May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous
cells
Neoliberalism
The ideology that dare not speak it's name is actually a New, More Dangerous, Form of Corporatism. This "religion of
freedom" (redefinition of the meaning of the word "freedom" and sophisticated speculation on it is at the center of neoliberal
religion) is a coercive cult enforced by corrupt, deceitful elite with the explicit goal of milking the adherents
Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting
class warfare. “There’s class warfare, all right, "Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making
war, and we’re winning."
The terms Neoliberalism and Casino Capitalism are used
interchangeably. They define the same phenomenon. The term "Casino Capitalism" stresses that neoliberalism glorifies stock market,
promotes "financialization" and creates powerful incentives for financial speculation and excessive risk-taking on the part of the public (mass ownership of
stocks via 401K plans), financial institutions (derivatives, currency speculations, "naked" commodity futures, intentional blowing
of bubbles), and even Main Street entrepreneurs (dot-com crisis on 2000). That's why neoliberalism is also called "market
fundamentalism." Like feudalism neoliberalism stipulate existence of two classes: "inner party" members of whom the
law protects but does not apply, and "deplorables" to whom the law applies, but does not protect... "Inner party"
members are above the law under neoliberalism. The elite under neoliberalism is dominated by financial oligarchs. Several new
groups are added to the elite such as intelligence agencies brass (with intelligence agencies becoming the real political force, the
core of the Deep State) and Silicon Valley moguls (with top firms became
interconnected with surveillance apparatus of the state). The key social goal of neoliberalism is redistribution of wealth up
at the expense of the working class and lower middle class. It is political project designed to curb the power of labor (see
Neoliberalism war on labor). So stagnation of wages is not an aberration, but a key feature
of neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism positions itself first of all as
a secular religion (which in its core is hostile to Christianity, and much
like Bolshevism) with the
compliance enforced by the state. Somewhat similar to God-Building
trend in Marxism. For example, the prominent member of Bolsheviks Party Lunacharsky "saw Marxism as having religious components,
including its faith in the inevitable victory of socialism.";
according to Trotsky(1923) in some of the southern republics around 15% percent of party members were believers in Islam.
Developing this insight Erich Voegelin’s on his controversial
Political Religions (1938, see discussion at
Stalinist Ritual and Belief System- Reflections on
‘Political Religion’) suggested that ideologies can function as secular religions. For example, both national socialism and Bolshevism
were deficient in terms of empirical evidence and had to be accepted on faith. The same is true for neoliberalism . The difference
is that most of those movements generated a sense of devotion and mass mobilization with the emphasis of personal sacrifice,
reminiscent of religious zeal.
Neoliberalism operates differently and does not require, or support mobilization of population.
That's why it is viewed by some political scientists as a new mutation of corporatism called "inverted
totalitarism" (the term introduced by Sheldon Wolin in his magnificent book and further developed by Wendy Brown
in her essay Neoliberalism and the end of liberal democracy and the book
Undoing the Demos- Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution (2017). Internet as a distributed and
democratic system supports mobilization of population. It also makes more difficult to control information flow and free flow of
information and existence of critical to neoliberalism websites which summarize and presents in readable form the available
information is a threat to neoliberalism. Which flourished on ignorance and brainwashing. That's why there is systematic propaganda
campaign to associate critics of neoliberalism with Russians (which were chosen as a very convenient scapegoat due to Cold War
past). That's why neo-McCarthyism witch hunt was lunched after Trump elections.
At the center of this civic religion is the redefinition of the word "freedom" as freedom from any kind of coercion (compare with
FDR four freedoms). That sophistry resonated very well within Americans and
British people and became a "universal opener" using which neoliberal elite opens the door for any harmful for population
actions/legislation, including but not limited to the restoration of the power of financial oligarchy. All in the name of freedom
;-). Dirty, but a very effective trick.
Those guys are real masters of deception and elevated it into the art form. In a way neoliberalism can be called the "religion of freedom," a coercive cult enforced by corrupt, deceitful elite with
the explicit goal of milking the adherents. Neoliberal ideology is offering a closed, coherent belief system explaining the whole
world via unverifiable and unsubstantiated by scientific testing system of dogmas, beliefs and rituals. Deification of markets is
just slightly less fantastic then the idea of Paradise. Obviously, neoclassical economics is far removed from what is ordinarily
regarded as valid scientific procedure. It is, essentially, a
pseudo theory, a flavor of
Lysenkoism, if you wish.
As core dogmas of neoliberalism are indefensible from scientific point of view if stated
openly, neoliberalism has always been surrounded by an aura of secrecy and "esoteric teaching"
(for elite only) which reminds Scientology. Even the name is suppressed in neoliberal MSM (US neoliberal MSMs rarely, if at all, mention this term
"neoliberalism"; In UK the only exception is probably Guardian). To protect deplorables from discovering the ugly truth, elaborate
pseudo theoretical smoke screen including
mathiness was created. Exactly like in
Marx famous quote "Religion is the opium of the people." This is
actually the first instance when ideology conceived as a secular religion uses perverted mathematics (mathiness,
Number racket) to justifies itself (I think Ancient
Egypt priests might be the only analogy). As such this is a blatantly dishonest
ideology. Like Bolshevism in the past, it also plays dirty tricks with the language in best 1994 style, creating
neoliberal NewSpeak: compare for example how "economic freedom" is defined by
neoliberals ("freedom of entrepreneurs and financial speculators from coercion and regulation") and how it was defined by FDR ("freedom
[of working people and lower middle class] from want"). Indoctrination into "neoliberal newspeak"
is done at the Universities using for brainwashing neoclassical economy and "business courses." Much like Soviet students were
brainwashed with Marxism-Leninism and Marxist political economy. In both cases you can't graduate without passing mark for those
courses. Again like Marxism neoliberalism is hostile to Christianity; some postulates of neoliberalism are closer to
Judaism (entrepreneurs and financiers as a higher caste of the society, the inner party), some to Satanism.
Like Bolsheviks neoliberals are statists par excellence,
using state to enforce and support the neoliberal dogma. In other words, neoliberals believe that "the market does not and
cannot take care of itself" In this sense we can view neoliberalism is a form of state enforced regulation -- one that
insulates the markets from challenges of democratic forces (with the ideological smoke screen of neoclassical economy, which is pure
sophistry) as well as from economic nationalism. The recent Deep State attack on Trump is typical, classic neoliberal
reaction on such a challenge from economic nationalism.
While hypocritically shouting "free market", "free market"... neoliberals like Bolsheviks in the past
conspire to achieve power via iether regular election mechanism (which after they came to power is neutered ) or by stealth coup d'état (or regime change
via color revolution in weaker
countries, especially LA(Chile, Brasil, Argentina) and post Soviet republics (Baltic republics, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia) as well as infiltrating and subverting key institutions of the state
via IMF and World Bank ("debt slavery"). After that they openly and blatantly use government as an enforcer of their ideology.
That includes bailing out financial oligarchy to prevent of meltdown of financial system during Minsky moments. Which are inevitable
under neoliberalism as decimation of regulation (especially for financial sector) eliminated the negative feedback loop introduced
by the New Deal, while financial institutions create a strong positive feedback loop in economics sliding to more and more reckless
behaviour until the financial crash ("stability is destabilizing" as quipped Minsky).
Systems with a strong positive feedback loop are known to be unstable. So bailing out private institutions using public money
(like happened in the US and Europe in 2008-2010) is not an aberration. but a quintessential feature of
neoliberalism. And the crisis of 2008 which caused the regime of "secular stagnation" in Western societies will probably be
repeated on a new level in 2020th (we can only guess about possible triggers; might the price of oil, or the size of
derivatives market). Simplifying, we can call neoliberalism "Banks uber alles" regime.
Neoliberalism redistributes wealth up, justifying it with another key neoliberal myth -- the so called "trickle down economics" voodoo: the idea is that if the State directly helps the rich
by redistributing wealth up,
enforcing "market discipline", opening markets were they never existed (healthcare, education), as well
as privatizing state assets, the poor
will be better off as a by-product. Or as John Kenneth Galbraithquipped: “Trickle-down theory - the less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats,
some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.” In other words, neoliberalism is welfare for the top 1% or 0.1% of
entrepreneurs and parasitic financial oligarchy (which state
protects), and, at the
same time, the "free market" jungle for the rest
("socialism for rich").
It is both an ideological assault, but also an economic assault on the power of labor (and especially organized labor) a
political project to squash labor wages. On intuitive level neoliberalism emerged as the result of thinking like “We gotta crush
labor, how do we do it?” And they found that neoliberalism can be a legitimizing theory for such a squash. Which again makes
it similar to Bolshevism, which despite noble slogans kept working class wages at a very low level (which was noted by Orwell in his
Animal Farm parable, and famous John Kenneth Galbraith quote "Under
capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite")
And, again, like Bolshevism, this is a self-reassuring, self-gratifying and self-explanatory myth --
a pretty sophisticated and very deceptive ideological rosy glasses, which creates (and then enforces on lemmings) a distorted image of reality.
Important part of "reproduction" mechanism if this ideology is that it is deliberately propagated by neoliberal MSM and in neoliberal
universities And neoliberal MSM (which are the only game in town in many countries now) as neoliberalism eliminated other forms of
press via monopolization mechanism. In the USA lion share of MSM is owned by just six corporations. Along with domination in MSM, neoliberalism creates
sophisticated and effective system of indoctrination of population which rivals the same under Bolsheviks in the USSR.
Recent
spy scandals demonstrated that neoliberal elite (like financial oligarchy in general) does not fully believe in the power
brainwashing of population (at least after 2008) and gradually is switching to relying on intelligence agencies as an
enforcement squad of neoliberal agenda -- another (and pretty alarming) commonality with Bolshevism (historically Cheka/OGPU/NKVD
played prominent role in
defending and ensuring the survival of Bolsheviks' regime.) This trend is amplified by appointment, "not so bright", deeply conformist
"ladder climbers" as the heads of intelligence agencies. For example, Brennan and Clapper represent the same category of people as a typical Soviet bureaucrat -- a
ruthless (and often corrupt) careerist with limited intellectual capacities, but devoted to ideology the defense of the ruling
oligarchy. Such people understand very well from which side his bread is buttered.
Exaggerating threats to the USA sovereignty to cement the cracks in the neoliberal regime is also a page borrowed from the Stalinist period of the USSR.
In the USSR people were accused being British spies. Now in the USA dissidents from neoliberal ideology (even such highly
placed as Trump ;-)
are, by definition, Russian intelligence service collaborators, or assets. This very useful for defenders of the neoliberal regime paranoia now
extends even to contacts with the Ambassador of Russia by any US official which bring us to the set of behaviors at the peak of the
USSR Great Terror. In a sense Mueller looks
exactly like one of Stalin henchmen -- he tried to justify the view that is almost totally misguided, for the sake of defense of declining neoliberal ideology.
Performing functions that are not that different from functions performed by the head of Gestapo or Stasi -- suppression of
the political dissent to neoliberalism.
Like in the USSR for intelligence officials it is safer to flow with the neo-McCarthyism trend: the current atmosphere of paranoia makes it difficult for intelligence agencies to present the evidence that contradicts Russian
spymania vision. The essence of which is identical to the vision of Stalinist Russia: that the USA is surrounded by two hostile powers (Russia and China) hell-bent
on creating political crisis in the
country and/or "regime change" and salivating to steal or dismantle the US global neoliberal empire. Which are engaged in
stealing technological and military secrets.
Like Soviets, neoliberal policymakers are deeply troubled by the
specter of the enemy at the gate, not realizing that the current social crisis in the USA is ultimately connected with the crisis of
neoliberalism both as an ideology and the system of governance. Add to this faulty, ideologically distorted system of
intelligence gathering and ruthless but intellectually second-rate careerists at the agencies (just look at Strzok, Brennan
and Clapper). Like with the discovery of British spies in the USSR, the
most obvious motive for Russiagate witch hunt is to cement cracks in neoliberal faced which appeared after
2008 by using for this purpose the external threat.
While many think about neoliberalism as "Ubercapitalism" or return to "Robber Barons" era on a new level, ideologically Neoliberalism
is closer to Trotskyism ( and thus can be called Neo-Trotskyism ). It stresses
the role of state as the enforcement power, the solidarity of neoliberal elite across the countries, with the dominant role of Anglo-Saxon elite.
As well as
the role of subversive methods and intelligence agencies in instituting the "regime change" (Trotskyite idea of permanent revolution
mutated under neoliberalism into the idea of "permanent color revolution") . In the famous slogan "Proletarians
of all countries, Unite!" neoliberalism substituted the word "proletarians" with the word "elites"
(as in "Transnational elites, Unite!" ).
The slogan "All Power to [Workers] Councils" is replaced with "All power
to financial oligarchy councils", and such clubs as
Bilderberg
Group, US Chamber of Commerce,
Business Roundtable and similar organization are playing
the role of hidden centers of power of the neoliberal regime.
Like Trotskyism neoliberalism in the ideology of "permanent expansion", ideology of neo-colonialism. The idea of "Permanent Revolution" was substituted
with the idea of permanent "Color revolutions."
Methods used remain a variation and enhancement of methods used by Trotskyites for destabilizing the government, with a special emphasis
on use of the students, acquiring the control of mass media, implanting NGO (especially in the area various polls and "control over
the legitimacy of elections". ) The latter is pretty nasty trick as people tend to believe the rumors that elections were hijacked.
Stalin dictum: it does not matter how they vote, what matters is who is counting the votes is used here in a pretty innovative way.
The neoliberal version sounds like:
It does not matter how that vote, if elections are close all that matter is who is performing exit polls and cries louder about
"irregularities" in the elections in the MSM.
Add to this various
financial injection to "dissidents" via network of NGO and you get the picture. Caste of "professional revolutionaries" now consists of
well-paid functionaries sitting in comfortable chairs in various, lavishly financed think tanks and NGO. In the USA they constitute the
core of both parties which cares very little about the interest of rank-and-file members with "bait and switch" maneuver as the major
tool for election success (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump). Marx is probably rolling in his grave.
Despite being a flavor of Trotskyism, Neoliberalism is still a very interesting, unique social system which by-and-large defeated
and replaced both New Deal capitalism and socialism (and facilitated the dissolution of the USSR by buying out Soviet nomenklatura,
including KGB brass). It is the only social system in which the name of the system is somehow prohibited by MSM to mention. In this
system, like under Stalin's version of socialism, the state play the leading role in enforcing the social system upon the people, brainwashing
them with wall-to-wall 24 x 7 USSR-style propaganda an, if necessary, by state violence (As Sheldon Wolin mentioned neoliberalism tries
to use violence selectively, as overuse of state violence undermines the social system, see
Inverted Totalitarism).
Essentially neoliberalism lifted intelligence services into
full fledged political player (which means that later stage of neoliberal state always is some flavor of the
national security state) as we can see in
color revolution launched
by them against Trump (Trump is the proponent of a renegade version of neoliberalism, which can be called "national neoliberalism"
or "neoliberalism without globalization"). And the color revolution against Trump is not the isolated case when the USA intelligence agencies
have
gone rogue, it is just a step in natural evolution of neoliberalism and is a "new
normal".
Instead of regulating predatory tendencies of capitalism like under New Deal, state under neoliberalism became just a corrupt policeman that serve
interests of the large
corporations and financial institutions (especially the latter) and, in most cases, at the expense of the standard of living
of the common people. Standard of living of working class and lower middle class typically slides under neoliberalism (this
fact is never accepted by neoliberals and hotly disputed).
In this sense any neoliberal country is to a certain extent is an "occupied country", and the
neoliberal regime is the occupying regime, much like Bolsheviks (with their theocratic state) were in USSR space. Or like the
return on the new level to the
Robber Barons era, when the state helped to squash West Virginia miner
upraising in 1912-21.
Foreign policy under neoliberalism is marked by rampant militarism and constant wars for expanding of the
global, USA-led neoliberal empire. Neocons dominate the USA
foreign policy since late 70th (Carter administration).
The neoliberal state justifies its decisions, policies, and rules by deification of the markets and by perversion of the meaning
of the term the "freedom". In this Hayek inspired sophistry the negative definition is used as in "freedom from coercion" and interpreted
mainly in economic space ( as the freedom of unlimited enrichment of talented and/or ruthless entrepreneurs.) Compare with "Four
Freedoms" definition used Roosevelt administration during the New Deal: "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" are not included
in neoliberal definition. Those freedoms are simply denied under neoliberalism for everybody but the top1%.
Neoliberalism might therefore be defined as the elevation of market-based principles. Or more correctly the techniques of
elevation of market principles to the level of
state-endorsed norms and state-sponsored secular religion which displaces Christianity (aka neoliberal rationality). This theological dimension of neoliberalism is very important (some researchers
called neoliberalism "perverted Buddhism" in institualized suffering of lower classes ) and like in Marxism, the economics
(in the form of neoclassical economics) is used for
indoctrination on university students into this ideology. Neoliberals (in a form of adherents to neoclassical economics)
dominate economics departments of major universities and not by some chance -- this is result of deliberate policy (borrowed from Trotskyism)
of acquiring and maintaining the political power ("Quite coup").
The level of a secular religion in which "market" and "competition" are new deities ("market fundamentalism") is especially visible
in university education, were alternative approaches were mercilessly crushed. It is not an exaggeration to say that the main goal of
teaching of economics in universities is the indoctrination, and it has very little in common with teaching economic as a complex and
contradictory science. Mathematics serves as powerful smoke screen for hiding the neoliberal ideological core (mathiness)
Like neofascism, neoliberalism radically transforms the "welfare state" which was created by the New Deal, prioritizing big corporations over common people. The idea of welfare that was the core of New Deal Capitalism is not completely
abolished. But under neoliberalism only corporations are desirable welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they
suck up. But at the same time neoliberalism and neofascism are mortal enemies: neofascism is at its core a flavor of far
right nationalism (cultural or ethnic), while neoliberalism is based on globalism. Only in imperial nations like the USA they can
partially merge and intervene (Trump's national neoliberalism is one example).
In labor relations neoliberal pursue a staunch anti-union stance. Labor is atomized, unions suppressed and individuals put on the
market "naked" on conditions dictated by employees. Which means squeezing goo paying job in favor of terms and contractors, outsourcing
and other anti--labor measure designed to preserve falling profitability in the market condition characterized by falling consumer demand
(due to lower standard of living for the majority of population). And this is done at any cost. Even at the cost of human life. That
situation gave rise to the term "naked capitalism".
The idea of welfare is not abolished. But under neoliberalism only corporations are desirable welfare recipients and the
bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. that gave a rise of various (often stupid)
"performance metrics" and cult of "performance reviews".
It redefines citizens as consumers, who exercise they political power mainly buying and selling, the process which supposedly rewards
merit (producing market winners) and punishes inefficiency. It postulates a primitive (and wrong) dogma that “the market” always delivers
benefits that are superior and could never be achieved by planning. Which is definitely untrue for military contractors. In a way the
"market" under neoliberalism is a kind of "all powerful deity". Which makes neoliberalism a variation of a secular religion (compare
with "God building" faction of Bolsheviks Party which included such prominent
figures as Lynacharsky). As such neoliberalism, like Marxism before,
is hostile to Christianity. And while Marxism absolutize the power of human compassion and redefines paradise as a social system that
supposedly can be built on Earth (communism), neoliberalism denigrates the power of human compassion and enforces "greed is good" and
"homo homini lupus est" morale. Which turns into law of jungle for lower
and middle class. In this sense it is more like a branch of Satanism, with greed as a virtue ("Greed is good"), speculation as a noble
activity (while according to Chris Hedges "Speculation
in the 17th century was a crime. Speculators were hanged." ) and the slogan "Homo
homini lupus est" as one of the key Commandments. See
Neoliberalism and Christianity
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations, and greed as a virtue
This social system can be viewed as dialectical denial of socialism and represents the other extreme in classic triad "Thesis,
antithesis, synthesis". We do not know yet what the synthesis will be like, but neoliberalism as a social system after 2008 shows
definite cracks. Much like the USSR after the WWII when people serving in Red Army discovered what the standard of living in Central
and Eastern Europe for workers was far superior that existed in the USSR and start to understand that "state socialism" as practiced
in the USSR can't deliver promised higher standard of living for ordinary citizens and that Soviet "nomenklatura" is not that different
from the capitalist class in appropriation in Marx terms of "surplus value of labor".
The economic inefficiency of the USSR "state capitalism" model (one state -- one giant corporation) helped to undermine the validity
and effectiveness of communist propaganda. And once the ideology is undermined, the elite can't restore the trust of population, which
start viewing it with suspicion and contempt. The process of irreversible deterioration started and proceed rather slowly. After WWII
Bolshevism survived for another 40 years or so, but eventually failed as the elite (aka Soviet nomenklatura) changed sides and joined
neoliberal camp.
Like Bolshevism before it, neoliberalism proved to be unstable social system and the collapse of neoliberalism is not question of
"if", but "when". A utopian system which is unable to deliver promised benefits to the common people, and which destabilizes capitalism
in comparison with New Deal capitalism, producing periodic financial crisis with increasing severity. The first of such
crisis was "savings and loans" crisis, followed by dot com bubble burst, and the financial crisis in 2008. The latter led to the Great
Recession from which the USA never fully recovered.
In 2008 the large banks, which are the core of neoliberal economics, were saved from facing consequences of their "transgressions"
only by massive state intervention. All powerful market was unable to save those sick puppies. The consequences of 2008 crisis did buried
neoliberal ideology which from this point looks like cruel and primitive hypocrisy designed to restore the power of financial oligarchy
to the level the latter enjoyed in 1930th. That did not mean that neoliberalism became completely toothless. It managed to stage comeback
in several Latin American countries (the USA backyard). But in 2016 it led to the election of Trump who managed to defeat establishment
candidate, neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton despite all the efforts of the neoliberal/neocon establishment to derail him. Trump pursues
the version of neoliberalism which can be called "national neoliberalism" -- neoliberalism limited to the USA with implicit rejection
of globalization (or at least large part of it). Which makes Trumpism somewhat similar to Stalinism. Unlike Trotsky, Stalin did not
believe in the "World Revolution" mantra.
In the absence of alternatives neoliberalism managed somewhat recover after 2008 debacle, and even successfully counterattacked in
some Latin American and European countries (Argentina, Brazil, Greece), but the Great Recession still left of huge and ugly scar on
the neoliberal face. In any case glory days of triumphal march of neoliberalism all over globe are over. Crisis of neoliberalism also
logically led to increase of share of "guard labor" in economics. On state level this resulted in hypertrophied growth of repressive
apparatus including intelligence agencies. So when in 2016 neoliberalism in the USA experienced its first political crisis (when electorate
rejected Hillary Clinton and elected Trump, creating the legitimacy crisis of the USA ruling neoliberal elite) the Deep State (the core
of which consists of intelligence agencies and "Wall Street" ) launched a "color revolution" to depose him. Fake changes of falling
under Russian control concocted by intelligence agencies in order to depose Trump which collectively are called "Russiagate" (which
properly should be called Intelligence-gate) is the defining feature of this "color revolution".
With lower standard of living of the middle class is no longer possible to hide that "it 's not enough cookies for everybody" under
neoliberal and the myth that rising tide lifts all boats"(Trickle-down
economics ) is not applicable.
