment two doors down called Besta Pizza use symbols
in their logos and menus that are listed on the
FBI's
unclassified documentation on pedophilia symbolism
, which does not help matters.
Some of the best documentation of the Pizzagate scandal that I have seen so far has
been done by David Seaman, a former mainstream journalist gone rogue.
Here is his
YouTube page
.
I do recommend everyone at least look at the evidence he and others present. I went
into the issue rather skeptical, but was surprised by the sheer amount of weirdness and
evidence regarding Comet Pizza. There is a problem with Pizzagate that is difficult to
overcome, however; namely the fact that to my knowledge no victims have come forward.
This is not to say there has been no crime, but anyone hoping to convince the general
public of wrong-doing in this kind of scenario is going to have a very hard time without
a victim to reference.
The problem is doubly difficult now that an armed man was arrested on the premises of
Comet Ping Pong while "researching" the claims of child trafficking. Undoubtedly, the
mainstream media will declare the very investigation "dangerous conspiracy theory."
Whether this will persuade the public to ignore it, or compel them to look into it,
remains to be seen.
I fully realize the amount of confusion surrounding Pizzagate and the assertions by
some that it is a "pysop" designed to undermine the alternative media. This is a
foolish notion, in my view. The mainstream media is dying, this is unavoidable. The
alternative media is a network of sources based on the power of choice and cemented in
the concept of investigative research. The reader participates in the alternative media
by learning all available information and positions and deciding for himself what is the
most valid conclusion, if there is any conclusion to be had. The mainstream media
simply tells its readers what to think and feel based on cherry picked data.
The elites will never be able to deconstruct that kind of movement with something
like a faked "pizzagate"; rather, they would be more inclined to try to co-opt and
direct the alternative media as they do most institutions. And, if elitists are using
Pizzagate as fodder to trick the alternative media into looking ridiculous, then why
allow elitist run social media outlets like Facebook and Reddit to shut down discussion
on the issue?
The reason I am more convinced than skeptical at this stage is because this has
happened before; and in past scandals of pedophilia in Washington and other political
hotbeds, some victims DID come forward.
I would first reference the events of the Franklin Scandal between 1988 and 1991. The
Discovery Channel even produced a documentary on it complete with interviews of alleged
child victims peddled to Washington elites for the purpose of favors and blackmail.
Meant to air in 1994, the documentary was quashed before it was ever shown to the
public. The only reason it can now be found is because an original copy was released
without permission by parties unknown.
I would also reference the highly evidenced
Westminster Pedophile Ring in the U.K.
, in which the U.K. government lost or
destroyed at least 114 related files related to the investigation.
Finally, it is disconcerting to me that the criminal enterprises of former Bear
Sterns financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his "Lolita Express" are
mainstream knowledge, yet the public remains largely oblivious. Bill Clinton is
shown on flight logs
to have flown on Epstein's private jet at least a 26 times; the
same jet that he used to procure child victims as young as 12 to entertain celebrities
and billionaires on his 72 acre island called "Little Saint James". The fact that
Donald Trump was also close friends with Epstein should raise some eyebrows - funny how
the mainstream media attacked Trump on every cosmetic issue under the sun but for some
reason backed away from pursuing the Epstein angle.
Where is the vast federal investigation into the people who frequented Epstein's
wretched parties? There is none, and Epstein, though convicted of molesting a 14 year
old girl and selling her into prostitution, was only slapped on the wrist with a 13
month sentence.
Accusations of pedophilia seem to follow the globalists and elitist politicians
wherever they go. This does not surprise me. They often exhibit characteristics of
narcissism and psychopathy, but their ideology of moral relativity is what would lead to
such horrible crimes.
Evil often stems from people who are empty.
When one abandons
conscience, one also in many respects abandons empathy and love. Without these elements
of our psyche there is no happiness. Without them, there is nothing left but desire and
gluttony.
Narcissists in particular are prone to use other people as forms of
entertainment and fulfillment without concern for their humanity. They can be vicious
in nature, and when taken to the level of psychopathy, they are prone to target and
abuse the most helpless of victims in order to generate a feeling of personal power.
Add in sexual addiction and aggression and narcissists become predatory in the
extreme. Nothing ever truly satisfies them. When they grow tired of the normal, they
quickly turn to the abnormal and eventually the criminal. I would say that pedophilia
is a natural progression of the elitist mindset; for children are the easiest and most
innocent victim source, not to mention the most aberrant and forbidden, and thus the
most desirable for a psychopathic deviant embracing evil impulses.
Beyond this is the even more disturbing prospect of cultism.
It is
not that the globalists are simply evil as individuals; if that were the case then they
would present far less of a threat. The greater terror is that they are also organized.
When one confronts the problem of evil head on, one quickly realizes that evil is within
us all. There will always be an internal battle in every individual. Organized evil,
though, is in fact the ultimate danger, and it is organized evil that must be
eradicated.
For organized evil to be defeated, there must be organized good.
I believe the liberty movement in particular is that good; existing in early stages,
not yet complete, but good none the less. Our championing of the non-aggression
principle and individual liberty is conducive to respect for privacy, property and
life. Conscience is a core tenet of the liberty ideal, and the exact counter to
organized elitism based on moral relativity.
Recognize and take solace that though we live in dark times, and evil men
roam free, we are also here. We are the proper response to evil, and we have been placed
here at this time for a reason. Call it fate, call it destiny, call it coincidence, call
it god, call it whatever you want, but the answer to evil is us.
"Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the
good of an unshakable rule, which will restore the regular course of the
machinery of the national life, brought to naught by liberalism. The result
justifies the means. Let us, however, in our plans, direct our attention not
so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful."
I should also point out those alledgedly behind The Protocols
are not the people the article is referring ie: those people are
typically found in any liberal establishment.
A good article, but it fails to deliver on these key aspects of
the matter:
Everyone knows from the Godfather and its genre
that there is a connection between loyalty, criminality and
power: Once you witness someone engaging in a criminal act, you
have leverage over them and that ensures their loyalty. But what
follows from that - which healthy sane minds have trouble
contemplating - is that the greater the criminality the greater
the leverage, and that because murderous paedophilia places a
person utterly beyond any prospect of redemption in decent
society, there in NO GREATER LOYALTY than those desperate to
avoid being outed. These must be the three corners of the
triangle - Power:Loyalty:Depravity through which the evil eys
views the world.
I always beleived in an Illuminati of sorts, however they
care to self identify. Until Pizzagate, I never understood that
murderous paedophilia, luciferian in style to accentuate their
own depravity, is THE KEY TO RULING THE EARTH
And another thing. If pizzagate is 'fake news' then it it
inconceivably elaborate - they'd have had to fake Epstein 2008,
Silsby 2010, Breitbart 2011, the 2013 portugese release of
podestaesque mccann suspects, as well as the current run of
wikileaks and Alefantis' instagram account - which had an avatar
photo of the 13 yr old lover of a roman emperor.
Is that much fake news a possibility? Or has this smoke been
blowing for years and we've all been too distracted to stop and
look for fire?
What floors me about the whole pizzagate thing is the evil staring us
right in the face. And then to realize that the libtards don't even
believe in evil at all, only "mental illness"!
Lesson #1: Do not waste your time figuring some things out. Things like evil
people are probably beyond a decent persons ability to understand and let's be
honest I don't want to feel any sympathy for them anyway.
Read a book years ago by Dr. Karl Menninger, a psychiatrist, titled
'Whatever happened to Sin?'
In it he talks of murder and that it is not a natural thing for man to
do,. However, when the burden of guilt is spread over many shoulders and
government condones the action, it becomes easier to bear.
When observing the results, such as soldiers returning from war, unstable
mentally, it is evident that evil has occured. It has been decades since I
read the book, so the words I wrote may not be verbatim.
Lurked ZH for years, just started reading the comments. This is worse than
Reddit's echo chamber. Bible quotes? 3 guys 1 hammer on liveleak has more
productive comments. Why not mention methods you've used to help people reach
their own conclusion about Pizzagate?
I had two slices of pizza for dinner. I had to try not to think of the poor
children walking innocently about the store who may at any moment fall victim
to a pedo. My gf said pizza places all over now need to keep a keen eye out for
the Posdesta Brothers and their Gang after all the stuff that has come out from
WikiLeaks and other sources about them.
The bible says God created evil and loosed it on us. The correct reading of
Genesis 4;1 is from the dead sea scrolls stating :
"And Adam knew his
wife Eve,
who was pregnant by Sammael [Satan]
, and she conceived and
bare Cain,
and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly
beings,
and
she
said, I have gotten a man from
the angel of
the Lord."
So in Isaiah 45:7 we have this:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the
LORD do all these
things
.
So my research shows evil was "grafted" into humans through
the unholy alliance and 2 seedline of people resulted.
Good article but an exception: evil doesn't reside in all of us, sin does.
Evil is the expression of wanton and intentional deception, injury,
degradation, and destruction and rarely self-recognizes or admits to God as
supreme. It may be DNA encoded. Sociopathy certainly is.
But you're so
right about the organized nature of it all, and for thousands of years. The
newly formed EU didn't advertise itself as the New Babylonia for nothing on
publicty posters, heralding the coming age of one tongue out of many and
fashioning its parliament building after the Tower of Bablyon:
Secret societies are cannibalizing us, and themselves, but members won't
know till it's too late that they'll also be eaten fairly early on. Of all
"people", they should know those in the pyramid capstone won't have enough
elbow room if they let in every Tom, Dick and Harry Mason.
I am sympatico with Brandon. I have always had similar interests, about the
soul, about ethics, about human behavior.
The reality is that evil is extant
in other human beings. The thought that your property manager is going to piss
in your OJ or fuck their BFF in your bed is abhorrent to most people, but not
all. There was an article this week about a married couple that had concerns
about their rental unit manager. And what did they find? He was fucking his BFF
(yes, of course it was another dude) in their bed. The good news is they got it
on video and moved. The bad news? This kind of attitude is rampant. People
don't give a shit about other people. They think the rules don't apply to them.
That they are special. The result is renting from some asshat that fucks in
your bed or pisses in your OJ. Or parents that wonder why little Johnny or
little Janie never move out of the house and are stoned and play video games
all day.
Evil exists, in varying forms. Sadly too many people continue to make
excuses for not only bad behavior but evil behavior. I don't think that way and
I don't live my life that way but I am fully aware of all the morons stumbling
through the world that do.
I think people are misunderstanding the setup theory. Nobody believes, at
least I hope not, that all of this art and bizarre behavior on the part of
these freaks was staged for the purposes of taking down the last of our free
media, but rather, they just took advantage of a situation where they knew
people were making accusations that couldn't be sufficiently backed up or even
prosecuted, and yet caused proven or contrived damages to people. If this is
the case, their intention,
with the help of intelligence agencies
, is
to frame alt-media for starting vigilante violence and the destruction of
innocent people's lives through promoting defamation against others.
I have
no doubt that our entire system is riddled with pedophilia and likely much
worse. They have also been getting away with this forever, so when we go for
the takedown we better have our ducks in a row. To do otherwise will just give
these sickos complete immunity and more decades will pass with them continuing
to prey on our children. Not only is this at stake but the fate of all the
children of this nation is at stake if we lose our media. We are in very
dangerous and treacherous times. When you go toe to toe with the professional
trade crafters you have to play smart or they will have you every time.
Once people have had enough exposure to NPDs or psychopaths you will vibe
them after a while. I imagine this is likely the case for anyone who has
worked as a trader, finance, politics, big commodity booms are bad, etc. We
have all encountered them somewhere. People should pay attention to how they
feel (yeah I know, people hate that word) when they are around people. I have
to pretend that I don't notice them because it is so apparent to me and
immediately.
The last time I picked one out at work, a few months later the creepy
bastard walked past me at night during a -20 blizzard, with next to no
visibility, knowing that I had an hour drive, and told me in super spooky
whisper.. "Don't hit a deer on your way home now." I found out later that a
bunch of horses had mysteriously died in his care and a bunch of other things
that confirmed my suspicions. I had a long battle with him so I eventually got
to understand him pretty well. I didn't have to hear the guy state a single
sentence or watch any body language, I just knew immediately because I could
feel his malevolence and threat in my stomach where we have a large nerve
cluster. Pay attention and you will know. Also their eye contact is all wrong
and too intense.
Globalism, is designed to make you poorer slowly over decades by allowing wages
and conditions to be for ever slowly reduced under the guise of free market
competition to funnel wealth ever upwards to the 1%.
"... The real problem is the Chinese do not believe in economic profits, just market rates of return on invested capital which to be honest is only about 2-5% depending on risk. ..."
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
What we find the most interesting is that the AIIB founders didn't ask
member countries to approve an expansion of either the World Bank or the
ADB. Instead, they opted for a new organization altogether.
Why? The problem is institutional legitimacy arising from issues of power
and governance :
-- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz
[ Why? Because when all is said and done the United States wants to be
able to control the Asian Development Bank, the IMF and World Bank and use
them to in turn "control" countries that it wishes to be subject to the
US but especially to control China as the New York Times editorial board
made clear today in supporting Japanese militarism. *
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
-- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz
[ Unless the word "official" suffices as an excuse, of course United
States and British policy makers in particular dispute the need for more
government supported infrastructure funding. Amartya Sen and Vijay Prashad
have made this entirely clear for India. *
The real problem is the Chinese do not believe in economic profits, just
market rates of return on invested capital which to be honest is only about
2-5% depending on risk.
Americans demand monopoly profits and ROIC so high that the price of
capital assets rapidly inflates.
Thus China's high speed rail plans are evil because China is advocating
high volumes of HSR construction that costs decline by economies of scale
leading to the replacement cost of any existing rail line being lower than
original cost so the result is capital depreciation lower the price of assets,
tangible and intangible, and the frantic pace of creating jobs and building
more capital - more rail - eliminates any monopoly power of any rail system,
thereby forcing revenues down to costs with the recovery of investment cost
stretched to decades, and ROIC forced toward zero.
And it's that policy of investing to eliminate profits that drives conservatives
insane. They scream, "it is bankrupt because those hundred year lifetime
assets are not paying for themselves and generating stock market gains in
seven years!"
Its like banking was from circa 1930 to 1980! It is like utility regulation
was from 1930 to 1980! How can wealth be created when monopoly power is
thwarted?!?
Just imagine how devastating if China uses the AIIB to build a rail network
speeding goods between China and the tip of Africa and every place in between!
Highly destructive of wealth.
Though I want to smooth the writing and terminology, I completely agree.
Again, a terrific thoroughly enlightening comment. ]
anne :
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a
founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it
can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards
:.
-- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz
[ Surely the IMF and the like are responsible for the "explosive" 38 year
growth in real per capita Gross Domestic Product and 35 year growth in total
factor productivity from Mexico, neighbor to the United States, to the Philippines,
to Kenya : ]
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, India, Brazil
and South Africa, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne -> anne :
Even supposing analysts short of an Amartya Sen wish to be judicious in actually
looking to the data of the last 38 years, as even Sen has found there is a price
for arguing about the obvious importance of soft (social welfare spending) and
hard institutional infrastructure spending in China:
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China and Kenya, 1976-2014
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China,
United States and United Kingdom, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a
founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it
can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards
:.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for United States, United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, Germany and China,
1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :
What we find the most interesting is that the AIIB founders didn't ask member
countries to approve an expansion of either the World Bank or the ADB. Instead,
they opted for a new organization altogether.
Why? The problem is institutional legitimacy arising from issues of power
and governance :
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Sweden,
Denmark, Norway, Finland and China, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Ireland,
Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and China, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, Japan
and Korea, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
kthomas :
yawn
anne :
Yawn
[ When did the United States experience 38 years of 8.6% real per capita
GDP growth yearly? How about the United Kingdom? How about any other country?
I have just begun, go ahead choose another country to go with China. I am
waiting. Go ahead. I will include the astonishing total factor productivity
growth as well. ]
anne :
While most of the G20 nations, including the big European states, Australia,
and South Korea, are among the founding members, the United States, Japan,
and Canada are noticeably not :
-- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz
[ I found it startling and discouraging that Greece virtually alone in
Europe did not apply to be a founding member of the AIIB. ]
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China,
United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne -> anne :
Yawn
[ I am still waiting, choose a country to go with China. ]
anne -> anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Indonesia,
Philippines, Thailand and China, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne -> anne :
Yawn
[ Still waiting, choose a country to go with China. ]
Bruce Webb :
As to why the AIIB decided to go alone (at least without the US) it may
have something to do with a fact that I stumbled on in relation to the Greece
crisis. I am sure that most people here knew the basic fact and perhaps
appreciate the irony but I didn't know whether to weep or laugh outright.
The U.S. only controls 17% of voting powers of the IMF. Why barely a
sixth! Yet any positive decision requires an 85% vote. Meaning that in operational
terms the U.S. might as well hold 51%.
You see similar things with NATO. It's a partnership that has high officers
rotating in from here or there. But which requires that the overall NATO
Commander be an American.
Nothing undemocratic or hegemonic here! Nope! Moving right along!
anne -> Bruce Webb :
The U.S. only controls 17% of voting powers of the IMF. Why barely a
sixth! Yet any positive decision requires an 85% vote. Meaning that in operational
terms the U.S. might as well hold 51%.
You see similar things with NATO. It's a partnership that has high officers
rotating in from here or there. But which requires that the overall NATO
Commander be an American.
Nothing undemocratic or hegemonic here! Nope! Moving right along!
[ Perfect and important. ]
anne -> Bruce Webb :
I am sure that most people here knew the basic fact and perhaps appreciate
the irony but I didn't know whether to weep or laugh outright :.
[ No, in continually whining about the need for Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank to be transparent and democratic the United States was making
sure never ever to explain the historic lack of transparency and anti-democratic
nature of the IMF and World Bank and Asian Development Bank. ]
"... Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade." ..."
"... The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it , but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and " vehement advocate for the TPP "-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team. ..."
"... Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said , "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country." ..."
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has reiterated his opposition
to the Trans Pacific
Partnership (TPP), saying on Tuesday that President Barack Obama's push
to get the trade deal passed during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress
is "outrageous" and "absolutely wrong."
Stiglitz, an economics professor at
Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute,
made the comments on CNN's "Quest Means Business."
His criticism comes as Obama aggressively
campaigns to get lawmakers to pass the TPP in the Nov. 9 to Jan. 3 window-even
as
resistance mounts against the 12-nation deal.
Echoing an
argument made by Center for Economic
and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot, Stiglitz said, "At the lame-duck
session you have congressmen voting who know that they're not accountable anymore."
Lawmakers "who are not politically accountable because they're leaving may,
in response to promises of jobs or just subtle understandings, do things that
are not in the national interest," he said.
Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate
interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned
"the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and
"the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and
actually harm trade."
"The advocates of trade said it was going to benefit everyone,"
he added. "The evidence is it's benefited a few and left a lot behind."
Stiglitz has also been advising the
Hillary
Clinton presidential campaign. The Democratic candidate, for her part,
supported the deal before coming out
against it, but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially
since she recently
named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and "vehement
advocate for the TPP"-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition
team.
Opposition to the TPP also appeared Tuesday in Michigan and Florida, where
union members and lawmakers criticized what they foresee as the deal's impacts
on working families.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.)
said, "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after
this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)
said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World,
"If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country."
We cannot allow this agreement to forsake the American middle class, while foreign governments
are allowed to devalue their currency and artificially prop-up their industries.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a bad deal for the American people. This historically
massive trade deal -- accounting for 40 percent of global trade -- would reduce restrictions on foreign
corporations operating within the U.S., limit our ability to protect our environment, and create
more incentives for U.S. businesses to outsource investments and jobs overseas to countries with
lower labor costs and standards.
Over and over we hear from TPP proponents how the TPP will boost our economy, help American workers,
and set the standards for global trade. The International Trade Commission report released last May
(https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf)
confirms that the opposite is true. In exchange for just 0.15 percent boost in GDP by 2032, the TPP
would decimate American manufacturing capacity, increase our trade deficit, ship American jobs overseas,
and result in losses to 16 of the 25 U.S. economic sectors. These estimates don't even account for
the damaging effects of currency manipulation, environmental impacts, and the agreement's deeply
flawed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process.
There's no reason to believe the provisions of this deal relating to labor standards, preserving
American jobs, or protecting our environment, will be enforceable. Every trade agreement negotiated
in the past claimed to have strong enforceable provisions to protect American jobs -- yet no such
enforcement has occurred, and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have
resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Former Secretary of Labor Robert
Reich has called TPP "NAFTA on steroids." The loss of U.S. jobs under the TPP would likely be unprecedented.
"... "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3." ..."
"... To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer). ..."
A response to Hillary Clinton's America Exceptionalist Speech:
1. America Exceptionalist vs. the World..
2. Brezinski is extremely dejected.
3. Russia-China on the march.
4. "There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already ."
"No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November
- means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows
it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved
during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress
from November 9 to January 3."
To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency
hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless
we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how
much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as
the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering
if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade
surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer).
Regarding the push to pass the TPP and TISA I've been needing to get
this off my chest and this seems to be as good a time as any:
In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have
trotted out a new argument: "we have come too far", "our national credibility
would be damaged if we stop now." The premise of which is that negotiations
have been going on so long, and have involved such effort that if the
U.S. were to back away now we would look bad and would lose significant
political capital.
On one level this argument is true. The negotiations have been long,
and many promises were made by the negotiators to secure to to this
point. Stepping back now would expose those promises as false and would
make that decade of effort a loss. It would also expose the politicians
who pushed for it in the face of public oppoosition to further loss
of status and to further opposition.
However, all of that is voided by one simple fact. The negotiations
were secret. All of that effort, all of the horse trading and the promise
making was done by a self-selected body of elites, for that same body,
and was hidden behind a wall of secrecy stronger than that afforded
to new weapons. The deals were hidden not just from the general public,
not from trade unions or environmental groups, but from the U.S. Congress
itself.
Therefore it has no public legitimacy. The promises made are not
"our" promises but Michael Froman's promises. They are not backed by
the full faith and credit of the U.S. government but only by the words
of a small body of appointees and the multinational corporations that
they serve. The corporations were invited to the table, Congress was
not.
What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is
on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals
fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that
a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of
us will make good.
When that minor loss is laid against the far greater fact that the
terms of these deals are bad, that prior deals of this type have harmed
our real economies, and that the rules will further erode our national
sovreignity, there is no contest.
Michael Froman's reputation has no value. Our sovreignity, our economy,
our nation, does.
"What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on
the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail
what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful
of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make
good."
Yes! And the victory will taste so sweet when we bury this filthy, rotten,
piece of garbage. Obama's years of effort down the drain, his legacy tarnished
and unfinished.
I want TPP's defeat to send a clear message that the elites can't count
on their politicians to deliver for them. Let's make this thing their Stalingrad!
Leave deep scars so that they give up on TISA and stop trying to concoct
these absurd schemes like ISDS.
sorry but i don't see it that way at all. 'they' got a propaganda machine
to beat all 'they' make n break reps all the time. i do see a desperation
on a monetary/profit scale. widening the 'playing field' offers more profits
with less risk. for instance, our Pharams won't have to slash their prices
at the risk of sunshine laws, wish-washy politicians, competition, nor a
pissed off public. jmo tho')
LOL "America's credibility" LOL, these people need to get out more. In
the 60's you could hike high up into the Andes and the sheep herder had
two pics on the wall of his hut: Jesus and JFK. America retains its cachet
as a place to make money and be entertained, but as some kind of beacon
of morality and fair play in the world? Dead, buried, and long gone, the
hype-fest of slogans and taglines can only cover up so many massive, atrocious
and hypocritical actions and serial offenses.
Clinton Inc was mostly Bill helping Epstein get laid until after Kerry
lost. If this was the reelection of John Edwards, Kerry's running mate,
and a referendum on 12 years of Kerronomics, Bill and Hill would be opening
night speakers at the DNC and answers to trivia questions.
My guess is Obama is dropped swiftly and unceremoniously especially since
he doesn't have much of a presence in Washington.
"It looks as if we'll be firing Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria in
the coming days, and critics are raising legitimate concerns:"
"Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious
behavior like genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Since President Obama
established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his credibility has
been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."
Obama did back down.
NIcholas Kristof, vigilant protector of American credibility through
bombing Syria.
Ah yes the credibility of our élites. With their sterling record on Nafta's
benefits, Iraq's liberation, Greece's rebound, the IMF's rehabilitation
of countries
We must pass TPP or Tom Friedman will lose credibility, what?
"... pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. ..."
"... Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ..."
"... I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results ..."
There are two reasons: First, they consciously seek to weaken the national
defense. And second, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system is
a
surrender of national sovereignty .
National Defense
This might be labeled the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since we're informed that
Paul Singer and Augustus Cole's techno-thriller has really caught the attention
of the national security class below the political appointee level, and that
this is a death blow for neoliberalism. Why? "The multi-billion dollar, next
generation F-35 aircraft, for instance, is rendered powerless after it is revealed
that Chinese microprocessor manufacturers had implanted malicious code into
products intended for the jet" (
Foreign Policy ). Clearly, we need, well, industrial policy, and we need
to bring a lot of manufacturing home.
From Brigadier General (Retired) John Adams :
In 2013, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board put forward a remarkable
report describing one of the most significant but little-recognized threats
to US security: deindustrialization. The report argued that the loss of
domestic U.S. manufacturing facilities has not only reduced U.S. living
standards but also compromised U.S. technology leadership "by enabling new
players to learn a technology and then gain the capability to improve on
it." The report explained that the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing presents
a particularly dangerous threat to U.S. military readiness through the "compromise
of the supply chain for key weapons systems components."
Our military is now shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the
supply chain, including from substandard manufacturing practices, natural
disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations. Poor manufacturing practices
in offshore factories lead to problem-plagued products, and foreign producers-acting
on the basis of their own military or economic interests-can sharply raise
prices or reduce or stop sales to the United States.
The link between TPP and this kind of offshoring has been well-established.
And, one might say, the link between neo-liberal economic policy "and this
kind of offshoring has been well-established" as well.
So, when I framed the issue as one where pro-TPPers "consciously seek
to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism,
through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry
at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. Note that re-industrializing
America has positive appeal, too: For the right, on national security grounds;
and for the left, on labor's behalf (and maybe helping out the Rust Belt that
neoliberal policies of the last forty years did so much to destroy. Of course,
this framing would make Clinton a traitor, but you can't make an omelette without
breaking eggs. (Probably best to to let the right, in its refreshingly direct
fashion, use the actual "traitor" word, and the left, shocked, call for the
restoration of civility, using verbiage like "No, I wouldn't say she's a traitor.
She's certainly 'extremely careless' with our nation's security.")
ISDS
The Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is a hot mess (unless you represent
a corporation, or are one of tiny fraternity of international corporate lawyers
who can plead and/or judge ISDS cases).
Yves wrote :
What may have torched the latest Administration salvo is a well-timed
joint publication by Wikileaks and the New York Times of a recent version
of the so-called investment chapter. That section sets forth one of the
worst features of the agreement, the investor-state dispute settlement process
(ISDS). As we've described at length in earlier posts, the ISDS mechanism
strengthens the existing ISDS process. It allows for secret arbitration
panels to effectively overrule national regulations by allowing foreign
investors to sue governments over lost potential future profits in secret
arbitration panels. Those panels have been proved to be conflict-ridden
and arbitrary. And the grounds for appeal are limited and technical.
Here again we have a frame that appeals to both right and left. The very
thought of surrendering national sovereignty to an international organization
makes any good conservative's back teeth itch. And the left sees the "lost profits"
doctrine as a club to prevent future government programs they would like to
put in place (single payer, for example). And in both cases, the neoliberal
doctrine of putting markets before anything else makes pro-TPP-ers traitors.
To the right, because nationalism trumps internationalism; to the left, because
TPP prevents the State from looiking after the welfare of its people.
The Political State of Play
All I know is what I read in the papers, so what follows can only be speculation.
That said, there are two ways TPP could be passed: In the lame duck session,
by Obama, or after a new President is inaugurated, by Clinton (or possibly by
Trump[1]).
[OBAMA:] And hopefully, after the election is over and the dust settles,
there will be more attention to the actual facts behind the deal and it
won't just be a political symbol or a political football. And I will actually
sit down with people on both sides, on the right and on the left. I'll sit
down publicly with them and we'll go through the whole provisions. I would
enjoy that, because there's a lot of misinformation.
I'm really confident I can make the case this is good for American workers
and the American people. And people said we weren't going to be able to
get the trade authority to even present this before Congress, and somehow
we muddled through and got it done. And I intend to do the same with respect
to the actual agreement.
So it is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political
reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the
necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives
who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be
in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election
on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the
last three elections was about 80.
Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can
pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org,
we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists.
(An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).
So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as
unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal
cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass
this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time
that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without
any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate
can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.
(The article doesn't talk about the Senate, but Fast Track passed the Senate
with a filibuster-proof super-majority, so the battle is in the House anyhow.
And although the text of TPP cannot be amended - that's what fast track means!
- there are still ways to affect the interpretation and enforcement of the text,
so Obama and his corporate allies have bargaining chips beyond Beltway sinecures.[2])
Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become,
it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. (
Remember , "[T]he preferences of economic elites have far more independent
impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.") However,
if the anti-TPP-ers raise the rhetorical stakes from policy disagreement to
treason, maybe a few of those 80 representatives will do the right thing (or,
if you prefer, decide that the reputational damage to their future career makes
a pro-TPP vote not worth it. Who wants to play golf with a traitor?)
Passing TPP after the Inaugural
After the coronation inaugural, Clinton will have to use more
complicated tactics than dangling goodies before the snouts of representatives
leaving for K Street. (We've seen that Clinton's putative opposition to TPP
is based on lawyerly parsing; and her base supports it. So I assume a Clinton
administration would go full speed ahead with it.) My own thought has been that
she'd set up a "conversation" on trade, and then buy off the national unions
with "jobs for the boys," so that they sell their locals down the river. Conservative
Jennifer Rubin has a better proposal , which meets Clinton's supposed criterion
of not hurting workers even better:
Depending on the election results and how many pro-free-trade Republicans
lose, it still might not be sufficient. Here's a further suggestion: Couple
it with a substantial infrastructure project that Clinton wants, but with
substantial safeguards to make sure that the money is wisely spent. Clinton
gets a big jobs bill - popular with both sides - and a revised TPP gets
through.
What Clinton needs is a significant revision to TPP that she can tout
as a real reform to trade agreements, one that satisfies some of the TPP's
critics on the left. A minor tweak is unlikely to assuage anyone; this change
needs to be a major one. Fortunately, there is a TPP provision that fits
the bill perfectly: investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), the procedure
that allows foreign investors to sue governments in an international tribunal.
Removing ISDS could triangulate the TPP debate, allowing for enough support
to get it through Congress.
Obama can't have a conversation on trade, or propose a jobs program, let
alone jettison ISDS; all he's got going for him is corruption.[3] So, interestingly,
although Clinton can't take the simple road of bribing the 80 represenatives,
she does have more to bargain with on policy. Rubin's jobs bill could at least
be framed as a riposte to the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since both are about "jawbs,"
even if infrastructure programs and reindustrialization aren't identical in
intent. And while I don't think Clinton would allow ISDS to be removed (
her corporate donors love it ), at least somebody's thinking about how to
pander to the left. Nevertheless, what does a jobs program matter if the new
jobs leave the country anyhow? And suppose ISDS is removed, but the removal
of the precautionary principle remains? We'd still get corporate-friendly decisions,
bilaterally. And people would end up balancing the inevitable Clinton complexity
and mush against the simplicity of the message that a vote for TPP is a vote
against the United States.
Conclusion
I hope I've persuaded you that TPP is still very much alive, and that both
Obama in the lame duck, and Clinton (or even Trump) when inaugurated have reasonable
hopes of passing it. However, I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing
a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that
frame out, I'd like to hear the results (especially when the result comes
from a letter to your Congress critter). Interestingly, Buzzfeed just published
tonight the first in a four-part series, devoted to the idea that ISDS is what
we have said it is all along: A surrender of national sovereignty.
Here's
a great slab of it :
Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend
countries to their will.
Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution.
Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole
country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of
millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.
Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its
rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful
way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant
public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions
secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate
attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court's authority
because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting
in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves
as "The Club" or "The Mafia."
And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing
- and its decisions so unpredictable - that some nations dare not risk a
trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions,
such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments
of convicted criminals.
This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office
buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world. Known as investor-state
dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties
that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.
That's the stuff to give the troops!
NOTE
[1] Trump:
"I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers." Lotta
wiggle room there, and the lawyerly parsing is just like Clinton's. I don't
think it's useful to discuss what Trump might do on TPP, because until there
are other parties to the deal, there's no deal to be had. Right now, we're just
looking at
Trump doing A-B testing - not that there's anything wrong with that - which
the press confuses with policy proposals. So I'm not considering Trump because
I don't think we have any data to go on.
To pacify [those to whom he will corrupt appeal], Obama will
have to convince them that what they want will anyway be achieved, even
if these are not legally part of the TPP because the TPP text cannot be
amended.
He can try to achieve this through bilateral side agreements on specific
issues. Or he can insist that some countries take on extra obligations beyond
what is required by the TPP as a condition for obtaining a U.S. certification
that they have fulfilled their TPP obligations.
This certification is required for the U.S. to provide the TPP's benefits
to its partners, and the U.S. has previously made use of this process to
get countries to take on additional obligations, which can then be shown
to Congress members that their objectives have been met.
In other words, side deals.
[3] This should not be taken to imply that Clinton does not have corruption
going for her, too. She can also make all the side deals Obama can.
"... One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states. ..."
"... These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. ..."
"... "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve. ..."
TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive
free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks
that have lasted three years not a single common item out of
the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has
refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies
in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of "buy American".
The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too
friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it
could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for
taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies
might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment
regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes
between investors and states.
In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and
activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal. Three million
people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various
trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across
Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also
come under attack.
These developments take place against the background of another major
free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)
- hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. The chances
are really slim.
silverer •Sep 5, 2016 9:51 AM
"US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major
setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve.
"... Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it." ..."
"... It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. ..."
...the British politician, who was invited by Mississippi governor Phil Bryant, will draw parallels
between what he sees as the inspirational story of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Farage will describe
the Republican's campaign as a similar crusade by grassroots activists against "big banks and global
political insiders" and how those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised can become involved in
populist, rightwing politics. With Trump lagging in the polls, just as Brexit did prior to the vote
on the referendum, Farage will also hearten supporters by insisting that they can prove pundits and
oddsmakers wrong as well.
This message resonates with the Trump campaign's efforts to reach out to blue collar voters who
have become disillusioned with American politics, while also adding a unique flair to Trump's never
staid campaign rallies.
The event will mark the first meeting between Farage and Trump.
Arron Banks, the businessman who backed Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign group associated with the
UK Independence party (Ukip), tweeted that he would be meeting Trump over dinner and was looking
forward to Farage's speech.
The appointment last week of Stephen Bannon, former chairman of the Breitbart website, as
"CEO" of Trump's campaign has seen the example of the Brexit vote, which Breitbart enthusiastically
advocated, rise to the fore in Trump's campaign narrative.
Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out
and fight" against Hillary Clinton.
"I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the
parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks
time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change
they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved
it."
"I am being careful," he added when asked if he supported the controversial Republican nominee.
"It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is
that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics
that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom."
"... As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning. ..."
"... Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection, and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting is no better. ..."
"... "Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking around the results tell me that. ..."
"... The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility). I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets! ..."
Free Trade," the banner of Globalization, has not only wrecked the world's economy, it has left Western
Democracy in shambles. Europe edges ever closer to deflation. The Fed dare not increase interest
rates, now poised at barely above zero. As China's stock market threatened collapse, China poured
billions to prop it up. It's export machine is collapsing. Not once, but twice, it recently manipulated
its currency to makes its goods cheaper on the world market. What is happening?
The following two
graphs tell most of the story. First, an overview of Free Trade.
Capital fled from developed countries to undeveloped countries with slave-cheap labor, countries
with no environmental standards, countries with no support for collective bargaining. Corporations,
like Apple, set up shop in China and other undeveloped countries. Some, like China, manipulated its
currency to make exported goods to the West even cheaper. Some, like China, gave preferential tax
treatment to Western firm over indigenous firms. Economists cheered as corporate efficiency unsurprisingly
rose. U.S. citizens became mere consumers.
Thanks to Bill Clinton and the Financial Modernization Act, banks, now unconstrained, could peddle
rigged financial services, offer insurance on its own investment products–in short, banks were free
to play with everyone's money–and simply too big to fail. Credit was easy and breezy. If nasty Arabs
bombed the Trade Center, why the solution was simple: Go to the shopping mall–and buy. That remarkable
piece of advice is just what freedom has been all about.
Next: China's export machine sputters.
China's problem is that there are not enough orders to keep the export machine going. There comes
a time when industrialized nations simply run out of cash–I mean the little people run out of cash.
CEOs and those just below them–along with slick Wall Street gauchos–made bundles on Free Trade, corporate
capital that could set up shop in any impoverished nation in the world.. No worries about labor–dirt
cheap–or environmental regulations–just bring your gas masks. At some point the Western consumer
well was bound to run dry. Credit was exhausted; the little guy could not buy anymore. Free trade
was on its last legs.
So what did China do then? As its markets crashed, it tried to revive its export model, a model
based on foreign firms exporting cheap goods to the West. China lowered its exchange rates, not once
but twice. Then China tried to rescue the markets with cash infusion of billions. Still its market
continued to crash. Manufacturing plants had closed–thousands of them. Free Trade and Globalization
had run its course.
And what has the Fed been doing? Why quantitative easy–increase the money supply and lower short
term interest rates. Like China's latest currency manipulation, both were merely stop-gap measures.
No one, least of all Obama and his corporate advisors, was ready to address corporate outsourcing
that has cost millions of jobs. Prime the pump a little, but never address the real problem.
The WTO sets the groundwork for trade among its member states. That groundwork is deeply flawed.
Trade between impoverished third world countries and sophisticated first world economies is not merely
a matter of regulating "dumping"-not allowing one country to flood the market with cheap goods-nor
is it a matter of insuring that the each country does not favor its indigenous firms over foreign
firms. Comparable labor and environmental standards are necessary. Does anyone think that a first
world worker can compete with virtual slave labor? Does anyone think that a first world nation with
excellent environmental regulations can compete with a third world nation that refuses to protect
its environment?
Only lately has Apple even mentioned that it might clean up its mess in China. The Apple miracle
has been on the backs of the Chinese poor and abysmal environmental wreckage that is China.
The WTO allows three forms of inequities-all of which encourage outsourcing: labor arbitrage,
tax arbitrage, and environmental arbitrage. For a fuller explanation of these inequities and the
"race to the bottom," see
here.
Of course now we have the mother of all Free Trade deals –the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)–
carefully wrapped in a black box so that none of us can see what finally is in store for us. Nothing
is ever "Free"–even trade. I suspect that China is becoming a bit too noxious and poisonous. It simply
has to deal with its massive environmental problems. Time to move the game to less despoiled and
maybe more impoverished countries. Meanwhile, newscasters are always careful to tout TPP.
Fast Tracking is a con man's game. Do it so fast that the marks never have a chance to watch their
wallets. In hiding negotiations from prying, public eyes, Obama, has given the con men a bigger edge:
A screen to hide the corporations making deals. Their interest is in profits, not in public good.
Consider the media. Our only defense is a strong independent media. At one time,
newsrooms were not required to be profitable. Reporting the news was considered a community service.
Corporate ownership provided the necessary funding for its newsrooms–and did not interfere.
But the 70′s and 80′s corporate ownership required its newsrooms to be profitable. Slowly but
surely, newsrooms focused on personality, entertainment, and wedge issues–always careful not to rock
the corporate boat, always careful not to tread on governmental policy. Whoever thought that one
major news service–Fox–would become a breeding ground for one particular party.
But consider CNN: It organizes endless GOP debates; then spends hours dissecting them. Create
the news; then sell it–and be sure to spin it in the direction you want.
Are matters of substance ever discussed? When has a serious foreign policy debate ever been allowed
occurred–without editorial interference from the media itself. When has trade and outsourcing been
seriously discussed–other than by peripheral news media?
Meanwhile, news media becomes more and more centralized. Murdoch now owns National Geographic!
Now, thanks to Bush and Obama, we have the chilling effect of the NSA. Just whom does the NSA
serve when it collects all of our digital information? Is it being used to ferret out the plans of
those exercising their right of dissent? Is it being used to increase the profits of favored corporations?
Why does it need all of your and my personal information–from bank accounts, to credit cards, to
travel plans, to friends with whom we chat .Why is it afraid of us?
jefemt, October 23, 2015 at 9:43 am
As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning.
If 'they' are failing, I'd hate to see success!
Isn't it the un-collective WE who are failing?
failing to organize,
failing to come up with plausible, 90 degrees off present Lemming-to-Brink path alternative plans
and policies,
failing to agree on any of many plausible alternatives that might work
Divided- for now- hopefully not conquered ..
I gotta scoot and get back to Dancing with the Master Chefs
allan, October 23, 2015 at 10:03 am
Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection,
and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting
is no better.
Vatch, October 23, 2015 at 10:36 am
Don't just watch the toxic sludge; respond to it with a letter to the editor (LTE) of the offending
publication! For some of those toxic editorials, and contact information for LTEs, see:
A few of the editorials may now be obscured by paywalls or registration requirements, but most
should still be visible. Let them know that we see through their nonsense!
TedWa, October 23, 2015 at 10:38 am
"Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America
the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians
and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations
than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking
around the results tell me that.
TG, October 23, 2015 at 3:27 pm
The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility).
I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets!
Pelham, October 23, 2015 at 8:32 pm
Even when newsrooms were more independent they probably would not, in general, have reported
on free trade with any degree of skepticism. The recent disappearance of the old firewall between
the news and corporate sides has made things worse, but at least since the "professionalization"
of newsrooms that began to really take hold in the '60s, journalists have tended to identify far
more with their sources in power than with their readers.
There have, of course, been notable exceptions. But even these sometimes serve more to obscure
the real day-to-day nature of journalism's fealty to the corporate world than to bring about any
significant change.
CHRIS HEDGES: We're going to be discussing a great Ponzi scheme that not only defines not only
the U.S. but the global economy, how we got there and where we're going. And with me to discuss this
issue is the economist Michael Hudson, author of
Killing
the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. A professor of economics
who worked for many years on Wall Street, where you don't succeed if you don't grasp Marx's dictum
that capitalism is about exploitation. And he is also, I should mention, the godson of Leon Trotsky.
I want to open this discussion by reading a passage from your book, which I admire very much,
which I think gets to the core of what you discuss. You write,
"Adam Smith long ago remarked that profits often are highest in nations going fastest to
ruin. There are many ways to create economic suicide on a national level. The major way through
history has been through indebting the economy. Debt always expands to reach a point where it
cannot be paid by a large swathe of the economy. This is the point where austerity is imposed
and ownership of wealth polarizes between the One Percent and the 99 Percent. Today is not the
first time this has occurred in history. But it is the first time that running into debt has occurred
deliberately." Applauded. "As if most debtors can get rich by borrowing, not reduced to a condition
of debt peonage."
So let's start with the classical economists, who certainly understood this. They were reacting
of course to feudalism. And what happened to the study of economics so that it became gamed by ideologues?
HUDSON: The essence of classical economics was to reform industrial capitalism, to streamline
it, and to free the European economies from the legacy of feudalism. The legacy of feudalism was
landlords extracting land-rent, and living as a class that took income without producing anything.
Also, banks that were not funding industry. The leading industrialists from James Watt, with his
steam engine, to the railroads
HEDGES: From your book you make the point that banks almost never funded industry.
HUDSON: That's the point: They never have. By the time you got to Marx later in the 19th century,
you had a discussion, largely in Germany, over how to make banks do something they did not do under
feudalism. Right now we're having the economic surplus being drained not by the landlords
but also by banks and bondholders.
Adam Smith was very much against colonialism because that lead to wars, and wars led to public
debt. He said the solution to prevent this financial class of bondholders burdening the economy by
imposing more and more taxes on consumer goods every time they went to war was to finance wars on
a pay-as-you-go basis. Instead of borrowing, you'd tax the people. Then, he thought, if everybody
felt the burden of war in the form of paying taxes, they'd be against it. Well, it took all of the
19th century to fight for democracy and to extend the vote so that instead of landlords controlling
Parliament and its law-making and tax system through the House of Lords, you'd extend the vote to
labor, to women and everybody. The theory was that society as a whole would vote in its self-interest.
It would vote for the 99 Percent, not for the One Percent.
By the time Marx wrote in the 1870s, he could see what was happening in Germany. German banks
were trying to make money in conjunction with the government, by lending to heavy industry, largely
to the military-industrial complex.
HEDGES: This was Bismarck's kind of social – I don't know what we'd call it. It was a form
of capitalist socialism
HUDSON: They called it State Capitalism. There was a long discussion by Engels, saying, wait a
minute. We're for Socialism. State Capitalism isn't what we mean by socialism. There are two kinds
of state-oriented–.
HEDGES: I'm going to interject that there was a kind of brilliance behind Bismarck's policy
because he created state pensions, he provided health benefits, and he directed banking toward industry,
toward the industrialization of Germany which, as you point out, was very different in Britain and
the United States.
HUDSON: German banking was so successful that by the time World War I broke out, there were discussions
in English economic journals worrying that Germany and the Axis powers were going to win because
their banks were more suited to fund industry. Without industry you can't have really a military.
But British banks only lent for foreign trade and for speculation. Their stock market was a hit-and-run
operation. They wanted quick in-and-out profits, while German banks didn't insist that their clients
pay as much in dividends. German banks owned stocks as well as bonds, and there was much more of
a mutual partnership.
That's what most of the 19th century imagined was going to happen – that the world
was on the way to socializing banking. And toward moving capitalism beyond the feudal level, getting
rid of the landlord class, getting rid of the rent, getting rid of interest. It was going to be labor
and capital, profits and wages, with profits being reinvested in more capital. You'd have an expansion
of technology. By the early twentieth century most futurists imagined that we'd be living in a leisure
economy by now.
HEDGES: Including Karl Marx.
HUDSON: That's right. A ten-hour workweek. To Marx, socialism was to be an outgrowth of the reformed
state of capitalism, as seemed likely at the time – if labor organized in its self-interest.
HEDGES: Isn't what happened in large part because of the defeat of Germany in World War I?
But also, because we took the understanding of economists like Adam Smith and maybe Keynes. I don't
know who you would blame for this, whether Ricardo or others, but we created a fictitious economic
theory to praise a rentier or rent-derived, interest-derived capitalism that countered productive
forces within the economy. Perhaps you can address that.
HUDSON: Here's what happened. Marx traumatized classical economics by taking the concepts of Adam
Smith and John Stuart Mill and others, and pushing them to their logical conclusion.
Progressive
capitalist advocates – Ricardian socialists such as John Stuart Mill – wanted to tax away the land
or nationalize it. Marx wanted governments to take over heavy industry and build infrastructure to
provide low-cost and ultimately free basic services. This was traumatizing the landlord class and
the One Percent. And they fought back. They wanted to make everything part of "the market," which
functioned on credit supplied by them and paid rent to them.
None of the classical economists imagined how the feudal interests – these great vested interests
that had all the land and money – actually would fight back and succeed. They thought that the future
was going to belong to capital and labor. But by the late 19th century, certainly in America,
people like John Bates Clark came out with a completely different theory, rejecting the classical
economics of Adam Smith, the Physiocrats and John Stuart Mill.
HEDGES: Physiocrats are, you've tried to explain, the enlightened French economists.
HUDSON: The common denominator among all these classical economists was the distinction between
earned income and unearned income. Unearned income was rent and interest. Earned incomes were wages
and profits. But John Bates Clark came and said that there's no such thing as unearned income. He
said that the landlord actually earns his rent by taking the effort to provide a house and
land to renters, while banks provide credit to earn their interest. Every kind of income is thus
"earned," and everybody earns their income. So everybody who accumulates wealth, by definition, according
to his formulas, get rich by adding to what is now called Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
HEDGES: One of the points you make in
Killing
the Host which I liked was that in almost all cases, those who had the capacity to make money
parasitically off interest and rent had either – if you go back to the origins – looted and seized
the land by force, or inherited it.
HUDSON: That's correct. In other words, their income is unearned. The result of this anti-classical
revolution you had just before World War I was that today, almost all the economic growth in the
last decade has gone to the One Percent. It's gone to Wall Street, to real estate
HEDGES: But you blame this on what you call Junk Economics.
HUDSON: Junk Economics is the anti-classical reaction.
HEDGES: Explain a little bit how, in essence, it's a fictitious form of measuring the economy.
HUDSON: Well, some time ago I went to a bank, a block away from here – a Chase Manhattan bank
– and I took out money from the teller. As I turned around and took a few steps, there were two pickpockets.
One pushed me over and the other grabbed the money and ran out. The guard stood there and saw it.
So I asked for the money back. I said, look, I was robbed in your bank, right inside. And they said,
"Well, we don't arm our guards because if they shot someone, the thief could sue us and we don't
want that." They gave me an equivalent amount of money back.
Well, imagine if you count all this crime, all the money that's taken, as an addition to GDP.
Because now the crook has provided the service of not stabbing me. Or suppose somebody's held up
at an ATM machine and the robber says, "Your money or your life." You say, "Okay, here's my money."
The crook has given you the choice of your life. In a way that's how the Gross National Product accounts
are put up. It's not so different from how Wall Street extracts money from the economy. Then also
you have landlords extracting
HEDGES: Let's go back. They're extracting money from the economy by debt peonage. By raising
HUDSON: By not playing a productive role, basically.
HEDGES: Right. So it's credit card interest, mortgage interest, car loans, student loans. That's
how they make their funds.
HUDSON: That's right. Money is not a factor of production. But in order to have access to credit,
in order to get money, in order to get an education, you have to pay the banks. At New York University
here, for instance, they have Citibank. I think Citibank people were on the board of directors at
NYU. You get the students, when they come here, to start at the local bank. And once you are in a
bank and have monthly funds taken out of your account for electric utilities, or whatever, it's very
cumbersome to change.
So basically you have what the classical economists called the rentier class. The class
that lives on economic rents. Landlords, monopolists charging more, and the banks. If you have a
pharmaceutical company that raises the price of a drug from $12 a shot to $200 all of a sudden, their
profits go up. Their increased price for the drug is counted in the national income accounts as if
the economy is producing more. So all this presumed economic growth that has all been taken by the
One Percent in the last ten years, and people say the economy is growing. But the economy isn't growing
HEDGES: Because it's not reinvested.
HUDSON: That's right. It's not production, it's not consumption. The wealth of the One Percent
is obtained essentially by lending money to the 99 Percent and then charging interest on it, and
recycling this interest at an exponentially growing rate.
HEDGES: And why is it important, as I think you point out in your book, that economic theory
counts this rentier income as productive income? Explain why that's important.
HUDSON: If you're a rentier, you want to say that you earned your income by
HEDGES: We're talking about Goldman Sachs, by the way.
HUDSON: Yes, Goldman Sachs. The head of Goldman Sachs came out and said that Goldman Sachs workers
are the most productive in the world. That's why they're paid what they are. The concept of productivity
in America is income divided by labor. So if you're Goldman Sachs and you pay yourself $20 million
a year in salary and bonuses, you're considered to have added $20 million to GDP, and that's enormously
productive. So we're talking in a tautology. We're talking with circular reasoning here.
So the issue is whether Goldman Sachs, Wall Street and predatory pharmaceutical firms, actually
add "product" or whether they're just exploiting other people. That's why I used the word parasitism
in my book's title. People think of a parasite as simply taking money, taking blood out of a host
or taking money out of the economy. But in nature it's much more complicated. The parasite can't
simply come in and take something. First of all, it needs to numb the host. It has an enzyme so that
the host doesn't realize the parasite's there. And then the parasites have another enzyme that takes
over the host's brain. It makes the host imagine that the parasite is part of its own body, actually
part of itself and hence to be protected.
That's basically what Wall Street has done. It depicts itself as part of the economy. Not as a
wrapping around it, not as external to it, but actually the part that's helping the body grow, and
that actually is responsible for most of the growth. But in fact it's the parasite that is taking
over the growth.
The result is an inversion of classical economics. It turns Adam Smith upside down. It says what
the classical economists said was unproductive – parasitism – actually is the real economy. And that
the parasites are labor and industry that get in the way of what the parasite wants – which is to
reproduce itself, not help the host, that is, labor and capital.
HEDGES: And then the classical economists like Adam Smith were quite clear that unless that
rentier income, you know, the money made by things like hedge funds, was heavily taxed and put back
into the economy, the economy would ultimately go into a kind of tailspin. And I think the example
of that, which you point out in your book, is what's happened in terms of large corporations with
stock dividends and buybacks. And maybe you can explain that.
HUDSON: There's an idea in superficial textbooks and the public media that if companies make a
large profit, they make it by being productive. And with
HEDGES: Which is still in textbooks, isn't it?
HUDSON: Yes. And also that if a stock price goes up, you're just capitalizing the profits – and
the stock price reflects the productive role of the company. But that's not what's been happening
in the last ten years. Just in the last two years, 92 percent of corporate profits in America have
been spent either on buying back their own stock, or paid out as dividends to raise the price of
the stock.
HEDGES: Explain why they do this.
HUDSON: About 15 years ago at Harvard, Professor Jensen said that the way to ensure that corporations
are run most efficiently is to make the managers increase the price of the stock. So if you give
the managers stock options, and you pay them not according to how much they're producing or making
the company bigger, or expanding production, but the price of the stock, then you'll have the corporation
run efficiently, financial style.
So the corporate managers find there are two ways that they can increase the price of the stock.
The first thing is to cut back long-term investment, and use the money instead to buy back their
own stock. But when you buy your own stock, that means you're not putting the money into capital
formation. You're not building new factories. You're not hiring more labor. You can actually increase
the stock price by firing labor.
HEDGES: That strategy only works temporarily.
HUDSON: Temporarily. By using the income from past investments just to buy back stock, fire the
labor force if you can, and work it more intensively. Pay it out as dividends. That basically is
the corporate raider's model. You use the money to pay off the junk bond holders at high interest.
And of course, this gets the company in trouble after a while, because there is no new investment.
So markets shrink. You then go to the labor unions and say, gee, this company's near bankruptcy,
and we don't want to have to fire you. The way that you can keep your job is if we downgrade your
pensions. Instead of giving you what we promised, the defined benefit pension, we'll turn it into
a defined contribution plan. You know what you pay every month, but you don't know what's going to
come out. Or, you wipe out the pension fund, push it on to the government's Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation, and use the money that you were going to pay for pensions to pay stock dividends. By
then the whole economy is turning down. It's hollowed out. It shrinks and collapses. But by that
time the managers will have left the company. They will have taken their bonuses and salaries and
run.
HEDGES: I want to read this quote from your book, written by David Harvey, in
A Brief
History of Neoliberalism, and have you comment on it.
"The main substantive achievement of neoliberalism has been to redistribute rather than
to generate wealth and income. [By] 'accumulation by dispossession' I mean the commodification
and privatization of land, and the forceful expulsion of peasant populations; conversion of various
forms of property rights (common collective state, etc.) into exclusive private property rights;
suppression of rights to the commons; colonial, neocolonial, and the imperial processes of appropriation
of assets (including natural resources); and usury, the national debt and, most devastating
at all, the use of the credit system as a radical means of accumulation by dispossession. To
this list of mechanisms, we may now add a raft of techniques such as the extraction of rents from
patents, and intellectual property rights (such as the diminution or erasure of various forms
of common property rights, such as state pensions, paid vacations, and access to education, health
care) one through a generation or more of class struggle. The proposal to privatize all state
pension rights, pioneered in Chile under the dictatorship is, for example, one of the cherished
objectives of the Republicans in the US."
This explains the denouement. The final end result you speak about in your book is, in essence,
allowing what you call the rentier or the speculative class to cannibalize the entire society until
it collapses.
HUDSON: A property right is not a factor of production. Look at what happened in Chicago, the
city where I grew up. Chicago didn't want to raise taxes on real estate, especially on its expensive
commercial real estate. So its budget ran a deficit. They needed money to pay the bondholders, so
they sold off the parking rights to have meters – you know, along the curbs. The result is that they
sold to Goldman Sachs 75 years of the right to put up parking meters. So now the cost of living and
doing business in Chicago is raised by having to pay the parking meters. If Chicago is going to have
a parade and block off traffic, it has to pay Goldman Sachs what the firm would have made
if the streets wouldn't have been closed off for a parade. All of a sudden it's much more expensive
to live in Chicago because of this.
But this added expense of having to pay parking rights to Goldman Sachs – to pay out interest
to its bondholders – is counted as an increase in GDP, because you've created more product simply
by charging more. If you sell off a road, a government or local road, and you put up a toll booth
and make it into a toll road, all of a sudden GDP goes up.
If you go to war abroad, and you spend more money on the military-industrial complex, all this
is counted as increased production. None of this is really part of the production system of the capital
and labor building more factories and producing more things that people need to live and do business.
All of this is overhead. But there's no distinction between wealth and overhead.
Failing to draw that distinction means that the host doesn't realize that there is a parasite
there. The host economy, the industrial economy, doesn't realize what the industrialists realized
in the 19th century: If you want to be an efficient economy and be low-priced and under-sell
competitors, you have to cut your prices by having the public sector provide roads freely. Medical
care freely. Education freely.
If you charge for all of these, you get to the point that the U.S. economy is in today. What if
American factory workers were to get all of their consumer goods for nothing. All their food,
transportation, clothing, furniture, everything for nothing. They still couldn't compete with
Asians or other producers, because they have to pay up to 43% of their income for rent or mortgage
interest, 10% or more of their income for student loans, credit card debt. 15% of their paycheck
is automatic withholding to pay Social Security, to cut taxes on the rich or to pay for medical care.
So Americans built into the economy all this overhead. There's no distinction between growth and
overhead. It's all made America so high-priced that we're priced out of the market, regardless of
what trade policy we have.
HEDGES: We should add that under this predatory form of economics, you game the system. So
you privatize pension funds, you force them into the stock market, an overinflated stock market.
But because of the way companies go public, it's the hedge fund managers who profit. And it's those
citizens whose retirement savings are tied to the stock market who lose. Maybe we can just conclude
by talking about how the system is fixed, not only in terms of burdening the citizen with debt peonage,
but by forcing them into the market to fleece them again.
HUDSON: Well, we talk about an innovation economy as if that makes money. Suppose you have an
innovation and a company goes public. They go to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment banks
to underwrite the stock to issue it at $40 a share. What's considered a successful float is when,
immediately, Goldman and the others will go to their insiders and tell them to buy this stock and
make a quick killing. A "successful" flotation doubles the price in one day, so that at the end of
the day the stock's selling for $80.
HEDGES: They have the option to buy it before anyone else, knowing that by the end of the day
it'll be inflated, and then they sell it off.
HUDSON: That's exactly right.
HEDGES: So the pension funds come in and buy it at an inflated price, and then it goes back
down.
HUDSON: It may go back down, or it may be that the company just was shortchanged from the very
beginning. The important thing is that the Wall Street underwriting firm, and the speculators it
rounds up, get more in a single day than all the years it took to put the company together. The company
gets $40. And the banks and their crony speculators also get $40.
So basically you have the financial sector ending up with much more of the gains. The name of
the game if you're on Wall Street isn't profits. It's capital gains. And that's something that wasn't
even part of classical economics. They didn't anticipate that the price of assets would go up for
any other reason than earning more money and capitalizing on income. But what you have had in the
last 50 years – really since World War II – has been asset-price inflation. Most middle-class families
have gotten the wealth that they've got since 1945 not really by saving what they've earned by working,
but by the price of their house going up. They've benefited by the price of the house. And they think
that that's made them rich and the whole economy rich.
The reason the price of housing has gone up is that a house is worth whatever a bank is going
to lend against it. If banks made easier and easier credit, lower down payments, then you're going
to have a financial bubble. And now, you have real estate having gone up as high as it can. I don't
think it can take more than 43% of somebody's income to buy it. But now, imagine if you're joining
the labor force. You're not going to be able to buy a house at today's prices, putting down a little
bit of your money, and then somehow end up getting rich just on the house investment. All of this
money you pay the bank is now going to be subtracted from the amount of money that you have available
to spend on goods and services.
So we've turned the post-war economy that made America prosperous and rich inside out. Somehow
most people believed they could get rich by going into debt to borrow assets that were going to rise
in price. But you can't get rich, ultimately, by going into debt. In the end the creditors always
win. That's why every society since Sumer and Babylonia have had to either cancel the debts, or you
come to a society like Rome that didn't cancel the debts, and then you have a dark age. Everything
collapses.
"... Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes , the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other. ..."
A Protectionist Moment? : ... if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find
it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically
impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements
the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. ...
But it's also true
that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability,
scare tactics (
protectionism causes depressions !), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization
and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard
models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that...
Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman
sagely observes , the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that
the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology
utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against
anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.
So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even
if they don't know exactly what form it's taking.
Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that
Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump
might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.
But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements - including TPP, which hasn't
happened yet - is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should
devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.
Again, just because automation has been a major factor in job loss doesn't mean "off shoring"
(using the term broadly and perhaps somewhat inaccurately) is not a factor.
The "free" trade deals suck. They are correctly diagnosed as part of the problem.
What would you propose to fix the problems caused by automation?
Automation frees labor to do more productive and less onerous tasks. We should expand our solar
production and our mass transit. We need to start re-engineering our urban areas. This will not
bring back the number of jobs it would take to make cities like Flint thrive once again.
Flint and Detroit have severe economic problems because they were mismanaged by road building
and suburbanization in the 1950s and 1960s. Money that should have been spent on maintaining and
improving urban infrastructure was instead plowed into suburban development that is not dense
enough to sustain the infrastructure required to support it. People moved to the suburbs, abandoned
the built infrastructure of the cities and kissed them goodbye.
Big roads polluted the cities with lead, noise, diesel particles and ozone and smog. Stroads
created pedestrian kill zones making urban areas, unwalkable, unpleasant- an urban blights to
drive through rather than destinations to drive to.
Government subsidized the white flight to the suburbs that has left both the suburbs and the
urban cores with too low revenue to infrastructure ratio. The inner suburbs have aged into net
losers, their infrastructure must be subsidized. Big Roads were built on the Big Idea that people
would drive to the city to work and play and then drive home. That Big idea has a big problem.
Urban areas are only sustainable when they have a high resident density. The future of cities
like Flint and Detroit will be tearing out the roads and replacing them with streets and houses
and renewing the housing stock that has been abandoned. It needs to be done by infill, revitalizing
inner neighborhoods and working outward. Cities like Portland have managed to protect much of
their core, but even they are challenged by demands for suburban sprawl.
Slash and burn development, creating new suburbs and abandoning the old is not a sustainable
model. Not only should we put people to work replacing the Flint lead pipes, but much of the city
should be rebuilt from the inside out. Flint is the leading edge of this problem that requires
fundamental changes in our built environment to fix. I recommend studying Flint as an object lesson
of what bad development policy could do to all of our cities.
An Interview with Frank Popper about Shrinking Cities, Buffalo Commons, and the Future of Flint
How does America's approach shrinking cities compare to the rest of the world?
I think the American way is to do nothing until it's too late, then throw everything at it
and improvise and hope everything works. And somehow, insofar as the country's still here, it
has worked. But the European or the Japanese way would involve much more thought, much more foresight,
much more central planning, and much less improvising. They would implement a more, shall we say,
sustained effort. The American way is different. Europeans have wondered for years and years why
cities like Detroit or Cleveland are left to rot on the vine. There's a lot of this French hauteur
when they ask "How'd you let this happen?"
Do shrinking cities have any advantages over agricultural regions as they face declining populations?
The urban areas have this huge advantage over all these larger American regions that are going
through this. They have actual governments with real jurisdiction. Corrupt as Detroit or Philadelphia
or Camden may be, they have actual governments that are supposed to be in charge of them. Who's
in charge of western Kansas? Who's in charge of the Great Plains? Who is in charge of the lower
Mississippi Delta or central Appalachia? All they've got are these distant federal agencies whose
past performance is not exactly encouraging.
Why wasn't there a greater outcry as the agricultural economy and the industrial economy collapsed?
One reason for the rest of the country not to care is that there's no shortage of the consumer
goods that these places once produced. All this decline of agriculture doesn't mean we're running
out of food. We've got food coming out of our ears. Likewise, Flint has suffered through all this,
but it's not like it's hard to buy a car in this country. It's not as if Flint can behave like
a child and say "I'm going to hold my nose and stop you from getting cars until you do the right
thing." Flint died and you can get zero A.P.R. financing. Western Kansas is on its last legs and,
gee, cereal is cheaper than ever.
In some sense that's the genius of capitalism - it's heartless. But if you look at the local
results and the cultural results and the environmental results you shake your head. But I don't
see America getting away from what I would call a little sarcastically the "wisdom" of the market.
I don't think it's going to change.
So is there any large-scale economic fallout from these monumental changes?
Probably not, and it hurts to say so. And the only way I can feel good about saying that is
to immediately point to the non-economic losses, the cultural losses. The losses of ways of life.
The notion of the factory worker working for his or her children. The notion of the farmer working
to build up the country and supply the rest of the world with food. We're losing distinctive ways
of life. When we lose that we lose something important, but it's not like The Wall Street Journal
cares. And I feel uncomfortable saying that. From a purely economic point of view, it's just the
price of getting more efficient. It's a classic example of Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction,
which is no fun if you're on the destruction end.
Does the decline of cities like Flint mirror the death of the middle class in the United States?
I think it's more the decline of the lower-middle class in the United States. Even when those
jobs in the auto factories paid very high wages they were still for socially lower-middle-class
people. I think there was always the notion in immigrant families and working-class families who
worked in those situations that the current generation would work hard so that the children could
go off and not have to do those kind of jobs. And when those jobs paid well that was a perfectly
reasonable ambition. It's the cutting off of that ambition that really hurts now. The same thing
has been true on farms and ranches in rural parts of the united states.
It is a much different thing to be small minded about trade than it is to be large minded about
everything else. The short story that it is all about automation and not trade will always get
a bad reception because it is small minded. When you add in the large minded story about everything
else then it becomes something entirely different from the short story. We all agree with you
about everything else. You are wrong about globalization though. Both financialization and globalization
suck and even if we paper over them with tax and transfer then they will still suck. One must
forget what it is to be a created equal human to miss that. Have you never felt the job of accomplishment?
Does not pride and self-confidence matter in your life?
While automation is part of the story, offshoring is just as important. Even when there is not
net loss in the numbers of jobs in aggregate, there is significant loss in better paying jobs
in manufacturing. It is important to look at the distributional effects within countries, as well
as between them
It would probably be cheaper and easier to just fix them. We don't need to withdraw from trade.
We just need to fix the terms of trade that cause large trade deficits and cross border capital
flows and also fix the FOREX system rigging.
What would it take to ignore trade agreements? They shouldn't be any more difficult to ignore
than the Geneva Conventions, which the US routinely flaunts.
In order to import we must export and in order to export we must import. The two are tied together.
Suppressing imports means we export less.
What free trade does is lower the price level relative to wages. It doesn't uniformly lower
the price level but rather lowers the cost of goods that are capable of being traded internationally.
It lowers the price on those goods that are disproportionately purchased by those with low incomes.
Free trade causes a progressive decline in the price level while protectionism causes a regressive
increase in the price level.
Funny rebuttal! Bhagwati probably has a model that says the opposite! But then he grew up in India
and should one day get a Nobel Prize for his contributions to international economics.
Our media needs to copy France 24, ... and have real debates about real issues. What we get is
along the lines of ignoring the problem then attacking any effort to correct. for example, the
media stayed away from the healthcare crisis, too complicated, but damn they are good at criticizing.
A seriously shameful article. Krugman has been a booster of trade & globalization for 30 years:
marginally more nuanced than the establishment, but still a booster.
Now, the establishment has what it wanted and the effects have been disastrous for those not
in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.
At this stage, comes insult to injury. Establishment economists (like Mr. Krugman) can reinvent
themselves with "brilliant new studies" showing the costs and damage of globalization. They pay
no professional costs for the grievous injuries inflicted; there is no mention of the fact that
critical outsider economists have been predicting and writing about these injuries and were right;
and they blithely say we must stay the course because we are locked-in and have few options.
Krugman is not Greg Mankiw. Most people who actually get international economics (Mankiw does
not) are not of the free trade benefits all types. Paul Samuelson certainly does not buy into
Mankiw's spin. Funny thing - Mankiw recently cited an excellent piece from Samuelson only to dishonestly
suggest Samuelson did not believe in what he wrote.
Why are you mischaracterizing what Krugman has written? That's my point. Oh wait - you misrepresent
what people write so you can "win" a "debate". Never mind. Please proceed with the serial dishonesty.
"The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to
do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible,
but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic,
foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders
currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the
levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that
Clinton couldn't and can't."
As Dean Baker says, we need to confront Walmart and Goldman Sachs at home, who like these policies,
more than the Chinese.
The Chinese want access to our consumer market. They'd also like if we did't invade countries
like Iraq.
"so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't"
And what is that? Tear up trade deals? It is Krugman who is engaging in straw man arguments.
Krugman does indeed misrepresent Sanders' positions on trade. Sander is not against trade, he
merely insists on *Fair Trade*, which incorporates human rights and environmental protections.
His opposition is to the kinds of deals, like NAFTA and TPP, which effectively gut those (a central
element in Kruman's own critique of the latter).
Krugman has definitely backed off his (much) earlier boosterism and publicly said so. This is
an excellent piece by him, though it does rather downplay his earlier stances a bit. This is one
of the things I especially like about him.
I can get the idea that some people win, some people lose from liberalized trade. But what really
bugs me about the neoliberal trade agenda is that it has been part of a larger set of economically
conservative, laissez faire policies that have exacerbated the damages from trade rather than
offsetting them.
At the same time they were exposing US workers to greater competition from abroad and destroying
and offshoring working class jobs via both trade and liberalized capital flows, the neoliberals
were also doing things like "reinventing government" - that is, shrinking structural government
spending and public investment - and ending welfare. They have done nothing serious about steering
capital and job development efforts toward the communities devastated by the liberalization.
The neoliberal position has seem to come down to "We can't make bourgeois progress without
breaking a few working class eggs."
Agreed! "Krugman has been a booster of trade & globalization for 30 years: marginally more nuanced
than the establishment, but still a booster.'
Now he claims that he saw the light all along! "much of the elite defense of globalization
is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions!),
vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection,
hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict.
I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that..."
You would be hard pressed to find any Krugman clips that cited any of those problems in the
past. Far from being an impartial economist, he was always an avid booster of free trade, overlooking
those very downsides that he suddenly decides to confess.
As far as I know, Sanders has not proposed ripping up the existing trade deals. His information
page on trade emphasizes (i) his opposition to these deals when they were first negotiated and
enacted, and (ii) the principles he will apply to the consideration of future trade deals. Much
of his argumentation concerning past deals is put forward to motivate his present opposition to
TPP.
Note also that Sanders connects his discussion of the harms of past trade policy to the Rebuild
America Act. That is, his approach is forward facing. We can't undo most of the past damage by
recreating the old working class economy we wrecked, but we can be aggressive about using government-directed
national investment programs to create new, high-paying jobs in the US.
You could have said the same about the 1920s
We can't undo most of the past damage by recreating the old agrarian class economy we wrecked,
but we can be aggressive about using government-directed national investment programs to create
new, high-paying jobs in the US.
The march of progress:
Mechanization of agriculture with displacement of large numbers of Ag workers.
The rise of factory work and large numbers employed in manufacturing.
Automation of Manufacturing with large displacement of workers engaged in manufacturing.
What do we want our workers to do? This question must be answered at the highest level of society
and requires much government facilitation. The absence of government facilitation is THE problem.
Memo to Paul Krugman - lead with the economics and stay with the economics. His need to get into
the dirty business of politics dilutes what he ends up sensibly writes later on.
""The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard
to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible,
but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic,
foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders
currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the
levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that
Clinton couldn't and can't."
Yeah, it's pretty dishonest for Krugman to pretend that Sanders' position is "ripping up the trade
agreements we already have" and then say Sanders is "engaged in a bit of a scam" because he can't
do that. Sanders actual position (trying to stop new trade deals like the TPP) is something the
president has a lot of influence over (they can veto the deal). Hard to tell what Krugman is doing
here other than deliberately spreading misinformation.
Also worth noting that he decides to compare Sanders' opposition to trade deals with Trump,
and ignore the fact that Clinton has come out against the TPP as well .
Busy with real life, but yes, I know what happened in the primaries yesterday. Triumph for
Trump, and big upset for Sanders - although it's still very hard to see how he can catch Clinton.
Anyway, a few thoughts, not about the horserace but about some deeper currents.
The Sanders win defied all the polls, and nobody really knows why. But a widespread guess is
that his attacks on trade agreements resonated with a broader audience than his attacks on Wall
Street; and this message was especially powerful in Michigan, the former auto superpower. And
while I hate attempts to claim symmetry between the parties - Trump is trying to become America's
Mussolini, Sanders at worst America's Michael Foot * - Trump has been tilling some of the same
ground. So here's the question: is the backlash against globalization finally getting real political
traction?
You do want to be careful about announcing a political moment, given how many such proclamations
turn out to be ludicrous. Remember the libertarian moment? The reformocon moment? Still, a protectionist
backlash, like an immigration backlash, is one of those things where the puzzle has been how long
it was in coming. And maybe the time is now.
The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard
to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible,
but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic,
foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders
currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the
levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that
Clinton couldn't and can't.
But it's also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest:
false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions! ** ), vastly exaggerated
claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away
the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the
way, that I haven't done any of that; I think I've always been clear that the gains from globalization
aren't all that (here's a back-of-the-envelope on the gains from hyperglobalization *** - only
part of which can be attributed to policy - that is less than 5 percent of world GDP over a generation);
and I think I've never assumed away the income distribution effects.
Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, **** the conventional case for trade liberalization
relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone
wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one
party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.
So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even
if they don't know exactly what form it's taking.
Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that
Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump
might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.
But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements - including Trans-Pacific Partnership,
which hasn't happened yet - is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House,
she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.
Michael Mackintosh Foot (1913 – 2010) was a British Labour Party politician and man of letters
who was a Member of Parliament (MP) from 1945 to 1955 and from 1960 until 1992. He was Deputy
Leader of the Labour Party from 1976 to 1980, and later the Leader of the Labour Party and Leader
of the Opposition from 1980 to 1983.
Associated with the left of the Labour Party for most of his career, Foot was an ardent supporter
of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and British withdrawal from the European Economic Community.
He was appointed to the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Employment under Harold Wilson in 1974,
and he later served as Leader of the House of Commons under James Callaghan. A passionate orator,
he led Labour through the 1983 general election, when the party obtained its lowest share of the
vote at a general election since 1918 and the fewest parliamentary seats it had had at any time
since before 1945.
There was so much wrong with Mitt Romney's Trump-is-a-disaster-whom-I-will-support-in-the-general
* speech that it may seem odd to call him out for bad international macroeconomics. But this is
a pet peeve of mine, in an area where I really, truly know what I'm talking about. So here goes.
In warning about Trumponomics, Romney declared:
"If Donald Trump's plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession.
A few examples. His proposed 35 percent tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war and
that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses
of all stripes to flee America."
After all, doesn't everyone know that protectionism causes recessions? Actually, no. There
are reasons to be against protectionism, but that's not one of them.
Think about the arithmetic (which has a well-known liberal bias). Total final spending on domestically
produced goods and services is
Total domestic spending + Exports – Imports = GDP
Now suppose we have a trade war. This will cut exports, which other things equal depresses
the economy. But it will also cut imports, which other things equal is expansionary. For the world
as a whole, the cuts in exports and imports will by definition be equal, so as far as world demand
is concerned, trade wars are a wash.
OK, I'm sure some people will start shouting "Krugman says protectionism does no harm." But
no: protectionism in general should reduce efficiency, and hence the economy's potential output.
But that's not at all the same as saying that it causes recessions.
But didn't the Smoot-Hawley tariff cause the Great Depression? No. There's no evidence at all
that it did. Yes, trade fell a lot between 1929 and 1933, but that was almost entirely a consequence
of the Depression, not a cause. (Trade actually fell faster ** during the early stages of the
2008 Great Recession than it did after 1929.) And while trade barriers were higher in the 1930s
than before, this was partly a response to the Depression, partly a consequence of deflation,
which made specific tariffs (i.e. tariffs that are stated in dollars per unit, not as a percentage
of value) loom larger.
Again, not the thing most people will remember about Romney's speech. But, you know, protectionism
was the only reason he gave for believing that Trump would cause a recession, which I think is
kind of telling: the GOP's supposedly well-informed, responsible adult, trying to save the party,
can't get basic economics right at the one place where economics is central to his argument.
The Gains From Hyperglobalization (Wonkish)
By Paul Krugman
Still taking kind of an emotional vacation from current political madness. Following up on
my skeptical post on worries about slowing trade growth, * I wondered what a state-of-the-art
model would say.
The natural model to use, at least for me, is Eaton-Kortum, ** which is a very ingenious approach
to thinking about multilateral trade flows. The basic model is Ricardian - wine and cloth and
labor productivity and all that - except that there are many goods and many countries, transportation
costs, and countries are assumed to gain productivity in any particular industry through a random
process. They make some funny assumptions about distributions - hey, that's kind of the price
of entry for this kind of work - and in return get a tractable model that yields gravity-type
equations for international trade flows. This is a good thing, because gravity models *** of trade
- purely empirical exercises, with no real theory behind them - are known to work pretty well.
Their model also yields a simple expression for the welfare gains from trade:
Real income = A*(1-import share)^(-1/theta)
where A is national productivity and theta is a parameter of their assumed random process (don't
ask); they suggest that theta=4 provides the best match to available data.
Now, what I wanted to do was apply this to the rapid growth of trade that has taken place since
around 1990, what Subramanian **** calls "hyperglobalization". According to Subramanian's estimates,
overall trade in goods and services has risen from about 19 percent of world GDP in the early
1990s to 33 percent now, bringing us to a level of integration that really is historically unprecedented.
There are some conceptual difficulties with using this rise directly in the Eaton-Kortum framework,
because much of it has taken the form of trade in intermediate goods, and the framework isn't
designed to handle that. Still, let me ignore that, and plug Subramanian's numbers into the equation
above; I get a 4.9 percent rise in real incomes due to increased globalization.
That's by no means small change, but it's only a fairly small fraction of global growth. The
Maddison database ***** gives us a 45 percent rise in global GDP per capita over the same period,
so this calculation suggests that rising trade was responsible for around 10 percent of overall
global growth. My guess is that most people who imagine themselves well-informed would give a
bigger number.
By the way, for those critical of globalization, let me hasten to concede that by its nature
the Eaton-Kortum model doesn't let us talk about income distribution, and it also makes no room
for the possible role of globalization in causing secular stagnation. ******
Still, I thought this was an interesting calculation to make - which may show more about my
warped sense of what's interesting than it does about anything else.
General Equilibrium Analysis of the Eaton-Kortum Model of International Trade
By Fernando Alvarez and Robert E. Lucas
We study a variation of the Eaton-Kortum model, a competitive, constant-returns-to-scale multicountry
Ricardian model of trade. We establish existence and uniqueness of an equilibrium with balanced
trade where each country imposes an import tariff. We analyze the determinants of the cross-country
distribution of trade volumes, such as size, tariffs and distance, and compare a calibrated version
of the model with data for the largest 60 economies. We use the calibrated model to estimate the
gains of a world-wide trade elimination of tariffs, using the theory to explain the magnitude
of the gains as well as the differential effect arising from cross-country differences in pre-liberalization
of tariffs levels and country size.
The gravity model of international trade in international economics, similar to other gravity
models in social science, predicts bilateral trade flows based on the economic sizes (often using
GDP measurements) and distance between two units. The model was first used by Jan Tinbergen in
1962.
The Hyperglobalization of Trade and Its Future
By Arvind Subramanian and Martin Kessler
Abstract
The open, rules-based trading system has delivered immense benefits-for the world, for individual
countries, and for average citizens in these countries. It can continue to do so, helping today's
low-income countries make the transition to middle-income status. Three challenges must be met
to preserve this system. Rich countries must sustain the social consensus in favor of open markets
and globalization at a time of considerable economic uncertainty and weakness; China and other
middle-income countries must remain open; and mega-regionalism must be prevented from leading
to discrimination and trade conflicts. Collective action should help strengthen the institutional
underpinnings of globalization. The world should move beyond the Doha Round dead to more meaningful
multilateral negotiations to address emerging challenges, including possible threats from new
mega-regional agreements. The rising powers, especially China, will have a key role to play in
resuscitating multilateralism.
"Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, the conventional case for trade liberalization
relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone
wins"
That was never the conventional case for trade. Plus it's kind of odd that you have to add
"plus have the government redistribute" to the case your making.
Tom Pally above is correct. Krugman has been on the wrong side of this issue. He's gotten better,
but the timing is he's gotten better as the Democratic Party has moved to the left and pushed
back against corporate trade deals. Even Hillary came out late against Obama's TPP.
Sanders has nothing about ripping up trade deals. He has said he won't do any more.
As cawley predicted, once Sanders won Michigan, Krugman started hitting him again at his blog.
With cheap shots I might add. He's ruining his brand.
Tell Morning Edition: It's Not "Free Trade" Folks
by Dean Baker
Published: 10 March 2016
Hey, can an experienced doctor from Germany show up and start practicing in New York next week?
Since the answer is no, we can say that we don't have free trade. It's not an immigration issue,
if the doctor wants to work in a restaurant kitchen, she would probably get away with it. We have
protectionist measures that limit the number of foreign doctors in order to keep their pay high.
These protectionist measures have actually been strengthened in the last two decades.
We also have strengthened patent and copyright protections, making drugs and other affected
items far more expensive. These protections are also forms of protectionism.
This is why Morning Edition seriously misled its listeners in an interview with ice cream barons
Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield over their support of Senator Bernie Sanders. The interviewer repeatedly
referred to "free trade" agreements and Sanders' opposition to them. While these deals are all
called "free trade" deals to make them sound more palatable ("selective protectionism to redistribute
income upward" doesn't sound very appealing), that doesn't mean they are actually about free trade.