The economist John Kenneth Galbraith
noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory",
writing:
Mr. David Stockman has said that
supply-side economics was merely
a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory:
'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'
Resentment of working class and lower middle class reached in 2016 unprecedented level, creating a real political crisis in the USA.
Which was not unexpected. As Pope Francis aptly noted:
... Such an [neoliberal] economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure,
but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown
away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival
of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized:
without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.
Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “disposable” culture
which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to
do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes
or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.
Outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing in the USA -- the citadel of neoliberalism led to epidemic of opiod abuse similar to
epidemic of alcoholism among workers in the late USSR. Among the more than 72,000 drug overdose deaths estimated
in 2017, the sharpest increase occurred among deaths related to fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (synthetic opioids) with nearly 30,000
overdose deaths ( Overdose Death
Rates National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (
Impoverishment of lower 20% of the society (those who have so called McJobs) reached the level when
we can talk about a third world country within the USA.
All those factors created pre-conditions for a sharp rise of far right nationalism. In
a way neoliberalism naturally generated far right nationalism splash much like Gilded Age and the market crash of Sept 4, 1929 capitalism
created precondition for the rise of national socialism. Reading
NDSAP 25 points program (adopted in 1920) we can instantly feel that many problem that existed then are now replayed on the new
level. After approximately 40 years of global dominance neoliberalism facade shows cracks. Backlash against neoliberal globalization
became strong enough to provide upsets, albeit temporary, which demonstrated itself in Brexit, and election of Trump. Who, despite his
election-time claims to be a fighter against neoliberal globalization, for restoration of local jobs, and against the wars for expanding
neoliberal empire, he essentially folded in two-or three months after the inauguration.
Like Soviet version of Communism before it, Neoliberalism failed to meet its promises of rising standard of living (and the key idea
of justifying of raising of inequality and redistribution of wealth up under neoliberalism was "rising water lifts all boats"
mantra, or as Kenneth Galbraith famously defined it “Trickle-down theory - the
less than elegant metaphor that if one feeds the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.” ). We
can stress again, that the current opiod epidemics in the USA is not that different from epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR under Brezhnev's
"well developed socialism" and has the same social roots.
It is important to understand that under neoliberalism the key priority is the maintenance of global neoliberal empire for the benefits
of multinationals (with the associated idea of Global Neoliberal Revolution which, as we mentioned before, makes is
similar to Trotskyism). Opening new markets is vital for the interests
of transnational corporations and that means that the USA government supports the war for the expansion of the USA-led global neoliberal
empire at the expense of interests of regular US citizens. Outsourcing and atomization of the US workforce (squeezing unions) means
that neoliberal government has an adversarial attitude towards its common citizenry. They are, by definition, the second class citizens
(Undermensch, or as Hillary Clinton elegantly coined it "basket
of deplorables" ) . While neoliberal themselves ("creative class") are new Ubermench and like
old aristocracy are above the law. So the idea of the "nomenklatura" as a ruling class in the USSR is now replayed on a new level. The
fact the Ann Rand was a Soviet émigré tells you something ;-)
As it evolved with time, neoliberalism is a somewhat fuzzy concept ( much like Bolshevism evolved from Leninism to Stalinism, then
to Brezhnev's socialism and at last to Gorbachov "perestroika" ). In various countries it can morph into quite different "regimes",
despite the common "market fundamentalism" core. The simplest and pretty precise way to define is to view it as "socialism for the rich,
feudalism for the poor" or, more correctly "Trotskyism
for the rich" ("Elites of all countries unite !" instead of “Proletarians of all countries, Unite! ...). It is "socialism
for the upper strata of population and corporations, especially transnationals".
In this sense neoliberals are as "internationalists" as communists were at their time, and may be even more (the term "globalism"
is commonly used instead of "internationalism".) And like "Communist International", the "Neoliberal International" accepts the elite
from any country, but only a very narrow strata of the elite and only on a certain conditions, with the leading role reserved for the
USA elite and a part of G7 elite. Much like in Comintern the role of Moscow as a leader was something that can't be even discussed.
Only taken for granted. Although spying capabilities of "Neoliberal International" via "five eyes" are tremendously more powerful then
the rudimentary capabilities of Comintern. And the technology of staging "color revolutions"
is more polished then Trotskyite approach to staging proletarian revolutions. As a proverb say "One is a bad student, if he can't exceed
the level of his teacher". Or "The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher
inspires."(William Arthur Ward). Neoliberals proved to be a very good students of Trotskyite method of subversion of elected governments,
as many of them were actually former Trotskyites.
Neoliberals also have more money and that matters. This fact alone allows them to create a powerful "fifth column" in countries other
then G7 who are on the receiving end of neoliberal expropriation of wealth to the top countries of Neoliberal International. Like in
Comintern, "all pigs are created equal, but some pigs are more equal then others."
The key idea of obtaining power by training the cadre of "professional revolutionaries" introduced by social-democratic parties and,
especially, Bolsheviks are replaced with no less effective the network of neoliberal think
tanks. In other words neoliberalism borrowed and perverted almost all major ideas of social-democratic parties. Including the existence
of a paid "party core" typical for Bolsheviks, and instrumental to the success of their coup d'état in October 1917 against Provisional
government by Kerensky. Under neoliberalism this idea transformed into
the network of think tanks that Koch and other billionaires have sponsored.
Monte Perelin society (the initial neoliberal think tank) explicitly tried to adapt successful idea of western social democratic
parties and Bolsheviks to neoliberal doctrine. One such "appropriations" is the level of secrecy and existence of "underground" part
of the party along with "legal" parliamentary faction, a set of figureheads who are controlled by "invisible hand" (honorable politician
is the one who after he was bought stays bought). Some important theoretical work in this direction was done USA renegade Trotskyites
(aka neoconservatives, especially by James Burnham as well as staunch neoliberals like
James Buchanan (The
Guardian)
The papers Nancy MacLean discovered show that Buchanan saw stealth as crucial. He told his collaborators that “conspiratorial
secrecy is at all times essential”. Instead of revealing their ultimate destination, they would proceed by incremental steps. For
example, in seeking to destroy the social security system, they would claim to be saving it, arguing that it would fail without a
series of radical “reforms”... Gradually they would build a [well-paid] “counter-intelligentsia”, allied to a “vast network of
political power” that would become the new establishment.
The control of MSM is another idea borrowed from Bolsheviks. Like Bolshevism, neoliberalism created it's own
Neoliberal newspeak and a set of
myths ("greed is good", "invisible
hand",
"the efficient markets hypothesis", "rational
expectations scam", Shareholder value scam,
supply side voodoo aka "rising
tide lifts all boats", etc). In "neoliberal newspeak" the term "freedom" is used as the excuse for ripping down public protections on
behalf of the very rich. For example, "free market" means
the market free from any coercion by the state (read "free from regulations") which makes it the corporate jungle where the most powerful
corporation dictate the rules of the game and eat alive small fish with complete impunity. In no way neoliberal "free market" is
fair. Actually neoliberals try to avoid to discuss the issue of farness of the market. This is anathema for them. As such neoliberalism
has distinct Social Darwinism flavor and enforces
scapegoating and victimization of poor and
unemployed
In no way neoliberal "free market" is fair. Actually neoliberals try to avoid to discuss the issue of farness of the market.
This is anathema for them. As such neoliberalism has distinct Social Darwinism flavor and enforces
scapegoating and victimization of poor
and unemployed
As neoliberalism inherited consumerism of the New Deal Capitalism, it adapted it for it own purposes. One distinct feature is trying
to get into dent the majority of the population of the country as well as "lesser" countries (neo-colonialism)/
On the individual workers levels neoliberalism has sophisticated mechanisms of enforcing excessive debt on unsuspecting population
with such mechanisms as credit card companies, mortgages, student debt, etc. And a worker with a large debt is, essentially, a debt-slave.
Atomization (neoliberalism is openly and forcefully anti-union) and enslavement of the workforce is exactly what neoliberalism is about:
recreation of the plantation economy on a new technological and social levels. Not that unions are without problems in their own right,
but crushing the union is the goal of every neoliberal government starting with Thatcher and Reagan. The same model that is depicted
in famous song Sixteen Tons. With replacement of the company store debt and
private corporate currencies with credit card debt.
On "lesser" countries level IMF and World banks does the heavy lifting of converting countries into debt-slaves. Sometimes with the
help of Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs.
Like Trotskyism, neoliberalism is a militaristic creed, the only different is that dream of global Communist empire led
from Moscow was replaced by the dream of global neoliberal empire led by Washington. Neocons in this sense is just a specific flavor
of neoliberals --" neoliberals with the gun" as in Al Capone maxim "You Can Get Much Further with a Kind Word and a Gun than with a
Kind Word Alone" ;-). This "institualized gangsterism" of the US neocons represents probably the greatest threat to the survival
of modern civilization.
Neoliberalism elevates of market-based principles and techniques of evaluation to the level of state-endorsed norms. The authority
of the neoliberal state is heavily dependent on the authority of neoliberal economics (and economists). When this authority collapses
the eventual collapse of neoliberalism is imminent. This is a classic "the castle built of sand story. "
"... To this point, there is essentially zero evidence of the promised investment boom. There was respectable growth in investment in the first two quarters of 2018, but growth slowed to just 1.1 percent in the third quarter. ..."
"... In any case, there is zero evidence that the tax cut is leading to the sort of investment boom that will qualitatively boost the rate of productivity and GDP growth and provide workers with substantially higher pay. ..."
"... (irrational) confidence level is an important economic factor. ..."
"... What has been destructive in major recessions has not been "misdirected investment", it has been the leveraged and/or fraudulent financial manipulations which maximize profit but which cause rapid collapse when conditions turn bad. Again, interest rates have in practice not been a main factor in this. ..."
"... Keynes was adamantly against high interest rates and he favored usury laws: "the rate of interest is not self-adjusting at a level best suited to the social advantage but constantly tends to rise too high, so that a wise Government is concerned to curb it by statute and custom and even by invoking the sanctions of the moral law." The General Theory, p. 351. ..."
"... "The evidence is not consistent with the idea that central banks can control economies with interest rates." ..."
"... A much larger threat to world economies (than interest rates) is the huge capital investments in petroleum assets. At some point, those investments will need to be unwound in an orderly fashion but it doesn't seem that anyone is considering how to do that. ..."
(This piece was originally posted on my Patreon page .)
Jim Tankersley had a nice piece
in the New York Times last week pointing out that the tax cut pushed through by the Republicans in 2017 is leading to a sharp drop
in tax revenue. While this was widely predicted by most analysts, it goes against the Trump administration's claims that the tax
cut would pay for itself.
Looking at full-year data for calendar year 2018, Tankersley points out that revenue was $183 billion (5.6 percent) below what
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had projected for the year before the tax cut was passed into law. This is a substantial falloff
in revenue by any standard, but there are two reasons the picture is even worse than this falloff implies.
The first is that we actually did see a jump in growth in 2018 pretty much in line with what the Trump administration predicted.
The tax cut really did stimulate the economy. It put a lot of money in the economy (mostly going to those at the top) and people
spent much of this money. The result was that the growth rate accelerated from around 2.0 percent the prior three years to over 3.0
percent in 2018. (We don't have 4 th quarter data yet, which may be delayed by the shutdown, but growth should be over
3.0 percent.)
The jump in growth in 2018 means that the drop in revenue was not due to the economy being weaker than expected, it was due to
the fact that the tax rate had fallen by a larger amount than the boost to growth. In fairness to the Trump administration, they
had also projected a falloff
in revenue due to the tax cut in 2018, but not one that was as large as what we saw.
... ... ...
To this point, there is essentially zero evidence of the promised investment boom. There was respectable growth in investment
in the first two quarters of 2018, but growth slowed to just 1.1 percent in the third quarter. It is likely to be even weaker
in the fourth quarter due to the drop in world oil prices (less oil drilling), although we won't get these data until the shutdown
is over. In any case, there is zero evidence that the tax cut is leading to the sort of investment boom that will qualitatively
boost the rate of productivity and GDP growth and provide workers with substantially higher pay.
In this context, the deficits from the Trump tax cut are a problem. If the economy is bumping up against its limits and the labor
market is close to full employment, it means a much larger share of output is going to the consumption of the wealthy. That both
means less private consumption for everyone else, and it makes it more difficult to have major initiatives that involve substantial
spending, such as a Green New Deal or Medicare for All.
The long and short is that the revenue data for 2018 looks pretty bad on its face. It looks even worse on a closer examination.
...and perhaps this funny (American?) idea - that economics only exist in order to have some ''Boom'' going -- forever -- and
ever - (which everybody knows is NOT possible) - is the root of US problem??!
Deficits are not a problem, period. They are a benefit because they keep the boom going, just as lower interest rates forestall
a recession. Keynes pointed this out 80 years ago: "Thus the remedy for the boom is not a higher rate of interest but a lower
rate of interest! For that may enable the so-called boom to last. The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing
booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom."
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, p. 322.
Keeping us out of a recession/slump ought to be the focus of economic policy, not hypothetical questions about the economy
"bumping up against its limits" which anti-Keynesians have been obsessed with for years.
Keeping out of bubbles is what keeps us out of slumps (in most cases). The usual pattern is that as conditions improve people
put confidence where it does not belong and extend leverage, then financial collapse makes things look bad for everyone - the
general (irrational) confidence level is an important economic factor.
Interest rates have an effect on speculation - when rates are low people have to turn to riskier things to make money, and
leverage is cheap. Stock prices were very low in 1981 because interest rates were very high and they are very high now partly
because interest rates have been very low. The effect on speculation may be a valid reason to raise rates - of course the imaginary
threat of inflation is not.
But history indicates it is not a huge effect. The Fed did raise discount rate through 1928 and 1929 up to 6% and this did
not seem to slow the development of the stock-market bubble. It is unlikely that the Fed can kill a bubble or boom now by raising
at much lower levels. The housing bubble of 2006 was a matter of bad regulation. The Fed was involved in encouraging and then
disregarding the bubble, but not by manipulating interest rates. Greenspan was always a cheerleader of deregulation.
"Moreover, even if over-investment in this sense was a normal characteristic of the boom, the remedy would not lie in clapping
on a high rate of interest which would probably deter some useful investments and might further diminish the propensity to consume,
but in taking drastic steps, by redistributing incomes or otherwise, to stimulate the propensity to consume.
"It may, of course, be the case -- indeed it is likely to be -- that the illusions of the boom cause particular types of capital-assets
to be produced in such excessive abundance that some part of the output is, on any criterion, a waste of resources; -- which sometimes
happens, we may add, even when there is no boom. It leads, that is to say, to misdirected investment." The General Theory p.321
"Thus an increase in the rate of interest, as a remedy for the state of affairs arising out of a prolonged period of abnormally
heavy new investment, belongs to the species of remedy which cures the disease by killing the patient." The General Theory p.323.
Causing a recession in order to kill a bubble is madness.
I am not recommending killing a boom or bubble with interest rates. On the contrary I am always recommending against relying
on manipulating interest rates to regulate the economy, whether it is to prevent inflation, real or imaginary, or to stimulate
the economy in case of recession. While Keynes conjectured that interest rates could have effects, he certainly was very clear
in not expecting that they would be sufficient to control the business cycle - see pp. 319-320, the end of Ch. 12 and ch. 24.
What has been destructive in major recessions has not been "misdirected investment", it has been the leveraged and/or fraudulent
financial manipulations which maximize profit but which cause rapid collapse when conditions turn bad. Again, interest rates have
in practice not been a main factor in this.
"While Keynes conjectured that interest rates could have effects, he certainly was very clear in not expecting that they would
be sufficient to control the business cycle"
Really? Then why did he include "Interest" in the title of his magnum opus?
Keynes was adamantly against high interest rates and he favored usury laws: "the rate of interest is not self-adjusting
at a level best suited to the social advantage but constantly tends to rise too high, so that a wise Government is concerned to
curb it by statute and custom and even by invoking the sanctions of the moral law." The General Theory, p. 351.
Further, he railed against using high interest rates to limit the boom: "The austere view, which would employ a high rate of
interest to check at once any tendency in the level of employment to rise appreciably above the average of, say, the previous
decade, is, however, more usually supported by arguments which have no foundation at all apart from confusion of mind." The General
Theory, p. 327-8.
The rate of interest is critical to economic growth which is why the Fed's role is so important.
The evidence is consistent with what Keynes said about high interest rates - the high rates in the 70's to 80's failed to prevent
inflation but caused unemployment to go to 10.8%. The Fed failed utterly in both of its two objectives during that time. Since
2008 record low rates have not produced the claimed boost in investment and growth. This is especially obvious in Europe and Japan
where conditions are worse than in the US despite negative interest rates. This is also consistent with Keynes' expectation that
interest rates would not be sufficient to overcome variations in the perceived marginal efficiency of capital. The evidence is
not consistent with the idea that central banks can control economies with interest rates, or even that their actions are always
constructive. That idea was not Keynes'.
"The evidence is not consistent with the idea that central banks can control economies with interest rates."
That is a bridge too far, and Keynes disagrees:
"There is, indeed, force in the argument that a high rate of interest is much more effective against a boom than a low rate
of interest against a slump." The General Theory, p. 320.
Slowing a boom with higher interest rates is indeed feasible and that has been Fed doctrine for decades. Obviously, higher
interest rates reduce consumption and investment so growth must slow. The high inflation of the 1970s was due to the OPEC oil
shocks, not excessively rapid growth of the economy. In fact, growth had been faster in the 1960s with much lower inflation.
I understand why this economic discussion focuses only on interest rates but it leaves out a larger issue. That fact that,
on CNBC and elsewhere, financial analysts obsess over interest rates, taxes, and the price of oil in relation to the market illustrates
the cluelessness of the financial community. They all applaud "deregulation" without ever specifying which regulations. Do they
mean all regulations?
Trump's deregulation of methane emissions, for example, will create future costs that are exponentially larger than any immediate
savings to frackers and oil companies. That's just one example. Trump's environmental deregulatory agenda is stupidity writ large.
A much larger threat to world economies (than interest rates) is the huge capital investments in petroleum assets. At some
point, those investments will need to be unwound in an orderly fashion but it doesn't seem that anyone is considering how to do
that. Eventually, probably sooner than expected, a tipping point will be reached when mass realization of the threat climate
change poses to our survival generates a mass panicked exit from petroleum assets which will create a financial crash that dwarfs
what we saw in 2008.
Do you remember "Limits to Growth"? Doomsday scenarios have been around for a long time especially in regard to the national
debt which supposedly will cause the collapse of our economy sometime soon. I am skeptical about that.
[Video] He views housing prices as a leading indicator, but he is not ready to forecast
slowdown yet. Yes Home
Sales Sank 6.4% in December . No, a recession isn't about to hit. The International Monetary
Fund still thinks the global economy will grow
a respectable 3.5% this year . By with the recent downgrade risks are higher and probably
highest since 2010.
As for 2019 he said we are always at risk entering the recession. He thinks that as in June
there will be the longest recession, that might be time for a recession including in housing
market. Inverted curve is a sign of such comes are coming.
Housing market is closing down and that can lead to recession, but he is not giving it
probability higher that 50 for this year. He also mentions that real interest rate of short end
there are not much above inflation.
Yale Economics Professor and Nobel Laureate Robert Shiller spoke with Yahoo Finance at
Davos, telling Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer: "People are starting to think housing is expensive,
and that could lead to a turnaround and a drop in home prices. But I'm not ready to forecast
that yet."
Interesting discussion... He said tariff might not work as expected. He does not think
recession in probable in 2018 but later it might became inveitable
14% are functionally illiterate. Those people are at he bottom and will stay at the
bottom.
David Rubenstein, Co-Founder and Co-Executive Chairman of The Carlyle Group, sits down for a
one on one with Yahoo Finance editor-in-chief Andy Serwer at the World Economic Forum's annual
meeting in Davos, Switzerland. They discuss U.S.-China relations, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
income inequality, the government shutdown, and more.
Speaking at a panel discussion on the first day of the
World Economic Forum (WEF) , Dalio said: "The US, Europe, China – all of those will
experience a greater level of slowing, probably a greater level of disappointment.
"I think there's a reasonable chance that by end of that, monetary policy and fiscal policy
will have to become easier relative to what is now discounted in the markets.
He added: " What scares me the most longer-term is that we have limitations to monetary
policy, which is our most valuable tool, at the same time as we have greater political and
social antagonism.
"So the next downturn worries me the most. There are a lot of parallels with the late
1930s.
"In 1929-1932 we had a debt crisis, and interest rates hit zero. Then there was a lot of
printing of money and purchases of financial assets which drives financial assets higher.
"It creates also a polarity, a populism and an antagonism. We also had at that time the
phenomenon of a rising power, like China, dealing with conflict with an existing power.
"These types of political issues are now very connected to economic issues in policy."
Asked at the summit
in Switzerland about increasing debt levels and signs of a global slowdown, Dalio said the
world economy was in the later stages of a short-term debt cycle.
He said there had been an "inappropriate, mistaken desire to tighten monetary policy at a
level that was faster than what the capital markets could handle."
He said: "W hen we cut corporate taxes and made interest rates low enough that it was
attractive enough to buy financial assets, particularly by companies having mergers and
acquisitions, that caused a lot of growth in corporate debt. And that growth in corporate debt
was used to finance the purchases. That is going to be less."
He suggested a slowdown could increase the link between politics and economic policy, and
predicted increased debate over a 70% income tax rate next year.
yesterday How does he on
one hand say that the Fed has little room to lower rates in case of a downturn and at the
same time blame the Fed for raising rates in order to prepare for such an eventuality?
Seriously, I'm asking. I'm not wagging my finger at him, because I sure don't pretend to
know more than he does. I asking somebody to further explain, because I don't get it. I'm
raising my hand in class. Anybody? 2 days ago democracy has become a slave
for finance - that is what an actual worry is brought in by fitting words - 26 people own
more than 4billion other people 2 days ago The rich have to pay higher
marginal tax rates. Period. "To those who are given much, much is expected." - Former NY
governor Elliott Spitzer. yesterday Of course. If we
had been unable to loosen monetary policy after Bush crashed the economy, we would have
been in the 2nd great depression. Trump is hurtling us towards the next economic disaster,
but without the tools to dig out. And his comments that the fed is raising interest rates
too fast is counter productive (like everything else Trump does). 2 days ago How He hedging when people
panic about his bias comment ??
Remember ... He is a Hedge Fund manager , makes money from panic and quick market moves
!
enough said ...
I
yesterday So what does all that mean for the economy and stock market? With a growing
disparity in distribution of income something needs to change before we start to see social
and political upheaval. The top 1% to 5% can't get 80% of all the wealth.
"... the Davos crew is trying to combat populism, according to The Washington Post . It is kind of amazing that the rich people at Davos would not understand how absurd this is. ..."
"... The real incredible aspect of Davos is that so many political leaders and news organizations would go to a meeting that is quite explicitly about rich people trying to set an agenda for the world. ..."
"... It is important to remember, the World Economic Forum is not some sort of international organization like the United Nations, the OECD, or even the International Monetary Fund. It is a for-profit organization that makes money by entertaining extremely rich people. The real outrage of the story is that top political leaders, academics, and new outlets feel obligated to entertain them. ..."
"... Davos ought to be treated as a conspiracy against labor, representative government, environmental regulation and decent living standards, but of course our admiring national press corps doesn't see it that way -- their bosses attend, after all. ..."
"... It may be best to avoid the term "populist" because it tends to be applied indiscriminately to the likes of Trump and to leftist reformers. Or if it is used for Trump it should be "fake populist". Opposition to corporatist globalization can be populistic, but Trump's version so far has been mostly fake. ..."
"... Two kinds of populism: rightwing populism (which often looks like fascism) and leftwing populism. They are quite different critters and they don't have a lot to do with each other though they agree on a few things. ..."
"... People REALLY need to re-read 1984 & refresh their memories of Orwellian good-is-bad brainwashing ..."
"... Trump is a rightwing populist, but it is very confusing. In the US anyway and often in general, rightwing populists are NOT the enemies of the rich. Note Mussolini and Hitler. Fascism really is a type of rightwing populism. ..."
"... Rightwing populism pretends to be for the people and is to some extent (protectionism, isolationalism, nationalism) but in a lot of other ways, it's just fake and it's always a cover for class rule and rule by the rich. ..."
"... The rich will go to fascism or rightwing populism if they get a threat from the Left (read Trotsky), but they don't really like them very much, think they are classless brutes, barbarians, racists, bigots, etc. ..."
"... They're not worried about Donnie. He's no class traitor. They're worried about the populism of the Left and possibly about rightwing populism in Europe. Bolzonaro and Trump are hardly threats to capital. ..."
"... He pretends to be a populist because it helps him. For example, he doesn't care about illegal immigration. He's been happy to hire undocumented workers his whole life, even now in office. But it gets his base fired up so he rails about immigration. He has no ideology, he will use whatever helps him. ..."
"... Rightwing populism is NOT cool in my boat. Rightwing populism is Bolsonaro. It's Duterte too, but that's a bit different, he's a bit more pro-people. Erdogan is a rightwing populist too, but he's rather socialist. Marie Le Pen is out and out socialist and she gets called rightwing populist. Orban is 5X more socialist than Venezuela and he gets called rightwing populist. It's all very confusing. ..."
"... But in the US and Latin America, rightwing populism is ugly stuff all right, and it tends to be associated with fascism! ..."
Let's see, cattle ranchers are against vegetarianism, coal companies are against restricting CO2 emissions, and the Davos crew
is trying to combat populism, according to
The Washington Post . It is kind of amazing that the rich people at Davos would not understand how absurd this is.
Yeah, we get that rich people don't like the idea of movements that would leave them much less rich, but is it helpful to their
cause to tell us that they are devoting their rich people's conference to combating them? The real incredible aspect of Davos
is that so many political leaders and news organizations would go to a meeting that is quite explicitly about rich people trying
to set an agenda for the world.
It is important to remember, the World Economic Forum is not some sort of international organization like the United Nations,
the OECD, or even the International Monetary Fund. It is a for-profit organization that makes money by entertaining extremely rich
people. The real outrage of the story is that top political leaders, academics, and new outlets feel obligated to entertain them.
And the fact that so many Americans -(and especially American workers) still mistake Von Clownstick as a so called ''Populist''
- and being on their side - is... unbearable!
He IS in fact a rigthwing populist of a sort. That's what rightwing populism in the US looks like, and what it's always looked
like. Bunch of crap huh? Gimme Marie Le Pen any day.
"The real incredible aspect of Davos is that so many political leaders and news organizations would go to a meeting that is
quite explicitly about rich people trying to set an agenda for the world." \
Agreed - like how people almost worship British Royals.. or American celebrities... and yet, unfortunately, isn't it true that
the greedmongers at Davos are not "trying," but rather "largely succeeding" at setting said world agenda?
Nothing to see here, folks, move right along . . .
Davos and TED Talks. One entertains the rich, the other the smart. The skiing is better at Davos, the ideas are better at a
TED Talk. Just remember, most of the rich aren't smart and most of the smart aren't rich. So it's all rather silly, 'though it's
easier to get rich if you're smart than it is to get smart if you're rich. Don't ask me how I know that, but I'll tell you, if
you have an ounce of human kindness in you, learning the second half of that lesson is more painful than the first.
None of this would be half as much fun outside the glare of publicity, or if not heavily spiced with the envy of the excluded.
Ishi--I don't disagree with you. Just not as stupid as the Davos drivel. Perhaps I should have said 'less bad' ideas, but I
liked the cadence of 'better' and 'better.' Gotta have cadence if you want to get the People Marching.
Davos ought to be treated as a conspiracy against labor, representative government, environmental regulation and decent
living standards, but of course our admiring national press corps doesn't see it that way -- their bosses attend, after all.
Firstly we have to treat the so called ''Populists'' as a conspiracy against labor - because they pretended in the utmost conspirational
way to be on labors side.
While It always was as clear as mud that Davos was a Party of the Rich!
It may be best to avoid the term "populist" because it tends to be applied indiscriminately to the likes of Trump and to
leftist reformers. Or if it is used for Trump it should be "fake populist". Opposition to corporatist globalization can be populistic,
but Trump's version so far has been mostly fake.
You guys need to read up. Two kinds of populism: rightwing populism (which often looks like fascism) and leftwing populism.
They are quite different critters and they don't have a lot to do with each other though they agree on a few things.
That's basically my take, too. The term is purposely misused by the propagandists to get normal people thinking "Populism"
must be something they don't like. People REALLY need to re-read 1984 & refresh their memories of Orwellian good-is-bad brainwashing.
[and even "brainwashing" is an orwellian term! Brain-NUMBING, maybe... but nothing's getting cleaned, that's for sure]
Nope US rightwing populism has often looked a lot like Trump's crap. I mean some of it was better. I have a soft spot for Huey
Long. But in the US, rightwing populism just helps the rich mostly and it tends to be fascist.
''The term is purposely misused by the propagandists to get normal people thinking "Populism" must be something they don't
like'' You mean some con-artists have conned people who liked the term ''Populism'' into liking idiocy - racism and nationalism?.
Trump is a rightwing populist, but it is very confusing. In the US anyway and often in general, rightwing populists are
NOT the enemies of the rich. Note Mussolini and Hitler. Fascism really is a type of rightwing populism.
Rightwing populism pretends to be for the people and is to some extent (protectionism, isolationalism, nationalism) but
in a lot of other ways, it's just fake and it's always a cover for class rule and rule by the rich.
The rich will go to fascism or rightwing populism if they get a threat from the Left (read Trotsky), but they don't really
like them very much, think they are classless brutes, barbarians, racists, bigots, etc.
But the rich allow them because they think they can control them and not let them get out of hand. This is what happened in
Germany. This is what often happens actually.
In a sense, rightwing populism IS fake populism because it pretends to be for the people while often fucking them over with
rightwing class rule via fascism. It's still populism, it's just not for the people. It's fraudulent, iike most rightwing bullshit.
- AND! -
to suggest - or imply? - that the type of ''Populism'' Trump -(and other so called ''Populists) represent - IS to ''leave the
Davos Crowd much less rich'' -
could be the funniest thing ever written on this blog?
They're not worried about Donnie. He's no class traitor. They're worried about the populism of the Left and possibly about
rightwing populism in Europe. Bolzonaro and Trump are hardly threats to capital.
He pretends to be a populist because it helps him. For example, he doesn't care about illegal immigration. He's been happy
to hire undocumented workers his whole life, even now in office. But it gets his base fired up so he rails about immigration.
He has no ideology, he will use whatever helps him.
and to makes sure not to be misunderstood - I also think Davos is ''pathetic'' and ''hypocritical'' - and everything
else one wants to throw at it -
BUT as one of my favorite American Philosophers said:
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
And I think he meant the current ''Populists'' of this planet! -(and lets include especially the Brazilian one too)
But isn't it GREAT- that also ''the rich'' are starting to battle morons and a...holes like Baron von Clownsticks -(or the
nationalistic idiots in the UK - or the Neo Nazis in Germany?) -
For I while I thought I was left ALL alone in order to battle the type of ''Populism''- which is nothing else than the sick
racist phantasies of some nationalistic a...holes?
Rightwing populism is NOT cool in my boat. Rightwing populism is Bolsonaro. It's Duterte too, but that's a bit different,
he's a bit more pro-people. Erdogan is a rightwing populist too, but he's rather socialist. Marie Le Pen is out and out socialist
and she gets called rightwing populist. Orban is 5X more socialist than Venezuela and he gets called rightwing populist. It's
all very confusing.
But in the US and Latin America, rightwing populism is ugly stuff all right, and it tends to be associated with fascism!
Billionaire Michael Dell, chief executive officer of the eponymous technology giant, rejected a suggestion by U.S. Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of a 70-percent marginal tax rate on the wealthiest Americans.
"No, I'm not supportive of that," Dell said at a Davos panel on making digital globalization inclusive. "And I don't think it
will help the growth of the U.S. economy. Name a country where that's worked."
She may not be in Davos, but the New York representative's influence is being felt on the slopes of the Swiss Alps. Three weeks
after Ocasio-Cortez floated the idea in an interview on "60 Minutes" to raise the top marginal tax rate on Americans' income of more
than $10 million to 70 percent, it was a hot topic at the gathering of the global financial and political elite.
... ... ...
"My wife and I set up a foundation about 20 years ago and we would've contributed quite a bit more than a 70 percent tax rate
on my annual income," Dell said. "I feel much more comfortable with our ability as a private foundation to allocate those funds than
I do giving them to the government."
Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was on the panel with Dell, said such a rate worked
in the U.S. after World War II. But other executives were opposed, including Salesforce.com Inc. Co-Chief Executive Officer Keith
Block.
... ... ...
Billionaire investor Ray Dalio suggested that the idea may have legs in the run-up to the U.S. presidential election. Discussing
the outlook for a slowing world economy Tuesday, Dalio said that next year will see "the beginning of thinking about politics and
how that might affect economic policy beyond. Something like the talk of the 70 percent income tax, for example, will play a bigger
role." He didn't mention Ocasio-Cortez by name.
Currently in the U.S., the top marginal tax rate is 37 percent, which takes effect on income of more than $510,300 for individuals
and $612,350 for married couples, according to the Tax Foundation.
The fortunes of a dozen attendees at the World Economic Forum in 2009 have soared by a combined $175 billion, a Bloomberg analysis
found. The same cannot be said for people on the other end of the social spectrum: A report from Oxfam on Monday revealed that the
poorest half of the world saw their wealth fall by 11 percent last year.
Under neoliberalism 301K investors are overinvested in stock market essentially feeding Wall Street sharks. The net result even
in case of investing strictly in S&P500 are not that great. From 2000 to 2019 S&P rose from approximately 1400 to 2600 or 1200
points in 18 years. That's around 4.7% per year. Adding dividends that's around 6%. As you add money each year for this 18 years period you will realize only half of this return or 3% a year which is close to 30 years bond return (they are tax free, unlike S&P500) and barely beats inflation.
401K was an ingenious design to enrich Wall Street the staple on neoliberal attack on middle class
Notable quotes:
"... Samuelson was responding to my recent publications advocating expanded insurance, futures, and options markets to mitigate the financial risks – for example, those related to housing prices and occupational incomes – that ordinary people face. He said that these markets could, if pitched to the general population, turn into "casino markets," with people using them to gamble, rather than to protect themselves. ..."
Advising people simply to hold the market is advising them to
free-ride on the wisdom of others who do not follow such a strategy. If
everyone
followed Bogle's advice,
market prices would turn into nonsense and would provide no direction to economic activity.
3
I remember exactly when I began to appreciate the complexity of
the moral issues money management entails: October 8, 2009. I received a phone call from the eminent MIT economist
Paul Samuelson, who had been my teacher when I was a graduate student in the early 1970s. He was 94 years old at
the time, and two months later he died. I was so impressed by the call that I took notes on it in my diary.
Samuelson was responding to my recent publications
advocating expanded insurance, futures, and options markets to mitigate the financial risks – for example, those
related to housing prices and occupational incomes – that ordinary people face. He said that these markets could,
if pitched to the general population, turn into "casino markets," with people using them to gamble, rather than to
protect themselves.
He then brought up the example of Bogle, who "gave up a billion
dollars for a concept," Samuelson said. "He could easily have cashed this in," but he didn't. "The miracle that
was Vanguard came from Bogle's principles."
I thought he was right. In the long run, markets reward
principled people. But there is still need for an expanded set of risk markets, because these markets can – and do
– carry out useful functions, including risk management, incentivization, and orienting business.
The problem is that attention to these markets requires
intelligent and hard-working people to help others in their investing. Theirs is not a zero-sum game, for they
help direct resources to better uses. And these people must be paid. Even Vanguard, which now has a number of
different index funds, hires investment managers and charges a management fee, albeit a low one.
Not every fund needs a low fee. We live in a world where
constant and rapid change and innovation require more attention, and attention is costly. While many financial
managers are at times unscrupulous, a higher management fee is not always a sign that something is wrong.
But Bogle is still a hero of mine, because he provided an
honest product and was motivated by a sincere desire to help people. And he should be a hero to all, because he
showed that markets eventually recognize integrity.
The always excellent Moon of Alabama blog has just
published a sarcasm-laden piece documenting the many, many aggressive maneuvers that this
administration has made against the interests of Russia, from pushing for more NATO funding to
undermining Russia's natural gas interests to bombing Syria to sanctioning Russian oligarchs to
dangerous military posturing.
<picture deleted>
And yet the trending, most high-profile stories about Trump today all involve painting him
as a Putin puppet who is working to destroy America by taking a weak stance against an alarming
geopolitical threat. This has had the effect of manufacturing demand for even more dangerous
escalations against a nuclear superpower that just so happens to be a longtime target of U.S.
intelligence agencies.
If the mass media were in the business of reporting facts, there would be a lot less
"Putin's puppet" talk and a lot more "Hey, maybe we should avoid senseless escalations which
could end all life on earth" talk among news media consumers. But there isn't, because the mass
media is not in the business of reporting facts, it's in the business of selling narratives.
Even if those narratives are so shrill and stress-inducing that they imperil the health of
their audience.
Like His Predecessors
Trump is clearly not a Russian asset, he's a facilitator of America's permanent unelected
government just like his predecessors, and indeed as far as actual policies and administration
behavior goes he's not
that much different from Barack Obama and George W Bush. Hell, for all his demagogic
anti-immigrant speech Trump
hasn't even caught up to Obama's peak ICE deportation years.
If the mass media were in the business of reporting facts, people would be no more worried
about this administration than they were about the previous ones, because when it comes to his
administration's actual behavior, he's just as reliable an upholder of the
establishment-friendly status quo as his predecessors.
Used to be that the U.S. mass media only killed people indirectly, by facilitating
establishment war agendas in repeating government agency propaganda as objective fact and
promulgating narratives that manufacture support for a status quo which won't even give
Americans health insurance or safe drinking water. Now they're skipping the middle man and
killing them directly by psychologically brutalizing them so aggressively that it ruins their
health, all to ensure that
Democrats support war and adore the U.S. intelligence community .
They do this for a reason, of course. The Yellow Vests protests in France have continued
unabated for their
ninth consecutive week , a decentralized populist uprising resulting from ordinary French
citizens losing trust in their institutions and the official narratives which uphold them.
The social engineers responsible for controlling the populace of the greatest military power
on the planet are watching France closely, and understand deeply what is at stake should they
fail to control the narrative and herd ordinary Americans into supporting U.S. government
institutions. Right now they've got Republicans cheering on the White House and Democrats
cheering on the U.S. intelligence community, but that could all change should something happen
which causes them to lose control over the thoughts that Americans think about their
rulers.
Propaganda is the single most-overlooked and under-appreciated aspect of human society. The
ability of those in power to manipulate the ways ordinary people think, act and vote has
allowed for an inverted
totalitarianism which turns the citizenry into their own prison wardens, allowing those
with real power to continue doing as they please unhindered by the interests of the common
man.
The only thing that will lead to real change is the people losing trust in corrupt
institutions and rising like lions
against them. That gets increasingly likely as those institutions lose control of the
narrative, and with trust in the mass media at an all-time low, populist uprisings restoring
power to the people in France, and media corporations
acting increasingly weird and insecure , that looks more and more likely by the day.
A new, updated data
set is now available on a psychological phenomenon that has been labeled "Trump Anxiety
Disorder" or "Trump Hypersensitive Unexplained Disorder," and it says that the phenomenon only
got worse in 2018. The disorder
is described as a specific type of anxiety in which symptoms "were specific to the election
of Trump and the resultant unpredictable sociopolitical climate," and according to the 2018
surveys Americans are feeling significantly more stressed by the future of their country and
the current political environment than they were last year.
"As the possibility of a Hillary Clinton victory began to slip away -- and
the possibility of a Donald
Trump presidency became more and more certain -- the contours of the new age of American
anxiety began to take
shape . In a 2017 column, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank
described this phenomenon as "Trump Hypertensive Unexplained Disorder": Overeating.
Headaches. Fainting. Irregular heartbeat. Chronic neck pain. Depression. Irritable bowel
syndrome. Tightness in the chest. Shortness of breath. Teeth grinding. Stomach ulcer.
Indigestion. Shingles. Eye twitching. Nausea. Irritability. High blood sugar. Tinnitus.
Reduced immunity. Racing pulse. Shaking limbs. Hair loss. Acid reflux. Deteriorating vision.
Stroke. Heart attack. It was a veritable organ recital.
Two years later, the physiological effects of the Trump administration aren't going away.
A growing body of research has tracked the detrimental impacts of Trump-related stress on
broad segments of the American population, from
young adults to
women , to racial
and LGBT communities .
Early last year, I began to experience
some pains in my hands. I associated them with bringing a large turkey back from the butchers.
Hadn't taken the car, because parking, but it was heavier than I appreciated and I struggled
with the bird as the handles of the plastic bad tore on my fingers. I went to the doctor.
Tendons, probably, he said. Most likely be better in a few months.
Then in September, back from a touring holiday in France which had involved a lot of lugging
of boxes and cases up and down stairs, the pain was back, worse. I lacked the strength to open
cans and bottles. Some movements were fine but turning a knob or using a key sometimes --
ouch!
That's where I am, basically. A few trips to the doctor and the physio later, osteoarthritis
it seems. Injections in the thumb joint helped one hand, but less the other. Typing is ok,
mostly, but my handwriting is worse. On public transport I steady myself by wrapping my arm
around things, since gripping with a hand might hurt. I squeeze a rubber ball from time to
time, as building up the muscles supposedly compensates a bit for the damage to the joints.
Not much fun, but could be worse. And only one of many things that comes past your mid
fifties (I'm sixty now). I've had more blood tests in the past three years than in the previous
thirty put together. Diabetes? No, thank goodness, not yet. Blood pressure is high, if not
really dangerously so yet. Swallowing statins every morning, when I remember, to keep the
choresterol down.
My father died in the summer of 2017. He was in good form until a week before the end though
he'd had his share of health problems over the quarter-century before and a walk to the shops
and back would see him needing a rest. We shared conversations to the end. He was lively, still
learning German, discussing Edith Wharton. Though we all know that death is coming, a parent
going is concrete. You know that will be you soon enough, so better make the best of it and
concentrate on what matters.
As I've thought more about the loss of capacity. The aches and pains. The knowledge that
there are things you could do but now can't. When you really ought to take more exercise
because it is good for your heart and lungs, but when there's every chance that back, knee or
hip won't play nicely enough to let you.
I keep returning to an image from a TV programme about John Clare. The picture was of a man
on his back with
The grass below -- above the vaulted sky.
When young the vaulting is infinitely distant, and if lucky and not disabled you can vault
over obstacles yourself. But age makes the sky close in. In your forties you can see the roof
even if you can't touch it. Then, later, if you stretch, your fingers graze the surface. Time
comes when you have to be careful not to bang your head. Some while after you stoop and then
crouch. The tunnel gets narrower too. There is less space to move and perhaps, eventually,
there will be no space at all.
Statins with dinner. Ask the pharmacist.
Hoping that the pain/stiffness in knuckles since the bicycle accident (2 months ago)
continues to self-resolve with OTC anti-inflammatories
I'm sorry to hear about the hand pain. It's especially bad for people who write for a living.
When I was in college, I worked part time in a hospital pharmacy. We used hundreds of bottles
of normal saline solution a day. The way that billing worked, each bottle had to have a
sticker on it. I'd spend my slow time taking little bottles from a box, pulling a sticker
from a strip, putting it on the bottle, and returning it to the box. Within a few months, I
could no longer hold a pen or a pencil in my right hand. This was before lap tops, so it was
a pretty big problem for a student! I had to refuse to do that task anymore. My hands, which
had been strong, still give me trouble from time to time, and get sore easily. It's not fun.
I hope yours won't be a persistent problem.
It sounds like the tennis elbow I had after a long, hard-fought tennis session in my late
forties. At the end I noticed I had a death grip on the racket handle which was difficult to
loosen. The next day I was trying to leave a conference room at work which had a
spring-loaded door knob. I couldn't turn the knob with my right hand, and had to awkwardly
use my left hand. It lasted for several months, to the point where I didn't think it would
ever heal, but it did eventually. When I did finally dare to play tennis again, I used a
compression band around my right forearm, which seemed to help a lot. I never hit the ball as
well as I had that day, though.
On the aging thing, I never needed a doctor (that I knew of) until about the age of 67. It
has been one darn thing after another since then. (I'll spare the gory details.) I might make
75 but don't expect to see 80 (which of course isn't unusual and more than I deserve). My
arm-chair philosophy about it it is that if death (by aging) didn't exist, evolution would
have had to invent it, which it did. Otherwise, how can a species adapt to changes in the
environment by trying new gene tweaks and combinations, without drastic over-population? For
new things to succeed you have to get rid of the old things.
It sounds like the arthritis at the base of the thumb is the biggest problem. It was for me.
I couldn't even pick up a piece of paper with my left hand without pain, and it ached
constantly. There is surgery available for that, which I got, and it worked. It was quite an
ordeal, and it took a year to fully recover, but I got the use of my hand back and the pain
is gone. I have arthritis in the distal joints of several fingers, but that is much less of a
problem.
The surgery is kind of gross -- they remove the trapezium bone and, in my case, stuff the
cavity with a rolled up tendon harvested from the forearm, which eventually ossifies. You
will never miss the tendons. Some surgeons use a prosthesis, either a cadaver bone or an
artificial product. It's quite painful at first and you have to wear a cast for six weeks,
and then undergo rehab, but in the end, for me at least, it was a complete cure. Worth
considering.
I have chronic several overuse injuries that I used to be able work around athletics wise.
But now I'm 67 and they seriously limit the amount of exercise I can get. You adapt and go
on. And find other ways to spend your time and energy.
JimV @67. Well if evolution was kind to us we would remain healthy and vigorous then at
some random time, boom its over. If the probability of boom was not age dependent, then there
would be no difference in one's prospects whether 20 or 90.
Mild continuous exercise helps including muscle strengthening over your whole body but never
overdo, just daily. I walk about 3.5 miles a day, hit a gym in the middle of the walk and
work about 20 weight machines, very light weights.
"We used to talk about girls. Now we talk about doctors."