Morning Edition should not have used the term employed by promoters to push their trade agenda.
This has been Dean Baker's excellent theme for a very long time. And if you actually paid attention
to what Krugman said about TPP - he agreed with Dean's excellent points. But do continue to set
up straw man arguments so you can dishonestly attack Krugman.
No. That is not a sign of a faulty memory, quite the contrary.
Krugman writes column after column praising trade pacts and criticizing (rightly, I might add)
the yahoos who object for the wrong reasons.
But he omits a few salient facts like
- the gains are small,
- the government MUST intervene with redistribution for this to work socially,
- there are no (or minimal) provisions for that requirement in the pacts.
I would say his omissions speak volumes and are worth remembering.
Krugman initially wrote a confused column about the TPP, treating it as a simple free trade deal
which he said would have little impact because tariffs were already so low. But he did eventually
look into the matter further and wound up agreeing with Baker's take.
"That was never the conventional case for trade". Actually it was. Of course Greg Mankiw never
got the memo so his free trade benefits all BS confuses a lot of people. Mankiw sucks at international
trade.
David Glasner attacks Krugman from the right, but he doesn't whitewash the past as you do.
He remembers Gore versus Perot:
"Indeed, Romney didn't even mention the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but Krugman evidently forgot the
classic exchange between Al Gore and the previous incarnation of protectionist populist outrage
in an anti-establishment billionaire candidate for President:
GORE I've heard Mr. Perot say in the past that, as the carpenters says, measure twice and cut
once. We've measured twice on this. We have had a test of our theory and we've had a test of his
theory. Over the last five years, Mexico's tariffs have begun to come down because they've made
a unilateral decision to bring them down some, and as a result there has been a surge of exports
from the United States into Mexico, creating an additional 400,000 jobs, and we can create hundreds
of thousands of more if we continue this trend. We know this works. If it doesn't work, you know,
we give six months notice and we're out of it. But we've also had a test of his theory.
PEROT When?
GORE In 1930, when the proposal by Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley was to raise tariffs across the
board to protect our workers. And I brought some pictures, too.
[Larry] KING You're saying Ross is a protectionist?
GORE This is, this is a picture of Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley. They look like pretty good fellows.
They sounded reasonable at the time; a lot of people believed them. The Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley
Protection Bill. He wants to raise tariffs on Mexico. They raised tariffs, and it was one of the
principal causes, many economists say the principal cause, of the Great Depression in this country
and around the world. Now, I framed this so you can put it on your wall if you want to.
You obviously have not read Krugman. Here is from his 1997 Slate piece:
But putting Greenspan (or his successor) into the picture restores much of the classical vision
of the macroeconomy. Instead of an invisible hand pushing the economy toward full employment in
some unspecified long run, we have the visible hand of the Fed pushing us toward its estimate
of the noninflationary unemployment rate over the course of two or three years. To accomplish
this, the board must raise or lower interest rates to bring savings and investment at that target
unemployment rate in line with each other.
And so all the paradoxes of thrift, widow's cruses, and so on become irrelevant. In particular,
an increase in the savings rate will translate into higher investment after all, because the Fed
will make sure that it does.
To me, at least, the idea that changes in demand will normally be offset by Fed policy--so
that they will, on average, have no effect on employment--seems both simple and entirely reasonable.
Yet it is clear that very few people outside the world of academic economics think about things
that way. For example, the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement was conducted almost
entirely in terms of supposed job creation or destruction. The obvious (to me) point that the
average unemployment rate over the next 10 years will be what the Fed wants it to be, regardless
of the U.S.-Mexico trade balance, never made it into the public consciousness. (In fact, when
I made that argument at one panel discussion in 1993, a fellow panelist--a NAFTA advocate, as
it happens--exploded in rage: "It's remarks like that that make people hate economists!")
Yes. But please do not interrupt PeterK with reality. He has important work do with his bash all
things Krugman agenda. BTW - it is a riot that he cites Ross Perot on NAFTA. Perot has a self
centered agenda there which Gore exposed. Never trust a corrupt business person whether it is
Perot or Trump.
Yes the model PeterK is using is unclear. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on the economics of
the issues. He seems to think that Sanders is a font of economic wisdom who is not to be questioned.
I would hate to see the left try to make a flawed candidate into the larger than life icon that
the GOP has made out of Reagan.
"Yes the model PeterK is using is unclear. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on the economics of
the issues."
Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein. Like you I want full employment and rising wages. And like
Krugman I am very much an internationalist. I want us to deal fairly with the rest of the world.
We need to cooperate especially in the face of global warming.
1. My first, best solution would be fiscal action. Like everyone else. I prefer Sanders's unicorn
plan of $1 trillion over five years rather than Hillary's plan which is one quarter of the size.
Her plan puts more pressure on the Fed and monetary policy.
a. My preference would be to pay for it with Pigouvian taxes on the rich, corporations, and
the financial sector.
b. if not a, then deficit spending like Trudeau in Canada
C. if the deficit hawks block that, then monetary-financing would be the way around them.
2. close the trade deficit. Dean Baker and Bernstein have written about this a lot. Write currency
agreements into trade deals. If we close the trade deficit and are at full employment, then we
can import more from the rest of the world.
3. If powerful interests block 1. and 2. then lean on monetary policy. Reduce the price of
credit to boost demand. It works as a last resort.
"I would hate to see the left try to make a flawed candidate into the larger than life icon
that the GOP has made out of Reagan.'
I haven't seen any evidence of this. It would be funny if the left made an old Jewish codger
from Brooklyn into an icon. Feel the Bern!!!
Sanders regularly points out it's not about him as President fixing everything, it's about
creating a movement. It's about getting people involved. He can't do it by himself. Obama would
say this too. Elizabeth Warren become popular by saying the same things Sanders is saying.
However to say that the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the Compensation
Principle isn't quite accurate. The conventional case has traditionally relied on the assertion
that "we" are better off with trade since we could *theoretically* distribute the gains. However,
free trade boosters never seem to get around to worrying about distributing the gains *in practice*.
In practice, free trade is typically justified simply by the net aggregate gain, regardless of
how these gains are distributed or who is hurt in the process.
To my mind, before considering some trade liberalization deal we should FIRST agree to and
implement the redistribution mechanisms and only then reduce barriers. Implementing trade deals
in a backward, half-assed way as has typically been the case often makes "us" worse off than autarky.
"Krugman has at times advocated free markets in contexts where they are often viewed as controversial.
He has ... likened the opposition against free trade and globalization to the opposition against
evolution via natural selection (1996),[167]
(In fact, when I made that argument at one panel discussion in 1993, a fellow panelist--a NAFTA
advocate, as it happens--exploded in rage: "It's remarks like that that make people hate economists!")
[Thanks to electoral politics, we're all fellow panelists now.]
"To me, at least, the idea that changes in demand will normally be offset by Fed policy--so that
they will, on average, have no effect on employment--seems both simple and entirely reasonable.
Yet it is clear that very few people outside the world of academic economics think about things
that way."
As we've seen the Fed is overly fearful of inflation, so the Fed doesn't offset the trade deficit
as quickly as it should. Instead we suffer hysteresis and reduction of potential output.
"The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to
do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible,
but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic,
foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious."
Here Krugman is more honest. We're basically buying off the Chinese, etc. The cost for stopping
this would be less cooperation from the Chinese, etc.
This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists"
as luddites.
"This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists"
as luddites."
You have Krugman confused with Greg Mankiw. Most real international economics (Mankiw is not
one) recognize the distributional consequences of free trade v. protectionism. Then again - putting
forth the Mankiw uninformed spin is a prerequisite for being on Team Republican. Of course Republicans
will go protectionist whenever it is politically expedient as in that temporary set of steel tariffs.
Helped Bush-Cheney in 2004 and right after that - no tariffs. Funny how that worked.
Where is the "redistribution from government" in the TPP. There isn't any.
Even the NAFTA side agreements on labor and the environment are toothless. The point of these
corporate trade deals is to profit from the lower labor and environmental standards of poorer
countries.
The fact that you resort to calling me a professional Krugman hater means you're not interested
in an actual debate about actual ideas. You've lost the debate and I'm not participating.
One is not allowed to criticize Krugman lest one be labeled a professional Krugman hater?
Your resort to name calling just weakens the case you're making.
You of late have wasted so much space misrepresenting what Krugman has said. Maybe you don't hate
him - maybe you just want to get his attention. For a date maybe. Lord - the troll in you is truly
out of control.
Sandwichman may think Krugman changed his views but if one actually read what he has written over
the years (as opposed to your cherry picking quotes), you might have noticed otherwise. But of
course you want Krugman to look bad. It is what you do.
Sizeable numbers of Americans have seen wages decline in real terms for nearly 20 years. Many/most
parents in many communities do not see a better future before them, or for their children.
Notable quotes:
"... Democracy demands that ballot access rules be selected by referendum, not by the very legacy parties that maintain legislative control by effectively denying ballot access to parties that will pose a challenge to their continued rule. ..."
"... I think the U.S. Party system, in the political science sense, shifted to a new state during George W Bush's administration as, in Kevin Phillip's terms the Republican Party was taken over by Theocrats and Bad Money. ..."
"... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
"... Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. ..."
"... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
"... Watching Clinton scoop up bankster money, welcome Republicans neocons to the ranks of her supporters does not fill me with hope. ..."
Legislators affiliated with the duopoly parties should not write the rules governing the ballot
access of third parties. This exclusionary rule making amounts to preserving a self-dealing duopoly.
Elections are the interest of the people who vote and those elected should not be able to subvert
the democratic process by acting as a cartel.
Democracy demands that ballot access rules be selected by referendum, not by the very legacy
parties that maintain legislative control by effectively denying ballot access to parties that
will pose a challenge to their continued rule.
Of course any meaningful change would require a voluntary diminishment of power of the duopoly
that now has dictatorial control over ballot access, and who will prevent any Constitutional Amendment
that would enhance the democratic nature of the process.
bruce wilder 08.02.16 at 8:02 pm
I think the U.S. Party system, in the political science sense, shifted to a new state during
George W Bush's administration as, in Kevin Phillip's terms the Republican Party was taken over
by Theocrats and Bad Money.
Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm
"I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim,
but my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"
My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning
classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved
in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education
level rather than income.
This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to
be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition),
and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency ,
they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic
and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.
bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm
I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an
organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.
Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to
serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)
Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying
hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with
ersatz status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus
a component of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master
class. The business end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities:
slaves, sharecroppers, poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled
communities, predatory institutions and authoritarian governments.
For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity
was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community,
but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of
social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.
bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:31 pm
Watching Clinton scoop up bankster money, welcome Republicans neocons to the ranks of her
supporters does not fill me with hope.
Trump and the other illiberal populists have been benefiting from three overlapping backlashes.
The first is cultural. Movements for civil liberties have been remarkably successful over the
last 40 years. Women, ethnic and religious minorities, and the LGBTQ community have secured important
gains at a legal and cultural level. It is remarkable, for instance, how quickly same-sex marriage
has become legal in more than 20 countries when no country recognized it before 2001.
Resistance has always existed to these movements to expand the realm of civil liberties. But this
backlash increasingly has a political face. Thus the rise of parties that challenge multiculturalism
and immigration in Europe, the movements throughout Africa and Asia that support the majority over
the minorities, and the Trump/Tea Party takeover of the Republican Party with their appeals to primarily
white men.
The second backlash is economic. The globalization of the economy has created a class of enormously
wealthy individuals (in the financial, technology, and communications sectors). But globalization
has left behind huge numbers of low-wage workers and those who have watched their jobs relocate to
other countries.
Illiberal populists have directed all that anger on the part of people left behind by the world
economy at a series of targets: bankers who make billions, corporations that are constantly looking
for even lower-wage workers, immigrants who "take away our jobs," and sometimes ethnic minorities
who function as convenient scapegoats. The targets, in other words, include both the very powerful
and the very weak.
The third backlash, and perhaps the most consequential, is political. It's not just that people
living in democracies are disgusted with their leaders and the parties they represent. Rather, as
political scientists Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk
write in the Journal of Democracy , "they have also become more cynical about the value
of democracy as a political system, less hopeful that anything they do might influence public policy,
and more willing to express support for authoritarian alternatives."
Foa and Mounk are using 20 years of data collected from surveys of citizens in Western Europe
and North America – the democracies with the greatest longevity. And they have found that support
for illiberal alternatives is greater among the younger generation than the older one. In other countries
outside Europe and North America, the disillusionment with democratic institutions often takes the
form of a preference for a powerful leader who can break the rules if necessary to preserve order
and stability – like Putin in Russia or Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt or Prayuth Chan-ocha in Thailand.
These three backlashes – cultural, economic, political – are also anti-internationalist because
international institutions have become associated with the promotion of civil liberties and human
rights, the greater globalization of the economy, and the constraint of the sovereignty of nations
(for instance, through the European Union or the UN's "responsibility to protect" doctrine).
... ... ....
The current political order is coming apart. If we don't come up with a fair, Green, and internationalist
alternative, the illiberal populists will keep winning. John Feffer is the director of Foreign
Policy In Focus.
"... if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital - and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation of the same tradition?" ..."
"... Trump is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal. ..."
"... Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc. ..."
"... But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. ..."
"... There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents. The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal. ..."
"... Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing and distressing. ..."
"... There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down. ..."
"... From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. ..."
"... Ready even now to whine that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every time she comments. ..."
"... That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support her ..."
"Once again, if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital
- and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation
of the same tradition?"
You have to be willing to see neoliberalism as something different
from conservatism to have the answer make any sense. John Quiggin has written a good deal here
about a model of U.S. politics as being divided into left, neoliberal, and conservative. Trump
is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal.
... ... ...
T 08.12.16 at 5:52 pm
RP @683
That's a bit of my point. I think Corey has defined the Republican tradition solely
in response to the Southern Strategy that sees a line from Nixon (or Goldwater) to Trump. But
that gets the economics wrong and the foreign policy too - the repub foreign policy view has not
been consistent across administrations and Trump's economic pans (to the extent he has a plan)
are antithetical to the Nixon – W tradition. I have viewed post-80 Dem administrations as neoliberals
w/transfers and Repub as neoliberals w/o transfers.
Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade
and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc.
But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much
more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. Populists have nothing against
gov't programs like SS and Medicare and were always for things like the TVA and infrastructure
spending. Policies aimed at the poor and minorities not so much.
T @ 685: Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view.
There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents.
The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading
our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked
together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal.
These are the two most unpopular candidates in living memory. That is different.
I am not a believer in "the fire next time". Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance
for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger
vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing
and distressing.
Nor will Sanders be back. His was a last New Deal coda. There may be second acts in American
life, but there aren't 7th acts.
If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It
can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very
rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown
by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than
Sanders or Trump have been offering.<
Corey, you write: "It's not just that the Dems went after Nixon, it's also that Nixon had so few
allies. People on the right were furious with him because they felt after this huge ratification
that the country had moved to the right, Nixon was still governing as if the New Deal were the
consensus. So when the time came, he had very few defenders, except for loyalists like Leonard
Garment and G. Gordon Liddy. And Al Haig, God bless him."
You've studied this more than I have,
but this is at least somewhat at odds with my memory. I recall some prominent attackers of Nixon
from the Republican party that were moderates, at least one of whom was essentially kicked out
of the party for being too liberal in later years. There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair
number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running
against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated
largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down.
To think that something similar would happen to Clinton (watergate like scandal) that would
actually have a large portion of the left in support of impeachment, she would have to be as dirty
as Nixon was, *and* the evidence to really put the screws to her would have to be out, as it was
against Nixon during watergate.
OTOH, my actual *hope* would be that a similar left-liberal sea change comparable to 1980 from
the right would be plausible. I don't think a 1976-like interlude is plausible though, that would
require the existence of a moderate republican with enough support within their own party to win
the nomination. I suppose its possible that such a beast could come to exist if Trump loses a
landslide, but most of the plausible candidates have already left or been kicked out of the party.
From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power
to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. A comparable
election from the other side would give republican centrists/moderates the ability to discredit
and marginalize the right wing base. But unlike Democrats in 1972, there aren't any moderates
left in the Republican party by my lights. I'm much more concerned that this will simply re-empower
the hard-core conservatives with plausbly-deniable dog-whistle racism who are now the "moderates",
and enable them to whitewash their history.
Unfortunately, unlike you, I'm not convinced that a landslide is possible without an appeal
to Reagan/Bush republicans. I don't think we're going to see a meaningful turn toward a real left
until Democrats can win a majority of statehouses and clean up the ridiculous gerrymandering.
Val: "Similarly with your comments on "identity politics" where you could almost be seen
by MRAs and white supremacists as an ally, from the tone of your rhetoric."
That is 100% perfect Val. Insinuates that BW is a sort-of-ally of white supremacists - an infuriating
insinuation. Does this insinuation based on a misreading of what he wrote. Completely resistant
to any sort of suggestion that what she dishes out so expansively to others had better be something
she should be willing to accept herself, or that she shouldn't do it. Ready even now to whine
that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her
because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every
time she comments.
That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support
her - for people to jump in saying "Why are you being hostile to women?" in response to people's
response to her comment.
"... More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP field since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up to pull down the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American Bastille. ..."
"... If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment's hegemony is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity - for the preservation of their perks, privileges and power. All the elements of that establishment - corporate, cultural, political, media - are today issuing an ultimatum to Middle America: Trump is unacceptable. Instructions are going out to Republican leaders that either they dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally fit partners in power. ..."
"... Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for "regime change" in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect "regime change" here at home? ..."
"... Donald Trump's success, despite the near-universal hostility of the media, even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the public's response to the issues he raised. ..."
"I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged," Donald Trump told voters
in Ohio and Sean Hannity on Fox News. And that hit a nerve.
"Dangerous," "toxic," came the recoil from the media.
Trump is threatening to "delegitimize" the election results of 2016.
Well, if that is what Trump is trying to do, he has no small point. For consider
what 2016 promised and what it appears about to deliver.
This longest of election cycles has rightly been called the Year of the Outsider.
It was a year that saw a mighty surge of economic populism and patriotism, a
year when a 74-year-old Socialist senator set primaries ablaze with mammoth
crowds that dwarfed those of Hillary Clinton.
It was the year that a non-politician, Donald Trump, swept Republican primaries
in an historic turnout, with his nearest rival an ostracized maverick in his
own Republican caucus, Senator Ted Cruz.
More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP field
since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up to pull down
the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American Bastille.
But if it ends with a Clintonite restoration and a ratification of the same
old Beltway policies, would that not suggest there is something fraudulent about
American democracy, something rotten in the state?
If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment's hegemony
is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity - for the preservation
of their perks, privileges and power. All the elements of that establishment
- corporate, cultural, political, media - are today issuing an ultimatum to
Middle America: Trump is unacceptable. Instructions are going out to Republican
leaders that either they dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally
fit partners in power.
It testifies to the character of Republican elites that some are seeking
ways to carry out these instructions, though this would mean invalidating and
aborting the democratic process that produced Trump.
But what is a repudiated establishment doing issuing orders to anyone?
Why is it not Middle America issuing the demands, rather than the other way
around?
Specifically, the Republican electorate should tell its discredited and rejected
ruling class: If we cannot get rid of you at the ballot box, then tell us how,
peacefully and democratically, we can be rid of you?
You want Trump out? How do we get you out? The Czechs had their Prague Spring.
The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring. When do we have our American
Spring? The Brits had their "Brexit," and declared independence of an arrogant
superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a Beltway superstate
that is more powerful and resistant to democratic change?
Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for
"regime change" in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect
"regime change" here at home?
Donald Trump's success, despite the near-universal hostility of the media,
even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the public's response
to the issues he raised.
He called for sending illegal immigrants back home, for securing America's
borders, for no amnesty. He called for an America First foreign policy to
keep us out of wars that have done little but bleed and bankrupt us.
He called for an economic policy where the Americanism of the people
replaces the globalism of the transnational elites and their K Street lobbyists
and congressional water carriers.
He denounced NAFTA, and the trade deals and trade deficits with China,
and called for rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
By campaign's end, he had won the argument on trade, as Hillary Clinton was
agreeing on TPP and confessing to second thoughts on NAFTA.
But if TPP is revived at the insistence of the oligarchs of Wall Street,
the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - backed by conscript
editorial writers for newspapers that rely on ad dollars - what do elections
really mean anymore?
And if, as the polls show we might, we get Clinton - and TPP, and amnesty,
and endless migrations of Third World peoples who consume more tax dollars than
they generate, and who will soon swamp the Republicans' coalition - what was
2016 all about?
Would this really be what a majority of Americans voted for in this most
exciting of presidential races?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable," said John F. Kennedy.
The 1960s and early 1970s were a time of social revolution in America, and
President Nixon, by ending the draft and ending the Vietnam war, presided over
what one columnist called the "cooling of America."
But if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her present
course, which a majority of Americans rejected in the primaries, there is going
to be a bad moon rising.
And the new protesters in the streets will not be overprivileged children
from Ivy League campuses.
"... the capitalist economy is more and more an asset driven one. This article does not even begin to address the issue of asset valuations, the explicit CB support for asset inflation and the effect on inequality, and especially generational plunder. ..."
"... the problem of living standards is obviously a Malthusian one. despite all the progress of social media tricks, we cannot fool nature. the rate of ecological degradation is alarming, and now irreversible. "the market" is now moving rapidly to real assets. This will eventually lead to war as all war is eventually for resources. ..."
No matter what central banks do, their actions will not be able to create the same level of
economic growth that we have become used to over the past seven decades.
Economic growth does not come from the central banks; if government sought to provide the basics
for all its citizens, including health care, education, a home, and proper food and all the infrastructure
needed to give people the basics, then you could have something akin to "growth" while at the
same time making life more pleasant for the less fortunate. There seems to be no definition of
economic growth that includes everyone.
This seems a very elaborate way of stating a simple problem, that can be summarised in three
points.
The living standards of most people have fallen over the last thirty years or so because of
the impact of neoliberal economic policies. Conventional politicians are promising only more
of the same. Therefore people are increasingly voting for non-conventional politicians.
Neoliberalism has only exacerbated falling living standards. Living standards would be falling
even without it, albeit more gradually.
Neoliberalism itself may even be nothing more than a standard type response of species that
have expanded beyond the capacity of their environment to support them. What we see as an evil
ideology is only the expression of a mechanism that apportions declining resources to the elites,
like shutting shutting down the periphery so the core can survive as in hypothermia.
I really don't have problem with this. Let the financial sector run the world into the ground
and get it over with.
In defference to a great many knowledgable commentors here that work in the FIRE sector, I
don't want to create a damning screed on the cost of servicing money, but at some point even the
most considered opinions have to acknowledge that that finance is flooded with *talent* which
creates a number of problems; one being a waste of intellect and education in a field that doesn't
offer much of a return when viewed in an egalitarian sense, secondly; as the field grows due to,
the technical advances, the rise in globilization, and the security a financial occuptaion offers
in an advanced first world country nowadays, it requires substantially more income to be devoted
to it's function.
This income has to be derived somewhere, and the required sacrifices on every facet of a global
economy to bolster positions and maintain asset prices has precipitated this decline in the well
being of peoples not plugged-in to the consumer capitalist regime and dogma.
Something has to give here, and I honestly couldn't care about your 401k or home resale value,
you did this to yourself as much as those day-traders who got clobbered in the dot-com crash.
the capitalist economy is more and more an asset driven one. This article does not even
begin to address the issue of asset valuations, the explicit CB support for asset inflation and
the effect on inequality, and especially generational plunder.
the problem of living standards is obviously a Malthusian one. despite all the progress
of social media tricks, we cannot fool nature. the rate of ecological degradation is alarming,
and now irreversible. "the market" is now moving rapidly to real assets. This will eventually
lead to war as all war is eventually for resources.
We have just witnessed one of the most significant steps toward a one world
economic system that we have ever seen. Negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership
have been completed, and if approved it will create the largest trading bloc
on the planet. But this is not just a trade agreement. In this treaty, Barack
Obama has thrown in all sorts of things that he never would have been able to
get through Congress otherwise. And once this treaty is approved, it will be
exceedingly difficult to ever make changes to it. So essentially what is happening
is that the Obama agenda is being permanently locked in for 40 percent of the
global economy.
The United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, Australia, Brunei,
Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam all intend to sign
on to this insidious plan. Collectively, these nations have a total population
of about 800 million people and a combined GDP of approximately 28 trillion
dollars.
In hailing the agreement, Obama said, "Congress and the American people
will have months to read every word" before he signs the deal that he described
as a win for all sides.
"If we can get this agreement to my desk, then we can help our businesses
sell more Made in America goods and services around the world, and we can
help more American workers compete and win," Obama said.
Sadly, just like with every other "free trade" agreement that the U.S. has
entered into since World War II, the exact opposite is what will actually happen.
Our trade deficit will get even larger, and we will see even more jobs and even
more businesses go overseas.
But the mainstream media will never tell you this. Instead, they are just
falling all over themselves as they heap praise on this new trade pact. Just
check out a couple of the headlines that we saw on Monday…
Overseas it is a different story. Many journalists over there fully recognize
that this treaty greatly benefits many of the big corporations that played a
key role in drafting it. For example, the following comes
from a newspaper in Thailand…
You will hear much about the importance of the TPP for "free trade".
The reality is that this is an agreement to manage its members' trade
and investment relations - and to do so on behalf of each country's most
powerful business lobbies.
Packaged as a gift to the American people that will renew industry and
make us more competitive, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a Trojan horse.
It's a coup by multinational corporations who want global subservience to
their agenda. Buyer beware. Citizens beware.
The gigantic corporations that dominate our economy don't care about the
little guy. If they can save a few cents on the manufacturing of an item by
moving production to Timbuktu they will do it.
Over the past couple of decades, the United States has lost tens of thousands
of manufacturing facilities and millions of good paying jobs due to these "free
trade agreements". As we merge our economy with the economies of nations where
it is legal to pay slave labor wages, it is inevitable that corporations will
shift jobs to places where labor is much cheaper. Our economic infrastructure
is being absolutely eviscerated in the process, and very few of our politicians
seem to care.
Once upon a time, the city of Detroit was the greatest manufacturing city
on the planet and it had the highest per capita income in the entire nation.
But today it is a rotting, decaying hellhole that the rest of the world laughs
at. What has happened to the city of Detroit is happening to the entire nation
as a whole, but our politicians just keep pushing us even farther down the road
to oblivion.
Just consider what has happened since NAFTA was implemented. In the year
before NAFTA was approved, the United States actually had a trade surplus
with Mexico and our trade deficit with Canada was only 29.6 billion dollars.
But now things are very different. In one recent year, the U.S. had a combined
trade deficit with Mexico and Canada of
177 billion dollars.
And these trade deficits are not just numbers. They represent real jobs that
are being lost. It has been estimated that the U.S. economy loses
approximately 9,000 jobs for every 1 billion dollars of goods that are imported
from overseas, and one professor has estimated that cutting our trade deficit
in half would create
5 million more jobs in the United States.
Just yesterday, I wrote about how there are
102.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now. Once
upon a time, if you were honest, dependable and hard working it was easy to
get a good paying job in this country. But now things are completely different.
Why aren't more people alarmed by numbers like this?
And of course the Trans-Pacific Partnership is not just about "free trade".
In one of my
previous articles, I explained that Obama is using this as an opportunity
to permanently impose much of his agenda on a large portion of the globe…
It is basically a gigantic end run around Congress.
Thanks to leaks, we have learned that so many of the things that Obama has
deeply wanted for years are in this treaty. If adopted, this treaty
will fundamentally change our laws regarding Internet freedom, healthcare,
copyright and patent protection, food safety, environmental standards, civil
liberties and so much more. This treaty includes many of the rules
that alarmed Internet activists so much
when SOPA was being debated, it would essentially ban all "Buy American"
laws, it would give Wall Street banks much more freedom to trade risky
derivatives and it would force even more domestic manufacturing offshore.
The Republicans in Congress foolishly gave Obama
fast track negotiating authority, and so Congress will not be able to change
this treaty in any way. They will only have the opportunity for an up or down
vote.
I would love to see Congress reject this deal, but we all know that is extremely
unlikely to happen. When big votes like this come up, immense pressure is put
on key politicians. Yes, there are a few members of Congress that still have
backbones, but most of them are absolutely spineless. When push comes to shove,
the globalist agenda always seems to advance.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media will be telling the American people about
all of the wonderful things that this new treaty will do for them. You would
think that after how badly past "free trade" treaties have turned out that we
would learn something, but somehow that never seems to happen.
The agenda of the globalists is moving forward, and very few Americans seem
to care.
First of all, because NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying
American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement.
Freddie
Many of those NeoCon Bibi lovers and Jonathan Pollard conservatives love
TPP and H1B Ted Cruz. Ted is also a Goldman Sachs boy.
Squids_In
That giant sucking sound just got gianter.
MrTouchdown
Probably, but here's a thought:
It might be a blowing sound of all things USA deflating down (in USD
terms) to what they are actually worth when compared to the rest of the
world. For example, a GM assembly line worker will make what an assembly
line worker in Vietnam makes.
This will, of course, panic Old Yellen, who will promptly fill her diaper
and begin subsidizing wages with Quantitative Pleasing (QP1).
Buckaroo Banzai
If this gets through congress, the Republican Party better not bother
asking for my vote ever again.
Chupacabra-322
Vote? You seem to think "voting" will actually influence actions / Globalists
plans which have been decades in the making amoungst thse Criminal Pure
Evil Lucerferian Psychopaths hell bent on Total Complete Full Spectrum World
Domination.
Yea, keep voting. I'll be out hunting down these Evil doers like the
dogs that they are.
Buckaroo Banzai
I have no illusions regarding the efficacy of voting. It is indeed a
waste of time.
What I said was, they better not dare even ASK for my vote.
Ignatius
Doesn't matter. Diebold is so good at counting that you don't even need
to show up at the polls anymore. It's like a miracle of modern technology.
Peter Pan
Did the article say 40%?
I imagine they meant 40% of whatever is left after we all go to hell
in a hand basket.
Great day for the multinationals and in particular the pharmaceutical
companies.
But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their
capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.
Notable quotes:
"... But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control. ..."
"... In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments' ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries. ..."
"... Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000. ..."
"... On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene. ..."
"... That's why we need a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European government for European issues elected by all Europeans. ..."
Once upon a time, national elections were -- or seemed to be -- overwhelmingly domestic affairs,
affecting only the peoples of the countries taking part in them. If that was ever true, it is so
no longer. Angela Merkel negotiates with Greece's government with Germany's voters looming in the
background. David Cameron currently fights an election campaign in the UK holding fast to the belief
that a false move on his part regarding Britain's relationship with the EU could cost his Conservative
Party seats, votes and possibly the entire election.
Britain provides a good illustration of a general proposition. It used to be claimed, plausibly,
that "all politics is local." In 2015, electoral politics may still be mostly local, but the post-electoral
business of government is anything but local. There is a misfit between the two. Voters are mainly
swayed by domestic issues. Vote-seeking politicians campaign accordingly. But those politicians
lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even
their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.
Anyone viewing the UK election campaign from afar could be forgiven for thinking that British
voters and politicians alike imagined they were living on some kind of self-sufficient sea-girt island.
The opinion polls indicate that a large majority of voters are preoccupied -- politically as well
as in other ways -- with their own financial situation, tax rates, welfare spending and the future
of the National Health Service. Immigration is an issue for many voters, but mostly in domestic terms
(and often as a surrogate for generalized discontent with Britain's political class). The fact that
migrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere make a positive net contribution to both the UK's economy
and its social services scarcely features in the campaign.
... ... ...
After polling day, all that will change -- probably to millions of voters' dismay. One American
presidential candidate famously said that politicians campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. Politicians
in democracies, not just in Britain, campaign as though they can move mountains, then find that most
mountains are hard or impossible to move.
In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now
multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British
government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments'
ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to
the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries.
Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated
coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to
reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted
in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000.
The UK's courts are also far more active than they were. The British parliament in 1998 incorporated
the European Convention on Human Rights into British domestic law, and British judges have determinedly
enforced those rights. During the 1970s, they had already been handed responsibility for enforcing
the full range of EU law within the UK.
Also, Britain's judges have, on their own initiative, exercised increasingly frequently their
long-standing power of "judicial review," invalidating ministerial decisions that violated due process
or seemed to them to be wholly unreasonable. Devolution of substantial powers to semi-independent
governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has also meant that the jurisdiction of many
so-called UK government ministers is effectively confined to the purely English component part.
On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly
capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale
force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely
beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling
is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated
that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good
or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene.
The heirs of Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, Britain's political leaders
are understandably still tempted to talk big. But their effective real-world influence is small.
No wonder a lot of voters in Britain feel they are being conned.
ItsJustTim
That's globalization. And it won't go away, even if you vote nationalist. The issues are increasingly
international, while the voters still have a mostly local perspective. That's why we need
a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European
government for European issues elected by all Europeans.
"... it seems fair to say: Globalism isn't quite the Wave of the Future that most observers thought it was, even just a year ago. And so before we attempt to divide the true intentions of Clinton and Trump, we might first step back and consider how we got to this point. ..."
"... An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations . ..."
"... Clinton will say anything then she'll sell you out. I hope we never get a chance to see how she will sell us out on TPP ..."
"... What we would be headed for under Hillary Clinton is fascism--Mussolini's shorthand definition of fascism was the marriage of industry and commerce with the power of the State. That is what the plutocrats who run the big banks (to whom she owes her soul) aim to do. President, Thomas Jefferson knew the dangers of large European-style central banks. ..."
On the surface, it appears that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, for all their mutual antipathy,
are united on one big issue: opposition to new trade deals. Here's a recent headline in
The Guardian: "Trump and Clinton's free trade retreat: a pivotal moment for the world's
economic future."
And the subhead continues in that vein:
Never before have both main presidential candidates broken so completely with Washington orthodoxy
on globalization, even as the White House refuses to give up. The problem, however, goes much
deeper than trade deals.
In the above quote, we can note the deliberate use of the loaded word, "problem." As in, it's
a problem that free trade is unpopular-a problem, perhaps, that the MSM can fix. Yet in the
meantime, the newspaper sighed, the two biggest trade deals on the horizon, the well-known
Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the lesser-known
Trans Atlantic Trade Investment
Partnership (TTIP), aimed at further linking the U.S. and European Union (EU), are both in jeopardy.
So now we must ask broader questions: What does this mean for trade treaties overall? And what
are the implications for globalism?
More specifically, we can ask: Are we sure that the two main White House hopefuls, Clinton and
Trump, are truly sincere in their opposition to those deals? After all, as has been
widely reported, President Obama still has plans to push TPP through to enactment in the "lame
duck" session of Congress after the November elections. Of course, Obama wouldn't seek to do that
if the president-elect opposed it-or would he?
Yet on August 30, Politico reminded its Beltway readership, "How
Trump or Clinton could kill Pacific trade deal." In other words, even if Obama were to move TPP
forward in his last two months in office, the 45th president could still block its implementation
in 2017 and beyond. If, that is, she or he really wanted to.
Indeed, as we think about Clinton and Trump, we realize that there's "opposition" that's for show
and there's opposition that's for real.
Still, given what's been said on the presidential campaign trail this year, it seems fair
to say: Globalism isn't quite the Wave of the Future that most observers thought it was, even just
a year ago. And so before we attempt to divide the true intentions of Clinton and Trump, we might
first step back and consider how we got to this point.
2. The Free Trade Orthodoxy
It's poignant that the headline, "Trump and Clinton's free trade retreat", lamenting the decay
of free trade, appeared in The Guardian. Until recently, the newspaper was known as The
Manchester Guardian, as in Manchester, England. And Manchester is not only a big city, population
2.5 million, it is also a city with a fabled past: You see, Manchester was the cradle of the Industrial
Revolution, which transformed England and the world. It was that city that helped create the free
trade orthodoxy that is now crumbling.
Yes, in the 18th and 19th centuries, Manchester was the leading manufacturing city in the world,
especially for textiles. It was known as "Cottonopolis."
Indeed, back then, Manchester was so much more efficient and effective at mass production that
it led the world in exports. That is, it could produce its goods at such low cost that it could send
them across vast oceans and still undercut local producers on price and quality.
Over time, this economic reality congealed into a school of thought: As Manchester grew rich from
exports, its business leaders easily found economists, journalists, and propagandists who would help
advance their cause in the press and among the intelligentsia.
The resulting school of thought became known, in the 19th century, as "Manchester
Liberalism." And so, to this day, long after Manchester has lost its economic preeminence to
rivals elsewhere in the world, the phrase "Manchester Liberalism" is a well-known in the history
of economics, bespeaking ardent support for free markets and free trade.
More recently, the hub for free-trade enthusiasm has been the United States. In particular, the
University of Chicago, home to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, became free trade's
academic citadel; hence the "Chicago
School" has displaced Manchesterism.
And just as it made sense for Manchester Liberalism to exalt free trade and exports when Manchester
and England were on top, so, too, did the Chicago School exalt free trade when the U.S. was unquestionably
the top dog.
So back in the 40s and 50s, when the rest of the world was either bombed flat or still under the
yoke of colonialism, it made perfect sense that the U.S., as the only intact industrial power, would
celebrate industrial exports: We were Number One, and it was perfectly rational to make the most
of that first-place status. And if scribblers and scholars could help make the case for this new
status quo, well, bring 'em aboard. Thus the Chicago School gained ascendancy in the late 20th century.
And of course, the Chicagoans drew inspiration from a period even earlier than Manchesterism,
3. On the Origins of the Orthodoxy: Adam Smith and David Ricardo
One passage in that volume considers how individuals might optimize their own production and consumption:
It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it
will cost him more to make than to buy.
Smith is right, of course; everyone should always be calculating, however informally, whether
or not it's cheaper to make it at home or buy it from someone else.
We can quickly see: If each family must make its own clothes and grow its own food, it's likely
to be worse off than if it can buy its necessities from a large-scale producer. Why? Because, to
be blunt about it, most of us don't really know how to make clothes and grow food, and it's expensive
and difficult-if not downright impossible-to learn how. So we can conclude that self-sufficiency,
however rustic and charming, is almost always a recipe for poverty.
Smith had a better idea: specialization. That is, people would specialize in one line of
work, gain skills, earn more money, and then use that money in the marketplace, buying what they
needed from other kinds of specialists.
Moreover, the even better news, in Smith's mind, was that this kind of specialization came naturally
to people-that is, if they were free to scheme out their own advancement. As Smith argued, the ideal
system would allow "every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality,
liberty and justice."
That is, men (and women) would do that which they did best, and then they would all come together
in the free marketplace-each person being inspired to do better, thanks to, as Smith so memorably
put it, the "invisible hand." Thus Smith articulated a key insight that undergirds the whole of modern
economics-and, of course, modern-day prosperity.
A few decades later, in the early 19th century, Smith's pioneering work was expanded upon by another
remarkable British economist, David Ricardo.
Ricardo's big idea built on Smithian specialization; Ricardo called it "comparative advantage."
That is, just as each individual should do what he or she does best, so should each country.
In Ricardo's well-known illustration, he explained that the warm and sunny climate of Portugal
made that country ideal for growing the grapes needed for wine, while the factories of England made
that country ideal for spinning the fibers needed for apparel and other finished fabrics.
Thus, in Ricardo's view, we could see the makings of a beautiful economic friendship: The Portuguese
would utilize their comparative advantage (climate) and export their surplus wine to England, while
the English would utilize their comparative advantage (manufacturing) and export apparel to Portugal.
Thus each would benefit from the exchange of efficiently-produced products, as each export paid for
the other.
Furthermore, in Ricardo's telling, if tariffs and other barriers were eliminated, then both countries,
Portugal and England, would enjoy the maximum free-trading win-win.
Actually, in point of fact-and Ricardo knew this-the relationship was much more of a win for England,
because manufacture is more lucrative than agriculture. That is, a factory in Manchester could crank
out garments a lot faster than a vineyard in Portugal could ferment wine.
And as we all know, the richer, stronger countries are industrial, not agricultural. Food is essential-and
alcohol is pleasurable-but the real money is made in making things. After all, crops can be grown
easily enough in many places, and so prices stay low. By contrast, manufacturing requires a lot of
know-how and a huge upfront investment. Yet with enough powerful manufacturing, a nation is always
guaranteed to be able to afford to import food. And also, it can make military weapons, and so, if
necessary, take foreign food and croplands by force.
We can also observe that Ricardo, smart fellow that he was, nevertheless was describing the economy
at a certain point in time-the era of horse-drawn carriages and sailing ships. Ricardo realized that
transportation was, in fact, a key business variable. He wrote that it was possible for a company
to seek economic advantage by moving a factory from one part of England to another. And yet in his
view, writing from the perspective of the year 1817, it was impossible to imagine
moving a factory from England to another country:
It would not follow that capital and population would necessarily move from England to Holland,
or Spain, or Russia.
Why this presumed immobility of capital and people? Because, from Ricardo's early 19th-century
perspective, transportation was inevitably slow and creaky; he didn't foresee steamships and airplanes.
In his day, relying on the technology of the time, it wasn't realistic to think that factories, and
their workers, could relocate from one country to another.
Moreover, in Ricardo's era, many countries were actively hostile to industrialization, because
change would upset the aristocratic rhythms of the old order. That is, industrialization could turn
docile or fatalistic peasants, spread out thinly across the countryside, into angry and self-aware
proletarians, concentrated in the big cities-and that was a formula for unrest, even revolution.
Indeed, it was not until the 20th century that every country-including China, a great civilization,
long asleep under decadent imperial misrule-figured out that it had no choice other than to industrialize.
So we can see that the ideas of Smith and Ricardo, enduringly powerful as they have been, were
nonetheless products of their time-that is, a time when England mostly had the advantages of industrialism
to itself. In particular, Ricardo's celebration of comparative advantage can be seen as an artifact
of his own era, when England enjoyed a massive first-mover advantage in the industrial-export game.
Smith died in 1790, and Ricardo died in 1823; a lot has changed since then. And yet the two economists
were so lucid in their writings that their work is studied and admired to this day.
Unfortunately, we can also observe that their ideas have been frozen in a kind of intellectual
amber; even in the 21st century, free trade and old-fashioned comparative advantage are unquestioningly
regarded as the keys to the wealth of nations-at least in the U.S.-even if they are so no longer.
4. Nationalist Alternatives to Free Trade Orthodoxy
As we have seen, Smith and Ricardo were pushing an idea, free trade, that was advantageous to
Britain.
So perhaps not surprisingly, rival countries-notably the United States and Germany-soon developed
different ideas. Leaders in Washington, D.C., and Berlin didn't want their respective nations to
be mere dependent receptacles for English goods; they wanted real independence. And so they wanted
factories of their own.
In the late 18th century, Alexander Hamilton, the visionary American patriot, could see that both
economic wealth and military power flowed from domestic industry. As the nation's first Treasury
Secretary, he persuaded President George Washington and the Congress to support a system of protective
tariffs and "internal improvements" (what today we would call infrastructure) to foster US manufacturing
and exporting.
And in the 19th century, Germany, under the much heavier-handed leadership of Otto von Bismarck,
had the same idea: Make a concerted effort to make the nation stronger.
In both countries, this industrial policymaking succeeded. So whereas at the beginning of the
19th century, England had led the world in steel production, by the beginning of the 20th century
century, the U.S. and Germany had moved well ahead. Yes, the "invisible hand" of individual self-interest
is always a powerful economic force, but sometimes, the "visible hand" of national purpose, animated
by patriotism, is even more powerful.
Thus by 1914, at the onset of World War One, we could see the results of the Smith/Ricardo model,
on the one hand, and the Hamilton/Bismarck model, on the other. All three countries-Britain, the
US, and Germany, were rich-but only the latter two had genuine industrial mojo. Indeed, during World
War One, English weakness became glaringly apparent in the 1915
shell crisis-as
in, artillery shells. It was only the massive importing of made-in-USA ammunition that saved Britain
from looming defeat.
Yet as always, times change, as do economic circumstances, as do prevailing ideas.
As we have seen, at the end of World War II, the U.S. was the only industrial power left standing.
And so it made sense for America to shift from a policy of Hamiltonian protection to a policy of
Smith-Ricardian export-minded free trade. Indeed, beginning in around 1945, both major political
parties, Democrats and Republicans, solidly embraced the new line: The U.S. would be the factory
for the world.
Yet if times, circumstances, and ideas change, they can always change again.
5. The Contemporary Crack-Up
As we have seen, in the 19th century, not every country wanted to be on the passive receiving
end of England's exports. And this was true, too, in the 20th century; Japan, notably, had its own
ideas.
If Japan had followed the Ricardian doctrine of comparative advantage, it would have focused on
exporting rice and tuna. Instead, by dint of hard work, ingenuity, and more than a little national
strategizing, Japan grew itself into a great and prosperous industrial power. Its exports, we might
note, were such high-value-adds as automobiles and electronics, not mere crops and fish.
Moreover, according to the same theory of comparative advantage, South Korea should have been
exporting parasols and kimchi, and China should have settled for exporting fortune cookies and pandas.
Yet as the South Korean economist
Ha-Joon Chang has chronicled,
these Asian nations resolved, in their no-nonsense neo-Confucian way, to launch state-guided private
industries-and the theory of comparative advantage be damned.
Yes, their efforts violated Western economic orthodoxy, but as the philosopher Kant once observed,
the actual proves the possible. Indeed, today, as we all know, the Asian tigers are among the richest
and fastest-growing economies in the world.
China is not only the world's largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), but
also the world's largest manufacturing nation-producing 52 percent of color televisions, 75 percent
of mobile phones and 87 percent of the world's personal computers. The Chinese automobile industry
is the world's largest, twice the size of America's. China leads the world in foreign exchange
reserves. The United States is the main trading partner for seventy-six countries. China is the
main trading partner for 124.
In particular, we might pause over one item in that impressive litany: China makes 87 percent
of the world's personal computers.
Indeed, if it's true, as ZDNet reports, that
the Chinese have built "backdoors" into almost all the electronic equipment that they sell-that
is to say, the equipment that we buy-then we can assume that we face a serious military challenge,
as well as a serious economic challenge.
Yes, it's a safe bet that the People's Liberation Army has a good handle on our defense establishment,
especially now that the Pentagon has fully equipped itself with
Chinese-made iPhones and iPads.
Of course, we can safely predict that Defense Department bureaucrats will always say that there's
nothing to worry about, that they have the potential hacking/sabotage matter under control (although
just to be sure, the Pentagon might say, give us more money).
Yet we might note that this is the same defense establishment that couldn't keep track of lone
internal rogues such as Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. Therefore, should we really believe that
this same DOD knows how to stop the determined efforts of a nation of 1.3 billion people, seeking
to hack machines-machines that they made in the first place?
Yes, the single strongest argument against the blind application of free- trade dogma is the doctrine
of self defense. That is, all the wealth in the world doesn't matter if you're conquered. Even Adam
Smith understood that; as he wrote, "Defense
. . . is of much more importance than opulence."
Yet today we can readily see: If we are grossly dependent on China for vital wares, then we can't
be truly independent of China. In fact, we should be downright fearful.
Still, despite these deep strategic threats, directly the result of careless importing, the Smith-Ricardo
orthodoxy remains powerful, even hegemonistic-at least in the English-speaking world.
Why is this so? Yes, economists are typically seen as cold and nerdy, even bloodless, and yet,
in fact, they are actual human beings. And as such, they are susceptible to the giddy-happy feeling
that comes from the hope of building a new utopia, the dream of ushering in an era of world harmony,
based on untrammeled international trade. Indeed, this woozy idealism among economists goes way back;
it was the British free trader Richard Cobden who declared in 1857,
Free trade is God's diplomacy. There is no other certain way of uniting people in the bonds
of peace.
And lo, so many wars later, many economists still believe that.
Indeed, economists today are still monolithically pro-fee trade; a
recent survey of economists found that 83 percent supported eliminating all tariffs and other
barriers; just 10 percent disagreed.
We might further note that others, too, in the financial and intellectual elite are fully on board
the free-trade train, including most corporate officers and their lobbyists, journalists, academics,
and, of course, the mostly for-hire think-tankers.
To be sure, there are always exceptions: As that Guardian article, the one lamenting the
sharp decrease in support for free trade as a "problem," noted, not all of corporate America is on
board, particularly those companies in the manufacturing sector:
Ford openly opposes TPP because it fears the deal does nothing to stop Japan manipulating its
currency at the expense of US rivals.
Indeed, we might note that the same Guardian story included an even more cautionary note,
asserting that support for free trade, overall, is remarkably rickety:
Some suggest a "bicycle theory" of trade deals: that the international bandwagon has to keep
rolling forward or else it all wobbles and falls down.
So what has happened? How could virtually the entire elite be united in enthusiasm for free trade,
and yet, even so, the free trade juggernaut is no steadier than a mere two-wheeled bike? Moreover,
free traders will ask: Why aren't the leaders leading? More to the point, why aren't the followers
following?
To answer those questions, we might start by noting the four-decade phenomenon of
wage stagnation-that's
taken a toll on support for free trade. But of course, it's in the heartland that wages have been
stagnating; by contrast,
incomes for
the bicoastal elites have been soaring.
We might also note that some expert predictions have been way off, thus undermining confidence
in their expertise. Remember, this spring, when all the experts were saying that the United Kingdom
would fall into recession, or worse, if it voted to leave the EU? Well, just the other day came this
New York Post headline: "Brexit
actually boosting the UK economy."
Thus from the Wall Street-ish perspective of the urban chattering classes, things are going well-so
what's the problem?
Yet the folks on Main Street have known a different story. They have seen, with their own eyes,
what has happened to them, and no fusillade of op-eds or think-tank monographs will persuade them
to change their mind.
However, because the two parties have been so united on the issues of trade and globalization-the
"Uniparty," it's sometimes called-the folks in the boonies have had no political alternative. And
as they say, the only power you have in this world is the power of an alternative. And so, lacking
an alternative, the working/middle class has just had to accept its fate.
Indeed, it has been a bitter fate, particularly bitter in the former industrial heartland. In
a 2013 paper, the
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) came to some startling conclusions:
Growing trade with less-developed countries lowered wages in 2011 by 5.5 percent-or by roughly
$1,800-for a full-time, full-year worker earning the average wage for workers without a four-year
college degree.
The paper added, "One-third of this total effect is due to growing trade with just China."
Continuing, EPI found that even as trade with low-wage countries caused a decrease in the incomes
for lower-end workers, it had caused an increase in the incomes of high-end workers-so no
wonder the high-end thinks globalism in great.
To be sure, some in the elite are bothered by what's been happening.
Peggy Noonan, writing earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal-a piece that must have
raised the hackles of her doctrinaire colleagues-put the matter succinctly: There's a wide, and widening,
gap between the "protected" and the "unprotected":
The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting
to push back, powerfully.
Of course, Noonan was alluding to the Trump candidacy-and also to the candidacy of Sen. Bernie
Sanders. Those two insurgents, in different parties, have been propelled by the pushing from all
the unprotected folks across America.
We might pause to note that free traders have arguments which undoubtedly deserve a fuller airing.
Okay. However, we can still see the limits. For example, the familiar gambit of outsourcing jobs
to China, or Mexico-or 50 other countries-and calling that "free trade" is now socially unacceptable,
and politically unsustainable.
Still, the broader vision of planetary freedom, including the free flow of peoples and their ideas,
is always enormously appealing. The United States, as well as the world, undoubtedly benefits from
competition, from social and economic mobility-and yes, from new blood.
As
Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, notes, "77
percent of the full-time graduate students in electrical engineering and 71 percent in computer science
at U.S. universities are international students." That's a statistic that should give every American
pause to ask: Why aren't we producing more engineers here at home?
We can say, with admiration, that Silicon Valley is the latest Manchester; as such, it's a powerful
magnet for the best and the brightest from overseas, and from a purely dollars-and-cents point of
view, there's a lot to be said for welcoming them.
So yes, it would be nice if we could retain this international mobility that benefits the U.S.-but
only if the economic benefits can be broadly shared, and patriotic assimilation of immigrants can
be truly achieved, such that all Americans can feel good about welcoming newcomers.
The further enrichment of Silicon Valley won't do much good for the country unless those riches
are somehow widely shared. In fact, amidst the ongoing outsourcing of mass-production jobs,
total employment in such boomtowns as San Francisco and San Jose has barely budged. That is,
new software billionaires are being minted every day, but their workforces tend to be tiny-or located
overseas. If that past pattern is the future pattern, well, something will have to give.
We can say: If America is to be
one nation-something Mitt "47 percent" Romney never worried about, although it cost him in the
end-then we will have to figure out a way to turn the genius of the few into good jobs for the many.
The goal isn't socialism, or anything like that; instead, the goal is the widespread distribution
of private property, facilitated, by conscious national economic development, as
I argued at the tail end of this piece.
If we can't, or won't, find a way to expand private ownership nationwide, then the populist upsurges
of the Trump and Sanders campaigns will be remembered as mere overtures to a starkly divergent future.
6. Clinton and Trump Say They Are Trade Hawks: But Are They Sincere?
So now we come to a mega-question for 2016: How should we judge the sincerity of the two major-party
candidates, Clinton or Trump, when they affirm their opposition to TPP? And how do we assess their
attitude toward globalization, including immigration, overall?
The future is, of course, unknown, but we can make a couple of points.
First, it is true that
many have questioned the sincerity of Hillary's new anti-TPP stance, especially given the presence
of such prominent free-traders as vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine and presidential transition-planning
chief Ken Salazar. Moreover, there's also Hillary's own decades-long association with open-borders
immigration policies, as well as past support for such trade bills as NAFTA, PNTR, and, of course,
TPP. And oh yes, there's the Clinton Foundation, that global laundromat for every overseas fortune;
most of those billionaires are globalists par excellence-would a President Hillary really
cross them?
Second, since there's still no way to see inside another person's mind, the best we can
do is look for external clues-by which we mean, external pressures. And so we might ask a basic question:
Would the 45th president, whoever she or he is, feel compelled by those external pressures to keep
their stated commitment to the voters? Or would they feel that they owe more to their elite friends,
allies, and benefactors?
As we have seen, Clinton has long chosen to surround herself with free traders and globalists.
Moreover, she has raised money from virtually every bicoastal billionaire in America.
So we must wonder: Will a new President Clinton really betray her own class-all those
Davos Men and Davos Women-for the sake of middle-class folks she has never met, except maybe
on a rope line? Would Clinton 45, who has spent her life courting the powerful, really stick her
neck out for unnamed strangers-who never gave a dime to the Clinton Foundation?
Okay, so what to make of Trump? He, too, is a fat-cat-even more of fat-cat, in fact, than Clinton.
And yet for more than a year now, he has based his campaign on opposition to globalism in all its
forms; it's been the basis of his campaign-indeed, the basis of his base. And his campaign policy
advisers are emphatic. According to Politico, as recently as August 30, Trump trade adviser
Peter Navarro reiterated Trump's opposition to TPP, declaring,
Any deal must increase the GDP growth rate, reduce the trade deficit, and strengthen the manufacturing
base.
So, were Trump to win the White House, he would come in with a much more solid anti-globalist
mandate.
Thus we can ask: Would a President Trump really cross his own populist-nationalist base by going
over to the other side-to the globalists who voted, and donated, against him? If he did-if he repudiated
his central platform plank-he would implode his presidency, the way that Bush 41 imploded his presidency
in 1990 when he went back on his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.
Surely Trump remembers that moment of political calamity well, and so surely, whatever mistakes
he might make, he won't make that one.
To be sure, the future is unknowable. However, as we have seen, the past, both recent and historical,
is rich with valuable clues.
Clinton will say anything then she'll sell you out. I hope we never get a chance to see
how she will sell us out on TPP
Ellen Bell -> HoosierMilitia
You really do not understand the primitive form of capitalism that the moneyed elites are trying
to impose on us. That system is mercantilism and two of its major tenets are to only give the
workers subsistence level wages (what they are doing to poor people abroad and attempting to do
here) and monopolistic control of everything that is possible to monopolize. The large multi-nationals
have already done that. What we would be headed for under Hillary Clinton is fascism--Mussolini's
shorthand definition of fascism was the marriage of industry and commerce with the power of the
State. That is what the plutocrats who run the big banks (to whom she owes her soul) aim to do.
President, Thomas Jefferson knew the dangers of large European-style central banks. He said:
"...The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the
Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes
for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of
their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will
wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered..."
The power to create money was given to the private banking system of the Federal Reserve in
1913. Nearly every bit of our enormous debt has been incurred since then. The American people
have become debt-slaves. In the Constitution, only Congress has the right to issue currency. That's
why the plutocrats want to do away with it--among other reasons.
"... Donald Trump is challenging the very fabric of the institutional elites in this country on both sides that have, quite frankly, just straight up screwed this country up and made the world a mess. ..."
Tom Coyne, a lifelong Democrat and the mayor of Brook Park, Ohio, spoke
about his endorsement of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump with Breitbart
News Daily SiriusXM host Matt Boyle.
Coyne said:
The parties are blurred. What's the difference? They say the same things
in different tones. At the end of the day, they accomplish nothing.
Donald Trump is challenging the very fabric of the institutional elites
in this country on both sides that have, quite frankly, just straight up
screwed this country up and made the world a mess.
Regarding the GOP establishment's so-called Never Trumpers, Coyne stated,
"If it's their expertise that people are relying upon as to advice to vote,
people should go the opposite."
In an interview last week, Coyne said that Democrats and Republicans
have failed the city through inaction and bad trade policies, key themes
Trump often trumpets.
"He understands us," Coyne said of Trump. "He is saying what we feel,
and therefore, let him shake the bedevils out of everyone in the canyons
of Washington D.C. The American people are responding to him."
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
"... Donald Trump isn't a politician -- he's a one-man wrecking ball against our dysfunctional and corrupt establishment. We're about to see the deluxe version of the left's favorite theme: Vote for us or we'll call you stupid. It's the working class against the smirking class. ..."
"... He understands that if we're ever going to get our economy back on its feet the wage-earning middle class will have to prosper along with investors ..."
"... Trump that really "gets" the idea that the economy is suffering because the middle class can't find employment at livable wages ..."
"... Ms. Coulter says it more eloquently: "The Republican establishment has no idea how much ordinary voters hate both parties." Like me, she's especially annoyed with Republicans, because we think of the Republican Party as being our political "family" that has turned against us: ..."
"... The RNC has been forcing Republican candidates to take suicidal positions forever They were happy to get 100 percent of the Business Roundtable vote and 20 percent of the regular vote. ..."
"... American companies used free trade with low-wage countries as an opportunity to close their American factories and relocate the jobs to lower-paying foreign workers. Instead of creating product and exporting it to other countries, our American companies EXPORTED American JOBS to other countries and IMPORTED foreign-made PRODUCTS into America! Our exports have actually DECLINED during the last five years with most of the 20 countries we signed free trade with. Even our exports to Canada, our oldest free trade partner, are less than what they were five years ago. ..."
"... Trade with Japan, China, and South Korea is even more imbalanced, because those countries actively restrict imports of American-made products. We run a 4x trade imbalance with China, which cost us $367 billion last year. We lost $69 billion to Japan and $28 billion to South Korea. Our exports to these countries are actually DECLINING, even while our imports soar! ..."
"... Why do Establishment Republicans join with Democrats in wanting to diminish the future with the WRONG kind of "free trade" that removes jobs and wealth from the USA? As Ms. Coulter reminds us, it is because Republican Establishment, like the Democrat establishment, is PAID by the money and jobs they receive from big corporations to believe it. ..."
"... The donor class doesn't care. The rich are like locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country. A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years ago said, "If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade." ..."
"... The corporate 1% who believe that the global labor market should be tapped in order to beat American workers out of their jobs; and that corporations and the 1% who own them should be come tax-exempt organizations that profit by using cheap overseas labor to product product that is sold in the USA, and without paying taxes on the profit. Ms. Coulter calls this group of Republican Estblishmentarians "locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country." ..."
"... Pretending to care about the interests of minorities. Of course, the Republican Establishment has even less appeal to minorities than to the White Middle Class (WMC) they abandoned. Minorities are no more interested in losing their jobs to foreigners or to suffer economic stagnation while the rich have their increasing wealth (most of which is earned at the expense of the middle class) tax-sheltered, than do the WMC. ..."
"... Trump has given Republicans a new lease on life. The Establishment doesn't like having to take a back seat to him, but perhaps they should understand that having a back seat in a popular production is so much better than standing outside alone in the cold. ..."
Donald Trump isn't a politician -- he's a one-man wrecking ball against our dysfunctional
and corrupt establishment. We're about to see the deluxe version of the left's favorite theme: Vote
for us or we'll call you stupid. It's the working class against the smirking class.
No pandering! The essence of Trump in personality and issues , August 23, 2016
Ms. Coulter explains the journey of myself and so many other voters into Trump's camp. It captures
the essence of Trump as a personality and Trump on the issues. If I had to sum Ms. Coulter's view
of the reason for Trump's success in two words, I'd say "No Pandering!" I've heard many people,
including a Liberal tell me, "Trump says what needs to be said."
I've voted Republican in every election going back to Reagan in 1980, except for 2012 when
I supported President Obama's re-election. I've either voted for, or financially supported many
"Establishment Republicans" like Mitt Romney and John McCain in 2008. I've also supported some
Conservative ones like Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. In this election I'd been planning to
vote for Jeb Bush, a superb governor when I lived in Florida.
Then Trump announced his candidacy. I had seen hints of that happening as far back as 2012.
In my Amazon reviews in 2012 I said that many voters weren't pleased with Obama or the Republican
Establishment. So the question became: "Who do you vote for if you don't favor the agendas of
either party's legacy candidates?" In November 2013 I commented on the book DOUBLE DOWN: GAME
CHANGE 2012 by Mark Halperin and John Heileman:
=====
Mr. Trump occupies an important place in the political spectrum --- that of being a Republican
Populist.
He understands that if we're ever going to get our economy back on its feet the wage-earning
middle class will have to prosper along with investors, who are recovering our fortunes in
the stock market.
IMO whichever party nominates a candidate like Trump that really "gets" the idea that the
economy is suffering because the middle class can't find employment at livable wages, will
be the party that rises to dominance.
Mr. Trump, despite his flakiness, at least understood that essential fact of American economic
life.
November 7, 2013
=====
Ms. Coulter says it more eloquently: "The Republican establishment has no idea how much
ordinary voters hate both parties." Like me, she's especially annoyed with Republicans, because
we think of the Republican Party as being our political "family" that has turned against us:
===== The RNC has been forcing Republican candidates to take suicidal positions forever They were
happy to get 100 percent of the Business Roundtable vote and 20 percent of the regular vote.
when the GOP wins an election, there is no corresponding "win" for the unemployed blue-collar
voter in North Carolina. He still loses his job to a foreign worker or a closed manufacturing
plant, his kids are still boxed out of college by affirmative action for immigrants, his community
is still plagued with high taxes and high crime brought in with all that cheap foreign labor.
There's no question but that the country is heading toward being Brazil. One doesn't have to
agree with the reason to see that the very rich have gotten much richer, placing them well beyond
the concerns of ordinary people, and the middle class is disappearing. America doesn't make anything
anymore, except Hollywood movies and Facebook. At the same time, we're importing a huge peasant
class, which is impoverishing what remains of the middle class, whose taxes support cheap labor
for the rich.
With Trump, Americans finally have the opportunity to vote for something that's popular.
=====
That explains how Trump won my vote --- and held on to it through a myriad of early blunders
and controversies that almost made me switch my support to other candidates.
I'm no "xenophobe isolationist" stereotype. My first employer was an immigrant from Eastern
Europe. What I learned working for him launched me on my successful career. I've developed and
sold computer systems to subsidiaries of American companies in Europe and Asia. My business partners
have been English and Canadian immigrants. My family are all foreign-born Hispanics. Three of
my college roommates were from Ecuador, Germany, and Syria.
BECAUSE of this international experience I agree with the issues of trade and immigration that
Ms. Coulter talks about that have prompted Trump's rising popularity.
First, there is the false promise that free trade with low-wage countries would "create millions
of high-paying jobs for American workers, who will be busy making high-value products for export."
NAFTA was signed in 1994. GATT with China was signed in 2001. Since then we've signed free trade
with 20 countries. It was said that besides creating jobs for Americans, that free trade would
prosper the global economy. In truth the opposite happened:
American companies used free trade with low-wage countries as an opportunity to close their
American factories and relocate the jobs to lower-paying foreign workers. Instead of creating
product and exporting it to other countries, our American companies EXPORTED American JOBS to
other countries and IMPORTED foreign-made PRODUCTS into America! Our exports have actually DECLINED
during the last five years with most of the 20 countries we signed free trade with. Even our exports
to Canada, our oldest free trade partner, are less than what they were five years ago.
We ran trade SURPLUSES with Mexico until 1994, when NAFTA was signed. The very next year the
surplus turned to deficit, now $60 billion a year. Given that each American worker produces an
average of $64,000 in value per year, that is a loss of 937,000 American jobs to Mexico alone.
The problem is A) that Mexicans are not wealthy enough to be able to afford much in the way of
American-made product and B) there isn't much in the way of American-made product left to buy,
since so much of former American-made product is now made in Mexico or China.
Trade with Japan, China, and South Korea is even more imbalanced, because those countries
actively restrict imports of American-made products. We run a 4x trade imbalance with China, which
cost us $367 billion last year. We lost $69 billion to Japan and $28 billion to South Korea. Our
exports to these countries are actually DECLINING, even while our imports soar!
Thus, free trade, except with a few fair-trading countries like Canada, Australia, and possibly
Britain, has been a losing proposition. Is it coincidence that our economy has weakened with each
trade deal we have signed? Our peak year of labor force participation was 1999. Then we had the
Y2K collapse and the Great Recession, followed by the weakest "recovery" since WWII? As Trump
would say, free trade has been a "disaster."
Why do Establishment Republicans join with Democrats in wanting to diminish the future
with the WRONG kind of "free trade" that removes jobs and wealth from the USA? As Ms. Coulter
reminds us, it is because Republican Establishment, like the Democrat establishment, is PAID by
the money and jobs they receive from big corporations to believe it. Ms. Coulter says:
===== The donor class doesn't care. The rich are like locusts: once they've picked America dry,
they'll move on to the next country. A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years
ago said, "If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India
out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out
of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade."
=====
Then there is immigration. My wife, son, and extended family legally immigrated to the USA
from Latin America. The first family members were recruited by our government during the labor
shortage of the Korean War. Some fought for the United States in Korea. Some of their children
fought for us in Vietnam, and some grandchildren are fighting in the Middle East. Most have
become successful professionals and business owners. They came here LEGALLY, some waiting in
queue for up to 12 years. They were supported by the family already in America until they were
on their feet.
Illegal immigration has been less happy. Illegals are here because the Democrats want new voters
and the Republicans want cheap labor. Contrary to business propaganda, illegals cost Americans
their jobs. A colleague just old me, "My son returned home from California after five years, because
he couldn't get construction work any longer. All those jobs are now done off the books by illegals."
It's the same in technology. Even while our high-tech companies are laying off 260,000 American
employees in 2016 alone, they are banging the drums to expand the importation of FOREIGN tech
workers from 85,000 to 195,000 to replace the Americans they let go. Although the H1-B program
is billed as bringing in only the most exceptional, high-value foreign engineers, in truth most
visas are issued to replace American workers with young foreigners of mediocre ability who'll
work for much less money than the American family bread-winners they replaced.
Both parties express their "reverse racism" against the White Middle Class. Democrats don't
like them because they tend to vote Republican. The Republican Establishment doesn't like them
because they cost more to employ than overseas workers and illegal aliens. According to them the
WMC is too technologically out of date and overpaid to allow our benighted business leaders to
"compete internationally."
Ms. Coulter says "Americans are homesick" for our country that is being lost to illegal immigration
and the removal of our livelihoods overseas. We are sick of Republican and Democrat Party hidden
agendas, reverse-racism, and economic genocide against the American people. That's why the Establishment
candidates who started out so theoretically strong, like Jeb Bush, collapsed like waterlogged
houses of cards when they met Donald Trump. As Ms. Coulter explains, Trump knows their hidden
agendas, and knows they are working against the best interests of the American Middle Class.
Coulter keeps coming back to Mr. Trump's "Alpha Male" personality that speaks to Americans
as nation without pandering to specific voter identity groups. She contrasts his style to the
self-serving "Republican (Establishment) Brain Trust that is mostly composed of comfortable, well-paid
mediocrities who, by getting a gig in politics, earn salaries higher than a capitalist system
would ever value their talents." She explains what she sees as the idiocy of those Republican
Establishment political consultants who wrecked the campaigns of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz by micromanaging
with pandering.
She says the Republican Establishment lost because it served itself --- becoming wealthy by
serving the moneyed interests of Wall Street. Trump won because he is speaking to the disfranchised
American Middle Class who loves our country, is proud of our traditions, and believes that Americans
have as much right to feed our families through gainful employment as do overseas workers and
illegal aliens.
"I am YOUR voice," says Trump to the Middle Class that until now has been ignored and even
sneered at by both parties' establishments.
I've given an overview of the book here. The real delight is in the details, told as only Anne
Coulter can tell them. I've quoted a few snippets of her words, that relate most specifically
to my views on Trump and the issues. I wish there were space to quote many more. Alas, you'll
need to read the book to glean them all!
Bruce, I would also add that the Republican Establishment chose not to represent the interests
of the White Middle Class on trade, immigration, and other issues that matter to us. They chose
to represent the narrow interests of:
1. The corporate 1% who believe that the global labor market should be tapped in order
to beat American workers out of their jobs; and that corporations and the 1% who own them should
be come tax-exempt organizations that profit by using cheap overseas labor to product product
that is sold in the USA, and without paying taxes on the profit. Ms. Coulter calls this group
of Republican Estblishmentarians "locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to
the next country."
2. Pretending to care about the interests of minorities. Of course, the Republican Establishment
has even less appeal to minorities than to the White Middle Class (WMC) they abandoned. Minorities
are no more interested in losing their jobs to foreigners or to suffer economic stagnation while
the rich have their increasing wealth (most of which is earned at the expense of the middle class)
tax-sheltered, than do the WMC.
The Republican Establishment is in a snit because Trump beat them by picking up the WMC votes
that the Establishment abandoned. What would have happened if Trump had not come on the scene?
The probable result is that the Establishment would have nominated a ticket of Jeb Bush and John
Kasich. These candidates had much to recommend them as popular governors of key swing states.
But they would have gone into the election fighting the campaign with Republican Establishment
issues that only matter to the 1%. They would have lost much of the WMC vote that ultimately rallied
around Trump, while gaining no more than the usual 6% of minorities who vote Republican. It would
have resulted in a severe loss for the Republican Party, perhaps making it the minority party
for the rest of the century.
Trump has given Republicans a new lease on life. The Establishment doesn't like having
to take a back seat to him, but perhaps they should understand that having a back seat in a popular
production is so much better than standing outside alone in the cold.
It's funny how White Men are supposed to be angry. But I've never seen any White men:
1. Running amok, looting and burning down their neighborhood, shooting police and other "angry
White men." There were 50 people shot in Chicago last weekend alone. How many of those do you
think were "angry white men?" Hint: they were every color EXCEPT white.
2. Running around complaining that they aren't allowed into the other gender's bathroom, then
when they barge their way in there complain about being sexually assaulted. No, it's only "angry
females" (of any ethnicity) who barge their way into the men's room and then complain that somebody
in there offended them.
Those "angry white men" are as legendary as "Bigfoot." They are alleged to exist everywhere,
but are never seen. Maybe that's because they mostly hang out in the quiet neighborhoods of cookie-cutter
homes in suburbia, go to the lake or bar-be-que on weekends, and take their allotment of Viagra
in hopes of occassionally "getting lucky" with their wives. If they're "angry" then at least they
don't take their angry frustrations out on others, as so many other militant, "in-your-face" activist
groups do!
"... I've tuned out Warren-she has become the "red meat" surrogate for Clinton. Just because Taibbi was excellent on exposing Wall St. doesn't mean he really knows s**t about politics. I find the depiction of Trump as some kind of monster-buffoon to be simply boring and not very helpful. ..."
"... (might be the Trump Chaos bc Hillary will strategically turn our war machine on us can't believe this is as good as it gets, sighed out) ..."
"... Having the establishment, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street against him helps Trump a lot. ..."
"... You can fool part of the people all the time, and all people part of the time, but Brexit won, so will Trump, politician extraordinaire ..."
"... Given his family, a Trump presidency may look more like JFK's, where Bobby had more power than LBJ. Also, given Trump's negotiating expertise, I would certainly not believe any assertion of support he proclaims for the VP. I expect he had little choice in the matter, and that he also plans to send the VP to the hinterlands at the first opportunity. I'm unclear why so many appear to believe the VP has any influence whatsoever; I believe GWB was the only post-WW2 president who let the VP have any power. ..."
"... What is a populist? Somebody that tries to do what the majority want. Current examples: Less wars and military spending. More infrastructure spending. Less support for banks and corps (imagine how many votes trump would gain if he said 'as pres I will jail bankers that break the law' And how that repudiates Obama and both parties.) Gun control (but not possible from within the rep party) ..."
"... What is a fascist? Somebody that supports corporations, military, and military adventures. ..."
"... Actually, it sounds a whole lot like a different candidate from a different party, doesn't it? ..."
"... Neoliberal "Goodthink" flag. What this means when neoliberals say it is not let's build a better global society for all it means Corporations and our military should be able to run roughshod over the world and the people's of other countries. Exploit their citizens for cheap Labor, destroy their environment and move on. These are the exact policies of Hillary Clinton (see TPP, increase foreign wars etc.). Hillary globalism is not about global Brotherhood it's about global economic and military exploitation. Trump is nationalist non – interventionist, which leads to less global military destruction than hillary and less global exploitation. So who is a better for those outside the US, hillary the interventionist OR trump the non-interventionist? ..."
"... Look, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point. ..."
"... The very fact that Establishment, Wall St and Koch bros are behind HRC is evidence that the current 'status quo' will be continued! I cannot stand another 4 years of Hilabama. ..."
"... The striving for American empire has so totally confused the political order of the country that up is down and down is up. The idea of government for and by the people is a distant memory. Covering for lies and contradictions of beliefs has blurred any notion of principles informing public action. ..."
"... If there is any principle that matters today, it is the pursuit of money and profit reigns supreme. Trump is populist in the sense he is talking about bringing money and wealth back to the working classes. Not by giving it directly, but by forcing businesses to turn their sights back to the US proper and return to making their profits at home. In the end, it is all nostalgia and probably impossible, but working class people remember those days so it rings true. That is hope and change in action. People also could care less if he cheats on his taxes or is found out lying about how much he is worth. Once again, fudging your net worth is something working people care little about. Having their share of the pie is all that matters and Trump is tapping into that. ..."
"... The only crime Trump has committed so far is his language. Liberals like Clinton, Blair and Obama drip blood. ..."
"... The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens. Globalization is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists. Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland. ..."
I've tuned out Warren-she has become the "red meat" surrogate for Clinton. Just because
Taibbi was excellent on exposing Wall St. doesn't mean he really knows s**t about politics. I
find the depiction of Trump as some kind of monster-buffoon to be simply boring and not very helpful.
for all the run around Hillary, Trump's chosen circle of allies are Wall Street and Austerity
enablers. actually, Trump chaos could boost the enablers as easily as Hillary's direct mongering.
War is Money low hanging fruit in this cash strapped era and either directly or indirectly neither
candidate will disappoint.
So I Ask Myself which candidate will the majority manage sustainability while assembling to create
different outcomes? (might be the Trump Chaos bc Hillary will strategically turn our war machine
on us can't believe this is as good as it gets, sighed out)
War is only good for the profiteers when it can be undertaken in another territory. Bringing
the chaos home cannot be good for business. Endless calls for confidence and stability in markets
must reflect the fact that disorder effects more business that the few corporations that benefit
directly from spreading chaos. A split in the business community seems to be underway or at least
a possible leverage point to bring about positive change.
Even the splits in the political class reflect this. Those that benefit from spreading chaos are
loosing strength because they have lost control of where that chaos takes place and who is directly
effected from its implementation. Blowback and collateral damage are finally registering.
Trump may be a disaster. Clinton will be a disaster. One of these two will win. I won't vote
for either, but if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, I'd take Trump. He's certainly
not a fascist (I think it was either Vice or Vox that had an article where they asked a bunch
of historians of fascism if he was, the answer was a resounding no), he's a populist in the Andrew
Jackson style. If nothing else Trump will (probably) not start WW3 with Russia.
And war with Russia doesn't depend just on Hillary, it depends on us in Western Europe agreeing
with it.
A laughable proposition. The official US policy, as you may recall, is
fuck the EU .
Where was Europe when we toppled the Ukrainian govt? Get back to me when you can actually spend
2% GDP on your military. At the moment you can't even control your illegal immigrants.
The political parties that survive display adaptability, and ideological consistency isn't
a requirement for that. Look at the party of Lincoln. Or look at the party of FDR.
If the Democrats decapitate the Republican party by bringing in the Kagans of this world and
Republican suburbanites in swing states, then the Republicans will go where the votes are; the
Iron Law of Institutions will drive them to do it, and the purge of the party after Trump will
open the positions in the party for people with that goal.
In a way, what we're seeing now is what should have happened to the Republicans in
2008. The Democrats had the Republicans down on the ground with Obama's boot on their neck. The
Republicans had organized and lost a disastrous war, they had lost the legislative and executive
branches, they were completely discredited ideologically, and they were thoroughly discredited
in the political class and in the press.
Instead, Obama, with his strategy of bipartisanship - good faith or not - gave them a hand
up, dusted them off, and let them right back in the game, by treating them as a legitimate opposition
party. So the Republican day of reckoning was postponed. We got various bids for power by factions
- the Tea Party, now the Liberty Caucus - but none of them came anywhere near taking real power,
despite (click-driven money-raising) Democrat hysteria.
And now the day of reckoning has arrived. Trump went through the hollow institutional shell
of the Republican Party like the German panzers through the French in 1939. And here we are!
(Needless to say, anybody - ***cough*** Ted Cruz ***cough*** - yammering about "conservative
principles" is part of the problem, dead weight, part of the dead past.) I don't know if the Republicans
can remake themselves after Trump; what he's doing is necessary for that, but may not be sufficient.
Republicans won Congress and the states because the Democrats handed them to them on a silver
platter. To Obama and his fan club meaningful power is a hot potato, to be discarded as soon as
plausible.
Having the establishment, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street against him helps
Trump a lot.
Pro-Sanders folks, blacks, and hispanics will mostly vote for Trump.
Having Gov. Pence on the ticket, core Republicans and the silent majority will vote for Trump.
Women deep inside know Trump will help their true interests better than the Clinton-Obama rinse
repeat
Young people, sick and tired of the current obviously rigged system, will vote for change.
You can fool part of the people all the time, and all people part of the time, but Brexit
won, so will Trump, politician extraordinaire
Even Michael Moore gets it
Trump has intimated that he is not going to deal with the nuts and bolts of government,
that will be Pence's job.
Given his family, a Trump presidency may look more like JFK's, where Bobby had more power
than LBJ.
Also, given Trump's negotiating expertise, I would certainly not believe any assertion of support
he proclaims for the VP. I expect he had little choice in the matter, and that he also plans to
send the VP to the hinterlands at the first opportunity. I'm unclear why so many appear to believe
the VP has any influence whatsoever; I believe GWB was the only post-WW2 president who let the
VP have any power.
Minorities will benefit at least as much as whites with infrastructure spending, which trump
says he wants to do It would make him popular, which he likes, why not believe him? And if pres
he would be able to get enough rep votes to get it passed. No chance with Hillary, who anyway
would rather spend on wars, which are mostly fought by minorities.
What is a populist? Somebody that tries to do what the majority want. Current examples:
Less wars and military spending. More infrastructure spending. Less support for banks and corps
(imagine how many votes trump would gain if he said 'as pres I will jail bankers that break the
law' And how that repudiates Obama and both parties.) Gun control (but not possible from within
the rep party)
What is a fascist? Somebody that supports corporations, military, and military adventures.
I'm saying you have a much better chance to pressure Clinton
Sorry, but this argues from facts not in evidence and closely resembles the Correct the Record
troll line (now substantiated through the Wikileaks dump) that Clinton "has to be elected" because
she is at least responsive to progressive concerns.
Except she isn't, and the degree to which the DNC clearly has been trying to pander to disillusioned
Republicans and the amount of bile they spew every time they lament how HRC has had to "veer left"
shows quite conclusively to my mind that, in fact, the opposite of what you say is true.
Also, when NAFTA was being debated in the '90s, the Clintons showed themselves to be remarkably
unresponsive both to the concerns of organized labor (who opposed it) as well as the majority
of the members of their own party, who voted against it. NAFTA was passed only with a majority
of Republican votes.
I have no way of knowing whether you're a troll or sincerely believe this, but either way,
it needs to be pointed out that the historical record actually contradicts your premise. If you
do really believe this, try not to be so easily taken in by crafty rhetoric.
BTW, I'll take Trump's record as a husband over HRC's record as a wife. He loves a woman, then
they break up, and he finds another one. This is not unusual in the US. Hillary, OTOH, "stood
by her man" through multiple publicly humiliating infidelities, including having to settle out
of court for more than $800,000, and rape charges. No problem with her if her husband was flying
many times on the "Lolita Express" with a child molester. Could be she had no idea where her "loved
one" was at the time. Do they in fact sleep in the same bed, or even live in the same house? I
don't know.
RE: calling Donald Trump a "sociopath"-this is another one of those words that is thrown around
carelessly, like "nazi" and "fascist". In the Psychology Today article "How to Spot a Sociopath",
they list 16 key behavioral characteristics. I can't see them in Trump-you could make a case for
a few of them, but not all. For example: "failure to follow any life plan", "sex life impersonal,
trivial, and poorly integrated", "poor judgment and failure to learn by experience", "incapacity
for love"-–you can't reasonably attach these characteristics to The Donald, who, indeed, has a
more impressive and loving progeny than any other prez candidate I can think of.
"I have a sense of international identity as well: we are all brothers and sisters."