It appears that sacrificing the body is an essential to join in civilized society in any
meaningful way. Nobody else thinks overwork/stress injuries/industrial accidents are a big
deal, so what's the matter with you, Bub? A serious "life of the mind" demands serious
couch-potatoism. We're all playing in the NFL these days, but it doesn't have to be like
that.
Getting old is not for sissies!!!
My mental image of aging comes in two forms. One, is where you start life living in a large
mansion of many rooms. Then in middle age you notice that a room is missing. As you age rooms
keep disappearing. The next thing you know you are living in a one room hut.
The other is when young you see a clear horizon that seems very very distant. Then you see
clouds on the horizon and it seems closer. At my age, 83, I can reach out and touch the
fog.
The legs are shot and the pain in my feet is increasing. This time next year I could be in a
wheelchair. Other than that life is good.
I encourage my young wife, 72, to keep on keeping on. She has taken that to heart and is
riding her horse, skiing, scuba diving and renewing her pilots license. I am keeping on
keeping on riding my horse and electric assist bike and living vicariously through my wife's
adventures.
There are probably nutritional approaches (though your doctor will be unbelieving and vegans
will be offended). But osteo-a does give indications of being both immune related and a
disease of modernity. Anyway ensure adequate fat soluble vitamins (and related minerals) This
may require you to eat more saturated fat than is fashionable. Also glycine, and omega 3's.
Eliminate any unnecessary PUFA's.
Thanks Chris–this certainly hit home. Since you're only 60 and still working, allow me
the presumption of my own data point as one of hope. I'm 65 and just finishing my first year
of retirement after nearly 40 years of teaching at a 4/4 branch of the U of Wisconsin. Like
you I've experienced some health concerns over the past 15 years including mild hypertension.
Since I loved my career (down to the last day in the classroom), I didn't know what to expect
when I was gently pushed out of it with a generous buy-out and threats of commuting to teach
part of my load (I'd done that for 10 years and detested it). What I discovered is that I had
no idea how stressful even a career that one enjoys can be! Within months I had lost 15
pounds and my BP went down, even a bit below normal, with no medication. I've been active my
whole life, but clearly being out of the day-to-day grind of academic prep and research made
the whole difference. My hope is that when you do retire, you find these same benefits.
One exercise that I've become devoted to is the elliptical machine on my campus, which I
still may use as emeritus. It does a great job putting my heart to the test without straining
my knees, which feel the effects of 40 years of running.
It is a turning point of sorts, that moment when you can actually grasp the length of time
ahead of you.
I'm 58 and remember how even into my 30s, the remaining time in my life seemed to stretch
away into inconceivable distance. Then somewhere in my 40s, I realized that even if I lived
to a ripe old age, I could actually grasp how long that remaining time was.
I could remember forty odd years ago, I could suddenly understand that forty odd years
into the future, my memories of midlife would be as fresh and sharp as my memories of
kindergarten were.
I'm Glad Kamala's California Attorney General Office's: what about the lost California
revenues from the – in for years – non violent petty theft and petty drug (opioid
prescriptions, weed, DUIs, et al) prisoners if we let them out, made it into your piece.
Referenced on the ShadowProof
link (only):
In 2014, lawyers for Kamala Harris argued in court that if minimum-custody inmates
were released early, the state of California would "lose an important labor pool."
These inmates included firefighters, who are paid $1 an hour to confront some of the
deadliest blazes in California history. Harris later argued that she was unaware her own
office argued in favor of keeping parolees in jail so they could serve as the state's
on-call cheap labor.
So many recent Kamala Harris critiques leave it out, even though those 'news' sites are
(or should be) aware of it. It was a very big deal at the time, since California had (still
has) a huge over incarceration issue, which was even noted by the over incarcerating US
Federal Government, which took Jerry Brown to task about his huge prison overload. Kamala
blamed the revolting argument to maintain inhuman California prisoner revenues – versus
releasing non violent prisoners who more than served their time – on her underlings.
She claimed to be totally unaware of their actions. Who, in their right mind, believes
that Kamala was utterly unaware of how her employees portrayed her objectives?
oh it gets even better – once those $1-a-day not-firefighters are paroled, most
will not be eligible to work as firefighters in the future due to their records
Weirdly, she seems to be doubling down on the I'm A Cop thing.
"For the People" is what every prosecutor tells the judge and jury when she introduces
herself at the beginning of a case in court, and given the endless stream of tv shows about
cops and prosecutors, a lot of voters in America will have seen a prosecutor (well, an actor
playing a prosecutor) standing and saying, "Jane Doe for the People, your honor!"
approximately one hundred thousand times. She's never going to leave the issue of
prosecutorial misconduct behind her; her slogan reminds people on every ad and every piece of
campaign literature.
I suppose her people may think Democratic voters like that sort of thing. If they're
right, we're doomed, but I have some hope that maybe we're not that far gone yet.
Concerning
the partial shutdown and and the border barriers 1 - The banks, credit unions and any
other financial institutions that can lend money are missing a chance to build a lot of good
will in this situation. Good will is an item that any good business plan must take into account
even of it is impossible to quantify on paper. Good will leads to more customers. Businesses
want to acquire more customers. The 800k federal employees now on furlough have legislated
assurance that their back pay will be quickly forthcoming when the pause ends. Sooo! Make them
no interest loans in the amount of their postponed pay. You will not be sorry if you do that. I
don't know if that could be extended to contract employees since the contract that includes
their services may not insure back pay.
2 - The wall, barrier system or whatever you want to call it presently exists on a number of
sections of the border. Pelosi, Schumer and the other Democrats who prattle about the
"immorality" and uselessness of physical border defenses should be asked each and every day if
they want the present border barriers demolished so that anyone can cross the border whenever
they want and anywhere they want. California is the destination of choice of these economic
migrants. If the border barriers are taken down, there will be IMO a mass migration into what
is now the United States and especially into California from Latin American and then inevitably
from all over the world. Ask the Democrats, every day if they want the existing border barriers
taken down, Ask them! pl
The current fight over "the wall" and funding for that wall is pure politics on both sides.
We are under a partial government shutdown for the sake of a symbol. Some kind of border
barrier has been in existence since the 90s and the "Secure Border Act" of 2006 called for
close to 700 miles of double fence barriers. Both Republican and Democratic legislatures and
presidencies have maintained and added to this fencing as well as doubling the size of the
CBP. According to a December 2016 GAO report on securing the SW border, the CBP spent $2.4
billion between 2007 and 2015 to deploy tactical infrastructure (TI) - fencing, gates, roads,
bridges, lighting and drainage infrastructure distributed along the entire SW border area.
That includes 654 miles of fencing and 5,000 miles of roads.
A total of $1.7 billion was appropriated in FY17 and FY18 for new and replacement barriers
and fences. Most of those funds have been obligated to the Corp of Engineers and much of that
has been awarded to contractors. Only a small percentage (6%) has been paid out for completed
contracts. The following projects account for close to half of those funds:
- In New Mexico to replace 20 miles of fencing with bollard wall for $73 million. Contract
was awarded in February 2018. Construction started in April 2018 and was completed in
September 2018.
- In the Rio Grande Valley to build 8 miles of 18 foot bollard wall and replace existing
levee wall for $167 million to begin in February 2019.
- In Arizona to build/replace 32 miles of "primary pedestrian wall" for $324 million to
begin in April 2019.
- Near San Diego to replace 14 miles of 8-10 foot metal wall/fence with 18-30 foot tall
bollard wall system for $287 million to begin in July 2019.
Trump's current demand for $5.7 billion covers an additional 243 miles of fencing mostly
in the Rio Grande Valley. It'll probably be 2020 before a single bollard is set from that
$5.7 billion and several years after that to issue the contracts and complete the
construction. Given the shortcoming in the present border fences, that $5.7 billion would be
better spent on replacing the present barriers in the most needed areas rather constructing
new fence in less vulnerable areas. Just to maintain and replace what we have should require
close to a billion dollars a year. I say again, this current battle over $5.7 billion for
"the wall" is political posturing by both sides.
The more important demand made by Trump was the $800 million to address the humanitarian
crisis on the border. These funds would provide for improved care/processing of
refugees/asylum seekers, 2,750 more border agents and 75 more immigration judges. In my
opinion, that would be a wise expense. I think there ought to be ten times that number of new
border agents/officers to better address the refugee problem (humanitarian crisis) which will
probably remain for many years. Climate change is making drought, hurricanes, floods and
mudslides the new normal in Central America. The farming economy in this region, which
includes southern Mexico is collapsing. Local governments are dysfunctional and impotent.
These people are going to migrate or die in place.
If you want to declare a national emergency, we could use eminent domain to condemn and
buy a lot of farmland at cost from corporate agribusinesses and start a "40 acres and a mule"
program for refugee farm families and any native American family who desire a new start.
Have to agree. Trump only asked for $1.6 billion for his wall in his 2019 budget...and got
it. He then decided to have a fight, one that he was loath to have when the Republicans held
the majority in the House.
IMO Pelosi and co have also decided this is a good place to have a Waterloo. This isn't a
struggle for a wall it's a struggle for dominance. They await a tide of public opinion to
decide it.
They should shut down the whole regime. The first things to be shut down should be the myriad
of bases occupying foreign soil, particularly the bases that support the destabilization of
middle eastern countries.
Reply • Share › Twitter Facebook
I am on the left and I don't have a problem with the wall. That said, if you really want to
reduce illegal immigration exit controls would be more effective (and much more cost
effective). I went through a whole lot of trouble to get a work visa to work legally in
Poland in the late 90s - and I wouldn't have bothered if Poland didn't have exit controls.
Almost every country in the world has exit controls ... except for Canada and the US.
Oh cut it out. The wall is bullshit. If Trump was actually serious about illegal immigration
he'd be pushing E-Verify for all US businesses to determine the eligibility of employees. But
the GOP business lobby would never allow that so we get dog and pony shows like this so that
Trump can act like he really means business.
Well, at last you have made a logical point. E-verify should be made mandatory. You would
probably loose a lot of friends if it were. BTW, your many insulting comments today have
caused me after many years to ban you.
With regard to #1 I'm not holding my breath. Fundamental to the financial sector's business
model is opportunistic predation. As Michael Hudson relentlessly documents in his recently
published and forgive them their debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze
Age Finance to the Jubilee Year , it has been this way since money was invented in the
ancient Near East over five thousand years ago. In today's world few banksters can be
expected to forego invoking the fine print terms regarding the late fees and interest rate
hikes, especially considering the fact the careers of the CEOs and CFOs of publicly traded
companies live or die by the next quarterly earnings report.
https://amzn.to/2TfN2ht
Sadly Hudson's important book is getting little traction. He could only get this published on
a print-to-order basis in spite of the fact he has about a dozen prior books to his credit.
As a PtO book it will not be stocked by chain book stores.
They would never admit it, but of courser the Democrats want all the barriers gone and an
open border.
There are approx. 22 mil. illegal aliens in this country and the Democrats want more and
more.
Then they can push for amnesty (which the swamp Republicans, in their gross stupidity, will
go along with) and PRESTO: 22 mil. plus entitled Democrat voters.
Who needs those redneck goober
They would never admit it, but of courser the Democrats want all the barriers gone and an
open border.
There are approx. 22 mil. illegal aliens in this country and the Democrats want more and
more.
Then they can push for amnesty (which the swamp Republicans, in their gross stupidity, will
go along with) and PRESTO: 22 mil. plus entitled Democrat voters.
Who needs those redneck goober (white male)Trump voters, anyway?
As Philip Giraldi points out in a post a The Unz Review today, the Democratic establishment
isn't opposed to walls per se. It depends on who's building it and for what purpose.
Pelosi, Schumer and the other Democrats who prattle about the immorality and uselessness of
physical border defenses should be asked each and every day if they want the present border
barriers demolished so that anyone can cross the border whenever they want and anywhere
they want The wall, barrier system or whatever you want to call it presently exists on a
number of sections of the border.
In honor of Sen. Chuck 'Shomer', I vote that we call our border barrier a fence ,
just as Israel does:
Sir: While not directly on point, I knuckled under and signed up with Disqus simply to say
how much I have appreciated this committee of correspondence over the years. Seeing your post
recently about conversing with Glubb Pasha was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's
back.
IMO, we should sell coastal California to Mexico for $100 billion. Then use that money to
build a wall from Oregon to Brownsville, TX. Solves two problems in one fell swoop.
It sure does seem like the lenders are missing an excellent opportunity for a nearly risk
free public relations campaign as well as sales opportunities. Get these furloughed workers
in the door and give them a furlough loan and then get them interested in home loans, auto
loans...whatever they're qualified for. Should be a no-brainer.
Trump is our chief executive charged with the day to day running of the government and the
proverbial "making the trains run on time" for government functions. All these functions work
for him, not the legislative branch. His partial shutdown of the government reminds me of the
classic film Blazing Saddles where the black sheriff, played by Cleavon Little, takes himself
hostage by holding a gun to his own head to hold off a mob angry at having a black appointed
sheriff for their town. It worked in the film. Let's hope it does not work in Washington.
Fred, just finished the book you recommended "A Disease in the Public Mind - Why We Fought
the Civil War" by Thomas Flemming. The most balanced and fair nonfiction historical book I
have read on this subject.
Also depressing because History is repeating itself. Not rhyming but repeating itself. The
modern day abolitionist is convinced of their morale superiority over the deplorables. Just
look at the Fake News regarding the Catholic School boys. One abolitionist said on Twitter
that he wish they were dead along with their parents.
I hate the agenda of the Paul Ryan wing of the Republican Party but I hate these modern
day abolitionist more since they desire to kill people just because they don't agree with
their transgender, open borders anarchy, and taxes on the little guy for a Climate Change
problem that doesn't exist. The Yellow Vest movement is a push back against this madness.
Instead of talking Medicare for All, jobs for everyone, prosperity, taking care of your
countryman the political narrative is on bizarre subjects due to the Elite knowing
Globalization is destroying huge sections of Western Civilization. The Yellow Vest have
destroyed 60% of the Speed Cameras deployed to catch the little guy going 5 m.p.h. over the
speed limit or running a red light that is timed to get you. It has nothing to do with safety
and everything to do with raising money off the individuals who are already struggling to
survive.
For the top 26 billionaires in the world to have as much wealth as the bottom 3.8 billion
people in the world is barbaric. Globalization has led to drastic income inequality and the
fuse is burning.
Glad you read the book. I agree when you say " The modern day abolitionist is convinced of
their morale superiority over the deplorables." I wrote an early piece about that existential
angst of this newest generation. (Hard to believe it has already been two years.)
https://turcopolier.typepad...
I think this generation is waking up to having 'been played' by the politicians. What is
being missed in this latest effort to control the narrative is 1) Anti-Semitism in the
Women's march which led many groups, inluding the DNC, to withdraw support. 2) A turnout
that's roughly 90% lower than two years ago and a far, far cry from what was promoted. Others
in random order: Unempolyment is way down. The stock market is up almost 10% since the
shutdown began. Turmp is directing that the armed forces leave Syria (Afghanistan is probably
next) and North Korea is making further move gestures towards actual denuclearization.
What will be interesting to see, in the long run, is if the Democrats can keep the Hispanic
vote. Being godless sodomites, the new age abolitionists are making war on Catholics and, it
just so happens, that Hispanics, by and large, are serious about their Catholicism.
I don't see it. California proves otherwise. Texas and Georgia have become competitive
because of illegal immigrants having American born kids. The abolitionist say demography is
destiny and I tend to agree. Shows how racist they are. And how much they hate white people.
I see the Republican Party becoming noncompetitive to extinct over the next 20 years. And
the Democrat Party separating into 2 parties. The Progressive Wing versus the Moderate Wing.
Of course it could just all burned down before then and I wouldn't be surprised. I plan to
read your book next and have no doubt I will enjoy it. I've read the free excerpts you
provided and enjoyed them.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if future white generations in America do not emigrate to
Russia. I hate to be pessimistic but the monkey brain of man is incurable and hate runs
rampant. The modern day white abolitionist will be sideline to the trailer park but they are
too stupid to see it.
We need a new party in America that is for all colors of citizens and an economic populist
platform along with a social justice system that is vibrant.
The Democrat Party is the most vile/racist/bigoted party in the world right now. This
modern abolitionist attitude that killed many innocent Iraqi's due to no fault of their own
and believes they can dictate to countries such as Afghanistan, Syria, and Russia on how to
live because they are gender neutral is going to come back and destroy them. Either through a
home grown movement such as the Yellow Vest or worse to all of our detriment.
Sir, It may already be happening. An NPR/PBS/Marist January poll (that's not Fox/Breitbart)
shows approval of the performance of Trump among Hispanics rising from 31% to 50% since the
same poll was performed just prior to the shutdown. I can't figure out if Trump is a 10th
level Jedi master or if it's a case of the one eyed man being king in the land of the blind.
Trump says give me X number of $$s for my border wall (thought balloon over his head says "so
I can get re-elected") or I shut down the gov't. What's to keep him from doing it again if
the Dems cave this time?
On a side note: it's pretty appalling that you and your mostly Cuckoo bird commenters
think this is the way the republic should be run. So sad what happened to this blog.
We have Democrats like Sandy Ocasio-Cortez demanding the abolition of ICE. Is that one of
so-called improvements to border security the Democrats are seeking with popular backing?
If left to their devices, the Democrats would happily do away with the border altogether.
Don't take my word for it. Take the words of the two-time failed Democratic presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton. She gave a paid, private speech in Brazil where she claimed, "My
dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the
future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and
opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." That's all fine and dandy, I'm sure, but
oddly she didn't make that proclamation publicly on the campaign trail.
You are so full of shit. Dems want borders and they want border security based on real
experience, not a mnemonic device dreamed up by Roger Stone to focus candidate Trump on
immigration issues.
I think you are putting words in Pelosi's and the democrats mouths. I have heard of none of
them espousing getting rid of the border barriers. I believe they view a wall as a dumb idea
but are for other improvements for border security. This, I believe, is what the majority of
the populace want.
Pelosi and any number of other leading Dems have said that border barriers are immoral. The
logical conclusion from those statements is that ALL border barriers are immoral. If that is
their position then they should advocate removal of existing barriers. If they do not, then
they are politically self serving liars.
Tell that to the angry ranchers along the southern Texas borders who think trump's wall is a
political stunt that will ruin them economically.
There is no illegal alien southern border crisis in 2019 -- and the migrant caravan that
had so many republicans freaked out ultimately wound up in Tijuana, across the wall from San
Diego. Because that's where migrant families wind up, at official points of entry so they can
apply for asylum.
Sir;
The problem with the idea of banks building 'good will' is that the financial sector, by and
large, has moved on from old fashioned business models to an 'enrich the insiders at everyone
else's expense' model.
My local bank that I use has signs in the lobby directing workers discommoded by the shutdown
to apply at the small loan desk. I do not know what incentives are on offer, but my
unpleasant experience with the bank once before does not give me much hope of the bank acting
altruistically.
William K Black, who headed part of the Federal response to the 'Savings and Loan' crisis in
the 1980's has called this trend the building of a "criminogenic environment."
As for the wall fiasco, I would ask Chuck and Nancy; "Who do you consider as being
Americans?" Then tell them to serve that group, no one else. The last time I looked, no one
had abolished the Nation State.
Thank you for your indulgence.
But that is exactly the problem; global corporations and their lobbyists are doing their
utmost to abolish the Nation State. Nation states are a PITA, from the Globalist POV. They
make regulations, have borders impeding the rampant denuding of talent pools and worst of all
occasionally erect trade barriers to favor their domestic industries. All of this is harmful
to the corporate profits of a global business. What we are witnessing in the US and elsewhere
is the push back against this drive to maximize profits at the cost of huge sections of
national populations.
Trump may be a billionaire businessman with worldwide interests, but real estate is
different. It employs largely local labor and is not vulnerable to 'protectionist' government
policies in the same way. This is key to understanding how a billionaire like Trump can think
and act so differently to the Davos club and billionaires like Bezos.
Totally agree with you. What I can't understand about these politicians from the democratic
party or for that matter the main stream media is if we are so internationalized then why all
the this drum beating about Russia Russia since we a re all a part of the nice international
group of people. Don't they have as much stake who governs in this international brotherhood?
Then that is what they should say, rather than the prattle they are currently issuing.
Apparently, unlike me, you completed the mind reading class in high school.
My mind reading comment was actually addressed to Stuart Wood for his remark about Pelosi and
company that despite their words to the contrary, "I believe they view a wall as a dumb
idea but are for other improvements for border security."
I would also say ideas like people age and gradually become irrelevant no matter how
strongly they are propelled by the power of the state and MSM. When neoliberalism became the
object of jokes, it is clear that its time has passed.
Neoliberal ideology experienced a severe crisis in 2007 and was by-and-large
discredited.
But Neoliberalism as a social system is resilient and can continue to exist for some time
even after ideology itself was discredited. Probably 30-50 years, if we think that
neoliberalism is a perverted flavor of Trotskyism (Financial elite of all countries unite;
Permanent neoliberal revolution until the global victory of neoliberalism) and Bolshevism
lasted 50 years after the crisis of its ideology in early 60th.
So I think that neoliberalism entered its "zombie phase." It became more bloodthirsty,
aggressive (look at Trump) and even managed to stage revenge in Argentina and Brasil deposing
less neoliberal governments with hardcore neoliberal.
But ideas age and die like people and in 2019 the ideas of neoliberalism are essentially
dead. So now it is clinging by the pure power of propaganda and coercion. That is the road to
nowhere, and I expect this neoliberalism position in the USA will be further undermined
by-elections of 2020. Maybe tax regime will start to change to byte top 1%, and maybe there is
be local and quickly suppressed insurrections/strikes, like in France; I do not know. But with
the level of inequality intact, the cracks might widen.
Degeneration of the neoliberal elite (Trump, Pelosi, Schumer, Pompeo, etc.) is another
obvious problem. Filters work in such a way that capable (and this potentially dangerous to the
system) people are eliminated at early stages of political selection. That might s danger for
the USA is not so distant future as a viable, cohesive society and currently, the Congress
really reminds Soviet Politburo. Bunch on Mayberry Machiavelli.
At least in Australia politicians started openly discuss alternatives. Here in the USA,
there is dead silence. That means that the Congress is a part of the problem, not a part of the
solution.
Another problem is with the level of militarism in the USA society. The size of MIC is a
huge problem and like cancer is curable only by surgical means. The fact is that politicians
are arguing about 5 billion wall which is something like one percent of F35 program cost (
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-10/f-35-program-costs-jump-to-406-billion-in-new-pentagon-estimate
)
At this point, people stop to trust both politicians and MSM re-defining them as "fake news"
which means the crisis of legitimacy of the neoliberal elite. And I think that the USA either
reached this point or is very close.
That's why the US neoliberal elite decided to cement the cracks in the neoliberal
ideological façade via Russophobia in best neo-McCarthyism fashion. The idea is to
define the common enemy and mobilizing the society against it, leaving internal frictions on
the "day after." But it looks like neoliberalism which Sheldon Wolin defined as "inverted
totalities" is bad on mass mobilization. It no longer can produce slogans or politician who can
ignite passion of common people. Obama was a fake. So is Trump.
And Russiagate gambit produced some unwanted to neoliberals externalities like the society
attention to intelligence-driven machinations and their role as a political force under
neoliberalism. Including the role of British intelligence services.
For the last couple of weeks, I've been wanting to write a response to Aaron Major's (paywalled)
article on ideas and economic power for
Catalyst.
Major argues that they don't matter nearly as much as you might think. This means that a lot of recent work focusing on economic
ideas leads us in the wrong direction.
And yet, though motivated by a genuine concern for the damage that neoliberalism has done, building a critique of neoliberalism
through an idea-centered framework is both politically disarming and reinforces pernicious aspects of the neoliberal project.
One of the recurring points that emerges from a close reading of idea-centered accounts of political and economic change is that
the materialist social context -- the structure of social divisions formed along economic lines and the way power is distributed
across those divisions -- exerts a great deal of influence over both the content of ideas as well as their relative influence.
The neoliberal political-economic agenda, like others before it, advances through a favorable balance of social forces while simultaneously
trying to obscure the role that power and material advantage plays in its success. If the strength and resilience of the elitist,
pro-capital, and dehumanizing policies and practices that are often summarized as "neoliberal" is reduced to, or primarily explained
as, the impact of ideas, and those ideas are not grounded in the balance of material forces that gives them shape and influence,
then one can easily walk away with the impression that the solution to neoliberalism is found in intellectual debate and critique,
and not what is really needed: political mobilization.
Here, in particular, he focuses on the work of Mark Blyth:
Mark Blyth's Great Transformations helped spur the recent surge in idea-centered political economy and so serves as a useful starting
point for this discussion. Like other political economists, Blyth argues that transitions from one political-economic era to another
are caused by deep, punctuated crisis. However, whereas realist political science imagines perfectly rational actors approaching
a crisis like any other problem to be solved, Blyth questions this basic premise. Political actors are not rational, he argues,
but rather rely on prevailing norms and ideas to serve as a kind of "instruction sheet" that they follow. During moments of crisis,
dominant models of economic management fail, leaving political actors grasping for some way of understanding the nature of the
problems that they face and means to address them. This opens the door to once-sidelined experts and intellectuals to chart a
new path forward by writing a new, workable instruction sheet.
Major respects what Blyth is doing – but thinks it is nonetheless misconceived.
To make a strong ideational argument stick, it is not enough to show that some ideas mattered for some social or policy change.
Rather, one has to be able to support two additional claims. First, that the formation, circulation, and debate over different
policy ideas can be explained independent of other material forces. Materialist political economy, from which Blyth is trying
to break, does not deny that economic policymaking has an important ideational component of the sort that Blyth describes, but
it also insists that material social factors play a powerful agenda-setting role, limiting the scope of policy debate. Second,
a strong ideational argument needs to be able to explain why one set of ideas beat out other, competing ideas in purely ideational
terms. A strong ideational argument suggests that the victory of one idea over another can be explained by the character of the
idea itself, not by the power or position of the actors who champion it. Great Transformations falters on both counts. What Blyth's
account reveals, though he never addresses it explicitly, is that the ideas that framed early New Deal policy innovations were
themselves shaped by the structures of US industry and agriculture and the strength of competing economic classes. It is because
US labor was organized and militant that the Roosevelt administration sought an economic program that would forge an alliance
with the working class. The political capacity of social classes not only affected which policies worked, and which policies failed
-- it also affected how policies were crafted and which ones were advanced. Blyth's more recent Austerity: History of a Dangerous
Idea is marred by the same analytical unevenness the book is hamstrung by the insistence that the story of austerity can be told
as a history of ideas. Taken as a whole, Blyth's work points to a critical challenge that scholars have faced in trying to make
idea-centered arguments for political and economic change stick, and that is explainingidea selection. Rarely does anything of
historical significance happen without heated debate, and the turn to neoliberalism is no exception. Margaret Thatcher may have
successfully exported her pithy, dismissive "There Is No Alternative," but her numerous opponents begged to differ. Sides are
formed, measures are proposed, and rationalizations are given. But who wins? Blyth's own accounts of major policy change highlights
critical moments in times of crisis when state elites were grappling with competing ideas, but neither Great Transformations nor
Austerity can really explain why some ideas went on to shape policy and others found their way into the dustbin of history.
Credit Suisse came out today with a doozy of a 90-page "study" looking at global debt
levels. A shout out like this in the report does nothing to engender confidence in risk assets:
"Defaults are likely to rise in segments of the corporate debt markets once economic growth
weakens more markedly or if monetary policy tightens further; in such a situation, an unwinding
of positions could generate significant market stress due to illiquidity."
Credit Suisse Chairman Urs Rohner suggests on the first page of the report that a full-scale
global debt blowup is unlikely. But the overall scope of the report is bearish to stocks, trust
this writer who read the study in its entirety.
"While we don't presently observe conditions to look for a 'buying opportunity' or a
'bottom' from a full-cycle standpoint, we do observe conditions that are permissive of a
scorching market rebound, even if it only turns out to be the 'fast, furious, prone to
failure' variety. We wouldn't dream of removing our safety nets against a market decline that
I continue to expect to draw the S&P 500 toward the 1000 level by the completion of this
cycle. Still, we've prepared for the possibility of unusual volatility here, most likely
including one or more daily moves in the range of 4-6%, potentially to the upside. Yes, that
means one or more daily moves on the order of 100-150 points on the S&P 500 and 900-1300
points on the Dow. You think I'm kidding."
– John P. Hussman, Ph.D., Interim comment, Pre-open, 12/26/18
In recent days, we've heard a number of analysts gushing that the S&P 500 is vastly
cheaper than it was only a few months ago. It's worth noting that they're actually referring to
an index that is now less than 10% below the steepest speculative extreme in history. The chart
below puts current valuations into perspective, using our Margin-Adjusted P/E, which is better
correlated with actual subsequent 10-12 year market returns than the price/forward operating
earnings ratio, the Shiller CAPE, the Fed Model, and a wide range of alternative valuation
measures that Wall Street uses to reassure investors that valuations are anything less than
obscene.
As market conditions currently stand, valuations remain extreme and market internals remain
negative. So aside from the likelihood of a knee-jerk market spike on any variant of the word
"deal," we continue to be in a trap-door situation with respect to market risk. Though we did
take the edge off of our negative outlook to allow for a scorching relief rally, my present
view is that the overall function of that relief rally has been served.
...
One of the more cringe-worthy features of the behavior of investment professionals here is
the spectacle of Wall Street analysts touting the "reasonableness" of valuations on the basis
of year-ahead earnings expectations that they themselves are responsible for fabricating. Just
as in 2000 and 2007, instead of the investment profession acting as a historically-informed
buffer to defend investors against reckless speculation, extrapolative projections like these
are actually endorsed and encouraged by the very people who should know better. The chart below
is thanks to TopDownCharts .
...though we're inclined to wait for more data, and to look for greater deterioration before
identifying a recession, it's important to remember how quickly the data can shift. The amount
of time between the peak in economic confidence and the beginning of a recession is usually
very short. In general, a uniform deterioration in financial, employment and economic
confidence measures, even compared with 6 months earlier, strongly amplifies the risk of a
recession, and there's not much lead time at all. Put simply, we want to have a reliable set of
confirming evidence, but it's also important to remember how quickly that evidence can emerge
.
Questions we hear a lot
Given the volatility of the financial markets in recent months, my sense is that the best
comments to offer are those that relate to these questions:
Bull market or bear
market?
My impression is that the recent bull market peaked on September 20, 2018, which is also
when we observed the largest preponderance of historically useful top signals we've ever seen.
As I noted at the time, the only other point that came close was March 24, 2000, the date of
the 2000 bubble peak. Still, the primary usefulness of a bull/bear label is to emphasize the
potential for steep market losses over the completion of the cycle. As long as one recognizes
that risk, there's no need for labels.
It's probably better to recognize that the market remains hypervalued and that market
internals remain unfavorable. If internals improve at high valuations, our outlook is likely to
shift to something that might be described as "constructive with a safety net." If they improve
at substantially lower valuations, we're likely to move to an unhedged or aggressive stance.
For now, there's so much downside risk that we'd view an improvement in internals as a "bear
market rally," but whatever one might call it, we'd likely be constructive with a safety net.
Even that, I suspect, is likely to emerge from lower levels.
Buy stocks or buy bonds?
My impression is that neither provides much prospect for meaningful returns, and 10% off the
most obscene valuations in U.S. history isn't what I'd call a "bargain." With the yield curve
as flat as we currently observe, the main reason to own bonds is based on the likelihood of a
decline in yields in the event of economic weakness. There's some potential for that, but I'd
lean toward a mix of Treasury bills, modest bond market durations, high credit-quality, and
hedged equity. Our estimated return/risk profile for precious metals shares is also fairly
strong here, but given the volatility of those shares, I'd characterize that as a constructive
situation rather than an aggressive one. None of these is without risk.
Recession or
continued expansion?
We're seeing a good deal of weakness in our leading measures, and a lot of the regional
purchasing managers indices and Fed surveys are deteriorating as well, but we don't have a
sufficient basis for an outright recession warning. This expansion is very long in the tooth,
unemployment is quite low, and the underlying structural growth factors are dismal. So my sense
is we're far closer to a recession than to 4% real GDP growth "as far as the eye can see."
Given the other factors already in place, be particularly watchful for an ISM Purchasing
Managers Index below 50, a move above 4% in unemployment, and a slowdown in employment growth
below about 1.4% year-over-year. A decline in aggregate hours worked versus 3-months earlier
along with a steep drop in consumer confidence, particularly about 20 points below its 12-month
average, would all be strong confirming evidence of an economic downturn.
More rate hikes
or a new round of QE?
On December 19, Fed Chair Jerome Powell observed "We've reached the bottom end of the range
of what the Committee believes might be neutral." I think that is exactly right. As I observed
in the December comment, the combination of low structural economic growth and modest inflation
pressure is fairly consistent with the current level of short-term interest rates. Long-term
rates would normally be higher in the context of current data, but given the deterioration in
leading economic measures (remember, payroll employment and the unemployment rate are two of
the most lagging economic measures available), there's little compelling upward pressure.
Don't take hope in Fed intervention to support the market, other than knee-jerk reactions.
First, remember that the Fed eased persistently throughout the 2000-2002 and 2007-2009
collapses with no effect. When investors are inclined toward risk-aversion, safe liquidity is a
desirable asset, not an inferior one. My view is that it's essential to monitor market
internals directly. We don't disclose the details of our own measures, but I've discussed
uniformity, divergence, breadth, leadership, price-volume sponsorship, credit spreads, and
other factors often enough that the central concept should be clear: when investors are
inclined toward speculation, they tend to be indiscriminate about it.
If and when internals improve, virtually anything the Fed does will likely be associated
with market gains. If internals continue to indicate risk-aversion among investors, then those
knee-jerk "clearing rallies" would best be used as opportunities to sell marginal stock
holdings and tighten up hedges.
My impression is that Jerome Powell is highly aware of how loose the cause-and-effect links
are between monetary policy and the real economy. But apart from noting that the Fed's
workhorse economic model estimates only a 0.2% change in the unemployment rate after 3 years in
response to each $500 billion in asset purchases, there's nothing in his past speeches that
indicates an intellectual opposition to QE. It's not at all clear that the Fed recognizes its
role in creating repeated cycles of bubble and collapse. So we have to allow for another round
of QE in response to the next recession. Again, the appropriate response on our part will be to
align ourselves with market internals. A favorable shift would likely encourage a constructive
or aggressive investment outlook, particularly if valuations have retreated substantially at
that point.
Inflation or deflation?
One of the key features of the recent speculative episode has been yield-seeking speculation
by investors starved for safe yields. In response, Wall Street and corporate America provided
more "product" in the form of low-grade covenant-lite debt. Indeed, the median rating on U.S.
corporate debt now stands just one notch above junk. In an economic decline, one should expect
a disruptive wave of defaults, with far lower recovery rates than in previous economic
cycles.
Now, defaults tend to be deflationary, so what you tend to see is an upward spike in the
yields on junk bonds and corporate debt but a downward trend in the yields of securities viewed
as being without credit risk, which has historically included Treasury securities. The question
is what happens when we begin to run trillion dollar deficits.
In the event of a deflationary economic decline, even one where defaults are higher as a
result of all the yield-seeking and low-grade debt issuance of recent years, another round of
QE seems likely. Our response to that prospect is simple – we'll take our cue from market
internals, particularly given that the entire net total return of the S&P 500 since 2007
occurred when our measures of internals have been favorable, and most of the 2007-2009 collapse
occurred when they were not. As I've regularly noted, our problem during the recent half-cycle
had nothing to do with valuations or market internals, but with our bearish response to
"overvalued, overbought, overbullish" syndromes.
Meanwhile, it's also important to allow for an inflationary economic decline, which would
result from a public loss of faith in the ability of the government to run a stable debt/GDP
relationship. In that event, all bets on QE are off, and the country will just face a difficult
situation, as it has periodically faced before.
The best indicator of inflation is inflation. It's difficult to forecast inflation with
macroeconomic variables, because large shifts in inflation are typically linked to discrete
events that provoke a loss of confidence in price stability itself, like the trifecta of Great
Society deficits, Nixon closing the gold window, and an oil embargo, or the combination of
money printing and a supply shock, like using deficit finance to pay striking workers in the
Ruhr. Not surprisingly, we'll infer that shift in confidence from uniformity in the behavior of
inflation-sensitive asset prices.
There's no economic factor that predicts the rate of inflation better than the rate of
inflation itself (and related uniformity in the behavior of inflation-sensitive securities
including precious metals, exchange rates, bond prices, commodities, TIPS, and related
securities). Just like a shift in market internals, it may be difficult to predict, but it's
fairly easy to align yourself with it.
I know that many observers are quietly repeating Milton Friedman's phrase that "inflation is
always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." The problem is, you won't reliably see that in
the data. As a former economics professor, I get it. The quiet job of the economics profession
is to indoctrinate teenagers with purely theoretical models by showing them line-drawings.
Nobody ever asks them to spend time staring at actual numbers.
So they become adults – and sometimes even Fed governors – who take theoretical
diagrams as reality, for example, the notion that the Phillips curve is a relationship between
unemployment and general price inflation, when there's utterly no evidence for it. In fact, as
I've regularly argued, when you actually look at A.W. Phillips' data (a century of British
unemployment and wage data during a period of stable general prices under the gold standard),
the Phillips Curve is actually a relationship between unemployment and real wage inflation.
Of course, money creation and general price inflation are undoubtedly linked when money
creation hits the pace of the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe. But for the U.S., there's no
economic factor that predicts the rate of inflation better than the rate of inflation itself
(and related uniformity in the behavior of inflation-sensitive securities including precious
metals, exchange rates, bond prices, commodities, TIPS, and related securities). Just like a
shift in market internals, it may be difficult to predict, but it's fairly easy to align
yourself with it.
Somebody explain to me why you pay 2 x sales for the S&P 500 when the risks on
economic growth are on the downside. Please explain Wall Street. Please explain how this is
cheap when the price to sales ratio is in bubble territory.
In the America of today social justice warriors virtue signaling their tolerance for others
have been repeatedly and quite often exposed for the bigots, sexists, and racists that they
really are.
DFGTC
"Those whom the gods are about to destroy, they first make mad ..."
while we are waiting for the final FINAL report of the endless interminable Mueller
investigation, perhaps best to review the Mueller report of Feb. 16 2018, and the conclusions
it drew: it identified 13 Russian nationals who were part of an organized effort based in the
Internet Research Agency. Those 13 Russians were named and indicted; if they step foot in any
Western space, they will be arrested and charged.
Oh, and the Americans? none named, none charged, none involved, concludes the Mueller
team. This likely presages the wet firecracker of the Mueller final report, and its look into
the media echo chamber's bottomless rumour mill.
just as good as you , 1 week ago
You seem to have forgotten the 33 indictments of 'Americans'. You seem to have forgotten
the 4 guilty pleas, and the 7 jail terms.
Yada yada yada.
Moseby1 , 1 week ago
Who do you think you're kidding?
Paul Manafort
Rick Gates
George Papadopoulos
Michael Flynn
Michael Cohen
Richard Pinedo
Alex Van Der Zwaan
Konstantin Killmnik
Kudos. I was just getting tired of typing the list, hence the "Yada yada yada".
Thanks.
Andy_Waxman1 , 1 week ago
Some of it happened pre-campaign, some of it is seriously dumb (Manafort not reporting
that he had a contract with the Ukraine), but much is Crimes of the Investigation - that is,
a crime caused by investigation. 'You told us you met with him Tuesday, but you met with him
Friday, you lied to the FBI, federal crime!' Like John Kelly. The actual meeting wasn't a
crime, though. Someone else tried to dangle a poll, "most of which was public," said the NYT.
Double dumb.
At this point the Collusion Narrative is like the Pee Tape, waaaaay more Liberal
Wishful Fantasy than proof. So far, there's no there there. Just endless breathless NYT CNN
and Globe headlines. 'Nuclear war this weekend with NK!' Remember that one? Right wing
Birthers were fringe. Left wing Haters are MSM. Big hat, no cattle. Waiting for Bob M.
A nice exa,ple of checkbook journalism... Previously there were a difference between a
Professor and a prostitute. No it completely disappeared.
Notable quotes:
"... I canceled my subscription to the Globalist and Mail it'll expire at the end of this month but I must say, I'm going to miss reading all the comedy I finded in this paper, particularly in its comment sections. ..."
"... At this point I think it would be much worse if Trump isn't a Russian agent. At least being a Russian agent would make the ruination of the US a valid goal. If he truly isn't an agent, he's just ruining the US for the fun of it? ..."
"... Trump is not an enemy of America. He is America at its strongest and most sinister form, just the way Wall Street likes it. If Americans want a better society, they'd better stop asking to be led by grifters and take the lead themselves. ..."
Jared Yates Sexton is an associate professor at Georgia Southern University. He is the
author ofThe People Are Going to Rise Like the Waters Upon Your Shore: A Story of
American Rage.
This is, above all, a very real and very dangerous crisis. The time to wring our hands and
hide behind faith and disbelief are over. To fully counter this possible betrayal we must look
it dead in the face and begin to change our perception of what is feasible. Mr. Trump has
capitalized on the good faith of the American people. In order to start healing, we must accept
that, with this administration, with this group, with this movement that Mr. Trump embodies,
almost anything is possible.
Opiedog , 3 days ago
What you are witnessing is the decline in American influence and might. This is very
similar to the decline of the Roman Empire. Slow degradation of social norms. Donald is not
the cause of this but we are in real time witnessing the decline of America.
Ramsey0 , 6 days ago
I canceled my subscription to the Globalist and Mail it'll expire at the end of this month
but I must say, I'm going to miss reading all the comedy I finded in this paper, particularly
in its comment sections.
dbns , 1 week ago
At this point I think it would be much worse if Trump isn't a Russian agent. At least
being a Russian agent would make the ruination of the US a valid goal. If he truly isn't an
agent, he's just ruining the US for the fun of it?
MG-TD , 1 week ago
Where is James Bond when you need him?
Unlimited reader , 6 days ago
I'm waiting eagerly for Bruce Willis to show up and save the USA
Globu , 1 week ago
Why the surprise? Mr. Trump is the very embodiment of the same cutthroat capitalism that
has defined America since colonization, slavery and the Trail of Tears.
Trump is not an enemy of America. He is America at its strongest and most sinister form, just
the way Wall Street likes it. If Americans want a better society, they'd better stop asking
to be led by grifters and take the lead themselves.
M. Gavin , 1 week ago
One can see why this is in the Opinion section. It's melodramatic, devoid of facts, offers
no reliable sources, fails to demonstrate motives, etc., etc. It's less obvious why the Globe
would publish it at all, because "news" like this we can get listening to the barber.
tinman1957 , 1 week ago
This guy isn't offering any news or opinion of concern he is just venting his hatred.
Andrew Smith , 1 week ago
The author is an associate professor of creative writing at a community college and it
shows.
Globu , 1 week ago
"Special to the Globe" always translates to chequebook journalism.
wellworn , 6 days ago
He is an associate professor of Writing and Linguistics; there is nothing in the profile
to suggest "creative" writing. I suspect that you creatively included the word to discredit
the very plausible premise that trump is an agent working for Russia; he certainly is not
working for the United States of America.
Personally I believe trump should be thoroughly investigated by the House committee to
look at his tax returns and banking records to determine how much money trump and company
have earned from Russian sources.
wglenm , 1 week ago
Who chooses the opinion pieces for this newspaper? This article is a completely one sided
joke.
just as good as you , 1 week ago
It IS - as you admit - an OPINION.
bdtaylor , 1 week ago
if Trump is such a boob, m_oron, rube and nitwitt that CNN and MSNBC make him out to be,
then how has he managed to fool the most sophisticated surveillance network in the world:
namely the CIA and NSA. if Trump was a Russian "Manchurian" candidate, does anyone actually
think the CIA and NSA wouldn't have figured that out 2 years ago?
All we have are platitudes and no real evidence. Is their a bunch of corrupt people and
dealing around Trump, yup (Michael Cohen, Maniford and probably others) is their actual
Russian "conspiracy" NOPE.
This entire RussiaGate conspiracy was started by Robby Mook and John Podesta of the DNC
(with the support of Clinton) to justify the embarrassment of losing to Trump in 2016.
Imagine losing to Trump a complete political novice that Hillary outspent 2.5x (she spent
almost $1Bil USD and still LOST).
Turn on your critical thinking and this entire RussiaGate is one big joke.
"... The best approach to retirement would be a more generous Social Security system plus single payer, so that older people don't have to worry about Medicaid crapification like joining a HMO or drug plans and so everyone gets the benefit of limiting drug price increases and getting rid of costly middlemen. You'll notice that Fink said squat about companies needing to do their bit to help with retirement by halting discrimination against older workers. Creating more opportunities for those who want to work to keep working would do a good deal to reduce retirement insecurity. ..."
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink Tells Corporate CEOs to Engage in Better Eyewash Posted on
January 21, 2019 by Yves Smith One of the sorry spectacles
of modern life is having prominent individuals who profit from and serve as prime exemplars of
major social ills trying to depict themselves as part of the solution, when they haven't gone
through any sort of Damascene conversion o give their virtue-signalling even a thin veneer of
legitimacy.
Today's object lesson is Larry Fink, the Chairman and CEO of the ginormous fund manager
BlackRock (not to be confused with the private equity/alternative asset manager Blackstone).
BlackRock, with $6.2 trillion under management as of October, 2018, is the largest asset
manager in the world,.
Fink became a big cheerleader of sustainability in early 2018, which makes him awfully late
to this party; "environment, social, and governance" has been an investment fad for well over a
decade. We've embedded his 2019 letter letter to CEOs at this end of this post.
One imagines that Fink thinks his missive is forthright, but it doesn't even register as
either a "dare to be great" exhortation or an incisive analysis. Instead, it comes off as a
rehash of Davos Man worries, with it all too evident that Fink and his fellow travelers are in
comfortable denial about the rot in the foundations of the political and social order.