Neoliberal "Goodthink" flag. What this means when neoliberals say it is not let's build
a better global society for all it means Corporations and our military should be able to run roughshod
over the world and the people's of other countries. Exploit their citizens for cheap Labor, destroy
their environment and move on. These are the exact policies of Hillary Clinton (see TPP, increase
foreign wars etc.). Hillary globalism is not about global Brotherhood it's about global economic
and military exploitation. Trump is nationalist non – interventionist, which leads to less global
military destruction than hillary and less global exploitation. So who is a better for those outside
the US, hillary the interventionist OR trump the non-interventionist?
"And not everyone feels the same way, but for most voters there is either a strong tribal loyalty
(Dem or Repub) or a weaker sense of "us" guiding the voter on that day.
Mad as I am about the Blue Dogs, I strongly identify with the Dems."
So you recognize you are a tribalist, and assume all the baggage and irrationality that tribalism
often fosters, but instead of addressing your tribalism you embrace it. What you seem to be saying
(to me)is that we should leave critical thinking at the door and become dem tribalists like you.
"But the Repubs and Dems see Wall Street issues through different cultural prisms. Republican
are more reflexively pro-business. It matters."
Hillary Clinton's biggest donors are Wallstreet and her dem. Husband destroyed glass-steagall.
Trump wants to reinstate glass-steagall, so who is more business friendly again?
"He is racist, and so he knows how to push ugly buttons."
This identity politics trope is getting so old. Both are racist just in different ways, Trump
says in your face racist things, which ensure the injustice cannot be ignored, where hillary has
and does support racist policies, that use stealth racism to incrementaly increase the misery
of minorities, while allowing the majority to pretend it's not happening.
"First, he will govern with the Republicans. Republican judges, TPP, military spending, environmental
rollbacks, etc. Trump will not overrule Repubs in Congress."
These are literally hillarys policies not trumps.
Trump: anti TPP, stop foreign interventions, close bases use money for infrastructure.
Hillary :Pro TPP, more interventions and military spending
"And no, no great Left populist party will ride to the rescue. The populist tradition (identity)
is mostly rightwing and racist in our society.
People do not change political identity like their clothes. The left tradition in the US, such
as it is, is in the Dem party."
So what you are saying is quit being stupid, populism is bad and you should vote for hillarys
neoliberalism. The democrats were once left so even if they are no longer left, we must continue
to support them if another party or candidate that is to the left isn't a democrat? Your logic
hurts my head.
Look, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could
be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point. Those who haven't realized
that, or worse, who shill for them are willfully ignorant, amoral, or unethical. The fact that
that includes a large chunk of the population doesn't change that. I don't vote for criminals.
The very fact that Establishment, Wall St and Koch bros are behind HRC is evidence that
the current 'status quo' will be continued! I cannot stand another 4 years of Hilabama.
I hate Hillary more than Trump. I want to protest at the Establishment, which at this represented
by Hillary.
Populism (support for popular issues) is, well, popular.
Fascism (support for corps and military adventures) is, at least after our ME adventures, unpopular.
Commenters are expressing support for the person expressing popular views, such as infrastructure
spending, and expressing little support for the candidate they believe is most fascist.
Btw, Most on this site are liberals, few are reps, so to support him they have had to buck
some of their long held antipathy regarding reps.
Right, what is changing with Trump is the Republicans are going back to, say, the Eisenhower
era, when Ike started the interstate highway system, a socialist program if there ever was one.
It's a good article; this is a general observation. Sorry!
"Hate" seems to be a continuing Democrat meme, and heck, who can be for hate? So it makes sense
rhetorically, but in policy terms it's about as sensible as being against @ssh0les (since as the
good book says, ye have the @ssh0les always with you). So we're really looking at virtue signaling
as a mode of reinforcing tribalism, and to be taken seriously only for that reason. If you look
at the political class writing about the working class - modulo writers like Chris Arnade - the
hate is plain as day, though it's covered up with the rhetoric of meritocracy, taking care of
losers, etc.
Strategic hate management is a great concept. It's like hate can never be created or destroyed,
and is there as a resource to be mined or extracted. The Clinton campaign is doing a great job
of strategic hate management right now, by linking Putin and Trump, capitalizing on all the good
work done in the press over the last year or so.
For years we have been told that government should be run like a business. In truth that statement
was used as a cudgel to avoid having the government provide any kind of a safety net to its citizenry
because there was little or no profit in it for the people who think that government largess should
only be for them.
Here's the thing, if government had been run like a business, we the people would own huge
portions of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Chase today. We wouldn't have bailed them out without
an equity stake in them. Most cities would have a share of the gate for every stadium that was
built. And rather than paying nothing to the community Walmart would have been paying a share
of their profits (much as those have dropped over the years).
I do not like Trump's business, but he truly does approach his brand and his relationships
as a business. When he says he doesn't like the trade deals because they are bad business and
bad deals he is correct. IF the well being of the United states and his populace are what you
are interested in regarding trade deals, ours are failures. Now most of us here know that was
not the point of the trade deals. They have been a spectacular success for many of our largest
businesses and richest people, but for America as a whole they have increased our trade deficit
and devastated our job base. When he says he won't go there, this is one I believe him on.
I also believe him on NATO and on the whole Russian thing. Why, because of the same reasons
I believe him on Trade. They are not winners for America as a whole. They are bad deals. Europe
is NOT living up to their contractual agreement regarding NATO. For someone who is a believer
in getting the better of the deal that is downright disgusting. And he sees no benefit in getting
into a war with Russia. The whole reserve currency thing vs. nukes is not going to work for him
as a cost benefit analysis of doing it. He is not going to front this because it is a business
loser.
We truly have the worst choices from the main parties in my lifetime. There are many reasons
Trump is a bad candidate. But on these two, he is far more credible and on the better side of
things than the Democratic nominee. And on the few where she might reasonably considered to have
a better position, unfortunately I do not for a moment believe her to be doing more than giving
lip service based on both her record and her character.
Is it your opinion that to have globalisation we must marginalize russia to the extent that
they realize they can't have utopia and make the practical choice of allowing finance capitalism
to guide them to realistic incrementally achieved debt bondage?
The Democratic Party has been inching further and further to the right. Bernie tried to arrest
this drift, but his internal populist rebellion was successfully thwarted by party elite corruption.
The Democratic position is now so far to the right that the Republicans will marginalize themselves
if they try to keep to the right of the Democrats.
But, despite party loyalty or PC slogans, the Democrat's rightward position is now so obvious
that it can be longer disguised by spin. The Trump campaign has demonstrated, the best electoral
strategy for the Republican Party is to leapfrog leftward and campaign from a less corporate position.
This has given space for the re-evaluation of party positions that Trump is enunciating, and the
result is that the Trump is running to the
left of Hillary. How weird is this?
I meant to use right and left to refer generally to elite vs popular. The issue is too big
to discuss without some simplification, and I'm sorry it has distracted from the main issue. On
the face of it, judging from the primaries, the Republican candidates who represented continued
rightward drift were rejected. (Indications are that the same thing happened in the Democratic
Party, but party control was stronger there, and democratic primary numbers will never be known).
The main point I was trying to make is that the Democratic party has been stretching credulity
to the breaking point in claiming to be democratic in any sense, and finally the contradiction
between their statements and actions has outpaced the capabilities of their propaganda. Their
Orwellian program overextended itself. Popular recognition of the disparity has caused a kind
of political "snap" that's initiated a radical reorganization of what used to be the party of
the right (or corporations, or elites, or finance, or "your description here".)
Besides confusion between which issues are right or left for Republicans or Democrats on the
national level, internationally, the breakdown of popular trust in the elites, and the failure
of their propaganda on that scale, is leading to a related worldwide distrust and rejection of
elite policies. This distrust has been percolating in pockets for some time, but it seems it's
now become so widespread that it's practically become a movement.
I suspect, however, there's a Plan B for this situation to restore the proper order. Will be
interesting to see how this plays out.
The striving for American empire has so totally confused the political order of the country
that up is down and down is up. The idea of government for and by the people is a distant memory.
Covering for lies and contradictions of beliefs has blurred any notion of principles informing
public action.
If there is any principle that matters today, it is the pursuit of money and profit reigns
supreme. Trump is populist in the sense he is talking about bringing money and wealth back to
the working classes. Not by giving it directly, but by forcing businesses to turn their sights
back to the US proper and return to making their profits at home. In the end, it is all nostalgia
and probably impossible, but working class people remember those days so it rings true. That is
hope and change in action. People also could care less if he cheats on his taxes or is found out
lying about how much he is worth. Once again, fudging your net worth is something working people
care little about. Having their share of the pie is all that matters and Trump is tapping into
that.
Clintons arrogance is worse because the transcripts probably clearly show her secretly conspiring
with bankers to screw the working people of this country. Trumps misdeeds effect his relationship
to other elites while Clintons directly effect working people.
Such a sorry state of affairs. When all that matters is the pursuit of money and profit, moving
forward will be difficult and full of moral contradictions. Populism needs a new goal. The political
machinery that gives us two pro-business hacks and an ineffectual third party has fundamentally
failed.
The business of America must be redefined, not somehow brought back to a mythical past greatness.
Talk about insanity.
"Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Send him packing."
"There's not much the Democrats can do about Mrs. Clinton. She's got a Senate seat for six
years. But there is no need for the party to look to her for leadership. The Democrats need to
regroup, re-establish their strong links to middle-class and working-class Americans, and move
on."
"You can't lead a nation if you are ashamed of the leadership of your party. The Clintons are
a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they've betrayed everyone who has ever believed
in them."
"As neither Clinton has the grace to retire from the scene, the Democrats have no choice but
to turn their backs on them. It won't be easy, but the Democrats need to try. If they succeed
they'll deserve the compliment Bill Clinton offered Gennifer Flowers after she lied under oath:
"Good for you." "
Amazing how the New York Times has "evolved" from Herbert's editorial stance of 15 years ago
to their unified editorial/news support for HRC's candacy,
In my view, it is not as if HRC has done anything to redeem herself in the intervening years.
It takes liberals to create a refugee crisis.
What country are we going to bomb back into the stone age this week?
We are very squeamish about offensive language.
We don't mind dropping bombs and ripping people apart with red hot shrapnel.
We are liberals.
Liberal sensibilities were on display in the film "Apocalypse Now".
No writing four letter words on the side of aircraft.
Napalm, white phosphorous and agent orange – no problem.
Liberals are like the English upper class – outward sophistication hiding the psychopath underneath.
They were renowned for their brutality towards slaves, the colonies and the English working class
(men, women and children) but terribly sophisticated when with their own.
Are you a bad language sort of person – Trump
Or a liberal, psychopath, empire builder – Clinton
The only crime Trump has committed so far is his language. Liberals like Clinton, Blair
and Obama drip blood.
Lambert strether said: my view is that the democrat party cannot be saved, but it can be seized.
Absolutely correct.
That is why Trump must be elected. Only then through the broken remains of both Parties can the
frangible Democrat Party be seized and restored.
The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from
Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to
being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and
austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens. Globalization
is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots
for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists.
Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for
the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland.
"... Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication of America's economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for many working people. Thanks to "disruption" and the "global supply chain," many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile, a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement their hold on the nation's wealth. ..."
"... Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme. When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another "peer power," we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders. That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China. ..."
Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication
of America's economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level
of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that
would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for
many working people. Thanks to "disruption" and the "global supply chain,"
many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying
jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile,
a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement
their hold on the nation's wealth.
Enrique Ferro's insight:
Moments of change require adaptation, but the United States is not good
at adapting. We are used to being in charge. This blinded us to the reality
that as other countries began rising, our relative power would inevitably
decline. Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative
foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme.
When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another "peer
power," we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they
ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders.
That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the
countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China.
This is downright sickening and the people who are voting for Hillary will not even care what will
happen with the USA iif she is elected.
By attacking Trump using "Khan gambit" she risks a violent backlash (And not only via Wikileaks,
which already promised to release information about her before the elections)
People also start to understand that she is like Trump. He destroyed several hundred American lifes
by robbing them, exploiting their vanity (standard practice in the USA those days) via Trump University
scam. She destroyed the whole country -- Libya and is complicit in killing Khaddafi (who, while not
a nice guy, was keeping the country together and providing be highest standard of living in Africa for
his people).
In other words she is a monster and sociopath. He probably is a narcissist too. So there is no much
phychological difference between them. And we need tight proportions to judge this situation if we are
talking about Hillary vs Trump.
As for people voting for Trump -- yes they will. I think if Hillary goes aganst Trump, the female
neoliberal monster will be trumped. She has little chances even taking into account the level of brainwashing
in the USA (which actually is close to those that existed in the USSR).
Notable quotes:
"... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
"... U.S. Government Tried to Tackle Gun Violence in 1960s ..."
"... Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them. ..."
"... The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences. ..."
"... "Every society chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor." More specifically, isn't it a struggle between various political/economic/cultural movements within a society which chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor. ..."
"... My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. ..."
"... " the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism" ..."
"... The neoliberals are all too aware that the clock is ticking. In this morning's NYT, yet more talk of ramming TPP through in the lame duck. ..."
"... The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. ..."
"... This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot. ..."
"... Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government. ..."
"... In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their ..."
"... Your phrase "Trump is political vandalism" is great. I don't think I've seen a better description. NPR this morning was discussing Trump and his relationship with the press and the issues some GOP leaders have with him. When his followers were discussed, the speakers closely circled your vandalism point. Basically they said that his voters are angry with the power brokers and leaders in DC and regardless of whether they think Trump's statements are heartfelt or just rhetoric, they DO know he will stick it to those power brokers so that's good. Vandalism by a longer phrase. ..."
"... Meritocracy was ALWAYS a delusional fraud. What you invariably get, after a couple of generations, is a clique of elitists who define merit as themselves and reproduce it ad nauseam. Who still believes in such laughable kiddie stories? ..."
"... Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal. ..."
"... Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders. ..."
"... Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors. ..."
"... Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry. ..."
"... Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development. ..."
"... Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour. ..."
"... Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official. ..."
"... Free public education including college (4 year degree). ..."
"... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
"... This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
"... Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- ..."
"... "they are now re-shaping the world in their own image" Isn't this intrinsic to bourgeois liberalism? ..."
"... Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions (and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption. ..."
"... Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher quality of life, not a higher quantity of people. ..."
"... The issue goes beyond "current neoliberals up for election", it is most of our political establishment that has been corrupted by a system that provides for the best politicians money can buy. ..."
"... America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty for the masses. ..."
"... Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy. ..."
The first comment gives a window into the hidden desperation in America that is showing up in statistics
like increasing opioid addiction and suicides, rather than in accounts of how and why so many people
are suffering. I hope readers will add their own observations in comments.
We recently took three months to travel the southern US from coast to coast. As an expat for
the past twenty years, beyond the eye opening experience it left us in a state of shock. From
a homeless man convulsing in the last throes of hypothermia (been there) behind a fuel station
in Houston (the couldn't care less attendant's only preoccupation getting our RV off his premises),
to the general squalor of near-homelessness such as the emergence of "American favelas" a block
away from gated communities or affluent ran areas, to transformation of RV parks into permanent
residencies for the foreclosed who have but their trailer or RV left, to social study one can
engage while queuing at the cash registers of a Walmart before beneficiaries of SNAP.
Stopping to take the time to talk and attempt to understand their predicament and their beliefs
as to the cause of their plight is a dizzying experience in and of itself. For a moment I felt
transposed to the times of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain dialectics fuzzed the perception
of that other world to the west with a structured set of beliefs designed to blacken that horizon
as well as establish a righteous belief in their own existential paradigm.
What does that have to do with education? Everything if one considers the elitist trend that
is slowly setting the framework of tomorrow's society. For years I have felt there is a silent
"un-avowed conspiracy", why the seeming redundancy, because it is empirically driven as a by-product
of capitalism's surge and like a self-redeeming discount on a store shelf crystalizes a group
identity of think-alike know-little or nothing frustrated citizens easily corralled by a Fox or
Trump piper. We have re-rcreated the conditions or rather the reality of "Poverty In America"
barely half a century after its first diagnostic with one major difference : we are now feeding
the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder,
once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe.
So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump. Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR)
was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR
missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while
fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process
of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their
job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying
to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit.
In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism
(neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US
and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their
markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right
into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.
In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging.
There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent
real people in favor of useless eater rich.
Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity,
and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.
According to NPR's experts, many or most of those parties are "fascist". The fascist label
is getting tossed around a LOT right now. It is slung at Trump, at UKIP, or any others. Fascist
is what you call the opposition party to the right that you oppose. Now I don't call Trump a fascist.
A buffoon, yes, even a charlatan (I still rather doubt he really originally thought he would become
the GOP nominee. Perhaps I'm wrong but, like me, many seemed to think that he was pushing his
"brand" – a term usage of which I HATE because it IS like we are all commodities or businesses
rather than PEOPLE – and that he would drop by the wayside and profit from his publicity).
Be that as it may, NPR and Co were discussing the rise of fascist/neofascist parties and wondering
why there were doing so well. Easy answer: neoliberalism + refugee hoards = what you see in Europe.
I've also blamed a large part of today's gun violence in the USA on the fruits of neoliberalism.
Why? Same reason that ugly right-wing groups (fascist or not) are gaining ground around the Western
world. Neoliberalism destroys societies. It destroys the connections within societies (the USA
in this case). Because we have guns handy, the result is mass shootings and flashes of murder-suicides.
This didn't happen BEFORE neoliberalism got its hooks into American society. The guns were there,
always have been (when I was a teen I recall seeing gun mags advertising various "assault weapons"
for sale this was BEFORE Reagan and this was BEFORE mass shootings, etc). Machine guns were much
easier to come by BEFORE the 1980s yet we didn't have mass killings with machine guns, handguns,
or shotguns. ALL that stuff is a NEW disease. A disease rooted in neoliberalism. Neoliberalism
steals your job security, your healthcare security, your home, your retirement security, your
ability to provide for your family, your ability to send your kids to college, your ability to
BUY FOOD. Neoliberalism means you don't get to work for a company for 20 years and then see the
company pay you back for that long, good service with a pension. You'll be lucky to hold a job
at any company from month-to-month now and FORGET about benefits! Healthcare? Going by the wayside
too. Workers in the past felt a bond with each other, especially within a company. Neoliberalism
has turned all workers against each other because they have to fight to gain any of the scraps
being tossed out by the rich overlords. You can't work TOGETHER to gain mutual benefit, you need
to fight each other in a zero sum game. For ME to win you have to lose. You are a commodity. A
disposable and irrelevant widget. THAT combines with guns (that have always been available!) and
you get desperate acting out: mass shootings, murder suicides, etc.
There are actual fascist parties in Europe. To name a few in one country I've followed, Ukraine,
there's Right Sector, Svoboda, and others, and that's just one country. I don't think anyone calls
UKIP fascist.
@Praedor – Your comment that Yves posted and this one are excellent. One of the most succinct
statements of neoliberalism and its worst effects that I have seen.
As to the cause of recent mass gun violence, I think you have truly nailed it. If one thinks
at all about the ways in which the middle class and lower have been squeezed and abused, it's
no wonder that a few of them would turn to violence. It's the same despair and frustration that
leads to higher suicide rates, higher rates of opiate addiction and even decreased life expectancy.
"Machine guns were much easier to come by BEFORE the 1980s yet we didn't have mass killings
with machine guns, handguns, or shotguns. ALL that stuff is a NEW disease. A disease rooted in
neoliberalism."
Easy availability of guns was seen as a serious problem long before the advent of neoliberalism.
For one example of articles about this, see U.S. Government Tried to Tackle Gun Violence in
1960s . Other examples include 1920s and 1930s gangster and mob violence that were a consequence
of Prohibition (of alcohol). While gun violence per-capita might be increasing, the population
is far larger today, and the news media select incidents of violence to make them seem like they're
happening everywhere and that everyone needs to be afraid. That, of course, instills a sense of
insecurity and fear into the public mind; thus, a fearful public want a strong leader and are
willing to accept the inconvenience and dangers of a police state for protection.
America has plenty of refugees, from Latin America
Neo-liberal goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. We used to tame our native workers with immigrants,
and we still do, but we also tame them by globalism in trade. So many rationalizations for this,
based on political and economic propaganda. All problems caused by the same cause American predatory
behavior. And our great political choice iron fist with our without velvet glove.
Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind
(if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe
:) They all have more or less fascist governments.
Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing
to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means
that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as
a government running on behalf of the corporations).
That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around.
None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can
be called fascist in any meaningful sense.
Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front
National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly
anti-corporatist.
The problem here is one of semantics, really. You're using "fascist" interchangeably with "authoritarian",
which is a misnomer for these groups. The EU is absolutely anti-democratic, authoritarian, and
technocratic in a lot of respects, but it's not fascist. Both have corporatist tendencies, but
fascist corporatism was much more radical, much more anti-capitalist (in the sense that the capitalist
class was expected to subordinate itself to the State as the embodiment of the will of the Nation
or People, as were the other classes/corporate units). EU technocratic corporatism has none of
the militarism, the active fiscal policy, the drive for government supported social cohesion,
the ethno-nationalism, or millenarianism of Fascism.
The emergent Right parties like UKIP, FNP, etc. share far more with the Fascists, thought I'd
say they generally aren't yet what Fascists would have recognized as other Fascists in the way
that the NSDAP and Italian Fascists recognized each other -perhaps they're more like fellow travelers.
True, I posted a few minutes ago saying roughly the same thing – but it seems to have gone
to moderation.
Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none
of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once
again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel
and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those
complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them.
When I was young, there were 4 divisions:
* who owned the means of production (public or private entities)
* who decided what those means were used for.
If it is a 'public entity' (aka government or regime) that decides what is built, we have a totalitarian
state, which can be 'communist' (if the means also belong the public entities like the government
or regional fractions of it) or 'fascist' (if the factories are still in private hands).
If it is the private owner of the production capacity who decides what is built, you get capitalism.
I don't recall any examples of private entities deciding what to do with public means of production
(mafia perhaps).
Sheldon Wolin
introduced
us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be
done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed
to achieve their means.
When I cite Germany, it is not so much AfD, but the 2€/hour jobs I am worried about. When I cite
Belgium, it is not the fools of Vlaams Belang, but rather the un-taxing of corporations and the
tear-down of social justice that worries me.
But Jeff, is Wolin accurate in using the term "inverted totalitarianism" to try to capture
the nature of our modern extractive bureaucratic monolith that apparently functions in an environment
where "it is no longer the government that decides what must be done..simply.."private owners
just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means."
Mirowski argues quite persuasively that the neoliberal ascendency does not represent the retreat
of the State but its remaking to strongly support a particular conception of a market society
that is imposed with the help of the State on our society.
For Mirowski, neoliberalism is definitely not politically libertarian or opposed to strong
state intervention in the economy and society.
Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused.
Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence
to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same.
Hi
I live in Europe as well, and what to think of Germany's AfD, Greece's Golden Dawn, the Wilder's
party in the Netherlands etc. Most of them subscribe to the freeloading, sorry free trading economic
policies of neoliberalism.
There's LePen in France and the far-right, fascist leaning party nearly won in Austria. The
far right in Greece as well. There's clearly a move to the far right in Europe. And then there's
the totalitarian mess that is Turkey. How much further this turn to a fascist leaning right goes
and how widespread remains to be seen, but it's clearly underway.
Searched 'current fascist movements europe' and got these active groups from wiki.
National Bolshevik Party-Belarus
Parti Communautaire National-Européen Belgium
Bulgarian National Alliance Bulgaria
Nova Hrvatska Desnica Croatia
Ustaše Croatia
National Socialist Movement of Denmark
La Cagoule France
National Democratic Party of Germany
Fascism and Freedom Movement – Italy
Fiamma Tricolore Italy
Forza Nuova Italy
Fronte Sociale Nazionale Italy
Movimento Fascismo e Libertà Italy
Pērkonkrusts Latvia
Norges Nasjonalsosialistiske Bevegelse Norway
National Radical Camp (ONR) Poland
National Revival of Poland (NOP)
Polish National Community-Polish National Party (PWN-PSN)
Noua Dreaptă Romania
Russian National Socialist Party(formerly Russian National Union)
Barkashov's Guards Russia
National Socialist Society Russia
Nacionalni stroj Serbia
Otačastveni pokret Obraz Serbia
Slovenska Pospolitost Slovakia
España 2000 Spain
Falange Española Spain
Nordic Realm Party Sweden
National Alliance Sweden
Swedish Resistance Movement Sweden
National Youth Sweden
Legion Wasa Sweden
SPAS Ukraine
Blood and Honour UK
British National Front UK
Combat 18 UK
League of St. George UK
National Socialist Movement UK
Nationalist Alliance UK
November 9th Society UK
Racial Volunteer Force UK
"Fascism" has become the prefered term of abuse applied indiscriminately by the right thinking
to any person or movement which they want to tar as inherently objectionable, and which can therefore
be dismissed without the tedium of actually engaging with them at the level of ideas.
Most of the people who like to throw this word around couldn't give you a coherant definition
of what exactly they understand it to signify, beyond "yuck!!"
In fairness even students of political ideology have trouble teasing out a cosistent system
of beliefs, to the point where some doubt fascism is even a coherent ideology. That hardly excuses
the intellectual vacuity of those who use it as a term of abuse, however.
Precisely 3,248 angels can fit on the head of a pin. Parsing the true definition of "fascism"
is a waste of time, broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military,
anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks.
As far as the definition "neo-liberalism" goes, yes it's a useful label. But let's keep it
simple: every society chooses how resources are allocated between Capital and Labor. The needle
has been pegged over on the Capital side for quite some time, my "start date" is when Reagan busted
the air traffic union. The hideous Republicans managed to sell their base that policies that were
designed to let companies be "competitive" were somehow good for them, not just for the owners
of the means of production.
The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements,
once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself
(The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving
Labor with the consequences.
"Every society chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor." More specifically,
isn't it a struggle between various political/economic/cultural movements within a society which
chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor.
Take, for example, the late 1880s-1890s in the U.S. During that time-frame there were powerful
agrarian populists movements and the beginnings of some labor/socialist movements from below,
while from above the property-production system was modified by a powerful political movement
advocating for more corporate administered markets over the competitive small-firm capitalism
of an earlier age.
It was this movement for corporate administered markets which won the battle and defeated/absorbed
the agrarian populists.
What are the array of such forces in 2016? What type of movement doe Trump represent? Sanders?
Clinton?
fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't
see that today needs to go back to their textbooks
Which textbooks specifically?
The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism,
and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you
have been reading.
As for your definition of "fascism", it's obviously so vague and broad that it really doesn't
explain anything. To the extent it contains any insight it is that public institutions (the state),
private businesses (the corporation) and the armed forces all exert significant influence on public
policy. That and a buck and and a half will get you a cup of coffee. If anything it is merely
a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular
set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other
ideologies (again, see the Vox article for a discussion of some of the beliefs that are arguably
characteristic of fascist movements). Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever
existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist".
My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of
right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD,
and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize
them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to
be taken seriously. Given that these movements are only growing in strength as faith in traditional
political movements and elites evaporate this is likely to produce exactly the opposite result.
Right wing populism isn't going to disappear just because the left keeps trying to wish it away.
Refusing to accept this basic political fact risks condemning the left rather than "the fascists"
to political irrelevance.
I moved to a small city/town in Iowa almost 20 years ago. Then, it still had something of a
Norman Rockwell quality to it, particularly in a sense of egalitarianism, and also some small
factory jobs which still paid something beyond a bare existence.
Since 2000, many of those jobs have left, and the population of the county has declined by
about 10%. Kmart, Penney's, and Sears have left as payday/title loan outfits, pawnshops, smoke
shops, and used car dealers have all proliferated.
Parts of the town now resemble a combination of Appalachia and Detroit. Sanders easily won
the caucuses here and, no, his supporters were hardly the latte sippers of someone's imagination,
but blue collar folks of all ages.
My tale is similar to yours. About 2 years ago, I accepted a transfer from Chicagoland to north
central Wisconsin. JC Penney left a year and a half ago, and Sears is leaving in about 3-4 months.
Kmart is long gone.
I was back at the old homestead over Memorial Day, and it's as if time has stood still. Home
prices still going up; people out for dinner like crazy; new & expensive automobiles everywhere.
But driving out of Chicagoland, and back through rural Wisconsin it is unmistakeable.
2 things that are new: The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road
commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year
basis. (Yes, that means there is only enough money to resurface all the county roads if spread
out over 200 years.) 2nd, there are dead deer everywhere on the side of the road. In years past,
they were promptly cleaned up by the highway department. Not any more. Gross, but somebody has
to do the dead animal clean up. (Or not. Don't tell Snotty Walker though.)
Anyway, not everything is gloom and doom. People seem outwardly happy. But if you're paying
attention, signs of stress and deterioration are certainly out there.
This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint.
People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the
ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people
who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. They think
a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot.
You also have the more gullible fundis who have actually deluded themselves into thinking the
man who is ultimate symbol of hedonism will deliver them from secularism because he says he will.
Authoritarians who seek solutions through strong leaders are usually the easiest to con because
they desperately want to believe in their eminent deliverance by a human deus ex machina. Plus
he is ostentatiously rich in a comfortably tacky way and a TV celebrity beats a Harvard law degree.
And why not the thinking goes the highly vaunted elite college Acela crowd has pretty much made
a pig's breakfast out of things. So much for meritocracy. Professor Harold Hill is going to give
River City a boys band.
Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people
Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government.
You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely
what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government.
In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their
political revolution is working. Since TPTB decided peaceful change (i.e. Sanders) was a non-starter,
then they get to reap the whirlwind.
Your phrase "Trump is political vandalism" is great. I don't think I've seen a better description.
NPR this morning was discussing Trump and his relationship with the press and the issues some
GOP leaders have with him. When his followers were discussed, the speakers closely circled your
vandalism point. Basically they said that his voters are angry with the power brokers and leaders
in DC and regardless of whether they think Trump's statements are heartfelt or just rhetoric,
they DO know he will stick it to those power brokers so that's good. Vandalism by a longer phrase.
Meritocracy was ALWAYS a delusional fraud. What you invariably get, after a couple of generations,
is a clique of elitists who define merit as themselves and reproduce it ad nauseam. Who still
believes in such laughable kiddie stories?
Besides, consumers need to learn to play the long game and suck up the "scurrilous attacks"
on their personal consumption habits for the next four years. The end of abortion for four years
is not important - lern2hand and lern2agency, and lern2cutyourrapist if it comes to that. What
is important is that the Democratic Party's bourgeois yuppie constituents are forced to defend
against GOP attacks on their personal and cultural interests with wherewithal that would have
been ordinarily spent to attend to their sister act with their captive constituencies.
If bourgeois Democrats hadn't herded us into a situation where individuals mean nothing outside
of their assigned identity groups and their corporate coalition duopoly, they wouldn't be reaping
the whirlwind today. Why, exactly, should I be sympathetic to exploitative parasites such as the
middle class?
There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost all of them. Population
growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration influxes and you are at least doing
something to reduce population growth.
How to "reverse immigration influxes"?
Stop accepting refugees. It's outrageous that refugees from for example, Somalia,
get small business loans, housing assistance, food stamps and lifetime SSI benefits while some
of our veterans are living on the street.
No more immigration amnesties of any kind.
Deport all illegal alien criminals.
Practice "immigrant family unification" in the country of origin. Even if you have
to pay them to leave. It's less expensive in the end.
Eliminate tax subsidies to American corn growers who then undercut Mexican farmers'
incomes through NAFTA, driving them into poverty and immigration north. Throw Hillary Clinton
out on her ass and practice political and economic justice to Central America.
I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if Clinton gets the crown.
If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party registration and my until recently sizeable
donations in local, state and national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent
forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.
Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute,
or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of
any kind to any politician illegal.
Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can
operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks.
Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations
and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders.
Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with
health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical
schools which restricts the number of doctors.
Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains,
interest, and dividends subject to taxation.
Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry.
Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development.
Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year
restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official.
Free public education including college (4 year degree).
Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom
are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping
the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed
for our things will never end until nothings left.
This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods
are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved,
especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election,
scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough
to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment
until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump
hand grenade.
Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- Patty Murray (up for re-election)
and Cantwell are both trade traitors and got fast track passed.
Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats
and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human
beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions
(and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for
them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption.
This deserves a longer and more thoughtful comment, but I don't have the time this morning.
I have to fight commute traffic, because the population of my home state of California has doubled
from 19M in 1970 to an estimated 43M today (if you count the Latin American refugees and H1B's).
Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category
of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources
on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher
quality of life, not a higher quantity of people.
The issue goes beyond "current neoliberals up for election", it is most of our political
establishment that has been corrupted by a system that provides for the best politicians money
can buy.
In the 1980's I worked inside the beltway witnessing the new cadre of apparatchiks that drove
into town on the Reagan coattails full of moral a righteousness that became deviant, parochial,
absolutist and for whom bi-partisan approaches to policy were scorned prodded on by new power
brokers promoting their gospels in early morning downtown power breakfasts. Sadly our politicians
no longer serve but seek a career path in our growing meritocratic plutocracy.
America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With
the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of
consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism
at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated
capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty
for the masses.
Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating
massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy.
"... Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible, he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans. Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman in Rip's prior life could even imagine ..."
"... children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness. ..."
"... "If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist." ..."
"... It's a Wonderful Life ..."
"... as educators ..."
"... OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive, patriotic and constructive. ..."
"... I am paying an exorbitant subscription for the UK Financial Times at the moment. Anyway, the good news is that very regular articles are appearing where you can almost feel the panic at the populist uprisings. ..."
"... The kernel of Neoliberal Ideology: "There is no such a thing as society." (Margaret Thatcher). ..."
"... "In this postindustrial world not only is the labor question no longer asked, not only is proletarian revolution passé, but the proletariat itself seems passé. And the invisibles who nonetheless do indeed live there have internalized their nonexistence, grown demoralized, resentful, and hopeless; if they are noticed at all, it is as objects of public disdain. What were once called "blue-collar aristocrats"-skilled workers in the construction trades, for example-have long felt the contempt of the whole white-collar world. ..."
"... Or, we could replace Western liberal culture, with its tradition to consume and expand by force an unbroken chain from the Garden of Eden to Friedrich von Hayek, with the notion of maintenance and "enough". Bourgeois make-work holds no interest to me. ..."
"... My understanding of the data is that living standards increased around the world during the so-called golden age, not just in the U.S. (and Western Europe and Japan and Australia ). It could be that it was still imperialism at work, but the link between imperialism and the creation of the middle class is not straightforward. ..."
"... I thought neoliberalism was just the pogrom to make everyone – rational agents – as subscribed by our genetic / heraldic betters .. putting this orbs humans and resources in the correct "natural" order . ..."
"... Disheveled Marsupial for those thinking neoliberalism is not associated with libertarianism one only has to observe the decades of think tanks and their mouth organs roaming the planet . especially in the late 80s and 90s . bringing the might and wonders of the – market – to the great unwashed globally here libertarian priests rang in the good news to the great unwashed ..."
"... I would argue that neoliberalism is a program to define markets as primarily engaged in information processing and to make everyone into non-agents ( as not important at all to the proper functioning of markets). ..."
"... It also appears that neoliberals want to restrict democracy to the greatest extent possible and to view markets as the only foundation for truth without any need for input from the average individual. ..."
I am almost 70 years old, born and raised in New York City, still living in a near suburb.
Somehow, somewhere along the road to my 70th year I feel as if I have been gradually transported
to an almost entirely different country than the land of my younger years. I live painfully now
in an alien land, a place whose habits and sensibilities I sometimes hardly recognize, while unable
to escape from memories of a place that no longer exists. There are days I feel as I imagine a
Russian pensioner must feel, lost in an unrecognizable alien land of unimagined wealth, power,
privilege, and hyper-glitz in the middle of a country slipping further and further into hopelessness,
alienation, and despair.
I am not particularly nostalgic. Nor am I confusing recollection with sentimental yearnings
for a youth that is no more. But if I were a contemporary Rip Van Winkle, having just awakened
after, say, 30-40 years, I would not recognize my beloved New York City. It would be not just
the disappearance of the old buildings, Penn Station, of course, Madison Square Garden and its
incandescent bulb marquee on 50th and 8th announcing NYU vs. St. John's, and the WTC, although
I always thought of the latter as "new" until it went down. Nor would it be the disappearance
of all the factories, foundries, and manufacturing plants, the iconic Domino Sugar on the East
River, the Wonder Bread factory with its huge neon sign, the Swingline Staples building in Long
Island City that marked passage to and from the East River tunnel on the railroad, and my beloved
Schaeffer Beer plant in Williamsburg, that along with Rheingold, Knickerbocker, and a score of
others, made beer from New York taste a little bit different.
It wouldn't be the ubiquitous new buildings either, the Third Avenue ghostly glass erected
in the 70's and 80's replacing what once was the most concentrated collection of Irish gin mills
anywhere. Or the fortress-like castles built more recently, with elaborate high-ceilinged lobbies
decorated like a kind of gross, filthy-wealthy Versailles, an aesthetically repulsive style that
shrieks "power" in a way the neo-classical edifices of our Roman-loving founders never did. Nor
would it even be the 100-story residential sticks, those narrow ground-to-clouds skyscraper condominiums
proclaiming the triumph of globalized capitalism with prices as high as their penthouses, driven
ever upward by the foreign billionaires and their obsession with burying their wealth in Manhattan
real estate.
It is not just the presence of new buildings and the absence of the old ones that have this
contemporary Van Winkle feeling dyslexic and light-headed. The old neighborhoods have disintegrated
along with the factories, replaced by income segregated swatches of homogenous "real estate" that
have consumed space, air, and sunlight while sucking the distinctiveness out of the City. What
once was the multi-generational home turf for Jewish, Afro-American, Puerto Rican, Italian, Polak
and Bohunk families is now treated as simply another kind of investment, stocks and bonds in steel
and concrete. Mom's Sunday dinners, clothes lines hanging with newly bleached sheets after Monday
morning wash, stickball games played among parked cars, and evenings of sitting on the stoop with
friends and a transistor radio listening to Mel Allen call Mantle's home runs or Alan Freed and
Murray the K on WINS 1010 playing Elvis, Buddy Holly, and The Drifters, all gone like last night's
dreams.
Do you desire to see the new New York? Look no further than gentrifying Harlem for an almost
perfect microcosm of the city's metamorphosis, full of multi-million condos, luxury apartment
renovations, and Maclaren strollers pushed by white yuppie wife stay-at-homes in Marcus Garvey
Park. Or consider the "new" Lower East Side, once the refuge of those with little material means,
artists, musicians, bums, drug addicts, losers and the physically and spiritually broken - my
kind of people. Now its tenements are "retrofitted" and remodeled into $4000 a month apartments
and the new residents are Sunday brunching where we used to score some Mary Jane.
There is the "Brooklyn brand", synonymous with "hip", and old Brooklyn neighborhoods like Red
Hook and South Brooklyn (now absorbed into so desirable Park Slope), and Bushwick, another former
outpost of the poor and the last place I ever imagined would be gentrified, full of artists and
hipsters driving up the price of everything. Even large sections of my own Queens and the Bronx
are affected (infected?). Check out Astoria, for example, neighborhood of my father's family,
with more of the old ways than most but with rents beginning to skyrocket and starting to drive
out the remaining working class to who knows where.
Gone is almost every mom and pop store, candy stores with their egg creams and bubble gum cards
and the Woolworth's and McCrory's with their wooden floors and aisles containing ordinary blue
collar urgencies like thread and yarn, ironing boards and liquid bleach, stainless steel utensils
of every size and shape. Where are the locally owned toy and hobby stores like Jason's in Woodhaven
under the el, with Santa's surprises available for lay-away beginning in October? No more luncheonettes,
cheap eats like Nedicks with hot dogs and paper cones of orange drink, real Kosher delis with
vats of warm pastrami and corned beef cut by hand, and the sacred neighborhood "bar and grill",
that alas has been replaced by what the kids who don't know better call "dive bars", the detestable
simulacra of the real thing, slick rooms of long slick polished mahogany, a half-dozen wide screen
TV's blaring mindless sports contests from all over the world, over-priced micro-brews, and not
a single old rummy in sight?
Old Rip searches for these and many more remembered haunts, what Ray Oldenburg called the "great
good places" of his sleepy past, only to find store windows full of branded, high-priced, got-to-have
luxury-necessities (necessary if he/she is to be certified cool, hip, and successful), ridiculously
overpriced "food emporia", high and higher-end restaurants, and apparel boutiques featuring hardened
smiles and obsequious service reserved for those recognized by celebrity or status.
Rip notices too that the visible demographic has shifted, and walking the streets of Manhattan
and large parts of Brooklyn, he feels like what walking in Boston Back Bay always felt like, a
journey among an undifferentiated mass of privilege, preppy or 'metro-sexed' 20 and 30-somethings
jogging or riding bicycles like lean, buff gods and goddesses on expense accounts supplemented
by investments enriched by yearly holiday bonuses worth more than Rip earned in a lifetime.
Sitting alone on a park bench by the river, Rip reflects that more than all of these individual
things, however, he despairs of a city that seems to have been reimagined as a disneyfied playground
of the privileged, offering endless ways to self-gratify and philistinize in a clean, safe (safest
big city in U.S., he heard someone say), slick, smiley, center-of-the-world urban paradise, protected
by the new centurions (is it just his paranoia or do battle-ready police seem to be everywhere?).
Old ethnic neighborhoods are filled with apartment buildings that seem more like post-college
"dorms", tiny studios and junior twos packed with three or four "singles" roommates pooling their
entry level resources in order to pay for the right to live in "The City". Meanwhile the newer
immigrants find what place they can in Kingsbridge, Corona, Jamaica, and Cambria Heights, far
from the city center, even there paying far too much to the landlord for what they receive.
New York has become an unrecognizable place to Rip, who can't understand why the accent-less
youngsters keep asking him to repeat something in order to hear his quaint "Brooklyn" accent,
something like the King's English still spoken on remote Smith Island in the Chesapeake, he guesses
.
Rip suspects that this "great transformation" (apologies to Polanyi) has coincided, and is somehow
causally related, to the transformation of New York from a real living city into, as the former
Mayor proclaimed, the "World Capital" of financialized commerce and all that goes with it.
"Financialization", he thinks, is not the expression of an old man's disapproval but a way
of naming a transformed economic and social world. Rip is not an economist. He reads voraciously
but, as an erstwhile philosopher trained to think about the meaning of things, he often can't
get his head around the mathematical model-making explanations of the economists that seem to
dominate the more erudite political and social analyses these days. He has learned, however, that
the phenomenon of "capitalism" has changed along with his city and his life.
Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible,
he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears
to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated
from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually
begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world
of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans.
Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the
ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways
to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master
the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman
in Rip's prior life could even imagine
.
Above all else is the astronomical rise in wealth and income inequality. Rip recalls that growing
up in the 1950's, the kids on his block included, along with firemen, cops, and insurance men
dads (these were virtually all one-parent income households), someone had a dad who worked as
a stock broker. Yea, living on the same block was a "Wall Streeter". Amazingly democratic, no?
Imagine, people of today, a finance guy drinking at the same corner bar with the sanitation guy.
Rip recalls that Aristotle had some wise and cautionary words in his Politics concerning the stability
of oligarchic regimes.
Last year I drove across America on blue highways mostly. I stayed in small towns and cities,
Zanesville, St. Charles, Wichita, Pratt, Dalhart, Clayton, El Paso, Abilene, Clarksdale, and many
more. I dined for the most part in local taverns, sitting at the bar so as to talk with the local
bartender and patrons who are almost always friendly and talkative in these spaces. Always and
everywhere I heard similar stories as my story of my home town. Not so much the specifics (there
are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but in the
sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life – taken
out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns, children
gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the
virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness.
I am not a trained economist. My graduate degrees were in philosophy. My old friends call me
an "Eric Hoffer", who back in the day was known as the "longshoreman philosopher". I have been
trying for a long time now to understand the silent revolution that has been pulled off right
under my nose, the replacement of a world that certainly had its flaws (how could I forget the
civil rights struggle and the crime of Viet Nam; I was a part of these things) but was, let us
say, different. Among you or your informed readers, is there anyone who can suggest a book or
books or author(s) who can help me understand how all of this came about, with no public debate,
no argument, no protest, no nothing? I would be very much appreciative.
I'll just highlight this line for emphasis
"there are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but
in the sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life
– taken out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns,
children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy
or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness."
my best friend pretty much weeps every day.
I don't have a book to recommend. I do think you identify a really underemphasized central
fact of recent times: the joint processes by which real places have been converted into "real
estate" and real, messy lives replaced by safe, manufactured "experiences." This affects wealthy
and poor neighborhoods alike, in different ways but in neither case for the better.
I live in a very desirable neighborhood in one of those places that makes a lot of "Best of"
lists. I met a new neighbor last night who told me how he and his wife had plotted for years to
get out of the Chicago burbs, not only to our city but to this specific neighborhood, which they
had decided is "the one." (This sentiment is not atypical.) Unsurprisingly, property values in
the neighborhood have gone through the roof. Which, as far as I can tell, most everyone here sees
as an unmitigated good thing.
At the same time, several families I got to know because they moved into the neighborhood about
the same time we did 15-20 years ago, are cashing out and moving away, kids off to or out of college,
parents ready (and financed) to get on to the next phase and the next place. Of course, even though
our children are all Lake Woebegoners, there are no next generations staying in the neighborhood,
except of course the ones still living, or back, at "home." (Those families won't be going anywhere
for awhile!)
I can't argue that new money in the hood hasn't improved some things. Our formerly struggling
food co-op just finished a major expansion and upgrade. Good coffee is 5 minutes closer than it
used to be. But to my wife and me, the overwhelming feeling is that we are now outsiders here
in this neighborhood where we know all the houses and the old trees but not what motivates our
new neighbors. So I made up a word for it: unsettling (adj., verb, noun).
"If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that
blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist."
Christopher Lash in "Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy" mentions Ray Oldenburg's
"The Great Good Places: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores,
Bars, Hangouts and How they Got You through the Day."
He argued that the decline of democracy is directly related to the disappearance of what he
called third places:,
"As neighborhood hangouts give way to suburban shopping malls, or, on the other hand private
cocktail parties, the essentially political art of conversation is replaced by shoptalk or personal
gossip.
Increasingly, conversation literally has no place in American society. In its absence how–or
better, where–can political habits be acquired and polished?
Lasch finished he essay by noting that Oldenburg's book helps to identify what is missing from
our then newly emerging world (which you have concisely updated):
"urban amenities, conviviality, conversation, politics–almost everything in part that makes
life worth living."
The best explainer of our modern situation that I have read is Wendell Berry. I suggest that
you start with "The Unsettling of America," quoted below.
"Let me outline briefly as I can what seem to me the characteristics of these opposite kinds
of mind. I conceive a strip-miner to be a model exploiter, and as a model nurturer I take the
old-fashioned idea or ideal of a farmer. The exploiter is a specialist, an expert; the nurturer
is not. The standard of the exploiter is efficiency; the standard of the nurturer is care. The
exploiter's goal is money, profit; the nurturer's goal is health - his land's health, his own,
his family's, his community's, his country's. Whereas the exploiter asks of a piece of land only
how much and how quickly it can be made to produce, the nurturer asks a question that is much
more complex and difficult: What is its carrying capacity? (That is: How much can be taken from
it without diminishing it? What can it produce dependably for an indefinite time?) The exploiter
wishes to earn as much as possible by as little work as possible; the nurturer expects, certainly,
to have a decent living from his work, but his characteristic wish is to work as well as possible.
The competence of the exploiter is in organization; that of the nurturer is in order - a human
order, that is, that accommodates itself both to other order and to mystery. The exploiter typically
serves an institution or organization; the nurturer serves land, household, community, place.
The exploiter thinks in terms of numbers, quantities, "hard facts"; the nurturer in terms of character,
condition, quality, kind."
I also think Prof. Patrick Deneen works to explain the roots (and progression) of decline.
I'll quote him at length here describing the modern college student.
"[T]he one overarching lesson that students receive is the true end of education: the only
essential knowledge is that know ourselves to be radically autonomous selves within a comprehensive
global system with a common commitment to mutual indifference. Our commitment to mutual indifference
is what binds us together as a global people. Any remnant of a common culture would interfere
with this prime directive: a common culture would imply that we share something thicker, an inheritance
that we did not create, and a set of commitments that imply limits and particular devotions.
Ancient philosophy and practice praised as an excellent form of government a res publica –
a devotion to public things, things we share together. We have instead created the world's first
Res Idiotica – from the Greek word idiotes, meaning "private individual." Our education system
produces solipsistic, self-contained selves whose only public commitment is an absence of commitment
to a public, a common culture, a shared history. They are perfectly hollowed vessels, receptive
and obedient, without any real obligations or devotions.
They won't fight against anyone, because that's not seemly, but they won't fight for anyone
or anything either. They are living in a perpetual Truman Show, a world constructed yesterday
that is nothing more than a set for their solipsism, without any history or trajectory."
Wow. Did this hit a nerve. You have eloquently described what was the city of hope for several
generations of outsiders, for young gay men and women, and for real artists, not just from other
places in America, but from all over the world. In New York, once upon a time, bumping up against
the more than 50% of the population who were immigrants from other countries, you could learn
a thing or two about the world. You could, for a while, make a living there at a job that was
all about helping other people. You could find other folks, lots of them, who were honest, well-meaning,
curious about the world. Then something changed. As you said, you started to see it in those hideous
80's buildings. But New York always seemed somehow as close or closer to Europe than to the U.S.,
and thus out of the reach of mediocrity and dumbing down. New York would mold you into somebody
tough and smart, if you weren't already – if it didn't, you wouldn't make it there.
Now, it seems, this dream is dreamt. Poseurs are not artists, and the greedy and smug drive
out creativity, kindness, real humor, hope.
It ain't fair. I don't know where in this world an aspiring creative person should go now,
but it probably is not there.
Americans cannot begin to reasonably demand a living wage, benefits and job security when there
is an unending human ant-line of illegals and legal immigrants willing to under bid them.
Only when there is a parity or shortage of workers can wage demands succeed, along with other
factors.
From 1925 to 1965 this country accepted hardly any immigrants, legal or illegal. We had the
bracero program where Mexican males were brought in to pick crops and were then sent home to collect
paychecks in Mexico. American blacks were hired from the deep south to work defense plants in
the north and west.
Is it any coincidence that the 1965 Great Society program, initiated by Ted Kennedy to primarily
benefit the Irish immigrants, then co-opted by LBJ to include practically everyone, started this
process of Middle Class destruction?
1973 was the peak year of American Society as measured by energy use per capita, expansion
of jobs and unionization and other factors, such as an environment not yet destroyed, nicely measured
by the The Real Progress Indicator.
Solution? Stop importing uneducated people. That's real "immigration reform".
Now explain to me why voters shouldn't favor Trump's radical immigration stands?
Maybe, but OTOH, who is it, exactly, who is recruiting, importing, hiring and training undocumented
workers to downgrade pay scales??
Do some homework, please. If businesses didn't actively go to Central and South America to
recruit, pay to bring here, hire and employ undocumented workers, then the things you discuss
would be great.
When ICE comes a-knocking at some meat processing plant or mega-chicken farm, what happens?
The undocumented workers get shipped back to wherever, but the big business owner doesn't even
get a tap on the wrist. The undocumented worker – hired to work in unregulated unsafe unhealthy
conditions – often goes without their last paycheck.
It's the business owners who manage and support this system of undocumented workers because
it's CHEAP, and they don't get busted for it.
Come back when the USA actually enforces the laws that are on the books today and goes after
big and small business owners who knowingly recruit, import, hire, train and employee undocumented
workers you know, like Donald Trump has all across his career.
This is the mechanism by which the gov't has assisted biz in destroying the worker, competition
for thee, but none for me. For instance I can't go work in canada or mexico, they don't allow
it. Policy made it, policy can change it, go bernie. While I favor immigration, in it's current
form it is primarily conducted on these lines of destroying workers (H1b etc and illegals combined)
Lucky for the mexicans they can see the american dream is bs and can go home. I wonder who the
latinos that have gained citizenship will vote for. Unlikely it'll be trump, but they can be pretty
conservative, and the people they work for are pretty conservative so no guarantee there, hillary
is in san diego at the tony balboa park where her supporters will feel comfortable, not a huge
venue I think they must be hoping for a crowd, and if she can't get one in san diego while giving
a "if we don't rule the world someone else will" speech, she can't get one anywhere. Defense contractors
and military advisors and globalist biotech (who needs free money more than biotech? they are
desperate for hillary) are thick in san diego.
I live part-time in San Diego. It is very conservative. The military, who are constantly screwed
by the GOP, always vote Republican. They make up a big cohort of San Diego county.
Hillary may not get a big crowd at the speech, but that, in itself, doesn't mean that much
to me. There is a segment of San Diego that is somewhat more progressive-ish, but it's a pretty
conservative county with parts of eastern SD county having had active John Birch Society members
until recently or maybe even ongoing.
There's a big push in the Latino community to GOTV, and it's mostly not for Trump. It's possible
this cohort, esp the younger Latino/as, will vote for Sanders in the primary, but if Clinton gets
the nomination, they'll likely vote for her (v. Trump).
I was unlucky enough to be stuck for an hour in a commuter train last Friday after Trump's
rally there. Hate to sound rude, but Trump's fans were everything we've seen. Loud, rude, discourteous
and an incessant litany of rightwing talking points (same old, same old). All pretty ignorant.
Saying how Trump will "make us great again." I don't bother asking how. A lot of ugly comments
about Obama and how Obama has been "so racially divisive and polarizing." Well, No. No, Obama
has not been or done that, but the rightwing noise machine has sure ginned up your hatreds, angers
and fears. It was most unpleasant. The only instructive thing about it was confirming my worst
fears about this group. Sorry to say but pretty loutish and very uninformed. Sigh.
part timer in sd as well, family for hillary except for nephew and niece .I keep telling my
mom she should vote bernie for their sake but it never goes over very well
Re Methland, we live in rural US and we got a not-very-well hidden population of homeless children.
I don't mean homeless families with children, I mean homeless children. Sleeping in parks in good
weather, couch-surfing with friends, etc. I think related.
Fascism is a system of political and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy and
purity of communities in which liberal democracy stand(s) accused of producing division and decline.
. . . George Orwell reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and
time, . . . an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black;
in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia
and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile.
Robert O. Paxton
In The Five Stages of Faschism
" that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators'
any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes)
Sinclair Lewis
It Can't Happen Here page 141
On the Boots To Ribs Front: Anyone hereabouts notice that Captain America has just been revealed
to be a Nazi? Maybe this is what R. Cohen was alluding to but I doubt it.
The four horse men are, political , social, economic and environmental collapse . Any one remember
the original Mad Max movie. A book I recommend is the Crash Of 2016 By Thom Hartmann.
From the comment, I agree with the problems, not the cause. We've increased the size and scope
of the safety net over the last decade. We've increased government spending versus GDP. I'm not
blaming government but its not neoliberal/capitalist policy either.
1. Globalization clearly helps the poor in other countries at the expense of workers in the
U.S. But at the same time it brings down the cost of goods domestically. So jobs are not great
but Walmart/Amazon can sell cheap needs.
2. Inequality started rising the day after Bretton Woods – the rich got richer everyday after
"Nixon Shock"
Hi rfam : To point 1 : Why is there a need to bring down the cost of goods? Is it because of
past outsourcing and trade agreements and FR policies? I think there's a chicken and egg thing
going on, ie.. which came first. Globalization is a way to bring down wages while supplying Americans
with less and less quality goods supplied at the hand of global corporations like Walmart that
need welfare in the form of food stamps and the ACA for their workers for them to stay viable
(?). Viable in this case means ridiculously wealthy CEO's and the conglomerate growing bigger
constantly. Now they have to get rid of COOL's because the WTO says it violates trade agreements
so we can't trace where our food comes from in case of an epidemic. It's all downhill. Wages should
have risen with costs so we could afford high quality American goods, but haven't for a long,
long time.
Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for
nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from)
the workers get the husk. Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic
crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am
God, there doesn't need to be any other" Amazon sells cheap stuff by cheating on taxes, and barely
makes money, mostly just driving people out of business. WalMart has cheap stuff because they
subsidise their workers with food stamps and medicaid. Bringing up bretton woods means you don't
know much about money creation, so google "randy wray/bananas/naked capitalism" and you'll find
a quick primer.
The Walmart loathsome spawn and Jeff Bezos are the biggest welfare drains in our nation – or
among the biggest. They woefully underpay their workers, all while training them on how to apply
for various welfare benefits. Just so that their slaves, uh, workers can manage to eat enough
to enable them to work.
It slays me when US citizens – and it happens across the voting spectrum these days; I hear
just as often from Democratic voters as I do from GOP voters – bitch, vetch, whine & cry about
welfare abuse. And if I start to point out the insane ABUSE of welfare by the Waltons and Jeff
Bezos, I'm immediately greeted with random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow
made out like a bandit on welfare.
Hey, I'm totally sure and in agreement that there are likely a small percentage of real welfare
cheats who manage to do well enough somehow. But seriously? That's like a drop in the bucket.
Get the eff over it!!!
Those cheats are not worth discussing. It's the big fraud cheats like Bezos & the Waltons and
their ilk, who don't need to underpay their workers, but they DO because the CAN and they get
away with it because those of us the rapidly dwindling middle/working classes are footing the
bill for it.
Citizens who INSIST on focusing on a teeny tiny minority of real welfare cheats, whilst studiously
ignoring the Waltons and the Bezos' of the corporate world, are enabling this behavior. It's one
of my bugabears bc it's so damn frustrating when citizens refuse to see how they are really being
ripped off by the 1%. Get a clue.
That doesn't even touch on all the other tax breaks, tax loopholes, tax incentives and just
general all-around tax cheating and off-shore money hiding that the Waltons and Bezos get/do.
Sheesh.
"I'm immediately greeted with random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow
made out like a bandit on welfare."
is the key and a v. long term result of the application of Bernays' to political life. Its
local and hits at the gut interpersonal level 'cos the "someones" form a kind of chain of trust
esp. if the the first one on the list is a friend or a credentialed media pundit. Utterly spurious
I know but countering this with a *merely* rational analysis of how Walmart, Amazon abuse the
welfare system to gouge profits from the rest of us just won't ever, for the large majority, get
through this kind emotional wall.
I don't know what any kind of solution might look like but, somehow, we need to find a way
of seriously demonising the corporate parasites that resonates at the same emotional level as
the "welfare cheat" meme that Bill Clinton and the rest of the DLC sanctified back in the '90s.
Something like "Walmart's stealing your taxes" might work but how to get it out there in a
viral way ??
What a comment from seanseamour. And the "hoisting" of it to high visibility at the site is
a testament to the worth of Naked Capitalism.
seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one
considers the elitist trend " This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so
utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the
beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and
Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could
spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities –
Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators
to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.*
And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything.
But I don't want to spend all morning doing that because I'm convinced that it's not too late
for America to rescue itself from maelstrom in which it finds itself today. (Poe's "Maelstrom"
story, cherished by Marshall McLuhan, is supremely relevant today.)
To turn America around, I don't look to education – that system is too far gone to save itself,
let alone the rest of the country – but rather to the nation's media: to the all-powerful public
communication system that certainly has the interactive technical capabilities to put citizens
and governments in touch with each other on the government decisions that shape the futures of
communities large and small.
For this to happen, however, people like the us – readers of Naked Capitalism – need to stop
moaning and groaning about the damage done by the neoliberals and start building an issue-centered,
citizen-participatory, non-partisan, prime-time Civic Media strong enough to give all Americans
an informed voice in the government decisions that affect their lives. This Civic media would
exist to make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping futures
of all three communities – local, state and national – of which every one of us is a member.
Pie in the sky? Not when you think hard about it. A huge majority of Americans would welcome
this Civic Media. Many yearn for it. This means that a market exists for it: a Market of the Whole
of all members of any community, local, state and national. This audience is large enough to rival
those generated by media coverage of pro sports teams, and believe it or not much of the growth
of this Civic media could be productively modeled on the growth of media coverage of pro sports
teams. This Civic Media would attract the interest of major advertisers, especially those who
see value in non-partisan programming dedicated to getting America moving forward again. Dynamic,
issue-centered, problem-solving public forums, some modeled on voter-driven reality TV contests
like The Voice or Dancing with the Stars, could be underwritten by a "rainbow" spectrum of funders,
commericial, public, personal and even government sources.
So people take hope! Be positive! Love is all we need, etc. The need for for a saving alternative
to the money-driven personality contests into which our politics has descended this election year
is literally staring us all in the face from our TV, cellphone and computer screens. This is no
time to sit back and complain, it's a time to start working to build a new way of connecting ourselves
so we can reverse America's rapid decline.
OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get
off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and
in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly
positive, patriotic and constructive. And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too
dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive
use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence
of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation
– in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final.
I am paying an exorbitant subscription for the UK Financial Times at the moment. Anyway,
the good news is that very regular articles are appearing where you can almost feel the panic
at the populist uprisings.
Whatever system is put in place the human race will find a way to undermine it. I believe in
capitalism because fair competition means the best and most efficient succeed.
I send my children to private schools and universities because I want my own children at the
top and not the best. Crony capitalism is inevitable, self-interest undermines any larger system
that we try and impose.
Can we design a system that can beat human self-interest? It's going to be tricky.
"If that's the system, how can I take advantage of it?" human nature at work. "If that's the
system, is it working for me or not?" those at the top.
If not, it's time to change the system.
If so, how can I tweak it to get more out of it?
Neo-Liberalism
Academics, who are not known for being street-wise, probably thought they had come up with
the ultimate system using markets and numeric performance measures to create a system free from
human self-interest.
They had already missed that markets don't just work for price discovery, but are frequently
used for capital gains by riding bubbles and hoping there is a "bigger fool" out there than you,
so you can cash out with a handsome profit.
(I am not sure if the Chinese realise markets are supposed to be for price discovery at all).
Hence, numerous bubbles during this time, with housing bubbles being the global favourite for
those looking for capital gains.
If we are being governed by the markets, how do we rig the markets?
A question successfully solved by the bankers.
Inflation figures, that were supposed to ensure the cost of living didn't rise too quickly,
were somehow manipulated to produce low inflation figures with roaring house price inflation raising
the cost of living.
What unemployment measure will best suit the story I am trying to tell?
U3 – everything great
U6 – it's not so good
Labour participation rate – it hasn't been this bad since the 1970s
Anything missing from the theory has been ruthlessly exploited, e.g. market bubbles ridden
for capital gains, money creation by private banks, the difference between "earned" and "unearned"
income and the fact that Capitalism trickles up through the following mechanism:
1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.
I just went on a rant last week. (Not only because the judge actually LIED in court)
I left the courthouse in downtown Seattle, to cross the street to find the vultures selling
more foreclosures on the steps of the King County Administration Building, while above them, there
were tents pitched on the building's perimeter. And people were walking by just like this scene
was normal.
Because the people at the entrance of the courthouse could view this, I went over there and
began to rant. I asked (loudly) "Do you guys see that over there? Vultures selling homes rendering
more people homeless and then the homeless encampment with tents pitched on the perimeter above
them? In what world is this normal?" One guy replied, "Ironic, isn't it?" After that comment,
the Marshall protecting the judicial crooks in the building came over and tried to calm me down.
He insisted that the scene across the street was "normal" and that none of his friends or neighbors
have been foreclosed on. I soon found out that that lying Marshall was from Pierce County, the
epicenter of Washington foreclosures.
"In this postindustrial world not only is the labor question no longer asked, not only
is proletarian revolution passé, but the proletariat itself seems passé. And the invisibles who
nonetheless do indeed live there have internalized their nonexistence, grown demoralized, resentful,
and hopeless; if they are noticed at all, it is as objects of public disdain. What were once called
"blue-collar aristocrats"-skilled workers in the construction trades, for example-have long felt
the contempt of the whole white-collar world.
For these people, already skeptical about who runs things and to what end, and who are now
undergoing their own eviction from the middle class, skepticism sours into a passive cynicism.
Or it rears up in a kind of vengeful chauvinism directed at alien others at home and abroad, emotional
compensation for the wounds that come with social decline If public life can suffer a metaphysical
blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated
the will to resist."
One thing I don't think I have seen addressed on this site (apologies if I have missed it!)
in all the commentary about the destruction of the middle class is the role of US imperialism
in creating that middle class in the first place and what it is that we want to save from destruction
by neo-liberalism. The US is rich because we rob the rest of the world's resources and have been
doing so in a huge way since 1945, same as Britain before us. I don't think it's a coincidence
that the US post-war domination of the world economy and the middle class golden age happened
at the same time. Obviously there was enormous value created by US manufacturers, inventors, government
scientists, etc but imperialism is the basic starting point for all of this. The US sets the world
terms of trade to its own advantage. How do we save the middle class without this level of control?
Within the US elites are robbing everyone else but they are taking what we use our military power
to appropriate from the rest of the world.
Second, if Bernie or whoever saves the middle class, is that so that everyone can have a tract
house and two cars and continue with a massively wasteful and unsustainable lifestyle based on
consumption? Or are we talking about basic security like shelter, real health care, quality education
for all, etc? Most of the stories I see seem to be nostalgic for a time when lots of people could
afford to buy lots of stuff and don't 1) reflect on origin of that stuff (imperialism) and 2)
consider whether that lifestyle should be the goal in the first place.
I went to the electronics recycling facility in Seattle yesterday. The guy at customer service
told me that they receive 20 million pounds per month. PER MONTH. Just from Seattle. I went home
and threw up.
It doesn't have to be that way. You can replace military conquest (overt and covert) with space
exploration and science expansion. Also, instead of pushing consumerism, push contentment. Don't
setup and goose a system of "gotta keep up with the Joneses!"
In the 50s(!!!) there was a plan, proven in tests and studies, that would have had humans on
the mars by 1965, out to Saturn by 72. Project Orion. Later, the British Project Daedalus was
envisioned which WOULD have put space probes at the next star system within 20 years of launch.
It was born of the atomic age and, as originally envisioned, would have been an ecological disaster
BUT it was reworked to avoid this and would have worked. Spacecraft capable of comfortably holding
100 personnel, no need to build with paper-thin aluminum skin or skimp on amenities. A huge ship
built like a large sea vessel (heavy iron/steel) accelerated at 1g (or more or slightly less as
desired) so no prolonged weightlessness and concomitant loss of bone and muscle mass. It was all
in out hands but the Cold War got in the way, as did the many agreements and treaties of the Cold
War to avoid annihilation. It didn't need to be that way. Check it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
All that with 1950s and 60s era technology. It could be done better today and for less than
your wars in the Middle East. Encourage science, math, exploration instead of consumption, getting
mine before you can get yours, etc.
Or, we could replace Western liberal culture, with its tradition to consume and expand
by force an unbroken chain from the Garden of Eden to Friedrich von Hayek, with the notion of
maintenance and "enough". Bourgeois make-work holds no interest to me.
My understanding of the data is that living standards increased around the world during
the so-called golden age, not just in the U.S. (and Western Europe and Japan and Australia ).
It could be that it was still imperialism at work, but the link between imperialism and the creation
of the middle class is not straightforward.
Likewise, US elites are clearly NOT robbing the manufacturing firms that have set up in China
and other low-wage locations, so it is an oversimplification to say they are "robbing everyone
else."
Nostalgia is overrated but I don't sense the current malaise as a desire for more stuff. (I
grew up in the 60s and 70s and I don't remember it as a time where people had, or craved, a lot
of stuff. That period would be now, and I find it infects Sanders' supporters less than most.)
If anything, it is nostalgia for more (free) time and more community, for a time when (many but
not all) people had time to socialize and enjoy civic life.
those things would be nice as would just a tiny bit of hope for the future, our own and the
planet's and not an expectation of things getting more and more difficult and sometimes for entirely
unnecessary reasons like imposed austerity. But being we can't have "nice things" like free time,
community and hope for the future, we just "buy stuff".
I live on the south side, in the formerly affluent south shore neighborhood. A teenager was
killed, shot in the head in a drive by shooting, at 5 pm yesterday right around the corner from
my residence. A white coworker of mine who lives in a rich northwest side neighborhood once commented
to me how black people always say goodbye by saying "be safe". More easily said than done.
I thought neoliberalism was just the pogrom to make everyone – rational agents – as subscribed
by our genetic / heraldic betters .. putting this orbs humans and resources in the correct "natural"
order .
Disheveled Marsupial for those thinking neoliberalism is not associated with libertarianism
one only has to observe the decades of think tanks and their mouth organs roaming the planet .
especially in the late 80s and 90s . bringing the might and wonders of the – market – to the great
unwashed globally here libertarian priests rang in the good news to the great unwashed
I would argue that neoliberalism is a program to define markets as primarily engaged in
information processing and to make everyone into non-agents ( as not important at all to the proper
functioning of markets).
It also appears that neoliberals want to restrict democracy to the greatest extent possible
and to view markets as the only foundation for truth without any need for input from the average
individual.
But as Mirowski argues–carrying their analysis this far begins to undermine their own neoliberal
assumptions about markets always promoting social welfare.
When I mean – agents – I'm not referring to agency, like you say the market gawd/computer does
that. I was referencing the – rational agent – that 'ascribes' the markets the right at defining
facts or truth as neoliberalism defines rational thought/behavior.
Disheveled Marsupial yes democracy is a direct threat to Hayekian et al [MPS and Friends]
paranoia due to claims of irrationality vs rationally
I have trouble understanding the focus on an emergence of fascism in Europe, focus that seems
to dominate this entire thread when, put in perspective such splinter groups bear little weight
on the European political spectrum.
As an expat living in France, in my perception the Front National is a threat to the political
establishments that occupy the center left and right and whose historically broad constituencies
have been brutalized by the financial crisis borne of unbridled anglo-saxon runaway capitalism,
coined neoliberalism. The resulting disaffection has allowed the growth of the FN but it is also
fueled by a transfer of reactionary constituencies that have historically found identity in far
left parties (communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist ), political expressions the institutions
of the Republic allow and enable in the name of plurality, a healthy exultury in a democratic
society.
To consider that the FN in France, UKIP in the UK and others are a threat to democratic values
any more that the far left is non-sensical, and I dare say insignificant compared to the "anchluss"
our conservative right seeks to impose upon the executive, legislative and judicial branches of
government.
The reality in Europe as in America is economic. The post WWII era of reconstruction, investment
and growth is behind us, the French call these years the "Trente Glorieuses" (30 glorious years)
when prosperity was felt through all societal strats, consumerism for all became the panacea for
a just society, where injustice prevailed welfare formulas provided a new panacea.
As the perspective of an unravelling of this golden era began to emerge elites sought and conspired
to consolidate power and wealth, under the aegis of greed is good culture by further corrupting
government to serve the few, ensuring impunity for the ruling class, attempting societal cohesiveness
with brash hubristic dialectics (America, the greatest this or that) and adventurism (Irak, mission
accomplished), conspiring to co-opt and control institutions and the media (to understand the
depth of this deception a must read is Jane Mayer in The Dark Side and in Dark Money).
The difference between America and Europe is that latter bears of brunt of our excess.
The 2008 Wall St / City meltdown eviscerated much of America' middle class and de-facto stalled,
perhaps definitively, the vehicle of upward mobility in an increasingly wealth-ranked class structured
society – the Trump phenomena feeds off the fatalistic resilience and "good book" mythologies
remnant of the "go west" culture.
In Europe where to varying degrees managed capitalism prevails the welfare state(s) provided the
shock absorbers to offset the brunt of the crisis, but those who locked-in on neoliberal fiscal
conservatism have cut off their nose in spite leaving scant resources to spur growth. If social
mobility survives, more vibrantly than the US, unemployment and the cost thereof remains steadfast
and crippling.
The second crisis borne of American hubris is the human tidal wave resulting from the Irak adventure;
it has unleashed mayhem upon the Middle East, Sub Saharan Africa and beyond. The current migrational
wave Europe can not absorb is but the beginning of much deeper problem – as ISIS, Boko Haram and
so many others terrorist groups destabilize the nation-states of a continent whose population
is on the path to explode in the next half century.
The icing on the cake provided by a Trump election will be a world wave of climate change refugees
as the neoliberal establishment seeks to optimize wealth and power through continued climate change
denial.
Fascism is not the issue, nationalism resulting from a self serving bully culture will decimate
the multilateral infrastructure responsible nation-states need to address today's problems.
Broadly, Trump Presidency capping the neoliberal experience will likely signal the end of the
US' dominant role on the world scene (and of course the immense benefits derived for the US).
As he has articulated his intent to discard the art of diplomacy, from soft to institutional,
in favor of an agressive approach in which the President seeks to "rattle" allies (NATO, Japan
and S. Korea for example) as well as his opponents (in other words anyone who does not profess
blind allegiance), expect that such modus operandi will create a deep schism accompanied by a
loss of trust, already felt vis-a-vis our legislature' behavior over the last seven years.
The US's newfound respect among friends and foes generated by President Obama' presidency, has
already been undermined by the GOP primaries, if Trump is elected it will dissipate for good as
other nations and groups thereof focus upon new, no-longer necessarily aligned strategic relationships,
some will form as part as a means of taking distance, or protection from the US, others more opportunist
with the risk of opponents such as Putin filling the void – in Europe for example.
Neoliberalism isn't helping, but it's a population/resource ratio thing. Impacts on social
orders occur well before raw supply factors kick in (and there is more than food supply to basic
rations). The world population has more than doubled in the last 50 years, one doesn't get that
kind of accelerated growth without profound impacts to every aspect of societies. Some of the
most significant impacts are consequent to the acceleration of technological changes (skill expirations,
automations) that are driven in no small part by the needs of a vast + growing population.
I don't suggest population as a pat simplistic answer. And neoliberalism accelerates the declining
performance of institutions (as in the CUNY article and that's been going on for decades already,
neoliberalism just picked up where neoconservatism petered out), but we would be facing issues
like homelessness, service degradation, population displacements, etc regardless of poor policies.
One could argue (I do) that neoliberalism has undertaken to accelerate existing entropies for
profit.
Thanks for soliciting reader comments on socioeconomic desperation. It's encouraging to know
that I'm not the only failure to launch in this country.
I'm a seasonal farm worker with a liberal arts degree in geology and history. I barely held
on for six months as a junior environmental consultant at a dysfunctional firm that tacitly encouraged
unethical and incompetent behavior at all levels. From what I could gather, it was one of the
better-run firms in the industry. Even so, I was watching mid-level and senior staff wander into
extended mid-life crises while our entire service line was terrorized by a badly out-of-shape,
morbidly obese, erratic, vicious PG who had alienated almost the entire office but was untouchable
no matter how many firing offenses she committed. Meanwhile I was watching peers in other industries
(especially marketing and FIRE) sell their souls in real time. I'm still watching them do so a
decade later.
It's hard to exaggerate how atrociously I've been treated by bougie conformists for having
failed/dropped out of the rat race. A family friend who got into trouble with the state of Hawaii
for misclassifying direct employees of his timeshare boiler room as 1099's gave me a panic attack
after getting stoned and berating me for hours about how I'd wake up someday and wonder what the
fuck I'd done with my life. At the time, I had successfully completed a summer job as the de facto
lead on a vineyard maintenance crew and was about to get called back for the harvest, again as
the de facto lead picker.
Much of my social life is basically my humiliation at the hands of amoral sleazeballs who presume
themselves my superiors. No matter how strong an objective case I have for these people being
morally bankrupt, it's impossible to really dismiss their insults. Another big component is concern-trolling
from bourgeois supremacists who will do awfully little for me when I ask them for specific help.
I don't know what they're trying to accomplish, and they probably don't, either. A lot of it is
cognitive dissonance and incoherence.
Some of the worst aggression has come from a Type A social climber friend who sells life insurance.
He's a top producer in a company that's about a third normal, a third Willy Loman, and a third
Glengarry Glen Ross. This dude is clearly troubled, but in ways that neither of us can really
figure out, and a number of those around him are, too. He once admitted, unbidden, to having hazed
me for years.
The bigger problem is that he's surrounded by an entire social infrastructure that enables
and rewards noxious, predatory behavior. When college men feel like treating the struggling like
garbage, they have backup and social proof from their peers. It's disgusting. Many of these people
have no idea of how to relate appropriately to the poor or the unemployed and no interest in learning.
They want to lecture and humiliate us, not listen to us.
Dude recently told me that our alma mater, Dickinson College, is a "grad school preparatory
institution." I was floored that anyone would ever think to talk like that. In point of fact,
we're constantly lectured about how versatile our degrees are, with or without additional education.
I've apparently annoyed a number of Dickinsonians by bitterly complaining that Dickinson's nonacademic
operations are a sleazy racket and that President Emeritus Bill Durden is a shyster who brainwashed
my classmates with crude propaganda. If anything, I'm probably measured in my criticism, because
I don't think I know the full extent of the fraud and sleaze. What I have seen and heard is damning.
I believe that Dickinson is run by people with totalitarian impulses that are restrained only
by a handful of nonconformists who came for the academics and are fed up with the propaganda.
Meanwhile, I've been warm homeless for most of the past four years. It's absurd to get pledge
drive pitches from a well-endowed school on the premise that my degree is golden when I'm regularly
sleeping in my car and financially dependent on my parents. It's absurd to hear stories about
how Dickinson's alumni job placement network is top-notch when I've never gotten a viable lead
from anyone I know from school. It's absurd to explain my circumstances in detail to people who,
afterwards, still can't understand why I'm cynical.
While my classmates preen about their degrees, I'm dealing with stuff that would make them
vomit. A relative whose farm I've been tending has dozens of rats infesting his winery building,
causing such a stench that I'm just about the only person willing to set foot inside it. This
relative is a deadbeat presiding over a feudal slumlord manor, circumstances that he usually justifies
by saying that he's broke and just trying to make ends meet. He has rent-paying tenants living
on the property with nothing but a pit outhouse and a filthy, disused shower room for facilities.
He doesn't care that it's illegal. One of his tenants left behind a twenty-gallon trash can full
to the brim with his own feces. Another was seen throwing newspaper-wrapped turds out of her trailer
into the weeds. They probably found more dignity in this than in using the outhouse.
When I was staying in Rancho Cordova, a rough suburb of Sacramento, I saw my next-door neighbor
nearly come to blows with a man at the light rail station before apologizing profusely to me,
calling me "sir," "man," "boss," and "dog." He told me that he was angry at the other guy for
selling meth to his kid sister. Eureka is even worse: its west side is swarming with tweakers,
its low-end apartment stock is terrible, no one brings the slumlords to heel, and it has a string
of truly filthy residential motels along Broadway that should have been demolished years ago.
A colleague who lives in Sweet Home, Oregon, told me that his hometown is swarming with druggies
who try to extract opiates from local poppies and live for the next arriving shipment of garbage
drugs. The berry farm where we worked had ten- and twelve-year-olds working under the table to
supplement their families' incomes. A Canadian friend told me that he worked for a crackhead in
Lillooet who made his own supply at home using freebase that he bought from a meathead dealer
with ties to the Boston mob. Apparently all the failing mill towns in rural BC have a crack problem
because there's not much to do other than go on welfare and cocaine. An RCMP sergeant in Kamloops
was recently indicted for selling coke on the side.
Uahsenaa's comment about the invisible homeless is spot on. I think I blend in pretty well.
I've often stunned people by mentioning that I'm homeless. Some of them have been assholes about
it, but not all. There are several cars that I recognize as regular overnighters at my usual rest
area. Thank God we don't get hassled much. Oregon is about as safe a place as there is to be homeless.
Some of the rest areas in California, including the ones at Kingsburg and the Sacramento Airport,
end up at or beyond capacity overnight due to the homeless. CalTrans has signs reminding drivers
that it's rude to hog a space that someone else will need. This austerity does not, of course,
apply to stadium construction for the Kings.
Another thing that almost slipped my mind (and is relevant to Trump's popularity): I've encountered
entrenched, systemic discrimination against Americans when I've tried to find and hold menial
jobs, and I've talked to other Americans who have also encountered it. There is an extreme bias
in favor of Mexican peasants and against Americans in the fields and increasingly in off-farm
jobs. The top quintile will be lucky not to reap the whirlwind on account of this prejudice.
"... The number one issue fueling the leave vote was immigration – a lot like Trump's wall against Mexico. The number two issue was lack of accountability of government: Leavers believe that the EU government in Brussels is unaccountable to voters. For Trump supporters, resentment towards a distant and unaccountable Washington government ranks high as well. The Brexit constituency and the Trump constituency are both motivated by the same sense of loss and vulnerability. ..."
"... In both the U.S. and the U.K., a large and growing segment of voters has not prospered in today's complex, technology-driven global economy. Their wages have stagnated and in many cases fallen. Too few good-paying jobs exist for people lacking a college degree, or even people with a college degree, if the degree is not in the right field. These people are angry, frustrated, and afraid -- and with very good reason. Both countries' governments have done little to help them adapt, and little to soothe the sting of globalization. The voter's concerns in both places are mostly the same even though these concerns have coalesced around a policy issue ("leave") in the U.K. whereas here in the U.S. they have coalesced around a candidate (Trump). ..."
"... Similarly, the elite insiders of the Republican Party and their business allies badly underestimated Trump. Establishment candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush failed terribly. Now the Republican political insiders are trying to make sense of a presumptive nominee who trashes free trade, one of the fundamental principles of the party, and openly taunts one of most important emerging voting blocks. ..."
"... Perhaps the biggest reason for the impotence of today's political elites is that elites have trashed the very idea of competent and effective government for 35 years now, and the public has taken the message to heart. Ever since Reagan identified government as the problem, conservative elites have attacked the idea of government itself – rather than respecting the idea of government itself while criticizing the particular policies of a particular government. This is a crucial (and dangerous) distinction. In 1986, Reagan went on to say "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ..."
In addition, the issues are similar between the two campaigns: The number
one issue fueling the leave vote was immigration – a lot like Trump's wall against
Mexico. The number two issue was lack of accountability of government: Leavers
believe that the EU government in Brussels is unaccountable to voters. For Trump
supporters, resentment towards a distant and unaccountable Washington government
ranks high as well. The Brexit constituency and the Trump constituency are both
motivated by the same sense of loss and vulnerability.