Fink Is the Last to Lecture; He's Patient Zero of the Problem
Nowhere does Fink mention the elephant in the room: high levels of income and wealth
inequality. Heavens no. All that populist revolt and decline in faith in globalization is due
to the great unwashed masses wanting companies to step in because governments haven't responded
adequately. No, I am not making that up. Fink never acknowledges that the sustained war on New
Deal safety nets and labor protections, and the resulting rise in insecurity and lack of class
mobility are fueling this legitimacy crisis.
Fink can't afford to acknowledge that he exemplifies the problem. Supersized finance sectors
have played a big, direct role in the rise in inequality in advanced economies. These studies
have also found that the growth in secondary market trading is particularly unproductive in
economic terms. And not to belabor the obvious, but rising levels of pay in finance since the
early 1980s have also led to a brain drain, particularly of mathematics and physicians who
became "quants"
As Dr. Asbhy Monk pointed out in talk at CalPERS, you are twice as likely to become a
billionaire in asset management as you are in tech. While the 1% consists largely of CEOs and
their top retainers (such as partners at the toniest law and consulting firms), the top 0.1%
consists mainly of private equity and hedge fund heavyweights. Fink, a billionaire is
a member of the 0.1% club .
Nor is Fink a credible party to tell other CEOs how to behave. He's been one of the 25
most overpaid CEOs . It should come as no surprise that BlackRock is also less likely than
other large fund managers to vote against CEO pay packages. Can't risk alienating prospects for
401(k) mandates, now can we?
The New Corporate Salvation: "Purpose"
The big theme of Fink's letter is that companies need to put "purpose" first. He's very late
to this party too. We wrote back in 2007 of Financial Times writer John Kay's discussion of the
idea of obliquity, that in complex systems, it is actually counterproductive to try to pursue
goals directly, because the environment is too complicated to be able to map a straight path.
One of the implications is that companies that focus on profits don't wind up being the most
profitable in their industry: the one with loftier goals do better.
The wee problem with Fink's exhortation for those businesses that fetishized maximizing
shareholder value to start focusing on nobler aims is that it is very hard to change the
culture of large organizations, short of a replacing lots of people at the top. And that sort
of shakeup pretty much never happens save as a result of a major crisis.
Fink contends that companies will have to take the demand of millennials that companies put
improving society over generating profit. However, given that these same millennials are
perfectly happy to work for elite (Google and Facebook) and not-so-elite companies that are
putting more and more surveillance technology in place, and are all too happy to give personal
data away (DNA???? What are you thinking?), the days of millennial uppity-ness are likely to be
short lived.
A Bit Too Obvious that Fink Is Talking His Book
Larry, a pro tip: if you are going to pretend to offer advice, it has to be credible. This
isn't:
Unnerved by fundamental economic changes and the failure of government to provide lasting
solutions, society is increasingly looking to companies, both public and private, to address
pressing social and economic issues.
This is true only by by "society" he means the old money 400 families sort. Everyone else
who has been paying attention has noticed that the compensation for CEOs and top executives has
kept rising relentlessly, while they pay of ordinary people has languished and their jobs have
become less secure. And no one on the wrong side of this trade is going as a supplicant to
"companies" and plead with them to do better. Laborers got safer working conditions and
eventually shorter workweeks and better pay only after years of struggle that included killing
of labor leaders, and even then, those gains were solidified for a few decades primarily to
hold Communism at bay.
The reason that Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the US and that Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez has caught on like a house on fire is that they have put economic inequality and
injustice at the center of their agendas, and American are hungry for the types of change they
are advocating. More female and minority board members means squat to American who are living
paycheck to paycheck.
A plausible pitch would have gone more like: "The pitchforks are coming,. You can either
remain a target or figure out what you need to do to have your leadership group look less like
out-of-touch greedheads." But I doubt that Fink will be in the vanguard of business leaders
arguing for the need to give up excesses like corporate jets.
Another tell that the times that the word "sustainable" appears in Fink's letter, it refers
to financial performance, not to sustainability as it is usually used in the wider world, for
needing to work within planetary resource limits. But if Fink were to be at all candid on this
front, he'd have to admit that huge swathe of investee companies should be radically downsized
or liquidated, such as oil and gas exploration and development companies, airlines, fast
fashion companies, and plastics makers like Dow Chemical. And then we have other companies that
are negative value added societally, such as health insurers and banks. Recall that the Bank of
England's Andrew Haldane, in a 2010 back of the envelope estimate of the GDP cost of the crisis
that proved to be accurate, ascertained that
banks could not begin to pay for the damage they did . In other words, a banking industry
that creates global crises is negative value added from a societal standpoint. It is purely
extractive.
But a more obvious howler is Fink's discussion of how companies have to help with
retirement:
Retirement, in particular, is an area where companies must reestablish their traditional
leadership role. For much of the 20th Century, it was an element of the social compact in
many countries that employers had a responsibility to help workers navigate retirement. In
some countries, particularly the United States, the shift to defined contribution plans
changed the structure of that responsibility, leaving too many workers unprepared. And nearly
all countries are confronting greater longevity and how to pay for it. This lack of
preparedness for retirement is fueling enormous anxiety and fear, undermining productivity in
the workplace and amplifying populism in the political sphere.
In response, companies must embrace a greater responsibility to help workers navigate
retirement, lending their expertise and capacity for innovation to solve this immense global
challenge. In doing so, companies will create not just a more stable and engaged workforce,
but also a more economically secure population in the places where they operate.
Fink can't possibly admit that the "save in financial assets" model for retirement cannot
possibly work, particularly in a backdrop where advanced economies desperately need to reduce
their populations as part of a program to curb resource demands. The old model the US had for
saving for retirement was the 30 year mortgage. Men (it was then almost entirely men) got jobs
that would last 20+ years. Paying down the mortgage was forced savings. The house would become
mortgage-free around the time of retirement, lowering household costs when income dropped.
The compound interest magic that made Warren Buffett rich depends on corporate profit growth
and/or falling interest rates. In aggregate corporate profit growth depends on population
growth and productivity growth. Labor is the biggest input cost for goods and obviously for
services, so productivity growth generally speaking will reduce the amount of labor. When
workers had more bargaining power, the benefits of productivity gains were once split between
profits and wage increases, but those days ended in the mid-1970s.
Or to put it another way, trees can't grow to the sky. The US is already at a record high
level of profit share to GDP. Corporations have been the biggest buyers of stocks in the US for
years and that has to slow down due to debt levels and rising interest rates making that game
less attractive than it used to be.
You don't have to look hard to see that valuation of financial assets are attenuated, and
with central banks determined over time to get back to more normal interest rates, it's not as
if there's good reason to expect the financial markets to be a friendly setting for the next
few years.
Michael Hudson has documented how in Bronze Age societies that excessive financial burdens,
in the form of debt, were periodically wiped clean in jubilees. We don't have such enlightened
approaches for pro-actively cancelling or cutting dysfunctional financial claims. We instead
have financial crises or wars or revolutions do the trick.
The best approach to retirement would be a more generous Social Security system plus
single payer, so that older people don't have to worry about Medicaid crapification like
joining a HMO or drug plans and so everyone gets the benefit of limiting drug price increases
and getting rid of costly middlemen. You'll notice that Fink said squat about companies needing
to do their bit to help with retirement by halting discrimination against older workers.
Creating more opportunities for those who want to work to keep working would do a good deal to
reduce retirement insecurity.
So Fink is yet another one of those squillionaires who doesn't get that his patter has a
Versailles circa 1788 feel to it. But at least his version is bland and conventional. He could
be trying to pitch some technology snake oil instead.
FTA "The fund groups were particularly irked by a 'Statement of Principles' drawn up by
Godfrey signing them up to put clients first. Their objection was to the extra bureaucracy
involved.
Another bone of contention is the IA's stance on bosses' pay. It set up a working group to
look at excessive rewards – which could embarrass some fund managers."
Stealing from the rich like that, he should be ashamed /sx2
Return to the tax rates in effect during the Eisenhower administration (with adjustments
to the table to reflect inflation, of course). Then the government could use the extra income
to pay for additional benefits.
(Note to NC readers – that last sentence should really be "..to pretend to pay for "
but perhaps it's better to let them hold onto some of their fantasies)
my god. what a masterpiece. I'm gonna read this one twice. First thoughts: I love it; I
almost passed it by because shiney objects; 6.2 trillion is a punchline; the Finkster as
patient zero is a new Marvel Comic Evil Hero for Real; I'm getting a front-row seat on
history, past and future; human rationalization is the great twister; defined contribution
plans is greed on steroids; I even took notes on the inside of the envelope; "sustainability"
as a financial performance legitimizer – my god it's just the opposite – it's a
financial performance control; the Finkster is in the .1% club of delusional gods on the
Cystine (sp?)Chapel; profit IS inequality bec. growth is secondary and therefore finance is
Un-f'ing-productive but masquerades as productive; a few objections: I like the Millenials
(most of them, but not the quants); Rupert Sheldrake rules: knowledge (per this post) goes
around the world at mach speed and then exponentiates! – thank you god for small favors
like Yves; and we will survive because we will come together.
"... Checking facts and adding context is what journalists are paid to do. It's in the first line of the job description. Yet, amazingly, almost nobody in the American media did that. ..."
"... That's a shame, because there was a lot to check. The full video of what happened on Friday in Washington is well over an hour long. The four minutes that made Twitter don't tell the story, but instead distorted the story. A longer look shows that the boys from Covington Catholic in Kentucky weren't a roving mob looking for a fight. They were, in fact -- and it shows it on the tape -- standing in place waiting to be picked up by a bus. ..."
"... As they waited there, members of a group called the Black Hebrew Israelites, a black supremacist organization, began taunting them with racial epithets. Nathan Phillips, the now-famous American Indian activist, also approached them, pounding his drum. The footage seems to suggest the boys were unsure whether Phillips was hostile or taking their side against the Black Hebrew Israelites. But in any case, there is no evidence at all that anyone said, "build a wall." ..."
"... So, what really happened on Friday? Watch and decide for yourself. There's plenty of video out there, and some of it is fascinating. What we know for certain at this point is that our cultural leaders are, in fact, bigots. They understand reality on the basis of stereotypes. When the facts don't conform to what they think they know, they ignore the facts. They see America not as a group of people or of citizens, but as a collection of groups. Some of these groups, they are convinced, are morally inferior to other groups. They know that's true. They say it out loud. That belief shapes almost all of their perceptions of the world. ..."
Once footage emerged of the entire incident, however, it became clear that the left had
gotten it completely wrong ; Phillips had approached the teens - many wearing MAGA hats, while
a group of Black Israelites considered to be a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League hurled
racial insults at the students.
After the truth emerged, famous liberals who were previously frothing at the mouth went on a
mad scramble to delete their tweets full of hate, slander and disinformation . The internet
never forgets, however, and neither does Tucker Carlson:
If you were on social media over the weekend, you probably saw the video. It was
shot Friday afternoon , on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. It seemed to show a group
of teenage boys taunting an elderly American Indian man who was holding a drum.
The young men
had come to Washington from a Catholic school in Kentucky to demonstrate in the March for
Life . Some of them wore "Make America Great Again" hats. They seemed menacing. Within
hours, the video was being replayed by virtually every news outlet in America. The American
Indian man with the drum in the video is called Nathan Phillips. He described the young men
he encountered, the ones in the hats, as aggressive and threatening -- essentially shock
troops for Donald Trump.
"I heard them saying, 'Build that wall. Build that wall,'" Phillips said. "This is
indigenous land. We're not supposed to have walls here."
It's hard to remember the last time the great American meme machine produced a clearer
contrast between good and evil -- it was essentially an entire morality play shrunk down to
four minutes for Facebook.
On one side, a noble tribal elder, weather-beaten, calm and wise. He looks like a living
icon. You could imagine a single tear sliding slowly down his cheek at the senselessness of
it all.
On the other side, you had a pack of heedless, sneering young men from the south, drunk on
racism and white privilege. The irony is overwhelming: The indigenous man's land had been
stolen by the very ancestors of these boys in MAGA hats. Yet they dare to lecture him about
walls designed to keep people who look very much like him out what they were calling "their"
country.
It was infuriating to a lot of people. At the same time, it was also strangely comforting
to the people who watched it from Brooklyn and L.A. The people who run this country have long
suspected that middle America is a hive of nativist bigotry. And now they had proof of that.
It was cause for a celebration of outrage. There's nothing quite as satisfying as having your
own biases confirmed.
But did the video really describe what happened? That should have been the first question
journalists asked. Checking facts and adding context is what journalists are paid to do. It's
in the first line of the job description. Yet, amazingly, almost nobody in the American media
did that.
That's a shame, because there was a lot to check. The full video of what happened on
Friday in Washington is well over an hour long. The four minutes that made Twitter don't tell
the story, but instead distorted the story. A longer look shows that the boys from Covington
Catholic in Kentucky weren't a roving mob looking for a fight. They were, in fact -- and it
shows it on the tape -- standing in place waiting to be picked up by a bus.
As they waited there, members of a group called the Black Hebrew Israelites, a black
supremacist organization, began taunting them with racial epithets. Nathan Phillips, the
now-famous American Indian activist, also approached them, pounding his drum. The footage
seems to suggest the boys were unsure whether Phillips was hostile or taking their side
against the Black Hebrew Israelites. But in any case, there is no evidence at all that anyone
said, "build a wall."
So, what really happened on Friday? Watch and decide for yourself. There's plenty of video
out there, and some of it is fascinating. What we know for certain at this point is that our
cultural leaders are, in fact, bigots. They understand reality on the basis of stereotypes.
When the facts don't conform to what they think they know, they ignore the facts. They see
America not as a group of people or of citizens, but as a collection of groups. Some of these
groups, they are convinced, are morally inferior to other groups. They know that's true. They
say it out loud. That belief shapes almost all of their perceptions of the world.
It's not surprising, then, that when a group of pro-life Catholic kids who look like
lacrosse players and live in Kentucky are accused of wrongdoing, the media don't pause for a
moment before casting judgment. Maggie Haberman of the New York Times suggested the boys
needed to be expelled from school. Ana Navarro of CNN called the boys racists and "asswipes"
and then went after their teachers and parents.
Others called for violence against them . CNN legal analyst Bakari Sellers suggested one
of the boys should be, "punched in the face." Former CNN contributor Reza Aslan agreed. Aslan
asked on Twitter, "Have you ever seen a more punchable face than this kid's?" Longtime CNN
contributor Kathy Griffin seemed to encourage a mob to rouse up and hurt these boys,
tweeting, "Name these kids. I want names. Shame them. If you think these effers wouldn't dox
you in a heartbeat. Think again." She repeated her demand again later: "Names please. And
stories from people who can identify them and vouch for their identity. Thank you."
Hollywood film producer Jack Morrissey tweeted that he wanted the boys killed: "MAGA kids
go screaming, hats first, into the woodchipper." He paired that with a graphic photo. Actor
Patton Oswalt linked to personal information about one of the boys, in case anyone wanted to
get started on that project. Meanwhile, Twitter, which claims to have a policy against
encouraging violence, stood by silently as all this happened.
But in case you think the response was entirely from the left, you should know that the
abuse was bipartisan. This wasn't just left versus right. It was the people in power
attacking those below them as a group. Plenty of Republicans in Washington were happy to
savage the Covington kids, probably to inoculate themselves from charges of improper thought.
Bill Kristol asked his Twitter followers to consider "the contrast between the calm dignity
and quiet strength of Mr. Phillips and the behavior of MAGA brats who have absorbed the
spirit of Trumpism."
So what's actually going on here? Well, it's not really about race. In fact, most of the
stories about race really aren't about race. And this is no different. This story is about
the people in power protecting their power, and justifying their power, by destroying and
mocking those weaker than they are.
And then when the actual facts emerged, Kristol quietly deleted his tweet. He never
apologized, of course. He hasn't apologized for the Iraq war, either. There's no need. People
keep giving him money.
The National Review, meanwhile, ran a story entitled, "The Covington Students Might As
Well Have Just Spit on the Cross." That story has since been pulled too, but not before the
author admitted he never even bothered to watch all the videos. He knew what he knew. That
was enough.
What was so interesting about the coverage of Friday's video was how much of it mentioned
something called "privilege." Alex Cranz, an editor at Gizmodo, for example, wrote, "From
elementary school through college, I went to school with sheltered upper middle-class white
boys who could devastate with a smirk. A facial gesture that weaponized their privilege.
Infuriatingly you can't fight that effing smirk with a punch or words. We saw that as Trump
smirked his way through the election and we'll see it as that boy from Kentucky's friends,
family, and school protect him. I effing hate that smirk. It says 'I'm richer, I'm white, and
I'm a guy.'"
What's so fascinating about all these attacks is how inverted they are. These are high
school kids from Kentucky. Do they really have more privilege than Alex Cranz from Gizmodo?
Probably not. In fact, probably much less. They're far less privileged than virtually
everyone who called for them to be destroyed, based on the fact that they have too much
privilege.
Consider Kara Swisher, for example, an opinion columnist at the New York Times. Swisher
went to Princeton Day School and then Georgetown, then got a graduate degree at Columbia.
She's become rich and famous, in the meantime, by toadying for billionaire tech CEOs. She's
their handmaiden. Nobody considers her very talented. And yet she's somehow highly
influential in our society. Is she more privileged than the boys of Covington Catholic in
Kentucky? Of course she is. Maybe that's why she feels the need to call them Nazis, which she
did, repeatedly.
So what's actually going on here? Well, it's not really about race. In fact, most of the
stories about race really aren't about race. And this is no different. This story is about
the people in power protecting their power, and justifying their power, by destroying and
mocking those weaker than they are.
Why? It's simple. Our leaders haven't improved the lives of most people in America. They
can't admit that because it would discredit them. So, instead they attack the very people
they've failed. The problem, they'll tell us, with Kentucky, isn't that bad policies have
hurt the people who live there. It's that the people who live there are immoral because
they're bigots. They deserve their poverty and opioid addiction. They deserve to die
young.
That's what our leaders tell themselves. And now, that's what they're telling us. Just
remember: they're lying.
Kamala Harris' presidential campaign has barely made its official start, and she's continuing to show her
unfitness for the job. Martin Luther King would be rolling in his grave if he were to learn that a former
big city and then state prosecutor, with no known history of protesting but an anti-minorities rap sheet
that includes criminalizing truancy, enthusiastically prosecuting drug-related activity, and pushed to keep
nonviolent "second-strike" convicts in prison to assure California a continued supply of cheap labor, was
misusing his name to try to burnish her sorry record.
If you missed them, these reviews of Harris' record
as a prosecutor should disabuse you of the notion that she's a friend of the downtrodden:
Readers may recall that last week, we addressed one Harris Big Lie about her record, that she was a big
defender of abused homeowners by virtue of having gotten a less terrible deal than 48 other states in the
2012 National Mortgage Settlement, which we've regularly described as a "get out of liability almost free
card" for the big mortgage servicers. Her lack of a commitment to homeowners, and her pliancy to big money
interests, was confirmed by her failure to investigate One West Bank, ignoring a 2013 memo from attorneys in
her office flagging the appearance of "widespread misconduct." Her complacency was rewarded via One West's
former CEO, Steve Mnuchin, making Harris the recipient of his lone donation to a Democratic party Senate
candidate.
Needless to say, if Harris had prosecuted Mnuchin, it's hard to imagine he'd be Treasury Secretary now.
Harris' book, The Truths We Hold, published earlier this month to help grease campaign skids, shows
Harris applying lots of
porcine maquillage
to her record. It doesn't work very well. As Teodrose
Fikre
writes in Black Agenda Report
on one of the more measured reviews,
by Hannah Giorgis in the Atlantic
:
Kamala Harris's memoir reads nothing like her actual record of locking up the poor and giving impunity
to the rich
Checking off identity boxes and getting jiggy with it is not enough, we must demand more from
politicians than soundbites and feigned indignation. Instead of addressing income inequalities and
systematic imbalances that are the sources of most social ills, Harris tries to hide behind anecdotes and
outlier stories in an attempt to minimize the disproportionate impact her decisions had on the poor and
working class. After making a name for herself by aggressively locking up Californians and enhancing the
inmate supply for the prison-industrial complex, she is now attempting an image makeover by using social
justice and diversity hustles as launching pads .
Harris's take every prisoner temperament was nowhere to be found when the time came for her to take on
robber barons. She famously chose to look the other way when she had the chance to prosecute Steve
Mnuchin and make an example of unscrupulous bankers.Her "progressive prosecution" reserved progress for
the rich and doled out draconian measures for the poor and marginalized. It is worth repeating, Harris's
administration effectively argued for slave labor in order to enrich penal plantations.
Kamala Harris is no activist, she is Hillary Clinton in a black face.This is precisely the reason why
the corporate donor class are licking their chops and pushing Harris as a viable presidential candidate.
She has proven her loyalty to Wall Street; when push comes to shove, CEOs know that they have an ally in
Kamala. What Harris is banking on is an electorate that is so deranged by Trump's puerility that we don't
inspect her positions and just accept her optics and rhetoric as a suitable alternative to the incumbent
president.
The one bit of good news is that Harris' campaign is so hopelessly tone deaf and narcissistic that Harris
will do herself in as a serious contender in no time fast on current trajectories. A reader sent a copy of
the "Day 1" fundraiser, which if done properly, should set the tone for the campaign.
What do we learn from this sorry missive? That Harris apparently regards herself as such an Oprah-level
celebrity that her mere presence is enough to get citizens to want to vote for her. However, she can't
resist remind us of her top 10% bona fides, that she is able to find a "healthy snack" in Penn Station
vending machines. God forbid we catch a Ruler of the Free World wannabe enjoying some potato chips. Might be
mistaken for Trump!
Another revealing-in-not-a-good-way bit is the last photo, of Harris supposedly getting down to "hard
work". As you can see from the image, "hard work" is standing up while staff applauds. It's bad enough to
see this sort of thing at CalPERS; we need to keep that pathology from going national.
So Harris presents absolutely nothing in the way of policy stances. Apparently the reasons to want her as
President is that she's photogenic by the not-too-high standards of politics and she gets bonus points for
not being a white man.
And this sorry e-mail really is representative of her campaign pitch. Her site is every bit as
narcissistic as the fundraising appeal. It admittedly has a centrist dog-whistle in the form of
a long-ish bio
which is an attempt to position Harris on policy while punting on taking any positions.
But otherwise, it's long on pretty pix and thin on much else.
It's stating the obvious that Harris is yet another variant on the Obama formula: take an attractive,
well-educated, mixed-race centrist and encourage the press and public to project that their "minority"
background means that they'll be staunch defenders of the downtrodden.
But the public isn't so easily fooled. 9 million foreclosures, many of which could have been prevented,
bailouts for banksters, a two-tier recovery with smug elites preaching "Let them eat training" to people
stuck outside big cities or too old to be employable, and sky-high Obamacare deductibles mean a lot of
voters are not going to fall for idpol packaging as easily a second time. Plus Obama had so little in the
way of a political track record that it was easy for him to be a shape-shifter; he made his stint as a
community organizer go a long way. Even now, hardly anyone knows that Obama, along with his wife Michelle
and Valerie Jarret,
as described by Robert Fitch
, built their early career success by lending an appearance of legitimacy to
moving black South Chicago further south on behalf of local real estate and finance interests.
Further complicating the foolhardy effort to cast Harris in the Obama mold is that she's got way too much
political baggage to fool all that many people as to what she is really about.
So it's telling that self-absorbed Harris campaign imagery clashes with her slogan, "For the people".
Even more so than for most politicians, Harris' team has to stick with the surface because that's all they
have to sell.
Saw this on the news earlier where she announced her Presidential candidacy on Martin Luther King Jr.'s
day which I thought as a class act that. Hijacking a national celebration for her own political ambitions?
Yeah, real good judgement that. With this being so, I am going to predict that Hillary Clinton will announce
her candidacy for President on Friday, March 8th of this year. Why then? Because that is this year's date
for International Women's Day that. It would be in keeping with the times. Personally I think that both of
them should hold back their announcements to a better date. Say, February 30th?
Looks like all of them were Brennan men. CIA used FBI counterintelligence and counter-terrorism personnel to kick start the
investigation/scandal.
Notable quotes:
"... They quote anonymous officials who believe that their intelligence agencies used counter-terrorism personnel to kick start the investigation/scandal. ..."
In April last year, Disobedient Media broke coverage of the British involvement in the
Trump-Russia collusion narrative, asking why
All Russiagate Roads Lead To London , via the quasi-scholar Joseph Mifsud and others.
The issue was also raised by WikiLeaks's Julian Assange , just days before the Ecuadorian government
silenced him last March. Assange's Twitter thread cited research by Chris Blackburn , who spoke with
Disobedient Media on multiple occasions covering Joseph Mifsud's ties to British
intelligence figures and organizations, as well as his links to
Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign, the FBI, CIA and the private cyber-security firm
Crowdstrike.
We return, now, to this issue and specifically the research of Chris Blackburn, to place the
final nail in the coffin of the Trump-Russia collusion charade. Blackburn's insights are
incredible not only because they return us to the earliest reporting on the role of British
intelligence figures in manufacturing the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, but because they
also implicate members of Mueller's investigation. What we are left with is an indication of
collusion between factions of the US and UK intelligence community in fabricating evidence of
Trump-Russia collusion: a scandal that would have rocked the legacy press to its core, if
Western establishment-backed media had a spine.
In
Disobedient Media's previous coverage of Blackburn's work, he described his experience in
intelligence:
"I've been involved in numerous investigations that involve counter-intelligence
techniques in the past. I used to work for the
9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism , one of the biggest tort actions in American
history. I helped build a profile of Osama bin Laden's financial and political network, which
was slightly different to the one that had been built by the CIA's Alec Station , a dedicated task force which was focused on
Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Alec Station designed its profile to hunt Osama bin Laden and
disrupt his network. I thought it was flawed. It had failed to take into account Osama's
historical links to Pakistan's main political parties or that he was the figurehead for a
couple of organizations, not just Al-Qaeda."
"I also ran a few conferences for US intelligence leaders during the Bush administration.
After the 9/11 Commission published its report into the attacks on the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon it created a public outreach program. The US National Intelligence Conference
and Exposition (
Intelcon ) was one of the avenues it used. I was responsible for creating the 'View from
Abroad' track. We had guidance from former Senator Slade Gorton and Jamie Gorelick, who both
sat on the 9/11 Commission. We got leaders such as Sir John Chilcot and Baroness Pauline
Neville Jones to come and help share their experiences on how the US would be able to heal
the rifts after 9/11."
"The US intelligence community was suffering from severe turf wars and firewalls, which
were hampering counter-terrorism efforts. They were concentrating on undermining each other
rather than tackling terrorism. I had mainly concentrated on the Middle East, but in 2003 I
switched my focus to terrorism in South Asia."
Counter Terrorism, Not Counter Intelligence, Sparked Probe
In an article published by The
Telegraph last November, the paper acknowledged the following:
"It forces the spotlight on whether the UK played a role in the FBI's investigation
launched before the 2016 presidential election into Trump campaign ties to the Kremlin... Mr.
Trump's allies and former advisers are raising questions about the UK's role in the start of
the probe, given many of the key figures and meetings were located in Britain... One former
top White House adviser to Mr. Trump made similar insinuations, telling this newspaper: "You
know the Brits are up to their neck." The source added on the Page wiretap application: "I
think that stuff is going to implicate MI5 and MI6 in a bunch of activities they don't want
to be implicated in, along with FBI, counter-terrorism and the CIA. " [Emphasis Added]
The article cites George Papadopoulos,
who asked why the "British intelligence apparatus was weaponized against Trump and his
advisers." Papadopoulos has also addressed the issue at length via Twitter. In response to the
Telegraph's coverage of the issue, Chris Blackburn wrote via Twitter :
"The Telegraph story on Trump Russia acknowledges that activities involving
counter-terrorism are at the heart of the scandal...not counter-intelligence. If the [London
Centre for International Law Practice] was British state, not private, some Commonwealth
countries are going to be seriously pissed off."
Blackburn spoke with Disobedient Media, saying:
" If you factor in the dreadful reporting to discredit Joseph Mifsud and leaks, it is
pretty clear something rather strange happened to George Papadopoulos during the campaign
while he was shuttling around Europe and the Middle East. He was working with people who have
intelligence links at the London Centre of International Law Practice. A recent article in
The Telegraph also alludes to MI5, MI6,
and CIA using counter-terrorism assets which would tie into the London Centre of
International Law Practice (LCILP), and its sister organizations, doing counter-terrorism
work for the Australian, UK and US governments. They quote anonymous officials who believe
that their intelligence agencies used counter-terrorism personnel to kick start the
investigation/scandal." [Emphasis Added]
Blackburn discussed this differentiation with Disobedient Media:
"Counter-terrorism is obviously involved in more kinetic, violent political
actions-concerning mass casualty events, bombings, assassinations, poisonings, and hacking.
But, the lines are blurring between them. Counter-intelligence cases have been known to
stretch for decades- often relying on nothing more than paranoia and suspicion to fuel
investigations. Counter-terrorism is also a broader discipline as it involves tactical
elements like hostage rescue, crime scene investigations, and explosive specialists.
Counter-Terrorism is a collaborative effort with counter-terrorism officers working closely
with local and regional police forces and civic organizations. There is also a wider academic
field around countering violent, and radical ideology which promotes terrorism and
insurgencies. Cybersecurity has become the third major discipline in intelligence. The London
Center of International Law Practice, the mysterious intelligence company that
employed both Papadopoulos and Mifsud , had also been working in that area."
Continuing, Blackburn pinpointed the significance of defining counter-terrorism as the
starting point of the investigation, saying: "It shows that there is a high probability that
intelligence was deliberately abused to make Papadopoulos' activities look like they were
something else. As counter-terrorism and counterintelligence are close in tactics and methods,
it would seem that they were used because they share the same skill sets - covert evidence
gathering and deception. It's basically sleight of hand. A piece of theatre would be more
precise. However, we don't know if the FBI knew it was real or make-believe. It's more likely
that the CIA played the FBI with the help of close allies who were suspicious and frightened of
a Trump presidency."
Mueller's Team And Joseph Mifsud
Zainab
Ahmad , a
member of Mueller's legal team, is the former Assistant United States Attorney in the
Eastern District of New York. As pointed out by Blackburn , Ahmad attended a Global Center on Cooperative
Security event in 2017. In recent days, Blackburn wrote via Twitter :
"Zainab Ahmad is a major player in the Russiagate scandal at the DOJ. Does she work for SC
Mueller? She was at a GCCS event in May 2017. Arvinder Sambei, a co-director of the [London
Centre of International Law Practice], worked with Joseph Mifsud, [George Papadopoulos] and
[Simona Mangiante]. She's a GCCS consultant."
Blackburn told this author:
"Zainab Ahmad was one of the first DOJ prosecutors to have seen the Steele dossier. In May
2017, she attended a counter-terrorism conference in New York with the Global Center on
Cooperative Security (GCCS), an organization which Joseph Mifsud, the alleged Russian spy,
had been working within London and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia."
Zainab Ahmad (AHMAD). Image via the Combatting Terrorism Center, West Point
"Richard Barrett, the Former Chief of Counter-Terrorism at MI6, Britain's foreign
intelligence department traveled with Mifsud to Saudi Arabia to give a talk on terrorism in
2017. Ex-CIA officers, US Defense, and US Treasury officials were also there. The London
Centre of International Law Practice's relationship to the Global Center had been established
in 2014. The Global Center on Cooperative Security made Martin Polaine and Arvinder Sambei
consultants, they then became directors at the London Centre of International Law
Practice."
"The Global Center on Cooperative Security's first major UK conference was at Joseph
Mifsud's London Academy of Diplomacy (LAD). Mifsud then followed Arvinder Sambei and Nagi
Idris over to the London Centre of International Law Practice. Sources have told me that
Mifsud was moonlighting as a specialist on counter-terrorism and Islamism while working at
LAD which explains why he went to work in counter-terrorism after LAD folded."
"I don't think it's a coincidence that Global Center on Cooperative Security is connected
to various elements that popped up in the Papadopoulos case. The fact that a prosecutor on
Mueller's team was at Global Center before Mueller was appointed as special counsel is also
troubling."
Days ago, The
Hill reported on Congressional testimony by Bruce Ohr, revealing that when served as a DOJ
official, he warned FBI and DOJ figures that the Steele dossier was problematic and linked to
the Clintons. Critically, The Hill writes:
"Those he briefed included Andrew Weissmann, then the head of DOJ's fraud section; Bruce
Swartz, longtime head of DOJ's international operations, and Zainab Ahmad , an accomplished
terrorism prosecutor who, at the time, was assigned to work with Lynch as a senior counselor.
Ahmad and Weissmann would go on to work for Mueller, the special prosecutor overseeing the
Russia probe." [Emphasis Added]
This point is essential, as it not only describes Ahmad's role in Mueller's team but places
her at a crucial pre-investigation meeting.
Last year, Blackburn noted the connection between
Mifsud and Arvinder Sambei , writing:
"LCILP director and FBI counsel, works with Mike Smith at the Global Center. They ran joint
counter-terrorism conferences and training with Mifsud's London Academy. Sambei then brought
Mifsud over to the [London Centre of International Law Practice]. [Global Center works with
Aussies, UK and US State too."
Sambei has been described elsewhere as a "Former
practising barrister, Senior Crown Prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service of England
& Wales, and Legal Adviser at the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ), Ministry of
Defence." [British spelling has been retained]
Arvinder Sambei. Image via the Public International Law Advisory Group
That Sambei has been so thoroughly linked to organizations where Mifsud was a central figure
is yet another cause of suspicion regarding allegations that Joseph Mifsud was a shadowy,
unknown Russian agent until the summer of 2016 . She is also a direct link between Robert
Mueller and Mifsud.
Blackburn wrote via Twitter :
"Arvinder Sambei helped to organize LCILP's counter-terrorism and corruption events. She used
her contacts in the US to bring in Middle Eastern government officials that were seen to be
vulnerable to graft. Lisa Osofsky, former FBI Deputy General Counsel, was working with her."
Below, Arvinder is pictured at a London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP) event.
Arvinder Sambei, pictured at an LCILP event. Image via Chris Blackburn, Twitter
As Chris Blackburn told this author:
" Mifsud and Papadopoulos's co-director Arvinder Sambei was also the former FBI British
counsel working 9/11 cases for Robert Mueller. She also runs a consultancy which deals with
Special Investigative Measure (SIMs) which is just a posh description for covert espionage
and evidence gathering. She has worked for major intelligence and national law agencies in
the past. She wore two hats as a director of London Centre and a consultant for the Global
Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), a counter-terrorism think tank which is sponsored by
the Australia, Canada, UK and US governments. Alexander Downer's former Chief of Staff while
at the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade now works for the Global Center.
Mifsud was also due to meet with Australian private intelligence figures in Adelaide in March
2016. So. Australia is certainly a major focus for the investigation." [Emphasis Added]
Lisa Osofsky, pictured at an LCILP event. Image via Chris Blackburn, Twitter
An
Embarrassment For John Brennan?
Disobedient Media previously reported that Robert Hannigan, then head of British spy agency
GCHQ, flew to Washington DC to share 'director-to-director' level intelligence with then-CIA
Chief John Brennan in the summer of 2016. This writer noted that " The Guardian reported Hannigan's
announcement that he would step down from his leadership position with the agency just three
days after the inauguration of President Trump, on 23 January 2017. Jane Mayer, in her profile
of Christopher Steele published in the New Yorker, also noted that Hannigan
had flown to Washington D.C. to personally brief the then-CIA Director John Brennan on alleged
communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. What is so curious about this briefing
"deemed so
sensitive it was handled at director-level" is why Hannigan was talking
director-to-director to the CIA and not Mike Rogers at the NSA, GCHQ's Five Eyes
intelligence-sharing partner."
Blackburn told Disobedient Media:
"Former Congressman Trey Gowdy, who has seen most of the information gathered by Congress
from the intelligence community concerning the Russia investigation, said that if President
Trump were to declassify files and present the truth to the American public, it would "
embarrass John
Brennan ." I think that is pretty concrete for me, but it's not definitive. I know the
polarization and spin in Washington has become perverse, but that statement is pretty
specific for me. If Brennan is involved, it is most probably through Papadopoulos who sparked
off the 'official' investigation at the FBI. He also made sure the Steele dossier was spread
through the US government."
Blackburn added: "Chris Steele was also working on FIFA projects, and a source has told me
that he was working to investigate the Russian and Qatari World Cup bids. The London Centre of
International Law Practice has been working with Majed Garoub, the former Saudi legal
representative of FIFA, the world governing body for soccer. He's also been working against the
Qatari bid. Steele likes to get paid twice for his investigations."
"Mifsud has also been associated with Prince Turki the former Saudi intelligence chief,
Mifsud and the London Academy of Diplomacy used to train Saudi diplomats and intelligence
figures while Turki was the Saudi Ambassador to London. Turki is a close friend of Bill
Clinton and John Brennan. Nawaf Obaid was also courting Mifsud and tried to get him a cushy
job working with CNN's Freedom Project at Link Campus in Rome. He also knows John Brennan.
Intelligence agencies like to give out professional gifts like this plum academic position
for completing missions. In the US, it is widely known that intelligence agencies gift the
children of assets to get them into prestigious Ivy League schools."
At minimum, we can surmise that Mifsud was not a Russian agent, but was an asset of Western
intelligence agencies. We are left with the impression that the Mifsud saga served as a ploy,
whether he participated knowingly or not. It seems reasonable to conclude that the gambit was
initially developed with participation of John Brennan and UK intelligence. Following this,
Mueller inherited and developed the Mifsud narrative thread into the collusion soap opera we
know today.
Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that British and US interests worked together to
fabricate a collusion scandal to subvert a US Presidency, and in doing so, intentionally raised
tensions between the West and a nuclear-armed power.
What ********. Britain was part of the group pulling of 911 along with the American and
Jewish establishment. Blackburn was the inside guy, posing as an outsider, to deflect
attention from the real perpetrators. These people always have agents on both sides of every
issue in the same way they fund two "opposing" political parties and fund two "opposing"
sides in the media.
Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that British and US interests worked together
to fabricate a collusion scandal to subvert a US Presidency , and in doing so, intentionally
raised tensions between the West and a nuclear-armed power .
It's called TREASON .
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to
their enemies , giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere , is guilty
of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years
SteeleGate---his mate Skripal, boss Pablo Miller----novichok---Porton Down---anything to
blame Russia in the end. After 30 dys of shutdown personnel of CIA, FBI and DOJ can be
changed legally: draining of the swamp and DECLAS can begin with proper Military Tribunals in
place. This according to Q who shared all of this, so it was not a conspiracy theory that the
Q team exposed, but just MSM and Deep State in their last panic mode. Justice will now be
able to follow: maybe rel end of endless wars too!
There are more and more articles saying that the FBI, CIA, M14 15,16 yada yada, were
overly concerned about Trump. Their sin...caring too much for the USA.
They attempted a coup de'etat for "our" own good...we... being "we the people".
To quote A Lincoln
"You will find that all the arguments in favour of kingcraft were of this class; they
always bestrode the necks of the people,
-- not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being
ridden."
Lincoln did not mince words
So now we have an international conspiracy of care. Not one power grubber in the group. A
syndicate of misunderstood do gooders.
But not having the consent of the people, but rather trying to undo, and foil the consent
of the people.
This part of the Declaration applies
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.
Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that British and US interests worked together
to fabricate a collusion scandal to subvert a US Presidency, and in doing so, intentionally
raised tensions between the West and a nuclear-armed power..."
Why do you not call it a coup d'etat? That is what it is, nothing less. If it were about
something Trump did you would use the harshest possible language. Why not tell the truth
here. Let the American people know what happened.
The International Monetary Fund just uncorked a sobering outlook on the global
economy and asset markets for the elite billionaires huddled up in Davos,
Switzerland for the World Economic Forum to ponder.
In its latest World Economic Update report, the IMF said Monday the global
economy is projected to grow at a meager 3.5% this year and only accelerate to
3.6% in 2020. The outlooks for 2019 and 2020 are 0.2 percentage point and 0.1
percentage point below the IMF's projections issued in October.
Hat tips to the ongoing U.S. trade war with China, tightening financial
conditions globally and more volatile risk asset markets.
The finer points:
The IMF pretty much had nothing good to say on
the outlooks for developed and emerging markets. Although that is nothing unusual
for the IMF -- who often takes a cautious stance on its outlooks for economies and
financial markets -- it may give many investors a wake up call amid a somewhat hot
start to the stock market in 2019.
Of note, U.S. growth is seen slowing to 2.5% in 2019 and dipping to 1.9% in 2020
at the hands of the unwinding of fiscal stimulus (see Trump tax cuts), higher
interest rates and the U.S. trade war with China. The IMF tossed the U.S. a bone
by noting the pace of expansion is above the country's estimated potential growth
in both years.
As for Europe, the IMF is now more bearish on growth compared to its October
outlook. Growth for emerging and developing Europe in 2019 is forecast to cool to
0.7% (from 3.8% in 2018) and then bounce to 2.4% in 2020. Previously, the IMF was
looking for growth of 2% and 2.8% in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Lackluster
growth in Italy, France and Germany as well as policy tightening in Turkey are
the main culprits for the IMF's European growth downgrade.
Growth in emerging and developing Asia is expected to drop from 6.5% in 2018 to
6.3% in 2019 and reach 6.4% in 2020, said the IMF. The IMF expects growth in
China to be 6.2% both in 2019 and 2020 versus 6.6% in 2018.
Interestingly, the IMF incorporates the impact of continued tariffs by the U.S.
on China and vice versa in its baseline forecast. In other words, the
organization does not expect there to be a trade truce between the countries on
their self-imposed March 1 deadline.
For the investors out there:
For those bulls that have returned
to beaten up stocks in January, the IMF does its best to squash the hopium
infiltrating your brains. "A range of catalyzing events in key systemic economies
could spark a broader deterioration in investor sentiment and a sudden, sharp
repricing of assets amid elevated debt burdens. Global growth would likely fall
short of the baseline projection if any such events were to materialize and
trigger a generalized risk-off episode," cautioned the IMF.
China's growth slowdown is also a risk that the IMF suggests investors don't
fully appreciate.
"As seen in 2015–16, concerns about the health of China's economy can trigger
abrupt, wide reaching sell-offs in financial and commodity markets that place its
trading partners, commodity exporters, and other emerging markets under
pressure," the IMF pointed out.
The bottom line:
The IMF isn't exactly super plugged into global
asset markets in the same vein as forecasters at Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley. But their latest assessment of the global economy and risk markets
offers up a good counterbalance to the enthusiasm that has begun to creep back
into financial markets after the October 2017 through December 2018 rout.
Happy trading, folks.
Brian Sozzi is an editor-at-large at Yahoo Finance. Follow him on
Twitter
"... The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us". ..."
"... But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow Vests! ..."
"... In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone. ..."
"... This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him. ..."
"... Observing Macron, the people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall – they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action to save themselves and their country. ..."
"... This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together. ..."
"... Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened, looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds either! ..."
"... Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917. ..."
"... France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in Mélenchon 's accurate description. ..."
"... This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is already history. ..."
"... Or at least, for the people to be given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power. ..."
"... By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be described as revolutionary. ..."
"... Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold, the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement, or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe . ..."
"... Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more realistic scenario today, than in the past. ..."
The magazine LePoint is one of the main media outlets of the French
conservative "centre-right". One of its December issues carries the cover title France
Faces its History. 1648, 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871 four centuries of revolutions.
The cover features also a painting by Pierre-Jérôme Lordon, showing people
clashing with the army at Rue de Babylone , in Paris, during the
Revolution of 1830. Perhaps this is where Luc Ferry, Chirac's former minister, got his idea
from, when, two days ago, he asked the Army to intervene and the police to start shooting and
killing Yellow Vests.
Do not be surprised if you haven't heard this from your TV or if you don't know that the
level of police repression and violence in France, measured in people dead, injured and
arrested, has exceeded everything the country has experienced since 1968. Nor should you
wonder why you don't know anything about some Yellow Vest's new campaign calling for a
massive run on French banks. Or why you have been lead you to believe that the whole thing is
to do with fuel taxes or increasing minimum wage.
The vast majority of European media didn't even bother to communicate to their readers
or viewers the main political demands of the Yellow Vests ; and certainly, there hasn't
been any meaningful attempt to offer an insightful interpretation of what's happening in
France and there is just very little serious on-the-ground reporting, in the villages and
motorways of France.
Totalitarianism
Following Napoleon's defeat in Waterloo, European Powers formed the Holy Alliance banning
Revolutions.
Nowadays, Revolutions have just been declared inconceivable (Soros – though not just
him – has been giving a relentless fight to take them out of history textbooks or, as a
minimum, to erase their significance and meaning). Since they are unthinkable they cannot
happen. Since they cannot happen they do not happen.
In the same vein, European media sent their journalists out to the streets in Paris on
Christmas and New Year's days, counted the protesters and found that they weren't too many
after all. Of course they didn't count the 150,000 police and soldiers lined up by Macron on
New Year's Eve. Then they made sure that they remain "impartial" and by just comparing
numbers of protesters, led viewers to think that we are almost done with it – it was
just a storm, it will pass.
The other day I read a whole page article about Europe in one of the most "serious" Greek
newspapers, on 30.12. The author devoted just one single meaningless phrase about the Vests.
Instead, the paper still found the way to include in the article the utterly stupid statement
of a European Right-Wing politician who attributed the European crisis to the existence of
Russia Today and Sputnik! And when I finally found a somewhat more serious article online
about the developments in France, I realized that its only purpose was to convince us that
what is happening in France surely has nothing to do with 1789 or 1968!
It is only a pity that the people concerned, the French themselves, cannot read in Greek.
If they could, they would have realized that it does not make any sense to have "Revolution"
written on their vests or to sing the 1789 song in their demonstrations or to organize
symbolic ceremonies of the public "decapitation" of Macron, like Louis XV. And the French
bourgeois press would not waste time everyday comparing what happens in the country now with
what happened in 1968 and 1789.
Totalitarianism is not just a threat. It's already here. Simply it has omitted to
announce its arrival. We have to deduce its precence from its results.
A terrified
ruling class
The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has
no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the
revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us".