In both the U.S. and the U.K., a large and growing segment of voters
has not prospered in today's complex, technology-driven global economy. Their
wages have stagnated and in many cases fallen. Too few good-paying jobs exist
for people lacking a college degree, or even people with a college degree, if
the degree is not in the right field. These people are angry, frustrated, and
afraid -- and with very good reason. Both countries' governments have done little
to help them adapt, and little to soothe the sting of globalization. The voter's
concerns in both places are mostly the same even though these concerns have
coalesced around a policy issue ("leave") in the U.K. whereas here in the U.S.
they have coalesced around a candidate (Trump).
In both countries, political elites were caught flat-footed. Elites lost
control over the narrative and lost credibility and persuasiveness with angry,
frustrated and fearful voters. The British elites badly underestimated the intensity
of public frustration with immigration and with the EU. Most expected the vote
would end on the side of "remain," up to the very last moment. Now they are
trying to plot their way out of something they never expected would actually
happen, and never prepared for.
Similarly, the elite insiders of the Republican Party and their business
allies badly underestimated Trump. Establishment candidates like former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush failed terribly. Now the Republican political insiders are trying
to make sense of a presumptive nominee who trashes free trade, one of the fundamental
principles of the party, and openly taunts one of most important emerging voting
blocks.
How did the elites lose control? There are many reasons: With social media
so pervasive, advertising dollars no longer controls what the public sees and
hears. With unrestricted campaign spending, the party can no longer "pinch the
air hose" of a candidate who strays from party orthodoxy.
Perhaps the biggest reason for the impotence of today's political elites
is that elites have trashed the very idea of competent and effective government
for 35 years now, and the public has taken the message to heart. Ever since
Reagan identified government as the problem, conservative elites have attacked
the idea of government itself – rather than respecting the idea
of government itself while criticizing the particular policies of a particular
government. This is a crucial (and dangerous) distinction. In 1986, Reagan went
on to say "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from
the government and I'm here to help.'"
Reagan booster Grover Norquist is known for saying, "I don't want to abolish
government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into
the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Countless candidates and elected
officials slam "Washington bureaucrats" even though these "bureaucrats" were
none other than themselves. It's not a great way to build respect. Then the
attack escalated, with the aim of destroying parts of government that were actually
mostly working. This was done to advance the narrative that government itself
is the problem, and pave the way for privatization. Take the Transportation
Security Administration for example. TSA has actually done its job. No terrorist
attacks have succeeded on U.S. airplanes since it was established. But by
systematically underfunding it , Congress has made the lines painfully long,
so people hate it. Take the Post Office. Here Congress manufactured a crisis
to force service cuts, making the public believe the institution is incompetent.
But the so-called "problem" is
due almost entirely to a requirement, imposed by Congress, forcing the Postal
Service to prepay retiree's health care to an absurd level, far beyond what
a similar private sector business would have to do. A similar dynamic now threatens
Social Security. Thirty-five years have passed since Reagan first mocked the
potential for competent and effective government. Years of unrelenting attack
have sunk in. Many Americans now distrust government leaders and think it's
pointless to demand or expect wisdom and statesmanship. Today's American voters
(and their British counterparts), well-schooled in skepticism, disdain and dismiss
leaders of all parties and they are ready to burn things down out of sheer frustration.
The moment of blowback has arrived.
PK has nearly lost all of his ability to see things objectively. Ambition got him, I suppose,
or maybe he has always longed to be popular. He was probably teased and ridiculed too much in
his youth. He is something of a whinny sniveler after-all.
Then too, I doubt if PK has ever used a public restroom in the Southwest, or taken his kids
to a public park in one of the thousands of small towns where non-English speaking throngs take
over all of the facilities and parking.Or had his children bullied at school by a gang of dark-skinned
kids whose parents believe that whites took their land, or abused or enslaved their distant ansestors.
It might be germane here too... to point out that some of this anti-white sentiment gets support
and validation from the very rhetoric that Democrats have made integral to their campaigns.
As for not knowing why crime rates have been falling, the incarceration rates rose in step,
so duh, if you lock up those with propensities for crime, well, how could crime rates not fall?
And while I'm on the subject of crime, the statistical analysis that is commonly used focuses
too much on violent crime and convictions. Thus, crimes of a less serious nature, that being the
type of crimes committed by poor folks, is routinely ignored. Then too, those who are here illegally
are often transient and using assumed names, and so they are, presumably, more difficult to catch.
So, statistics are all too often not as telling as claimed.
And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal. As would PK if he were
more travelled and in touch with those who have seen their schools, parks, towns, and everything
else turn tawdry and dysfunctional. But of course the nation that most of us live in is much different
than the one that PK knows.
> And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal
I wonder why everybody is thinking about this problem only in terms of identity politics.
This is a wrong, self-defeating framework to approach the problem. which is pushed by neoliberal
MSM and which we should resist in this forum as this translates the problems that the nation faces
into term of pure war-style propaganda ("us vs. them" mentality). To which many posters here already
succumbed
IMHO the November elections will be more of the referendum on neoliberal globalization (with
two key issues on the ballot -- jobs and immigration) than anything else.
If so, then the key question is whether the anger of population at neoliberal elite that stole
their jobs and well-being reached the boiling point or not. The level of this anger might decide
the result of elections, not all those petty slurs that neoliberal MSM so diligently use as a
smoke screen.
All those valiant efforts in outsourcing and replacing permanent jobs with temporary to increase
profit margin at the end have the propensity to produce some externalities. And not only in the
form "over 50 and unemployed" but also by a much more dangerous "globalization of indifference"
to human beings in general.
JK Galbraith once gave the following definition of neoliberal economics: "trickle down economics
is the idea that if you feed the horse enough oats eventually some will pass through to the road
for the sparrows." This is what neoliberalism is about. Lower 80% even in so-called rich countries
are forced to live in "fear and desperation", forced to work "with precious little dignity".
Human beings are now considered consumer goods in "job market" to be used and then discarded.
As a consequence, a lot of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: "without work, without
possibilities, without any means of escape" (pope Francis).
And that inevitably produces a reaction. Which in extreme forms we saw during French and Bolsheviks
revolutions. And in less extremist forms (not involving lampposts as the placeholders for the
"Masters of the Universe" (aka financial oligarchy) and the most obnoxious part of the "creative
class" aka intelligentsia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia
) in Brexit vote.
Hillary and Trump are just symbols here. The issue matters, not personalities.
The reasons for the election of Donald Trump as President of the U.S. will be analyzed and argued
about for many years to come. Undoubtedly there are U.S.-specific factors that are relevant, such
as racial divisions in voting patterns. But the election took place after the British vote to withdraw
from the European Union and the rise to power of conservative politicians in continental Europe,
so it is reasonable to ask whether globalization bears any responsibility.
Have foreign workers taken the jobs of U.S. workers? Increased trade does lead to a reallocation
of resources, as a country increases its output in those sectors where it has an advantage while
cutting back production in other sectors. Resources should flow from the latter to the former, but
in reality it can be difficult to switch employment across sectors.
Daron Acemoglu and David Autor of MIT,
David Dorn of the University of Zurich, Gordon Hanson of UC-San Diego and Brendan Price of MIT
have found that import competition from China after 2000 contributed to reductions in U.S. manufacturing
employment and weak U.S. job growth. They estimated manufacturing job losses due to Chinese competition
of 2.0 – 2.4 million.
Other studies
find similar results for workers who do not have high school degrees.
Moreover, multinational firms do shift production across borders in response to lower wages, among
other factors.
Ann E. Harrison of UC-Berkeley and Margaret S. McMillan of Tufts University looked at the hiring
practices of the foreign affiliates of U.S. firms during the period of 1977 to 1999. They found that
lower wages in affiliate countries where the employees were substitutes for U.S. workers led to more
employment in those countries but reductions in employment in the U.S. However, when employment across
geographical locations is complementary for firms that do significantly different work at home and
abroad, domestic and foreign employment rise and fall together.
Imports and foreign production, therefore, have had an impact on manufacturing employment in the
U.S. But several caveats should be raised. First, as
Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of MIT and others have pointed out, technology has had a
much larger effect on jobs. The U.S. is the second largest global producer of manufactured goods,
but these products are being made in plants that employ fewer workers than they did in the past.
Many of the lost jobs simply do not exist any more. Second, the U.S. exports goods and services as
well as purchases them. Among the manufactured goods that account for significant shares of U.S.
exports are
machines
and engines, electronic equipment and aircraft . Third, there is inward FDI as well as outward,
and the foreign-based firms hire U.S. workers. A 2013
Congressional Research Service
study by James V. Jackson reported that by year-end 2011 foreign firms employed 6.1 million Americans,
and 37% of this employment-2.3 million jobs-was in the manufacturing sector.
More recent data
shows that employment by the U.S. affiliates of multinational companies rose to 6.4 million in
2014. Mr. Trump will find himself in a difficult position if he threatens to shut down trade and
investment with countries that both import from the U.S. and invest here.
The other form of globalization that drew Trump's derision was immigration. Most of his ire focused
on those who had entered the U.S. illegally. However, in a speech in Arizona he said that he would
set up a commission that would
roll back the number of legal migrants to "historic norms."
The
current number of immigrants (42 million) represents around 13% of the U.S. population, and 16%
of the labor force. An increase in the number of foreign-born workers depresses the wages of some
native-born workers, principally high-school dropouts, as well as other migrants who arrived earlier.
But there are other, more significant reasons for the
stagnation in
working-class wages . In addition, a reduction in the number of migrant laborers would raise
the ratio of young and retired people to workers-the dependency ratio-and endanger the financing
of Social Security and Medicare. And by increasing the size of the U.S. economy,
these workers induce expansions in investment expenditures and hiring in areas that are complementary.
The one form of globalization that Trump has not criticized, with the exception of outward FDI,
is financial. This is a curious omission, as the crisis of 2008-09 arose from the financial implosion
that followed the collapse of the housing bubble in the U.S. International financial flows exacerbated
the magnitude of the crisis. But
Trump has pledged
to dismantle the Dodd-Frank legislation, which was enacted to implement financial regulatory
reform and lower the probability of another crisis. While
Trump has criticized China for undervaluing its currency in order to increase its exports to
the U.S., most economists believe that the
Chinese currency is no longer undervalued vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar.
Did globalization produce Trump, or lead to the circumstances that resulted in
46.7% of the electorate voting
for him? A score sheet of the impact of globalization within the U.S. would record pluses and minuses.
Among those who have benefitted are consumers who purchase items made abroad at cheaper prices, workers
who produce export goods, and firms that hire migrants. Those who have been adversely affected include
workers who no longer have manufacturing jobs and domestic workers who compete with migrants for
low-paying jobs. Overall, most studies find evidence of
positive net benefits from trade . Similarly,
studies of the cost and benefits of immigration indicate that overall foreign workers make a
positive contribution to the U.S. economy.
Other trends have exerted equal or greater consequences for our economic welfare. First, as pointed
out above, advances in automation have had an enormous impact on the number and nature of jobs, and
advances in artificial intelligence wii further change the nature of work. The launch of driverless
cars and trucks, for example, will affect the economy in unforeseen ways, and more workers will lose
their livelihoods. Second, income inequality has been on the increase in the U.S. and elsewhere for
several decades. While those in the upper-income classes have benefitted most from increased trade
and finance, inequality reflects many factors besides globalization.
Why, then, is globalization the focus of so much discontent? Trump had the insight that demonizing
foreigners and U.S.-based multinationals would allow him to offer simple solutions-ripping up trade
deals, strong-arming CEOs to relocate facilities-to complex problems. Moreover, it allows him to
draw a line between his supporters and everyone else, with Trump as the one who will protect workers
against the crafty foreigners and corrupt elite who conspire to steal American jobs. Blaming the
foreign "other" is a well-trod route for those who aspire to power in times of economic and social
upheaval.
Globalization, therefore, should not be held responsible for the election of Donald Trump and
those in other countries who offer similar simplistic solutions to challenging trends. But globalization's
advocates did indirectly lead to his rise when they oversold the benefits of globalization and neglected
the downside. Lower prices at Wal-Mart are scarce consolation to those who have lost their jobs.
Moreover, the proponents of globalization failed to strengthen the safety networks and redistributive
mechanisms that allow those who had to compete with foreign goods and workers to share in the broader
benefits.
Dani Rodrik of Harvard's Kennedy School has described how the policy priorities were changed:
"The new model of globalization stood priorities on their head, effectively putting democracy to
work for the global economy, instead of the other way around. The elimination of barriers to trade
and finance became an end in itself, rather than a means toward more fundamental economic and social
goals."
The battle over globalization is not finished, and there will be future opportunities to adapt
it to benefit a wider section of society. The goal should be to place it within in a framework that
allows a more egalitarian distribution of the benefits and payment of the costs. This is not a new
task. After World War II, the Allied planners sought to revive international trade while allowing
national governments to use their policy tools to foster full employment. Political scientist
John
Ruggie of the Kennedy School called the hybrid system based on fixed exchange rates, regulated
capital accounts and government programs "
embedded liberalism
," and it prevailed until it was swept aside by the wave of neoliberal policies in the 1980s
and 1990s.
What would today's version of "embedded liberalism" look like? In the financial sector, the pendulum
has already swung back from unregulated capital flows and towards the use of capital control measures
as part of macroprudential policies designed to address systemic risk in the financial sector. In
addition,
Thomas Piketty of the École des hautes etudes en sciences (EHESS) and associate chair at the Paris
School of Economics , and author of Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has called
for a new focus in discussions over the next stage of globalization: " trade is a good thing, but
fair and sustainable development also demands public services, infrastructure, health and education
systems. In turn, these themselves demand fair taxation systems."
The current political environment is not conducive toward the expansion of public goods. But it
is unlikely that our new President's policies will deliver on their promise to return to a past when
U.S. workers could operate without concern for foreign competition or automation. We will certainly
revisit these issues, and we need to redefine what a successful globalization looks like. And if
we don't? Thomas Piketty warns of the consequences of not enacting the necessary domestic policies
and institutions: "If we fail to deliver these, Trump_vs_deep_state will prevail."
Since 1980, US manufacturing output has approximately doubled while manufacturing employment
fell by about a third.
Yes, globalization impacts the composition of output and it is a contributing factor in the
weaker growth of manufacturing output. but overall it has accounted for a very minor share of
the weakness in manufacturing employment since 1980. Productivity has been the dominant factor
driving manufacturing employment down.
JimH November 29, 2016 11:11 am
"Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade."
Of course they do! And in your world, studies always Trump real world experience.
Studies on trade can ignore the unemployed workers with a high school education or less. How
were they supposed to get an equivalent paying job? EDUCATION they say! A local public university
has a five year freshman graduation rate of 25%. Are those older students to eat dirt while attempting
to accumulate that education!
Studies on trade can ignore that illegal immigration increases competition for the those under
educated employees. Since 1990 there has been a rising demand that education must be improved!
That potential high school drop outs should be discouraged by draconian means if necessary. YET
we allow immigrants to enter this country and STAY with less than the equivalent of an American
high school education! Why are we spending so much on secondary education if it is not necessary!
"In Mexico, 34% of adults aged 25-64 have completed upper secondary education, much lower than
the OECD average of 76% the lowest rate amongst OECD countries."
See: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/mexico/
Trade studies can ignore the fate of a small town when its major employer shuts down and leaves.
Trade studies can assume that we are one contiguous job market. They can assume that an unemployed
worker in Pennsylvania will learn of a good paying job in Washington state, submit an application,
and move within 2 weeks. Or assume that the Washington state employer will hold a factory job
open for a month! And they can assume that moving expenses are trivial for an unemployed person.
Our trade partners have not attempted anything remotely resembling balanced trade with us.
Here are the trade deficits since 1992.
Year__________US Trade Balance with the world
1992__________-39,212
1993__________-70,311
1994__________-98,493
1995__________-96,384
1996__________-104,065
1997__________-108,273
1998__________-166,140
1999__________-258,617
2000__________-372,517
2001__________-361,511
2002__________-418,955
2003__________-493,890
2004__________-609,883
2005__________-714,245
2006__________-761,716
2007__________-705,375
2008__________-708,726
2009__________-383,774
2010__________-494,658
2011__________-548,625
2012__________-536,773
2013__________-461,876
2014__________-490,176
2015__________-500,361
From:
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf
AND there is the loss of the income from tariffs which had been going to the federal government!
How has that effected our national debt?
"However, when employment across geographical locations is complementary for firms that do
significantly different work at home and abroad, domestic and foreign employment rise and fall
together."
And exactly how do you think that the US government could guarantee that complementary work
at home and abroad. Corporations are profit seeking, amoral entities, which will seek profit any
way they can. (Legal or illegal)
The logical conclusion of your argument is that we could produce nothing and still have a thriving
economy. How would American consumers earn an income?
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are RUST BELT states. Were the voters
there merely ignorant or demented? You should never ever run for elected office.
Beverly Mann November 29, 2016 12:30 pm
Meanwhile, Trump today chose non-swampy Elaine Chao, Mitch McConnell's current wife and GWBush's
former Labor Secretary, as Transportation Secretary, to privatize roads, bridges, etc.
JimH November 29, 2016 12:36 pm
The trade balances are in millions of dollars in the table in my last comment.
Global trade had a chance of success beginning in 1992. But that required a mechanism which
was very difficult to game. A mechanism like the one that the Obama administration advocated in
October 2010.
"At the meeting in South Korea's southern city of Gyeongju, U.S. officials sought to set a
cap for each country's deficit or surplus at 4% of its economic output by 2015.
The idea drew support from Britain, Australia, Canada and France, all of which are running trade
deficits, as well as South Korea, which is hosting the G-20 meetings and hoping for a compromise
among the parties.
But the proposal got a cool reception from export powerhouses such as China, which has a current
account surplus of 4.7% of its gross domestic product; Germany, with a surplus of 6.1%; and Russia,
with a surplus of 4.7%, according to IMF statistics."
See:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/24/business/la-fi-g20-summit-20101024
That cap was probably too high. But at least the Obama administration showed some realization
that global trade was exhibiting serious unpredicted problems. Too bad that Hillary Clinton could
not have internalized that realization enough to campaign on revamping problematic trade treaties.
(And persuaded a few more of the voters in the RUST BELT to vote for her.) Elections have consequences
and voters understand that, but what choice did they have?
In your world, while American corporations act out in ways that would be diagnosed as antisocial
personality disorder in a human being, American human beings are expected to wait patiently for
decades while global trade is slowly adjusted into some practical system. (As one shortcoming
after another is addressed.)
The article states almost exactly what you 'add' in your comment:
"Imports and foreign production, therefore, have had an impact on manufacturing employment
in the U.S. But several caveats should be raised. First, as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee
of MIT and others have pointed out, technology has had a much larger effect on jobs".
So, what gives? Is there an award today for who ever gets the biggest DUH??? If there is anything
worth adding, it would be a mention of the Ball St study that supports the author's claim but
is somehow overlooked. But your comment, well, DUH!!
=================================================
JimH,
Some good stuff there, your assessment of Economics and its penchant for ignoring variables,
and your insight which states that "studies can assume that we are one contiguous job market",
is all very true, and especially when it comes to immigration issues. I've lived most of my life
near the Southern border and when economists claim that undocumented workers are good for our
economy I can only chuckle and shake my head. I suppose I could also list all of the variables
which those economists ignore, and there are many to choose from, but, there is that quote by
Upton Sinclair: "You can't get a man to understand what his salary depends on his not understanding".
In all fairness though, The Dept. of Labor does of course have its JOLTS data, and so not all
such studies are based on broad assumptions, but Economics does have its blind spots, generally
speaking. And of course economists apply far too much effort and energy serving their political
and financial masters.
As for your comment in regards to the the trade deficit, you might want to read up a little
on the Triffin Dilemma. The essence of globalization has a lot to do with the US leadership choosing
to maintain the reserve-currency status and Triffin showed that an increasing amount of dollars
must supply the world's demand for dollars, or, global growth would falter. So, the trade deficit
since 1975 has been intentional, for that reason, and others. Of course the cost of labor in the
US was a factor too, and shipping and standards and so on. But, it is wise also, to remember that
these choices were made at time, during and just after the Viet Nam war, when military recruitment
was a very troubling issue for the leadership. And the option of good paying jobs for the working-class
was very probably seen as in conflict with military recruitment. Accordingly, the working-class
has been left with fewer options. This being accomplished in part with the historical anomaly
of high immigration quotas, (and by the tolerance for illegal immigration), during periods with
high unemployment, a falling participation-rate, inadequate infrastructure, and etc.
Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 2:18 pm
JimH,
After posting my earlier comment it occurred to me that I should have recommended an article
by Tim Taylor that has some good info on the Triffin dilemma.
Also, it might be worth mentioning that you are making the common mistake of assigning blame
to an international undertaking that would be more accurately assigned to national shortcomings.
I'm referring here to what you quoted and said:
""Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade.""
"Of course they do! And in your world, studies always Trump real world experience".
My point being that "positive net benefits from trade" are based on just another half-baked
measurement as you suggest, but the problems which result from trade-related displacements are
not necessarily the fault of trade itself. There are in fact political options, for example, immigration
could have been curtailed about 40 years ago and we would now have about 40 million fewer citizens,
and thus there would almost certainly be more jobs available. Or, the laws pertaining to illegal
immigration could have been enforced, or the 'Employee Free Choice Act could have been passed,
or whatever, and then trade issues may have had much different impact.
Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 3:12 pm
It seems worth mentioning here, that there are other more important goals that make globalization
valuable than just matters of money or employment or who is getting what. Let us not forget the
famous words of Immanuel Kant:
"the spirit of commerce . . . sooner or later takes hold of every nation, and is incompatible
with war."
coberly November 29, 2016 6:33 pm
Ray
the spirit of commerce did not prevent WW1 or WW2.
otherwise, thank you, and Jim H and Joseph Joyce for the first Post and Comments for grownups
we've had around here in some time.
Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 7:03 pm
Hey Coberly, long time no see.
And yes, you are right, 'the spirit of commerce' theory has had some ups and downs. But, one
could easily and accurately argue that the effort which began with the League of Nations, and
loosely connects back to Kant's claim, has gained some ground since WW2. There has not, after-all,
been a major war since.
So, when discussing the pros and cons of globalization, that factor, as I said, is worthy of
mention. And it was a key consideration in the formation of the Bretton Woods institutions, and
in the globalization effort in general. This suggesting then that there are larger concerns than
the unemployment-rate, or the wage levels, of the working-class folks who may, or may not, have
been at the losing end of 'free-trade'.
I've been a 'labor-lefty' since the 1970s, but I am still capable of understanding that things
could have been much worse for the American working-class. Plus, if anyone must give up a job,
who better than those with a fairly well-constructed safety-net. History always has its winners
and losers, and progress rarely, if ever, comes in an even flow.
Meanwhile, those living in extreme poverty, worldwide, have dropped from 40% in 1981, to about
10% in 2015 (World Bank), so, progress is occurring. But of course much of that is now being ignored
by the din which has drowned out so many considerations that really do matter, and a great deal.
coberly November 29, 2016 8:25 pm
Ray
I am inclined to agree with you, but sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees. Especially
if one of those trees has fallen on you.
In general I am more interested in stopping predatory business models that really hurt people
than in creating cosmic justice.
as for the relative lack of big wars since WW2, I always thought that was because of mutual
assured destruction. I am sure Vietnam looked like a big enough war to the Vietnamese.
It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all
need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
"... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
"... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
"... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
"... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
"... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
"... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
"... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
"... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
"... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
"... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
"... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
"... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
"... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
"... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
"... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
"... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
"... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
"... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
"... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
"... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
"... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
"... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
"... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
"... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
"... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
"... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
"... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
"... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
"... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
"... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
"... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
"... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
"... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
"... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
"... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
"... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
"... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
"... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
"... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
"... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
"... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
"... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?
I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for
the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial
heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which
inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).
The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied
them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary
production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent
living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.
As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair:
offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return,
and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking
sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers;
8.7 in allied jobs).
Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable
giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that
would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations
for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum
wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence
life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.
In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus,
a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal
distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic)
minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate,
stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.
I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also
understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies.
But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital
(which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired
as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their
capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse
or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century
capitalism.
Also: Faustusnotes@100
For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that
make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.
And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were
you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?
To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did
the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five
Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?
" Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic
and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive
governments to deal with this.
Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization
launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial
and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though,
was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the
Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "
What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.
I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the
terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.
Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too,
along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands
to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return
to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA
of Japan put crudely.
I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister
decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election.
The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an
apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained
that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans
did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.
I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan
needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed
wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as
'inferiors.' Many do.
Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong,
I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in
some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root
and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed
was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision
appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.
Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates
from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion
of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the
anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese
car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up
the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity,
so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions
that predate the emergence of identity politics.
It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves
on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the
plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and
the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and
protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.
And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since
we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs?
Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us
a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.
basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am
Did this go through?
Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,
The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people
and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of
the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great
injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation
of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic
vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan
C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity.
Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory
present.
I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very
in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that
produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened
minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the
accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters
with chants of USA! USA!
Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces
ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.
--
Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making
that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness'
threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans
are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation.
Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like
a minority vote.
Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder
if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of
the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority,
much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are
denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape
really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?
I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants
in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but
this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.
The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class'
as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.
.
This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is
somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that
the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British
working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the
politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.
Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders,
including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally
divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints
about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but
we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell
after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).
But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend
on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety,
we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist,
solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same
working-class interests.
Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves,
weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long
been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal
sectarian battles).
To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely
would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable
violence of climate change and corporate power.
*To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference
– Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race.
And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.
FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.
Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change
forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the
legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent.
If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better,
more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .
In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from
the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional
continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."
Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly
important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the
Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When
they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the
basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote:
"the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly
legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."
In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing
of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found,
a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a
period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative
and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'
Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have
equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling
constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to
speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the
camel's back.
In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country,
and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral
result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious
democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time,
more and more power.
nastywoman @ 150
Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die
Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking
for.
No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one
could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall
philosophy. (www.gp.org).]
I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these
are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions
or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be
tailored to individual communities and regions.
To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the
Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their
2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced
to pay.
This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring
that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the
neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes
upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman
white underclass (or so they see it).
I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself,
but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.
You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going
to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that
your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you),
you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't
stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or
not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back.
Nobody trusts the elite at all.
You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror
at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.
One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016:
the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people.
This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.
Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay?
We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got
other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.
Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists
also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has
happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising
to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the
existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able
to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.
None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a
modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The
problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.
Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership
that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin
is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to
blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current
out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.
We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people
and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated
event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then
there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis
there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably
not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the
National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen
is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon,
LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.
Does anyone notice a pattern here?
This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism
and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp
out the authoritarian part.
Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary
supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these
countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped
off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all
noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting
signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but
nobody else was getting anything.
This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially
single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings
and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to
the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.
And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi
Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation
where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former
Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will
never, ever happen."
C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary
was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly
on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal
justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass
incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary
promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable
for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president
in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's
big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing
helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system
run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities
Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the
whole process on.
So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness
and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years
ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential
candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.
Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a
"boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?
Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered
(maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves,
and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and
racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise
to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic
party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.
Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got
a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:
"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph
of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded
to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."
Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment
recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important.
He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic
elites toward their recent loss:
"It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political
force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite
a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the
Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local
levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced
no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of
rubble.'
"One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked
political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce
a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats,
one would be quite mistaken."
Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single
best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:
"At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass
unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response,
governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to,
and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time,
is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon
known as Goodhart's law. (..)
" what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary
regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this
world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at
all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically,
and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right
to vote.
"The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary
order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as
the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from
those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that
are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.
"In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing
everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.
"The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism.
It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing
above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."
You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing
the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised
in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US
since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))
If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood,
a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter
because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the
Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking
about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to
trump this year to give him his margin of victory).
trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even
doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he
was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia)
but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these
voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial
experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers
and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in
the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't
want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue
collar work.
trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs
and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been
"correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about
how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic
party, have to accept.
The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just
want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes
blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part
due to the auto bailout.
trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like
the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama
was defending keeping what was already there.
"Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the
automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable
labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses.
Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs
of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life,
however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that
even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim
the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations
through the Supreme Court.
But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples'
way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the
larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.
Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned
out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump
economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's
economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make
the Rich Richer
By Dean Baker
Introduction: Trading in Myths
In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential
nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is
the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies
to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being
of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other
wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by
exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its
population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from
following the same course.
This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the
millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016).
After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich
was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.
The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less
valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.
The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an
introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers
in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the
United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the
developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have
enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But
is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by
manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the
United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced
raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.
That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages
of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended
toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was
that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and
couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to
analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect
total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.
In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook
economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively
plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is
scarce and gets a high rate of return.
[Figure 1-1] Theoretical and actual capital flows.
So the United States, Japan, and the European Union should be running large trade
surpluses, which is what an outflow of capital means. Rich countries like ours should be
lending money to developing countries, providing them with the means to build up their
capital stock and infrastructure while they use their own resources to meet their people's
basic needs.
This wasn't just theory. That story accurately described much of the developing world,
especially Asia, through the 1990s. Countries like Indonesia and Malaysia were experiencing
rapid annual growth of 7.8 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively, even as they ran large
trade deficits, just over 2 percent of GDP each year in Indonesia and almost 5 percent in
Malaysia.
These trade deficits probably were excessive, and a crisis of confidence hit East Asia
and much of the developing world in the summer of 1997. The inflow of capital from rich
countries slowed or reversed, making it impossible for the developing countries to sustain
the fixed exchange rates most had at the time. One after another, they were forced to
abandon their fixed exchange rates and turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for
help.
Rather than promulgating policies that would allow developing countries to continue the
textbook development path of growth driven by importing capital and running trade deficits,
the IMF made debt repayment a top priority. The bailout, under the direction of the Clinton
administration Treasury Department, required developing countries to switch to large trade
surpluses (Radelet and Sachs 2000, O'Neil 1999).
The countries of East Asia would be far richer today had they been allowed to continue
on the growth path of the early and mid-1990s, when they had large trade deficits. Four of
the five would be more than twice as rich, and the fifth, Vietnam, would be almost 50
percent richer. South Korea and Malaysia would have higher per capita incomes today than
the United States.
[Figure 1-2] Per capita income of East Asian countries, actual vs. continuing on 1990s
growth path.
In the wake of the East Asia bailout, countries throughout the developing world decided
they had to build up reserves of foreign exchange, primarily dollars, in order to avoid
ever facing the same harsh bailout terms as the countries of East Asia. Building up
reserves meant running large trade surpluses, and it is no coincidence that the U.S. trade
deficit has exploded, rising from just over 1 percent of GDP in 1996 to almost 6 percent in
2005. The rise has coincided with the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs,
roughly 20 percent of employment in the sector.
There was no reason the textbook growth pattern of the 1990s could not have continued.
It wasn't the laws of economics that forced developing countries to take a different path,
it was the failed bailout and the international financial system. It would seem that the
enemy of the world's poor is not Bernie Sanders but rather the engineers of our current
globalization policies.
There is a further point in this story that is generally missed: it is not only the
volume of trade flows that is determined by policy, but also the content. A major push in
recent trade deals has been to require stronger and longer patent and copyright protection.
Paying the fees imposed by these terms, especially for prescription drugs, is a huge burden
on the developing world. Bill Clinton would have much less need to fly around the world for
the Clinton Foundation had he not inserted the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights) provisions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) that require developing
countries to adopt U.S.-style patent protections. Generic drugs are almost always cheap -
patent protection makes drugs expensive. The cancer and hepatitis drugs that sell for tens
or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year would sell for a few hundred dollars in a free
market. Cheap drugs would be more widely available had the developed world not forced TRIPS
on the developing world.
Of course, we have to pay for the research to develop new drugs or any innovation. We
also have to compensate creative workers who produce music, movies, and books. But there
are efficient alternatives to patents and copyrights, and the efforts by the elites in the
United States and other wealthy countries to impose these relics on the developing world is
just a mechanism for redistributing income from the world's poor to Pfizer, Microsoft, and
Disney. Stronger and longer patent and copyright protection is not a necessary feature of a
21st century economy.
In textbook trade theory, if a country has a larger trade surplus on payments for
royalties and patent licensing fees, it will have a larger trade deficit in manufactured
goods and other areas. The reason is that, in theory, the trade balance is fixed by
national savings and investment, not by the ability of a country to export in a particular
area. If the trade deficit is effectively fixed by these macroeconomic factors, then more
exports in one area mean fewer exports in other areas. Put another way, income gains for
Pfizer and Disney translate into lost jobs for workers in the steel and auto industries....
It includes this interesting piece on international trade:
"I'll start with my favorite, the complaint that the trade policy advocating by Warren
and Sanders would hurt the poor in the developing world, or to use their words:
"And their ostensible protection of American workers leaves no room to consider the welfare
of poor people elsewhere in the world."
I like this one because it turns standard economic theory on its head to advance the
interests of the rich and powerful. In the economic textbooks, rich countries like the
United States are supposed to be exporting capital to the developing world. This provides
them the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure, while maintaining the
living standards of their populations. This is the standard economic story where the
problem is scarcity.
But to justify trade policies that have harmed tens of millions of U.S. workers, either
by costing them jobs or depressing their wages, the Post discards standard economics and
tells us the problem facing people in the developing world is that there is too much stuff.
If we didn't buy the goods produced in the developing world then there would just be a
massive glut of unsold products.
In the standard theory the people in the developing world buy their own stuff, with rich
countries like the U.S. providing the financing. It actually did work this way in the
1990s, up until the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. In that period, countries like
Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia were growing very rapidly while running large trade
deficits. This pattern of growth was ended by the terms of the bailout imposed on these
countries by the U.S. Treasury Department through the International Monetary Fund.
The harsh terms of the bailout forced these and other developing countries to reverse
the standard textbook path and start running large trade surpluses. This post-bailout
period was associated with slower growth for these countries. In other words, the poor of
the developing world suffered from the pattern of trade the Post advocates. If they had
continued on the pre-bailout path they would be much richer today. In fact, South Korea and
Malaysia would be richer than the United States if they had maintained their pre-bailout
growth rate over the last two decades. (This is the topic of the introduction to my new
book, Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make
the Rich Richer, it's free.)"
Not sure that I fully agree with him, but I do agree that trade imbalances and
mercantilism is a large part of the problem.
The Washington Post editorial page decided to lecture readers * on the meaning of
progressivism. Okay, that is nowhere near as bad as a Trump presidency, but really, did we
need this?
The editorial gives us a potpourri of neo-liberal (yes, the term is appropriate here)
platitudes, all of which we have heard many times before and are best half true. For
framing, the villains are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who it tells us "are
embracing principles that are not genuinely progressive."
I'll start with my favorite, the complaint that the trade policy advocating by Warren
and Sanders would hurt the poor in the developing world, or to use their words:
"And their ostensible protection of American workers leaves no room to consider the
welfare of poor people elsewhere in the world."
I like this one because it turns standard economic theory on its head to advance the
interests of the rich and powerful. In the economic textbooks, rich countries like the
United States are supposed to be exporting capital to the developing world. This provides
them the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure, while maintaining the
living standards of their populations. This is the standard economic story where the
problem is scarcity.
But to justify trade policies that have harmed tens of millions of U.S. workers, either
by costing them jobs or depressing their wages, the Post discards standard economics and
tells us the problem facing people in the developing world is that there is too much stuff.
If we didn't buy the goods produced in the developing world then there would just be a
massive glut of unsold products.
In the standard theory the people in the developing world buy their own stuff, with rich
countries like the U.S. providing the financing. It actually did work this way in the
1990s, up until the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. In that period, countries like
Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia were growing very rapidly while running large trade
deficits. This pattern of growth was ended by the terms of the bailout imposed on these
countries by the U.S. Treasury Department through the International Monetary Fund.
The harsh terms of the bailout forced these and other developing countries to reverse
the standard textbook path and start running large trade surpluses. This post-bailout
period was associated with slower growth for these countries. In other words, the poor of
the developing world suffered from the pattern of trade the Post advocates. If they had
continued on the pre-bailout path they would be much richer today. In fact, South Korea and
Malaysia would be richer than the United States if they had maintained their pre-bailout
growth rate over the last two decades. (This is the topic of the introduction to my new
book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to
Make the Rich Richer," ** it's free.)
It is also important to note that the Post is only bothered by forms of protection that
might help working class people. The United States prohibits foreign doctors from
practicing in the United States unless they complete a U.S. residency program. (The total
number of slots are tightly restricted with only a small fraction open to foreign trained
doctors.) This is a classic protectionist measure. No serious person can believe that the
only way for a person to be a competent doctor is to complete a U.S. residency program. It
costs the United States around $100 billion a year ($700 per family) in higher medical
expenses. Yet, we never hear a word about this or other barriers that protect the most
highly paid professionals from the same sort of international competition faced by
steelworkers and textile workers.
Moving on, we get yet another Post tirade on Social Security.
"You can expand benefits for everyone, as Ms. Warren favors. Prosperous retirees who
live mostly off their well-padded 401(k)s will appreciate what to them will feel like a
small bonus, if they notice it. But spreading wealth that way will make it harder to find
the resources for the vulnerable elderly who truly depend on Social Security.
"But demographics - the aging of the population - cannot be wished away. In the 1960s,
about five taxpayers were helping to support each Social Security recipient, and the
economy was growing about 6 percent annually. Today there are fewer than three workers for
each pensioner, and the growth rate even following the 2008 recession has averaged about 2
percent . On current trends, 10 years from now the federal government will be spending
almost all its money on Medicare, Social Security and other entitlements and on interest
payments on the debt, leaving less and less for schools, housing and job training. There is
nothing progressive about that."
There are all sorts of misleading or wrong claims here. First, the economy did not grow
"about 6 percent annually" in the 1960s. There were three years in which growth did exceed
6.0 percent, and it was a very prosperous decade, but growth only averaged 4.6 percent from
1960 to 1970.
I suppose we should be happy that the Post is at least getting closer to the mark. A
2007 editorial *** praising The North American Free Trade Agreement told readers that
Mexico's GDP "has more than quadrupled since 1987." The International Monetary Fund data
**** put the gain at 83 percent. So by comparison, they are doing pretty good with the 6
percent growth number for the sixties.
But getting to the demographics, we did go from more than five workers for every retiree
to less than three today, and this number is projected to fall further to around 2.0
workers per retiree in the next fifteen years. This raises the obvious question, so what?
The economy did not collapse even as we saw the fall from 5 workers per retiree to less
than 3, so something really really bad happens when it falls further? We did raise taxes to
cover the additional cost and we will probably have to raise taxes in the future.
We get that the Post doesn't like tax increases (no one does), but this hardly seems
like the end of the world. The Social Security Trustees project ***** that real wages will
rise on average by more than 34 percent over the next two decades. Suppose we took back
5–10 percent of these projected wage gains through tax increases (still leaving workers
with wages that are more than 30 percent higher than they are today), what is the big
problem?
Of course most workers have not seen their wages rise in step with the economy's growth
over the last four decades. This is a huge issue which is the sort of thing that
progressives should be and are focusing on. But the Post would rather distract us with the
possibility that at some point in the future we may be paying a somewhat higher Social
Security tax.
The Post's route for savings is also classic misdirection. It tells how about
high-living seniors who get so much money from their 401(k)s they don't even notice their
Social Security checks. Only a bit more than 4.0 percent of the over 65 population has
non-Social Security income of more than $80,000 a year. If the point is to have substantial
savings from means-testing it would be necessary to hit people with incomes around $40,000
a year or even lower. That is not what most people consider wealthy.
We could have substantial savings on Medicare by pushing down the pay of doctors and
reducing the prices of drugs and medical equipment. The latter could be done by
substituting public financing for research and development for government granted patent
monopolies (also discussed in Rigged). These items would almost invariably be cheap in a
free market. But the Post seems uninterested in ways to save money that could affect the
incomes of the rich.
One can quibble with whether the current benefits for middle income people are right or
should be somewhat higher or lower, but it is ridiculous to argue that raising them $50 a
month, as proposed by Senator Warren, will break the bank.
Then we have the issue of free college. The Post raises the issue, pushed by Senator
Sanders in his presidential campaign, and then tells readers:
"Our answer - we would argue, the progressive answer - is that there are people in
society with far greater needs than that upper-middle-class family in Fairfax County that
would be relieved of its tuition burden at the College of William & Mary if Mr. Sanders got
his wish."
There are two points to be made here. First there is extensive research ****** showing
that many children from low- and moderate-income families hugely over-estimate the cost of
college, failing to realize that they would be eligible for financial aid that would make
it free or nearly free. This means that the current structure is preventing many relatively
disadvantaged children from attending college. Arguably better education on the
opportunities to get aid would solve this problem, but the problem has existed for a long
time and better education has not done much to change the picture thus far.
The second point is that the process of determining eligibility for aid is itself
costly. Many children have divorced parents, with a non-custodial parent often not anxious
to pay for their children's college. Perhaps it is appropriate that they should pay, but
forcing payment is not an easy task and it doesn't make sense to make the children in such
situations suffer.
In many ways, the free college solution is likely to be the easiest, with the tax coming
out of the income of higher earners, the vast majority of whom will be the beneficiaries of
this policy. There are ways to save on paying for college. My favorite is limiting the pay
of anyone at a public school to the salary of the president of the United States ($400,000
a year). We can also deny the privilege of tax exempt status to private universities or
other non-profits that don't accept a similar salary cap. These folks can pay their top
executives whatever they want, but they shouldn't ask the taxpayers to subsidize their
exorbitant pay packages.
There is one final issue in the column worth noting. At one point it makes a pitch for
the virtues of economic growth then tells readers:
"It's not in conflict with the goal of redistribution."
At least some of us progressive types are not particularly focused on "redistribution."
The focus of my book and much of my other writing is on the way that the market has been
structured to redistribute income upward, compared with the structures in place in the
quarter century after World War II. Is understandable that people who are basically very
satisfied with this upward redistribution of market income would not want this rigging of
the market even to be discussed, but serious progressives do.
Although I like much of what
Dean Baker, I don't like his term "loser liberalism", nor do I think his de-emphasis on
redistribution useful. Au contraire, I think talking about redistribution is absolutely
essential if we are to move to sustainable world. We can no longer be certain that per
person GDP growth will be sufficient to be able to ignore distribution or to rely on
"predistribution".
The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive
By Dean Baker
Upward Redistribution of Income: It Didn't Just Happen
Money does not fall up. Yet the United States has experienced a massive upward
redistribution of income over the last three decades, leaving the bulk of the workforce
with little to show from the economic growth since 1980. This upward redistribution was not
the result of the natural workings of the market. Rather, it was the result of deliberate
policy, most of which had the support of the leadership of both the Republican and
Democratic parties.
Unfortunately, the public and even experienced progressive political figures are not
well informed about the key policies responsible for this upward redistribution, even
though they are not exactly secrets. The policies are so well established as conventional
economic policy that we tend to think of them as incontrovertibly virtuous things, but each
has a dark side. An anti-inflation policy by the Federal Reserve Board, which relies on
high interest rates, slows growth and throws people out of work. Major trade deals hurt
manufacturing workers by putting them in direct competition with low-paid workers in the
developing world. A high dollar makes U.S. goods uncompetitive in world markets.
Almost any economist would acknowledge these facts, but few economists have explored
their implications and explained them to the general public. As a result, most of us have
little understanding of the economic policies that have the largest impact on our jobs, our
homes, and our lives. Instead, public debate and the most hotly contested legislation in
Congress tend to be about issues that will have relatively little impact.
This lack of focus on crucial economic issues is a serious problem from the standpoint
of advancing a progressive agenda....
President Barack Obama said Wednesday that America's election of Donald Trump and the U.K.'s
vote to leave the European Union reflect a political uprising in the West over economic
inequities spawned by leaders' mishandling of globalization.
"... Already, motor-vehicle manufacturers ship an automotive transmission back and forth across the US-Mexican border several times in the course of production. At some point, unpacking that production process still further will reach the point of diminishing returns. ..."
"... The story for cross-border flows of financial capital is even more dramatic. Gross capital flows – the sum of inflows and outflows – are not just growing more slowly; they are down significantly in absolute terms from 2009 levels. ..."
"... ... cross-border bank lending and borrowing that have fallen. Foreign direct investment – financial flows to build foreign factories and acquire foreign companies – remains at pre-crisis levels. ..."
"... This difference reflects regulation. Having concluded, rightly, that cross-border bank lending is especially risky, regulators clamped down on banks' international operations. ..."
Does Donald Trump's election as United States president mean that globalization is dead, or are
reports of the process' demise greatly exaggerated? If globalization is only partly incapacitated,
not terminally ill, should we worry? How much will slower trade growth, now in the offing, matter
for the global economy?
World trade growth would be slowing down, even without Trump in office. Its growth was already
flat in the first quarter of 2016, and it fell
by nearly 1% in the second quarter. This continues a prior trend: since 2010, global trade has
grown at an annual rate of barely 2%. Together with the fact that worldwide production of goods and
services has been rising by more than 3%, this means that the trade-to-GDP ratio has been falling,
in contrast to its steady upward march in earlier years.
... the resurgent protectionism manifest in popular opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),
Causality in economics may be elusive, but in this case it is clear. So far, slower trade growth
has been the result of slower GDP growth, not the other way around.
This is particularly evident in the case of investment spending, which has
fallen sharply since
the global financial crisis. Investment spending is trade-intensive, because countries rely disproportionately
on a relatively small handful of producers, like Germany, for technologically sophisticated capital
goods.
In addition, slower trade growth reflects China's economic deceleration. Until 2011 China was
growing at double-digit rates, and Chinese exports and imports were growing even faster. China's
growth has now slowed by a third, leading to slower growth of Chinese trade.
China's growth miracle, benefiting a fifth of the earth's population, is the most important economic
event of the last quarter-century. But it can happen only once. And now that the phase of catch-up
growth is over for China, this engine of global trade will slow.
The other engine of world trade has been global supply chains. Trade in parts and components has
benefited from falling transport costs, reflecting containerization and related advances in logistics.
But efficiency in shipping is unlikely to continue to improve faster than efficiency in the production
of what is being shipped. Already, motor-vehicle manufacturers ship an automotive transmission
back and forth across the US-Mexican border several times in the course of production. At some point,
unpacking that production process still further will reach the point of diminishing returns.
The story for cross-border flows of financial capital is even more dramatic. Gross capital
flows – the sum of inflows and outflows – are not just growing more slowly; they are down significantly
in absolute terms from 2009 levels.
... cross-border bank lending and borrowing that have fallen. Foreign direct investment –
financial flows to build foreign factories and acquire foreign companies – remains at pre-crisis
levels.
This difference reflects regulation. Having concluded, rightly, that cross-border bank lending
is especially risky, regulators clamped down on banks' international operations.
In response, many banks curtailed their cross-border business. But, rather than alarming anyone,
this should be seen as reassuring, because the riskiest forms of international finance have been
curtailed without disrupting more stable and productive forms of foreign investment.
We now face the prospect of the US government revoking the Dodd-Frank Act and rolling back the
financial reforms of recent years. Less stringent financial regulation may make for the recovery
of international capital flows. But we should be careful what we wish for.
"... The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable
their dominance. ..."
"... It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal
turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income
between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe,
the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. ..."
"... When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of
his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money
center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal
Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration,
but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served
to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political
power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. ..."
"... Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove
both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. ..."
"... It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for
economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened,
in a meteorological economics. ..."
"... This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid
the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.
..."
"... No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw
attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political
problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or
coherence. ..."
"... If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power,
Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional
critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected,
Obama isn't really trying. ..."
"... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because
it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of
income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression.
It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes.
It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking
higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices
were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish
public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor,
the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.
FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary
politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of
economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek
to side-step and disable their dominance.
It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the
neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution
of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments.
In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.
In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect
economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian
scale - at least until the War.
Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression,
accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure,
with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms
and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.
When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features
of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading
money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New
York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury
in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five
banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon
Johnson called it a coup.
I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition
(as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not
"gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina
Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide
resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity
prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At
the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various
big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise
restructured as part of a regulatory reform.
Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980
drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating
the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same
economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were
two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing
center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade
that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains
and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment
in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting
tax subsidies or ripping off workers.
It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility
for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that
just happened, in a meteorological economics.
It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus
to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic
neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing
the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency
of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally
financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the
Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.
This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could
aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting
constraints.
No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and
draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes
the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational
clarity or coherence.
The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is
a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so
it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus
indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen
spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again,
if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really
trying.
Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !
Notable quotes:
"… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and
disable their dominance. …"
"… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the
neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution
of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist
commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …"
"… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features
of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading
money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the
New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury
in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top
five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well.
Simon Johnson called it a coup. … "
"… Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980
drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …"
"… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility
for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces"
that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …"
"… This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could
aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting
constraints. …"
"… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and
draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes
the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational
clarity or coherence. …"
"… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of
power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular
and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic
Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. …"
"… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
…"
"... The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent. ..."
"... Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation ..."
"... Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender. ..."
The elections saw a massive shift in party support among the poorest and wealthiest voters. The share
of votes for the Republicans amongst the most impoverished section of workers, those with family
incomes under $30,000, increased by 10 percentage points from 2012. In several key Midwestern states,
the swing of the poorest voters toward Trump was even larger: Wisconsin (17-point swing), Iowa (20
points), Indiana (19 points) and Pennsylvania (18 points).
The swing to Republicans among the $30,000 to $50,000 family income range was 6 percentage points.
Those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 swung away from the Republicans compared to 2012
by 2 points.
The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the
Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited
from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by
11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased
from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent.
Clinton was unable to make up for the vote decline among women (2.1 million), African Americans
(3.2 million), and youth (1.2 million), who came overwhelmingly from the poor and working class,
with the increase among the rich (1.3 million).
Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance
of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle
class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.
Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses
of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade
unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the
working class, regardless of race or gender.
"... There are some who believe the elites are actually splintered into numerous groups and that domestic US elites have positioned themselves against the banking elites in London's City. ..."
"... US elites are basically in the employ of a handful of families, individuals and institutions in our view. It is confusing because it is hard to tell if Hillary, for instance, is operating on her own accord or at the behest of higher and more powerful authorities. ..."
"... It is probably a combination of both but at root those who control central banks are managing the world's move towards globalism. ..."
"... The vote to propel Trump to the US presidency reflects a profound backlash against open markets and borders, and the simmering anger of millions of blue-collar white and working-class people who blame their economic woes on globalisation and multiculturalism. ..."
"... If indeed Trump's election has damped the progress of TPP, and TTIP, this is a huge event. As we've pointed out, both agreements effectively substituted technocratic corporatism for the current sociopolitical model of "democracy." ..."
"... one of the elite's most powerful, operative memes today is "populism vs. globalism" ..."
"... No matter what, the reality of these two events, the victories of both Trump and Brexit, stand as signal proof that elite stratagems have been defeated, at least temporarily. Though whether these defeats have been self-inflicted as part of a change in tactics remains to be seen. ..."
Was Trump's victory actually created by the very globalist elites that Trump is supposed to have
overcome? There are some who believe the elites are actually splintered into numerous groups and
that domestic US elites have positioned themselves against the banking elites in London's City.
We
see no fundamental evidence of this.
The world's real elites in our view may have substantive histories in the hundreds and
thousands of years. US elites are basically in the employ of a handful of families,
individuals and institutions in our view. It is confusing because it is hard to tell if Hillary,
for instance, is operating on her own accord or at the behest of higher and more powerful
authorities.
It is probably a combination
of both but at root those who control central banks are managing the world's move towards globalism.
History easily shows us who these groups are – and they are not located in America.
This is a cynical perspective to be sure, and certainly doesn't remove the impact of Trump's victory
or his courage in waging his election campaign despite what must surely be death threats to himself
and his family..
But if true, this perspective corresponds to predictions that we've been making for nearly a decade
now, suggesting that sooner or later elites – especially those in London's City – would have to "take
a step back."
More:
The vote to propel Trump to the US presidency reflects a profound backlash against open markets
and borders, and the simmering anger of millions of blue-collar white and working-class people
who blame their economic woes on globalisation and multiculturalism.
"There are a few parallels to Switzerland – that the losers of globalisation find somebody
who is listening to them," said Swiss professor and lawyer Wolf Linder, a former director of the
University of Bern's political science institute.
"Trump is doing his business with the losers of globalisation in the US, like the Swiss People's
Party is doing in Switzerland," he said. "It is a phenomenon which touches all European nations."
... ... ...
If indeed Trump's election has damped the progress of TPP, and TTIP, this is a huge event. As
we've pointed out, both agreements effectively substituted technocratic corporatism for the current
sociopolitical model of "democracy." The elites were trying to move toward a new
model of world control with these two agreements. ...
Additionally, one of the elite's most powerful, operative memes today is "populism vs. globalism"
that seeks to contrast the potentially freedom-oriented events of Trump and Brexit to the discarded
wisdom of globalism. See
here and
here.
No matter what, the reality of these two events, the victories of both Trump and Brexit, stand
as signal proof that elite stratagems have been defeated, at least temporarily. Though whether these
defeats have been self-inflicted as part of a change in tactics remains to be seen.
Conclusion: But the change has come. One way or another the Internet and tens of millions or people
talking, writing and acting has forced new trends. This can be hardly be emphasized enough. Globalism
has been at least temporarily redirected.
Editor's Note: The Daily Bell is giving away a silver coin and a silver "white paper" to subscribers.
If you enjoy DB's articles and want to stay up-to-date for free, please subscribe
here .
The analysis is flawed in that it fails to understand the context for power and influence in the
western alliance. The Crowns in contest are seeking coordinated domination through political proxy,
i.e. the force behind the EU and the UN. The problem is the most influential crown was not in
a mind to destroy the fabric of their civilization and more importantly to continue to bail-out
the "socialist" paradises in the continent and beyond. Britannia has its own socialism to support
much less that of the world.
Trump represents keeping the Colony in line with a growing interest in keeping traditions intact
and in more direct control of Anglo values. Europe has this insane multi-culturalism that is fundamentally
incompatible with a "free" and robust civilization. The whole goal of detente with China was to
convert them to our values via proxy institutions and that is working in the long-run. In the
short-run, the Empire must reunite and solidify its value bulwark against the coming storm from
China and to a lesser extend from the expanded EU states. Russia is playing out on its own.
Most commenters do not realise that it is neoliberalism that caused the current suffering of
working people in the USA and elsewhere...
Notable quotes:
"... Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people robbed of holiday and sickness pay. Working people priced out of ever owning their own home. Our city centers socially cleansed of the working class. Poor people forced to fight like rats in sacks with even poorer foreigners for jobs, housing, school places and social and health services. ..."
"... Keep going mate. Continue to pump out that snobbish attitude because every time you do you've bagged Mr Trump, Mr Farage and Ms LePen another few votes. ..."
"... I recall a time when any suggestion that immigration may be too high was silenced by cries of racism, eventually that label was misused so often that it lost its potency, one gets the sense that this trend for dubbing those who hold certain opinions as somehow unintelligent will go the same way. People are beginning to see through this most hateful tactic of the Modern Left. ..."
"... Which is why I think Mr D'Ancona and many others are wrong to say that Farage and Trump will face the whirlwind when voters realise that their promises were all unachievable. The promises were much less important than the chance to slap the political world in the face. Given another chance, a lot of voters will do the same again. ..."
"... I think the author completely misses the most salient point from the two events he cites: simply that the *vast* majority of people have become completely disenfranchised with the utter corruption that is mainstream politics today. ..."
"... It doesn't matter who is voted in, the status quo [big business and the super-rich get wealthier whilst the middle is squeezed and the poorest are destroyed] remains. ..."
"... The votes for Brexit and Trump are as much a rejection of "establishment" as anything else. Politicians in both countries heed these warnings at their peril... ..."
"... The majority of the people are sick and tired of PC ism and the zero hour, minimum wage economy that both Britain and America have suffered under "globalisation". And of the misguided "[neo]liberal" agenda of much of the media which simply does not speak to or for society. ..."
"... People in western democracies are rising up through the ballot box to defeat PC [neo]liberalism and globalisation that has done so much to impoverish Europe and America morally and economically. To the benefit of the tax haven corporates. ..."
"... Globalisation disembowelled American manufacturing so the likes of Blair and the Clintons could print money. The illimitable lives they destroyed never entered their calculus. ..."
"... I have stood in the blue lane in Atlanta waiting for my passport to be processed; in the adjoining lane was a young British female student (so she said to the official). The computer revealed she had overstayed her visa by 48 hours the last time she visited. She was marched out by two armed tunics to the next plane home. That's how Europeans get treated if they try to enter America illegally. Why the demented furor over returning illegal Hispanics or anyone else? ..."
Surely the people who voted for Trump and Farage are too stupid to realise the sheer,
criminal folly of their decision...
thoughtcatcher -> IanPitch 12h ago
Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people
robbed of holiday and sickness pay. Working people priced out of ever owning their own home.
Our city centers socially cleansed of the working class. Poor people forced to fight like rats
in sacks with even poorer foreigners for jobs, housing, school places and social and health
services.
But yeah, they voted against the elite because they are "stupid".
attila9000 -> IanPitch 11h ago
I think at some point a lot of them will realize they have been had, but then they will
probably just blame immigrants, or the EU. Anything that means they don't have to take
responsibility for their own actions. It would appear there is a huge pool of people who can
be conned into acting against their own self interest.
jonnyoyster -> IanPitch 11h ago
Keep going mate. Continue to pump out that snobbish attitude because every time you do
you've bagged Mr Trump, Mr Farage and Ms LePen another few votes. Most people don't
appreciate being talked down to and this arrogant habit of calling those who hold views
contrary to your own 'stupid' is encouraging more and more voters to ditch the established
parties in favour of the new.
I recall a time when any suggestion that immigration may be too high was silenced by
cries of racism, eventually that label was misused so often that it lost its potency, one gets
the sense that this trend for dubbing those who hold certain opinions as somehow unintelligent
will go the same way. People are beginning to see through this most hateful tactic of the
Modern Left.
DilemmataDocta -> IanPitch 11h ago
A lot of the people who put their cross against Brexit or Trump weren't actually voting for
anything. They were just voting against this, that or the other thing about the world that
they disliked. It was voting as a gesture.
Which is why I think Mr D'Ancona and many others are wrong to say that Farage and Trump
will face the whirlwind when voters realise that their promises were all unachievable. The
promises were much less important than the chance to slap the political world in the face.
Given another chance, a lot of voters will do the same again.
Sproggit 12h ago
I think the author completely misses the most salient point from the two events he
cites: simply that the *vast* majority of people have become completely disenfranchised with
the utter corruption that is mainstream politics today.
It doesn't matter who is voted in, the status quo [big business and the super-rich get
wealthier whilst the middle is squeezed and the poorest are destroyed] remains.
The votes for Brexit and Trump are as much a rejection of "establishment" as anything
else. Politicians in both countries heed these warnings at their peril...
NotoBlair 11h ago
OMG, the lib left don't Geddit do they?
The majority of the people are sick and tired of PC ism and the zero hour, minimum wage
economy that both Britain and America have suffered under "globalisation". And of the
misguided "[neo]liberal" agenda of much of the media which simply does not speak to or for
society.
People in western democracies are rising up through the ballot box to defeat PC [neo]liberalism
and globalisation that has done so much to impoverish Europe and America morally and
economically. To the benefit of the tax haven corporates.
The sour grapes bleating of the lib left who refuse to accept the democratic will of the
people is a movement doomed failure.
Frankincensedabit 11h ago
Malign to whom? Wall Street and people who want us all dead?
Globalisation disembowelled American manufacturing so the likes of Blair and the Clintons
could print money. The illimitable lives they destroyed never entered their calculus.
I have stood in the blue lane in Atlanta waiting for my passport to be processed; in the
adjoining lane was a young British female student (so she said to the official). The computer
revealed she had overstayed her visa by 48 hours the last time she visited. She was marched
out by two armed tunics to the next plane home. That's how Europeans get treated if they try
to enter America illegally. Why the demented furor over returning illegal Hispanics or anyone
else?
I likely wouldn't have voted at all. But all my life the occupants of the White House
represented the interests of those nobody could ever identify. The owners of the media and the
numbered accounts who took away the life-chances of U.S. citizens by the million and called
any of them who objected a thick white-trash bigot. Whatever Trump is, he will be different.
That's why a British court has effectively overturned the results of the Brexit vote – in
a lawsuit brought by a hedge fund manager and former model – and thrown the fate of the country
into the hands of pro-EU Tories, and their Labor and Liberal Democrat collaborators.
This stunning reversal was baked in to the legislation that enabled the referendum to begin
with, and is par for the course as far as EU referenda are concerned: in 1992,
Danish voters rejected the EU, only to have the Euro-crats demand a rematch with a "modified"
EU treaty which won narrowly. There have been repeated attempts to modify the modifications,
which have all failed. Ireland voted against both the Lisbon Treaty and the Nice Treaty, only
to have the issue brought up again until the "right" result was achieved.
"... "Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men." ... ..."
"... poor pk a leader of the Stalinist press ..."
"... the surprising success of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive commentators say. ..."
"... "I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long to live! ..."
"... Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid advertisements filling the remaining hours). ..."
"... Killary Clinton got no closer than Ann Arbor this weekend, a message! ..."
"... Mr. Krugman forgot to list the collusion of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders. ..."
"... putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue. ..."
"... Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of middle class... ..."
"... Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia. ..."
The Truth About the Sanders Movement
By Paul Krugman
In short, it's complicated – not all bad, by any means, but not the pure uprising of idealists
the more enthusiastic supporters imagine.
The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have an illuminating discussion
of Sanders support. The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is this:
"Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to
anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent
to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected
white men." ...
[ Yes, I do find defaming people by speculation or stereotype to be beyond saddening. ]
The fact that Obama either won, or did so much better than Hillary appears to be doing with, the
white working-class vote in so many key battleground states, as well as the surprising success
of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that
the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial
portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive
commentators say.
And her opponent was/is incapable of debating on substance, as there was/is neither coherence
nor consistency in any part of his platform -- nor that of his party....
Question is, will Krugman be able to move on after the election...and talk about something useful?
Like how to get Hillary to recognize and deal with inequality...
Barbara Ehrenreich: "Forget fear and loathing. The US election inspires projectile vomiting. The
most sordid side of our democracy has been laid out for all to see. But that's only the beginning:
whoever wins, the mutual revulsion will only intensify... With either Clinton or Trump, we will
be left to choke on our mutual revulsion."
"I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly
and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long
to live!
Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to
fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid
advertisements filling the remaining hours).
Something interesting today.... President Obama came to Michigan. I fully expected him to speak
in Detroit with a get out the vote message. Instead he is in Ann Arbor, speaking to an overwhelmingly
white and white-collar audience. On a related note, the Dems have apparently written off
the white blue collar vote in Michigan, even much of the union vote. the union leaders are pro
Clinton, but the workers not so much. Strange year.
The real danger of serious election-rigging: electronic voting machines. How do we know the machine
*really* recorded everyone's votes correctly? (Did any Florida county ever give Al Gore negative
something votes?)
That's a big subject but you are right, that is the biggest risk of significant fraud. Not just
the voting machines, but the automatic counting systems. Other forms of possible election fraud
are tiny by comparison.
Here is the transcript from 60 Minutes about the Luntz focus group rancor. Instructive to read
about the depth of feeling in case you didn't see the angry, disgusted faces of citizens.
putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification
is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue.
Before the 1970s the US was both rich and protectionist - no look at our horrible roads and hopeless
people - the miracle of free trade! : ,
November 07, 2016 at 07:13 PM
Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing
Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of
middle class...
Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before
every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia.
"... it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. ..."
"... It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness. ..."
"... Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked. ..."
"... Economists told us that free trade deals and open borders would make us prosperous and yet that hasn't happens. ..."
"... The technicians running trade policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy haven't held up their end of the bargain. ..."
"... Wealth and power has been redistributed upwards. ..."
"... The union movement has been destroyed in outright class war. ..."
"... The corporate media spread lies and distraction. It induces both apathy and a rat race/dog-eat-dog mentality. ..."
"... Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today. Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider. ..."
"... Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*. ..."
"... Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs." ..."
"... Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply? ..."
More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions : ...Institutions are significant
to economists, who have come to see that countries become prosperous not because they have bounteous
natural resources or an educated population or the most advanced technology but because they have
good institutions. Crucially, formal structures are supported by informal, often unstated, social
agreements. A nation not only needs courts; its people need to believe that those courts can be
fair. ...
Over most of history, a small élite confiscated wealth from the poor. Subsistence farmers lived
under rules designed to tax them so that the rulers could live in palaces and pay for soldiers
to maintain their power. Every now and then, though, a system appeared in which leaders were forced
to accommodate the needs of at least some of their citizens. ... The societies with the most robust
systems for forcing the powerful to accommodate some of the needs of the powerless became wealthier
and more peaceful. ... Most nations without institutions to check the worst impulses of the rich
and powerful stay stuck in poverty and dysfunction. ...
This year's Presidential election has alarmed economists for several reasons. No economist,
save one , supports Donald J. Trump's stated economic plans, but an even larger concern is
that, were he elected, Trump would attack the very institutions that have provided our economic
stability. In his campaign, Trump has shown outright contempt for courts, free speech, international
treaties, and many other pillars of the American way of life. There is little reason to think
that, if granted the Presidency, Trump would soften his stand. ...
...it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as
President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce
its decisions. No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on
the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the
courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history
tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses,
and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've
already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses,
become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail.
It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address
demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of
baseness.
Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular
challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his
lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked.
"No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail,
it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military,
and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop
dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas.
They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed.
Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer,
uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail."
This is all true but let's provide a little more context than the totebaggers' paint-by-numbers
narrative.
Economists told us that free trade deals and open borders would make us prosperous and
yet that hasn't happens.
The technicians running trade policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy haven't held up
their end of the bargain.
Wealth and power has been redistributed upwards.
The union movement has been destroyed in outright class war.
The corporate media spread lies and distraction. It induces both apathy and a rat race/dog-eat-dog
mentality.
The Democratic Party has been moved to right as the middle class has struggled.
And more and more people become susceptible to demagogues like Trump as Democrats try to play
both sides of the fence, instead of standing foresquarely behind the job class.
Let's hope we don't find out what Trump does if elected. My guess is that he'd delegate foreign
and domestic policy to Mike Pence as Trump himself would be free to pursue his own personal grudges
via whatever means are available.
Alex S -> Peter K.... , -1
As we can see here, through leftist glasses, the only possible remedy for solving a problem is
moving left.
Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically
leftist today.
Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically
leftist today.
Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's
bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*.
Trump's policies would
double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which
would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs."
Tim Harford made a good case for trust accounting
for 99% of the difference in per capita GNP between the US and Somalia.
""If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference
between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior
economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That
suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are
wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income (2006 figures). If you make $40,000 a year, then
$200 is down to hard work and $39,800 is down to trust.
How could that be? Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to
be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust
enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth." goo.gl/t3OqHc
Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson
Abstract
The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather
than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including
real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why.
The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary
monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly
from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable
international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term
future.
Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country
when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
I was in college in the mid 1970's and we asked this question a lot. Some think this worry has
gone away. I don't agree with those types. Which is why a green technology investment drive makes
a lot of sense for so many reasons.
Quote from the paper you linked to: "Arguably, oil shocks have more to do with US foreign policy
than with US economic policy-the two Gulf Wars being prominent examples. That said, several economists
have claimed that US monetary policy played an important role in bringing on the oil shocks. See,
for example, Barsky and Kilian (2002)."
Do We Really Know that Oil Caused the Great Stagflation? A Monetary Alternative
By Robert B. Barsky and Lutz Kilian
Abstract
This paper argues that major oil price increases were not nearly as essential a part of the
causal mechanism that generated the stagflation of the 1970s as is often thought. There is neither
a theoretical presumption that oil supply shocks are stagflationary nor robust empirical evidence
for this view. In contrast, we show that monetary expansions and contractions can generate stagflation
of realistic magnitude even in the absence of supply shocks. Furthermore, monetary fluctuations
help to explain the historical movements of the prices of oil and other commodities, including
the surge in the prices of industrial commodities that preceded the 1973/74 oil price increase.
Thus, they can account for the striking coincidence of major oil price increases and worsening
stagflation.
My quote dragged on too long. I should have ended it with the first sentence. Monetary policy
could play a role but foreign policy could still be the biggest factor.
"Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened
a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.
"She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is
now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small
enough for the Fed practically to ignore it."
PGL told us that Hillary's fiscal program would be YUGE.
Dean Baker in "Rigged" * reminds me of the lasting limits to growth that appear to follow the
sacrifice of growth, especially to the extent of allowing a recession, for the sake of budget
balancing during a time of surrounding economic weakness:
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich
Richer
By Dean Baker
Introduction: Trading in Myths
In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination,
a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the
world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers,
specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because
exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out
of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty
and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the
rest of the developing world from following the same course.
This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented
media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty
irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would
condemn much of the world to poverty.
The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if
you respect honesty in public debate.
The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory
economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing
world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy
it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to
a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff.
In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world
would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't
sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff
they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.
That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of
demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full
employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't
produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone
to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like
the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so
that shortages of demand are not a problem.
In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics),
capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a
low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of
return....
It is yuuuuge - and no I did not say anything of the sort. Rather I noted it would be less than
1% of GDP. This is what I get for trying to get the facts right. It gets too complicated for you
even when we simplify things so you get angry and start screaming "liar". Grow up.
Per capta GDP grew from $51,100 to $51,400 between July 1 2015 and July 1 2016. This 0.6% growth
does not seem to me to be a statistic supporting claims of improving employment and improving
wage growth.
Dean has suggested in one of his commentaries that wage growth may be an artifact of a decline
in the quality of health insurance coverage. Wage growth is not figured net of increased outlays
for deductibles and copays related to changes in health insurance. PPACA discourages low deductible
and low copay health plans by placing a "Cadillac tax" on them, or at least threatening to do
so. The consequent rise in wage workers' outlays for copays and deductibles are not captured in
the statistics that claim to measure wage gains. This results in an income transfer from the well
to the sick, but can produce statistics that can be interpreted in politically convenient ways
by those so inclined
I get why the plans are taxed. I don't believe that the results of that policy have been beneficial
for the bulk of the population. Most of the good done by PPACA was done by the expansion of Medicaid
eligibility. I believe that requiring the working poor people to settle for high deductible high
copay policies has had the practical effect of requiring them to choose between adequate medical
and further impoverishment. I do not believe that the PPACA could not have been financed in a
way less injurious to the working poor. As the insurers have been unable to make money in this
deal, the hospital operators seem to have been the only winners in that their bad debt problems
have been ameliorated.
"people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses,
and new ideas"
And this is entirely rational, as in the situation described, the fruits of their efforts will
likely be siphoned from their pockets by the elites and generally rent-seekers with higher social
standing and leverage, or at best their efforts will amount to too little to be worth the risk
(including the risk of wasting one's time i.e. opportunity cost). It also becomes correspondingly
harder to convince and motivate others to join or fund any worthwhile efforts. What also happens
(and has happened in "communism") is that people take their interests private, i.e. hidden from
the view of those who would usurp or derail them.
"Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about
the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it
is to die.
The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises
the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of
stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to
plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don't think about too carefully will still
be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies
that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply
meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.
What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric,
but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where
the unraveling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond
the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of
the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.
Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation
is nothing new.
'Few men realise,' wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, 'that their life, the very essence of their
character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in
the safety of their surroundings.' Conrad's writings exposed the civilisation exported by European
imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable
heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that
civilisation believed 'blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in
the power of its police and of its opinion,' but their confidence could be maintained only by
the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls,
the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, though the city-dweller was no
longer equipped to face it directly.
Bertrand Russell caught this vein in Conrad's worldview, suggesting that the novelist 'thought
of civilised and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled
lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths.' What both Russell
and Conrad were getting at was a simple fact which any historian could confirm: human civilisation
is an intensely fragile construction. It is built on little more than belief: belief in the rightness
of its values; belief in the strength of its system of law and order; belief in its currency;
above all, perhaps, belief in its future.
Once that belief begins to crumble, the collapse of a civilisation may become unstoppable.
That civilisations fall, sooner or later, is as much a law of history as gravity is a law of physics.
What remains after the fall is a wild mixture of cultural debris, confused and angry people whose
certainties have betrayed them, and those forces which were always there, deeper than the foundations
of the city walls: the desire to survive and the desire for meaning."
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich
Richer By Dean Baker
Introduction: Trading in Myths
In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination,
a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the
world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers,
specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because
exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out
of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty
and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the
rest of the developing world from following the same course.
This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented
media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty
irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would
condemn much of the world to poverty.
The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if
you respect honesty in public debate.
The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory
economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing
world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy
it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to
a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff.
In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world
would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't
sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff
they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.
That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of
demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full
employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't
produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone
to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like
the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so
that shortages of demand are not a problem.
In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics),
capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a
low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of
return....
More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions : ...Institutions are significant
to economists, who have come to see that countries become prosperous not because they have bounteous
natural resources or an educated population or the most advanced technology but because they have
good institutions. Crucially, formal structures are supported by informal, often unstated, social
agreements. A nation not only needs courts; its people need to believe that those courts can be
fair. ...
Over most of history, a small élite confiscated wealth from the poor. Subsistence farmers lived
under rules designed to tax them so that the rulers could live in palaces and pay for soldiers
to maintain their power. Every now and then, though, a system appeared in which leaders were forced
to accommodate the needs of at least some of their citizens. ... The societies with the most robust
systems for forcing the powerful to accommodate some of the needs of the powerless became wealthier
and more peaceful. ... Most nations without institutions to check the worst impulses of the rich
and powerful stay stuck in poverty and dysfunction. ...
This year's Presidential election has alarmed economists for several reasons. No economist,
save one , supports Donald J. Trump's stated economic plans, but an even larger concern is
that, were he elected, Trump would attack the very institutions that have provided our economic
stability. In his campaign, Trump has shown outright contempt for courts, free speech, international
treaties, and many other pillars of the American way of life. There is little reason to think
that, if granted the Presidency, Trump would soften his stand. ...
...it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as
President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce
its decisions. No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on
the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the
courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history
tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses,
and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've
already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses,
become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail.
It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address
demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of
baseness. Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular
challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his
lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked.
"No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail,
it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military,
and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop
dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas.
They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed.
Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer,
uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail."
This is all true but let's provide a little more context than the totebaggers' paint-by-numbers
narrative.
Economists told us that free trade deals and open borders would make us prosperous and
yet that hasn't happens.
The technicians running trade policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy haven't held up
their end of the bargain.
Wealth and power has been redistributed upwards.
The union movement has been destroyed in outright class war.
The corporate media spread lies and distraction. It induces both apathy and a rat race/dog-eat-dog
mentality.
The Democratic Party has been moved to right as the middle class has struggled.
And more and more people become susceptible to demagogues like Trump as Democrats try to play
both sides of the fence, instead of standing foresquarely behind the job class.
Let's hope we don't find out what Trump does if elected. My guess is that he'd delegate foreign
and domestic policy to Mike Pence as Trump himself would be free to pursue his own personal grudges
via whatever means are available.
As Bernie Sanders's campaign demonstrated, there is still hope. In fact hope is growing.
Lucky for us Sanders campaigned hard for Hillary, knowing what the stakes are.
Given the way people like PGL treated Sanders during the campaign and given what Wikileaks
showed, I doubt the reverse would have been true had Sanders won the primary.
The reverse would have been true, because we Democrats would have voted party above all else and
especially in this election year. Remember "party" the thing that Bernie supporters and Bernie
himself denigrated? I believe the term
"elites" was used more than once to describe the party faithful.
Alex S -> Peter K.... , -1
As we can see here, through leftist glasses, the only possible remedy for solving a problem is
moving left.
Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically
leftist today.
Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
Does the Right Hold the Economy Hostage to Advance Its Militarist Agenda?
That's one way to read Tyler Cowen's New York Times column * noting that wars have often been
associated with major economic advances which carries the headline "the lack of major wars may
be hurting economic growth." Tyler lays out his central argument:
"It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American
history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear
power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager
to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed
to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military
contracting, not today's entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik
satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic
growth."
This is all quite true, but a moment's reflection may give a bit different spin to the story.
There has always been substantial support among liberals for the sort of government sponsored
research that he describes here. The opposition has largely come from the right. However the right
has been willing to go along with such spending in the context of meeting national defense needs.
Its support made these accomplishments possible.
This brings up the suggestion Paul Krugman made a while back (jokingly) that maybe we need
to convince the public that we face a threat from an attack from Mars. Krugman suggested this
as a way to prompt traditional Keynesian stimulus, but perhaps we can also use the threat to promote
an ambitious public investment agenda to bring us the next major set of technological breakthroughs.
1. Baker's peaceful spending scenario is not likely because of human nature.
2. Even if Baker's scenario happened, a given dollar will be used more efficiently in a war.
If there is a threat of losing, you have an incentive to cut waste and spend on what produces
results.
3. The United States would not exist at all if we had not conquered the territory.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.
But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....
Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's
bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*. Trump's policies would
double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which
would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs." Tim Harford made a good case for trust accounting
for 99% of the difference in per capita GNP between the US and Somalia.
""If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference
between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior
economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That
suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are
wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income (2006 figures). If you make $40,000 a year, then
$200 is down to hard work and $39,800 is down to trust.
How could that be? Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to
be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust
enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth." goo.gl/t3OqHc
Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson
Abstract
The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather
than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including
real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why.
The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary
monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly
from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable
international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term
future.
Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country
when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
I was in college in the mid 1970's and we asked this question a lot. Some think this worry has
gone away. I don't agree with those types. Which is why a green technology investment drive makes
a lot of sense for so many reasons.
Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country
when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
[ Having read and reread this question, I do not begin to understand what it means. There is
oil here, there is oil all about us, there is oil in Canada and Mexico and on and on, and the
supply of oil about us is not about to be disrupted by any conceivable war and an inconceivable
war is never going to be fought. ]
Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country
when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
[ My guess is that this is a way of scarily pitching for fracking for oil right in my garden,
but I like my azealia bushes and mocking birds. ]
Quote from the paper you linked to: "Arguably, oil shocks have more to do with US foreign policy
than with US economic policy-the two Gulf Wars being prominent examples. That said, several economists
have claimed that US monetary policy played an important role in bringing on the oil shocks. See,
for example, Barsky and Kilian (2002)."
Do We Really Know that Oil Caused the Great Stagflation? A Monetary Alternative
By Robert B. Barsky and Lutz Kilian
Abstract
This paper argues that major oil price increases were not nearly as essential a part of the
causal mechanism that generated the stagflation of the 1970s as is often thought. There is neither
a theoretical presumption that oil supply shocks are stagflationary nor robust empirical evidence
for this view. In contrast, we show that monetary expansions and contractions can generate stagflation
of realistic magnitude even in the absence of supply shocks. Furthermore, monetary fluctuations
help to explain the historical movements of the prices of oil and other commodities, including
the surge in the prices of industrial commodities that preceded the 1973/74 oil price increase.
Thus, they can account for the striking coincidence of major oil price increases and worsening
stagflation.
My quote dragged on too long. I should have ended it with the first sentence. Monetary policy
could play a role but foreign policy could still be the biggest factor.
"Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened
a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.
"She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is
now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small
enough for the Fed practically to ignore it."
PGL told us that Hillary's fiscal program would be YUGE.
Dean Baker in "Rigged" * reminds me of the lasting limits to growth that appear to follow the
sacrifice of growth, especially to the extent of allowing a recession, for the sake of budget
balancing during a time of surrounding economic weakness:
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich
Richer
By Dean Baker
Introduction: Trading in Myths
In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination,
a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the
world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers,
specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because
exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out
of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty
and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the
rest of the developing world from following the same course.
This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented
media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty
irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would
condemn much of the world to poverty.
The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if
you respect honesty in public debate.
The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory
economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing
world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy
it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to
a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff.
In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world
would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't
sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff
they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.
That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of
demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full
employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't
produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone
to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like
the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so
that shortages of demand are not a problem.
In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics),
capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a
low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of
return....
It is yuuuuge - and no I did not say anything of the sort. Rather I noted it would be less than
1% of GDP. This is what I get for trying to get the facts right. It gets too complicated for you
even when we simplify things so you get angry and start screaming "liar". Grow up.
Per capta GDP grew from $51,100 to $51,400 between July 1 2015 and July 1 2016. This 0.6% growth
does not seem to me to be a statistic supporting claims of improving employment and improving
wage growth.
Dean has suggested in one of his commentaries that wage growth may be an artifact of a decline
in the quality of health insurance coverage. Wage growth is not figured net of increased outlays
for deductibles and copays related to changes in health insurance. PPACA discourages low deductible
and low copay health plans by placing a "Cadillac tax" on them, or at least threatening to do
so. The consequent rise in wage workers' outlays for copays and deductibles are not captured in
the statistics that claim to measure wage gains. This results in an income transfer from the well
to the sick, but can produce statistics that can be interpreted in politically convenient ways
by those so inclined
I get why the plans are taxed. I don't believe that the results of that policy have been beneficial
for the bulk of the population. Most of the good done by PPACA was done by the expansion of Medicaid
eligibility. I believe that requiring the working poor people to settle for high deductible high
copay policies has had the practical effect of requiring them to choose between adequate medical
and further impoverishment. I do not believe that the PPACA could not have been financed in a
way less injurious to the working poor. As the insurers have been unable to make money in this
deal, the hospital operators seem to have been the only winners in that their bad debt problems
have been ameliorated.
"people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses,
and new ideas"
And this is entirely rational, as in the situation described, the fruits of their efforts will
likely be siphoned from their pockets by the elites and generally rent-seekers with higher social
standing and leverage, or at best their efforts will amount to too little to be worth the risk
(including the risk of wasting one's time i.e. opportunity cost). It also becomes correspondingly
harder to convince and motivate others to join or fund any worthwhile efforts. What also happens
(and has happened in "communism") is that people take their interests private, i.e. hidden from
the view of those who would usurp or derail them.
"Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about
the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it
is to die.
The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises
the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of
stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to
plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don't think about too carefully will still
be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies
that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply
meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.
What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric,
but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where
the unraveling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond
the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of
the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.
Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation
is nothing new.
'Few men realise,' wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, 'that their life, the very essence of their
character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in
the safety of their surroundings.' Conrad's writings exposed the civilisation exported by European
imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable
heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that
civilisation believed 'blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in
the power of its police and of its opinion,' but their confidence could be maintained only by
the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls,
the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, though the city-dweller was no
longer equipped to face it directly.
Bertrand Russell caught this vein in Conrad's worldview, suggesting that the novelist 'thought
of civilised and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled
lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths.' What both Russell
and Conrad were getting at was a simple fact which any historian could confirm: human civilisation
is an intensely fragile construction. It is built on little more than belief: belief in the rightness
of its values; belief in the strength of its system of law and order; belief in its currency;
above all, perhaps, belief in its future.
Once that belief begins to crumble, the collapse of a civilisation may become unstoppable.
That civilisations fall, sooner or later, is as much a law of history as gravity is a law of physics.
What remains after the fall is a wild mixture of cultural debris, confused and angry people whose
certainties have betrayed them, and those forces which were always there, deeper than the foundations
of the city walls: the desire to survive and the desire for meaning."
"... An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty." ..."
"... There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians. ..."
"... Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. ..."
"... To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ..."
"... Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment. ..."
A couple of remarks in
Professor Susan
McWillams' recent Modern Age piece celebrating the 25th anniversary of Christopher Lasch's
1991 book
The True and Only Heaven , which analyzed the cult of progress in its American manifestation,
have stuck in my mind. Here's the first one:
McWilliams adds a footnote to that: The 19 percent figure is from 2012, she says. Then she tells
us that in 1964, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the same statement.
Wow. You have to think that those two numbers, from 64 percent down to 19 percent in two generations,
tell us something important and disturbing about our political life.
Second McWilliams quote:
In 2016 if you type the words "Democrats and Republicans" or "Republicans and Democrats" into
Google, the algorithms predict your next words will be "are the same".
I just tried this, and she's right. These guesses are of course based on the frequency with which
complete sentences show up all over the internet. An awful lot of people out there think we live
in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is
coming to be called the "Uniparty."
There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national
politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people
versus the politicians.
Which leads me to a different lady commentator: Peggy Noonan, in her October 20th Wall Street
Journal column.
The title of Peggy's piece was:
Imagine
a Sane Donald Trump . [
Alternate link ]Its gravamen:
Donald Trump has shown up the Republican Party Establishment as totally out of touch with their base,
which is good; but that he's bat-poop crazy, which is bad. If a sane Donald Trump had done
the good thing, the showing-up, we'd be on course to a major beneficial correction in our national
politics.
It's a good clever piece. A couple of months ago on Radio Derb I offered up one and a half cheers
for Peggy, who gets a lot right in spite of being a longtime Establishment Insider. So it
was here. Sample of what she got right last week:
Mr. Trump's great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its
own base really thinks about the big issues. The party's leaders didn't know! They were shocked,
so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn't happening.
The party's leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base
does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn't want
to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses.
When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he'd opposed the Iraq invasion,
the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn't want
to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half
the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.
End of pause. OK, so Peggy got some things right there. She got a lot wrong, though
Start with the notion that Trump is crazy. He's a nut, she says, five times. His brain is "a TV
funhouse."
Well, Trump has some colorful quirks of personality, to be sure, as we all do. But he's no nut.
A nut can't be as successful in business as Trump has been.
I spent 32 years as an employee or contractor, mostly in private businesses but for two years
in a government department. Private businesses are intensely rational, as human affairs go-much more
rational than government departments. The price of irrationality in business is immediate and plainly
financial. Sanity-wise, Trump is a better bet than most people in high government positions.
Sure, politicians talk a good rational game. They present as sober and thoughtful on the Sunday
morning shows.
Look at the stuff they believe, though. Was it rational to respond to the collapse of the U.S.S.R.
by moving NATO right up to Russia's borders? Was it rational to expect that post-Saddam Iraq would
turn into a constitutional democracy? Was it rational to order insurance companies to sell healthcare
policies to people who are already sick? Was the Vietnam War a rational enterprise? Was it rational
to respond to the 9/11 attacks by massively increasing Muslim immigration?
Make your own list.
Donald Trump displays good healthy patriotic instincts. I'll take that, with the personality quirks
and all, over some earnest, careful, sober-sided guy whose head contains fantasies of putting the
world to rights, or flooding our country with unassimilable foreigners.
I'd add the point, made by many commentators, that belongs under the general heading: "You don't
have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." If Donald Trump was not so very different from run-of-the-mill
politicians-which I suspect is a big part of what Peggy means by calling him a nut-would he have
entered into the political adventure he's on?
Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific on a hand-built wooden raft to prove a point, which
is not the kind of thing your average ethnographer would do. Was he crazy? No, he wasn't. It was
only that some feature of his personality drove him to use that way to prove the point he
hoped to prove.
And then there is Peggy's assertion that the Republican Party's leaders didn't know that half
the party's base were at odds with them.
Did they really not? Didn't they get a clue when the GOP lost in 2012, mainly because millions
of Republican voters didn't turn out for Mitt Romney? Didn't they, come to think of it, get the glimmering
of a clue back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?
Pat Buchanan is in fact a living counter-argument to Peggy's thesis-the "sane Donald Trump" that
she claims would win the hearts of GOP managers. Pat is Trump without the personality quirks. How
has the Republican Party treated him ?
Our own
Brad Griffin , here at VDARE.com on October 24th, offered a couple more "sane Donald Trumps":
Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. How did they fare with the GOP Establishment?
Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he
has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. Probably he's less well-informed
about the world than the average pol. I doubt he could tell you what
the capital of Burkina Faso is. That's secondary, though. A President has people to look up that
stuff for him. The question that's been asked more than any other about Donald Trump is not, pace
Peggy Noonan, "Is he nuts?" but, "
Is he conservative? "
I'm sure he is. But my definition of "conservative" is temperamental, not political. My touchstone
here is the sketch of the conservative temperament given to us by the English political philosopher
Michael Oakeshott :
To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried
to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the
near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present
laughter to utopian bliss.
That fits Trump better than it fits any liberal you can think of-better also than many senior
Republicans.
For example, it was one of George W. Bush's senior associates-probably Karl Rove-who scoffed at opponents
of Bush's delusional foreign policy as "the reality-based community." It would be hard to think of
a more un -Oakeshottian turn of phrase.
Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important,
the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power
of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment.
I thank him for that, and look forward to his Presidency.
"... I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail. ..."
"... In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them. ..."
"... While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift? ..."
"... I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument. ..."
"... Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net. ..."
"... Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it. ..."
"... Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. ..."
This is all true but Krugman always fails to tell the other side of the story.
I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes
to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail.
The centrists always do this to push through centrist, neoliberal "solutions" which anger the
left.
In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain,
Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican
plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch
brothers will primary them.
Let's hope Hillary does something about campaign finance reform and Citizen United and takes
a harder line against obstructionist Republicans.
While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win
elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class?
Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business
interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift
the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift?
I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift
to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to
me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest
group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years.
I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument.
Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation
based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of
which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles.
While we shredded the safety net.
Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats
up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population
and they couldn't bear it.
Perhaps the less partisan take-way would be - is it possible for any political candidate to
get elected in this environment without bowing to the proper interests? How close did Bernie get?
And, how do we fix it without first admitting that the policies of both political parties have
not really addressed the social adjustments necessary to capture the benefits of globalization?
We need an evolution of both political parties - not just the Republicans. If we don't get it,
we can expect the Trump argument to take even deeper root.
Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day
in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. East Asian
economists including Ha Joon Chang among others debunked comparative advantage and Ricardianism
long ago.
Manufacturing is everything. It is all that matters. We needed tariffs yesterday. Without them
the country is lost.
"... Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. ..."
"... In the end, Putin will be done in by his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs. ..."
This is a very good analyses. But I am less pessimistic: the blowback against neoliberal globalization
is real and it is difficult to swipe it under the carpet.
There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal
elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare"
trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient
bogeyman.
As somebody here said Trump might be a reaction of secular stagnation, kind of trump card put
into play by some part of the elite, because with continued secular stagnation, the social stability
in the USA is under real threat.
But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might make her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo male
politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
All-in-all it looks like she in not a solution for neoliberal elite problems, she is a part
of the problem
Adventurism of the US neoliberal elite, and especially possible aggressive moves in Syria by
Hillary regime ("no fly zone"), makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely (with
Pakistan, Iran and India as possible future members). So Hillary might really work like a powerful
China lobbyist, because the alliance with Russia will be on China terms.
Regime change via color revolution in either country requires at dense network of subservient
to the Western interests and financed via shadow channels MSM (including TV channels), strong
network of NGO and ability to distribute cash to selected members of the fifth column of neoliberal
globalization. All those condition were made more difficult in Russia and impossible in mainland
China. In Russia the US adventurism in Ukraine and the regime change of February 2014 (creation
of neo-fascist regime nicknamed by some "Kaganat of Nuland" (Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-100315.html
)) essentially killed the neoliberal fifth column in Russia and IMHO it no longer represent
a viable political force.
Also Russians probably learned well lesson of unsuccessful attempt of regime change by interfering
into Russian Presidential election process attempted by Hillary and Obama in 2011-2012. I would
like to see the US MSM reaction if Russian ambassador invited Sanders and Trump into the embassy
and promised full and unconditional support for their effort to remove criminal Obama regime,
mired in corruption and subservient to Wall Street interests, the regime that produced misery
for so many American workers, lower middle class and older Americans ;-)
Ambassador McFaul soon left the country, NED was banned and screws were tightened enough to
make next attempt exceedingly difficult. Although everything can happen I would discount the possibility
of the next "White Revolution" in Russia. So called "Putin regime" survived the period of low
oil prices and with oil prices over $60 in 2017 Russian economy might be able to grow several
percent a year. At the same time the US "post-Obama" regime might well face the winds of returning
higher oil prices and their negative influence of economy growth and unemployment.
In China recent troubles in Hong Cong were also a perfect training ground for "anti color revolution"
measures and the next attempt would much more difficult, unless China experience economic destabilization
due to some bubble burst.
That means that excessive military adventurism inherent in the future Hillary regime might
speed up loss by the USA military dominance and re-alignment of some states beyond Philippines.
Angela Merkel regime also might not survive the next election and that event might change "pro-Atlantic"
balance in Europe.
Although the list in definitely not complete, we can see that there are distinct setbacks for
attempts of further neoliberalization beyond Brexit and TPP troubles.
So there are some countervailing forces in action and my impression that the Triumphal march
of neoliberalism with the USA as the hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over, or soon
will be over. In certain regions of the globe the USA foreign policy is in trouble (Syria, Ukraine)
and while you can do anything using bayonets, you can't sit on them.
So while still there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism as a social system, the ideology
itself is discredited and like communism after 1945 lost its hold of hearts and minds of the USA
population. I would say that in the USA neoliberalism entered Zombie stage.
My hope is that reasonable voices in foreign policy prevail, and the disgust of unions members
toward DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) could play the decisive role in coming elections. As bad
as Trump is for domestic policy, it represent some hope as for foreign policy unless co-opted
by Republican establishment.
#70 But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her
male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by
commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
' .makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely '
Any analysis which arrives at this conclusion is profoundly ignorant.
Meta-comment: Is it permitted to say that a moderation scheme which objects to engels as a
troll, while permitting this tripe from likbez has taken a wrong turn somewhere. Seriously, some
explanation called for.
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made
by commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
I would like to apologize about the number of typos, but I stand by statements made. Your implicit
assumption that I am lying was not specific, so let's concentrate on three claims made:
1. "Hillary has serious neurological disease for at least four years", 2. "Obama and Hillary tried to stage color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012 interfering in Russian
Presidential elections" 3. "Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a warmonger similar to John McCain"
1. Hillary Health : Whether she suffers from Parkinson disease or not in unclear, but signs
of some serious neurological disease are observable since 2012 (for four years). Parkinson is just
the most plausible hypothesis based on symptoms observed. Those symptoms suggests that she is at
Stage 2 of the disease due to an excellent treatment she gets:
http://www.viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/news/100312.htm
The average time taken to progress from Stage 1 (mild) to Stage 2 (mild but various symptoms)
was 1 year 8 months. The average time taken to progress from Stage 2 to Stage 3 (typical) was
7 years and 3 months. From Stage 3 to Stage 4 (severe) took 2 years. From Stage 4 to Stage 5 (incapacitated)
took 2 years and 2 months. So the stage with typical symptoms lasts the longest. Those factors
associated with faster progression were older age at diagnosis, and longer disease duration. Gender
and ethnicity were not associated with the rate of Parkinson's Disease progression.
These figures are only averages. Progression is not inevitable. Some people with Parkinson's
Disease have either : stayed the same for decades, reduced their symptoms, rid their symptoms,
or worsened at a rapid rate. For more current news go to Parkinson's Disease News.
Concern about Hillary health were voiced in many publications and signs of her neurological disease
are undisputable:
3. The opinion that Hillary as a neocon is supported by facts from all her career , but
especially during her tenure as the Secretary of State. She voted for Iraq war and was instrumental
in unleashing Libya war and Syria war. The amount of evidence can't be ignored:
If you have more specific concerns please voice them and I will try to support my statements with
references and known facts.
stevenjohnson 10.26.16 at 1:50 pm
likbez @70 Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great
deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social
Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using
the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's
belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. But whether mine
is actually a deep analysis seems doubtful even to me.
But the OP is really limiting itself solely to domestic politics, and in that context the
resistance to "neoliberal globalization," (Why not use the term "imperialism?") is more or
less irrelevant. The OP seems to have some essentialist notion of the "Right" as openly aimed
at restoring the past, ignoring the content of policies. Reaction would be something blatant
like restoring censorship of TV and movies, instead of IP laws that favor giant
telecommunications companies, or abolition of divorce, instead of discriminatory enforcement
of child protection laws that break up poor families. This
cultural/psychological/moralizing/spiritual approach seems to me to be fundamentally a
diversion from a useful understanding.
There may be some sort of confused notions about popular morals and tastes clearly evolving
in a more leftish direction. Free love was never a conservative principle for instance, yet
many of its tenets are now those of the majority of the population. Personally I can only
observe that there's nothing quite like the usefulness of laws and law enforcement,
supplemented by the occasional illicit violence, to change social attitudes. The great model
of course is the de facto extermination of the Left by "McCarthyism." No doubt the
disappearance of the left targeted by "McCarthyism" is perceived to be a purification of the
real left. It is customary for the acceptable "left" to agree with the McCarthys that
communism lost its appeal to the people, rather than being driven out by mass repression. As
to populism, such reactionary goals as the abolition of public education are notoriously sold
as service to the people against the hifalutin' snobs, starting of course with lazy ass
teachers. It seems to me entirely mistaken to see the populist reactionaries as out of
ammunition because the old forms of race-baiting aren't working so well.
By the way, there already is a Chinese bourgeoisie, in Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, as well as elements in SEZs in China proper and select circles
in various financial capitals. Restoration of capitalism in China has run into the difficulty
that capitalism isn't holding up its end. President Xi Jinping is finding it difficult for
capitalism to keep the mainland economy growing at a sufficiently rapid rate to keep the
working class pacific, much less generate the so-called middle class whose stock market
portfolios will bind them to the new ruling class forever. These are the sources for a
revolution in China, not NGOs or a color revolution. In the end, Putin will be done in by
his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain
from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs.
Val @72 I remember that there were only rare, vague hints about Reagan, not factual
evidence. So unless you are committed to the proposition his Alzheimer's disease only set in
January 21, 1992, demanding factual evidence about the mental and physical health of our
elective divinities seems unduly restrictive I think.
Layman @79 The Shanghai Cooperation Organization alone makes an analysis that a military
alliance between Russia and China reasonable enough. Even if incorrect in the end, it is not
"profoundly ignorant."
Meta-comment: Engels post was perceived as mocking, which was its offense. As for "trolling,"
that's an internet thing...
"... Geithner's comments about his sacrifices in public service did not elicit any outcry from the media at the time because his perspective was widely shared. The implicit assumption is that the sort of person who is working at a high level government job could easily be earning a paycheck that is many times higher if they were employed elsewhere. In fact, this is often true. When he left his job as Treasury Secretary, Geithner took a position with a private equity company where his salary is likely several million dollars a year. ..."
"... The CEOs who are paid tens of millions a year would like the public to think that the market is simply compensating them for their extraordinary skills. A more realistic story is that a broken corporate governance process gives corporate boards of directors - the people who largely determine CEO pay -little incentive to hold down pay. Directors are more closely tied to top management than to the shareholders they are supposed to represent, and their positions are lucrative, usually paying six figures for very part-time work. Directors are almost never voted out by shareholders for their lack of attention to the job or for incompetence. ..."
"... We also have done little to foster medical travel. This could lead to enormous benefits to patients and the economy, since many high cost medical procedures can be performed at a fifth or even one-tenth the U.S. price in top quality medical facilities elsewhere in the world. In this context, it is not surprising that the median pay of physicians is over $250,000 a year and some areas of specialization earn close to twice this amount. In the case of physicians alone, if pay were reduced to West European-levels the savings would be close to $100 billion a year (@ 0.6 percent of GDP). ..."
"... As a technical matter, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private bank. It is owned by the banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System in the New York District. ..."
Yves here. We are delighted to feature an excerpt from Dean Baker's new book
Rigged , which you can find at
http://deanbaker.net/books/rigged.htm via either a free download
or in hard copy for the cost of printing and shipping. The book argues that policy in five areas, macroeconomics, the financial sector,
intellectual property, corporate governance, and protection for highly paid professionals, have all led to the upward distribution
of income. The implication is that the yawning gap between the 0.1% and the 1% versus everyone else is not the result of virtue ("meritocracy")
but preferential treatment, and inequality would be substantially reduced if these policies were reversed.
I urge you to read his book in full and encourage your friends, colleagues, and family to do so as well.
By Dean Baker, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Chapter 1: Introduction: Trading in myths
In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among
the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies
to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting
manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which
by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters
would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.
This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly
picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016).
[1] After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would
condemn much of the world to poverty.
The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.
The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes
that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people
in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a
halt.
In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage
of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing
world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced
raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.
That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem.
[2] Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack
of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find
anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership
assume trade doesn't affect total employment.
[3] Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.
In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing
rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce
and gets a high rate of return (Figure 1-1).
So the United States, Japan, and the European Union should be running large trade surpluses, which is what an outflow of capital
means. Rich countries like ours should be lending money to developing countries, providing them with the means to build up their
capital stock and infrastructure while they use their own resources to meet their people's basic needs.
This wasn't just theory. That story accurately described much of the developing world, especially Asia, through the 1990s. Countries
like Indonesia and Malaysia were experiencing rapid annual growth of 7.8 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively, even as they ran
large trade deficits, just over 2 percent of GDP each year in Indonesia and almost 5 percent in Malaysia.
These trade deficits probably were excessive, and a crisis of confidence hit East Asia and much of the developing world in the
summer of 1997. The inflow of capital from rich countries slowed or reversed, making it impossible for the developing countries to
sustain the fixed exchange rates most had at the time. One after another, they were forced to abandon their fixed exchange rates
and turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help.
Rather than promulgating policies that would allow developing countries to continue the textbook development path of growth driven
by importing capital and running trade deficits, the IMF made debt repayment a top priority. The bailout, under the direction of
the Clinton administration Treasury Department, required developing countries to switch to large trade surpluses (Radelet and Sachs
2000, O'Neil 1999).
The countries of East Asia would be far richer today had they been allowed to continue on the growth path of the early and mid-1990s,
when they had large trade deficits (Figure 1-2). Four of the five would be more than twice as rich, and the fifth, Vietnam, would
be almost 50 percent richer. South Korea and Malaysia would have higher per capita incomes today than the United States.
In the wake of the East Asia bailout, countries throughout the developing world decided they had to build up reserves of foreign
exchange, primarily dollars, in order to avoid ever facing the same harsh bailout terms as the countries of East Asia. Building up
reserves meant running large trade surpluses, and it is no coincidence that the U.S. trade deficit has exploded, rising from just
over 1 percent of GDP in 1996 to almost 6 percent in 2005. The rise has coincided with the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing
jobs, roughly 20 percent of employment in the sector.
There was no reason the textbook growth pattern of the 1990s could not have continued. It wasn't the laws of economics that forced
developing countries to take a different path, it was the failed bailout and the international financial system. It would seem that
the enemy of the world's poor is not Bernie Sanders but rather the engineers of our current globalization policies.
There is a further point in this story that is generally missed: it is not only the volume of trade flows that is determined by
policy, but also the content. A major push in recent trade deals has been to require stronger and longer patent and copyright protection.
Paying the fees imposed by these terms, especially for prescription drugs, is a huge burden on the developing world. Bill Clinton
would have much less need to fly around the world for the Clinton Foundation had he not inserted the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights ) provisions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) that require developing countries to adopt U.S.-style
patent protections. Generic drugs are almost always cheap -patent protection makes drugs expensive. The cancer and hepatitis drugs
that sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year would sell for a few hundred dollars in a free market. Cheap drugs
would be more widely available had the developed world not forced TRIPS on the developing world.
Of course, we have to pay for the research to develop new drugs or any innovation. We also have to compensate creative workers
who produce music, movies, and books. But there are efficient alternatives to patents and copyrights, and the efforts by the elites
in the United States and other wealthy countries to impose these relics on the developing world is just a mechanism for redistributing
income from the world's poor to Pfizer, Microsoft, and Disney. Stronger and longer patent and copyright protection is not a necessary
feature of a 21 st century economy.
In textbook trade theory, if a country has a larger trade surplus on payments for royalties and patent licensing fees, it will
have a larger trade deficit in manufactured goods and other areas. The reason is that, in theory, the trade balance is fixed by national
savings and investment, not by the ability of a country to export in a particular area. If the trade deficit is effectively fixed
by these macroeconomic factors, then more exports in one area mean fewer exports in other areas. Put another way, income gains for
Pfizer and Disney translate into lost jobs for workers in the steel and auto industries.
The conventional story is that we lose manufacturing jobs to developing countries because they have hundreds of millions of people
willing to do factory work at a fraction of the pay of manufacturing workers in the United States. This is true, but developing countries
also have tens of millions of smart and ambitious people willing to work as doctors and lawyers in the United States at a fraction
of the pay of the ones we have now.
Gains from trade work the same with doctors and lawyers as they do with textiles and steel. Our consumers would save hundreds
of billions a year if we could hire professionals from developing countries and pay them salaries that are substantially less than
what we pay our professionals now. The reason we import manufactured goods and not doctors is that we have designed the rules of
trade that way. We deliberately write trade pacts to make it as easy as possible for U.S. companies to set up manufacturing operations
abroad and ship the products back to the United States, but we have done little or nothing to remove the obstacles that professionals
from other countries face in trying to work in the United States. The reason is simple: doctors and lawyers have more political power
than autoworkers.
[4]
In short, there is no truth to the story that the job loss and wage stagnation faced by manufacturing workers in the United States
and other wealthy countries was a necessary price for reducing poverty in the developing world.
[5] This is a fiction that is used to justify the upward redistribution of income in rich countries. After all, it is pretty
selfish for rich country autoworkers and textile workers to begrudge hungry people in Africa and Asia and the means to secure food,
clothing, and shelter.
The other aspect of this story that deserves mention is the nature of the jobs to which our supposedly selfish workers feel entitled.
The manufacturing jobs that are being lost to the developing world pay in the range of $15 to $30 an hour, with the vast majority
closer to the bottom figure than the top. The average hourly wage for production and nonsupervisory workers in manufacturing in 2015
was just under $20 an hour, or about $40,000 a year. While a person earning $40,000 is doing much better than a subsistence farmer
in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is difficult to see this worker as especially privileged.
By contrast, many of the people remarking on the narrow-mindedness and sense of entitlement of manufacturing workers earn comfortable
six-figure salaries. Senior writers and editors at network news shows or at the New York Times and Washington Post
feel entitled to their pay because they feel they have the education and skills to be successful in a rapidly changing global economy.
These are the sort of people who consider it a sacrifice to work at a high-level government job for $150,000 to $200,000 a year.
For example, Timothy Geithner, President Obama's first treasury secretary, often boasts about his choice to work for various government
agencies rather than earn big bucks in the private sector. His sacrifice included a stint as president of the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York that paid $415,000 a year.
[6] This level of pay put Geithner well into the top 1 percent of wage earners.
Geithner's comments about his sacrifices in public service did not elicit any outcry from the media at the time because his perspective
was widely shared. The implicit assumption is that the sort of person who is working at a high level government job could easily
be earning a paycheck that is many times higher if they were employed elsewhere. In fact, this is often true. When he left his job
as Treasury Secretary, Geithner took a position with a private equity company where his salary is likely several million dollars
a year.
Not everyone who was complaining about entitled manufacturing workers was earning as much as Timothy Geithner, but it is a safe
bet that the average critic was earning far more than the average manufacturing worker - and certainly far more than the average
displaced manufacturing worker.
Turning the Debate Right-Side Up: Markets Are Structured
The perverse nature of the debate over a trade policy that would have the audacity to benefit workers in rich countries is a great
example of how we accept as givens not just markets themselves but also the policies that structure markets. If we accept it as a
fact of nature that poor countries cannot borrow from rich countries to finance their development, and that they can only export
manufactured goods, then their growth will depend on displacing manufacturing workers in the United States and other rich countries.
It is absurd to narrow the policy choices in this way, yet the centrists and conservatives who support the upward redistribution
of the last four decades have been extremely successful in doing just that, and progressives have largely let them set the terms
of the debate.
Markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations
are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented. These matters are determined by policy choices. The
elites have written these rules to redistribute income upward. Needless to say, they are not eager to have the rules rewritten which
means they have no interest in even having them discussed.
But for progressive change to succeed, these rules must be addressed. While modest tweaks to tax and transfer policies can ameliorate
the harm done by a regressive market structure, their effect will be limited. The complaint of conservatives - that tampering with
market outcomes leads to inefficiencies and unintended outcomes - is largely correct, even if they may exaggerate the size of the
distortions from policy interventions. Rather than tinker with badly designed rules, it is far more important to rewrite the rules
so that markets lead to progressive and productive outcomes in which the benefits of economic growth and improving technology are
broadly shared
This book examines five broad areas where the rules now in place tend to redistribute income upward and where alternative rules
can lead to more equitable outcomes and a more efficient market:
Macroeconomic policies determining levels of employment and output. Financial regulation and the structure of financial markets.
Patent and copyright monopolies and alternative mechanisms for financing innovation and creative work. Pay of chief executive
officers (CEOs) and corporate governance structures. Protections for highly paid professionals, such as doctors and lawyers.
In each of these areas, it is possible to identify policy choices that have engineered the upward redistribution of the last four
decades.
In the case of macroeconomic policy, the United States and other wealthy countries have explicitly adopted policies that focus
on maintaining low rates of inflation. Central banks are quick to raise interest rates at the first sign of rising inflation and
sometimes even before. Higher interest rates slow inflation by reducing demand, thereby reducing job growth, and reduced job growth
weakens workers' bargaining power and puts downward pressure on wages. In other words, the commitment to an anti-inflation policy
is a commitment by the government, acting through central banks, to keep wages down. It should not be surprising that this policy
has the effect of redistributing income upward.
The changing structure of financial regulation and financial markets has also been an important factor in redistributing income
upward. This is a case where an industry has undergone very rapid change as a result of technological innovation. Information technology
has hugely reduced the cost of financial transactions and allowed for the development of an array of derivative instruments that
would have been unimaginable four decades ago. Rather than modernizing regulation to ensure that these technologies allow the financial
sector to better serve the productive economy, the United States and other countries have largely structured regulations to allow
a tiny group of bankers and hedge fund and private equity fund managers to become incredibly rich.
This changed structure of regulation over the last four decades was not "deregulation," as is often claimed. Almost no proponent
of deregulation argued against the bailouts that saved Wall Street in the financial crisis or against the elimination of government
deposit insurance that is an essential part of a stable banking system. Rather, they advocated a system in which the rules restricting
their ability to profit were eliminated, while the insurance provided by the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, and other arms of the government were left in place. The position of "deregulators" effectively amounted to arguing
that they should not have to pay for the insurance they were receiving.
The third area in which the rules have been written to ensure an upward redistribution is patent and copyright protection. Over
the last four decades these protections have been made stronger and longer. In the case of both patent and copyright, the duration
of the monopoly period has been extended. In addition, these monopolies have been applied to new areas. Patents can now be applied
to life forms, business methods, and software. Copyrights have been extended to cover digitally produced material as well as the
internet. Penalties for infringement have been increased and the United States has vigorously pursued their application in other
countries through trade agreements and diplomatic pressure.
Government-granted monopolies are not facts of nature, and there are alternative mechanisms for financing innovation and creative
work. Direct government funding, as opposed to government granted monopolies, is one obvious alternative. For example, the government
spends more than $30 billion a year on biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health - money that all parties agree
is very well spent. There are also other possible mechanisms. It is likely that these alternatives are more efficient than the current
patent and copyright system, in large part because they would be more market-oriented. And, they would likely lead to less upward
redistribution than the current system.
The CEOs who are paid tens of millions a year would like the public to think that the market is simply compensating them for their
extraordinary skills. A more realistic story is that a broken corporate governance process gives corporate boards of directors -
the people who largely determine CEO pay -little incentive to hold down pay. Directors are more closely tied to top management than
to the shareholders they are supposed to represent, and their positions are lucrative, usually paying six figures for very part-time
work. Directors are almost never voted out by shareholders for their lack of attention to the job or for incompetence.
The market discipline that holds down the pay of ordinary workers does not apply to CEOs, since their friends determine their
pay. And a director has little incentive to pick a fight with fellow directors or top management by asking a simple question like,
"Can we get a CEO just as good for half the pay?" This privilege matters not just for CEOs; it has the spillover effect of raising
the pay of other top managers in the corporate sector and putting upward pressure on the salaries of top management in universities,
hospitals, private charities, and other nonprofits.
Reformed corporate governance structures could empower shareholders to contain the pay of their top-level employees. Suppose directors
could count on boosts in their own pay if they cut the pay of top management without hurting profitability, With this sort of policy
change, CEOs and top management might start to experience some of the downward wage pressure that existing policies have made routine
for typical workers.
This is very much not a story of the natural workings of the market. Corporations are a legal entity created by the government,
which also sets the rules of corporate governance. Current law includes a lengthy set of restrictions on corporate governance practices.
It is easy to envision rules which would make it less likely that CEOs earn such outlandish paychecks by making it easier for shareholders
to curb excessive pay.
Finally, government policies strongly promote the upward redistribution of income for highly paid professionals by protecting
them from competition. To protect physicians and specialists, we restrict the ability of nurse practitioners or physician assistants
to perform tasks for which they are entirely competent. We require lawyers for work that paralegals are capable of completing. While
trade agreements go far to remove any obstacle that might protect an autoworker in the United States from competition with a low-paid
factory worker in Mexico or China, they do little or nothing to reduce the barriers that protect doctors, dentists, and lawyers from
the same sort of competition. To practice medicine in the United States, it is still necessary to complete a residency program here,
as though there were no other way for a person to become a competent doctor.
We also have done little to foster medical travel. This could lead to enormous benefits to patients and the economy, since many
high cost medical procedures can be performed at a fifth or even one-tenth the U.S. price in top quality medical facilities elsewhere
in the world. In this context, it is not surprising that the median pay of physicians is over $250,000 a year and some areas of specialization
earn close to twice this amount. In the case of physicians alone, if pay were reduced to West European-levels the savings would be
close to $100 billion a year (@ 0.6 percent of GDP).
Changing the rules in these five areas could reduce much and possibly all of the upward redistribution of the last four decades.
But changing the rules does not mean using government intervention to curb the market. It means restructuring the market to produce
different outcomes. The purpose of this book is to show how.
[1] See also Weissman (2016), Iacono (2016), Worstall (2016), Lane (2016), and Zakaria (2016).
[2] As explained in the next chapter, this view is not exactly correct, but it's what you're supposed to believe if you adhere
to the mainstream economic view.
[3] There can be modest changes in employment through a supply-side effect. If the trade deal increases the efficiency of the
economy, then the marginal product of labor should rise, leading to a higher real wage, which in turn should induce some people to
choose work over leisure. So the trade deal results in more people choosing to work, not an increased demand for labor.
[4] For those worried about brain drain from developing countries, there is an easy fix. Economists like to talk about taxing
the winners, in this case developing country professionals and rich country consumers, to compensate the losers, which would be the
home countries of the migrating professionals. We could tax a portion of the professionals' pay to allow their home countries to
train two or three professionals for every one that came to the United States. This is a classic win-win from trade.
[5] The loss of manufacturing jobs also reduced the wages of less-educated workers (those without college degrees) more generally.
The displaced manufacturing workers crowded into retail and other service sectors, putting downward pressure on wages there.
[6] As a technical matter, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private bank. It is owned by the banks that are members
of the Federal Reserve System in the New York District.
"Markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations
are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented. These matters are determined by policy choices. The
elites have written these rules to redistribute income upward. Needless to say, they are not eager to have the rules rewritten
which means they have no interest in even having them discussed."
======================================================
It is one of those remarkable hypocrisies that free "unregulated" trade requires deals of thousands of pages .
but if these deals weren't so carefully structured to help the 1%, support would melt like snowmen in Fresno on a July day
Or check your local indy, or one of those that take orders (I refrain from naming my favorite co-op in Chicago, and anyway
I admit there are others). Nice to support those when you can.
Almost no proponent of deregulation argued against the bailouts that saved Wall Street in the financial crisis or against
the elimination of government deposit insurance that is an essential part of a stable banking system.
Actually I believe there were some Republicans who denounced the Wall Street bailout as a violation of capitalist principles.
My state's Mark Sanford comes to mind. It was the Dems at the urging of Pelosi who saved the bailout. On the other hand many of
my local politicians are big on "public/private" partnerships which would be a violation of laissez-faire that they approve. Perhaps
it was simply that there are no giant banks headquartered in SC.
The truth is there is no coherent intellectual basis to how the US economy is currently run. It's all about power and what
you can do with it. Which is to say it is our politics, above all, that is broken.
"That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem.[2]
Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of
supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find
anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership
assume trade doesn't affect total employment.[3] Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem."
Unbelievable.
By the 1920s they realised the system produced so much stuff that extensive advertising was needed to shift it all.
One hundred year's later, we might take this on board.
What is the global advertising budget?
The amount necessary to shift all the crap the system produces today.
We need to move on from Milton Freidman's ideas and discover what trade in a globalized world is really about.
We are still under the influence of Milton Freidman's ideas of a globalised free trade world.
These ideas came from Milton Freidman's imagination where he saw the ideal as small state, raw capitalism and thought the public
sector should be sold off and entitlement programs whittled down until everything must be purchased through the private sector.
"You are free to spend your money as you choose"
Not mentioning its other meaning:
"No money, no freedom"
After Milton Freedman's "shock therapy" in Russia, people were left with so little money they couldn't afford to eat and starved
to death. In Greece people cannot afford even bread today.
But this is economic liberalism, the economy comes first.
Milton Freidman used his imagination to work out what small state, raw capitalism looked like whereas he could have looked
at it in reality through history books of the 18th and 19th centuries where it had already existed.
The Classical Economists studied it and were able to see its problems first hand and noted the detrimental effects of the rentier
class on the economy. They were constantly looking to get "unearned" income from doing nothing; sucking purchasing power out of
the economy and bleeding it dry.
Adam Smith observed:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury.
The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions
from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every
savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers."
Adam Smith saw landlords, usurers (bankers) and Government taxes as equally parasitic, all raising the cost of doing business.
He sees the lazy people at the top living off "unearned" income from their land and capital.
He sees the trickle up of Capitalism:
1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.
He differentiates between "earned" and "unearned" income.
Today we encourage a new rentier class of BTL landlords who look to extract the "earned" income of generation rent for "unearned"
income. If you have a large BTL portfolio you can become a true rentier, do nothing productive at all and live off "unearned"
income extracted from generation rent, the true capitalist parasite. (UK)
The Classical Economists realised capitalism has two sides, the productive side where "earned" income is generated and the
unproductive, parasitic, rentier side where "unearned" income is generated.
You should tax "unearned" income to discourage the parasitic side of capitalism.
You shouldn't tax "earned" income to encourage the productive side of capitalism.
You should provide low cost housing, education and services to create a low cost of living, giving a low minimum wage making
you globally competitive. This is to be funded by taxes on "unearned" income.
The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally uncompetitive with soaring costs of
housing, healthcare and student loan repayments.
These all have to be covered by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the high minimum wage.
That's Milton Freidman's imagined small state, raw capitalism.
What he imagined bears little resemblance to the reality the Classical Economists saw firsthand.
We need to move on from Milton Freidman fantasy land.
Small state, raw capitalism as observed by Adam Smith:
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society.
On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going
fastest to ruin."
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services
In the 18th Century they would have understood today's problems with growth and demand.
Luckily Jeff Bezos didn't inhabit Milton Freidman fantasy land.
He re-invested almost everything to turn Amazon onto the global behemoth it is today.
' The commitment to an anti-inflation policy is a commitment by the government, acting through central banks, to keep wages
down. '
This is strikingly silly. Insert the word 'nominal' before wages, and it's not a howler anymore.
Anti-inflation policy in fact has little influence on real wages (the variable of concern, not nominal wages). But it has a
lot to do with preventing the social chaos of constantly rising prices, strikes for higher wages, inability of first-time home
buyers to borrow at affordable rates, and so on.
Inflationism is greasy kid stuff not to mention a brazen fraud on the public.
As one who walked the corridors of power in a very modest capacity in my country in the early to mid 1990s, can I just say
that people with power or influence then were aware that globalisation would create winners and losers. I recall the consensus
of those I knew then was that steps would need to be taken to compensate the losers. The tragedy is that these steps were never
taken, or, if they were, only to a wholly inadequate degree.
The always elusive referents for cost, price and value the flip-side of social chaos would seem the entropic degradation of
wasted lives, excluded from participating {either-OR} abandoned as irredeemable
Higher interest rates slow inflation by reducing demand, thereby reducing job growth, and reduced job growth weakens workers'
bargaining power and puts downward pressure on wages.
Your assertion that anti-inflation policy has little influence on real wages does not address Baker's statement about the mechanism
by which he says it does. Given an argument between two people, one of whom cites a mechanism he is probably prepared to document
with numbers and one of whom merely declares his belief, which are people more likely to trust? Granted always, they should go
look for the numbers before they fully accept the statement, his credibility is currently higher than yours on this subject.
By contrast, since the 1970s real wages stalled, while interest rates round-tripped back to 2 percent.
Over nearly seven decades, the correlation is quite the opposite from that made up claimed by Dean Bonkers.
Namely, real wages soared under a regime of steadily rising nominal interest rates.
Since my original reply has disappeared in limbo, I will merely note that numbers are probably even crunchier when you don't
generalize across a span of decades: first there was A, then there was B, nothing else happened. It's a sure way to obscure patterns.
And Jim, please quit the ad hominem stuff! It's ugly and needless. If you really have an argument you don't need it, and if
you don't you don't gain by it. You know perfectly well he's not making things up and he's not bonkers. When you say stuff like
that, the obvious presumption is that you just don't want to consider his arguments because they lead somewhere you don't want
to go.
Perhaps I am missing the point being made, but if you are suggesting that increases in real wages in the 1945-1975 period caused
inflation, why not provide the data on inflation which would in fact show that inflation was essentially tame for 20 years in
this period (1952-1972, with a slight hiccup in 1969-1971), thereby contradicting your point? And if you are suggesting that Fed
increases in interest rate have not resulted in suppression of wages you will have to demonstrate that using analysis that takes
into account the lag in time between increase in rate and transmission to wages, and in that case would you not also use the Fed
Funds Rate itself as a variable?
Bulltwacky, they have been globalizing wages downwards while globalizing housing prices upwards!
Every time some stupid and moronic newsy floozy on one of the CorporateNonMedia outlets claims housing purchases may be going
down because consumer confidence is plummeting, they CHOOSE to ignore the foreign buyers of said houses!
Did I get this right? Full employment is an assumed boundary condition and so is fixed balance of trade? If the model is to
work as advertised then the boundary conditions must be hard wired to be true, right?
If the top 25 hedge fund managers saved around $5 billion per year in being taxed on their income at capital gains rate (carried
interest ruling in tax code - utterly corrupt), then think of the amount that is being robbed from the tax base when one considers
ALL the hedge fund people, and ALL the private equity types (who also do this), a conservative amount of tax revenues remitted
should be around $100 billion per year!
"... My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders. ..."
"... Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude. ..."
"... Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me. ..."
"... In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh. ..."
"... We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks. ..."
"That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse."
Because of economic stagnation and anxiety among lower class Republicans. Trump blames immigration
and trade unlike traditional elite Republicans. These are economic issues.
Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt
which is partly true. They've been backing Nixon, Reagan, Bush etc and things are just getting
worse. They've been played.
Granted it's complicated and partly they see their side as losing and so are doubling down
on the conservatism, racism, sexism etc. But Trump *brags* that he was against the Iraq war.
That's not an elite Republican opinion.
likbez -> DrDick... , -1
My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican
brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.
Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after
so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.
Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably
was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.
Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative
class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to
me.
Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against
her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern
this election cycle.
In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that
Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and
double dealing are still too fresh.
We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control
of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be
otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks.
In a lengthy speech on Saturday night in Manheim, Pennsylvania, Republican nominee for president
Donald J. Trump lambasted his opponent Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton for a secret tape
recording of her bashing supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont-and even called for Clinton
to be placed in prison and questioned as to whether she has been loyal to her husband former President
Bill Clinton.
Trump said in the speech on Saturday night:
A new audio tape that has surfaced just yesterday from another one of Hillary's high roller
fundraisers shows her demeaning and mocking Bernie Sanders and all of his supporters. You know,
and I'll tell you something we have a much bigger movement that Bernie Sanders ever had. We have
much bigger crowds than Sanders ever had. And we have a more important movement than Bernie Sanders
ever had because we're going to save our country, okay? We're going to save our country. But I
can tell you Bernie Sanders would have left a great, great legacy had he not made the deal with
the devil. He would have really left a great legacy. Now he shows up and 120 people come in to
hear him talk. Bernie Sanders would have left a great legacy had he not made the deal, had he
held his head high and walked away. Now he's on the other side perhaps from us and we want to
get along with everybody and we will-we're going to unite the country-but what Bernie Sanders
did to his supporters was very, very unfair. And they're really not his supporters any longer
and they're not going to support Hillary Clinton. I really believe a lot of those people are coming
over and largely because of trade, college education, lots of other things-but largely because
of trade, they're coming over to our side-you watch, you watch. Especially after Hillary mocks
him and mocks all of those people by attacking him and his supporters as 'living in their parents'
basements,' and trapped in dead-end careers. That's not what they are.
Also in his speech on Saturday night, Trump summed up exactly what came out in the latest Hillary
Clinton tapes in which she mocks Sanders supporters:
She describes many of them as ignorant, and [that] they want the United States to be more like
Scandinavia but that 'half the people don't know what that means' in a really sarcastic tone because
she's a sarcastic woman. To sum up, and I'll tell you the other thing-she's an incompetent woman.
She's an incompetent woman. I've seen it. Just take a look at what she touches. It never works
out, and you watch: her run for the presidency will never ever work out because we can't let it
work out. To sum up, Hillary Clinton thinks Bernie supporters are hopeless and ignorant basement
dwellers. Then, of course, she thinks people who vote for and follow us are deplorable and irredeemable.
I don't think so. I don't think so. We have the smartest people, we have the sharpest people,
we have the most amazing people, and you know in all of the years of this country they say, even
the pundits-most of them aren't worth the ground they're standing on, some of that ground could
be fairly wealthy but ground, but most of these people say they have never seen a phenomenon like
is going on. We have crowds like this wherever we go.
WATCH THE FULL SPEECH:
Later in the speech, Trump came back to the tape again and hammered her once more for it.
"Hillary Clinton all but said that most of the country is racist, including the men and women
of law enforcement," Trump said. "She said that the other night. Did anybody like Lester Holt? Did
anybody question her when she said that? No, she said it the other night. [If] you're not a die hard
Clinton fan-you're not a supporter-from Day One, Hillary Clinton thinks you are a defective person.
That's what she's going around saying."
In the speech, Trump questioned whether Clinton has the moral authority to lead when she considers
the majority of Americans-Trump supporters and Sanders supporters-to be "defective" people. And he
went so far as saying that Clinton "should be in prison." He went on:
How on earth can Hillary Clinton try to lead this country when she has nothing but contempt
for the people who live in this country? She's got contempt. First of all, she's got so many scandals
and she's been caught cheating so much. One of the worst things I've ever witnessed as a citizen
of the United States was last week when the FBI director was trying so hard to explain how she
away with what she got away with, because she should be in prison. Let me tell you. She should
be in prison. She's being totally protected by the New York Times and the Washington Post and
all of the media and CNN-Clinton News Network-which nobody is watching anyway so what difference
does it make? Don't even watch it. But she's being protected by many of these groups. It's not
like do you think she's guilty? They've actually admitted she's guilty. And then she lies and
lies, 33,000 emails deleted, bleached, acid-washed! And then they take their phones and they hammer
the hell out of them. How many people have acid washed or bleached a Tweet? How many?
He returned to the secret Clinton tape a little while later:
Hillary Clinton slanders and attacks anyone who wants to put America First, whether they
are Trump Voters or Bernie Voters. What she said about Bernie voters amazing. Like the European
Union, she wants to erase our borders and she wants to do it for her donors and she wants people
to pour into country without knowing who they are.
Trump later bashed the media as "dishonest as hell" when calling on the reporters at his event
to "turn your cameras" to show the crowd that came to see him.
"If they showed the kind of crowds we have-which people can hear, you know it's interesting: you
can hear the crowd when you hear the television but if they showed the crowd it would be better television,
but they don't know much about that. But it would actually be better television," Trump said.
Trump also questioned whether Hillary Clinton has been loyal to her husband, former President
Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton has been known to cheat on Hillary Clinton with a variety of mistresses
and has been accused of rape and sexual assault by some women.
"Hillary Clinton's only loyalty is to her financial contributors and to herself," Trump
said. "I don't even think she's loyal to Bill, if you want to know the truth. And really, folks,
really: Why should she be, right? Why should she be?"
Throughout the speech, Trump weaved together references to his new campaign theme about Clinton-"Follow
The Money"-with details about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. He said:
We're going to take on the corrupt media, the powerful lobbyists and the special interests
that have stolen your jobs, your factories, and your future-that's exactly what's happened. We're
going to stop Hillary Clinton from continuing to raid the industry from your state for her profit.
Hillary Clinton has collected millions of dollars from the same global corporations shipping
your jobs and your dreams to other countries. You know it and everybody else knows it. That's
why Clinton, if she ever got the chance, would 100 percent approve Trans Pacific Partnership-a
total disastrous trade deal. She called the deal the 'gold standard.' The TPP will bring economic
devastation to Pennsylvania and our campaign is the only chance to stop that and other bad things
that are happening to our country. She lied about the Gold Standard the other night at the debate.
She said she didn't say it-she said it. We want to stop the Trans Pacific Partnership and if we
don't-remember this, if we don't stop it, billions and billions [of dollars] in jobs and wealth
will be vacuumed right out of Pennsylvania and sent to these other countries. Just like NAFTA
was a disaster, this will be a disaster. Frankly I don't think it'll be as bad as NAFTA. It can't
get any worse than that-signed by Bill Clinton. All of us here in this massive room here tonight
can prevent this from happening. Together we can stop TPP and we can end the theft of American
jobs and prosperity.
Trump praised Sanders for being strongly opposed to the TPP:
I knew one man-I'm not a big fan-but one man who knew the dangers of the TPP was Bernie
Sanders. Crazy Bernie. He was right about one thing, only one thing, and that was trade. He was
right about it because he knew we were getting ripped off, but he wouldn't be able to do anything
about it . We're going to do a lot about it. We're going to have those highways running the
opposite direction. We're going to have a lot of trade, but it's going to come into our country.
We are going to start benefitting our country because right now it's one way road to trouble.
Our jobs leave us, our money leaves us. With Mexico, we get the drugs-they get the cash-it's that
simple.
Hillary Clinton, Trump noted, is "controlled by global special interests."
"She's on the opposite side of Bernie on the trade issue," Trump said. "She's totally on the opposite
side of Bernie."
He circled back to trade a bit later in the more-than-hour-long speech, hammering TPP and Clinton
cash connections. Trump continued:
Three TPP member countries gave between $6 and $15 million to Clinton. At least four lobbyists
who are actively lobbying for TPP passage have raised more than $800,000 for her campaign. I'm
just telling you Pennsylvania, we're going to make it. We're going to make it. We're going to
make it if we have Pennsylvania for sure. It'll be easy. But you cannot let this pass. NAFTA passed.
It's been the worst trade deal probably ever passed, not in this country but anywhere in the world.
It cleaned out New England. It cleaned out big portions of Pennsylvania. It cleaned out big portions
of Ohio and North Carolina and South Carolina-you can't let it happen.
Trump even called the politicians like Clinton "bloodsuckers" who have let America be drained
out of millions upon millions of jobs.
"These bloodsuckers want it to happen," Trump said. "They're politicians that are getting taken
care of by people that want it to happen. Other countries want it to happen because it's good for
them, but it's not good for us. So hopefully you're not going to let it happen. Whatever Hillary's
donors want, they get. They own her. On Nov. 8, we're going to end Clinton corruption. Hillary Clinton,
dishonest person, is an insider fighting for herself and for her friends. I'm an outsider fighting
for you. And by the way, just in case you're not aware, I used to be an insider but I thought this
was the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do, believe me."
As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.'s
Brexit referendum
, they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the
coming 12 months, four of Europe's five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean
serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France's National
Front, Italy's Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions
of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance.
"The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people," says Evert Davelaar,
a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don't share "Western and Christian values."
... ... ....
The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands
want to follow Britain's lead and quit the European Union. "Political risk in Europe is now far more
significant than in the United States," says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.
... ... ...
...the biggest risk of the nationalist groundswell: increasingly fragmented parliaments that will
be unable or unwilling to tackle the problems hobbling their economies. True, populist leaders might
not have enough clout to enact controversial measures such as the Dutch Freedom Party's call to close
mosques and deport Muslims. And while the Brexit vote in June helped energize Eurosceptics, it's
unlikely that any major European country will soon quit the EU, Morgan Stanley economists wrote in
a recent report. But they added that "the protest parties promise to turn back the clock" on free-market
reforms while leaving "sclerotic" labour and market regulations in place. France's National Front,
for example, wants to temporarily renationalise banks and increase tariffs while embracing cumbersome
labour rules widely blamed for chronic double-digit unemployment. Such policies could damp already
weak euro zone growth, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to drop from 2 percent in 2015
to 1.5 percent in 2017. "Politics introduces a downside skew to growth," the economists said.
This guy is die hard neoliberal. That's why he is fond of Washington consensus. He does not understand
that the time is over for Washington consensus in 2008. this is just a delayed reaction :-)
Notable quotes:
"... after years of unusually sluggish and strikingly non-inclusive growth, the consensus is breaking down. Advanced-country citizens are frustrated with an "establishment" – including economic "experts," mainstream political leaders, and dominant multinational companies – which they increasingly blame for their economic travails. ..."
"... Anti-establishment movements and figures have been quick to seize on this frustration, using inflammatory and even combative rhetoric to win support. They do not even have to win elections to disrupt the transmission mechanism between economics and politics. ..."
"... They also included attacks on "international elites" and criticism of Bank of England policies that were instrumental in stabilizing the British economy in the referendum's immediate aftermath – thus giving May's new government time to formulate a coherent Brexit strategy. ..."
"... The risk is that, as bad politics crowds out good economics, popular anger and frustration will rise, making politics even more toxic. ..."
"... At one time, the people's government served as a check on the excesses of economic interests -- now, it is simply owned by them. ..."
"... The defects of the maximalist-globalist view were known for years before the "consensus began to break down". ..."
"... In at least some of these cases, the "transmission" of the consensus involved more than a little coercion and undermining local interests, sovereignty, and democracy. This is an central feature of the "consensus", and it is hard to see how it can by anything but irredeemable. ..."
"... However it is not bad politics crowding out out good economics, for the simple reason that the economic "consensus" itself, in embracing destructive and destabilizing economic policy crowded out the ostensibly centrist politics... ..."
"... The Inclusive Growth has remained only a Slogan and Politicians never ventured into the theme. In the changed version of the World.] essential equal opportunity and World of Social media, perspective and social Political scene is changed. Its more like reverting to mean. ..."
In the 1990s and 2000s, for example, the so-called Washington Consensus dominated policymaking
in much of the world...
... ... ...
But after years of unusually sluggish and strikingly non-inclusive growth, the consensus is
breaking down. Advanced-country citizens are frustrated with an "establishment" – including economic
"experts," mainstream political leaders, and dominant multinational companies – which they increasingly
blame for their economic travails.
Anti-establishment movements and figures have been quick to seize on this frustration, using
inflammatory and even combative rhetoric to win support. They do not even have to win elections to
disrupt the transmission mechanism between economics and politics. The United Kingdom proved
that in June, with its Brexit vote – a decision that directly defied the broad economic consensus
that remaining within the European Union was in Britain's best interest.
... ... ...
... speeches by Prime Minister Theresa May and members of her cabinet revealed an intention to
pursue a "hard Brexit," thereby dismantling trading arrangements that have served the economy well.
They also included attacks on "international elites" and criticism of Bank of England policies
that were instrumental in stabilizing the British economy in the referendum's immediate aftermath
– thus giving May's new government time to formulate a coherent Brexit strategy.
Several other advanced economies are experiencing analogous political developments. In Germany,
a surprisingly strong showing by the far-right Alternative für Deutschland in recent state
elections already appears to be affecting the government's behavior.
In the US, even if Donald Trump's presidential campaign fails to put a Republican back in the
White House (as appears increasingly likely, given that, in the latest twist of this highly unusual
campaign, many Republican leaders have now renounced their party's nominee), his candidacy will likely
leave a lasting impact on American politics. If not managed well, Italy's constitutional referendum
in December – a risky bid by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to consolidate support – could backfire,
just like Cameron's referendum did, causing political disruption and undermining effective action
to address the country's economic challenges.
... ... ...
The risk is that, as bad politics crowds out good economics, popular anger and frustration
will rise, making politics even more toxic. ...
Mr El-Erian, I know you are a good man, but it seems as though everyone believes we can synthetically
engineer a way out of this never ending hole that financial engineering dug us into in the first
place.
Instead why don't we let this game collapse, you are a good man and you will play a role in
the rebuilding of better system, one that nurtures and guides instead of manipulate and lie.
The moral suasion you mention can only appear by allowing for the self annihilation of this
financial system. This way we can learn from the autopsies and leave speculative theories to third
rate economists
It is sadly true that "the relationship between politics and economics is changing," at least
in the U.S.. At one time, the people's government served as a check on the excesses of economic
interests -- now, it is simply owned by them.
It seems to me that the best we can hope for now is some sort of modest correction in the relationship
after 2020 -- and that the TBTF banks won't deliver another economic disaster in the meantime.
Petey Bee OCT 15, 2016
1. The defects of the maximalist-globalist view were known for years before the "consensus
began to break down".
2. In at least some of these cases, the "transmission" of the consensus involved more than
a little coercion and undermining local interests, sovereignty, and democracy. This is an central
feature of the "consensus", and it is hard to see how it can by anything but irredeemable.
In the concluding paragraph, the author states that the reaction is going to be slow. That's absolutely
correct, the evidence has been pushed higher and higher above the icy water line since 2008.
However it is not bad politics crowding out out good economics, for the simple reason that
the economic "consensus" itself, in embracing destructive and destabilizing economic policy crowded
out the ostensibly centrist politics...
Paul Daley OCT 15, 2016
The Washington consensus collapsed during the Great Recession but the latest "consensus" among
economists regarding "good economics" deserves respect.
atul baride OCT 15, 2016
The Inclusive Growth has remained only a Slogan and Politicians never ventured into the theme.
In the changed version of the World.] essential equal opportunity and World of Social media, perspective
and social Political scene is changed. Its more like reverting to mean.
"... If you insist on focusing on individuals, you may miss the connection, because the worst off
within communities - actual chronic discouraged workers, addicts - are likely to express no opinion
to the degree they can be polled at all. Trump primary voters are white Republicans who vote, automatically
a more affluent baseline* than the white voters generally. ..."
EMichael quotes Steve Randy Waldman and Dylan Matthews in today's links:
""Trump voters, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver found, had a median household income of $72,000,
a fair bit higher than the $62,000 median household income for non-Hispanic whites in America."
...
""But it is also obvious that, within the Republican Party, Trump's support comes disproportionately
from troubled communities, from places that have been left behind economically, that struggle
with unusual rates of opiate addiction, low educational achievement, and other social vices."
I followed the link and failed to find any numbers on the "troubled communities" thing. It
seems strange to me that the two comments above are in conflict with each other."
It seems like you are missing the point of Waldman's blog post (and Stiglitz and Shiller)
You didn't quote this part:
"... If you insist on focusing on individuals, you may miss the connection, because the
worst off within communities - actual chronic discouraged workers, addicts - are likely to express
no opinion to the degree they can be polled at all. Trump primary voters are white Republicans
who vote, automatically a more affluent baseline* than the white voters generally.
"Among Republicans, Trump supporters have slightly lower incomes. But what really differentiates
them?"]
"At the community level**, patterns are clear. (See this*** too.) Of course, it could still
all be racism, because within white communities, measures of social and economic dysfunction are
likely correlated with measures you could associate with racism."
Of course, it could still all be racism, because within white communities, measures of social
and economic dysfunction are likely correlated with measures you could associate with racism.
Social affairs are complicated and the real world does not hand us unique well-identified models.
We always have to choose our explanations,**** and we should think carefully about how and why
we do so. Explanations have consequences, not just for the people we are imposing them upon, but
for our polity as a whole. I don't get involved in these arguments to express some high-minded
empathy for Trump voters, but because I think that monocausally attributing a broad political
movement to racism when it has other plausible antecedents does real harm....
"... ...Trump referred explicitly to "the disenfranchisement of working people" ..."
"... Trump denounced the "global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities." ..."
"... He continued: "Just look at what this corrupt establishment has done to our cities like Detroit and Flint, Michigan-and rural towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and across our country. They have stripped these towns bare, and raided the wealth for themselves and taken away their jobs." ..."
"... He went on to cite internal Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks this week, documenting how, as Trump put it, "Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of US sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers." ..."
"... The Clinton campaign, warned of the impending release of masses of politically incriminating documents by WikiLeaks, sought to preempt this exposure by denouncing the leaks as a conspiracy engineered by Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Clinton is appealing for support from sections of the Republican Party, above all the neo-conservatives of the George W. Bush administration, responsible for the war in Iraq, the widespread use of torture and other crimes. ..."
"... The anti-Russian campaign has been combined with an effort to demonize Trump for a series of purported sexual offenses, with a barrage of video and audio recordings, together with the testimony of alleged victims. ..."
"... The Democratic campaign and its media allies are using methods similar to those the ultra-right employed in its efforts to oust Bill Clinton from the White House in the 1990s. They are seeking to stampede public opinion with increasingly sensationalized material. These methods degrade political discussion and distract popular consciousness from the real issues in the election. ..."
In a speech delivered by Donald Trump to an audience of thousands in West Palm Beach, Florida, the
Republican candidate turned his campaign in a more distinctly fascistic direction. Presenting himself
as both the savior of America and the victim of a ruthless political and economic establishment,
Trump sought to connect deep-seated social anger among masses of people with an "America First" program
of anti-immigrant xenophobia, militarism, economic nationalism and authoritarianism.
Responding to the latest allegations of sexual abuse, Trump proclaimed that he is being targeted
by international bankers, the corporate-controlled media and the political establishment who fear
that his election will undermine their interests.
He offered as an alternative his own persona-the strong-man leader who is willing to bear the
burden and make the sacrifices necessary for a pitiless struggle against such powerful adversaries.
Trump warned that the November 8 election would be the last opportunity for the American people to
defeat the powerful vested interests that are supporting Hillary Clinton.
The clear implication of the speech is that if Trump loses the election, the struggle against
the political establishment will have to be carried forward by other means...
...
...Trump referred explicitly to "the disenfranchisement of working people" -with racist,
chauvinist and dictatorial solutions. This includes not only the demand for jailing Hillary Clinton,
now a refrain of every speech, but his calls for his supporters to prevent a "rigged" election by
blocking access to the polls for voters in "certain communities."
Trump denounced the "global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions
that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the
pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities."
He continued: "Just look at what this corrupt establishment has done to our cities like Detroit
and Flint, Michigan-and rural towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and across our country.
They have stripped these towns bare, and raided the wealth for themselves and taken away their jobs."
He went on to cite internal Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks this week, documenting
how, as Trump put it, "Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction
of US sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers."
After the top congressional Republican, House Speaker Paul Ryan, publicly broke with Trump Monday,
declaring that he would neither campaign for him nor defend him, Trump responded with the declaration,
"It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I
want to."
... ... ...
The Clinton campaign, warned of the impending release of masses of politically incriminating
documents by WikiLeaks, sought to preempt this exposure by denouncing the leaks as a conspiracy engineered
by Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.
Clinton is appealing for support from sections of the Republican Party, above all the neo-conservatives
of the George W. Bush administration, responsible for the war in Iraq, the widespread use of torture
and other crimes.
The anti-Russian campaign has been combined with an effort to demonize Trump for a series
of purported sexual offenses, with a barrage of video and audio recordings, together with the testimony
of alleged victims.
The Democratic campaign and its media allies are using methods similar to those the ultra-right
employed in its efforts to oust Bill Clinton from the White House in the 1990s. They are seeking
to stampede public opinion with increasingly sensationalized material. These methods degrade political
discussion and distract popular consciousness from the real issues in the election.
The Hillary Clinton campaign says the hackers behind the leaked
email evidence of their collusion with the major media are from
Russia and linked to the Russian regime. If so, I want to publicly
thank those Russian hackers and their leader, Russian President
Vladimir Putin, for opening a window into the modern workings of
the United States government-corporate-media establishment.
We always knew that the major media were extensions of the
Democratic Party. But the email evidence of how figures like
Maggie
Haberman
of The New York Times,
Juliet
Eilperin
of The Washington Post, and
John
Harwood
of CNBC worked hand-in-glove with the Democrats is
important. The Daily Caller and Breitbart have led the way in
digging through the emails and exposing the nature of this
evidence. It is shocking even to those of us at Accuracy in Media
who always knew about, and had documented, such collusion through
analysis and observation.
The Clinton campaign and various intelligence officials insist
that the purpose of the Russian hacking is to weaken the confidence
of the American people in their system of government, and to
suggest that the American system is just as corrupt as the Russian
system is alleged to be. Perhaps our confidence in our system
should be shaken. The American people can see that our media are
not independent of the government or the political system and, in
fact, function as an arm of the political party in control of the
White House that wants to maintain that control after November 8.
In conjunction with other evidence, including the ability to
conduct vote fraud that benefits the Democrats, the results on
Election Day will be in question and will form the basis for Donald
J. Trump to continue to claim that the system is "rigged" against
outsiders like him.
The idea of an American system of free and fair elections that
includes an honest press has been terribly undermined by the
evidence that has come to light. We are not yet to the point of the
Russian system, where opposition outlets are run out of business
and dissidents killed in the streets. That means that the Russians
have not completely succeeded in destroying confidence in our
system. But we do know that federal agencies like the Federal
Election Commission (FEC) and Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) are poised to strike blows against free and independent
media. Earlier this year the three Democrats on the FEC
voted
to punish
filmmaker Joel Gilbert for distributing a film
critical of President Barack Obama during the 2012 campaign.
The New York Times is
reporting
that
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta has been contacted by the
FBI about the alleged Russian hackers behind the leaks of his
emails. This is what Podesta and many in the media want to talk
about.
But the Russians, if they are responsible, have performed a
public service. And until there is a thorough house-cleaning of
those in the major media who have made a mockery of professional
journalism, the American people will continue to lack confidence in
their system. The media have been caught in the act of sabotaging
the public's right to know by taking sides in the presidential
contest. They have become a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party,
coordinating with the Hillary Clinton for president campaign, which
apparently was being run out of Georgetown University, where John
Podesta was based. Many emails carry the web address of
[email protected], a reference to the Georgetown
University position held by the chairman of the 2016 Hillary
Clinton presidential campaign. Podesta is a Visiting Professor at
Georgetown University Law Center. His other affiliations include
the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and the United
Nations High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
Podesta and the other members of this U.N. panel had proposed "
A
New Global Partnership for the World
," which advocated for a
"profound economic transformation" of the world's economic order
that would result in a new globalist system. Shouldn't the American
people be informed about what Podesta and his Democratic allies
have planned for the United States should they win on November 8?
That Podesta would serve the purposes of the U.N. is not a
surprise. But it is somewhat surprising that he would use his base
at Georgetown University to run the Hillary campaign. On the other
hand, Georgetown, the nation's oldest Catholic and Jesuit
university,
describes
itself
as preparing "the next generation of global citizens to lead and
make a difference in the world."
When a Catholic university serves as the base for the election
of a Democratic Party politician committed to taxpayer-funded
abortion on demand and transgender rights, you know America's
political system and academia are rotten to the core. The
disclosure from WikiLeaks that Podesta used his Georgetown email to
engage in party politics only confirms what we already knew.
If the Russians are ultimately responsible for the release of
these emails, some of which
show
an anti-Catholic animus
on the part of Clinton campaign
officials, we are grateful to them. The answer has to be to clean
out the American political system of those who corrupt it and
demonstrate to the world that we can achieve higher standards of
integrity and transparency.
For its part, Georgetown University should be stripped of its
Catholic affiliation and designated as an official arm of the
Democratic Party.
Paul Kersey
balolalo
Oct 14, 2016 12:02 PM
The well deserved hatred for Hillary and the globalists is so
great, that at least 40% of the males in this country would back
anyone who went up against the Clintons. That's just not the
same thing as "BUYING TRUMPS BULLSHIT HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER".
Trump is exposing the corruption and the hypocrisy of the
Clintons in a way that no one has ever had the guts to do in the
past. He's doing it on national TV with a large national
audience. With Trump we may get anarchy, but with the Clintons,
Deep State is guaranteed. It is Deep State that is working
overtime to finish building the expressway to neofeudalism.
Killary only can beg that voters hold their noses and vote for her. Guardian neoliberal presstitutes
still don't want to understand that Hillary is more dangerous then trump, Sge with her attempt that
she is more militant then male neocons can really provoke a confrontation with Russia or China.
Notable quotes:
"... War at home versus another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third party all the way for me. ..."
"... Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may push more people towards Trump. ..."
"... Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy... ..."
"... Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not win in an landslide?! ..."
"... We came, we saw, and he grabbed some pussy. ..."
"... It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff ..."
"... The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more. ..."
"... This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or the sustainability of globalization. ..."
"... These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation. ..."
"... But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization. ..."
The vast majority of her support comes from people that will be holding their noses as they vote
for her. Seems to me that convincing those same people that you have it in the bag will just cause
them to think voting isn't worth their time since they don't want to anyway.
I know Trump's supporters, the real ones, and the anyone-but-Hillary club will show up as well.
Funny if this backfires and he wins.
I won't be voting for either one and couldn't care less which one wins. War at home versus
another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third
party all the way for me.
"Trump has to be the limit, and there has to be a re-alignment"
Trump has shown one must fight fire with fire. The days of the meek and mild GOP are over. Twice
they tried with nice guys and failed. Trump has clearly shown come out with both fists swinging
and you attract needed media and you make the conversation about you. Trump's mistake was not
seeking that bit of polish that leaves your opponent on the floor.
Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may
push more people towards Trump.
Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy...
tugend49
For every woman that's been sexually harassed, bullied, raped, assaulted, catcalled, groped,
objectified, and treated lesser than, a landslide victory for Clinton would be an especially sweet
"Fuck You" to the Trumps of this world.
Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign
leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not
win in an landslide?!
It might be a reaction against Trump, but it's also a depressing example of the power of the
establishment, and their desire for control in democracy. Just look at how they squealed at Brexit.
It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this
bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff
There is a report from two years ago, July 2014, before the candidates had even been selected,
by the economist Branko Milanovic for Yale 'Global' about the impact of Globalisation on the Lower
Middle Classes in the West and how this was basically going to turn into exactly the choice the
American electorate is facing now
Why won't the media discuss these issues instead of pushing this pointless circus?
These are the penultimate paragraphs of the article on the report (there is a similar one for
the Harvard Business Review
here ):
The populists warn disgruntled voters that economic trends observed during the past three
decades are just the first wave of cheap labor from Asia pitted in direct competition with
workers in the rich world, and more waves are on the way from poorer lands in Asia and Africa.
The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more.
This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions
or the sustainability of globalization.
If globalization is derailed, the middle classes of the West may be relieved from the immediate
pressure of cheaper Asian competition. But the longer-term costs to themselves and their countries,
let alone to the poor in Asia and Africa, will be high. Thus, the interests and the political
power of the middle classes in the rich world put them in a direct conflict with the interests
of the worldwide poor.
These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had
little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization
has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political
process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent
in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its
continuation.
But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it
has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies.
Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to
globalization.
Globalisation will continue to happen. It has pulled a large part of the world population out
of poverty and grown the global economy.
Sure on the downside it has also hugely benefitted the 1%, while the western middle classes
have done relatively less well and blue collar workers have suffered as they seek to turn to other
types (less well paid) of work.
The issue is the speed of change, how to manage globalisation and spread the wealth more equitably.
Maybe it will require slowing but it cannot and should not be stopped.
Britain's Economy Was Resilient After 'Brexit.'
Its Leaders Learned the Wrong Lesson.
http://nyti.ms/2dOx0Is
via @UpshotNYT
NYT - Neil Irwin - OCT. 10, 2016
This article must begin with a mea culpa. When British
voters decided in June that they wanted to depart the
European Union, I agreed with the conventional wisdom that
the British economy would probably slow and that uncertainty
put it at risk of recession.
Advocates of "Brexit" argued that was hogwash, and the
early evidence suggests they were right. For example, surveys
of purchasing managers showed that both the British
manufacturing and service sectors plummeted after the vote in
July, yet were comfortably expanding in August and September.
But the events of the last couple of weeks suggest that
British leaders are drawing the wrong conclusions from the
fact that their predictions proved right. The British
currency is plummeting again, most immediately because of
comments from French and German leaders suggesting they will
take a tough line in negotiating Brexit. But the underlying
reason is that the British government is ignoring the lessons
from the relatively benign immediate aftermath of the vote.
The British pound fell to about $1.24 on Friday from $1.30
a week earlier and continued edging down Monday. Even if you
treat a "flash crash" in the pound on Asian markets Thursday
night as an aberration - it fell 6 percent, then recovered in
a short span - these types of aberrations seem to happen only
when a market is already under severe stress. (See, for
example, the May 2010 flash crash of American stocks, during
a flare-up of the eurozone crisis).
Sterling, as traders refer to the currency, is acting as
the global market's minute-to-minute referendum on how
significant the economic disruption from Brexit will end up
being. So what does the latest downswing represent? It's
worth understanding why British financial markets and the
country's economy stabilized quickly after the Brexit vote to
begin with.
The vote set off a chaotic time of political disruption,
especially the resignation of the prime minister, David
Cameron, who had advocated for the country's remaining part
of the E.U. Theresa May won the internal battle to become the
next prime minister, which was to markets and business
decision makers a relatively benign result.
Down, Down, Down for the Pound
The British currency plummeted after the country's vote to
leave the European Union, and again this week.
(graph at the link: £ at ~$1.45 Jan-June 30,
then down to $1.30-1.35 thru Sep 30,
then plunging to $1.24.)
Ms. May, the former home secretary, is temperamentally
pragmatic. She reluctantly supported remaining in the union.
And while she pledged to follow through on leaving it
("Brexit means Brexit," she said), she seemed like the kind
of leader who would ensure that some of the worst-case
possibilities of how Brexit might go wouldn't materialize.
Exporters would retain access to European markets. London
could remain the de facto banking capital of Europe. All
would be well.
Meanwhile, the Bank of England sprang into action to
cushion the economic blow of Brexit-related uncertainty.
Despite the inflationary pressures created by a falling
pound, the bank, projecting loss of jobs and economic output,
cut interest rates and started a new program of quantitative
easing to try to soften the blow.
All of that - the prospect of "soft Brexit" and easier
monetary policy - helped financial markets stabilize and then
rally, and kept the economic damage mild, as the purchasing
managers' surveys show.
But in the last couple of weeks, the tenor has shifted.
The May government has sent a range of signals indicating
it will take a hard line in negotiations with European
governments over the terms of Brexit. At a conservative party
conference, she pledged to begin the "Article 50" process of
formally unwinding Britain's E.U. membership by the end of
March, declaring that the government's negotiators would
insist that Britain would assert control of immigration and
not be subject to decisions of the European Court of Justice.
That sets up confrontational negotiations between the
British government and its E.U. counterparts. European
leaders will be reluctant to allow Britain continued free
access to its markets, which the May government wants,
without similarly free movement of people across borders.
And beyond the substance of the negotiations, the British
government has signaled in recent days that it is looking
inward, and will be hostile to those who are not British
citizens. ...
The much-hyped severe Brexit
recession does not, so far, seem to be materializing – which
really shouldn't be that much of a surprise, because as I
warned, the actual economic case for such a recession was
surprisingly weak. (Ouch! I just pulled a muscle while
patting myself on the back!) But we are seeing a large drop
in the pound, which has steepened as it becomes likely that
this will indeed be a very hard Brexit. How should we think
about this?
Originally, stories about a pound plunge were tied to that
recession prediction: domestic investment demand would
collapse, leading to sustained very low interest rates, hence
capital flight. But the demand collapse doesn't seem to be
happening. So what is the story?
For now, at least, I'm coming at it from the trade side –
especially trade in financial services. It seems to me that
one way to think about this is in terms of the "home market
effect," an old story in trade but one that only got
formalized in 1980.
Here's an informal version: imagine a good or service
subject to large economies of scale in production, sufficient
that if it's consumed in two countries, you want to produce
it in only one, and export to the other, even if there are
costs of shipping it. Where will this production be located?
Other things equal, you would choose the larger market, so as
to minimize total shipping costs. Other things may not, of
course, be equal, but this market-size effect will always be
a factor, depending on how high those shipping costs are.
In one of the models I laid out in that old paper, the way
this worked out was not that all production left the smaller
economy, but rather that the smaller economy paid lower wages
and therefore made up in competitiveness what it lacked in
market access. In effect, it used a weaker currency to make
up for its smaller market.
In Britain's case, I'd suggest that we think of financial
services as the industry in question. Such services are
subject to both internal and external economies of scale,
which tends to concentrate them in a handful of huge
financial centers around the world, one of which is, of
course, the City of London. But now we face the prospect of
seriously increased transaction costs between Britain and the
rest of Europe, which creates an incentive to move those
services away from the smaller economy (Britain) and into the
larger (Europe). Britain therefore needs a weaker currency to
offset this adverse impact.
Does this make Britain poorer? Yes. It's not just the
efficiency effect of barriers to trade, there's also a
terms-of-trade effect as the real exchange rate depreciates.
But it's important to be aware that not everyone in
Britain is equally affected. Pre-Brexit, Britain was
obviously experiencing a version of the so-called Dutch
disease. In its traditional form, this referred to the way
natural resource exports crowd out manufacturing by keeping
the currency strong. In the UK case, the City's financial
exports play the same role. So their weakening helps British
manufacturing – and, maybe, the incomes of people who live
far from the City and still depend directly or indirectly on
manufacturing for their incomes. It's not completely
incidental that these were the parts of England (not
Scotland!) that voted for Brexit.
Is there a policy moral here? Basically it is that a
weaker pound shouldn't be viewed as an additional cost from
Brexit, it's just part of the adjustment. And it would be a
big mistake to prop up the pound: old notions of an
equilibrium exchange rate no longer apply.
Britain's Economy Was Resilient After 'Brexit.'
Its Leaders Learned the Wrong Lesson.
http://nyti.ms/2dOx0Is
via @UpshotNYT
NYT - Neil Irwin - OCT. 10, 2016
This article must begin with a mea culpa. When British
voters decided in June that they wanted to depart the
European Union, I agreed with the conventional wisdom that
the British economy would probably slow and that uncertainty
put it at risk of recession.
Advocates of "Brexit" argued that was hogwash, and the
early evidence suggests they were right. For example, surveys
of purchasing managers showed that both the British
manufacturing and service sectors plummeted after the vote in
July, yet were comfortably expanding in August and September.
But the events of the last couple of weeks suggest that
British leaders are drawing the wrong conclusions from the
fact that their predictions proved right. The British
currency is plummeting again, most immediately because of
comments from French and German leaders suggesting they will
take a tough line in negotiating Brexit. But the underlying
reason is that the British government is ignoring the lessons
from the relatively benign immediate aftermath of the vote.
The British pound fell to about $1.24 on Friday from $1.30
a week earlier and continued edging down Monday. Even if you
treat a "flash crash" in the pound on Asian markets Thursday
night as an aberration - it fell 6 percent, then recovered in
a short span - these types of aberrations seem to happen only
when a market is already under severe stress. (See, for
example, the May 2010 flash crash of American stocks, during
a flare-up of the eurozone crisis).
Sterling, as traders refer to the currency, is acting as
the global market's minute-to-minute referendum on how
significant the economic disruption from Brexit will end up
being. So what does the latest downswing represent? It's
worth understanding why British financial markets and the
country's economy stabilized quickly after the Brexit vote to
begin with.
The vote set off a chaotic time of political disruption,
especially the resignation of the prime minister, David
Cameron, who had advocated for the country's remaining part
of the E.U. Theresa May won the internal battle to become the
next prime minister, which was to markets and business
decision makers a relatively benign result.
Down, Down, Down for the Pound
The British currency plummeted after the country's vote to
leave the European Union, and again this week.
(graph at the link: £ at ~$1.45 Jan-June 30,
then down to $1.30-1.35 thru Sep 30,
then plunging to $1.24.)
Ms. May, the former home secretary, is temperamentally
pragmatic. She reluctantly supported remaining in the union.
And while she pledged to follow through on leaving it
("Brexit means Brexit," she said), she seemed like the kind
of leader who would ensure that some of the worst-case
possibilities of how Brexit might go wouldn't materialize.
Exporters would retain access to European markets. London
could remain the de facto banking capital of Europe. All
would be well.
Meanwhile, the Bank of England sprang into action to
cushion the economic blow of Brexit-related uncertainty.
Despite the inflationary pressures created by a falling
pound, the bank, projecting loss of jobs and economic output,
cut interest rates and started a new program of quantitative
easing to try to soften the blow.
All of that - the prospect of "soft Brexit" and easier
monetary policy - helped financial markets stabilize and then
rally, and kept the economic damage mild, as the purchasing
managers' surveys show.
But in the last couple of weeks, the tenor has shifted.
The May government has sent a range of signals indicating
it will take a hard line in negotiations with European
governments over the terms of Brexit. At a conservative party
conference, she pledged to begin the "Article 50" process of
formally unwinding Britain's E.U. membership by the end of
March, declaring that the government's negotiators would
insist that Britain would assert control of immigration and
not be subject to decisions of the European Court of Justice.
That sets up confrontational negotiations between the
British government and its E.U. counterparts. European
leaders will be reluctant to allow Britain continued free
access to its markets, which the May government wants,
without similarly free movement of people across borders.
And beyond the substance of the negotiations, the British
government has signaled in recent days that it is looking
inward, and will be hostile to those who are not British
citizens. ...
Reply
Tuesday,
Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...
,
Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 07:17 AM
The much-hyped severe Brexit
recession does not, so far, seem to be materializing – which
really shouldn't be that much of a surprise, because as I
warned, the actual economic case for such a recession was
surprisingly weak. (Ouch! I just pulled a muscle while
patting myself on the back!) But we are seeing a large drop
in the pound, which has steepened as it becomes likely that
this will indeed be a very hard Brexit. How should we think
about this?
Originally, stories about a pound plunge were tied to that
recession prediction: domestic investment demand would
collapse, leading to sustained very low interest rates, hence
capital flight. But the demand collapse doesn't seem to be
happening. So what is the story?
For now, at least, I'm coming at it from the trade side –
especially trade in financial services. It seems to me that
one way to think about this is in terms of the "home market
effect," an old story in trade but one that only got
formalized in 1980.
Here's an informal version: imagine a good or service
subject to large economies of scale in production, sufficient
that if it's consumed in two countries, you want to produce
it in only one, and export to the other, even if there are
costs of shipping it. Where will this production be located?
Other things equal, you would choose the larger market, so as
to minimize total shipping costs. Other things may not, of
course, be equal, but this market-size effect will always be
a factor, depending on how high those shipping costs are.
In one of the models I laid out in that old paper, the way
this worked out was not that all production left the smaller
economy, but rather that the smaller economy paid lower wages
and therefore made up in competitiveness what it lacked in
market access. In effect, it used a weaker currency to make
up for its smaller market.
In Britain's case, I'd suggest that we think of financial
services as the industry in question. Such services are
subject to both internal and external economies of scale,
which tends to concentrate them in a handful of huge
financial centers around the world, one of which is, of
course, the City of London. But now we face the prospect of
seriously increased transaction costs between Britain and the
rest of Europe, which creates an incentive to move those
services away from the smaller economy (Britain) and into the
larger (Europe). Britain therefore needs a weaker currency to
offset this adverse impact.
Does this make Britain poorer? Yes. It's not just the
efficiency effect of barriers to trade, there's also a
terms-of-trade effect as the real exchange rate depreciates.
But it's important to be aware that not everyone in
Britain is equally affected. Pre-Brexit, Britain was
obviously experiencing a version of the so-called Dutch
disease. In its traditional form, this referred to the way
natural resource exports crowd out manufacturing by keeping
the currency strong. In the UK case, the City's financial
exports play the same role. So their weakening helps British
manufacturing – and, maybe, the incomes of people who live
far from the City and still depend directly or indirectly on
manufacturing for their incomes. It's not completely
incidental that these were the parts of England (not
Scotland!) that voted for Brexit.
Is there a policy moral here? Basically it is that a
weaker pound shouldn't be viewed as an additional cost from
Brexit, it's just part of the adjustment. And it would be a
big mistake to prop up the pound: old notions of an
equilibrium exchange rate no longer apply.
"... But if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing industrial capacity at home - today's global imbalances could result in a very different type of correction (something which may or may not be happening now). ..."
"... The immediate consequence may be the developed world's desire to engage in significant industrial on-shoring. ..."
"... I'm not convinced the end of globalization and the retrenchment of banking industry are the same thing. There are some things that can't be exp/imported. Maybe we just got to the point where it didn't make sense to order moules marinieres from Brussels!? ..."
"... You forget the third leg - reducing the price of labour for services via immigration of labour from poorer countries. On top of the supply-and-demand effects, it reduces social solidarity (see Robert Putnam) - of which trades union membership and activity is one indicator. It's a win-win for capital. ..."
According to strategists Bhanu Baweja, Manik Narain and Maximillian
Lin the elasticity of trade to GDP - a measure of wealth creating
globalisation - rose to as high as 2.2. in the so-called third wave
of globalisation which began in the 1980s. This compared to an
average of 1.5 since the 1950s. In the post-crisis era, however,
the elasticity of trade has fallen to 1.1, not far from the weak
average of the 1970s and early 1980s but well below the second and
third waves of globalisation.
... ... ...
The anti-globalist position has always been simple. Global trade isn't a net positive for anyone
if the terms of trade relationships aren't reciprocal or if the trade exists solely for the purpose
of taking advantage of undervalued local resources like labour or commodities whilst channeling
rents/profits to a single central beneficiary. That, they have always argued, makes it more akin to
an imperialistic relationship than a reciprocal one.
If the latest wave of "globalisation" is mostly an expression of
American imperialism, then it does seem logical it too will fade as
countries wake-up to the one-sided nature of the current global
value chains in place.
Back in the first wave of globalisation,
of course, much of the trade growth was driven by colonial empires
taking advantage of cheap commodity resources abroad in a bid to
add value to them domestically. When these supply chains unravelled,
that left Europe short of commodities but long industrial capacity
- a destabilising imbalance which coincided with two world wars.
Simplistically speaking, resource rich countries at this point
were faced with only two options: industrialising on their own
autonomous terms or be subjugated by even more oppressive
imperialist forces, which had even grander superiority agendas than
their old colonial foes. That left those empires boasting domestic
industrial capacity but lacking natural resources of their own,
with the option of fighting to defend the rights of their former
colonies in the hope that the promise of independence and friendly
future knowledge exchanges (alongside military protection) would be
enough to secure resource access from then on.
But if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking
advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously
reducing industrial capacity at home - today's global imbalances
could result in a very different type of correction (something
which may or may not be happening now).
The immediate consequence
may be the developed world's desire to engage in significant
industrial on-shoring.
But while reversing the off-shoring trend may boost productivity
in nations like the US or even in Europe, it's also likely to
reduce demand for mobile international capital as a whole. As UBS
notes, global cross border capital flows are already decelerating
significantly as a share of GDP post-crisis, and the peak-to-trough
swing in capital inflows to GDP over the past ten years has been
much more dramatic in developed markets than in emerging ones:
To note, in China trade as a % of GDP fell from
65% in 2006 to 42% in 2014. The relationship
between trade and GDP is in reality more variable
than is usually claimed.
I'm not convinced the end of globalization and
the retrenchment of banking industry are the same
thing. There are some things that can't be
exp/imported. Maybe we just got to the point
where it didn't make sense to order moules
marinieres from Brussels!?
"if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not
commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing
industrial capacity at home"
You forget the third leg - reducing the
price of labour for services via immigration of
labour from poorer countries. On top of the
supply-and-demand effects, it reduces social
solidarity (see Robert Putnam) - of which trades
union membership and activity is one indicator.
It's a win-win for capital.
The simple problem with globalization is that it was based off economic views which looked
at things in aggregate - but people are
individuals, not aggregates. "On average, GDP
per person has gone up" doesn't do anything for
the person whose income has gone down. "Just
think about all the people in China who are so
much better off than they used to be" isn't going
to do much for an American or European whose
standard of living has slipped from middle class
to working class to government assistance.
"Redistribution" is routinely advertised as
the solution to all of this. I leave it as an
exercise to the reader to figure out how to
redistribute wealth from the areas that have
prospered the most (Asia, particularly China) to
the individuals (primarily in the West) who have
lost the most. In the absence of any viable
redistribution scheme, though, I suspect the most
likely outcome will be a pulling back on
globalization.
@
Terra_Desolata
The aggregates also do apply to countries -
i.e. the US on aggregate has benefited from
globalisation, but median wages have been
stagnant in real terms, meaning that the
benefits of globalisation have not been
well distributed across the country
(indeed, companies like Apple have
benefited hugely from reducing the costs of
production, while you could make the case
that much of the benefits of lower
production costs have been absorbed into
profit margins).
That suggests that redistribution can
occur at the country level, rather than
requiring a cross-border dimension.
@
Meh...
in the US, median male wages were
lower in 2014 than in 1973 - when a
far higher proportion of working-age
males were active in the labour
force.
Growing up in the 1970s, it would
have been unthinkable for wages to
have fallen since the 1930s.
Terra_Desolata
5pts
Featured
8 hours ago
@
Meh...
@
Terra_Desolata
Yes, there has been uneven
distribution of income within
countries as well as between them -
but as the Panama Papers revealed, in
a world of free movement of capital,
incomes can also move freely between
borders. (See: Apple.) While the
U.S. has lower tolerance than Europe
and Asia for such games, any attempts
at redistribution would necessarily
include an effort to keep incomes
from slipping across national
borders, which would have the same
effect: a net reduction in
globalization.
"... "In my lifetime I cannot remember anything like the scepticism about these values that we see today," said Suma Chakrabarti, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. ..."
"... There was much discussion this week about the underlying causes of that scepticism - low growth, stagnant wages and other scars of the 2008 global financial crisis - together with calls for governments to do more to ensure the benefits of globalisation are distributed more widely. ..."
"... Lou Jiwei, China's finance minister, told reporters on Friday, the current "political risks" would in the immediate future lead only to "superficial changes" for the global economy. But underlying them was a deeper trend of "deglobalisation". ..."
The world's economic elite spent this week invoking fears of protectionism and the
existential
crisis facing globalisation
.... ... ...
Mr Trump has raised the possibility of trying to renegotiate the terms of the US sovereign debt
much as he did repeatedly with his own business debts as a property developer. He also has proposed
imposing punitive tariffs on imports from China and Mexico and ripping up existing US trade pacts.
... ... ...
"Once a tariff has been imposed on a country's exports, it is in that country's best interest
to retaliate, and when it does, both countries end up worse off," IMF economists wrote.
It is not just angst over Mr Trump. There are similar concerns over Brexit and the rise of populist
parties elsewhere in Europe. All present their own threats to the advance of the US-led path of economic
liberalisation pursued since Keynes and his peers gathered at Bretton Woods in 1944.
"In my lifetime I cannot remember anything like the scepticism about these values that we
see today," said Suma Chakrabarti, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
There was much discussion this week about the underlying causes of that scepticism - low growth,
stagnant wages and other scars of the 2008 global financial crisis - together with calls for governments
to do more to ensure the benefits of globalisation are distributed more widely.
Lou Jiwei, China's finance minister, told reporters on Friday, the current "political risks" would
in the immediate future lead only to "superficial changes" for the global economy. But underlying
them was a deeper trend of "deglobalisation".
"... Weak global trade, fears that the U.K. is marching towards a hard Brexit , and polls indicating that the U.S. election remains a tighter call than markets are pricing in have led a bevy of analysts to redouble their warnings that a backlash over globalization is poised to roil global financial markets-with profound consequences for the real economy and investment strategies. ..."
"... From the economists and politicians at the annual IMF meeting in Washington to strategists on Wall Street trying to advise clients, everyone seems to be pondering a future in which cooperation and global trade may look much different than they do now. ..."
"... "The main risk with potentially tough negotiating tactics is that trade partners could panic, especially if global coordination evaporates." ..."
Weak global trade, fears that the U.K. is marching towards a
hard Brexit , and polls indicating that the U.S. election remains a
tighter call than markets are
pricing in have led a bevy of analysts to redouble their warnings that a backlash over globalization
is poised to roil global financial markets-with profound consequences for the real economy and investment
strategies.
From the economists and politicians at the annual
IMF meeting in Washington to strategists on Wall Street trying to advise clients, everyone seems
to be pondering a future in which cooperation and
global trade may look much different than they do now.
Brexit
Suggestions that the U.K. will prioritize control over its migration policy at the expense of
open access to Europe's single market in negotiations to leave the European Union-a strategy that's
being dubbed a "hard Brexit"-loomed large over global markets. The U.K. government is "strongly supportive
of open markets, free markets, open economies, free trade," said
Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond during a Bloomberg Television interview in New York
on Thursday. "But we have a problem-and it's not just a British problem, it's a developed-world problem-in
keeping our populations engaged and supportive of our market capitalism, our economic model."
Trade
Citing the rising anti-trade sentiment, analysts from Bank of America Merrill Lynch warned that
"events show nations are becoming less willing to cooperate, more willing to contest," and a
backlash against inequality is likely to trigger more activist fiscal policies. Looser government
spending in developed countries-combined with trade protectionism and wealth redistribution-could
reshape global investment strategies, unleashing a wave of inflation, the bank argued, amid a looming
war against inequality.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew did his part to push for more openness. During an interview in
Washington on Thursday, he said that efforts to boost trade, combined with a more equitable distribution
of the fruits of economic growth, are key to ensuring
U.S. prosperity. Rolling back on globalization would be counterproductive to any attempt to boost
median incomes, he added.
Trump
Without mentioning him by name, Lew's comments appeared to nod to Donald Trump, who some believe
could take the U.S. down a more isolationist trading path should he be elected president in November.
"The emergence of Donald Trump as a political force reflects a mood of growing discontent about immigration,
globalization and the distribution of wealth," write analysts at Fathom Consulting, a London-based
research firm. Their central scenario is that a Trump administration might be benign for the U.S.
economy. "However, in our downside scenario, Donald Dark, global trade falls sharply and a global
recession looms. In this world, isolationism wins, not just in the U.S., but globally," they caution.
Analysts at Standard Chartered Plc agree that the tail risks of a Trump presidency could be significant.
"The main risk with potentially tough negotiating tactics is that trade partners could panic, especially
if global coordination evaporates." They add that business confidence could take a big hit in this
context. "The global trade system could descend into a spiral of trade tariffs, reminiscent of what
happened after the
Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 , and ultimately a trade war, possibly accompanied by foreign-exchange
devaluations; this would be a 'lose-lose' deal for all."
Market participants are also concerned that populism could take root under a Hillary Clinton administration.
"We believe the liberal base's demands on a Clinton Administration could lead to an overly expansive
federal government with aggressive regulators," write analysts at Barclays Plc. "If the GOP does
not unify, Clinton may expand President Obama's use of executive authority to accomplish her goals."
"... Average US wages rose 350% in the 40 years between 1932 and 1972, but only 22% over the next 40 years. The pattern holds similar across the developed world. In other words, for all their hype, the computer and the internet have done less to lift economic growth than the flush toilet. ..."
"... ahem… the computer and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China. Ask China or India how their economic growth has been since 1972. The author is mixing up several things at once. ..."
"... When so many of our jobs, technology and investment is offshored to China (and elsewhere), the future for innovation is certainly not bright, and this should be obvious to everyone, including the author. ..."
" Average US wages rose 350% in the 40 years between 1932 and 1972, but only 22% over the next
40 years. The pattern holds similar across the developed world. In other words, for all their hype,
the computer and the internet have done less to lift economic growth than the flush toilet."
ahem… the computer and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China. Ask China or India
how their economic growth has been since 1972. The author is mixing up several things at once.
Great comments, and please allow me to piggyback off them:
When so many of our jobs, technology and investment is offshored to China (and elsewhere), the
future for innovation is certainly not bright, and this should be obvious to everyone, including
the author.
When so many have contributed so much, only to see their jobs and livelihoods offshored again
and again and again, that great jump the others have will then zero out OUR innovation!
Doing what contemporary American economists
suggest: eliminate tariffs, don't worry about huge capital inflows or a ridiculously overvalued dollar,
has led the US from being the envy of the world to being a non-developed economy with worse roads
than Cuba or Ghana.
That US economists are still treated with any degree of credibility it totally
appalling. They are so obviously bought-and-paid for snake oil salesmen that people are finally tuning
them out.
TRUMP 2016: Return America to Protectionism - Screw globalism
[There is a pdf at the link. Olivier Blanchard has
surprised me again. As establishment economists go he is not
so bad. There is plenty that he still glosses over but
insofar as status quo establishment macroeconomics goes he is
thorough and coherent. One might hope that those that do not
understand either the debate for higher inflation targets or
the debate for fiscal policy to accomplish what monetary
policy cannot might learn from this article by Olivier
Blanchard, but I will not hold my breath waiting for that. In
any case the article is worth a read for anyone that can.]
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
,
Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:07 AM
Get real! No alumni of the Peterson Institute and IMF is
going to go all mushy on the down sides of globalization and
wealth distribution.
The State of Advanced Economies and Related Policy
Debates: A Fall 2016 Assessment
By Olivier Blanchard
Perhaps the most striking macroeconomic fact about
advanced economies today is how anemic demand remains in the
face of zero interest rates.
In the wake of the global financial crisis, we had a
plausible explanation why demand was persistently weak:
Legacies of the crisis, from deleveraging by banks, to fiscal
austerity by governments, to lasting anxiety by consumers and
firms, could all explain why, despite low rates, demand
remained depressed.
This explanation is steadily becoming less convincing.
Banks have largely deleveraged, credit supply has loosened,
fiscal consolidation has been largely put on hold, and the
financial crisis is farther in the rearview mirror. Demand
should have steadily strengthened. Yet, demand growth has
remained low.
Why? The likely answer is that, as the legacies of the
past have faded, the future has looked steadily bleaker.
Forecasts of potential growth have been repeatedly revised
down. And consumers and firms-anticipating a gloomier
future-are cutting back spending, leading to unusually low
demand growth today....
"... "Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true, according to World Bank data, but the story of how it happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that this progress is a result of the "globalization" that Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period China was really the counterexample to the "principles of open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward, not backward." ..."
"... If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China accounted for even more of the reduction of the world population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would indicate that other parts of the developing world increased their economic and social progress during the 21st century, relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did (as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century). But China played an increasingly large role in reducing poverty in other countries during this period. ..."
"... It was so successful in its economic growth and development - by far the fastest in world history - that it became the largest economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible 0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3 percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.) ..."
"... the "principles of open markets" that Obama refers to is really code for "policies that Washington supports." ..."
"... In his defense of a world economic order ruled by Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also asserted that "we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself; and it left Washington and its traditional rich country allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an American. It should not be surprising if these institutions do not look out for the interests of the developing world. ..."
President Obama Inadvertently Gives High Praise to China
in UN Speech
By Mark Weisbrot
President Obama's speech at the UN last week was mostly a
defense of the world's economic and political status quo,
especially that part of it that is led or held in place by
the US government and the global institutions that Washington
controls or dominates. In doing so, he said some things that
were exaggerated or wrong, or somewhat misleading. It is
worth looking at some of the things that media reports on
this speech missed.
"Over the last 25 years, the number of people living
in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of
humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true,
according to World Bank data, but the story of how it
happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that
this progress is a result of the "globalization" that
Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in
the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction
in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion
people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period
China was really the counterexample to the "principles of
open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward,
not backward."
China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the
past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished
with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the
economy. State control over investment, technology transfer,
and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other
developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies
of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to
international trade and investment, and rapid privatization
of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition,
over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a
mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role.
Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned
enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016
(as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the
economy.
If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China
accounted for even more of the reduction of the world
population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would
indicate that other parts of the developing world increased
their economic and social progress during the 21st century,
relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did
(as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century).
But China played an increasingly large role in reducing
poverty in other countries during this period.
It was so
successful in its economic growth and development - by far
the fastest in world history - that it became the largest
economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries
through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible
0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3
percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of
billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and
middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few
years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most
countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as
much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.)
Of course, the "principles of open markets" that Obama
refers to is really code for "policies that Washington
supports." Some of them are the exact opposite of "open
markets," such as the lengthening and strengthening of patent
and copyright protection included in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) agreement. President Obama also made a plug
for the TPP in his speech, asserting that "we've worked to
reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise
environmental standards, as we've done with the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, so that the benefits [of globalization] are more
broadly shared." But the labor and environmental standards in
the TPP, as with those in previous US-led commercial
agreements, are not enforceable; whereas if a government
approves laws or regulations that infringe on the future
profit potential of a multinational corporation - even if
such laws or regulations are to protect public health or
safety - that government can be hit with billions of dollars
in fines. And they must pay these fines, or be subject to
trade sanctions.
In his defense of a world economic order ruled by
Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also
asserted that "we have made international institutions like
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more
representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most
recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an
unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important
decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself;
and it left Washington and its traditional rich country
allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of
votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially
poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the
IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country
governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an
American. It should not be surprising if these institutions
do not look out for the interests of the developing world.
"We can choose to press forward with a better model of
cooperation and integration," President Obama told the world
at the UN General Assembly. "Or we can retreat into a world
sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old
lines of nation and tribe and race and religion."
But the rich country governments led by Washington are not
offering the rest of the world any better model of
cooperation and integration than the failed model they have
been offering for the past 35 years. And that is a big part
of the problem....
China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the
past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished
with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the
economy. State control over investment, technology transfer,
and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other
developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies
of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to
international trade and investment, and rapid privatization
of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition,
over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a
mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role.
Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned
enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016
(as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the
economy....
Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned
enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016
(as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the
economy....
Yale Professors Offer Economic Prescriptions
By Brenda Cronin - Wall Street Journal
Richard C. Levin, president of Yale - and also a professor
of economics - moderated the conversation among Professors
Judith Chevalier, John Geanakoplos, William D. Nordhaus,
Robert J. Shiller and Aleh Tsyvinski....
An early mistake during the recession, Mr. Levin said, was
not targeting more stimulus funds to job creation. He
contrasted America's meager pace of growth in gross domestic
product in the past few years with China's often double-digit
pace, noting that after the crisis hit, Washington allocated
roughly 2% of GDP to job creation while Beijing directed 15%
of GDP to that goal....
Repeatedly there are warnings from Western economists that
the Chinese economy is near collapse, nonetheless economic
growth through the first 2 quarters this year is running at
6.7% and the third quarter looks about the same. The point is
to ask and describe how after these last 39 remarkable years:
Before the crash, complacent Democrats, ... tended to agree
with them that the economy was largely self-correcting.
Who is a complacent Democrat? Obama ran as a fiscal
conservative and appointed a GOP as his SecTreas. Geithner
was a "banks need to be bailed out" and the economy self
corrects. Geithner was not in favor of cram down or mortgage
programs that would have bailed out the injured little folks.
Democrats like Romer and Summers were in favor a fiscal
stimulus, but not enough of it. I expect to see the Clinton
economic team include a lot more women and especially focus
on economic policies that help working women and families.
I have always thought that a big reason for the Bush
jobless recovery was his lack of true fiscal stimulus. Bush
had tax cuts for the wealthy, but the latest from Summers
shows why trickle down does not work.
Full employment may have been missing from the 1992
platform, but full employment was pursued aggressively by
Bill Clinton. He got AG to agree to allow unemployment to
drop to 4% in exchange for raising taxes and dropping the
middle class tax cuts. Bill Clinton used fiscal policy to tax
the economy and as a break so monetary policy could be
accommodating.
He should include raising the MinWage. Maybe that has not
changed but it is a lynchpin for putting money in the pockets
of the working poor.
"... Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright monopolies the results of a free market? ..."
"... The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good piece on the devastation to millions of working class people and their communities from the flood of imports of manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part of a free trade. ..."
"... First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of the decision of China and other developing countries to buy massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our goods and services less competitive internationally. This problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury Department and the I.M.F. ..."
"... The second point is political leaders are constantly working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer. This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a 10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000 percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except the impact is far larger in the later case.) ..."
Why are none of the "free trade" members of
Congress pushing to change the regulations that require
doctors go through a U.S. residency program to be able to
practice medicine in the United States? Obviously they are
all protectionist Neanderthals.
Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of
pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is
somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free"
market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright
monopolies the results of a free market?
The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good
piece on the devastation to millions of working class people
and their communities from the flood of imports of
manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to
hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part
of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part
of a free trade.
First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of
the decision of China and other developing countries to buy
massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this
period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our
goods and services less competitive internationally. This
problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the
bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury
Department and the I.M.F.
If we had a more competent team in place, that didn't
botch the workings of the international financial system,
then we would have expected the dollar to drop as more
imports entered the U.S. market. This would have moved the
U.S. trade deficit toward balance and prevented the massive
loss of manufacturing jobs we saw in the last decade.
The second point is political leaders are constantly
working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer.
This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for
everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower
real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the
beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth
since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a
10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000
percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other
words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say
about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except
the impact is far larger in the later case.)
Finally, the fact that trade has exposed manufacturing
workers to international competition, but not doctors and
lawyers, was a policy choice, not a natural development.
There are enormous potential gains from allowing smart and
ambitious young people in the developing world to come to the
United States to work in the highly paid professions. We have
not opened these doors because doctors and lawyers are far
more powerful than autoworkers and textile workers. And, we
rarely even hear the idea mentioned because doctors and
lawyers have brothers and sisters who are reporters and
economists.
Addendum:
Since some folks asked about the botched bailout from the
East Asian financial crisis, the point is actually quite
simple. Prior to 1997 developing countries were largely
following the textbook model, borrowing capital from the West
to finance development. This meant running large trade
deficits. This reversed following the crisis as the
conventional view in the developing world was that you needed
massive amounts of reserves to avoid being in the situation
of the East Asian countries and being forced to beg for help
from the I.M.F. This led to the situation where developing
countries, especially those in the region, began running very
large trade surpluses, exporting capital to the United
States. (I am quite sure China noticed how its fellow East
Asian countries were being treated in 1997.)
"... Reuters reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50 biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax. So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun. ..."
"... Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions ..."
"... Those who support globalisation support this power disparity. ..."
The case of Apple's Irish operations is an extreme example of such tax avoidance accounting. It relates
to two Apple subsidiaries Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe. Apple Inc US has
given the rights to Apple Sales International (ASI) to use its "intellectual property" to sell and
manufacture its products outside of North and South America, in return for which Apple Inc of the
US receives payments of more than $2 billion per year. The consequence of this arrangement is that
any Apple product sold outside the Americas is implicitly first bought by ASI, Ireland from different
manufacturers across the globe and sold along with the intellectual property to buyers everywhere
except the Americas. So all such sales are by ASI and all profits from those sales are recorded in
Ireland. Stage one is complete: incomes earned from sales in different jurisdictions outside the
Americas (including India) accrue in Ireland, where tax laws are investor-friendly. What is important
here that this was not a straight forward case of exercising the "transfer pricing" weapon. The profits
recorded in Ireland were large because the payment made to Apple Inc in the US for the right to use
intellectual property was a fraction of the net earnings of ASI.
Does this imply that Apple would
pay taxes on these profits in Ireland, however high or low the rate may be? The Commission found
it did not. In two rather curious rulings first made in 1991 and then reiterated in 2007 the Irish
tax authority allowed ASI to split it profits into two parts: one accruing to the Irish branch of
Apple and another to its "head office". That "head office" existed purely on paper, with no formal
location, actual offices, employees or activities. Interestingly, this made-of-nothing head office
got a lion's share of the profits that accrued to ASI, with only a small fraction going to the Irish
branch office. According to Verstager's Statement: "In 2011, Apple Sales International made profits
of 16 billion euros. Less than 50 million euros were allocated to the Irish branch. All the rest
was allocated to the 'head office', where they remained untaxed." As a result, across time, Apple
paid very little by way of taxes to the Irish government. The effective tax rate on its aggregate
profits was short of 1 per cent. The Commissioner saw this as illegal under the European Commission's
"state aid rules", and as amounting to aid that harms competition, since it diverts investment away
from other members who are unwilling to offer such special deals to companies.
In the books, however, taxes due on the "head office" profits of Apple are reportedly treated
as including a component of deferred taxes. The claim is that these profits will finally have to
be repatriated to the US parent, where they would be taxed as per US tax law. But it is well known
that US transnationals hold large volumes of surplus funds abroad to avoid US taxation and the evidence
is they take very little of it back to the home country. In fact, using the plea that it has "permanent
establishment" in Ireland and, therefore, is liable to be taxed there, and benefiting from the special
deal the Irish government has offered it, Apple has accumulated large surpluses. A study by two non-profit
groups published in 2015 has argued that Apple is holding as much as $181 billion of accumulated
profits outside the US, a record among US companies. Moreover, The Washington Post reports that Apple's
Chief Executive Tim Cook told its columnist Jena McGregor, "that the company won't bring its international
cash stockpile back to the United States to invest here until there's a 'fair rate' for corporate
taxation in America."
This has created a peculiar situation where the US is expressing concern about the EC decision
not because it disputes the conclusion about tax avoidance, but because it sees the tax revenues
as due to it rather than to Ireland or any other EU country. US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew criticised
the ruling saying, "I have been concerned that it reflected an attempt to reach into the U.S. tax
base to tax income that ought to be taxed in the United States." In Europe on the other hand, the
French Finance Minister and the German Economy Minister, among others, have come out in support of
Verstager, recognizing the implication this has for their own tax revenues. Governments other than
in Ireland are not with Apple, even if not always for reasons advanced by the EC.
... ... ...
Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from
the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate
countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic
conditions. The costs of garnering that difference are, therefore, often missed. Reuters
reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50
biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax.
So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not
lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun.
I think the common misconception that multinational corporations exist because "they are big
companies that happen to operate in more than one country" is one of the biggest lies ever told.
From the beginning (e.g. Standard Oil, United Fruit) it was clear that multinational status
was an exercise in political arbitrage.
" Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and
from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate
countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions
"
Those who support globalisation support this power disparity.
"... By Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it. ..."
"... Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic waste dump in the process. ..."
"... The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple. ..."
"... The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except for a polluted planet. ..."
"... Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy? ..."
...if you look at absolute inequality, as opposed to relative inequality, inequality has increased
around the world. This calls into question one of the big arguments made in favor of globalization:
that the cost to workers in advanced economies are offset by gains to workers in developing economies,
and is thus virtuous by lowering inequality more broadly measured.
By Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health
Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published
at VoxEU
Since the turn of the century, inequality in the distribution of income, together with concerns
over the pace and nature of globalisation, have risen to be among the most prominent policy issues
of our time. These concerns took centre stage at the recent annual G20 summit in China. From President
Obama to President Xi, there was broad agreement that the global economy needs more inclusive and
sustainable growth, where the economic pie increases in size and is at the same time divided more
fairly. As President Obama emphasised, "[t]he international order is under strain." The consensus
is well founded, following as it does the recent Brexit vote, and the rise of populism (especially
on the right) in the US and Europe, with its hard stance against free trade agreements, capital flows
and migration.
... ... ...
The inclusivity aspect of growth is now more imperative than ever. Globalisation has not been
a zero sum game. Overall perhaps more have benefitted, especially in fast-growing economies in the
developing world. However, many others, for example among the working middle class in industrialised
nations, have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years. It is unsurprising that
this has bred considerable discontent, and it is an urgent priority that concrete steps are taken
to reduce the underlying sources of this discontent. Those who feel they have not benefitted, and
those who have even lost from globalisation, have legitimate reasons for their discontent. Appropriate
action will require not only the provision of social protection to the poorest and most vulnerable.
It is essential that the very nature of the ongoing processes of globalisation, growth, and economic
transformation are scrutinised, and that broad based investments are made in education, skills, and
health, particularly among relatively disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience
sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.
John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also
not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher
income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional
farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it.
Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable
– economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.
Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation
to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic
waste dump in the process.
The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out
the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal
Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the
pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple.
The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus
that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over
help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except
for a polluted planet.
The notable presence of public policies that exacerbate racial and economic inequality and
the lack of will by Washington to change the system mean that the ethnic/racial wealth gap is
becoming more firmly entrenched in society.
"broad based investments are made in education, skills, and health, particularly among relatively
disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable
– economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come."
…I guess if the skills were sustainable low chemical and diverse farming in 5 acre lots or
in co-ops then I might have less complaint, however the skills people apparently are going to
need are supervising robots and going to non jobs in autonomous vehicles and being fed on chemical
mush shaped like things we used to eat, a grim dystopia.
Yesterday I had the unpleasant experience of reading the hard copy nyt wherein kristof opined
that hey it's not so bad, extreme poverty has eased (the same as in this article, but without
this article's Vietnamese example where 1 v. 8 becomes 8 v. 80),ignoring the relative difference
while on another lackluster page there was an article saying immigrants don't take jobs from citizens
which had to be one of the most thinly veiled press releases of some study made by some important
sounding acronym and and, of course a supposed "balance" between pro and anti immigration academics.
because in this case, they claim we're relatively better off.
So there you have it, it's all relative. Bi color bird cage liner, dedicated to the ever shrinking
population of affluent/wealthy who are relatively better off as opposed to the ever increasing
population of people who are actually worse off…There was also an article on the desert dwelling
uighur and their system of canals bringing glacier water to farm their arid land which showed
some people who were fine for thousands of years, but now thanks to fracking, industrial pollution
and less community involvement (kids used to clean the karatz, keeping it healthy) now these people
can be uplifted into the modern world(…so great…) that was reminiscent of the nyt of olde which
presented the conundrum but left out the policy prescription which now always seems to be "the
richer I get the less extreme poverty there is in the world so stop your whining and borrow a
few hundred thousand to buy a PhD "
Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are
indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of
entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This
rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries
now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has
meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks
of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy?
Three reading recommendations for anyone who doesn't grasp your sentiment, shared by millions:
Sold Out , by Michelle Malkin Outsourcing America , by Ron Hira America: Who
Stole the Dream? , by Donald L. Barlett
Reply ↓
"... traditional ways of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape. ..."
"... It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated. ..."
Novelist Rana Dasgupta recently turned to nonfiction to explore the explosive
social and economic changes in Delhi starting in 1991, when India launched a
series of transformative economic reforms. In
Capital: The Eruption of Delhi, he describes a city where the epic hopes
of globalization have dimmed in the face of a sterner, more elitist world. In
Part 1 of an interview with the
Institute for New Economic
Thinking, Dasgupta traces a turbulent time in which traditional ways
of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding
unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape.
Lynn Parramore: Why did you decide to move from New York to Delhi
in 2000, and then to write a book about the city?
Rana Dasgupta: I moved to be with my partner who lived in Delhi, and soon
realized it was a great place to have landed. I was trying write a novel and
there were a lot of people doing creative things. There was a fascinating intellectual
climate, all linked to changes in society and the economy. It was 10 years since
liberalization and a lot of the impact of that was just being felt and widely
sensed.
There was a sense of opportunity, not any more just on the part of business
people, but everyone. People felt that things were really going to change in
a deep way - in every part of the political spectrum and every class of society.
Products and technology spread, affecting even very poor people. Coke made ads
about the rickshaw drivers with their mobile phones -people who had never had
access to a landline. A lot of people sensed a new possibility for their own
lives.
Amongst the artists and intellectuals that I found myself with, there were
very big hopes for what kind of society Delhi could become and they were very
interested in being part of creating that. They were setting up institutions,
publications, publishing houses, and businesses. They were thinking new ideas.
When I arrived, I felt, this is where stuff is happening. The scale of conversations,
the philosophy of change was just amazing.
LP: You've interviewed many of the young tycoons who emerged during
Delhi's transformation. How would you describe this new figure? How do they
do business?
RD: Many of their fathers and grandfathers had run significant provincial
businesses. They were frugal in their habits and didn't like to advertise themselves,
and anyway their wealth remained local both in its magnitude and its reach.
They had business and political associates that they drank with and whose weddings
they went to, and so it was a tight-knit kind of wealth.
But the sons, who would probably be now between 35 and 45, had an entirely
different experience. Their adult life happened after globalization. Because
their fathers often didn't have the skills or qualifications to tap into the
forces of globalization, the sons were sent abroad, probably to do an MBA, so
they could walk into a meeting with a management consultancy firm or a bank
and give a presentation. When they came back they operated not from the local
hubs where their fathers ruled but from Delhi, where they could plug into federal
politics and global capital.
So you have these very powerful combinations of father/son businesses. The
sons revere the fathers, these muscular, huge masculine figures who have often
done much more risky and difficult work building their businesses and have cultivated
relationships across the political spectrum. They are very savvy, charismatic
people. They know who to give gifts to, how to do favors.
The sons often don't have that set of skills, but they have corporate skills.
They can talk finance in a kind of international language. Neither skill set
is enough on its own by early 2000's: they need each other. And what's interesting
about this package is that it's very powerful elsewhere, too. It's kind of a
world-beating combination. The son fits into an American style world of business
and finance, but the thing about American-style business is that there are lots
of things in the world that are closed to it. It's very difficult for an American
real estate company or food company to go to the president of an African country
and do a deal. They don't have the skills for it. But even if they did, they
are legally prevented from all the kinds of practices involved, the bribes and
everything.
This Indian business combination can go into places like Africa and Central
Asia and do all the things required. If they need to go to market and raise
money, they can do that. But if they need to sit around and drink with some
government guys and figure out who are the players that need to be kept happy,
they can do that, too. They see a lot of the world open to themselves.
LP: How do these figures compare to American tycoons during, say,
the Gilded Age?
RD: When American observers see these people they think, well, we had these
guys between 1890 and 1920, but then they all kind of went under because there
was a massive escalation of state power and state wealth and basically the state
declared a kind of protracted war on them.
Americans think this is a stage of development that will pass. But I think
it's not going to pass in our case. The Indian state is never going to have
the same power over private interests as the U.S. state because lots of things
have to happen. The Depression and the Second World War were very important
in creating a U.S. state that was that powerful and a rationale for defeating
these private interests. I think those private interests saw much more benefit
in consenting to, collaborating in, and producing a stronger U.S. state.
Over time, American business allied itself with the government, which did
a lot to open up other markets for it. In India, I think these private interests
will not for many years see a benefit in operating differently, precisely because
continents like Africa, with their particular set of attributes, have such a
bright future. It's not just about what India's like, but what other places
are like, and how there aren't that many people in the world that can do what
they can do.
LP: What has been lost and gained in a place like Delhi under global
capitalism?
RD: Undeniably there has been immense material gain in the city since 1991,
including the very poorest people, who are richer and have more access to information.
What my book tracks is a kind of spiritual and moral crisis that affects rich
and poor alike.
One kind of malaise is political and economic. Even though the poorest are
richer, they have less political influence. In a socialist system, everything
is done in the name of the poor, for good or for bad, and the poor occupy center
stage in political discourse. But since 1991 the poor have become much less
prominent in political and economic ideology. As the proportion of wealth held
by the richest few families of India has grown massively larger, the situation
is very much like the break-up of the Soviet Union, which leads to a much more
hierarchical economy where people closest to power have the best information,
contacts, and access to capital. They can just expand massively.
Suddenly there's a state infrastructure that's been built for 70 years or
60 years which is transferred to the private domain and that is hugely valuable.
People gain access to telecommunication systems, mines, land, and forests for
almost nothing. So ordinary people say, yes, we are richer, and we have all
these products and things, but those making the decisions about our society
are not elected and hugely wealthy.
Imagine the upper-middle-class guy who has been to Harvard, works for a management
consultancy firm or for an ad agency, and enjoys a kind of international-style
middle-class life. He thinks he deserves to make decisions about how the country
is run and how resources are used. He feels himself to be a significant figure
in his society. Then he realizes that he's not. There's another, infinitely
wealthier class of people who are involved in all kinds of backroom deals that
dramatically alter the landscape of his life. New private highways and new private
townships are being built all around him. They're sucking the water out of the
ground. There's a very rapid and seemingly reckless transformation of the landscape
that's being wrought and he has no part in it.
If he did have a say, he might ask, is this really the way that we want this
landscape to look? Isn't there enormous ecological damage? Have we not just
kicked 10,000 farmers off their land?
All these conversations that democracies have are not being had. People think,
this exactly what the socialists told us that capitalism was - it's pillage
and it creates a very wealthy elite exploiting the poor majority. To some extent,
I think that explains a lot of why capitalism is so turbulent in places like
India and China. No one ever expected capitalism to be tranquil. They had been
told for the better part of a century that capitalism was the imperialist curse.
So when it comes, and it's very violent, and everyone thinks, well that's what
we expected. One of the reasons that it still has a lot of ideological consensus
is that people are prepared for that. They go into it as an act of war, not
as an act of peace, and all they know is that the rewards for the people at
the top are very high, so you'd better be on the top.
The other kind of malaise is one of culture. Basically, America and Britain
invented capitalism and they also invented the philosophical and cultural furniture
to make it acceptable. Places where capitalism is going in anew do not have
200 years of cultural readiness. It's just a huge shock. Of course, Indians
are prepared for some aspects of it because many of them are trading communities
and they understand money and deals. But a lot of those trading communities
are actually incredibly conservative about culture - about what kind of lifestyle
their daughters will have, what kinds of careers their sons will have. They
don't think that their son goes to Brown to become a professor of literature,
but to come back and run the family business.
LP: What is changing between men and women?
RD: A lot of the fallout is about families. Will women work? If so, will
they still cook and be the kind of wife they're supposed to be? Will they be
out on the street with their boyfriends dressed in Western clothes and going
to movies and clearly advertising the fact that they are economically independent,
sexually independent, socially independent? How will we deal with the backlash
of violent crimes that have everything to do with all these changes?
This capitalist system has produced a new figure, which is the economically
successful and independent middle-class woman. She's extremely globalized in
the sense of what she should be able to do in her life. It's also created a
set of lower-middle-class men who had a much greater sense of stability both
in their gender and professional situation 30 years ago, when they could rely
on a family member or fellow caste member to keep them employed even if they
didn't have any marketable attributes. They had a wife who made sure that the
culture of the family was intact - religion, cuisine, that kind of stuff.
Thirty years later, those guys are not going to get jobs because that whole
caste value thing has no place in the very fast-moving market economy. Without
a high school diploma, they just have nothing to offer. Those guys in the streets
are thinking, I don't have a claim on the economy, or on women anymore because
I can't earn anything. Women across the middle classes - and it's not just across
India, it's across Asia -are trying to opt out of marriage for as long as they
can because they see only a downside. Remaining single allows all kinds of benefits
– social, romantic, professional. So those guys are pretty bitter and there's
a backlash that can become quite violent. We also have an upswing of Hindu fundamentalism
as a way of trying to preserve things. It's very appealing to people who think
society is falling apart.
LP: You've described India's experience of global capitalism as traumatic.
How is the trauma distinct in Delhi, and in what ways is it universal?
RD: Delhi suffers specifically from the trauma of Partition, which has created
a distinct society. When India became independent, it was divided into India
and Pakistan. Pakistan was essentially a Muslim state, and Hindis and Sikhs
left. The border was about 400 kilometers from Delhi, which was a tiny, empty
city, a British administrative town. Most of those Hindis and Sikhs settled
in Delhi where they were allocated housing as refugees. Muslims went in the
other direction to Pakistan, and as we know, something between 1 and 2 million
were killed in that event.
The people who arrived in Delhi arrived traumatized, having lost their businesses,
properties, friends, and communities, and having seen their family members murdered,
raped and abducted. Like the Jewish Holocaust, everyone can tell the stories
and everyone has experienced loss. When they all arrive in Delhi, they have
a fairly homogeneous reaction: they're never going to let this happen to them
again. They become fiercely concerned with security, physical and financial.
They're not interested in having nice neighbors and the lighter things of life.
They say, it was our neighbors that killed us, so we're going to trust only
our blood and run businesses with our brother and our sons. We're going to build
high walls around our houses.
When the grandchildren of these people grow up, it's a problem because none
of this has been exorcised. The families have not talked about it. The state
has not dealt with it and wants to remember only that India became independent
and that was a glorious moment. So the catastrophe actually becomes focused
within families rather than the reverse. A lot of grandchildren are more fearful
and hateful of Muslims than the grandparents, who remembered a time before when
they actually had very deep friendships with Muslims.
Parents of my generation grew up with immense silence in their households
and they knew that in that silence was Islam - a terrifying thing. When you're
one year old, you don't even know yet what Islam is, you just know that it's
something which is the greatest horror in the universe.
The Punjabi businessman is a very distinct species. They have treated business
as warfare, and they are still doing it like that 70 years later and they are
very good at it. They enter the global economy at a time when it's becoming
much less civilized as well. In many cases they succeed not because they have
a good idea, but because they know how to seize global assets and resources.
Punjabi businessmen are not inventing Facebook. They are about mines and oil
and water and food -things that everyone understands and needs.
In this moment of globalization, the world will have to realize that events
like the Partition of India are not local history anymore but global history.
Especially in this moment when the West no longer controls the whole system,
these traumas explode onto the world and affect all of us, like the Holocaust.
They introduce levels of turbulence into businesses and practices that we didn't
expect necessarily.
Then there's the trauma of capitalism itself, and here I think it's important
for us to re-remember the West's own history. Capitalism achieved a level of
consensus in the second half of the 20th century very accidentally, and by a
number of enormous forces, not all of which were intended. There's no guarantee
that such consensus will be achieved everywhere in the emerging world. India
and China don't have an empire to ship people off to as a safety valve when
suffering become immense. They just have to absorb all that stuff.
For a century or so, people in power in Paris and London and Washington felt
that they had to save the capitalist system from socialist revolution, so they
gave enormous concessions to their populations. Very quickly, people in the
West forgot that there was that level of dissent. They thought that everyone
loved capitalism. I think as we come into the next period where the kind of
consensus has already been dealt a huge blow in the West, we're going to have
to deal with some of those forces again.
LP: When you say that the consensus on capitalism has been dealt
a blow, are you talking about the financial crisis?
RD: Yes, the sense that the nation-state - I'm talking about the U.S. context
- can no longer control global capital, global processes, or, indeed, it's own
financial elite.
It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think
what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle
class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated.
Then, if you have 30-40 percent unemployment in America, which has always
been the ideological leader in capitalism, America will start to re-theorize
capitalism very profoundly (and maybe the Institute of New Economic Thinking
is part of that). Meanwhile, I think the middle class in India would not have
these kinds of problems. It's precisely because American technology and finance
are so advanced that they're going to hit a lot of those problems. I think in
places like India there's so much work to be done that no one needs to leap
to the next stage of making the middle class obsolete. They're still useful.
Lynn Parramore is contributing editor at AlterNet. She is cofounder of Recessionwire,
founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of "Reading the Sphinx: Ancient
Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture." She received her Ph.D. in English
and cultural theory from NYU. Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore.
This set of principles in the core of "Trump_vs_deep_state" probably can be
improved, but still are interesting: "... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the
system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since
the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted
out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy
matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4)
entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which
identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
"... These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989. ..."
"... if anti-Trumpers convince themselves that that's all ..."
"... What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak" is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say it, for fear of ostracism. ..."
"... Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization" and identity politics has done them much good. ..."
"... The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton. ..."
"... Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed, Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really bad and stuff." ..."
"... They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them. ..."
"... The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every other voter. ..."
"... Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves for a rude awakening. ..."
"... Trump vs. Clinton = Nationalism vs. Globalism ..."
If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation
of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the
world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that
he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders
matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called
universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization
matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must
be repudiated.
These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment
with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided
us toward, siren-like, since 1989.
That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads
us toward: A future where states matter. A future where people are citizens,
working together toward (bourgeois) improvement of their lot. His ideas
do not yet fully cohere. They are a bit too much like mental dust that has
yet to come together. But they can come together. And Trump is the first
American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his
formulations have been.
Mitchell goes on to say that political elites call Trump "unprincipled,"
and perhaps they're right: that he only does what's good for Trump. On the other
hand, maybe Trump's principles are not ideological, but pragmatic. That is,
Trump might be a quintessential American political type: the leader who gets
into a situation and figures out how to muddle through. Or, as Mitchell puts
it:
This doesn't necessarily mean that he is unprincipled; it means rather
that he doesn't believe that yet another policy paper based on conservative
"principles" is going to save either America or the Republican Party.
Also, Mitchell says that there are no doubt voters in the Trump coalition
who are nothing but angry, provincial bigots. But if anti-Trumpers convince
themselves that that's all the Trump voters are, they will miss something
profoundly important about how Western politics are changing because of deep
instincts emerging from within the body politic:
What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak"
is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There
are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say
it, for fear of ostracism.
They think that identity politics has gone too
far, or that if it hasn't yet gone too far, there is no principled place
where it must stop. They believe that the state can't be our only large-scale
political unit, but they see that on the post-1989 model, there will, finally,
be no place for the state.
Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump
placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some
other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence
in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization"
and identity politics has done them much good.
There's lots more here, including his prediction of what's going to happen
to the GOP.
Read the whole thing.
The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be
insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the
Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.
Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five
days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by
bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed,
Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is
a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really
bad and stuff."
Which not only makes it seem more likely that we were targeting
Assad's forces to anyone reasonably distrustful of American involvement
in the war, but also shows the moral reasoning ability of nothing greater
than a 6 year old.
Seriously, accusing Russia of moralism, and then moralistically trying
to hide responsibility by listing atrocities committed by Assad? It is self-parody.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric:
borders matter;
immigration policy matters;
national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
entrepreneurship matters;
decentralization matters;
PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must
be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration,
stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat
to them.
I cannot speak to what is best for conservative Christians, but change is
definitely in the air. Since the start of this election, I have had a clear
sense that we are seeing a beginning of a new political reality.
The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood
as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more
of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented
by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war
profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every
other voter.
Too many voters have finally come to recognize that neither party serves
them in any real way. This will forcibly result in a serious reform process
of one or both parties, a third party that actually represents working people,
or if neither reform or a new party is viable-–a new American revolution,
which I fear greatly.
Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or
accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting
process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return
to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves
for a rude awakening.
I'm certainly not
the first to say this, but perhaps the first to post it on this blog. RD,
perhaps rightfully, has steered this post toward the Benedict Option, but
what should be debated is the repudiation of globalization and identity
politics.
"Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and
deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases
have to be changed."
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
"... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
"... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
"... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
"... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
"... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
"... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
"... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
"... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
"... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
"... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
"... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
"... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
"... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
"... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
"... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
"... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
"... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites,
Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.
John McCain told Pence that Putin was a "thug and a butcher," and Trump's
embrace of him intolerable.
Said Lindsey Graham: "Vladimir Putin is a thug, a dictator … who has
his opposition killed in the streets," and Trump's views bring to mind Munich.
Putin is an "authoritarian thug," added "Little Marco" Rubio.
What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir
Putin is raised?
Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle
Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood.
He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman
did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?
Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran,
and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and
go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.
Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that
really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin
democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea
naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from
Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.
When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo,
and dismiss Havana's protests?
Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine.
But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect
a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?
... ... ...
Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so,
it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy,
and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?
... ... ...
Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans
rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered
with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand
Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required
it.
Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How
does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping
"thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?
>>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah
of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park
Chung-Hee of South Korea
buttressed could be even more pertinent)
Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians
and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like
idiots or puppets.
Rubio
and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the
time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in
a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged
in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.
Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray
and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically
mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even
more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia
as a friend. That makes no sense at all.
"Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest
of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just"
believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions
in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be
the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.
As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because
Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to
interact with the "smartest person in the room".
I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has
visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may
reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat
in that context.
The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin
to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic
narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage
his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia
fear-monger bashing.
And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person
in the room".
P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that
portends more Global Cop wreckage.
John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would
Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"
Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving
friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in
Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh,
and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro
as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.
Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not
"favor him." The two terms should not be confused.
There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US
should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in
the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.
"During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of
Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park
Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed
to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's
favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either
way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter,
does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school
of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which
suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty
nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's
a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually
the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op
of all time.
"From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"
"Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo,
17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former
President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.
Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control
of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western
elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy".
This is how they determine an "enemy".
As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel
they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism
was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.
If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the
globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed
with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian
and supports the family.
Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are
lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the
reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed
any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented
as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.
What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is
reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.
You need to substitute PIC (a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class)) for
neoliberal elite for the article to make more sense.
Notable quotes:
"... Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders... ..."
"... The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on capitalism and the free market. ..."
This election cycle is so amazing one cannot help but think it has been scripted
by some invisible, all-powerful, hand. I mean, how could we have two completely
opposite candidates, perfectly reflecting the forces at play in this day and
age? It truly is a clash between The Elites and The Masses!
Main Street vs Wall & K Street.
The Political Industrial Complex (PIC – a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class)
is all up arms over the outsider barging in on their big con. The PIC is beside
itself trying to stop Donald Trump from gaining the Presidency, where he will
be able to clean out the People's House and the bureaucratic cesspool that has
shackled Main Street with political correctness, propaganda, impossibly expensive
health care, ridiculous taxes and a national debt that will take generations
to pay off.
The PIC has run amok long enough – illustrated perfectly by the defect ridden
democrat candidate: Hillary Clinton. I mean, how could you frame America's choices
this cycle
any better than this --
Back in July, Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton said, "there is
absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of
state and the Clinton Foundation."
On Monday of this week,
ABC's Liz Kreutzer reminded people of that statement, as a new batch
of emails reveal that there was a connection, and
it was cash .
…
The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served
as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while
Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges,
Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed
from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances,
Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation
throughout Hillary Clinton's tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin.
In Abedin's June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of
her job at the State Department was taking care of "
Clinton family matters ."
This is what has Main Street so fed up with Wall & K street (big business,
big government). The Clinton foundation is a cash cow for Clinton, Inc. So while
our taxes go up, our debt sky rockets and our health care becomes too expensive
to afford, Clan Clinton has made 100's of millions of dollars selling access
(and obviously doing favors, because no one spends that kind of money without
results).
The PIC is circling the wagons with its news media arm shrilly screaming
anything and everything about Trump as if they could fool Main Street with their
worn out propaganda. I seriously doubt it will work. The Internet has broken
the information monopoly that allowed the PIC in the not too distant past to
control what people knew and thought.
Massachusetts has a long history of using the power of incumbency to
cripple political opponents. In fact, it's a leading state for such partisan
gamesmanship. Dating back to 1812, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed into
law a redistricting plan for state Senate districts that favored his Democratic-Republican
Party, the era of Massachusetts rule rigging began. It has continued, unabated,
ever since.
Given the insider dealing and venality that epitomized the 2016 presidential
primary process, I'd hoped that politicians would think twice before abusing
the power of the state for political purposes. Galvin quickly diminished
any such prospect of moderation in the sketchy behavior of elected officials.
He hid his actions behind the thin veil of fiscal responsibility. He claimed
to be troubled by the additional $56,000 he was going to have to spend printing
ballots to accommodate Independent voters. He conveniently ignored the fact
that thousands of these UIP members have been paying taxes for decades to
support a primary process that excludes them.
…
In my home state of Kansas, where my 2014 candidacy threatened to take
a U.S. Senate seat from the Republicans, they responded predictably. Instead
of becoming more responsive to voters, our state's highly partisan secretary
of state, Kris Kobach, introduced legislation that would bring back one
of the great excesses of machine politics: straight party-line voting –
which is designed to discourage voters from considering an Independent candidacy
altogether. Kobach's rationale, like Galvin's, was laughable. He described
it as a "convenience" for voters.
The article goes on to note these acts by the PIC are an affront to the large
swath of the electorate who really choose who will win elections:
In a recent Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans said they do not feel
well-represented by the Democrats and Republicans and believe a third major
party is needed. Fully 42 percent of Americans now describe themselves
as politically independent .
That means the two main parties are each smaller in size than the independents
(68% divided by 2 equals 34%), which is why independents pick which side will
win. If the PIC attacks this group – guess what the response will look like?
I recently had a discussion with someone from Washington State who is pretty
much my opposite policy-wise. She is a deep blue democrat voter, whereas I am
a deep purple independent who is more small-government Tea Party than conservative-GOP.
She was lamenting the fact that her state has caucuses, which is one method
to blunt Main Street voters from having a say. It was interesting that we quickly
and strongly agreed on one thing above all else: open primaries. We both knew
that if the voters had the only say in who are leaders
would be, all sides could abide that decision easily. It is when PIC intervenes
that things get ugly.
Open primaries make the political parties accountable to the voters. Open
primaries make it harder for the PIC to control who gets into office, and reduces
the leverage of big donors. Open primaries reflect the will of the states and
the nation – not the vested interests (read bank accounts) of the PIC.
Without doubt, one of the most troublesome aspects of the current system
is its gross inefficiency. Whereas generations ago selecting a nominee
took relatively little time and money , today's process has resulted
in a near-permanent campaign. Because would-be nominees have to
win primaries and open caucuses in several states, they must put
together vast campaign apparatuses that spread across the nation, beginning
years in advance and raising tens of millions of dollars.
The length of the campaign alone keeps many potential candidates on the
sidelines. In particular, those in positions of leadership at various
levels of our government cannot easily put aside their duties and
shift into full-time campaign mode for such an extended period.
It is amazing how this kind of thinking can be considered legitimate. Note
how independent voters are evil in the mind of the PIC, and only government
leaders need apply. Not surprising, their answer is to control access to the
ballot:
During the week of Lincoln's birthday (February 12), the Republican Party
would hold a Republican Nomination Convention that would borrow from the
process by which the Constitution was ratified. Delegates to the
convention would be selected by rank-and-file Republicans in their local
communities , and those chosen delegates would meet, deliberate,
and ultimately nominate five people who, if willing, would each
be named as one of the party's officially sanctioned finalists for its presidential
nomination. Those five would subsequently debate one another a half-dozen
times.
Brexit became a political force because the European Union was not accountable
to the voters. The EU members are also selected by members of the European PIC
– not citizens of the EU. Without direct accountability to all citizens (a.k.a.
– voters) there is no democracy –
just a variant
of communism:
During the Russian Civil War (1918–1922), the Bolsheviks nationalized
all productive property and imposed a policy named war communism,
which put factories and railroads under strict government control,
collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois management of
industry . After three years of war and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion,
Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to give
a "limited place for a limited time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until
1928, when Joseph Stalin achieved party leadership, and the introduction
of the Five Year Plans spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil
War, the Bolsheviks, in 1922, formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.
Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties
were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as
the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher
members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline
.
Emphasis mine. Note how communism begins with government control of major
industries. The current con job about Global Warming is the cover-excuse for
a government grab of the energy sector. Obamacare is an attempt to grab the
healthcare sector. And Wall Street already controls the banking sector. See
a trend yet?
This is then followed by imposing a rigid hierarchy of "leaders" at all levels
of politics – so no opposing views can gain traction. Party discipline uber
alles!
Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super
Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony
to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders...
The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly
represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on
capitalism and the free market.
His opponent is the epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – a cancer
that has eaten away America's free market foundation and core strength. A person
who wants to impose government on the individual.
"... cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy. ..."
"... Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. ..."
"... In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders. ..."
"... As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy. ..."
This is where cultural nationalism comes in. Only it can serve to mask, and
bridge, the divides within the 'cartel of anxiety' in a neoliberal context.
Cultural nationalism is a nationalism shorn of its civic-egalitarian and developmentalist
thrust, one reduced to its cultural core. It is structured around the culture
of thee conomically dominant classes in every country, with higher or lower
positions accorded to other groups within the nation relative to it. These positions
correspond, on the whole, to the groups' economic positions, and as such it
organises the dominant classes, and concentric circles of their allies, into
a collective national force. It also gives coherence to, and legitimises, the
activities of the nation-state on behalf of capital, or sections thereof, in
the international sphere.
Indeed, cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising
ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy.
Neoliberalism
cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards
the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important
interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. The activities of the state
on behalf of this or that capitalist interest necessarily exceed the Spartan
limits that neoliberalism sets. Such activities can only be legitimised as being
'in the national interest.'
Second, however, the nationalism that articulates
these interests is necessarily different from, but can easily (and given its
function as a legitimising ideology, it must be said, performatively) be mis-recognised
as, nationalism as widely understood: as being in some real sense in the interests
of all members of the nation. In this form, cultural nationalism provides national
ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation
among thelower orders.
As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every
ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense
competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically
and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora
– where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within
the global and imperial hierarchy.
Except for a commitment to neoliberal policies, the economic policy content
of this nationalism cannot be consistent: within the country, and inter-nationally,
the capitalist system is volatile and the positions of the various elements
of capital in the national and international hierarchies shift constantly as
does the economic policy of cultural nationalist governments. It is this volatility
that also increases the need for corruption – since that is how competitive
access of individual capitals to the state is today organised.
Whatever its utility to the capitalist classes, however, cultural nationalism
can never have a settled or secure hold on those who are marginalised or sub-ordinated
by it. In neoliberal regimes the scope for offering genuine economic gains to
the people at large, however measured they might be, is small.
This is a problem for right politics since even the broadest coalition of
the propertied can never be an electoral majority, even a viable plurality.
This is only in the nature of capitalist private property. While the left remains
in retreat or disarray, elec-toral apathy is a useful political resource but
even where, as in most countries, political choices are minimal, the electorate
as a whole is volatile. Despite, orperhaps because of, being reduced to a competition
between parties of capital, electoral politics in the age of the New Right entails
very large electoral costs, theextensive and often vain use of the media in
elections and in politics generally, and political compromises which may clash
with the high and shrilly ambitiou sdemands of the primary social base in the propertied
classes. Instability, uncertainty ...
"... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
"... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
"... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
"... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
"... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
"... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
"... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
"... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass
the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's
tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines
or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing
them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign
country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through
a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some
commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and
transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.
As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and
Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And
WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.
diptherio
Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th
century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian
and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much
always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world"
even makes sense).
Norb
Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political
Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics
cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being
defined as who gets what in social interactions.
What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring
about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies
form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by
how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and
his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when
they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever.
This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the
mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which
are reaching limits.
Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political
economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change
will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.
flora
If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports
instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should
be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports
teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.
LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm
While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now,
I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social
contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in
terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.
Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing
just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out
of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.
sd
Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade?
With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending
impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization
and trade?
I Have Strange Dreams
Other things to consider:
– negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries
where they are most needed)
– environmental pollution
– destruction of cultures/habitats
– importation of western diet leading to decreased health
– spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
– resource wars
– drugs
– happiness
How are these "externalities" calculated?
"...a full 95% of the cash that went to Greece ran a trip through Greece
and went straight back to creditors which in plain English is banks. So,
public taxpayers money was pushed through Greece to basically bail out banks...So
austerity becomes a side effect of a general policy of bank bailouts that
nobody wants to own. That's really what happened, ok?
Why are we peddling nonsense? Nobody wants to own up to a gigantic bailout
of the entire European banking system that took six years. Austerity was
a cover.
If the EU at the end of the day and the Euro is not actually improving
the lives of the majority of the people, what is it for? That's the question
that they've brought no answer to.
...the Hamptons is not a defensible position. The Hamptons is a very
rich area on Long Island that lies on low lying beaches. Very hard to defend
a low lying beach. Eventually people are going to come for you.
What's clear is that every social democratic party in Europe needs to
find a new reason to exist. Because as I said earlier over the past 20 years
they have sold their core constituency down the line for a bunch of floaters
in the middle who don't protect them or really don't particularly care for
them. Because the only offers on the agenda are basically austerity and
tax cuts for those who already have, versus austerity, apologies, and a
minimum wage."
Mark Blyth
Although I may not agree with every particular that Mark Blyth may say, directionally
he is exactly correct in diagnosing the problems in Europe.
And yes, I am aware that the subtitles are at times in error, and sometimes
outrageously so. Many of the errors were picked up and corrected in the comments.
No stimulus, no plans, no official actions, no monetary theories can be sustainably
effective in revitalizing an economy that is as bent as these have become without
serious reform at the first.
This was the lesson that was given by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. There
will be no lasting recovery without it; it is a sine qua non . One cannot
turn their economy around when the political and business structures are systemically
corrupt, and the elites are preoccupied with looting it, and hiding their spoils
offshore.
"But part of the answer lies in something Americans have a hard time
talking about: class. Trade is a class issue. The trade agreements we have
entered into over the past few decades have consistently harmed some
Americans (manufacturing workers) while just as consistently benefiting
others (owners and professionals). …
To understand "free trade" in such a way has made it difficult for people
in the bubble of the consensus to acknowledge the actual consequences of the
agreements we have negotiated over the years."
"... Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change. ..."
"... On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. ..."
"... the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. ..."
"... In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry. ..."
Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests
that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated
with rapid technological change.
... ... ...
On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian
perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been
the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern
libertarianism. Responding to the colonists' complaint that taxation by
the British was a form of tyranny, Samuel Johnson published his 1775 tract,
"Taxation No Tyranny: An answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American
Congress," asking the obvious question, "how is it that we hear the loudest
yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" In The Works of Samuel Johnson,
LL. D.: Political Tracts. Political Essays. Miscellaneous Essays (London: J.
Buckland, 1787): pp. 60-146, p. 142.
... ... ...
By the late 19th century, David A Wells, an industrial technician who later
became the chief economic expert in the federal government, by virtue of his
position of overseeing federal taxes. After a trip to Europe, Wells reconsidered
his strong support for protectionism. Rather than comparing the dynamism of
the northern states with the technological backward of their southern counterparts,
he was responding to the fear that American industry could not compete with
the cheap "pauper" labor of Europe. Instead, he insisted that the United States
had little to fear from, the competition from cheap labor, because the relatively
high cost of American labor would ensure rapid technological change, which,
indeed, was more rapid in the United States than anywhere else in the world,
with the possible exception of Germany. Both countries were about to rapidly
surpass England's industrial prowess.
The now-forgotten Wells was so highly regarded that the prize for the best
economics dissertation at Harvard is still known as the David A Wells prize.
His efforts gave rise to a very powerful idea in economic theory at the time,
known as "the economy of high wages," which insisted that high wages drove economic
prosperity. With his emphasis on technical change, driven by the strong competitive
pressures from high wages, Wells anticipated Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction,
except that for him, high wages rather than entrepreneurial genius drove this
process.
Although the economy of high wages remained highly influential through the
1920s, the extensive growth of government powers during World War I reignited
the antipathy for big government. Laissez-faire economics began come back into
vogue with the election of Calvin Coolidge, while the once-powerful progressive
movement was becoming excluded from the ranks of reputable economics.
... ... ...
With Barry Goldwater's humiliating defeat in his presidential campaign,
the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance
right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism
both in economics and politics. Symbolic of the narrowness of this new
mindset among economists, Milton Friedman's close associate, George Stigler,
said in 1976 that "one evidence of professional integrity of the economist is
the fact that it is not possible to enlist good economists to defend minimum
wage laws." Stigler, G. J. 1982. The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press): p. 60.
In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages
was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern
"yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as
the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders
and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced
racial superiority as their battle cry.
One final irony: evangelical Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist
movement. Today, some of them are providing the firepower for the epidemic of
neoliberalism.
"... the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure. ..."
"... From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic economics and then in the realm of public policy. ..."
"... Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice. ..."
"... The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. ..."
"... This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance. On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated capitalism into an opponent of it. ..."
"... Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict, which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4 ..."
"... The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run stability and survival. ..."
"... Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities, the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century. ..."
"... Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed to an antigovernment stance. ..."
"... By contrast, the typical small business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century. ..."
"... This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10 It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it. ..."
"... Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure of contemporary capitalism. ..."
"... By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in 1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing, extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly all cases a clear base in a single nation-state. ..."
"... Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the IMF and the US government. ..."
"... Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor is limited. ..."
"... Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons, today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18 ..."
"... The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative "state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership, which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more factor that had reinforced the regulationist state. ..."
"... If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However, such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism. ..."
Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute Thompson Hall
University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 U.S.A. Telephone 413-545-1248
Fax 413-545-2921 Email [email protected] August, 2000 This paper was published
in Rethinking Marxism, Volume 12, Number 2, Summer 2002, pp. 64-79.
Research assistance was provided by Elizabeth Ramey and Deger Eryar. Research
funding was provided by the Political Economy Research Institute of the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst. Globalization and Neoliberalism 1 For some
two decades neoliberalism has dominated economic policymaking in the US and
the UK. Neoliberalism has strong advocates in continental Western Europe and
Japan, but substantial popular resistance there has limited its influence so
far, despite continuing US efforts to impose neoliberal policies on them. In
much of the Third World, and in the transition countries (except for China),
the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through
the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure.
Neoliberalism is an updated version of the classical liberal economic thought
that was dominant in the US and UK prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach
replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism
requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the
Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic
economics and then in the realm of public policy.
Neoliberalism is both a body of economic theory and a policy stance.
Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free
market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also
achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth,
technical progress, and distributional justice. The state is assigned a
very limited economic role: defining property rights, enforcing contracts, and
regulating the money supply.1 State intervention to correct market failures
is viewed with suspicion, on the ground that such intervention is likely to
create more problems than it solves.
The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with
dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. These recommendations
include deregulation of business; privatization of public activities and assets;
elimination of, or cutbacks in, social welfare programs; and reduction of taxes
on businesses and the investing class. In the international sphere, neoliberalism
calls for free movement of goods, services, capital, and money (but not people)
across national boundaries. That is, corporations, banks, and individual investors
should be free to move their property across national boundaries, and free to
acquire property across national boundaries, although free cross-border movement
by individuals is not part of the neoliberal program. How can the re-emergence
of a seemingly outdated and outmoded economic theory be explained? At first
many progressive economists viewed the 1970s lurch toward liberalism as a temporary
response to the economic instability of that decade. As corporate interests
decided that the Keynesian regulationist approach no longer worked to their
advantage, they looked for an alternative and found only the old liberal ideas,
which could at least serve as an ideological basis for cutting those state programs
viewed as obstacles to profit-making. However, neoliberalism has proved to be
more than just a temporary response. It has outlasted the late 1970s/early 1980s
right-wing political victories in the UK (Thatcher) and US (Reagan). Under a
Democratic Party administration in the US and a Labor Party government in the
UK in the 1990s, neoliberalism solidified its position of dominance.
This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during
the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any
favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance.
On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful
for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance
from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the
resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least
in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which
have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration
that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism
has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy
and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated
capitalism into an opponent of it.
The Problematic Character of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism appears to be problematic as a dominant theory for contemporary
capitalism. The stability and survival of the capitalist system depends on its
ability to bring vigorous capital accumulation, where the latter process is
understood to include not just economic expansion but also technological progress.
Vigorous capital accumulation permits rising profits to coexist with rising
living standards for a substantial part of the population over the long-run.2
However, it does not appear that neoliberalism promotes vigorous capital accumulation
in contemporary capitalism. There are a number of reasons why one would not
expect the neoliberal model to promote rapid accumulation. First, it gives rise
to a problem of insufficient aggregate demand over the long run, stemming from
the powerful tendency of the neoliberal regime to lower both real wages and
public spending. Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the
macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation
policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking
social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial
sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and
depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict,
which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4
The historical evidence confirms doubts about the ability of the neoliberal
model to promote rapid capital accumulation. We will look at growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) and of labor productivity. The GDP growth rate
provides at least a rough approximation of the rate of capital accumulation,
while the labor productivity growth rate tells us something about the extent
to which capitalism is developing the forces of production via rising ratios
of means of production to direct labor, technological advance, and improved
labor skills.5 Table 1 shows average annual real GDP growth rates for six leading
developed capitalist countries over two periods, 1950-73 and 1973-99. The first
period was the heyday of state-regulated capitalism, both within those six countries
and in the capitalist world-system as a whole. The second period covers the
era of growing neoliberal dominance. All six countries had significantly faster
GDP growth in the earlier period than in the later one.
While Japan and the major Western European economies have been relatively
depressed in the 1990s, the US is often portrayed as rebounding to great prosperity
over the past decade. Neoliberals often claim that US adherence to neoliberal
policies finally paid off in the 1990s, while the more timid moves away from
state-interventionist policies in Europe and Japan kept them mired in stagnation.
Table 2 shows GDP and labor productivity growth rates for the US economy for
three subperiods during 1948-99.6 Column 1 of Table 2 shows that GDP growth
was significantly slower in 1973-90 B a period of transition from state-regulated
capitalism to the neoliberal model in the US B than in 1948-73. While GDP growth
improved slightly in 1990-99, it remained well below that of the era of state-regulated
capitalism. Some analysts cite the fact that GDP growth accelerated after 1995,
averaging 4.1% per year during 1995-99 (US Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2000).
However, it is not meaningful to compare a short fragment of the 1990s business
cycle expansion to the longrun performance of the economy during 1948-73.7
Column 2 of Table 1 shows that the high rate of labor productivity growth
recorded in 1948- 73 fell by more than half in 1973-90. While there was significant
improvement in productivity growth in the 1990s, it remained well below the
1948-73 rate, despite the rapid spread of what should be productivity-enhancing
communication and information-management technologies during the past decade.
The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the
claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model
for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence
that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of
the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits
in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to
be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run
stability and survival.
The Structure of Competition and Economic Policy
The processes through which the dominant economic ideology and policies
are selected in a capitalist system are complex and many-sided. No general rule
operates to assure that those economic policies which would be most favorable
for capitalism are automatically adopted. History suggests that one important
determinant of the dominant economic ideology and policy stance is the competitive
structure of capitalism in a given era. Specifically, this paper argues that
periods of relatively unconstrained competition tend to produce the intellectual
and public policy dominance of liberalism, while periods of relatively constrained,
oligopolistic market relations tend to promote interventionist ideas and policies.
A relation in the opposite direction also exists, one which is often commented
upon. That is, one can argue that interventionist policies promote monopoly
power in markets, while liberal policies promote greater competition. This latter
relation is not being denied here. Rather, it will be argued that there is a
normally-overlooked direction of influence, having significant historical explanatory
power, which runs from competitive structure to public policy. In the period
when capitalism first became well established in the US, during 1800-1860, the
government played a relatively interventionist role. The federal government
placed high tariffs on competing manufactured goods from Europe, and federal,
state, and local levels of government all actively financed, and in some cases
built and operated, the new canal and rail system that created a large internal
market. There was no serious debate over the propriety of public financing of
transportation improvements in that era -- the only debate was over which regions
would get the key subsidized routes.
Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil
War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known
as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal
position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities,
the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of
the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in
the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century.
From roughly 1890 to 1903 a huge merger wave transformed the competitive
structure of US capitalism. Out of that merger wave emerged giant corporations
possessing significant monopoly power in the manufacturing, mining, transportation,
and communication sectors. US industry settled down to a more restrained form
of oligopolistic rivalry. At the same time, many of the new monopoly capitalists
began to criticize the old Laissez Faire ideas and support a more interventionist
role for the state.8 The combination of big business support for state regulation
of business, together with similar demands arising from a popular anti-monopoly
movement based among small farmers and middle class professionals, ushered in
what is called the Progressive Era, from 1900-16. The building of a regulationist
state that was begun in the Progressive Era was completed during the New Deal
era a few decades later, when once again both big business leaders and a vigorous
popular movement (this time based among industrial workers) supported an interventionist
state. Both in the Progressive Era and the New Deal, big business and the popular
movement differed about what types of state intervention were needed. Big business
favored measures to increase the stability of the system and to improve conditions
for profit-making, while the popular movement sought to use the state to restrain
the power and privileges of big business and provide greater security for ordinary
people. The outcome in both cases was a political compromise, one weighted toward
the interests of big business, reflecting the relative power of the latter in
American capitalism.
Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist
state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This
division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era
in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can
observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big
business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the
US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed
to an antigovernment stance.
What explains this political difference between large and small business?
When large corporations achieve significant market power and become freed from
fear concerning their immediate survival, they tend to develop a long time horizon
and pay attention to the requirements for assuring growing profits over time.9
They come to see the state as a potential ally. Having high and stable monopoly
profits, they tend to view the cost of government programs as something they
can afford, given their potential benefits. By contrast, the typical small
business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run
considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of
taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions
that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in
the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century.
This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared
to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which
had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role
in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal
foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly
on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10
It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state
intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal
theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified
on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for
economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their
spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could
not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it.
This switch in the dominant economic model first showed up in the mid 1970s
in academic economics, as the previously marginalized Chicago School spread
its influence far beyond the University of Chicago. This was soon followed by
a radical shift in the public policy arena. In 1978- 79 the previously interventionist
Carter Administration began sounding the very neoliberal themes B deregulation
of business, cutbacks in social programs, and general fiscal and monetary austerity
B that were to become the centerpiece of Reagan Administration policies in 1981.
What caused the radical change in the political posture of big business regarding
state intervention in the economy? This paper argues that a major part of the
explanation lies in the effects of the globalization of the world capitalist
economy in the post-World War II period.
Globalization and Competition
Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border
economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the
relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al.,
1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic
interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade
flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We
will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure
of contemporary capitalism.
Table 3 shows the ratio of merchandise exports to gross domestic product
for selected years from 1820 to 1992, for the world and also for Western Europe,
the US, and Japan. Capitalism brought a five-fold rise in world exports relative
to output from 1820-70, followed by another increase of nearly three-fourths
by 1913. After declining in the interwar period, world exports reached a new
peak of 11.2% of world output in 1973, rising further to 13.5% in 1992. The
1992 figure was over fifty per cent higher than the pre-World War I peak.
Merchandise exports include physical goods only, while GDP includes services,
many of which are not tradable, as well as goods. In the twentieth century the
proportion of services in GDP has risen significantly. Table 4 shows an estimate
of the ratio of world merchandise exports to the good-only portion of world
GDP. This ratio nearly tripled during 1950-92, with merchandise exports rising
to nearly one-third of total goods output in the latter year. The 1992 figure
was 2.6 times as high as that of 1913.
Western Europe, the US, and Japan all experienced significant increases in
exports relative to GDP during 1950-92, as Table 3 shows. All of them achieved
ratios of exports to GDP far in excess of the 1913 level. While exports were
only 8.2% of the total GDP of the US in 1992, exports amounted to 22.0% of the
non-service portion of GDP that year (Economic Report of the President,
1999, pp. 338, 444).
Many analysts view foreign direct investment as the most important form of
cross-border economic interchange. It is associated with the movement of technology
and organizational methods, not just goods. Table 5 shows two measures of foreign
direct investment. Column 1 gives the outstanding stock of foreign direct investment
in the world as a percentage of world output. This measure has more than doubled
since 1975, although it is not much greater today than it was in 1913. Column
2 shows the annual inflow of direct foreign investment as a percentage of gross
fixed capital formation. This measure increased rapidly during 1975-95. However,
it is still relatively low in absolute terms, with foreign direct investment
accounting for only 5.2 per cent of gross fixed capital formation in 1995.
Not all, or even most, international capital flows take the form of direct
investment. Financial flows (such as cross-border purchases of securities and
deposits in foreign bank accounts) are normally larger. One measure that takes
account of financial as well as direct investment is the total net movement
of capital into or out of a country. That measure indicates the extent to which
capital from one country finances development in other countries. Table 6 shows
the absolute value of current account surpluses or deficits as a percentage
of GDP for 12 major capitalist countries. Since net capital inflow or outflow
is approximately equal to the current account deficit or surplus (differing
only due to errors and omissions), this indicates the size of net cross-border
capital flows. The ratio nearly doubled from 1970-74 to 1990-96, although it
remained well below the figure for 1910-14.
Cross-border gross capital movements have grown much more rapidly
than cross-border net capital movements.11 In recent times a very large
and rapidly growing volume of capital has moved back and forth across national
boundaries. Much of this capital flow is speculative in nature, reflecting growing
amounts of short-term capital that are moved around the world in search of the
best temporary return. No data on such flows are available for the early part
of this century, but the data for recent decades are impressive. During 1980-95
cross-border transactions in bonds and equities as a percentage of GDP rose
from 9% to 136% for the US, from 8% to 168% for Germany, and from 8% to 66%
for Japan (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 10). The total volume of foreign exchange
transactions in the world rose from about $15 billion per day in 1973 to $80
billion per day in 1980 and $1260 billion per day in 1995. Trade in goods and
services accounted for 15% of foreign exchange transactions in 1973 but for
less than 2% of foreign exchange transactions in 1995 (Bhaduri, 1998, p. 152).
While cross-border flows of goods and capital are usually considered to be
the best indicators of possible globalization of capitalism, changes that have
occurred over time within capitalist enterprises are also relevant. That is,
the much-discussed rise of the transnational corporation (TNC) is relevant here,
where a TNC is a corporation which has a substantial proportion of its sales,
assets, and employees outside its home country.12 TNCs existed in the pre-World
War I era, primarily in the extractive sector. In the post-World War II period
many large manufacturing corporations in the US, Western Europe, and Japan became
TNCs.
The largest TNCs are very international measured by the location of their
activities. One study found that the 100 largest TNCs in the world (ranked by
assets) had 40.4% of their assets abroad, 50.0% of output abroad, and 47.9%
of employment abroad in 1996 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 125). While this
shows that the largest TNCs are significantly international in their activities,
all but a handful have retained a single national base for top officials and
major stockholders.13 The top 200 TNCs ranked by output were estimated to produce
only about 10 per cent of world GDP in 1995 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 122).
By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly
more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is
much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in
1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased
international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly
speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing,
extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly
all cases a clear base in a single nation-state.
While the earlier wave of globalization before World War I did produce a
capitalism that was significantly international, two features of that earlier
international system differed from the current global capitalism in ways that
are relevant here. First, the pre-world War I globalization took place within
a world carved up into a few great colonial empires, which meant that much of
the so-called "cross-border" trade and investment of that earlier era actually
occurred within a space controlled by a single state. Second, the high level
of world trade reached before World War I occurred within a system based much
more on specialization and division of labor. That is, manufactured goods were
exported by the advanced capitalist countries in exchange for primary products,
unlike today when most trade is in manufactured goods. In 1913 62.5% of world
trade was in primary products (Bairoch and Kozul-Wright, 1998, p. 45). By contrast,
in 1970 60.9% of world exports were manufactured goods, rising to 74.7% in 1994
(Baker et. al., 1998, p. 7).
Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic
interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate
capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for
state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still
retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that
the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such
a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls
following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the
IMF and the US government. A state that has the political will to exercise
some control over movements of goods and capital across its borders still retains
significant power to regulate business. The more important effect of globalization
has been on the political will to undertake state regulation, rather than on
the technical feasibility of doing so. Globalization has had this effect by
changing the competitive structure of capitalism. It appears that globalization
in this period has made capitalism significantly more competitive, in several
ways. First, the rapid growth of trade has changed the situation faced by large
corporations. Large corporations that had previously operated in relatively
controlled oligopolistic domestic markets now face competition from other large
corporations based abroad, both in domestic and foreign markets. In the US the
rate of import penetration of domestic manufacturing markets was only 2 per
cent in 1950; it rose to 8% in 1971 and 16% by 1993, an 8-fold increase since
1950 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 116).
Second, the rapid increase in foreign direct investment has in many cases
placed TNCs production facilities in the home markets of their foreign rivals.
General Motors not only faces import competition from Toyota and Honda but has
to compete with US-produced Toyota and Honda vehicles. Third, the increasingly
integrated and open world financial system has thrown the major banks and other
financial institutions of the leading capitalist nations increasingly into competition
with one another.
Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business
from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so
partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor
is limited. More importantly, globalization tends to turn big business
into small business. The process of globalization has increased the competitive
pressure faced by large corporations and banks, as competition has become a
world-wide relationship.17 Even if those who run large corporations and financial
institutions recognize the need for a strong nationstate in their home base,
the new competitive pressure they face shortens their time horizon. It pushes
them toward support for any means to reduce their tax burden and lift their
regulatory constraints, to free them to compete more effectively with their
global rivals. While a regulationist state may seem to be in the interests of
big business, in that it can more effectively promote capital accumulation in
the long run, in a highly competitive environment big business is drawn away
from supporting a regulationist state.
Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance
to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in
a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including
some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved
the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more
controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons,
today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens
and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18
The above interpretation of the rise and persistence of neoliberalism attributes
it, at least in part, to the changed competitive structure of world capitalism
resulting from the process of globalization. As neoliberalism gained influence
starting in the 1970s, it became a force propelling the globalization process
further. One reason for stressing the line of causation running from globalization
to neoliberalism is the time sequence of the developments. The process of globalization,
which had been reversed to some extent by political and economic events in the
interwar period, resumed right after World War II, producing a significantly
more globalized world economy and eroding the monopoly power of large corporations
well before neoliberalism began its second coming in the mid 1970s. The rapid
rise in merchandise exports began during the Bretton Woods period, as Table
3 showed. So too did the growing role for TNC's. These two aspects of the current
globalization had their roots in the postwar era of state-regulated capitalism.
This suggests that, to some extent, globalization reflects a long-run tendency
in the capital accumulation process rather than just being a result of the rising
influence of neoliberal policies. On the other hand, once neoliberalism became
dominant, it accelerated the process of globalization. This can be seen most
clearly in the data on cross-border flows of both real and financial capital,
which began to grow rapidly only after the 1960s.
Other Factors Promoting Neoliberalism
The changed competitive structure of capitalism provides part of the explanation
for the rise from the ashes of classical liberalism and its persistence in the
face of widespread evidence of its failure to deliver the goods. However, three
additional factors have played a role in promoting neoliberal dominance. These
are the weakening of socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries,
the demise of state socialism, and the long period that has elapsed since the
last major capitalist economic crisis. There is space here for only some brief
comments about these additional factors.
The socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries have declined
in strength significantly over the past few decades. While Social Democratic
parties have come to office in several European countries recently, they no
longer represent a threat of even significant modification of capitalism, much
less the specter of replacing capitalism with an alternative socialist system.
The regulationist state was always partly a response to the fear of socialism,
a point illustrated by the emergence of the first major regulationist state
of the era of mature capitalism in Germany in the late 19th century, in response
to the world=s first major socialist movement. As the threat coming from socialist
movements in the industrialized capitalist countries has receded, so too has
to incentive to retain the regulationist state.
The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative
"state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state
regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own
working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations
among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership,
which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated
capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more
factor that had reinforced the regulationist state.
The occurrence of a major economic crisis tends to promote an interventionist
state, since active state intervention is required to overcome a major crisis.
The memory of a recent major crisis tends to keep up support for a regulationist
state, which is correctly seen as a stabilizing force tending to head off major
crises. As the Great Depression of the 1930s has receded into the distant past,
the belief has taken hold that major economic crises have been banished forever.
This reduces the perceived need to retain the regulationist state.
Concluding Comments
If neoliberalism continues to reign as the dominant ideology and policy stance,
it can be argued that world capitalism faces a future of stagnation, instability,
and even eventual social breakdown.20 However, from the factors that have promoted
neoliberalism one can see possible sources of a move back toward state-regulated
capitalism at some point. One possibility would be the development of tight
oligopoly and regulated competition on a world scale. Perhaps the current merger
wave might continue until, as happened at the beginning of the 20th century
within the US and in other industrialized capitalist economies, oligopoly replaced
cutthroat competition, but this time on a world scale. Such a development might
revive big business support for an interventionist state. However, this does
not seem to be likely in the foreseeable future. The world is a big place, with
differing cultures, laws, and business practices in different countries, which
serve as obstacles to overcoming the competitive tendency in market relations.
Transforming an industry=s structure so that two to four companies produce the
bulk of the output is not sufficient in itself to achieve stable monopoly power,
if the rivals are unable to communicate effectively with one another and find
common ground for cooperation. Also, it would be difficult for international
monopolies to exercise effective regulation via national governments, and a
genuine world capitalist state is not a possibility for the foreseeable future.
If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps
this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However,
such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point
does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival
socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism.
A more likely source of a new era of state interventionism might come from
one of the remaining two factors considered above. The macro-instability of
neoliberal global capitalism might produce a major economic crisis at some point,
one which spins out of the control of the weakened regulatory authorities. This
would almost certainly revive the politics of the regulationist state. Finally,
the increasing exploitation and other social problems generated by neoliberal
global capitalism might prod the socialist movement back to life at some point.
Should socialist movements revive and begin to seriously challenge capitalism
in one or more major capitalist countries, state regulationism might return
in response to it. Such a development would also revive the possibility of finally
superceding capitalism and replacing it with a system based on human need rather
than private profit.
"... Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing
integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence
of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ...
..."
"... I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion
of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World,
Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848 ..."
"... Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of
China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers. ..."
"... The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious
economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter
than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies. ..."
"... And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html
..."
"... International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies
are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement,
the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers
are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian
regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials. ..."
"... Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious,
planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan? ..."
"... The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically
a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans
to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm .... ..."
"... The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other
trade is regulated trade. ..."
"... Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is,
in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet. ..."
"... ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group,
just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them. ..."
"... Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe,
secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer.
Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do. ..."
"... To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something
you should not forget. ..."
"... I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do
not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some
rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including
me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but
removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem. ..."
"... TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich. ..."
"... All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements
which impoverish them and enrich capital. ..."
"... More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the
results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing
we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental
laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries. ..."
"... progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way
any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. ..."
"... Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and
environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods
and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated
trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives
to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate. ..."
"... Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased
global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe.
..."
What's behind the revolt against global integration? : Since the end of World War II, a broad
consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity has been
a pillar of the international order. ...
This broad program of global integration has been more successful than could reasonably have
been hoped. ... Yet a revolt against global integration is underway in the West. ...
One substantial part of what is behind the resistance is a lack of knowledge. ...The core of
the revolt against global integration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense - unfortunately
not wholly unwarranted - that it is a project being carried out by elites for elites, with little
consideration for the interests of ordinary people. ...
Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending
existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted.
On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have
run its course. ...
Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up
rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing
its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international
harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would
be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would
also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation
or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And
it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but
still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.
I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion
of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the
World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848
Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of
China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers.
A large part of the concern over free trade comes from the weak economic performances around the
globe. Summers could have addressed this. Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker - both sensible economists
- for example recently called on the US to do its own currency manipulation so as to reverse the
US$ appreciation which is lowering our net exports quite a bit.
What they left out is the fact that both China and Japan have seen currency appreciations as
well. If we raise our net exports at their expense, that lowers their economic activity. Better
would be global fiscal stimulus. I wish Larry had raised this issue here.
The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious
economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they
are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies.
One of the most fundamental reasons for the poverty and underdevelopment of Africa (and of
almost all "third world" countries) is neo-colonialism, which in modern history takes the shape
of external debt.
When countries are forced to pay 40,50,60% of their government budgets just to pay the interests
of their enormous debts, there is little room for actual prosperity left.
International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no
armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of
enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers,
and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist
governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials.
In reality, not much has changed since the fall of the great colonial empires. In paper, countries
have gained their sovereignty, but in reality they are enslaved to the international credit system.
The only thing that has changed, is that now the very colonial powers of the past, are threatened
to become debt colonies themselves. You see, global capitalism and credit system has no country,
nationality, colour; it only recognises the colour of money, earned at all cost by the very few,
on the expense of the vast, unsuspected and lulled masses.
Debt had always been a very efficient way of control, either on a personal, or state level.
And while most of us are aware of the implementations of personal debt and the risks involved,
the corridors of government debt are poorly lit, albeit this kind of debt is affecting all citizens
of a country and in ways more profound and far reaching into the future than those of private
debt.
Global capitalism was flourishing after WW2, and reached an apex somewhere in the 70's.
The lower classes in the mature capitalist countries had gained a respectable portion of the
distributed wealth, rights and privileges inconceivable several decades before. The purchasing
power of the average American for example, was very satisfactory, fully justifying the American
dream. Similar phenomena were taking place all over the "developed" world.
Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious,
planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan?
There is of course no reasonable answering to prejudice, since prejudice is always unreasonable,
but should there be a question, when was the last time that, say, the United States or the territory
that the US now covers was a homogeneous society?
Before the US engulfed Spanish peoples? Before the US engulfed African peoples? Before the
US engulfed Indian peoples? When did the Irish, just to think of a random nationality, ruin "our"
homogeneity?
I could continue, but how much of a point is there in being reasonable?
The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically
a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans
to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm ....
ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's
group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them.
It is like using the internet to think you are "edgy". Some dudes like psuedo-science scam
artist Mike Adams are uncovering secrets to this witty viewer............then you wonder why society
is degenerating. What should happen with Mike Adams is, he should be beaten up and castrated.
My guess he would talk then. Boy would his idiot followers get a surprise and that surprise would
have results other than "poor mikey, he was robbed".
This explains why guys like Trump get delegates. Not because he uses illegal immigrants in
his old businesses, not because of some flat real wages going over 40 years, not because he is
a conman marketer.........he makes them feel safe. That is purely it. I think its pathetic, but
that is what happens in a emasculated world. Safety becomes absolute concern. "Trump makes me
feel safe".
Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel
safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has
to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do.
To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something
you should not forget.
I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do
not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose
some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people,
including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not
"free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem.
Actually, this is my first actual response to the post itself, but you were too busy being and
a*****e to notice. All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose
is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital.
This has become a popular line, and it's not exactly false. But so what if it were a "free trade"
agreement? More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have
seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and
now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we
have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition
with backward countries.
" The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. "
" ... whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central ...
"
+1
Now if we could just adopt that policy internally in the United States first we could then
(and only then) support it externally across the world.
Easy approach: (FOR THE TEN MILLIONTH TIME!) progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY,
MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of
the free market is treated: make it a felony. FYI (for those who are not aware) states can
add to federal labor protections, just not subtract.
A completely renewed, re-constituted democracy would be born.
Biggest obstacle to this being done in my (crackpot?) view: human males. Being instinctive
pack hunters, before they check out any idea they, first, check in with the pack (all those other
boys who are also checking in with the pack) -- almost automatically infer impossibility to overcome
what they see (correctly?) as wheels within wheels of inertia.
Self-fulfilling prophecy: nothing (not the most obvious, SHOULD BE easiest possible to get
support for actions) ever gets done.
I'm not the only one seeking a new path forward on trade.
by Jared Bernstein
April 11th, 2016 at 9:20 am
"...
Here's Larry's view of the way forward:
"The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project.
The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would
mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements,
whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues
related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as
much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation
through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean
an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope
desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.
Good points, all. "Bottom-up" means what I've been calling a more representative, inclusive
process. But what's this about "international harmonization?""
It's a way of saying that we need to reduce the "frictions" and thus costs between trading
partners at the level of pragmatic infrastructure, not corporate power. One way to think of
this is TFAs, not FTAs. TFAs are trade facilitation agreements, which are more about integrating
ports, rail, and paperwork than patents that protect big Pharma.
It's refreshing to see mainstreamers thinking creatively about the anger that's surfaced
around globalization. Waiting for the anger to dissipate and then reverting back to the old
trade regimes may be the preferred path for elites, but that path may well be blocked. We'd
best clear a new, wider path, one that better accommodates folks from all walks of life, both
here and abroad."
Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and
environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the
goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under
such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate
private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god
can't tolerate.
Imagine a trade deal negotiated by the AFL-CIO. Labor wins a lot and capital owners lose a little.
We can all then smile and say to the latter - go get your buddies in Congress more serious about
the compensation principle. Turn the table!
"consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity " --
"The Great Illusion" (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
)
That increased trade is a bulwark against war rears its ugly head again. The above book which
so ironically delivered the message was published in 1910.
Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either
increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick
which to believe.
Our problems began back in the 1970s when we abandoned the Bretton Woods international capital
controls and then broke the unions, cut taxes on corporations and upper income groups, and deregulated
the financial system. This eventually led a stagnation of wages in the US and an increase in the
concentration of income at the top of the income distribution throughout the world:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/Ch_1.htm
When combined with tax cuts and financial deregulation it led to increasing debt relative to
income in the importing countries that caused the financial catastrophe we went through in 2008,
the economic stagnation that followed, and the social unrest we see throughout the world today.
This, in turn, created a situation in which the full utilization of our economic resources can
only be maintained through an unsustainable increase in debt relative to income:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh3e.htm
This is what has to be overcome if we are to get out of the mess the world is in today, and
it's not going to be overcome by pretending that it's just going to go away if people can just
become educated about the benefits of trade. At least that's not the way it worked out in the
1930s: http://www.rwEconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm
"... From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. ..."
"... young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity ..."
"... In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however, the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state. ..."
"... "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the order of the day. ..."
"... While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly. The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to the top of society. ..."
"... Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, ..."
"... Engaging the Muslim World , is just out in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website. ..."
"... A version of this article was first published on Tom Dispatch . ..."
"... The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. ..."
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new
generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated
the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular protests that
shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of the reporting
on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.
Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a
single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in
a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting.
They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against
the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the
impunity
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to
Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state
that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular
protests that shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of
the reporting on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.
Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a single
stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few
hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They
have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the
resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity
of the white-collar criminals who have run riot in societies everywhere. They
are objecting to high rates of unemployment, reduced social services, blighted
futures and above all the substitution of the market for all other values as
the matrix of human ethics and life.
Pasha the Tiger
In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and
Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low
levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range
of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however,
the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton
Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an
attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state.
Neoliberals chanted the mantra that everyone would benefit if the public
sector were privatised, businesses deregulated and market mechanisms allowed
to distribute wealth. But as economist David Harvey
argues, from the beginning it was a doctrine that primarily benefited the
wealthy, its adoption allowing the top one per cent in any neoliberal society
to capture a disproportionate share of whatever wealth was generated.
In the global South, countries that gained their independence from European
colonialism after World War II tended to create large public sectors as part
of the process of industrialization. Often, living standards improved as a result,
but by the 1970s, such developing economies were generally experiencing a levelling-off
of growth. This happened just as neoliberalism became ascendant in Washington,
Paris and London as well as in Bretton Woods institutions like the International
Monetary Fund. This "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose
privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the
order of the day.
Egypt and Tunisia, to take two countries in the spotlight for sparking the
Arab Spring, were successfully pressured in the 1990s to privatise their relatively
large public sectors. Moving public resources into the private sector created
an almost endless range of opportunities for staggering levels of corruption
on the part of the ruling families of autocrats
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunis and
Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. International banks, central banks and emerging
local private banks aided and abetted their agenda.
It was not surprising then that one of the first targets of Tunisian crowds
in the course of the revolution they made last January was the
Zitouna bank, a branch of which they torched. Its owner? Sakher El Materi,
a son-in-law of President Ben Ali and the notorious owner of
Pasha, the well-fed pet tiger that prowled the grounds of one of his sumptuous
mansions. Not even the way his outfit sought legitimacy by practicing "Islamic
banking" could forestall popular rage. A 2006 State Department cable released
by WikiLeaks
observed, "One local financial expert blames the [Ben Ali] Family for chronic
banking sector woes due to the great percentage of non-performing loans issued
through crony connections, and has essentially paralysed banking authorities
from genuine recovery efforts." That is, the banks were used by the regime to
give away money to his cronies, with no expectation of repayment.
Tunisian activists similarly directed their ire at foreign banks and lenders
to which their country owes $14.4bn. Tunisians are still railing and rallying
against the repayment of all that money, some of which they believe was
borrowed profligately by the corrupt former regime and then squandered quite
privately.
Tunisians had their own one per cent, a thin commercial elite,
half of whom were related to or closely connected to President Ben Ali.
As a group, they were accused by young activists of mafia-like, predatory practices,
such as demanding pay-offs from legitimate businesses, and discouraging foreign
investment by tying it to a stupendous system of bribes. The closed, top-heavy
character of the Tunisian economic system was blamed for the bottom-heavy waves
of suffering that followed: cost of living increases that hit people on fixed
incomes or those like students and peddlers in the marginal economy especially
hard.
It was no happenstance that the young man who
immolated himself and so sparked the Tunisian rebellion was a hard-pressed
vegetable peddler. It's easy now to overlook what clearly ties the beginning
of the Arab Spring to the European Summer and the present American Fall: the
point of the Tunisian revolution was not just to gain political rights, but
to sweep away that one per cent, popularly imagined as a sort of dam against
economic opportunity.
Tahrir Square, Zuccotti Park, Rothschild Avenue
The success of the Tunisian revolution in removing the octopus-like Ben Ali
plutocracy inspired the dramatic events in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and even
Israel that are redrawing the political map of the Middle East. But the 2011
youth protest movement was hardly contained in the Middle East. Estonian-Canadian
activist Kalle Lasn and his anti-consumerist colleagues at the Vancouver-based
Adbusters Media Foundation
were inspired by the success of the revolutionaries in Tahrir Square in
deposing dictator Hosni Mubarak.
Their organisation specialises in combatting advertising culture through
spoofs and pranks. It was Adbusters magazine that sent out the call
on Twitter in the summer of 2011 for a rally at Wall Street on September 17,
with the now-famous hash tag #OccupyWallStreet. A thousand protesters gathered
on the designated date, commemorating the 2008 economic meltdown that had thrown
millions of Americans out of their jobs and their homes. Some camped out in
nearby Zuccotti Park, another unexpected global spark for protest.
The Occupy Wall Street movement has now spread throughout the United States,
sometimes in the face of serious acts of repression, as in
Oakland, California. It has followed in the spirit of the Arab and European
movements in demanding an end to special privileges for the richest one per
cent, including their ability to more or less buy the US government for purposes
of their choosing. What is often forgotten is that the Ben Alis, Mubaraks and
Gaddafis were not simply authoritarian tyrants. They were the one per
cent and the guardians of the one per cent, in their own societies - and loathed
for exactly that.
Last April, around the time that Lasn began imagining Wall Street protests,
progressive activists in Israel started planning their own movement. In July,
sales clerk and aspiring filmmaker Daphne Leef found herself
unable
to cover a sudden rent increase on her Tel Aviv apartment. So she started
a protest Facebook page similar to the ones that fuelled the Arab Spring and
moved into a tent on the posh Rothschild Avenue where she was soon joined by
hundreds of other protesting Israelis. Week by week, the demonstrations grew,
spreading to cities throughout the country and
culminating on September 3 in a massive rally, the largest in Israel's history.
Some 300,000 protesters came out in Tel Aviv, 50,000 in Jerusalem and 40,000
in Haifa. Their demands
included not just lower housing costs, but a rollback of neoliberal policies,
less regressive taxes and more progressive, direct taxation, a halt to the privatisation
of the economy, and the funding of a system of inexpensive education and child
care.
Many on the left in Israel are also
deeply troubled by the political and economic power of right-wing settlers
on the West Bank, but most decline to bring the Palestinian issue into the movement's
demands for fear of losing support among the middle class. For the same reason,
the way the Israeli movement was inspired by Tahrir Square and the Egyptian
revolution has been downplayed, although
"Walk like an Egyptian" signs - a reference both to the Cairo demonstrations
and the 1986 Bangles hit song - have been spotted on Rothschild Avenue.
Most of the Israeli activists in the coastal cities know that they are victims
of the same neoliberal order that displaces the Palestinians, punishes them
and keeps them stateless. Indeed, the Palestinians, altogether lacking a state
but at the complete mercy of various forms of international capital controlled
by elites elsewhere, are the ultimate victims of the neoliberal order. But in
order to avoid a split in the Israeli protest movement, a quiet agreement was
reached to focus on economic discontents and so avoid the divisive issue of
the much-despised West Bank settlements.
There has been little reporting in the Western press about a key source of
Israeli unease, which was palpable to me when I visited the country in May.
Even then, before the local protests had fully hit their stride, Israelis I
met were complaining about the rise to power of an Israeli one per cent. There
are now
16 billionaires in the country, who control $45bn in assets, and the current
crop of 10,153 millionaires is 20 per cent larger than it was in the previous
fiscal year. In terms of its distribution of wealth, Israel is now among the
most unequal of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development. Since the late 1980s, the average household income of families
in the bottom fifth of the population has been declining at an annual rate of
1.1 per cent. Over the same period, the average household income of families
among the richest 20 per cent went up at an annual rate of 2.4 per cent.
While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the
world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly.
The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding
principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing
Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to
the top of society.
The indignant ones
European youth were also inspired by the Tunisians and Egyptians - and by
a similar flight of wealth. I was in Barcelona on May 27, when the police attacked
demonstrators camped out at the Placa de Catalunya, provoking widespread consternation.
The government of the region is currently led by the centrist Convergence and
Union Party, a moderate proponent of Catalan nationalism. It is relatively popular
locally, and so Catalans had not expected such heavy-handed police action to
be ordered. The crackdown, however, underlined the very point of the protesters,
that the neoliberal state, whatever its political makeup, is protecting the
same set of wealthy miscreants.
Spain's "indignados" (indignant ones) got
their start in mid-May with huge protests at Madrid's Puerta del Sol Plaza
against the country's persistent 21 per cent unemployment rate (and double that
among the young). Egyptian activists in Tahrir Square
immediately sent a statement of warm support to those in the Spanish capital
(as they would months later to New York's demonstrators). Again following the
same pattern, the Spanish movement does not restrict its objections to unemployment
(and the lack of benefits attending the few new temporary or contract jobs that
do arise). Its targets are the banks, bank bailouts, financial corruption and
cuts in education and other services.
Youth activists I met in Toledo and Madrid this summer
denounced
both of the country's major parties and, indeed, the very consumer society that
emphasised wealth accumulation over community and material acquisition over
personal enrichment. In the past two months Spain's young protesters have concentrated
on demonstrating against cuts to education, with crowds of 70,000 to 90,000
coming out more than once in Madrid and tens of thousands in other cities. For
marches in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement,
hundreds of thousands reportedly took to the streets of Madrid and Barcelona,
among other cities.
The global reach and connectedness of these movements has yet to be fully
appreciated. The Madrid education protesters, for example, cited for inspiration
Chilean students who, through persistent, innovative, and large-scale demonstrations
this summer and fall, have forced that country's neoliberal government, headed
by the increasingly unpopular billionaire president Sebastian Pinera, to inject
$1.6bn in new money into education. Neither the crowds of youth in Madrid nor
those in Santiago are likely to be mollified, however, by new dorms and laboratories.
Chilean students have
already moved on from insisting on an end to an ever more expensive class-based
education system to demands that the country's lucrative copper mines be nationalised
so as to generate revenues for investment in education. In every instance, the
underlying goal of specific protests by the youthful reformists is the neoliberal
order itself.
The word "union" was little uttered in American television news coverage
of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, even though factory workers and sympathy
strikes of all sorts played a
key role in them. The right-wing press in the US actually went out of its
way to contrast Egyptian demonstrations against Mubarak with the Wisconsin rallies
of government workers against Governor Scott Walker's measure to cripple the
bargaining power of their unions.
The Egyptians, Commentary typically
wrote,
were risking their lives, while Wisconsin's union activists were taking the
day off from cushy jobs to parade around with placards, immune from being fired
for joining the rallies. The implication: the Egyptian revolution was against
tyranny, whereas already spoiled American workers were demanding further coddling.
The American right has never been interested in recognising this reality:
that forbidding unions and strikes is a form of tyranny. In fact, it wasn't
just progressive bloggers who saw a connection between Tahrir Square and Madison.
The head of the newly formed independent union federation in Egypt dispatched
an
explicit expression of solidarity to the Wisconsin workers, centering on
worker's rights.
At least,Commentary did us one favour: it clarified
why the story has been told as it has in most of the American media. If the
revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were merely about individualistic political
rights - about the holding of elections and the guarantee of due process - then
they could be depicted as largely irrelevant to politics in the US and Europe,
where such norms already prevailed.
If, however, they centered on economic rights (as they certainly did), then
clearly the discontents of North African youth when it came to plutocracy, corruption,
the curbing of workers' rights, and persistent unemployment deeply resembled
those of their American counterparts.
The global protests of 2011 have been cast in the American media largely
as an "Arab Spring" challenging local dictatorships - as though Spain, Chile
and Israel do not exist. The constant speculation by pundits and television
news anchors in the US about whether "Islam" would benefit from the Arab Spring
functioned as an Orientalist way of marking events in North Africa as alien
and vaguely menacing, but also as not germane to the day to day concerns of
working Americans. The inhabitants of Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan clearly
feel differently.
Facebook flash mobs
If we focus on economic trends, then the neoliberal state looks eerily similar,
whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, whether the government is nominally
right of centre or left of centre. As a package, deregulation, the privatisation
of public resources and firms, corruption and forms of insider trading and interference
in the ability of workers to organise or engage in collective bargaining have
allowed the top one per cent in Israel, just as in Tunisia or the US, to capture
the lion's share of profits from the growth of the last decades.
Observers were puzzled by the huge crowds that turned out in both Tunis and
Tel Aviv in 2011, especially given that economic growth in those countries had
been running at a seemingly healthy five per cent per annum. "Growth", defined
generally and without regard to its distribution, is the answer to a neoliberal
question. The question of the 99 per cent, however, is: Who is getting the increased
wealth? In both of those countries, as in the US and other neoliberal lands,
the answer is: disproportionately the one per cent.
If you were wondering why outraged young people around the globe are chanting
such similar slogans and using such similar tactics (including Facebook "flash
mobs"), it is because they have seen more clearly than their elders through
the neoliberal shell game.
Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and
the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan.
His latest book,
Engaging the Muslim World, is just out in a revised paperback edition from
Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the
Informed Comment website.
A version of this article was first published on
Tom Dispatch.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and
do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Yet another response [ to globalization] is that I term 21stcentury fascism.The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes,
this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital
and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global
working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the
South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward
mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism
and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant
workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying
ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an
idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare
and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed
even as heroic.
Notable quotes:
"... over-accumulation ..."
"... Cyclical crises ..."
"... . Structural crises ..."
"... systemic crisis ..."
"... social reproduction. ..."
"... crisis of humanity ..."
"... 1984 has arrived; ..."
"... The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. ..."
"... In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class ..."
"... It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. ..."
"... Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic. ..."
World capitalism is experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history.
Global capitalism is a qualitatively new stage in the open ended evolution of
capitalism characterised by the rise of transnational capital, a transnational
capitalist class, and a transnational state. Below, William I. Robinson argues
that the global crisis is structural and threatens to become systemic, raising
the specter of collapse and a global police state in the face of ecological
holocaust, concentration of the means of violence, displacement of billions,
limits to extensive expansion and crises of state legitimacy, and suggests that
a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward to the poor majority of
humanity is the only viable solution.
The New Global Capitalism and the 21st Century Crisis
The world capitalist system is arguably experiencing the worst crisis in
its 500 year history. World capitalism has experienced a profound restructuring
through globalisation over the past few decades and has been transformed in
ways that make it fundamentally distinct from its earlier incarnations. Similarly,
the current crisis exhibits features that set it apart from earlier crises of
the system and raise the stakes for humanity. If we are to avert disastrous
outcomes we must understand both the nature of the new global capitalism and
the nature of its crisis. Analysis of capitalist globalisation provides a template
for probing a wide range of social, political, cultural and ideological processes
in this 21st century. Following Marx, we want to focus on the internal dynamics
of capitalism to understand crisis. And following the global capitalism perspective,
we want to see how capitalism has qualitatively evolved in recent decades.
The system-wide crisis we face is not a repeat of earlier such episodes such
as that of the the 1930s or the 1970s precisely because capitalism is fundamentally
different in the 21st century. Globalisation constitutes a qualitatively new
epoch in the ongoing and open-ended evolution of world capitalism, marked by
a number of qualitative shifts in the capitalist system and by novel articulations
of social power. I highlight four aspects unique to this epoch.1
First is the rise of truly transnational capital and a new global production
and financial system into which all nations and much of humanity has been integrated,
either directly or indirectly. We have gone from a world economy, in
which countries and regions were linked to each other via trade and financial
flows in an integrated international market, to a global economy, in
which nations are linked to each more organically through the transnationalisation
of the production process, of finance, and of the circuits of capital accumulation.
No single nation-state can remain insulated from the global economy or prevent
the penetration of the social, political, and cultural superstructure of global
capitalism. Second is the rise of a Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), a
class group that has drawn in contingents from most countries around the world,
North and South, and has attempted to position itself as a global ruling class.
This TCC is the hegemonic fraction of capital on a world scale. Third
is the rise of Transnational State (TNS) apparatuses. The TNS is constituted
as a loose network made up of trans-, and supranational organisations together
with national states. It functions to organise the conditions for transnational
accumulation. The TCC attempts to organise and institutionally exercise its
class power through TNS apparatuses. Fourth are novel relations of inequality,
domination and exploitation in global society, including an increasing importance
of transnational social and class inequalities relative to North-South inequalities.
Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises
Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the "Great Recession"
of 2008 and its aftermath. Yet the causal origins of global crisis are to be
found in over-accumulation and also in contradictions of state
power, or in what Marxists call the internal contradictions of the capitalist
system. Moreover, because the system is now global, crisis in any one place
tends to represent crisis for the system as a whole. The system cannot expand
because the marginalisation of a significant portion of humanity from direct
productive participation, the downward pressure on wages and popular consumption
worldwide, and the polarisation of income, has reduced the ability of the world
market to absorb world output. At the same time, given the particular configuration
of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national
states are hard-pressed to regulate transnational circuits of accumulation and
offset the explosive contradictions built into the system.
Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic? Cyclical crises
are recurrent to capitalism about once every 10 years and involve recessions
that act as self-correcting mechanisms without any major restructuring of the
system. The recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and of 2001 were
cyclical crises. In contrast, the 2008 crisis signaled the slide into astructural
crisis. Structural crises reflect deeper contradictions that can only
be resolved by a major restructuring of the system. The structural crisis of
the 1970s was resolved through capitalist globalisation. Prior to that, the
structural crisis of the 1930s was resolved through the creation of a new model
of redistributive capitalism, and prior to that the structural crisis of the
1870s resulted in the development of corporate capitalism. A systemic crisis
involves the replacement of a system by an entirely new system or
by an outright collapse. A structural crisis opens up the possibility
for a systemic crisis. But if it actually snowballs into a systemic crisis –
in this case, if it gives way either to capitalism being superseded or to a
breakdown of global civilisation – is not predetermined and depends entirely
on the response of social and political forces to the crisis and on historical
contingencies that are not easy to forecast. This is an historic moment of extreme
uncertainty, in which collective responses from distinct social and class forces
to the crisis are in great flux.
Hence my concept of global crisis is broader than financial. There are multiple
and mutually constitutive dimensions – economic, social, political, cultural,
ideological and ecological, not to mention the existential crisis of our consciousness,
values and very being. There is a crisis of social polarisation, that is, of
social reproduction. The system cannot meet the needs or assure the
survival of millions of people, perhaps a majority of humanity. There are crises
of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and
domination. National states face spiraling crises of legitimacy as they
fail to meet the social grievances of local working and popular classes experiencing
downward mobility, unemployment, heightened insecurity and greater hardships.
The legitimacy of the system has increasingly been called into question by millions,
perhaps even billions, of people around the world, and is facing expanded counter-hegemonic
challenges. Global elites have been unable counter this erosion of the system's
authority in the face of worldwide pressures for a global moral economy. And
a canopy that envelops all these dimensions is a crisis of sustainability rooted
in an ecological holocaust that has already begun, expressed in climate change
and the impending collapse of centralised agricultural systems in several regions
of the world, among other indicators.
By a crisis of humanity I mean a crisis that is approaching systemic
proportions, threatening the ability of billions of people to survive, and raising
the specter of a collapse of world civilisation and degeneration into a new
"Dark Ages."2
Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way
as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the
known history of life on earth.
This crisis of humanity shares a
number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also several
features unique to the present:
The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction.
Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as
to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the
known history of life on earth.3 This mass extinction would
be caused not by a natural catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary
changes such as the end of an ice age but by purposive human activity. According
to leading environmental scientists there are nine "planetary boundaries"
crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans can exist,
four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental
degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and
biodiversity loss) are at "tipping points," meaning that these processes
have already crossed their planetary boundaries.
The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented,
as is the concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic
production and circulation in the hands of a very few powerful groups.
Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star wars, and so forth,
have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and sanitised
for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the
same time we have arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the
age of thought control by those who control global flows of communication,
images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is the world
of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived;
Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive
expansion. There are no longer any new territories of significance that
can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well advanced,
and the commodification of the countryside and of pre- and non-capitalist
spaces has intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces
of capital, so that intensive expansion is reaching depths never
before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or collapse. How or where
will it now expand?
There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a "planet
of slums,"4 alienated from the productive economy, thrown
into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control
and to destruction – to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion.
This includes prison-industrial and immigrant-detention complexes, omnipresent
policing, militarised gentrification, and so on;
There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and a nation-state
based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses
are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists
refer to as a "hegemon," or a leading nation-state that has enough power
and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons
of mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life
and conflict across the globe makes it hard to imagine that the system can
come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.
Global Police State
How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The
crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society.
Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in
dispute.
One is what we could call "reformism from above." This elite reformism is
aimed at stabilising the system, at saving the system from itself and from more
radical responses from below. Nonetheless, in the years following the 2008 collapse
of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling)
to prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response
is popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political
conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt.
While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very
unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges.
Yet another response is that I term 21stcentury fascism.5
The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad
strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational
capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of
the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle
layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the
specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation,
homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats,
such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century
fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy
and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture
normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination
with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.
The need for dominant groups around the world to secure widespread, organised
mass social control of the world's surplus population and rebellious forces
from below gives a powerful impulse to projects of 21st century fascism. Simply
put, the immense structural inequalities of the global political economy cannot
easily be contained through consensual mechanisms of social control. We have
been witnessing transitions from social welfare to social control states around
the world. We have entered a period of great upheavals, momentous changes and
uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is
a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority
of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which
humanity is no longer at war with itself and with nature.
About the Author
William I. Robinson is professor of sociology, global and
international studies, and Latin American studies, at the University of California-Santa
Barbara. Among his many books are Promoting Polyarchy (1996),
Transnational Conflicts (2003), A Theory of Global Capitalism
(2004), Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008),
and
Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (2014).
This
article outlines the main elements of
rupture and continuity in the global political economy since the global
economic crisis of
2008-2009. While the current calamity poses a more systemic challenge to
neoliberal
globalization than genetically similar turbulences in the
semi-periphery during the 1990s, we find that evidence for its
transformative significance remains mixed. Efforts to reform the distressed
capitalist models in the North encounter severe resistance, and the
broadened multilateralism of the G-20 is yet
to provide effective global economic governance. Overall,
neoliberal
globalization looks set to survive, but in more heterodox and
multipolar fashion. Without tighter coordination between old and emerging
powers, this new synthesis is unlikely to inspire lasting solutions to
pressing global problems such as an unsustainable international financial
architecture and the pending environmental catastrophe, and may even fail to
preserve some modest democratic and developmental gains
of the recent past.
"... I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs ..."
"... Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive. ..."
"... I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012. ..."
"... No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g. outsource Brad DeLong . ..."
"... The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world. ..."
"... In the case of Mexico, because Peña Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that? It places Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni. ..."
"... To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to live independently. ..."
"... The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back. ..."
"... The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who do you recommend they vote for? ..."
"... I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican to another. They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush. ..."
"... They've figured out that the mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud. ..."
"... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
"... Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole point is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party since Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than Bush for reasons other than race? ..."
"... Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone must play the role of outsider. ..."
"... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash
and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world
powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating
trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs
.
Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having
access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing
political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush,
Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the
point of being counterproductive.
I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear
of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication
than in 2008, even 2012.
Layman 08.04.16 at 11:59 am
Rich P: "Neoliberals often argue that people should be glad to lose employment at 50 so
that people from other countries can have higher incomes "
I doubt this most sincerely. While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't
recall any particular instance where someone made this argument.
Rich Puchalsky 08.04.16 at 12:03 pm
"I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument."
No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was
hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g.
outsource
Brad DeLong .
engels 08.04.16 at 12:25 pm
While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't recall any particular instance
where someone made this argument
Maybe this kind of thing rom Henry Farrell? (There may well be better examples.)
Is some dilution of the traditional European welfare state acceptable, if it substantially
increases the wellbeing of current outsiders (i.e. for example, by bringing Turkey into the club).
My answer is yes, if European leftwingers are to stick to their core principles on justice, fairness,
egalitarianism etc
Large numbers of low-income white southern Americans consistently vote against their
own economic interests. They vote to award tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations, to
cut unemployment benefits, to bust unions, to reward companies for outsourcing jobs, to resist
wage increases, to cut funding for health care for the poor, to cut Social Security and Medicare,
etc.
The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government
being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world.
Why might this be?
In the case of Mexico, because Peña Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that?
It places Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni.
Patrick 08.04.16 at 4:32 pm
To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them
because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by
the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people
in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because
it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to
live independently.
They see it as little different from letting your kid move back on after college and smoke
weed in your basement. They don't generally mind people being on unemployment transitionally,
but they're supposed to be a little embarrassed about it and get it over with as soon as possible.
They not only worry that increased government social spending will incentivize bad behavior, they
worry it will destroy the cultural values they see as vital to Americas past prosperity. They
tend to view claims about historic or systemic injustice necessitating collective remedy because
they view the world as one in which the vagaries of fate decree that some are born rich or poor,
and that success is in improving ones station relative to where one starts. Attempts at repairing
historical racial inequity read as cheating in that paradigm, and even as hostile since they can
easily observe white people who are just as poor or poorer than those who racial politics focuses
upon. Left wing insistence on borrowing the nastiest rhetoric of libertarians ("this guy is poor
because his ancestors couldn't get ahead because of historical racial injustice so we must help
him; your family couldn't get ahead either but that must have been your fault so you deserve it")
comes across as both antithetical to their values and as downright hostile within the values they
see around them.
All of this can be easily learned by just talking to them.
It's not a great world view. It fails to explain quite a lot. For example, they have literally
no way of explaining increased unemployment without positing either that everyone is getting too
lazy to work, or that the government screwed up the system somehow, possibly by making it too
expensive to do business in the US relative to other countries. and given their faith in the power
of hard work, they don't even blame sweatshops- they blame taxes and foreign subsidies.
I don't know exactly how to reach out to them, except that I can point to some things people
do that repulse them and say "stop doing that."
bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 5:50 pm
The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is
overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot
to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw
them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back.
The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely
middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who
do you recommend they vote for?
There is serious deficit of both trust and information among the poor. Poor whites hardly have
a monopoly; black misleadership is epidemic in our era of Cory Booker socialism.
bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 7:05 pm
Politics is founded on the complex social psychology of humans as social animals. We elevate
it from its irrational base in emotion to rationalized calculation or philosophy at our peril.
T 08.04.16 at 9:17 pm
@Layman
I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican
to another. They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush.
They've figured out that the mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud.
So, is your argument is that Trump even more racist? That kind of goes against the whole point
of the OP. Not saying that race doesn't matter. Of course it does. But Trump has a 34% advantage
in non-college educated white men. It just isn't the South. Why does it have to be just race or
just class?
Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm
"I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim, but
my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"
My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning
classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved
in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education
level rather than income.
This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to
be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition),
and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency ,
they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic
and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.
T 08.05.16 at 3:12 pm
@patrick @layman
Patrick, you're right about the Trump demographic. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole
point is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party
since Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than
Bush for reasons other than race?
Are the folks that voted for the other candidates in the primary less racist so Trump supporters
are just the most racist among Republicans? Cruz less racist? You have to explain the shift within
the Republican party because that's what happened.
Anarcissie 08.06.16 at 3:00 pm
Faustusnotes 08.06.16 at 1:50 pm @ 270 -
Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among
the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether
an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage
together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that
groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone
must play the role of outsider. While Berne's theories are a bit too nifty for me to love
them, I have observed a lot of the behaviors he predicts. If one wanted to be sociobiological,
it is not hard to hypothesize evolutionary pressures which could lead to this sort of behavior
being genetically programmed. If a group of humans, a notably combative primate, does not have
strong social cohesion, the war of all against all ensues and everybody dies. Common affections
alone do not seem to provide enough cohesion.
In an earlier but related theory, in the United States, immigrants from diverse European communities
which fought each other for centuries in Europe arrived and managed to now get along because they
had a major Other, the Negro, against whom to define themselves (as the White Race) and thus to
cohere sufficiently to get on with business. The Negro had the additional advantage of being at
first a powerless slave and later, although theoretically freed, was legally, politically, and
economically disabled - an outsider who could not fight back very effectively, nor run away. Even
so, the US almost split apart and there continue to be important class, ethnic, religious, and
regional conflicts. You can see how these two theories resonate.
It may be that we can't have communities without this dark side, although we might be able
to mitigate some of its destructive effects.
bruce wilde r 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm
I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an
organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.
Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to
serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)
Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy
like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz
status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus a component
of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master class. The business
end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities: slaves, sharecroppers,
poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled communities, predatory
institutions and authoritarian governments.
For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity
was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community,
but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of
social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.
engels 08.07.16 at 1:02 am
But how did that slavery happen
Possible short answer: the level of technological development made slavery an efficient way
of exploiting labour. At a certain point those conditions changed and slavery became a drag on
further development and it was abolished, along with much of the racist ideology that legitimated
it.
Lupita 08.07.16 at 3:40 am
But how did that slavery happen
In Mesoamerica, all the natives were enslaved because they were conquered by the Spaniards.
Then, Fray Bartolomé de las Casas successfully argued before the Crown that the natives had souls
and, therefore, should be Christianized rather than enslaved. As Bruce Wilder states, this did
not serve the interests of the slaveholding elite, so the African slave trade began and there
was no Fray Bartolomé to argue their case.
It is interesting that while natives were enslaved, the Aztec aristocracy was shipped to Spain
to be presented in court and study Latin. This would not have happened if the Mesoamericans were
considered inferior (soulless) as a race. Furthermore, the Spaniards needed the local elite to
help them out with their empire and the Aztecs were used to slavery and worse. This whole story
can be understood without recurring to racism. The logic of empire suffices.
"... Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post ..."
As the White House prepares for its final "
all-out push " to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the upcoming
lame-duck session of Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle
are being made vulnerable due to growing opposition to the controversial, corporate-friendly
trade deal.
"[I]n 2016," the Guardian
reported on Saturday, "America's faltering faith in free trade has become
the most sensitive controversy in D.C."
Yet President Barack Obama "has refused to give up," wrote Guardian
journalists Dan Roberts and Ryan Felton, despite the fact that the 12-nation
TPP "suddenly faces a wall of political opposition among lawmakers who had,
not long ago, nearly set the giant deal in stone."
... ... ...
Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with
Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal,"
as the Washington Post
reported Thursday, but once-supportive Dems are also poised to jump ship.
To that end, in a column this week, Campaign for America's Future blogger
Dave Johnson
listed for readers "28 House Democrat targets...who-in spite of opposition
from most Democrats and hundreds of labor, consumer, LGBT, health, human rights,
faith, democracy and other civil organizations-voted for the 'fast-track' trade
promotion authority (TPA) bill that 'greased the skids' for the TPP by setting
up rigged rules that will help TPP pass."
Of the list that includes Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Jared Polis
(Colo.), and Ron Kind (Wis.), Johnson wrote: "Let's get them on the record before
the election about whether they will vote for TPP after the election."
"You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58% of your youth is unemployed.
What the hell do you have to lose" by voting for Trump? the candidate asked. "At the end of four
years, I guarantee I will get over 95% of the African American vote."
The statement – highly unlikely given how poorly Republicans fare among black voters – continues
a theme the GOP presidential nominee has pounded this week as he courted African American voters.
He said Democrats take black voters for granted and have ignored their needs while governing cities
with large African American populations.
"America must reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton, who sees communities of color only as votes,
not as human beings worthy of a better future," he said of his Democratic opponent.
... ... ...
Trump argued that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's policies on issues such as
immigration and refugee resettlement harm African Americans.
=== quote ===
It has recently become commonplace to argue that globalization can leave people behind, and that
this can have severe political consequences. Since 23 June, this has even become conventional
wisdom. While I welcome this belated acceptance of the blindingly obvious, I can't but help feeling
a little frustrated, since this has been self-evident for many years now. What we are seeing,
in part, is what happens to conventional wisdom when, all of a sudden, it finds that it can no
longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a long time.
=== end of quote ==
This is not about "conventional wisdom". This is about the power of neoliberal propaganda,
the power of brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities.
And "all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had
been staring it in the face for a long time." also has nothing to do with conventional wisdom.
This is about the crisis of neoliberal ideology and especially Trotskyism part of it (neoliberalism
can be viewed as Trotskyism for the rich). The following integral elements of this ideology no
longer work well and are starting to cause the backlash:
1. High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity).
"Greed is good" or "Trickle down economics" -- redistribution of wealth up will create (via higher
productivity) enough scrapes for the lower classes, lifting all boats.
2. "Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific
market. Human beings also are viewed as market actors with every field of activity seen as a specialized
market. Every entity (public or private, person, business, state) should be governed as a firm.
"Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating, or exercising-in
market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices."
People are just " human capital" who must constantly tend to their own present and future market
value.
3. Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" (under neoliberalism
everything is a marketable good, that is traded on explicit or implicit exchanges.
4. The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war for permanent
peace" -- wars for enlarging global neoliberal empire via crushing non-compliant regimes either
via color revolutions or via open military intervention.
5. Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of citizens
(moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1% or "Masters
of the Universe") being above the law like the top level of "nomenklatura" was in the USSR.
6. "Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making transnational
corporations the key political players, "the deciders" as W aptly said. Who decide about level
of immigration flows, minimal wages, tariffs, and other matters that previously were prerogative
of the state.
So after 36 (or more) years of dominance (which started with triumphal march of neoliberalism
in early 90th) the ideology entered "zombie state". That does not make it less dangerous but its
power over minds of the population started to evaporate. Far right ideologies now are filling
the vacuum, as with the discreditation of socialist ideology and decimation of "enlightened corporatism"
of the New Deal in the USA there is no other viable alternatives.
The same happened in late 1960th with the Communist ideology. It took 20 years for the USSR
to crash after that with the resulting splash of nationalism (which was the force that blow up
the USSR) and far right ideologies.
It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal US elite will fare better then Soviet nomenklatura
as challenges facing the USA are now far greater then challenges which the USSR faced at the time.
Among them is oil depletion which might be the final nail into the coffin of neoliberalism and,
specifically, the neoliberal globalization.
"... As the de facto test subjects for the inexorable media-fueled march of this ubiquitous global model, disparate groups worldwide have become the unwitting faces of revolt against inevitability. Anonymized behind the august facades of global financial institutions, neoliberal capitalism under TINA has produced political rage, confusion, panic and a worldwide search for scapegoats and alternatives across the political spectrum. ..."
"... McWorld cuts its destructive path under a self-promoting presumption of historic inevitability, because after more than four decades of the TINA narrative, the underlying rationale of market predestination is no longer economic. It is theological. ..."
"... Descriptions such as "free-market fundamentalism" and "market orthodoxy" are not mere figures of speech. They point to a deeper, technologically powered religious metamorphosis of capitalism that needs to be understood before a meaningful political response can be mounted. One does not have to be Christian, nor Catholic, to appreciate Pope Francis' warnings against the danger to Christian values from "a deified market" with its "globalization of indifference." The pope is explicitly acknowledging a new theology of capital whose core ethos runs counter to the values of both classical and religious humanism. ..."
"... Under the radically altered metaphysics of theologized capitalism, market outcomes are sacred and inevitable. Conversely, humanity and the natural world have been desacralized and defined as malleable forms of expendable and theoretically inexhaustible capital. Even life-sustaining ecosystems and individual human subjectivity are subsumed under a market rubric touted as historically preordained. ..."
"... Economic historian Karl Polanyi warned in 1944 that a false utopian belief in the ability of unfettered markets to produce naturally balanced outcomes would produce instead a dystopian "stark utopia." Today's political chaos represents a spontaneous and uncoordinated eruption of resistance against this encroaching sense of inevitable dystopianism. As Barber noted, what he refers to as "Jihad" is not a strictly Islamic phenomenon. It is localism, tribalism, particularism or sometimes classical republicanism taking a stand, often violently, acting as de facto social and political antibodies against the viral contagions of McWorld. ..."
"... The historically ordained march of theologized neoliberal capitalism depends for its continuation on a belief by individuals that they are powerless against putatively inevitable forces of market-driven globalization. ..."
"... One lesson nonetheless seems clear. The "power of the powerless" has been awakened globally. Whether this awakening will spark a movement towards equitable, ecologically sustainable democratic self-governance is an open question. ..."
In the wake of the June 23 Brexit vote, global media have bristled with headlines
declaring the Leave victory to be the latest sign of a historic
rejection of "globalization" by working-class voters on both sides of the
Atlantic. While there is an element of truth in this analysis, it misses the
deeper historical currents coursing beneath the dramatic headlines. If our politics
seem disordered at the moment, the blame lies not with globalization alone but
with the "There Is No Alternative" (TINA) philosophy of neoliberal market inevitability
that has driven it for nearly four decades.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher introduced the TINA acronym to the
world in a 1980 policy speech that proclaimed
"There Is No Alternative" to a global neoliberal capitalist order. Thatcher's
vision for this new order was predicated on the market-as-god economic philosophy
she had distilled from the work of
Austrian School economists such as Friedrich Hayek and her own fundamentalist
Christian worldview. Western political life today has devolved into a series
of increasingly desperate and inchoate reactions against a sense of fatal historical
entrapment originally encoded in Thatcher's TINA credo of capitalist inevitability.
If this historical undercurrent is ignored, populist revolt will not produce
much-needed democratic reform. It will instead be exploited by fascistic nationalist
demagogues and turned into a dangerous search for political scapegoats.
The Rebellion Against Inevitability
Thatcher's formulation of neoliberal inevitability manifested itself in a
de facto policy cocktail of public sector budget cuts, privatization, financial
deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, globalization of capital flows and militarization
that were the hallmarks of her administration and a
template for the future of the world's developed economies. After the 1991
collapse of the Soviet Union, whose coercive state socialism represented capitalism's
last great power alternative, the underlying philosophy of economic inevitability
that informed TINA seemed like a prescient divination of cosmic design, with
giddy neoconservatives declaring the "end of history" and the triumph of
putatively democratic capitalism over all other historical alternatives.
Nearly four decades later, with neoliberalism having swept the globe in triumph
through a mix of technological innovation, exploitative financial engineering
and brute force, eclipsing its tenuous democratic underpinnings in the process,
disgraced British Prime Minister David Cameron maintained his devotion to TINA
right up to the moment of Brexit. In a 2013 speech delivered as his government
was preparing a
budget that proposed 40 percent cuts in social welfare spending , sweeping
privatization, wider war in Central Asia and continued austerity, he lamented
that "If there was another way, I would take it.
But there
is no alternative." Although they may want a change of makeup or clothes,
every G7 head of state heeds TINA's siren song of market inevitability.
As the de facto test subjects for the inexorable media-fueled march of
this ubiquitous global model, disparate groups worldwide have become the unwitting
faces of revolt against inevitability. Anonymized behind the august facades
of global financial institutions, neoliberal capitalism under TINA has produced
political rage, confusion, panic and a worldwide search for scapegoats and alternatives
across the political spectrum.
The members of ISIS have rejected the highest ideals of Islam in their search
for an alternative. Environmental activists attempt to counter the end-of-history
narrative at the heart of TINA with the scientific inevitability of global climate-induced
ecological catastrophe. Donald Trump offers a racial or foreign scapegoat for
every social and economic malady created by TINA, much like the far-right nationalist
parties emerging across Europe, while Bernie Sanders focuses on billionaires
and Wall Street. Leftist movements such as Podemos in Spain or Syriza in Greece
also embody attempted declarations of revolt against the narrative of inevitability,
as do the angry votes for Brexit in England and Wales.
Without judging or implying equality in the value of these varied expressions
of resistance, except to denounce the murderous ethos of ISIS and any other
call to violence or racism, it is clear that each offers seeming alternatives
to TINA's suffocating inevitability, and each attracts its own angry audience.
"Jihad" vs. "McWorld" and the New Theology of Capital
Benjamin Barber's 1992 essay and subsequent book, Jihad vs. McWorld
, is a better guide to the current politics of rage than the daily news
media. Barber describes a historic post-Soviet clash between the identity politics
of tribalism ("Jihad") and the forced financial and cultural integration of
corporate globalism ("McWorld").
McWorld is the financially integrated and omnipresent transnational order
of wired capitalism that has anointed itself the historic guardian of Western
civilization. It is viciously undemocratic in its pursuit of unrestricted profits
and violently punitive in response to any hint of economic apostasy. (See
Greece .) This new economic order offers the illusion of modernity with
its globally wired infrastructure and endless stream of consumerist spectacles,
but beneath the high-tech sheen, it is
spiritually empty , predicated on
permanent war ,
global poverty and is
destroying the biosphere .
McWorld cuts its destructive path under a self-promoting presumption
of historic inevitability, because after more than four decades of the TINA
narrative, the underlying rationale of market predestination is no longer economic.
It is theological. A historic transformation of market-based economic ideology
into theology underpins modern capitalism's instrumentalized view of human nature
and nature itself.
Descriptions such as
"free-market fundamentalism" and "market orthodoxy" are not mere figures
of speech. They point to a deeper, technologically powered religious metamorphosis
of capitalism that needs to be understood before a meaningful political response
can be mounted. One does not have to be Christian, nor Catholic, to appreciate
Pope Francis' warnings against the danger to Christian values from "a deified
market" with its "globalization of indifference." The pope is explicitly acknowledging
a new theology of capital whose core ethos runs counter to the values of both
classical and religious humanism.
Under the radically altered metaphysics of theologized capitalism, market
outcomes are sacred and inevitable. Conversely, humanity and the natural world
have been desacralized and defined as malleable forms of expendable and theoretically
inexhaustible capital. Even life-sustaining ecosystems and individual human
subjectivity are subsumed under a market rubric touted as historically preordained.
This is a crucial difference between capitalism today and capitalism even
50 years ago that is not only theological but apocalyptic in its refusal to
acknowledge limits. It has produced a global, social and economic order that
is increasingly feudal, while also connected via digital technologies.
Economic historian
Karl Polanyi warned in 1944 that a false utopian belief in the ability of
unfettered markets to produce naturally balanced outcomes would produce instead
a dystopian "stark utopia." Today's political chaos represents a spontaneous
and uncoordinated eruption of resistance against this encroaching sense of inevitable
dystopianism. As Barber noted, what he refers to as "Jihad" is not a strictly
Islamic phenomenon. It is localism, tribalism, particularism or sometimes classical
republicanism taking a stand, often violently, acting as de facto social and
political antibodies against the viral contagions of McWorld.
Pessimistic Optimism
The historically ordained march of theologized neoliberal capitalism
depends for its continuation on a belief by individuals that they are powerless
against putatively inevitable forces of market-driven globalization. It
is too early to know where the widely divergent outbreaks of resistance on display
in 2016 will lead, not least because they are uncoordinated, often self-contradictory
or profoundly undemocratic, and are arising in a maelstrom of confusion about
core causation.
One lesson nonetheless seems clear. The
"power of the powerless" has been awakened globally. Whether this awakening
will spark a movement towards equitable, ecologically sustainable democratic
self-governance is an open question. Many of today's leading political
theorists caution against an
outdated Enlightenment belief in progress and extol the
virtues of philosophic pessimism as a hedge against historically groundless
optimism. Amid today's fevered populist excitements triggered by a failure of
utopian faith in market inevitability, such cautionary thinking seems like sound
political advice. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without
permission .
Michael Meurer is the founder of Meurer Education, a project offering classes
on the US political system in Latin American universities while partnering with
local education micro-projects to assist them with publicity and funding. Michael
is also president of Meurer Group & Associates, a strategic consultancy with
offices in Los Angeles and Denver.
"... It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions. ..."
"... If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth. ..."
"... Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution. ..."
"... It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. ..."
"... he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed. ..."
"... What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success. ..."
= = = I am actually honestly suggesting an intellectual exercise which, I think, might
be worth your (extremely valuable) time. I propose you rewrite this post without using the
word "neoliberalism" (or a synonym). = = =
It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold
on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all
the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the
performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures
thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version
of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions.
bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 7:47 pm
In the politics of antonyms, I suppose we are always going get ourselves confused.
Perhaps because of American usage of the root, liberal, to mean the mildly social democratic
New Deal liberal Democrat, with its traces of American Populism and American Progressivism, we
seem to want "liberal" to designate an ideology of the left, or at least, the centre-left. Maybe,
it is the tendency of historical liberals to embrace idealistic high principles in their contest
with reactionary claims for hereditary aristocracy and arbitrary authority.
If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary",
the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the
existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles,
and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise
their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place
their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth.
All of that is by way of preface to a thumbnail history of modern political ideology different
from the one presented by Will G-R.
Modern political ideology is a by-product of the Enlightenment and the resulting imperative
to find a basis and purpose for political Authority in Reason, and apply Reason to the design
of political and social institutions.
Liberalism doesn't so much defeat conservatism as invent conservatism as an alternative to
purely reactionary politics. The notion of an "inevitable progress" allows liberals to reconcile
both themselves and their reactionary opponents to practical reality with incremental reform.
Political paranoia and rhetoric are turned toward thinking about constitutional design.
Mobilizing mass support and channeling popular discontents is a source of deep ambivalence
and risk for liberals and liberalism. Popular democracy can quickly become noisy and vulgar, the
proliferation of ideas and conflicting interests paralyzing. Inventing a conservatism that competes
with the liberals, but also mobilizes mass support and channels popular discontent, puts bounds
on "normal" politics.
Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives
can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal
constitution.
I would put the challenges to liberalism from the left and right well behind in precedence
the critical failures and near-failures of liberalism in actual governance.
Liberalism failed abjectly to bring about a constitutional monarchy in France during the first
decade of the French Revolution, or a functioning deliberative assembly or religious toleration
or even to resolve the problems of state finance and legal administration that destroyed the ancient
regime. In the end, the solution was found in Napoleon Bonaparte, a precedent that would arguably
inspire the fascism of dictators and vulgar nationalism, beginning with Napoleon's nephew fifty
years later.
It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject
failures of Liberalism that created fascism. And, this was especially true in the wake of
World War I, which many have argued persuasively was Liberalism's greatest and most catastrophic
failure. T he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order,
Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments
and politics in the crisis that followed.
If liberals invented conservatism, it seems to me that would-be socialists were at pains to
re-invent liberalism, and they did it several times going in radically different directions, but
always from a base in the basic liberal idea of rationalizing authority. A significant thread
in socialism adopted incremental progress and socialist ideas became liberal and conservative
means for taming popular discontent in an increasingly urban society.
Where and when liberalism actually was triumphant, both the range of liberal views and the
range of interests presenting a liberal front became too broad for a stable politics. Think about
the Liberal Party landslide of 1906, which eventually gave rise to the Labour Party in its role
of Left Party in the British two-party system. Or FDR's landslide in 1936, which played a pivotal
role in the march of the Southern Democrats to the Right. Or the emergence of the Liberal Consensus
in American politics in the late 1950s.
What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success.
It is almost a rote reaction to talk about the Republican's Southern Strategy, but they didn't
invent the crime wave that enveloped the country in the late 1960s or the riots that followed
the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.
Will G-R's "As soon [as] liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have . . .overcome the
socialist and fascist challenges [liberals] are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response
to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare
state, hello neoliberalism" doesn't seem to me to concede enough to Clinton and Blair entrepreneurially
inventing a popular politics in response to Reagan and Thatcher, after the actual failures
of an older model of social democratic programs and populist politics on its behalf.
I write more about this
over at
my blog (in a somewhat different context).
John Quiggin 09.04.16 at 6:57 am
RW @113 I wrote a whole book using "market liberalism" instead of "neoliberalism", since I wanted
a term more neutral and less pejorative. So, going back to "neoliberalism" was something I did
advisedly. You say
The word is abstract and has completely different meanings west and east of the Atlantic. In
the USA it refers to weak tea center leftisms. In Europe to hard core liberalism.
Well, yes. That's precisely why I've used the term, introduced the hard/soft distinction and explained
the history. The core point is that, despite their differences soft (US meaning) and hard (European
meaning) neoliberalism share crucial aspects of their history, theoretical foundations and policy
implications.
=== quote ===
Neoliberalism is an ideology of market fundamentalism based on deception that promotes "markets"
as a universal solution for all human problems in order to hide establishment of neo-fascist regime
(pioneered by Pinochet in Chile), where militarized government functions are limited to external
aggression and suppression of population within the country (often via establishing National Security
State using "terrorists" threat) and corporations are the only "first class" political players.
Like in classic corporatism, corporations are above the law and can rule the country as they see
fit, using political parties for the legitimatization of the regime.
The key difference with classic fascism is that instead of political dominance of the corporations
of particular nation, those corporations are now transnational and states, including the USA are
just enforcers of the will of transnational corporations on the population. Economic or "soft"
methods of enforcement such as debt slavery and control of employment are preferred to brute force
enforcement. At the same time police is militarized and due to technological achievements the
level of surveillance surpasses the level achieved in Eastern Germany.
Like with bolshevism in the USSR before, high, almost always hysterical, level of neoliberal
propaganda and scapegoating of "enemies" as well as the concept of "permanent war for permanent
peace" are used to suppress the protest against the wealth redistribution up (which is the key
principle of neoliberalism) and to decimate organized labor.
Multiple definitions of neoliberalism were proposed. Three major attempts to define this social
system were made:
Definitions stemming from the concept of "casino capitalism"
Definitions stemming from the concept of Washington consensus
Definitions stemming from the idea that Neoliberalism is Trotskyism for the rich. This
idea has two major variations:
Definitions stemming from Professor Wendy Brown's concept of Neoliberal rationality
which developed the concept of Inverted Totalitarism of Sheldon Wolin
Definitions stemming Professor Sheldon Wolin's older concept of Inverted Totalitarism
- "the heavy statism forging the novel fusions of economic with political power that he
took to be poisoning democracy at its root." (Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism
Common Dreams )
The first two are the most popular.
likbez 09.04.16 at 5:03 pm
bruce,
@117
Thanks for your post. It contains several important ideas:
"It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures
of Liberalism that created fascism."
"What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success."
Moreover as Will G-R noted:
"neoliberalism will be every bit the wellspring of fascism that old-school liberalism was."
Failure of neoliberalism revives neofascist, far right movements. That's what the rise of far
right movements in Europe now demonstrates pretty vividly.
Clinton betrayal and sell out of Democratic Party to Wall Street was actually a phenomenon affecting
other similar parties, especially in Europe. And not only in Great Britain, where Tony Bliar was a real
copycat.
Notable quotes:
"... Ideology or political philosophy may matter to the skilled politician, but it matters less as a matter of conviction than as the précis of a novel's plot. It is like a key they use to encode rhetorical poses for the occasion, to signal that they understand the concerns of whatever group they are speaking to. ..."
"... It is one of the odd (to me) features of political attitude formation that so many people have amnesia where there should be some basic appreciation for what politics, at base, is about. (Politics is about who gets what, when, how, in Harold Lasswell's immortal title.) ..."
"... Neoliberalism is possibly the most important set of political phenomena -- certainly the most consequential -- in our generation's experience of political ideas and movements, and yet a common impulse is to deny it is exists or labels anything more meaningful than a catch-all "don't like it". ..."
"... I do think think there's something to the contention that a political re-alignment is underway and the iron hold that neoliberalism has on the Media discourse is rusting. Rusting or not, the structures of propaganda and manipulation remain highly centralized, so even if the rhetorical tropes lose their meaning and emotional resonance, it isn't clear that the structures of authority won't continue, their legitimacy torn and tattered but not displaced. Because there's no replacement candidate, yet. ..."
"... I agree, of course, that Marxism is obsolete. But, it does furnish a model of what an ideology can do to explain political economy and its possibilities, providing a rally point and a confession of faith. The contrast to our present common outlook highlights that several things are clearly missing for us now: one is economic class antagonism, the idea that the rich are the enemy, that rich people make themselves rich by preying on the society, and that fundamental, structural remedies are available thru politics. ..."
"... I do think there's a reservoir of inchoate anger about elite betrayal and malfeasance. The irony of being presented the choice of Trump and Clinton as a remedy is apparently not fully appreciated by our commenters, let alone the irony of rummaging the attic and bringing down Sanders, like he was a suit of retro clothes last worn by one's grandfather. ..."
"... Above, Layman reminds us that George W Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative. Quite a few adults voted for him I understand. Supposedly quite a few did so thinking that dry drunk would be a good fellow to have a beer with. Because . . . I guess some pundits thought to tell them that that is what politics is about, having a guy in the most powerful office in the federal government that you identify with - a guy who cuts brush at his ranch with a chainsaw. ..."
F Foundling @ 605: The 'self' one can rely on is mostly features of temperament and style,
not policy. The 'brand' is also to a large extent about style, not substance, and it is subject
to change, too.
The handful of politicians I have known personally have had fewer and lighter personal commitments
to political policy preferences, than most, say, news junkies. They are trying to get political
power, which rests at the nexus of conflicting forces. They have to put themselves at the crossroads,
so to speak, and - maybe this is one of the paradoxes of power -- if they are to exercise power
from being at a nexus, they have to be available to be used; they have to be open to persuasion,
if they are to persuade.
Ideology or political philosophy may matter to the skilled politician, but it matters less
as a matter of conviction than as the précis of a novel's plot. It is like a key they use to encode
rhetorical poses for the occasion, to signal that they understand the concerns of whatever group
they are speaking to.
T: If inequality remains the same or increases and growth remains low (and I believe they
are very much linked) there will be new challengers from both the right and left and one of them
will win. It did take a good 70 yrs to vanquish the robber barons.
If there's a perennial lodestar for politics, it is this: the distribution of income, wealth
and power. Follow the money is a good way to make sense of any criminal enterprise.
F. Foundling: For decades already, so-called centre-left parties all over the world (can't
vouch for *every* country) have been engaged to varying extents in deregulation, privatisation,
welfare state reduction, TTIP-style neoliberal globalism and now, most recently, austerity (not
to mention a slavish pro-US foreign policy).
Yes.
It is one of the odd (to me) features of political attitude formation that so many people have
amnesia where there should be some basic appreciation for what politics, at base, is about. (Politics
is about who gets what, when, how, in Harold Lasswell's immortal title.)
I suspect that William the Conqueror had scarcely summered twice in England before someone
was explaining to the peasantry that he was building those castles to protect the people.
Neoliberalism is possibly the most important set of political phenomena -- certainly the
most consequential -- in our generation's experience of political ideas and movements, and yet
a common impulse is to deny it is exists or labels anything more meaningful than a catch-all "don't
like it".
RP: A lot of what people seem to be talking about is Overton Window stuff. I'm not convinced.
I do think think there's something to the contention that a political re-alignment is underway
and the iron hold that neoliberalism has on the Media discourse is rusting. Rusting or not, the
structures of propaganda and manipulation remain highly centralized, so even if the rhetorical
tropes lose their meaning and emotional resonance, it isn't clear that the structures of authority
won't continue, their legitimacy torn and tattered but not displaced. Because there's no replacement
candidate, yet.
By replacement candidate, I mean some set of ideas about how society and political economy
can be positively structured and legitimated as functional.
I agree, of course, that Marxism is obsolete. But, it does furnish a model of what an ideology
can do to explain political economy and its possibilities, providing a rally point and a confession
of faith. The contrast to our present common outlook highlights that several things are clearly
missing for us now: one is economic class antagonism, the idea that the rich are the enemy, that
rich people make themselves rich by preying on the society, and that fundamental, structural remedies
are available thru politics.
I do think there's a reservoir of inchoate anger about elite betrayal and malfeasance. The
irony of being presented the choice of Trump and Clinton as a remedy is apparently not fully appreciated
by our commenters, let alone the irony of rummaging the attic and bringing down Sanders, like
he was a suit of retro clothes last worn by one's grandfather.
bruce wilder 08.11.16 at 10:36 pm
Lee A. Arnold: I don't think I've met anyone over the age of consent who doesn't know what
politicians are all about.
Above, Layman reminds us that George W Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative. Quite
a few adults voted for him I understand. Supposedly quite a few did so thinking that dry drunk
would be a good fellow to have a beer with. Because . . . I guess some pundits thought to tell
them that that is what politics is about, having a guy in the most powerful office in the federal
government that you identify with - a guy who cuts brush at his ranch with a chainsaw. How many
times did Maureen Dowd tell the story of dog strapped to the roof on the Romney family vacation?
In my comment, you may have read "politician" but I actually wrote, "politics". And, I did
not write that there was only inchoate anger. You added "only".
Stiglitz: AUG 5, 2016 8
Globalization and its New Discontents
NEW YORK – Fifteen years ago, I wrote a little book, entitled Globalization
and its Discontents, describing growing opposition in the developing world
to globalizing reforms. It seemed a mystery: people in developing countries
had been told that globalization would increase overall wellbeing. So why
had so many people become so hostile to it?
Now, globalization's opponents in the emerging markets and developing
countries have been joined by tens of millions in the advanced countries.
Opinion polls, including a careful study by Stanley Greenberg and his associates
for the Roosevelt Institute, show that trade is among the major sources
of discontent for a large share of Americans. Similar views are apparent
in Europe.
How can something that our political leaders – and many an economist
– said would make everyone better off be so reviled?
One answer occasionally heard from the neoliberal economists who advocated
for these policies is that people are better off. They just don't know it.
Their discontent is a matter for psychiatrists, not economists.
But income data suggest that it is the neoliberals who may benefit from
therapy. Large segments of the population in advanced countries have not
been doing well: in the US, the bottom 90% has endured income stagnation
for a third of a century. Median income for full-time male workers is actually
lower in real (inflation-adjusted) terms than it was 42 years ago. At the
bottom, real wages are comparable to their level 60 years ago.
The effects of the economic pain and dislocation that many Americans
are experiencing are even showing up in health statistics. For example,
the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, this year's Nobel laureate, have
shown that life expectancy among segments of white Americans is declining.
Things are a little better in Europe – but only a little better.
Branko Milanovic's new book Global Inequality: A New Approach for the
Age of Globalization provides some vital insights, looking at the big winners
and losers in terms of income over the two decades from 1988 to 2008. Among
the big winners were the global 1%, the world's plutocrats, but also the
middle class in newly emerging economies. Among the big losers – those who
gained little or nothing – were those at the bottom and the middle and working
classes in the advanced countries. Globalization is not the only reason,
but it is one of the reasons.
Under the assumption of perfect markets (which underlies most neoliberal
economic analyses) free trade equalizes the wages of unskilled workers around
the world. Trade in goods is a substitute for the movement of people. Importing
goods from China – goods that require a lot of unskilled workers to produce
– reduces the demand for unskilled workers in Europe and the US.
This force is so strong that if there were no transportation costs, and
if the US and Europe had no other source of competitive advantage, such
as in technology, eventually it would be as if Chinese workers continued
to migrate to the US and Europe until wage differences had been eliminated
entirely. Not surprisingly, the neoliberals never advertised this consequence
of trade liberalization, as they claimed – one could say lied – that all
would benefit.
The failure of globalization to deliver on the promises of mainstream
politicians has surely undermined trust and confidence in the "establishment."
And governments' offers of generous bailouts for the banks that had brought
on the 2008 financial crisis, while leaving ordinary citizens largely to
fend for themselves, reinforced the view that this failure was not merely
a matter of economic misjudgments.
In the US, Congressional Republicans even opposed assistance to those
who were directly hurt by globalization. More generally, neoliberals, apparently
worried about adverse incentive effects, have opposed welfare measures that
would have protected the losers.
But they can't have it both ways: if globalization is to benefit most
members of society, strong social-protection measures must be in place.
The Scandinavians figured this out long ago; it was part of the social contract
that maintained an open society – open to globalization and changes in technology.
Neoliberals elsewhere have not – and now, in elections in the US and Europe,
they are having their comeuppance.
Globalization is, of course, only one part of what is going on; technological
innovation is another part. But all of this openness and disruption were
supposed to make us richer, and the advanced countries could have introduced
policies to ensure that the gains were widely shared.
Instead, they pushed for policies that restructured markets in ways that
increased inequality and undermined overall economic performance; growth
actually slowed as the rules of the game were rewritten to advance the interests
of banks and corporations – the rich and powerful – at the expense of everyone
else. Workers' bargaining power was weakened; in the US, at least, competition
laws didn't keep up with the times; and existing laws were inadequately
enforced. Financialization continued apace and corporate governance worsened.
Now, as I point out in my recent book Rewriting the Rules of the American
Economy, the rules of the game need to be changed again – and this must
include measures to tame globalization. The two new large agreements that
President Barack Obama has been pushing – the Trans-Pacific Partnership
between the US and 11 Pacific Rim countries, and the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership between the EU and the US – are moves in the
wrong direction.
The main message of Globalization and its Discontents was that the problem
was not globalization, but how the process was being managed. Unfortunately,
the management didn't change. Fifteen years later, the new discontents have
brought that message home to the advanced economies.
I recall SCOTUS Justice R Bader Ginsburg mentioned if Trump is elected, she
might take her husband's advice that if Murica gets too crazy, retire to the civilized
New Zealand.
I thought rich/OECD nations' immigration departments do not want older immigrants, not in the
50s much less the 80ish R Bader Ginsburg.
I assume R Bader Ginsburg has at least $1M in "disposable wealth" & thus is eligible for the 1%er
(or is it 0.1%er) Transnational "Investor" visa? If I understand correctly, if you are rich, you
can "invest" & move to many nations, including Murica. I recall a clip (IIRC on PBS Newshour) where
Chinese rich were emigrating to the US by investing $800K in expensive condos a few blocks from the
Barclay's Center arena in NYC, on some program that was designed "to improve affordable housing".
I would like to better understand this 1%er Transnational "Investor" visa phenomenon, perhaps
an article exists that explains it?
Perhaps its existence is a factor in explaining how US 1% BigBiz & their owned BigPols like HClinton
& P Ryan are so callous about 99% economic issues inclding slashing the already crapified US social
insurance, whether 0bama Grand Ripoff style raising of Social Security age above 67 & Medicare above
65; or the P Ryan approach of worsening 0bama by ACA Exchange-esque SS & MC & giving an inadequate
coupon subsidy, & if you can't pay the remainder – Go Die (c) Lambert's Neoliberalism Rule.
These BigPols with a spare $1M (e.g. most of them) have the option of permanent residency in Toronto/Melbourne/etc,
a Get of of Jail, er Get out of Murica card should they need to use it, in actually Civilized nations
with actual social insurance systems.
That's pretty much every country. The rich, like their money and their
businesses, are transnational, nationalities are a fungible commodity. 10MM,
you can live in any country you like, 100MM and you are above such petty
concerns as borders at all. Those are for the miserable plebes.
"That empowerment must be both economic and political. Workers deserve
to be compensated fairly for their work, and have generous social support
programs to rely upon when economic changes that are out of their control
throw them out of work or force them to accept lower paying jobs.
We should not hesitate to ask those who have gained so much from
globalization and technological change to give something back to those
who have paid the costs of their success."
All this would have been especially great, say, forty or even thirty
years ago.
"... The case for ambitious trade deals, Dr. Prasad said, is that they allow the United States to set the rules for its dealings with other countries, and to wield greater geopolitical influence. Yet those arguments are easily overshadowed by the simple, if dubious, assertion that the losses to the American economy from these deals are greater than the benefits. ..."
When President Obama travels to North Carolina and Europe this week, he will press an argument
that could define foreign policy in the last six months of his presidency: that Americans and
Europeans must not forsake their open, interconnected societies for the nativism and nationalism
preached by Donald J. Trump or Britain's Brexiteers.
Few presidents have put more faith than Mr. Obama in the power of words to persuade audiences to
accept a complex idea, whether it is the morality of a just war or the imperfect nature of
American society. Yet countering the anti-immigration and anti-free-trade slogans in this
election year will require all of his oratorical skills.
Mr. Obama road-tested his pitch over the last two weeks in two friendly venues: Silicon Valley
and Canada. This week, he will take the case to North Carolina, a swing state that has been hard
hit by the forces of globalization, and to a NATO meeting in Poland, where the alliance members
will grapple with the effects of Britain's vote to leave the European Union, known as Brexit.
In Warsaw, Mr. Obama will sit next to Britain's lame-duck prime minister, David Cameron, whose
political career was ended by his miscalculation over holding the referendum on European Union
membership. But first, in Charlotte, N.C., he will campaign with Hillary Clinton, his former
secretary of state and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who reversed her position
on Mr. Obama's Asian trade deal, formally called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, after many in her
party turned sharply against free trade.
"President Obama has made a valiant attempt to build support for freer trade," said Eswar S.
Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "But the arguments in favor of free
trade lack rhetorical and political resonance, especially amidst a heated political campaign."
The case for ambitious trade deals, Dr. Prasad said, is that they allow the United States to
set the rules for its dealings with other countries, and to wield greater geopolitical influence.
Yet those arguments are easily overshadowed by the simple, if dubious, assertion that the losses
to the American economy from these deals are greater than the benefits.
John Quiggin (
previously ) delivers some of the most salient commentary on the Brexit
vote and how it fits in with Syriza, Podemos, Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders
(etc) as well as Trump, French neo-fascists, and other hypernationalist
movements.
The core of this analysis is that while neoliberalism(s) (Quiggin argues
that US and non-US neoliberalism are different things) has failed the majority
of the world, and while things were falling apart after the financial crisis,
the left failed to offer real alternatives. The "tribalist" movements --
Trump, Leave, Golden Dawn, etc -- are anti-neoliberal, but in the absence
of any analysis, have lashed out at immigrants (rather than bankers and
financial elites) as the responsible parties for their suffering.
The US political system gives us a choice between neoliberals who hate
brown people, women, and gay people; and neoliberals who don't. Trump offers
an anti-neoliberal choice (and so did the Leave campaign). Bernie also offered
an anti-neoliberal platform (one that didn't hate brown people, women, and
lgtbq people), but didn't carry the day -- meaning that the upcoming US
election is going to be a choice between neoliberalism (but tolerance) and
anti-neoliberalism (and bigotry). This is a dangerous situation, as the
UK has discovered.
The vote for Britain as a whole was quite close. But a closer look
reveals an even bigger win for tribalism than the aggregate results
suggest. The version of tribalism offered in the Leave campaign was
specifically English. Unsurprisingly, it did not appeal to Scottish
or Irish voters who rejected it out of hand. Looking at England alone,
however, Leave won comfortably with 53 per cent of the vote and was
supported almost everywhere outside London, a city more dependent than
any other in the world on the global financial system.
Given the framing of the campaign, the choice for the left was, even
more than usually, to pick the lesser of very different evils. Voting
for Remain involved acquiescence in austerity and an overgrown and bloated
financial system, both in the UK and Europe. The Leave campaign relied
more and more on coded, and then overt, appeals to racism and bigotry,
symbolised by the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, stabbed to death by a
neo-Nazi with ties to extreme tribalist organizations in both the UK
and US. The result was a tepid endorsement of Remain, which secured
the support of around 70 per cent of Labour voters, but did little to
shift the sentiment of the broader public.
The big problem for the tribalists is that, although their program
has now been endorsed by the voters, it does not offer a solution to
the economic decline against which most of their supporters were protesting.
Indeed, while the catastrophic scenarios pushed by the Remain campaign
are probably overblown, the process of renegotiating economic relationships
with the rest of the world will almost certainly involve a substantial
period of economic stagnation.
The terms offered by the EU for the maintenance of anything like
existing market access will almost certainly include maintenance of
the status quo on immigration. In the absence of a humiliating capitulation
by the new pro-Brexit government, that will mean that Britain (or England)
will face a long and painful process of adjustment.
Britain has voted to leave the EU. The reason? A large section of the working class, concentrated in towns and cities that have
been quietly devastated by free-market economics, decided they'd had enough.
Enough bleakness, enough ruined high streets, enough minimum wage jobs, and enough lies and fearmongering from the political class.
The issue that catalysed the vote for Brexit was the massive, unplanned migration from Europe that began after the accession of
the A8 countries and then surged again after 2008 once the Eurozone stagnated while Britain enjoyed a limp recovery.
It is no surprise to anybody who's lived their life at the street end of politics and journalism that a minority of the white
working class are racists and xenophobes. But anyone who thinks half the British population fits that description is dead
wrong.
Tens of thousands of black and Asian people will have voted for Brexit, and similar numbers of politically educated, left-leaning
workers too. Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield and Coventry - multi-ethnic university cities - they too went for Leave.
Neither the political centre or the pro-remain left was able to explain how to offset the negative economic impact of low-skilled
migration in conditions of (a) guaranteed free movement (b) permanent stagnation in Europe and (c) austerity in Britain.
Told by the government they could never control migration while inside the EU, just over 50% of the population decided controlling
migration was more important than EU membership.
So the problem for Labour is not, yet, large numbers of its own voters "deserting the party". They may still do so if Labour plays
this wrong - but even as late as the May council elections Labour's core vote held up.
Instead Labour's heartland voters simply decided to change the party's policy on migration from below, and forever, by
leaving the EU.
The party's front bench tried, late and in a muddled way, to come up with micro-economic solutions - more funds for areas where
the NHS and schools come under strain; a new directive to prevent employers shipping entire workforces from East Europe on poor terms
and conditions. And a promise to renegotiate the free movement pillar of the Lisbon Treaty in the future.
Because it was made late, and half-heartedly, this offer was barely heard. And clearly to some it did not seem plausible - given
the insistence of the Labour centre and the liberal bourgeoisie that migration is unmitigatedly good and "there's nothing you can
do about it". And also given the insistence of Jean Claude Juncker that there could be no renegotiation at all.
Ultimately, as I've written before, there is
a
strong case for "Lexit" on grounds of democracy and economic justice. But this won't be Lexit. Unless Labour can win an early
election it will be a fast-track process of Thatcherisation and the breakup of the UK.
Unlike me, however, many people who believe in Lexit were prepared to vote alongside right wing Tories to get to first base.
The task for the left in Britain now is to adapt to the new reality, and fast. The Labour right is already trying to pin the blame
on Corbyn; UKIP will make a play for Labour's voters. Most likely there'll be a second independence referendum in Scotland.
Corbyn was right to try and fight on "remain and reform" but his proposed reforms were never radical enough. He was also right
to devote energy to other issues - making the point that in or out of the EU, social justice and public services are under threat.
But the right and centre of Labour then confused voters by parading along with the Tory centrists who Corbyn had promised never to
stand on a platform with.
The Blairite Progress group is deluded if it thinks it can use this moment to launch a coup against Corbyn. The neoliberal wing
of the Labour Party needs to realise - it may take them a few days - that their time is over.
Ultimately it looks like Labour still managed to get 2/3 of its voters to voter Remain [I'll check this but that's what YouGov
said earlier]. So the major failure is Cameron's. It looks like the Tory vote broke 60/40 to Brexit.
It's possible Cameron will resign quickly. But that's not the issue. The issue is the election and what to fight for.
Labour has to start, right now, a big political reorientation. Here is my 10 point suggestion for how we on the left of Labour
go forward.
1. Accept the result. Labour will lead Britain out of EU if it wins the election.
2. Demand an election within 6–9 months: Cameron has no mandate to negotiate Brexit. The parties must be allowed to put their
respective Brexit plans to the electorate and thereafter run the negotiations. In that Labour should:
3. Fight for Britain to stay in the EEA and apply an "emergency brake" to migration under the rules of the EEA. That should be
a Labour goverment's negotiating position.
4. Labour should fight to keep all the EU's progressive laws (employment, environment, consumer protection etc) but scrap restrictions
on state aid, trade union action and nationalisation. If the EU won't allow that, then the fallback is a complete break and a bilateral
trade deal.
5. Adopt a new, progressive long-term migration policy: design a points based system designed to respond annually to demand from
employers and predicted GDP growth; make parliament responsible for setting the immigration target annually on the basis of an independent
expert report; the needs of the economy - plus the absolute duty to accept refugees fleeing war and torture - is what should set
the target, not some arbitrary ceiling. And devote massively more resources than before to meeting the stresses migration places
on local services.
6. Continue to demand Britain honours its duty to refugees to the tune of tens of thousands. Reassure existing migrant communities
in Britain that they are safe, welcome and cannot be expelled as a result of Brexit. Offer all those who've come here from Europe
under free movement rules the inalienable right to stay.
7. Relentlessly prioritise and attack the combined problems of low wages, in-work poverty and dead-beat towns.
8. Offer Scotland a radical Home Rule package, and create a federalised Labour Party structure. If, in a second referendum, Scotland
votes to leave the UK, Labour should offer a no-penalty exit process that facilitates Scotland rejoining the EU if its people wish.
In the meantime Labour should seek a formal coalition with the SNP to block a right wing Tory/UKIP government emerging from the next
election.
9. Offer the Republic of Ireland an immediate enhanced bilateral deal to keep the border open for movement and trade.
10. The strategic problem for Labour remains as before. Across Britain there have crystallised two clear kinds of radicalism:
that of the urban salariat and that of the low-paid manual working class. In Scotland those groups are aligned around left cultural
nationalism. In England and Wales, Labour can only win an election if it can attract both groups: it cannot and should not retreat
to becoming a party of the public sector workforce, the graduate and the university town. The only way Labour can unite these culturally
different groups (and geographic areas) - so clearly dramatised by the local-level results - is economic radicalism. Redistribution,
well-funded public services, a revived private sector and vibrant local democracy is a common interest across both groups.
11. If Labour in England and Wales cannot quickly rekindle its ties to the low-paid manual working class - cultural and visceral,
not just political - the situation is ripe for that group to swing to the right. This can easily be prevented but it means a clean
break with Blairism and an end to the paralysis inside the shadow cabinet.
From my social media feed it's clear a lot of young radical left people and anti-racists are despondent. It seems they equated
the EU with internationalism; they knew about and sympathised with the totally disempowered poor communities but maybe assumed it
was someone else's job to connect with them.
I am glad I voted to Remain, even though I had to grit my teeth. But I underestimated the sheer frustration: I'd heard it clearly
in the Welsh valleys, but not spotted it clearly enough in places like Barking, Kettering, Newport.
I am not despondent though. The Brexit result makes a radical left government in Britain harder to get - because it's likely Scotland
will leave, and the UK will disingegrate, and the Blairites will go off and found some kind of tribute band to neoliberalism with
the Libdems.
But if you trace this event to its root cause, it is clear: neoliberalism is broken.
There's no consent for the stagnation and austerity it has inflicted on people; there's nothing but hostility to the political
class and its fearmongering - whether that be Juncker, Cameron or the Blairites. As with Scotland, given the chance to disrupt the
institutions of neoliberal rule, people will do so and ignore the warnings of experts and the political class.
I predicted in Postcapitalism that the crackup of neoliberalism would take geo-strategic form first, economic second. This is
the first big crack.
It is, geopolitically, a victory for Putin and will weaken the West. For the centre in Europe it poses the question point blank:
will you scrap Lisbon, scrap austerity and boost economic growth or let the whole project collapse amid stagnation? I predict they
will not, and that the entire project will then collapse.
All we can do, as the left, is go on fighting for the interests of the poor, the workforce, the youth, refugees and migrants.
We have to find better institutions and better language to do it with. As in 1932, Britain has become the first country to break
with the institutional form of the global order.
If we do have a rerun of the 1930s now in Europe, we need a better left. The generation that tolerated Blairism and revelled in
meaningless centrist technocracy needs to wake up. That era is over.
"... Class, nationalist, and ethnic elements are all involved in the Brexit vote in a complex integration of protest. ..."
"... Press and media emphasize the nationalist and ethnic (immigrant-anti-immigrant) themes but generally avoid discussing or analyzing
the event from a class perspective. But that perspective is fundamental. What Brexit represents is a proxy vote against the economic
effects of Free Trade, the customs union called the European Union. Free trade deals always benefit corporations and investors. ..."
"... Free trade is not just about goods and services flows between member countries; it is even more about money and capital flows
and what is called direct investment. UK corporations benefit from the opportunity to move capital and invest in cheap labor elsewhere
in Europe, mostly the newly added members to the EU since 2000, in eastern europe. Free trade also means the unrestricted flow of labor.
Once these east european countries were added to the EU treaty, massive inflows of labor to the UK resulted. Just from Poland, more
than a million migrated to the UK alone. ..."
Class, nationalist, and ethnic elements are all involved in the Brexit vote in a complex integration of protest.
Press and media emphasize the nationalist and ethnic (immigrant-anti-immigrant) themes but generally avoid discussing or analyzing
the event from a class perspective. But that perspective is fundamental. What Brexit represents is a proxy vote against the economic
effects of Free Trade, the customs union called the European Union. Free trade deals always benefit corporations and investors.
Free trade is not just about goods and services flows between member countries; it is even more about money and capital flows
and what is called direct investment. UK corporations benefit from the opportunity to move capital and invest in cheap labor elsewhere
in Europe, mostly the newly added members to the EU since 2000, in eastern europe. Free trade also means the unrestricted flow of
labor. Once these east european countries were added to the EU treaty, massive inflows of labor to the UK resulted. Just from Poland,
more than a million migrated to the UK alone.
In the pre-2008, when economic conditions were strong and economic growth and job creation the rule, the immigration's effect
on jobs and wages of native UK workers was not a major concern. But with the crash of 2008, and, more importantly, the UK austerity
measures that followed, cutting benefits and reducing jobs and wages, the immigration effect created the perception (and some reality)
that immigrants were responsible for the reduced jobs, stagnant wages, and declining social services. Immigrant labor, of course,
is supported by business since it means availability of lower wages. But working class UK see it as directly impacting wages, jobs,
and social service benefits. THis is partly true, and partly not.
So Brexit becomes a proxy vote for all the discontent with the UK austerity, benefit cuts, poor quality job creation and wage
stagnation. But that economic condition and discontent is not just a consequence of the austerity policies of the elites. It is also
a consequence of the Free Trade effects that permit the accelerated immigration that contributes to the economic effects, and the
Free Trade that shifts UK investment and better paying manufacturing jobs elsewhere in the EU.
So Free Trade is behind the immigration and job and wage deterioration which is behind the Brexit proxy vote. The anti-immigration
sentiment and the anti-Free Trade sentiment are two sides of the same coin. That is true in the USA with the Trump candidacy, as
well as in the UK with the Brexit vote. Trump is vehemently anti-immigrant and simultaneously says he's against the US free trade
deals. This is a powerful political message that Hillary ignores at her peril. She cannot tip-toe around this issue, but she will,
required by her big corporation campaign contributors.
Another 'lesson' of the UK Brexit vote is that the discontent seething within the populations of Europe, US and Japan today is
not accurately registered by traditional polls. This is true in the US today as it was in the UK yesterday.
The Brexit vote cannot be understood without understanding its origins in three elements: the combined effects of Free Trade (the
EU), the economic crash of 2008-09, which Europe has not really recovered from having fallen into a double dip recession 2011-13
and a nearly stagnant recovery after, and the austerity measures imposed by UK elites (and in Europe) since 2013.
These developments have combined to create the economic discontent for which Brexit is the proxy. Free Trade plus Austerity plus
economic recovery only for investors, bankers, and big corporations is the formula for Brexit.
Where the Brexit vote was strongest was clearly in the midlands and central England-Wales section of the country, its working
class and industrial base. Where the vote preferred staying in the EU, was the non-working class areas of London and south England,
as well as Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scotland is dependent on oil exports to the EU and thus tightly linked to the trade. Northern
Ireland's economy is tied largely to Scotland and to the other EU economy, Ireland. So their vote was not surprising. Also the immigration
effects were far less in these regions than in the English industrial heartland.
Some would argue that the UK has recovered better than most economies since 2013. But a closer look at the elements of that recovery
shows it has been centered largely in southern England and in the London metro area. It has been based on a construction-housing
boom and the inflow of money capital from abroad, including from China investment in UK infrastructure in London and elsewhere. The
UK also struck a major deal with China to have London as the financial center for trading the Yuan currency globally. Money capital
and investment concentrated on housing-construction produced a property asset boom, which was weakening before the Brexit. It will
now collapse, I predict, by at least 20% or more. The UK's tentative recovery is thus now over, and was slipping even before the
vote.
Also frequently reported is that wages had been rising in the UK. This is an 'average' indicator, which is true. But the average
has been pulled up by the rising salaries and wages of the middle class professionals and other elements of the work force in the
London-South who had benefited by the property-construction boom of recent years. Working class areas just east of London voted strongly
for Brexit.
Another theme worth a comment is the Labor Party's leadership vote for remaining in the EU. What this represents is the further
decline of traditional social democratic parties throughout Europe. These parties in recent decades have increasingly aligned themselves
with the Neoliberal corporate offensive. That's true whether the SPD in Germany, the Socialist parties in France, Spain, Italy, Portugal,
and Greece, or elsewhere. As these parties have abdicated their traditional support for working class interests, it has opened opportunities
for other parties–both right and left–to speak to those interests. Thus we find right wing parties growing in Austria, France (which
will likely win next year's national election in France), Italy, Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Hungary and Poland's right turn should
also be viewed from this perspective. So should Podemos in Spain, Five Star movement in Italy, and the pre-August 2015 Syriza in
Greece.
Farther left more marxist-oriented socialist parties are meanwhile in disarray. In general they fail to understand the working
class rebellion against free trade element at the core of the recent Brexit vote. They are led by the capitalist media to view the
vote as an anti-immigrant, xenophobic, nationalist, right wing dominated development. So they in a number of instances recommended
staying in the EU. The justification was to protect the better EU mandated social regulations. Or they argue, incredulously, that
remaining in the free trade regime of the EU would centralize the influence of capitalist elements but that would eventually mean
a stronger working class movement as a consequence as well. It amounts to an argument to support free trade and neoliberalism in
the short run because it theoretically might lead to a stronger working class challenge to neoliberalism in the longer run. That
is intellectual and illogical nonsense, of course. Wherever the resistance to free trade exists it should be supported, since Free
Trade is a core element of Neoliberalism and its policies that have been devastating working class interests for decades now. One
cannot be 'for' Free Trade (i.e. remain in the EU) and not be for Neoliberalism at the same time–which means against working class
interests.
The bottom line is that right wing forces in both the EU and the US have locked onto the connection between free trade discontent,
immigration, and the austerity and lack of economic recovery for all since 2009. They have developed an ideological formulation that
argues immigration is the cause of the economic conditions. Mainstream capitalist parties, like the Republicans and Democrats in
the US are unable to confront this formulation which has great appeal to working class elements. They cannot confront it without
abandoning their capitalist campaign contributors or a center-piece (free trade) of their neoliberal policies. Social-Democratic
parties, aligning with their erstwhile traditional capitalist party opponents, offer no alternative. And too many farther left traditional
Marxist parties support Free Trade by hiding behind the absurd notion that a stronger, more centralized capitalist system will eventually
lead to a stronger, more centralized working class opposition.
Whatever political party formations come out of the growing rebellion against free trade, endless austerity policies, and declining
economic conditions for working class elements, they will have to reformulate the connections between immigration, free trade, and
those conditions.
Free Trade benefits corporations, investors and bankers on both sides of the 'trade' exchange. The benefits of free trade accrue
to them. For working classes, free trade means a 'leveling' of wages, jobs and benefits. It thus means workers from lower paid regions
experience a rise in wages and benefits, but those in the formerly higher paid regions experience a decline. That's what's been happening
in the UK, as well as the US and north America.
Free Trade is the 'holy grail' of mainstream economics. It assumes that free trade raises all boats. Both countries benefit. But
what that economic ideology does not go on to explain is that how does that benefit get distributed within each of the countries
involved in the free trade? Who benefits in terms of class incomes and interests? As the history of the EU and UK since 1992 shows,
bankers and big corporate exporters benefit. Workers from the poor areas get to migrate to the wealthier (US and UK) and thus benefit.
But the indigent workers in the former wealthier areas suffer a decline, a leveling. These effects have been exacerbated by the elite
policies of austerity and the free money for bankers and investors central bank policies since 2009.
So workers see their wages stagnant or decline, their social benefits cut, their jobs or higher paid jobs leave, while they see
immigrants entering and increasing competition for jobs. They hear (and often believe) that the immigrants are responsible for the
reduction of benefits and social services that are in fact caused by the associated austerity policies. They see investors, bankers,
professionals and a few fortunate 10% of their work force doing well, with incomes accelerating, while their incomes decline. In
the UK, the focus and solution is seen as exiting the EU free trade zone. In the US, however, it's not possible for a given 'state'
to leave the USA, as it is for a 'state' like the UK to leave the EU. And there are no national referenda possible constitutionally
in the US.
The solution in the US is not to build a wall to keep immigrants out, but to tear down the Free Trade wall that has been erected
by US neoliberal policies in order to keep US jobs in. Trump_vs_deep_state has come up with a reactionary solution to the free trade-immigration-economic
nexus that has significant political appeal. He proposes stopping labor flows, but proposes nothing concrete about stopping the cross-country
flows of money, capital and investment that are at the heart of free trade.
"…the term 'neoliberal' is used, outside the US, to refer to the
revival of 19th century free market ideas…"
I would disagree with this characterization, although I'm not sure if you
are making it or simply reporting it, John. The epitome of neoliberalism, in
my view, goes under the euphemism of "labour market flexibility."
Superficially this comes down to the same kind of policy prescription as
19th century
laissez faire
but with an entirely different - and
pseudo-Keynesian ("New Keynesian") - theoretical rationale. Not the Chicago
School and Mont Pelerin Society but Joseph Stiglitz, Richard Layard, Olivier
Blanchard, Lawrence Summers, Paul Krugman et al.
M… I… T… ("tee you off soon") k…e…y…
nes
("why? because
we LOVE you!") L… owe… you… S… E.
Yes, Friedman and Hayek, Thatcher and Reagan may have started the ball
rolling but it was the New Keynesians with their stinking "sticky wages"
claptrap who gave it progressive street cred. I could go on but why bother?
One of the most best stories so far, both from the perspective of the granularity of the reporting and the caliber of the writing,
is the Guardian's
'If you've got money, you vote in … if you haven't got money, you vote out' (hat tip PlutoniumKun). It gives a vivid, painful
picture of the England that has been left behind with the march of Thatcherism and neoliberalism.
From the article :
And now here we are, with that terrifying decision to leave. Most things in the political foreground are finished, aren't
they? Cameron and Osborne. The Labour party as we know it, now revealed once again as a walking ghost, whose writ no longer
reaches its supposed heartlands. Scotland – which at the time of writing had voted to stay in the EU by 62% to 38% – is already
independent in most essential political and cultural terms, and will presumably soon be decisively on its way…
Because, of course, this is about so much more than the European Union. It is about class, and inequality, and a politics
now so professionalised that it has left most people staring at the rituals of Westminster with a mixture of anger and bafflement.
Tangled up in the moment are howling political failures that only compounded that problem: Iraq, the MPs' expenses scandal,
the way that Cameron's flip from big society niceness to hard-faced austerity compounded all the cliches about people you cannot
trust, answerable only to themselves (something that applied equally to the first victims of our new politics, the Liberal
Democrats).
Most of all, Brexit is the consequence of the economic bargain struck in the early 1980s, whereby we waved goodbye to the
security and certainties of the postwar settlement, and were given instead an economic model that has just about served the
most populous parts of the country, while leaving too much of the rest to anxiously decline. Look at the map of those results,
and that huge island of "in" voting in London and the south-east; or those jaw-dropping vote-shares for remain in the centre
of the capital: 69% in Tory Kensington and Chelsea; 75% in Camden; 78% in Hackney, contrasted with comparable shares for leave
in such places as Great Yarmouth (71%), Castle Point in Essex (73%), and Redcar and Cleveland (66%). Here is a country so imbalanced
it has effectively fallen over….
What defines these furies is often clear enough: a terrible shortage of homes, an impossibly precarious job market, a too-often
overlooked sense that men (and men are particularly relevant here) who would once have been certain in their identity as miners,
or steelworkers, now feel demeaned and ignored. The attempts of mainstream politics to still the anger have probably only made
it worse: oily tributes to "hardworking families", or the the fingers-down-a-blackboard trope of "social mobility", with its
suggestion that the only thing Westminster can offer working-class people is a specious chance of not being working class anymore.
This much-watch segment with Mark Blyth (hat tip
Gabriel U) also focuses on the class warfare as a driver of the Brexit vote and how that plays into the broader EU political and
economic context:
Our Richard Smith echoed these themes from his own observations:
In (for instance) North Lincolnshire, manufacturing is most likely to be the biggest EU export. That might get nuked a bit
if the terms of trade with EU countries get stiffer.
But the locals upcountry clearly feel they have been ignored, and now have nothing to lose. M and I bumbled through Wisbech
and Boston a few years ago, expecting cute East Anglian port towns, and found instead murderously tense run-down ghettoes.
You get this kind of story:
Unless, improbably, around 700,000 such stories turn up, which would imply they swung the vote, this is another portrayal
of the "Leave" voters as idiots.
Brexit's lesson for the US - and other democracies - is that fear mongering is not enough. Western elites must build a positive
case for reforming a system that is no longer perceived to be fair. The British may well repent at leisure for a vote they
took in haste. Others can learn from its blunder.
But even this is weak tea. Luce isn't advocating a Sanders-style economic regime change. Indeed, his call for action is making
a case for reform, implying that the more realistic members of the elites need to take on the reactionary forces. As we've said,
the Clintons are modern day Bourbons: they've learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Luce's warning to Hillary Clinton, firmly
ensconced in her bubble of self-regard, deeply loyal to powerful, monied interests and technocrats, is destined to fall on deaf
ears.
"... we are now feeding the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder, once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe. ..."
"... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
"... Selected Skeptical Comments ..."
"... All problems caused by the same cause … American predatory behavior. And our great political choice … iron fist without velvet glove. ..."
"... Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind (if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe :) They all have more or less fascist governments. ..."
"... Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as a government running on behalf of the corporations). ..."
"... That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around. None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can be called fascist in any meaningful sense. ..."
"... Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly anti-corporatist. ..."
"... Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them. ..."
"... Sheldon Wolin introduced us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means. ..."
"... Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused. Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same. ..."
"... "…the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism" ..."
"... an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black; in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile. ..."
"... that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators' any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes ..."
"... Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from) the workers get the husk. ..."
"... Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am God, there doesn't need to be any other" ..."
"... Wait, you mean we don't all enjoy living in Pottersville? For anyone missing the reference, you clearly haven't been subjected to It's a Wonderful Life enough times. ..."
"... seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one considers the elitist trend…" This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities – Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators ..."
"... And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything. ..."
"... accountable ..."
"... And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final. ..."
Posted on
June 2, 2016 by Yves
Smith Yves here. The first comment came in on a post that had gone cold, and I thought it was
so revealing that it needed to be seen widely. The second is a synchronistic complement.
As much as I carry on about the isolation of the Acela-riding classes from the acute distress
in much of the US, I only have a very distant feel for it. For instance, I grew up moving through
many small towns where a paper mill was a major, and in some cases, the biggest local employer. Those
mill jobs were well paid and the workers could buy houses, cars, and had pensions. One of my brothers
works for a paper mill that should have been world competitive through his retirement, but it's been
wrecked by a series of private equity owners, starting with Cerberus, and in now in bankruptcy. The
town in which he lives, Escanaba, Michigan, has lost over 20% of its population since the mid 1980s.
Similarly, my uncle lived below the poverty line in Maine, lobstering until his knees gave out. But
he had a fully paid for house he had inherited, and access to VA hospitals and doctors, so it could
have been a lot worse. But Maine is a poor state, so even visiting there as a tourist in the summers,
it's not hard to see the signs of struggle even in those who are getting by.
The first comment gives a window into the hidden desperation in America that is showing up in
statistics like increasing opioid addiction and suicides, rather than in accounts of how and why
so many people are suffering. I hope readers will add their own observations in comments.
We recently took three months to travel the southern US from coast to coast. As an expat for
the past twenty years, beyond the eye opening experience it left us in a state of shock. From
a homeless man convulsing in the last throes of hypothermia (been there) behind a fuel station
in Houston (the couldn't care less attendant's only preoccupation getting our RV off his premises),
to the general squalor of near-homelessness such as the emergence of "American favelas" a block
away from gated communities or affluent ran areas, to transformation of RV parks into permanent
residencies for the foreclosed who have but their trailer or RV left, to social study one can
engage while queuing at the cash registers of a Walmart before beneficiaries of SNAP.
Stopping to take the time to talk and attempt to understand their predicament and their beliefs
as to the cause of their plight is a dizzying experience in and of itself. For a moment I felt
transposed to the times of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain dialectics fuzzed the perception
of that other world to the west with a structured set of beliefs designed to blacken that horizon
as well as establish a righteous belief in their own existential paradigm.
What does that have to do with education? Everything if one considers the elitist trend that
is slowly setting the framework of tomorrow's society. For years I have felt there is a silent
"un-avowed conspiracy", why the seeming redundancy, because it is empirically driven as a by-product
of capitalism's surge and like a self-redeeming discount on a store shelf crystalizes a group
identity of think-alike know-little or nothing frustrated citizens easily corralled by a Fox or
Trump piper. We have re-rcreated the conditions or rather the reality of "Poverty In America"
barely half a century after its first diagnostic with one major difference : we are now feeding
the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder,
once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe.
So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump. Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR)
was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR
missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists
are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of
gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job
security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip
and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In
Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism
(neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US
and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their
markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right
into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.
In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging.
There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent
real people in favor of useless eater rich.
Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity,
and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.
America has plenty of refugees, from Latin America …
Neo-liberal goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. We used to tame our native workers with immigrants,
and we still do, but we also tame them by globalism in trade. So many rationalizations for this,
based on political and economic propaganda. All problems caused by the same cause … American predatory
behavior. And our great political choice … iron fist without velvet glove.
Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind
(if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe
:) They all have more or less fascist governments.
Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing
to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means
that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as
a government running on behalf of the corporations).
That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around. None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can
be called fascist in any meaningful sense.
Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front
National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly
anti-corporatist.
True, I posted a few minutes ago saying roughly the same thing – but it seems to have gone
to moderation.
Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the
nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again,
contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and
Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining
about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them.
who owned the means of production (public or private entities)
who decided what those means were used for.
If it is a 'public entity' (aka government or regime) that decides what is built, we have a
totalitarian state, which can be 'communist' (if the means also belong the public entities like
the government or regional fractions of it) or 'fascist' (if the factories are still in private
hands).
If it is the private owner of the production capacity who decides what is built, you get capitalism.
I don't recall any examples of private entities deciding what to do with public means of production
(mafia perhaps).
Sheldon Wolin
introduced
us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be
done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed
to achieve their means.
When I cite Germany, it is not so much AfD, but the 2€/hour jobs I am worried about. When I
cite Belgium, it is not the fools of Vlaams Belang, but rather the un-taxing of corporations and
the tear-down of social justice that worries me.
Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused.
Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence
to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same.
Hi
I live in Europe as well, and what to think of Germany's AfD, Greece's Golden Dawn, the Wilder's
party in the Netherlands etc. Most of them subscribe to the freeloading, sorry free trading economic
policies of neoliberalism.
Searched 'current fascist movements europe' and got these active groups from wiki.
National Bolshevik Party-Belarus
Parti Communautaire National-Européen Belgium
Bulgarian National Alliance Bulgaria
Nova Hrvatska Desnica Croatia
Ustaše Croatia
National Socialist Movement of Denmark
La Cagoule France
National Democratic Party of Germany
Fascism and Freedom Movement – Italy
Fiamma Tricolore Italy
Forza Nuova Italy
Fronte Sociale Nazionale Italy
Movimento Fascismo e Libertà Italy
Pērkonkrusts Latvia
Norges Nasjonalsosialistiske Bevegelse Norway
National Radical Camp (ONR) Poland
National Revival of Poland (NOP)
Polish National Community-Polish National Party (PWN-PSN)
Noua Dreaptă Romania
Russian National Socialist Party(formerly Russian National Union)
Barkashov's Guards Russia
National Socialist Society Russia
Nacionalni stroj Serbia
Otačastveni pokret Obraz Serbia
Slovenska Pospolitost Slovakia
España 2000 Spain
Falange Española Spain
Nordic Realm Party Sweden
National Alliance Sweden
Swedish Resistance Movement Sweden
National Youth Sweden
Legion Wasa Sweden
SPAS Ukraine
Blood and Honour UK
British National Front UK
Combat 18 UK
League of St. George UK
National Socialist Movement UK
Nationalist Alliance UK
November 9th Society UK
Racial Volunteer Force UK
As one of the commenters noted, it's not an "expose" or sensational "Breaking Bad," but rather
a discouraging portrait of the conditions that prompt and sustain meth use. Apparently it's being
made into a movie. I believe Clint Eastwood is involved, so that should give it some traction.
I moved to a small city/town in Iowa almost 20 years ago. Then, it still had something of a
Norman Rockwell quality to it, particularly in a sense of egalitarianism, and also some small
factory jobs which still paid something beyond a bare existence.
Since 2000, many of those jobs have left, and the population of the county has declined by
about 10%. Kmart, Penney's, and Sears have left as payday/title loan outfits, pawnshops, smoke
shops, and used car dealers have all proliferated.
Parts of the town now resemble a combination of Appalachia and Detroit. Sanders easily won
the caucuses here and, no, his supporters were hardly the latte sippers of someone's imagination,
but blue collar folks of all ages.
My tale is similar to yours. About 2 years ago, I accepted a transfer from Chicagoland to north
central Wisconsin. JC Penney left a year and a half ago, and Sears is leaving in about 3-4 months.
Kmart is long gone.
I was back at the old homestead over Memorial Day, and it's as if time has stood still. Home
prices still going up; people out for dinner like crazy; new & expensive automobiles everywhere.
But driving out of Chicagoland, and back through rural Wisconsin it is unmistakeable.
2 things that are new: The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner
said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. (Yes,
that means there is only enough money to resurface all the county roads if spread out over 200
years.) 2nd, there are dead deer everywhere on the side of the road. In years past, they were
promptly cleaned up by the highway department. Not any more. Gross, but somebody has to do the
dead animal clean up. (Or not. Don't tell Snotty Walker though.)
Anyway, not everything is gloom and doom. People seem outwardly happy. But if you're paying
attention, signs of stress and deterioration are certainly out there.
Depends where you are in Chicago – in some parts the potholes, boarded up structures, homeless
and addicted folks begging on every corner tell the same story. It is a tale of two cities.
Fascism is a system of political and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy and
purity of communities in which liberal democracy stand(s) accused of producing division and decline.
. . . George Orwell reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and
time, . . . an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black;
in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia
and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile.
Robert O. Paxton,
In The Five Stages of Faschism
"… that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators'
any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes)
From the comment, I agree with the problems, not the cause. We've increased the size and scope
of the safety net over the last decade. We've increased government spending versus GDP. I'm not
blaming government but its not neoliberal/capitalist policy either.
1. Globalization clearly helps the poor in other countries at the expense of workers in the
U.S. But at the same time it brings down the cost of goods domestically. So jobs are not great
but Walmart/Amazon can sell cheap needs.
2. Inequality started rising the day after Bretton Woods – the rich got richer everyday after
"Nixon Shock"
Hi rfam : To point 1 : Why is there a need to bring down the cost of goods? Is it because of
past outsourcing and trade agreements and FR policies? I think there's a chicken and egg thing
going on, ie.. which came first. Globalization is a way to bring down wages while supplying Americans
with less and less quality goods supplied at the hand of global corporations like Walmart that
need welfare in the form of food stamps and the ACA for their workers for them to stay viable
(?).
Viable in this case means ridiculously wealthy CEO's and the conglomerate growing bigger
constantly. Now they have to get rid of COOL's because the WTO says it violates trade agreements
so we can't trace where our food comes from in case of an epidemic. It's all downhill. Wages should
have risen with costs so we could afford high quality American goods, but haven't for a long,
long time.
Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for
nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from)
the workers get the husk.
Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic
crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am
God, there doesn't need to be any other"
Amazon sells cheap stuff by cheating on taxes, and barely
makes money, mostly just driving people out of business. WalMart has cheap stuff because they
subsidise their workers with food stamps and medicaid. Bringing up bretton woods means you don't
know much about money creation, so google "randy wray/bananas/naked capitalism" and you'll find
a quick primer.
Wait, you mean we don't all enjoy living in Pottersville? For anyone missing the reference, you clearly haven't been subjected to It's a Wonderful
Life enough times.
What a comment from seanseamour. And the "hoisting" of it to high visibility at the site is
a testament to the worth of Naked Capitalism.
seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one
considers the elitist trend…" This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so
utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the
beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and
Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could
spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities –
Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators
to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.*
And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything.
But I don't want to spend all morning doing that because I'm convinced that it's not too late
for America to rescue itself from maelstrom in which it finds itself today. (Poe's "Maelstrom"
story, cherished by Marshall McLuhan, is supremely relevant today.)
To turn America around, I don't look to education – that system is too far gone to save itself,
let alone the rest of the country – but rather to the nation's media: to the all-powerful public
communication system that certainly has the interactive technical capabilities to put citizens
and governments in touch with each other on the government decisions that shape the futures of
communities large and small.
For this to happen, however, people like the us – readers of Naked Capitalism – need to stop
moaning and groaning about the damage done by the neoliberals and start building an issue-centered,
citizen-participatory, non-partisan, prime-time Civic Media strong enough to
give all Americans an informed voice in the government decisions that affect their lives. This
Civic media would exist to make citizens and governments responsive and accountable
to each other in shaping futures of all three communities – local, state and national – of
which every one of us is a member.
Pie in the sky? Not when you think hard about it. A huge majority of Americans would welcome
this Civic Media. Many yearn for it. This means that a market exists for it: a Market of the Whole
of all members of any community, local, state and national. This audience is large enough to rival
those generated by media coverage of pro sports teams, and believe it or not much of the growth
of this Civic media could be productively modeled on the growth of media coverage of pro sports
teams. This Civic Media would attract the interest of major advertisers, especially those who
see value in non-partisan programming dedicated to getting America moving forward again. Dynamic,
issue-centered, problem-solving public forums, some modeled on voter-driven reality TV contests
like The Voice or Dancing with the Stars, could be underwritten by a "rainbow" spectrum of funders,
commercial, public, personal and even government sources.
So people take hope! Be positive! Love is all we need, etc. The need for for a saving alternative
to the money-driven personality contests into which our politics has descended this election year
is literally staring us all in the face from our TV, cellphone and computer screens. This is no
time to sit back and complain, it's a time to start working to build a new way of connecting ourselves
so we can reverse America's rapid decline.
OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off
the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in
today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive,
patriotic and constructive. And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down,
too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan,
problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when
they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public
forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final.
seanseymour, thanks for your insights and thanks, Yves, for putting them where we can see them.
"... The following is a preview of a chapter by Claudia von Werlhof in "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century." (2009) ..."
"... To read more, order the book online. Help us spread the word: "like" the book on Facebook and share with your friends -- ..."
No one asks these questions because they seem absurd. Yet, no one can escape
them either. Until the onslaught of the global economic crisis, the motto of
so-called "neoliberalism" was TINA: "There Is No Alternative!"
No alternative to "neoliberal globalization"?
No alternative to the unfettered "free market" economy?
What Is "Neoliberal Globalization"?
Let us first clarify what globalization and neoliberalism are, where they
come from, who they are directed by, what they claim, what they do, why their
effects are so fatal, why they will fail and why people nonetheless cling to
them. Then, let us look at the responses of those who are not – or will not
– be able to live with the consequences they cause.
This is where the difficulties begin. For a good twenty years now we have
been told that there is no alternative to neoliberal globalization, and that,
in fact, no such alternative is needed either. Over and over again, we have
been confronted with the TINA-concept: "There Is No Alternative!" The "iron
lady", Margaret Thatcher, was one of those who reiterated this belief without
end.
The TINA-concept prohibits all thought. It follows the rationale that there
is no point in analyzing and discussing neoliberalism and so-called globalization
because they are inevitable. Whether we condone what is happening or not does
not matter, it is happening anyway. There is no point in trying to understand.
Hence: Go with it! Kill or be killed!
Some go as far as suggesting that globalization – meaning, an economic system
which developed under specific social and historical conditions – is nothing
less but a law of nature. In turn, "human nature" is supposedly reflected by
the character of the system's economic subjects: egotistical, ruthless, greedy
and cold. This, we are told, works towards everyone's benefit.
The question remains: why has Adam Smith's "invisible hand" become a "visible
fist"? While a tiny minority reaps enormous benefits from today's neoliberalism
(none of which will remain, of course), the vast majority of the earth's population
suffers hardship to the extent that their very survival is at stake. The damage
done seems irreversible.
All over the world media outlets – especially television stations – avoid
addressing the problem. A common excuse is that it cannot be explained.[1] The
true reason is, of course, the media's corporate control.
What Is Neoliberalism?
Neoliberalism as an economic policy agenda which began in Chile in 1973.
Its inauguration consisted of a U.S.-organized coup against a democratically
elected socialist president and the installment of a bloody military dictatorship
notorious for systematic torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal
model of the so-called "Chicago Boys" under the leadership of Milton Friedman
– a student of Friedrich von Hayek – into reality.
The predecessor of the neoliberal model is the economic liberalism of the
18th and 19th centuries and its notion of "free trade". Goethe's assessment
at the time was: "Free trade, piracy, war – an inseparable three!"[2]
At the center of both old and new economic liberalism lies:
Self-interest and individualism; segregation of ethical principles and economic
affairs, in other words: a process of 'de-bedding' economy from society; economic
rationality as a mere cost-benefit calculation and profit maximization; competition
as the essential driving force for growth and progress; specialization and the
replacement of a subsistence economy with profit-oriented foreign trade ('comparative
cost advantage'); and the proscription of public (state) interference with market
forces.[3]
Where the new economic liberalism outdoes the old is in its global claim.
Today's economic liberalism functions as a model for each and everyone: all
parts of the economy, all sectors of society, of life/nature itself. As a consequence,
the once "de-bedded" economy now claims to "im-bed" everything, including political
power. Furthermore, a new twisted "economic ethics" (and with it a certain idea
of "human nature") emerges that mocks everything from so-called do-gooders to
altruism to selfless help to care for others to a notion of responsibility.[4]
This goes as far as claiming that the common good depends entirely on the
uncontrolled egoism of the individual and, especially, on the prosperity of
transnational corporations. The allegedly necessary "freedom" of the economy
– which, paradoxically, only means the freedom of corporations – hence consists
of a freedom from responsibility and commitment to society.
The maximization of profit itself must occur within the shortest possible
time; this means, preferably, through speculation and "shareholder value". It
must meet as few obstacles as possible. Today, global economic interests outweigh
not only extra-economic concerns but also national economic considerations since
corporations today see themselves beyond both community and nation.[5] A "level
playing field" is created that offers the global players the best possible conditions.
This playing field knows of no legal, social, ecological, cultural or national
"barriers".[6] As a result, economic competition plays out on a market that
is free of all non-market, extra-economic or protectionist influences – unless
they serve the interests of the big players (the corporations), of course. The
corporations' interests – their maximal growth and progress – take on complete
priority. This is rationalized by alleging that their well-being means the well-being
of small enterprises and workshops as well.
The difference between the new and the old economic liberalism can first
be articulated in quantitative terms: after capitalism went through a series
of ruptures and challenges – caused by the "competing economic system", the
crisis of capitalism, post-war "Keynesianism" with its social and welfare state
tendencies, internal mass consumer demand (so-called Fordism), and the objective
of full employment in the North. The liberal economic goals of the past are
now not only euphorically resurrected but they are also "globalized". The main
reason is indeed that the competition between alternative economic systems is
gone. However, to conclude that this confirms the victory of capitalism and
the "golden West" over "dark socialism" is only one possible interpretation.
Another – opposing – interpretation is to see the "modern world system" (which
contains both capitalism and socialism) as having hit a general crisis which
causes total and merciless competition over global resources while leveling
the way for investment opportunities, i.e. the valorization of capital.[7]
The ongoing globalization of neoliberalism demonstrates which interpretation
is right. Not least, because the differences between the old and the new economic
liberalism can not only be articulated in quantitative terms but in qualitative
ones too. What we are witnessing are completely new phenomena: instead of a
democratic "complete competition" between many small enterprises enjoying the
freedom of the market, only the big corporations win. In turn, they create new
market oligopolies and monopolies of previously unknown dimensions. The market
hence only remains free for them, while it is rendered unfree for all others
who are condemned to an existence of dependency (as enforced producers, workers
and consumers) or excluded from the market altogether (if they have neither
anything to sell or buy). About fifty percent of the world's population fall
into this group today, and the percentage is rising.[8]
Anti-trust laws have lost all power since the transnational corporations
set the norms. It is the corporations – not "the market" as an anonymous mechanism
or "invisible hand" – that determine today's rules of trade, for example prices
and legal regulations. This happens outside any political control. Speculation
with an average twenty percent profit margin edges out honest producers who
become "unprofitable".[9] Money becomes too precious for comparatively non-profitable,
long-term projects,
or projects that only – how audacious! – serve a good life. Money instead
"travels upwards" and disappears. Financial capital determines more and more
what the markets are and do.[10] By delinking the dollar from the price of gold,
money creation no longer bears a direct relationship to production".[11] Moreover,
these days most of us are – exactly like all governments – in debt. It is financial
capital that has all the money – we have none.[12]
Small, medium, even some bigger enterprises are pushed out of the market,
forced to fold or swallowed by transnational corporations because their performances
are below average in comparison to speculation – rather: spookulation – wins.
The public sector, which has historically been defined as a sector of not-for-profit
economy and administration, is "slimmed" and its "profitable" parts ("gems")
handed to corporations (privatized). As a consequence, social services that
are necessary for our existence disappear. Small and medium private businesses
– which, until recently, employed eighty percent of the workforce and provided
normal working conditions – are affected by these developments as well. The
alleged correlation between economic growth and secure employment is false.
When economic growth is accompanied by the mergers of businesses, jobs are lost.[13]
If there are any new jobs, most are precarious, meaning that they are only
available temporarily and badly paid. One job is usually not enough to make
a living.[14] This means that the working conditions in the North become akin
to those in the South, and the working conditions of men akin to those of women
– a trend diametrically opposed to what we have always been told. Corporations
now leave for the South (or East) to use cheap – and particularly female – labor
without union affiliation. This has already been happening since the 1970s in
the "Export Processing Zones" (EPZs, "world market factories" or "maquiladoras"),
where most of the world's computer chips, sneakers, clothes and electronic goods
are produced.[15] The EPZs lie in areas where century-old colonial-capitalist
and authoritarian-patriarchal conditions guarantee the availability of cheap
labor.[16] The recent shift of business opportunities from consumer goods to
armaments is a particularly troubling development.[17]
It is not only commodity production that is "outsourced" and located in the
EPZs, but service industries as well. This is a result of the so-called Third
Industrial Revolution, meaning the development of new information and communication
technologies. Many jobs have disappeared entirely due to computerization, also
in administrative fields.[18] The combination of the principles of "high tech"
and "low wage"/"no wage" (always denied by "progress" enthusiasts) guarantees
a "comparative cost advantage" in foreign trade. This will eventually lead to
"Chinese wages" in the West. A potential loss of Western consumers is not seen
as a threat. A corporate economy does not care whether consumers are European,
Chinese or Indian.
The means of production become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, especially
since finance capital – rendered precarious itself – controls asset values ever
more aggressively. New forms of private property are created, not least through
the "clearance" of public property and the transformation of formerly public
and small-scale private services and industries to a corporate business sector.
This concerns primarily fields that have long been (at least partly) excluded
from the logic of profit – e.g. education, health, energy or water supply/disposal.
New forms of so-called enclosures emerge from today's total commercialization
of formerly small-scale private or public industries and services, of the "commons",
and of natural resources like oceans, rain forests, regions of genetic diversity
or geopolitical interest (e.g. potential pipeline routes), etc.[19] As far as
the new virtual spaces and communication networks go, we are witnessing frantic
efforts to bring these under private control as well.[20]
All these new forms of private property are essentially created by (more
or less) predatory forms of appropriation. In this sense, they are a continuation
of the history of so-called original accumulation which has expanded globally,
in accordance with to the motto: "Growth through expropriation!"[21]
Most people have less and less access to the means of production, and so
the dependence on scarce and underpaid work increases. The destruction of the
welfare state also destroys the notion that individuals can rely on the community
to provide for them in times of need. Our existence relies exclusively on private,
i.e. expensive, services that are often of much worse quality and much less
reliable than public services. (It is a myth that the private always outdoes
the public.) What we are experiencing is undersupply formerly only known by
the colonial South. The old claim that the South will eventually develop into
the North is proven wrong. It is the North that increasingly develops into the
South. We are witnessing the latest form of "development", namely, a world system
of underdevelopment.[22] Development and underdevelopment go hand in hand.[23]
This might even dawn on "development aid" workers soon.
It is usually women who are called upon to counterbalance underdevelopment
through increased work ("service provisions") in the household. As a result,
the workload and underpay of women takes on horrendous dimensions: they do unpaid
work inside their homes and poorly paid "housewifized" work outside.[24] Yet,
commercialization does not stop in front of the home's doors either. Even housework
becomes commercially co-opted ("new maid question"), with hardly any financial
benefits for the women who do the work.[25]
Not least because of this, women are increasingly coerced into prostitution,
one of today's biggest global industries.[26] This illustrates two things: a)
how little the "emancipation" of women actually leads to "equal terms" with
men; and b) that "capitalist development" does not imply increased "freedom"
in wage labor relations, as the Left has claimed for a long time.[27] If the
latter were the case, then neoliberalism would mean the voluntary end of capitalism
once it reaches its furthest extension. This, however, does not appear likely.
Today, hundreds of millions of quasi-slaves, more than ever before, exist
in the "world system."[28] The authoritarian model of the "Export Processing
Zones" is conquering the East and threatening the North. The redistribution
of wealth runs ever more – and with ever accelerated speed – from the bottom
to the top. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider. The
middle classes disappear. This is the situation we are facing.
It becomes obvious that neoliberalism marks not the end of colonialism but,
to the contrary, the colonization of the North. This new "colonization of the
world"[29] points back to the beginnings of the "modern world system" in the
"long 16th century", when the conquering of the Americas, their exploitation
and colonial transformation allowed for the rise and "development" of Europe.[30]
The so-called "children's diseases" of modernity keep on haunting it, even in
old age. They are, in fact, the main feature of modernity's latest stage. They
are expanding instead of disappearing.
Where there is no South, there is no North; where there is no periphery,
there is no center; where there is no colony, there is no – in any case no "Western"
– civilization.[31]
Austria is part of the world system too. It is increasingly becoming a corporate
colony (particularly of German corporations). This, however, does not keep it
from being an active colonizer itself, especially in the East.[32]
Social, cultural, traditional and ecological considerations are abandoned
and give way to a mentality of plundering. All global resources that we still
have – natural resources, forests, water, genetic pools – have turned into objects
of utilization. Rapid ecological destruction through depletion is the consequence.
If one makes more profit by cutting down trees than by planting them, then there
is no reason not to cut them.[33] Neither the public nor the state interferes,
despite global warming and the obvious fact that the clearing of the few remaining
rain forests will irreversibly destroy the earth's climate – not to mention
the many other negative effects of such actions.[34] Climate, animal, plants,
human and general ecological rights are worth nothing compared to the interests
of the corporations – no matter that the rain forest is not a renewable resource
and that the entire earth's ecosystem depends on it. If greed, and the rationalism
with which it is economically enforced, really was an inherent anthropological
trait, we would have never even reached this day.
The commander of the Space Shuttle that circled the earth in 2005 remarked
that "the center of Africa was burning". She meant the Congo, in which the last
great rain forest of the continent is located. Without it there will be no more
rain clouds above the sources of the Nile. However, it needs to disappear in
order for corporations to gain free access to the Congo's natural resources
that are the reason for the wars that plague the region today. After all, one
needs diamonds and coltan for mobile phones.
Today, everything on earth is turned into commodities, i.e. everything becomes
an object of "trade" and commercialization (which truly means liquidation, the
transformation of all into liquid money). In its neoliberal stage it is not
enough for capitalism to globally pursue less cost-intensive and preferably
"wageless" commodity production. The objective is to transform everyone and
everything into commodities, including life itself.[35] We are racing blindly
towards the violent and absolute conclusion of this "mode of production", namely
total capitalization/liquidation by "monetarization".[36]
We are not only witnessing perpetual praise of the market – we are witnessing
what can be described as "market fundamentalism". People believe in the market
as if it was a god. There seems to be a sense that nothing could ever happen
without it. Total global maximized accumulation of money/capital as abstract
wealth becomes the sole purpose of economic activity. A "free" world market
for everything has to be established – a world market that functions according
to the interests of the corporations and capitalist money. The installment of
such a market proceeds with dazzling speed. It creates new profit possibilities
where they have not existed before, e.g. in Iraq, Eastern Europe or China.
One thing remains generally overlooked: the abstract wealth created for accumulation
implies the destruction of nature as concrete wealth. The result is a "hole
in the ground" and next to it a garbage dump with used commodities, outdated
machinery and money without value.[37] However, once all concrete wealth (which
today consists mainly of the last natural resources) will be gone, abstract
wealth will disappear as well. It will, in Marx's words, "evaporate". The fact
that abstract wealth is not real wealth will become obvious, and so will the
answer to the question of which wealth modern economic activity has really created.
In the end it is nothing but monetary wealth (and even this mainly exists virtually
or on accounts) that constitutes a monoculture controlled by a tiny minority.
Diversity is suffocated and millions of people are left wondering how to survive.
And really: how do you survive with neither resources nor means of production
nor money?
The nihilism of our economic system is evident. The whole world will be transformed
into money – and then it will disappear. After all, money cannot be eaten. What
no one seems to consider is the fact that it is impossible to re-transform commodities,
money, capital and machinery into nature or concrete wealth. It seems that underlying
all "economic development" is the assumption that "resources", the "sources
of wealth",[38] are renewable and everlasting – just like the "growth" they
create.[39]
The notion that capitalism and democracy are one is proven a myth by neoliberalism
and its "monetary totalitarianism".[40]
The primacy of politics over economy has been lost. Politicians of all parties
have abandoned it. It is the corporations that dictate politics. Where corporate
interests are concerned, there is no place for democratic convention or community
control. Public space disappears. The res publica turns into a res privata,
or – as we could say today – a res privata transnationale (in its original Latin
meaning, privare means "to deprive"). Only those in power still have rights.
They give themselves the licenses they need, from the "license to plunder" to
the "license to kill".[41] Those who get in their way or challenge their "rights"
are vilified, criminalized and to an increasing degree defined as "terrorists"
or, in the case of defiant governments, as "rogue states" – a label that usually
implies threatened or actual military attack, as we can see in the cases of
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe Syria and Iran in the near future.
U.S. President Bush had even spoken of the possibility of "preemptive" nuclear
strikes should the U.S. feel endangered by weapons of mass destruction.[42]
The European Union did not object.[43]
Neoliberalism and war are two sides of the same coin.[44] Free trade, piracy
and war are still "an inseparable three" – today maybe more so than ever. War
is not only "good for the economy" but is indeed its driving force and can be
understood as the "continuation of economy with other means".[45] War and economy
have become almost indistinguishable.[46] Wars about resources – especially
oil and water – have already begun.[47] The Gulf Wars are the most obvious examples.
Militarism once again appears as the "executor of capital accumulation" – potentially
everywhere and enduringly.[48]
Human rights and rights of sovereignty have been transferred from people,
communities and governments to corporations.[49] The notion of the people as
a sovereign body has practically been abolished. We have witnessed a coup of
sorts. The political systems of the West and the nation state as guarantees
for and expression of the international division of labor in the modern world
system are increasingly dissolving.[50] Nation states are developing into "periphery
states" according to the inferior role they play in the proto-despotic "New
World Order".[51] Democracy appears outdated. After all, it "hinders business".[52]
The "New World Order" implies a new division of labor that does no longer
distinguish between North and South, East and West – today, everywhere is South.
An according International Law is established which effectively functions from
top to bottom ("top-down") and eliminates all local and regional communal rights.
And not only that: many such rights are rendered invalid both retroactively
and for the future.[53]
The logic of neoliberalism as a sort of totalitarian neo-mercantilism is
that all resources, all markets, all money, all profits, all means of production,
all "investment opportunities", all rights and all power belong to the corporations
only. To paraphrase Richard Sennett: "Everything to the Corporations!"[54] One
might add: "Now!"
The corporations are free to do whatever they please with what they get.
Nobody is allowed to interfere. Ironically, we are expected to rely on them
to find a way out of the crisis we are in. This puts the entire globe at risk
since responsibility is something the corporations do not have or know. The
times of social contracts are gone.[55] In fact, pointing out the crisis alone
has become a crime and all critique will soon be defined as "terror" and persecuted
as such.[56]
IMF Economic Medicine
Since the 1980s, it is mainly the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of
the World Bank and the IMF that act as the enforcers of neoliberalism. These
programs are levied against the countries of the South which can be extorted
due to their debts. Meanwhile, numerous military interventions and wars help
to take possession of the assets that still remain, secure resources, install
neoliberalism as the global economic politics, crush resistance movements (which
are cynically labeled as "IMF uprisings"), and facilitate the lucrative business
of reconstruction.[57]
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher introduced neoliberalism
in Anglo-America. In 1989, the so-called "Washington Consensus" was formulated.
It claimed to lead to global freedom, prosperity and economic growth through
"deregulation, liberalization and privatization". This has become the credo
and promise of all neoliberals. Today we know that the promise has come true
for the corporations only – not for anybody else.
In the Middle East, the Western support for Saddam Hussein in the war between
Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the early 1990s, announced the
permanent U.S. presence in the world's most contested oil region.
In continental Europe, neoliberalism began with the crisis in Yugoslavia
caused by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the
IMF. The country was heavily exploited, fell apart and finally beset by a civil
war over its last remaining resources.[58] Since the NATO war in 1999, the Balkans
are fragmented, occupied and geopolitically under neoliberal control.[59] The
region is of main strategic interest for future oil and gas transport from the
Caucasus to the West (for example the "Nabucco" gas pipeline that is supposed
to start operating from the Caspian Sea through Turkey and the Balkans by 2011.[60]
The reconstruction of the Balkans is exclusively in the hands of Western corporations.
All governments, whether left, right, liberal or green, accept this. There
is no analysis of the connection between the politics of neoliberalism, its
history, its background and its effects on Europe and other parts of the world.
Likewise, there is no analysis of its connection to the new militarism.
NOTES
[1] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 23, 36.
[2] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust: Part Two, New York, Oxford University
Press, 1999.
[3] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005, p. 34.
[4] Arno Gruen, Der Verlust des Mitgefühls. Über die Politik der Gleichgültigkeit,
München, 1997, dtv.
[5] Sassen Saskia, "Wohin führt die Globalisierung?," Machtbeben, 2000, Stuttgart-München,
DVA.
[6] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 24.
[7] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, 1979, Suhrkamp;
Immanuel Wallerstein (Hg), The Modern World-System in the Longue Durée, Boulder/
London; Paradigm Publishers, 2004.
[8] Susan George, im Vortrag, Treffen von Gegnern und Befürwortern der Globalisierung
im Rahmen der Tagung des WEF (World Economic Forum), Salzburg, 2001.
[9] Elmar Altvater, Das Ende des Kapitalismus, wie wir ihn kennen, Münster,
Westfälisches Dampfboot, 2005.
[10] Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Grenzen der Globalisierung. Ökonomie,
Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot,
1996.
[11] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah
van Gelder, 2006,
www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html; Margrit Kennedy,
Geld ohne Zinsen und Inflation, Steyerberg, Permakultur, 1990.
[12] Helmut Creutz, Das Geldsyndrom. Wege zur krisenfreien Marktwirtschaft,
Frankfurt, Ullstein, 1995.
[13] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7.
[14] Barbara Ehrenreich, Arbeit poor. Unterwegs in der Dienstleistungsgesellschaft,
München, Kunstmann, 2001.
[15] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale
Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die
Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.
[16] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women,
The Last Colony, London/ New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.
[17] Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization. The Truth Behind September
11th, Oro, Ontario, Global Outlook, 2003.
[18] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale
Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die
Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.
[19] Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective
on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology
Dpt., St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.
[20] John Hepburn, Die Rückeroberung von Allmenden – von alten und von neuen,
übers. Vortrag bei, Other Worlds Conference; Univ. of Pennsylvania; 28./29.4,
2005.
[21] Claudia von Werlhof, Was haben die Hühner mit dem Dollar zu tun? Frauen
und Ökonomie, München, Frauenoffensive, 1991; Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly:
Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.
[22] Andre Gunder Frank, Die Entwicklung der Unterentwicklung, in ders. u.a.,
Kritik des bürgerlichen Antiimperialismus, Berlin, Wagenbach, 1969.
[23] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005.
[24] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women,
the Last Colony, London/New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.
[25] Claudia von Werlhof, Frauen und Ökonomie. Reden, Vorträge 2002-2004,
Themen GATS, Globalisierung, Mechernich, Gerda-Weiler-Stiftung, 2004.
[26] Ana Isla, "Women and Biodiversity as Capital Accumulation: An Eco-Feminist
View," Socialist Bulletin, Vol. 69, Winter, 2003, p. 21-34; Ana Isla, The Tragedy
of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution
in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Department, St. Catherines, Ontario,
Canada, 2005.
[27] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.
[28] Kevin Bales, Die neue Sklaverei, München, Kunstmann, 2001.
[29] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005.
[30] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979;
Andre Gunder Frank, Orientierung im Weltsystem, Von der Neuen Welt zum Reich
der Mitte, Wien, Promedia, 2005; Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on
a World Scale, Women in the International Division of Labour, London, Zed Books,
1986.
[31] Claudia von Werlhof, "Questions to Ramona," in Corinne Kumar (Ed.),
Asking, We Walk. The South as New Political Imaginary, Vol. 2, Bangalore, Streelekha,
2007, p. 214-268
[32] Hannes Hofbauer, Osterweiterung. Vom Drang nach Osten zur peripheren
EU-Integration, Wien, Promedia, 2003; Andrea Salzburger, Zurück in die Zukunft
des Kapitalismus, Kommerz und Verelendung in Polen, Frankfurt – New York, Peter
Lang Verlag, 2006.
[34] August Raggam, Klimawandel, Biomasse als Chance gegen Klimakollaps und
globale Erwärmung, Graz, Gerhard Erker, 2004.
[35] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.
[36] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung
der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.
[37] Johan Galtung, Eurotopia, Die Zukunft eines Kontinents, Wien, Promedia,
1993.
[38] Karl Marx, Capital, New York, Vintage, 1976.
[39] Claudia von Werlhof, Loosing Faith in Progress: Capitalist Patriarchy
as an "Alchemical System," in Bennholdt-Thomsen et.al.(Eds.), There is an Alternative,
2001, p. 15-40.
[40] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung
der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.
[41] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7; Maria Mies, Krieg
ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[42] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global
Research, 2005.
[43] Michel Chossudovsky, "Nuclear War Against Iran," Global Research, Center
for Research on Globalization, Ottawa 13.1, 2006.
[44] Altvater, Chossudovsky, Roy, Serfati, Globalisierung und Krieg, Sand
im Getriebe 17, Internationaler deutschsprachiger Rundbrief der ATTAC – Bewegung,
Sonderausgabe zu den Anti-Kriegs-Demonstrationen am 15.2., 2003; Maria Mies,
Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[45] Hazel Hendersen, Building a Win-Win World. Life Beyond Global Economic
Warfare, San Francisco, 1996.
[46] Claudia von Werlhof, Vom Wirtschaftskrieg zur Kriegswirtschaft. Die
Waffen der, Neuen-Welt-Ordnung, in Mies 2005, p. 40-48.
[47] Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars. The New Landscape of Global Conflict,
New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2001.
[48] Rosa Luxemburg, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals, Frankfurt, 1970.
[49] Tony Clarke, Der Angriff auf demokratische Rechte und Freiheiten, in
Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 80-94.
[50] Sassen Saskia, Machtbeben. Wohin führt die Globalisierung?, Stuttgart-München,
DVA, 2000.
[51] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press,
2001; Noam Chomsky, Hybris. Die endgültige Sicherstellung der globalen –Vormachtstellung
der USA, Hamburg-Wien, Europaverlag, 2003.
[52] Claudia von Werlhof, Speed Kills!, in Dimmel/Schmee, 2005, p. 284-292
[53] See the "roll back" and "stand still" clauses in the WTO agreements
in Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003.
[54] Richard Sennett, zit. "In Einladung zu den Wiener Vorlesungen," 21.11.2005:
Alternativen zur neoliberalen Globalisierung, 2005.
[55] Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof,
2003, p. 148-192.
[56] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global
Research, 2005.
[57] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die
Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen.
Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005; Bennholdt-Thomsen/Faraclas/Werlhof
2001.
[58] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die
Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002.
[59] Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die Wahrheit
über den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag,
2000; Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die deutsche
Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer
Buchverlag, 2000.
The contradictions of "national" and "international" now defines the "post neoliberalism" epoch that started in 2008.
This article was written before the author understood the dangers' of neoliberalism. Has mostly historical interest.
Notable quotes:
"... Just as bringing stability to the American economy in the last century required stronger national institutions, bringing social balance to the global economy in this century will require stronger global political institutions to regulate global markets. Already, many such institutions exist–such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), and International Monetary Fund (IMF). But in make-up and in culture, they are dominated by those who own and manage large concentrations of internationally mobile capital, whose goal is to escape market regulation and break free of obligations to stakeholders other than the global corporate investor. In the politics of the global market, these institutions are dominated by a single party: Call it the Party of Davos, after the Swiss resort where several thousand global corporate CEOs, government leaders, and their assorted clientele of journalists, academics, and an occasional nongovernmental organization (NGO) or trade union head have the equivalent of their party convention every winter. ..."
"... The politics of the New Deal and social democratic analogues across the world rested on a new understanding of how national economies worked. The British economist John Maynard Keynes and his American followers showed that in a modern economy the worker/consumer was as important an actor in the market drama as the investor/manager. The government therefore had an obligation to pump income into the economy during downturns to assure that workers continued to buy the products they had made. Although many of America's business elites resisted the egalitarian implications of the New Deal, the smartest of them understood that Franklin Roosevelt and Keynes had saved them from much worse, namely, Marx's prediction of inevitable class warfare. When Dwight Eisenhower's nominee for secretary of defense, Charlie Wilson, said, "What's good for General Motors is good for America," liberals snickered, but the country – and the United Auto Workers – thought he was right. By 1971, Richard Nixon could claim, with some justification, that "we are all Keynesians now." ..."
"... Keynes – whose ideas inspired the IMF and what eventually became the WTO – was no protectionist. Yet he cautioned nations to limit their foreign trade, because he believed it weakened a democratic government's ability to maintain the economic growth needed to keep social peace. ..."
"... if a large share of consumer demand went for imports, government deficit spending to overcome a recession would stimulate production in the exporting country rather than at home. And where growth depended heavily on exports, reducing wages to become more competitive would take priority over raising incomes to stimulate domestic consumption. ..."
"... As Renato Ruggiero, the first director-general of the WTO, observed, "We are no longer writing the rules of interaction among separate national economies. We are writing the constitution of a single global economy." ..."
"... A more accurate description of how the new world economy is governed comes from Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs, who in her book The New World Order describes informal networks of global bureaucrats and business-people that bypass traditional governments. ..."
"... "We are all the same–people who come and go through the [World] Bank, the [International Monetary] Fund, and Finance Ministries and Central Banks of Latin American countries. We all studied at the same universities; we all attend the same seminars, conferences " we all know each other very well. We keep in touch with each other on a daily basis. There are some differences, such as between those who studied at Harvard and those who studied at the University of Chicago, but these are minor things." ..."
"... The Party of Davos is no monolith. It has its factions, competing ambitions, and interests. And because the world's economies, while globalizing, are far from being completely globalized, important concentrations of economic power are still rooted in national economies. Corporations in China and Russia, for example, are constrained by a state apparatus that is decidedly nationalist. But it is only a matter of time before these national connections erode, too; meanwhile, the concentrations of private capital that have their roots in Europe, the Americas, and large parts of Asia have a shared agenda in weakening the power of national governments to restrict the freedom of capital in both rich and poor countries. As one prominent member of the Party of Davos blurted out at a conference at the Council of Foreign Relations, "When we negotiate economic agreements with these poorer countries, we are negotiating with people from the same class. That is, people whose interests are like ours. ..."
All markets have a politics, reflecting conflict among economic interests over the rules and policies that determine–as the American
political scientist Harold Lasswell once famously put it–"who gets what." And when markets expand, so do their politics. Thus, in
the nineteenth century, driven by improvements in transportation and communication technologies, commerce spilled across state borders
beyond the capacity of states to regulate them. The power of large corporations went unchecked, generating bitter and violent class
conflict. Fortunately, the democratic framework of the U.S. Constitution permitted popular challenges to the excessive concentration
of wealth and influence. Ultimately, through the Progressive and New Deal eras, the United States developed a national politics that
imposed a social contract–a New Deal that provided workers, as well as business, with enforceable economic rights. Over time, the
contract was extended to racial minorities, women, and others who had been previously excluded from expanding economic opportunities.
Today, markets have expanded again, beyond national borders–and beyond the capacity of the world's nation-based political institutions
to manage them. As a result, the global economy is sputtering. Witness the collapse of the Doha Round of trade negotiations, popular
hostility to the "Washington Consensus" of development in Latin America and other underdeveloped regions, and the spread of social
tensions over immigration and foreign-wage competition in both rich and poor countries. The current pattern of globalization is undercut-
ting the social contract that national governments, in developed and in many less-developed countries, had imposed over the last
century in order to stabilize their economies and protect their citizens from laissez-faire's brutal insecurities. Even as the world
grows more tightly knit, it still lacks a common politics for managing its integration.
Just as bringing stability to the American economy in the last century required stronger national institutions, bringing social
balance to the global economy in this century will require stronger global political institutions to regulate global markets. Already,
many such institutions exist–such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization (WTO), and International Monetary Fund (IMF). But in
make-up and in culture, they are dominated by those who own and manage large concentrations of internationally mobile capital, whose
goal is to escape market regulation and break free of obligations to stakeholders other than the global corporate investor. In the
politics of the global market, these institutions are dominated by a single party: Call it the Party of Davos, after the Swiss resort
where several thousand global corporate CEOs, government leaders, and their assorted clientele of journalists, academics, and an
occasional nongovernmental organization (NGO) or trade union head have the equivalent of their party convention every winter.
We are therefore faced with a catch-22: a global economy that is both prosperous and fair requires strong global institutions,
but given the lack of a constitutional framework for democracy on that scale, strengthening existing global institutions is unlikely
to generate a better distribution of global income and wealth. Indeed, under the present structure, as the world's markets become
more integrated, world inequality grows.
This fundamental contradiction cannot be resolved by unruly demonstrators at the entrance to the World Bank or the IMF. Nor will
it be resolved in polite public policy seminars with proposals for globalization's winners to share their gains with the losers;
that is not what winners voluntarily do. Serious reform will only come from the development of a cross-border politics that challenges
the cross-border power of the Party of Davos. Pulling together a worldwide movement is a utopian goal, but doing this in a region-by-region
process is not. In fact, American progressives could begin the process right here in North America by transforming the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) into an instrument for continent-wide social progress. A redesigned NAFTA, in turn, could serve as a
critical building block in constructing a global economy that is more equitable, more stable, and more democratic.
The Politics of Expanding Markets
The politics of the New Deal and social democratic analogues across the world rested on a new understanding of how national economies
worked. The British economist John Maynard Keynes and his American followers showed that in a modern economy the worker/consumer
was as important an actor in the market drama as the investor/manager. The government therefore had an obligation to pump income
into the economy during downturns to assure that workers continued to buy the products they had made. Although many of America's business
elites resisted the egalitarian implications of the New Deal, the smartest of them understood that Franklin Roosevelt and Keynes
had saved them from much worse, namely, Marx's prediction of inevitable class warfare. When Dwight Eisenhower's nominee for secretary
of defense, Charlie Wilson, said, "What's good for General Motors is good for America," liberals snickered, but the country – and the
United Auto Workers – thought he was right. By 1971, Richard Nixon could claim, with some justification, that "we are all Keynesians
now."
Shortly afterward, the slow fusion of the U.S. economy with the rest
of the world accelerated. Between 1969 and 1979, the share of the U.S.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) represented by foreign trade rose from 10
to almost 20 percent, and the trade balance shifted from a surplus to
deficit. By 2005, trade was 26 percent of our economy, and the
relentlessly rising trade deficit was at 6 per- cent of our GDP. Along
the way, the American industrial base–from apparel to steel to
high-technology products–has been dramatically eroded, wages have
stagnated, and the economic security of the typical American worker has
been systematically undercut. Economists will always debate the exact
numbers, and globalization is not the only factor driving the erosion
of American economic security, but by now few can doubt that it is a
major cause.
Keynes – whose ideas inspired the IMF and what eventually became the
WTO – was no protectionist. Yet he cautioned nations to limit their
foreign trade, because he believed it weakened a democratic
government's ability to maintain the economic growth needed to keep
social peace. For example, if a large share of consumer demand went for
imports, government deficit spending to overcome a recession would
stimulate production in the exporting country rather than at home. And
where growth depended heavily on exports, reducing wages to become more
competitive would take priority over raising incomes to stimulate
domestic consumption.
He was right to worry. Whatever else one might want to argue about
the last 25 years of globalization, there is little question that it
has undermined the New Deal–era social contract that rests on the
mutual dependence of workers and employers. As companies become global,
they increasingly find their workers and customers in other nations,
loosening the economic bonds of shared self-interest that previously
connected them with their fellow citizens. Indeed, for the last two
decades, CEOs of major "American" multinationals have openly
acknowledged that their future no longer depends on the prosperity of
their fellow nationals. In the 1980s, Carl Gerstacker, chairman of Dow
Chemical, said that he yearned to put his headquarters on an island
where it would be "beholden to no nation or society " rather than being
governed in prime by the laws of the United States." A decade later,
Alex Trotman, chairman of Ford Motor Company, observed bluntly: "Ford
isn't even an American company, strictly speaking. We're global. We're
investing all over the world " Our managers are multinational. We teach
them to think and act globally."
As American industry went global, the political lines over trade and
globalization began to be redrawn. In the past, workers and employers
in the same industry were, for example, on the same side on the
question of raising or lowering tariffs, depending on the industry's
competitiveness. After World War II, which had eliminated much of
America's industrial competition, both capital and labor became
champions of free trade. But as American companies began to transform
themselves into global corporations, free trade agreements have become
a way for them to shift production to places where labor was cheap. The
1993 debate over NAFTA, the first major political battle of the new
global economy, reflected this new division: American workers on one
side, investors and executives on the other.
A similar division over NAFTA occurred in Mexico and Canada, whose
working classes also anticipated the loss of bargaining power. Their
fears were justified. A decade later, in all three nations, the gap
between what workers produced and what they were paid grew
dramatically. In the United States, labor productivity in manufacturing
rose 80 percent, while real wages rose only 6 percent. In Mexico,
productivity rose 68 percent, while real wages rose 2 percent. In
Canada, the numbers are 34 and 3 percent, respectively. As Jorge
Casta"eda, former foreign minister of Mexico, observed at the time,
NAFTA was "an agreement for the rich and powerful in the United States,
Mexico, and Canada, an agreement effectively excluding ordinary people
in all three societies." It is not surprising that the rich and
powerful in all three nations gained most of the benefits while the
"ordinary people" paid most of the costs. The relentless tide of
Mexicans desperately crossing the border for work–a dozen years after
NAFTA's promoters predicted substantially reduced illegal
immigration–is just one sign of the agreement's failure to deliver on
its promises.
The fallout from NAFTA echoes the current pattern of globalization
generally. As capital becomes both more internationally mobile and more
protected, its bargaining power over domestic labor is strengthened.
Offshore outsourcing expands, and the threat to outsource becomes more
credible, forcing workers to agree to work for less and local
governments to weaken regulation. The result is rising global
inequality of income and wealth–and the inequality in political power
that follows.
The Garbled Language of Globalization
As globalization relentlessly reorders American
economic and political life, the policy debate remains mired in an
obsolete paradigm that clouds our under - standing of what is happening.
On the one hand, pundits like the New York Times' Thomas Friedman tell
us that the global economy has obliterated borders, making government
irrelevant. On the other hand, the discussion of policy remains trapped
in the language that defines globalization as competition among
sovereign Westphalian nation-states, in which the conflicting interest
of domestic politics stops at the water's edge. Thus, for example,
politicians and journalists speak of economic competition between
"China" and "America" as national rivalries. Yet the business news
channels are replete with celebratory segments on the profitable
integration of U.S. and Chinese firms. Indeed, the "China threat" is
actually a business partnership between local commissars who provide
the cheap labor and American and other transnational capitalists who
provide the technology and financing. Similarly, while analysts frame
the discussion of world poverty in terms of rich and poor countries,
they ignore the reality that there are poor people in rich countries
and rich people in poor countries, leading to foreign-aid programs that
are merely an inefficient transfer of resources from the former to the
latter.
Most confusing and damaging to the debate is the wide use of "free
trade" as a synonym for globalization. Leaving aside the theoretical
issues, simple liberalized trade among sovereign nations does not
describe how the world's economy is evolving. The process is rather
global economic integration, which aims at imposing a universal set of
rules and policies on all nations. As Renato Ruggiero, the first
director-general of the WTO, observed, "We are no longer writing the
rules of interaction among separate national economies. We are writing
the constitution of a single global economy."
That an integrated global economy should be regulated by universal
rules is obvious. The problem is that the "constitution"–which includes
the policies of the international financial agencies as well as
so-called trade agreements–protects and supports just one category of
citizen, the global corporate investor. The interests of other
stakeholders–workers, communities, civil society, and others whose
hard-fought rights were finally established in democratic national
societies–have been excluded. Even among sophisticated policy
intellectuals, the political implications of economic integration are
ignored by stuffing them safely back into the nation-state, whose
citizens are assumed to have suffered no loss of power. One of many
examples is economist Jagdish Bhagwati, a prominent proponent of
global laissez-faire economics, who writes that "moral suasion,"
"democratic politics," and "judicial activism" at the national level
are sufficient safeguards for labor, human rights, and environmental
protections. Although goods and capital are acknowledged to flow and
commingle in borderless markets, the class conflicts that markets
inevitably generate are not. Yet these are global political conflicts
that befit a global economy. By confining them to the nation-state box,
the popular cross-border politics needed to countervail the
cross-border power of private wealth is suppressed.
Thus a disconnect emerges between the theoretical notion of
"national interest" and its actual promotion on the international
stage. The conventional wisdom implicitly assumes that while tactics
and style may differ according to which party is in power, a nation's
representatives to the IMF or the WTO are assumed to be furthering the
"national interest," a phrase frequently referenced but rarely
specified. One of the few foreign policy commentators to address, even
in passing, the question of how to define the national interest is
Harvard's Joseph Nye, Jr. As he wrote in The Paradox of American Power,
"In a democracy, the national interest is simply what citizens, after
proper deliberation, say it is " If the American people think that
our long-term shared interests include certain values and their
promotion abroad, then they become part of the national interest.
Leaders and experts may point out the costs of indulging certain
values, but if an informed public disagrees, experts cannot deny the
legitimacy of their opinion."
The description of U.S. foreign policy being driven by the
citizenry, with leaders and experts passively "pointing out the costs,"
would be suspect under any circumstance. The Iraq war, to cite one
obvious example, was hardly initiated by a spontaneous grass-roots
movement in America demanding Saddam Hussein's head. But in the context
of the global economy, where cosmopolitan elites have more in common
with peers in other countries than they do with people who simply share
their nationality, it is stunningly na've.
A more accurate description of how the new world economy is governed
comes from Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson
School of International Affairs, who in her book The New World Order
describes informal networks of global bureaucrats and business-people
that bypass traditional governments. According to Slaughter, this
"disaggregated" state has the speed and flexibility to "perform many of
the functions of a world government -- legislation, administration, and
adjudication -- without the form." The most advanced part of this virtual
state is the networks of people who run, manage, and regulate
international finance. Political scientist Judith Teichman, a less
enthusiastic analyst of cross-border networks, quotes a senior IMF
official who manages its Western Hemisphere portfolio: "We are all the
same–people who come and go through the [World] Bank, the
[International Monetary] Fund, and Finance Ministries and Central Banks
of Latin American countries. We all studied at the same universities;
we all attend the same seminars, conferences " we all know each other
very well. We keep in touch with each other on a daily basis. There are
some differences, such as between those who studied at Harvard and
those who studied at the University of Chicago, but these are minor
things."
Slaughter, for her part, believes these networks bring
accountability back to the people. "We need more [global] government,"
she writes, "but we don't want the centralization of decision-making
and the coercive authority so far from the people actually to be
governed." But, far from solving the globalization paradox, Slaughter's
networks are likely to transfer more power from ordinary people to the
hands of international technocrats whose career paths, like those of
their domestic counterparts, depend on those with financial–and
therefore political–influence. The WTO, one of its officials told the
Financial Times in a moment of candor, "is the place where governments
collude in private against their domestic pressure groups." The comment
reveals both contempt for democracy and disingenuousness about
political influence. In fact, the WTO's work is suffused with the
interests of domestic pressure groups with global business interests.
Corporate representatives dominate its many advisory committees and
working groups; its dispute settlement panels are chosen from pools of
experts who regularly work for transnational corporations; and business
even directly pays for the organization's expenses. In the last WTO
ministerial meeting held in America–scene of the famous "Battle of
Seattle" in 1999–business corporations, for instance, paid $250,000
each for special access to the trade ministers. The Office of the U.S.
Trade Representative is a well known revolving door of lawyers and
trade specialists (such as former Trade Representative Robert Zoellick,
now working at Goldman Sachs) whose next move is often to those
transnational corporate sector, where success comes to those who "think
and act globally"–and do so on behalf of those who are benefiting from
this global system.
The Party of Davos is no monolith. It has its factions, competing
ambitions, and interests. And because the world's economies, while
globalizing, are far from being completely globalized, important
concentrations of economic power are still rooted in national
economies. Corporations in China and Russia, for example, are constrained by a state apparatus that is decidedly nationalist. But
it is
only a matter of time before these national connections erode, too;
meanwhile, the concentrations of private capital that have their roots
in Europe, the Americas, and large parts of Asia have a shared agenda
in weakening the power of national governments to restrict the freedom
of capital in both rich and poor countries. As one prominent member of
the Party of Davos blurted out at a conference at the Council of
Foreign Relations, "When we negotiate economic agreements with these
poorer countries, we are negotiating with people from the same class.
That is, people whose interests are like ours."
There is no countervailing force at the level of global governance
to balance the Party of Davos's power. The International Labor
Organization (ILO), which is often erroneously thought of as the
worker's equivalent of the WTO or the IMF, is really a tripartite
structure in which labor, government, and business have equal voting
strength. More importantly, unlike the IMF, which has money, and the
WTO, which has trade sanctions, the ILO has no leverage over any nation
or company. A global capitalist class, of course, implies a global
working class. In response to the Party of Davos, international
cooperation among trade unionists on issues of collective bargaining
and organizing in specific industries is growing. But, by and large,
unions are too involved in fighting for survival in their national
economies to mount a global challenge to corporate power. And what
might be called (after the Brazilian city where it holds a
counter-Davos summit) the "Party of Porto Alegre"–the loose network of
dissenters and protestors that the media calls the "anti-globalization
forces," seen protesting at IMF meetings–is much more bark than bite.
It is too diverse, disorganized, and disdainful of power to get much
beyond demonstrations that make the nightly news but little else.
Next Steps for NAFTA
How then to reshape the politics–and power
relationships–of the global economy? A social contract did not come to
an expanded American economy until American workers became conscious of
their common interests. Similarly, one will come to the global economy
only when working families see that in a global labor market, they have
more in common with working families in other countries than they do
with those on the other side of the bargaining table. Yet in a world of
6.5 billion people in almost 200 separate countries–representing wide
differences in culture, living standards, and political consciousness–the prospect of seeing, to use an old phrase, "workers of the
world unite" enough to humanize the relentlessly interconnecting
markets seems hopelessly utopian. But if we begin to think of
establishing a global social contract as a step-by-step process, in
which political solidarity is built first among neighboring societies,
region by region, rather than some grand, all-embracing design, there
may yet be light at the end of this dark global tunnel.
Unlike global elites, who have easy access to global culture but
little connection to their hometowns, ordinary citizens in countries in
the same region tend to have more in common with one another than they
do with people half a world away. Culture and language are closer, and
trading relations are usually the strongest and most sustainable. True,
wars historically have been fought mostly among neighbors, but the
European Union (EU) demonstrates that at least among the more advanced
societies, the future need not necessarily be prisoner of such a past.
Moreover, regional integration would seem to be a much more promising
path toward the inevitable trial-and-error involved in building
competent and accountable institutions to manage cross-border economic
integration. American states were, and to some extent still are,
"laboratories of democracy" for the national government. In the same
way, the process of creating regional institutions that match expanding
regional markets might well produce "laboratories" for the construction
of a social contract that might eventually stretch to the range of the
global economy.
For all its slowness and the pain of its "two steps forward, one
step backward" process, the effort to build a "Social Europe" to match
the expanded European market offers the best real-world example of the
development of a politics around a cross-border social contract among
historically splintered neighbors. The future shape of Europe is
contested political terrain, and the conflicts between workers and
bosses, regulators and deregulators, and Europeanists and nationalists
reflect the inevitably messy way in which democracy is addressing this
historic experiment. The fragile democracies of the Mercosur countries
in the southern cone of South America are beginning a similar project
of economic integration that, if it continues, will inevitably involve
some political integration as well. A germ of the same idea also lies
in the economic collaboration among Southeast Asian nations.
This brings us back to the question of North America. Although NAFTA
failed to deliver on its promises, it succeeded in integrating the
three economies to the point of no return. Too many economic channels
have been redirected north-south to reverse the course of economic
integration. Every day, along with commingling labor markets,
intracontinental connections in finance, marketing, and production are
being hardwired for a seamless North American economy. We may not like
NAFTA, but there is no reversing its course.
But that does not mean that it's sacrosanct. Even those who designed
NAFTA to accommodate their own interests understand that it is an
inadequate instrument with which to govern this new political economy.
Revising NAFTA is already a topic of conversation among North American
business and political elites: The U.S. Council on Foreign Relations,
the Mexican Council on Foreign Affairs, and the Canadian Council of
Chief Executives have set up an ongoing "Task Force" to map out the
next steps. Their 2005 report called for a commonly administered
military security perimeter, common energy policies, and a modest
investment fund for Mexico. And Mack McLarty, former Clinton chief of
staff and now partner with Henry Kissinger in a consulting firm, has
called for planning an oil-for-infrastructure deal with Mexico to be
ready for the next U.S. president. But, while these and similar
proposals contain some sensible ideas, the framework is the familiar
one–an expanded market to feed global corporate ambitions–and gets us
no closer to solving the catch-22 of unaccountable governance.
Instead, we need to transform NAFTA into a set of rules that
recognizes the common economic future that now connects all of the
people of the three nations. It would need to include, at a minimum, a
"bill of rights" for citizens of North America, enforceable in all
countries, that would reestablish rights for people at least as strong
as the extraordinary privileges NAFTA gives to corporate investors.
They would include guarantees of freedom of association and collective
bargaining across borders, as well as an independent judiciary and
public transparency in government dealings with the private sector. A
new NAFTA would have to be a continental grand bargain in which Canada
and the United States commit substantial long-term aid to Mexico in
order to nurture higher and sustainable economic growth, while Mexico
commits to policies (independent trade unions, minimum wages, equitable
taxes, assistance to its depressed farm sector) that assure wages in
all three nations rise with their productivity. To that end, it would
require a North American customs union in which foreign trade would be
managed in the service of the needs of all three countries for greater
industrial self-sufficiency, resource conservation, and increased
investment in health and education. Such a new vision for NAFTA would
more strongly unite the three nations in a single competitive bloc that
provides all of the citizens of North America, not just its corporate
interests, an investment in its success.
North America is, of course, not Europe. It is easy to make the case
that the political and economic conditions that motivated and nurtured
the EU are quite unique. But at its conception, it was also easy to
argue that the EU would be still born. Indeed, in at least some
dimensions, a unified North American economy is a more credible idea.
There are only three languages (counting Quebecois French) to deal
with. All are relatively new countries. For at least two centuries
people have been moving, marrying, and interconnecting culturally. The
one time the United States and Canada fought was in the War of 1812,
while the Mexican-American War ended in 1848.
When the twenty-first century began, polls showed Americans,
Canadians, and Mexicans possessed highly favorable opinions of one
another. Asked in a 2000 World Values Survey poll if they would be
willing to form a new single country if it meant having a higher
quality of life, majorities in each country said yes. In the aftermath
of September 11, Canadians and Mexicans expressed massive solidarity
with Americans (although the invasion of Iraq, which they
overwhelmingly opposed, has rekindled some latent anti-Americanism).
Many on the U.S. side, when they still supported the war, resented that
Mexico and Canada refused to send troops. Still, the sense that–like it
or not–the three societies share a common future comes through in a
report of polls taken between 2003 and 2005, which shows support for
North American economic integration in all three nations, even though
people in each thought that NAFTA had been a "loser" for their country.
Moreover, gathering economic forces might actually force an
acceleration toward integration. At some point, the unsustainable rise
in the U.S. trade deficit will have to be reversed, threatening the
economies of Canada and Mexico, whose growth since NAFTA has depended
on the U.S. market. In order to avoid the political consequences (e.g.,
more illegal immigration from Mexico, less cooperation on national
security from Canada), the United States may well be forced to
establish a North American trading bloc anyway that protects its
neighbors' access to a U.S. economy that will be forced to reduce its
overall imports.
One thing is certain. The global economy will continue to undermine
both democracy and economic security until we develop the institutions
to support a social contract across borders. To do that, what better
place to start than in our own continental backyard?
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