A few months ago, all we had about Macron in the papers was praise, inside and outside of
France – he was the "rising star" of European politics, the man who managed to pass the
"reforms" one after the other, no resistance could stop him, he would be the one to save and
rebuild Europe. Varoufakis admired and supported him, as early as of the first round of the
2017 elections.
Now, the "chosen one" became a burden for those who put him in office. Some of them
probably want to get rid of him as fast as they can, to replace him with someone else, but
it's not easy – and even more so, it is not easy given the monarchical powers conferred
by the French constitution to the President. The constitution is tailored to the needs of a
President who wants to safeguard power from the people. Those who drafted it could not
probably imagine it would make difficult for the Oligarchy also to fire him!
And who would dare to hold a parliamentary or presidential election in such a situation,
as in France today? No one knows what could come out of it. Moreover, Macron does not have a
party in the sense of political power. He has a federation of friends who benefit as long as
he stays in power and they are damaged when he collapses.
The King is naked
"The King is naked", points out Le Point's editorial, before, with almost sadistic
callousness, posing the question: "What can a government do when a remarkable section of the
people vomits it?"
But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages
devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a
single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which
led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a
Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will
produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow
Vests!
They predicted it, they saw it coming, but they didn't believe it!
Yet they could have predicted all that. It would have sufficed, had they only taken
seriously and studied a book published in France in late 2016, six months before the
presidential election, highlighting the explosive nature of the social situation and warning
of the danger of revolution and civil war.
The title of the book was "Revolution". Its author was none other than Emmanuel Macron
himself. Six months later, he would become the President of France, to eventually verify, and
indeed rather spectacularly, his predictions. But the truth is probably, that not even he
himself gave much credit to what he wrote just to win the election.
By constantly lying, politicians, journalists and intellectuals reasonably came to believe
that even their own words are of no importance. That they can say and do anything they want,
without any consequence.
In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every
night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone.
This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from
reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected
him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him.
Unwise and Arrogant, he made no effort to hide – this is how sure he felt of
himself, this is how convinced his environment was that he could infinitely go on doing
anything he wanted without any consequences (same as our Tsipras). Thus, acting foolishly and
arrogantly, he left a few million eyes to see his real face. This was the last straw that
made the French people realize in a definite way what they had already started figuring out
during Sarkozy's and Hollande's, administration, or even earlier. Observing Macron, the
people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall –
they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action
to save themselves and their country.
There was nobody else to make it in their place.
Macron as a Provocateur.
Terror in Pompeii
This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron
was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited
Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together.
It was just then, that Bucephalus (*) sprang from the depths of historical Memory,
galloping without a rider, ready to sweep away everything in his path.
Now those in power look at him with fear, but fearful too are both the "radical right" and
the "radical left". Le Pen has already called on protesters to return to their homes and give
her names to include in her list for the European election!
Mélenchon supports the Vests – 70% of their demands coincide with the program
of his party, La France Insoumise – but so far he hasn't dared to join the
people in demanding Macron's resignation, by adopting the immense, but orphan, cry of the
people heard all over France: "Macron resign". Perhaps he feels that he hasn't got the steely
strength and willpower required for attempting to lead such a movement.
The unions' leadership is doing everything it can to keep the working class away from the
Vests, but this stand started causing increasing unrest at its base.
Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul
capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to
experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened,
looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of
which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving
lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People
could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds
either!
In fact, this is also a further confirmation of the depth of the movement. Lenin ,
who, in any event knew something about revolutions, wrote in 1917: "In a revolutionary
situation, the Party is a hundred times farther to the left than the Central Committee and
the workers a hundred times farther to the left than the Party."
"Revolutionary
Situation" and Power Vacuum
Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two
demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the
percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917.
France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and
the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a
situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in
Mélenchon 's accurate description.
This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history
teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn
a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and
an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not
for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian
Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible
eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of
intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is
already history.
People's Sovereignty at the center of demands
Starting from fuel tax the revolting French have now put at the centre of their demands,
in addition to Macron's resignation, the following:
preserving the purchasingpower of the poorest social strata, e.g.
with the abolition of VAT on basic necessities to ensure decent standards of living for the
entire population,
the right of people to provoke referendums on any issue, the Citizens'
Initiative Referendum (RIC), including referendums to revokeelectedrepresentatives (the President, MPs, mayors, etc. ) when they violate their mandate,
all that in the context of establishing a SixthFrenchRepublic .
In other words, they demand a profound and radical " transformation " of the
Western bourgeois-democratic regime, as we know it, towards a form of directdemocracy in order to take back the state, which has gradually and in a totalitarian
manner – but while keeping up democratic appearances – passed under direct and
full control of the Financial Capital and its employees. Or at least, for the people to be
given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power.
These are not the demands of a fun-club of Protagoras or of some left-wing or right-wing
groupuscule propagating Self-Management or of some club of intellectuals. Nor are they the
demands of only the lowest social strata of the French nation.
They are supported, according to the polls and put forward by at least three quarters of
French citizens, including a sizeable portion of the less poor. In such circumstances, these
demands constitute in effect the Will of the People, the Will of the Nation.
The Vests are nothing more than its fighting pioneers. And precisely because it is the
absolute majority of people who align with these demands, even if numbers have somewhat gone
down since the beginning of December, the Vests are still wanted out on the streets.
By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas
of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be
described as revolutionary.
And also because it is not only the President and the Government, who have been debunked
or at least de-legitimized, but it's also the whole range of state and political
institutions, the parties, the unions, the "information" media and the "ideologists" of the
regime.
The questioning of the establishment is so profound that any arguments about violence and
the protesters do not weaken society's support for them. Many, but not all, condemn violence,
but there are not many who don't go on immediately to add a reminder of the regime's social
violence against the people. When a famous ex-boxer lost his temper and reacted by punching a
number of violent police officers, protesters set up a fundraising website for his legal
fees. In just two hours they managed to raise around 120.000 euro, before removing the page
over officials' complaints and threats about keeping a file on anyone who contributes money
to support such causes.
Until now, an overwhelming majority of the French people supports the demands while an
absolute majority shows supports for the demonstrations; but of course, it is difficult to
keep such a deadlock and power-void situation going for long. They will sooner or later
demand a solution, and in situations such as these it is often the case that public opinion
shifts rapidly from the one end of the political spectrum to the other and vice versa,
depending on which force appears to be more decisive and capable of driving
society out of the crisis.
The organization of the Movement
Because the protesters have no confidence in the parties, the trade unions, or anyone else
for that matter, they are driven out of necessity into self-organization, as they already do
with the Citizens' Assemblies that are now emerging in villages, cities and motorway camps.
Indeed, by the end of the month, if everything goes well, they will hold the first "
AssemblyofAssemblies ".
Similar developments have also been observed in many revolutionary movements of this kind
in various countries. A classic example is the spontaneous formation of the councils (
Soviets ) during the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917.
Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold,
the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a
way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement,
or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for
France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe .
Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level
of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the
necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more
realistic scenario today, than in the past.
Because the movement's Achilles' Heel is that, while it is already in the process of
forming a political proposition, it still, at least for now, does not offer any economic
alternative or a politically structured, democratically controlled leadership.
Effective Democracy is an absolute requirement in such a front, because it is the
only way to synthesize the inevitablydifferentlevels of
consciousness within the People and to avoid a split of the movement between "left"
and "right", between those who are ready to resort to violence to achieve their ends and
those who have a preference for more peaceful, gradual processes.
Such a " front " could perhaps also serve as a platform for solidifying a
program and vision, to which the various parties and political organizations could
contribute.
In her CritiqueoftheRussianRevolutionRosaLuxemburg , the leader of the German Social Democracy was overly critical
of the Bolsheviks , even if, I think, a bit too severe in some points. But she closes
her critique with the phrase: " They at least dared "
Driven by absolute Need, guided by the specific way its historical experience has formed
its consciousness, possessing a Surplus of Consciousness, that is able to feel the
unavoidable conclusions coming out of the synthesis of the information we all possess, about
both the "quality" of the forces governing our world and the enormous dangers threatening our
countries and mankind, the French People, the French Nation has already crossed the
Rubicon.
By moving practically to achieve their goals at a massive scale, and regardless of what is
to come next, the French people has already made a giant leap up and forward and, once more
in its history, it became the world's forerunner in tackling the terrible economic,
ecological, nuclear and technological threats against human civilization and its
survival.
Without the conscious entry of large masses into the historical scene, with all the
dangers and uncertainties that such a thing surely implies, one can hardly imagine how
humanity will survive.
López Obrador comes to the presidency as a man of the left, but the space for
maneuvering that he has for a left agenda is minimal. Mexico's economy, through geography and
trade agreements, is fused with that of the United States. More than 80 percent of Mexico's
exports go to its neighbor to the north, while Mexico's financial sector is almost entirely at
the mercy of Northern banks.
Already, López Obrador has had to deal with the leash from Northern banks that
sits tightly around Mexico's throat. On October 28, after the election, López
Obrador canceled the project to build a new airport for Mexico City. This new airport -- at a
cost of US$13.4 billion -- is seen as far too expensive (Istanbul has just inaugurated a new
airport, far bigger, for almost US$2 billion less). The peso fell, the Mexican stock market
fell, Fitch downgraded Mexico to "negative," and international investors frowned.
Then, in early November, legislators from López Obrador's party -- Morena --
proposed laws to limit bank fees. Mexico's stock market collapsed. It was the worst single-day
loss of the BMV stock index in seven years. The bankers sent López Obrador a
message: don't rock the boat.
Hastily, López Obrador's choice for the finance ministry -- Carlos
Urzúa -- scolded the legislators and winked to the banks. Urzúa, an
economist, has spent years consulting for the World Bank and other such agencies. It is hard to
find an economist these days who has not put his fingers into a consultancy for either the
World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The economics profession has slid almost
wholesale into the pocket of international agencies that are committed to a very asphyxiating
version of public policy -- one that goes by the name of neoliberalism. It is a policy
framework that favors multinational corporations over workers, one that seeks to control
inflation rather than find ways to improve the livelihood of people. Finance is the religion,
while Money is God.
López Obrador and Urzúa do not have the political power to
challenge the order of things.
IMF Comes to Mexico City
Just a month before López Obrador takes office, the IMF sent a team to Mexico.
This team came to do a study based on the IMF charter's Article IV. Its
report set limits on what López Obrador's government can do. There is the
usual verbal concern expressed for inequality and poverty, but this is just window-dressing.
Nothing in the IMF staff statement indicated a policy that would tackle Mexico's grave problems
of poverty and inequality.
What the report details instead is a caution that López Obrador must not try to
invest funds in infrastructure that benefits the Mexican people -- investment, for instance, in
the sclerotic oil industry (Pemex). Mexico, an oil exporting state, imports oil because it has
limited refining capacity. López Obrador has said he wants Mexico to properly
develop the state-run oil firm Pemex. But the IMF staff statement says that "further
improvements of Pemex's financial situation are a prerequisite before new investments in
refining can be contemplated." López Obrador will be forced to make drastic cuts
in Pemex and to continue to drain the exchequer to import oil. No structural change is going to
be possible here without a negative IMF report, which would further encourage an investment
strike into Mexico.
Someone should encourage the IMF to stop sending staff teams into countries like Mexico.
Each report is identical to the previous one. Nothing seems to be learned by these teams. Years
ago, a senior IMF economist told me that when he arrived in a Central Asian country he knew
nothing of that country, he got to see nothing of it when he was there and he knew virtually
nothing when he drafted the Article IV review. All he did in the country was sit in one
air-conditioned room after another, listen to canned reports from nervous finance ministry
officials and then develop the report based on the IMF's same old recipe -- make cuts, target
welfare, privatize and make sure that the banks are happy.
Latitude for creative policy making is simply not available. The IMF comes to town to tell
new governments to behave. López Obrador and his cabinet will have to listen. Any
deviation from the IMF recipe will make investors flee and foreign investment dry up. It is so
easy these days to suffocate a country.
IMF Comes to Buenos Aires
For the past two decades, the IMF had found it difficult to dictate terms in Latin America.
From 2002 to 2007, left-leaning governments governed most of the region, where economic
activity was helped along by high commodity prices (including oil prices) and high remittance
payments.
Even Mexico's conservative President Felipe Calderón (2006-2012) had to lean
into the prevailing winds of Bolivarianism. In 2011, at the Community of Latin American and
Caribbean States, Calderón championed integration of Latin America -- something
that is least to be expected from a Mexican head of government, because Mexico is firmly
integrated into the United States.
The world financial crisis from 2007 hit Latin America hard. Calderón went to
Davos the next year and said that Latin America would be insulated from the crisis. Far from
it, Mexico had already begun to suffer job loss as the economy of its main trade partner -- the
United States -- contracted. An IMF
study found that Latin America lost 40 percent of its wealth in 2008. Public finances
contracted, and public investments declined. Inflation led to higher poverty rates and to
social instability.
A quick summary: Why did Latin America's economies suffer a crisis after 2007? It was not
because of the left-leaning governments and their policies. It was because of the
over-leveraged financial system, only one of whose asset bubbles -- U.S. housing prices --
collapsed. Deep integration into and reliance upon the U.S.-dominated financial system, and
poor diversification of their economies from the U.S. market, meant that as the U.S. banks
contracted, Latin America felt the pain. Over 80 percent of Argentina's private debt was in
dollars in 2002, while only a quarter of Argentina's economy was geared toward exports. This
was the fuel that was fated to burst into flame. It is this dollar reliance that could not be
corrected.
The exported economic problem had a political impact. It weakened the left-leaning
governments, even as these governments tried to ameliorate the crisis. Many of these
governments -- from Argentina to Brazil -- lost elections, while social turmoil struck others
-- from Venezuela to Nicaragua. It is in this context that the International Monetary Fund
returned to Latin America with a vengeance.
After two decades of relative absence, the IMF has now returned to Argentina (on which
please see this dossier from
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research). Its Article IV staff
statement from December last year pointed to the problems of high borrowing in foreign
currency, a problem that was recognized in 2001-2002. But the power of international finance --
centered at Wall Street and the City of London -- prevented any easy pivot out of this problem.
It was easier to demand cuts from the already meager incomes of ordinary people.
In 1994, Mexico suffered from what became known as the "tequila crisis," as the peso
collapsed when international capital fled the country. The government would not place capital
controls to protect the peso against currency speculators. The "tequila effect" then spread to
South America. No one was prepared to stand up to the dollar and the speculators. From the
forests of Chiapas, Subcomandante Marcos of the Zapatistas spoke out in favor of the pockets of
the forgotten, the people who did not cause the crisis but who would bear the cost of these
financial shenanigans. Once more, with help from the IMF, the pockets of the forgotten from
Argentina to Mexico will suffer so that finance is left intact.
This article was produced by Globetrotter , a project of the
Independent Media Institute.
"... Currently, the S&P 500 (as of 1/18/19) is trading at 2,670 with Q4-2018 trailing reported earnings estimated to be $139.50. ( S&P Data ) This puts the 10-year average trailing P/E ratio of the S&P at a rather lofty 28.86x. ..."
I'm referring to what many retirees are most afraid of: Running out of money before they
die. An Allianz Life
survey found that far more retirees are afraid of outliving their money than they are of
dying -- 61% to 39%. This ever-present background fear is especially rearing its ugly head
right now, given the bear market that too many came out of nowhere.
Retirement planning projections made at the end of the third quarter, right as the stock
market was registering its all-time highs, now need to be revised.
The reason not to give up hope is that the stock market typically recovers from bear
markets in a far shorter period of time than most doom and gloomers think. Consider what I
found when measuring how long it took, after each of the 36 bear markets since 1900 on the
bear market calendar maintained by Ned Davis Research Believe it or not, the average recovery
time was 'just' 3.2 years."
Mark correctly used total return numbers in his calculations, however, while his data is
correct the conclusion is not.
Here is why.
While Mark is discussing the recovery of bear markets (getting back to even) it is based on
a "buy and hold" investing approach.
However, Mark's error is that he is specifically discussing "retirees" which are
systematically withdrawing capital from their portfolios, paying tax on those withdrawals (from
retirement accounts) and compensating for adjustments to the cost of living (not to mention
spiraling "health care" costs.)
These are the same problems which plague most of the "off the shelf" financial plans
today:
Faulty assumptions based on average historic rates of returns rather than variable rates
of return, and;
Not accounting for the current level of market valuations at the outset of the planning
process.
To explain the problems with both Mark's assumptions, and the vast majority of financial
plans spit out of computer programs today, let's turn to some previous comments from
Michael Kitces.
"Given the impact of inflation, it's problematic to start digging into retirement
principal immediately at the start of retirement, given that inflation-adjusted spending
needs could quadruple by the end of retirement (at a 5% inflation rate). Accordingly, the
reality is that to sustain a multi-decade retirement with rising spending needs due to
inflation, it's necessary to spend less than the growth/income in the early years, just to
build enough of a cushion to handle the necessary higher withdrawals later!
For instance, imagine a retiree who has a $1,000,000 balanced portfolio, and wants to plan
for a 30-year retirement, where inflation averages 3% and the balanced portfolio averages 8%
in the long run. To make the money last for the entire time horizon, the retiree would start
out by spending $61,000 initially, and then adjust each subsequent year for inflation,
spending down the retirement account balance by the end of the 30th year."
Michael's assumptions on expanding inflationary pressures later in retirement is correct,
however, they don't take into account the issue of taxation. So, let's adjust Kitces' chart and
include not only the impact of inflation-adjusted returns but also taxation. The chart below adjusts the 8% return structure for inflation at 3% and also adjusts the
withdrawal rate up for taxation at 25%. By adjusting the annualized rate of return for the impact of inflation and taxes, the life
expectancy of a portfolio grows considerably shorter. While inflation and taxes are indeed important to consider, those are not the biggest threat
to retiree's portfolios.
There is a massive difference between 8% "average" rates of return and 8% "actual"
returns.
The Impact Of Variability
Currently, the S&P 500 (as of 1/18/19) is trading at 2,670 with Q4-2018 trailing
reported earnings estimated to be $139.50. (
S&P Data ) This puts the 10-year average trailing P/E ratio of the S&P at a rather
lofty 28.86x.
We also know that forward returns from varying valuation levels are significantly varied
depending on when you start your investing. As shown in the chart below, from current valuation
levels, forward returns from the market have been much closer to 2% rather than 8%.
As evidenced by the graph, as valuations rise future rates of annualized returns fall. This
should not be a surprise as simple logic states that if you overpay today for an asset, future
returns must, and will, be lower.
Math also proves the same. Capital gains from markets are primarily a function of market
capitalization, nominal economic growth plus the dividend yield. Using the Dr. John Hussman's
formula we can mathematically calculate returns over the next 10-year period as follows:
(1+nominal GDP growth)*(normal market cap to GDP ratio / actual market cap to GDP
ratio)^(1/10)-1
Therefore, IF we assume that
GDP maintains, 4% annualized growth indefinitely
Which means recessions have been eliminated, AND
Current market cap/GDP stays flat at 1.25, AND
The current dividend yield remains at 2%:
We would get forward returns of:
(1.04)*(.8/1.25)^(1/30)-1+.02 = 4.5%
But there's a "whole lotta ifs" in that assumption.
More importantly, if we assume that inflation remains stagnant at 2%, as the Fed hopes, this
would mean a real rate of return of just 2.5%.
This is far less than the 8-10% rates of return currently promised by the Wall Street
community. It is also why starting valuations are critical for individuals to understand when
planning for the accumulation phase of the investment life-cycle.
Let's take this a step further. For the purpose of this article, we went back through
history and pulled the 4-periods where trailing 10-year average valuations (Shiller's CAPE)
were either above 20x earnings or below 10x earnings. We then ran a $1000 investment going
forward for 30-years on a total-return, inflation-adjusted, basis.
At 10x earnings, the worst performing period started in 1918 and only saw $1000 grow to a
bit more than $6000. The best performing period was actually not the screaming bull market that
started in 1980 because the last 10-years of that particular cycle caught the "dot.com" crash.
It was the post-WWII bull market that ran from 1942 through 1972 that was the winner. Of
course, the crash of 1974, just two years later, extracted a good bit of those returns.
Conversely, at 20x earnings, the best performing period started in 1900 which caught the
rise of the market to its peak in 1929. Unfortunately, the next 4-years wiped out roughly 85%
of those gains . However, outside of that one period, all of the other periods fared worse than
investing at lower valuations. (Note: 1993 is still currently running as its 30-year period
will end in 2023.)
The point to be made here is simple and was precisely summed up by Warren Buffett:
"Price is what you pay. Value is what you get."
This idea becomes much clearer by showing the value of $1000 invested in the markets at both
valuations BELOW 10x trailing earnings and ABOVE 20x. I have averaged each of the 4-periods
above into a single total return, inflation-adjusted, index, Clearly, investing at 10x earnings
yields substantially better results.
Not surprisingly, the starting level of valuations has the greatest impact on your future
results.
But, most importantly, starting valuations are critical to withdrawal rates
When we adjust the spend down structure for elevated starting valuation levels, and include
inflation and taxation, a much different, and far less favorable, financial outcome emerges
– the retiree runs out of money not in year 30, but in year 18.
"And, if you're retired and withdrawing from your portfolio, the 'sequence-of-return' risk
– the problem of the early years of withdrawals coinciding with a declining portfolio
– can upend your entire retirement. That's because a portfolio in distribution that
experiences severe declines at the beginning of the distribution phase, cannot recover when
the stock market finally rebounds. Because of the distributions, there is less money in the
portfolio to benefit from stock gains when they eventually materialize again.
I showed that risk in a previous
article where I created the following chart representing three hypothetical portfolios
using the '4% rule' (withdrawing 4% of the portfolio the first year of retirement and
increasing that withdrawal dollar value by 4% every year thereafter). I cherry-picked the
initial year of retirement, of course (2000), so that my graphic represents a kind of worst
case, or at least a very bad case, scenario. But investors close to retirement should keep
that in mind because current stock prices are historically high and bond yields are
historically low. That means the prospects for big investment returns over the next decade
are dim and that increasing stock exposure could be detrimental to retirement plans once
again. In my example, decreasing stock exposure benefits the portfolio in distribution phase,
and that could be the case for retirees now."
As John correctly notes, there is a case for owning stocks in a retirement portfolio, just
maybe not as much as your "run of the mill" financial plan suggests. To wit:
"Returns from cash and bonds may not keep up with inflation, after all. But stock returns
might fall short too. And if stocks do lag, they probably won't do so with the limited
volatility that bonds tend to deliver, barring a serious bout of inflation. So, if you're
within a decade of retirement, it may be time to think hard about how much stock exposure is
enough. The answer might be less than you think for a portfolio in distribution phase."
Questions Retirees Need To Ask About Plans
Importantly, what this analysis reveals, is that "retirees" SHOULD be worried about bear
markets. Taking the correct view of your portfolio, and the risk being undertaken, is critical
when entering the retirement and distribution phase of the portfolio life cycle.
More importantly, when building and/or reviewing your financial plan – these are the
questions you must ask and have concrete answers for:
What are the expectations for future returns going forward given current valuation
levels?
Should the withdrawal rates be downwardly adjusted to account for potentially lower
future returns?
Given a decade long bull market, have adjustments been made for potentially front-loaded
negative returns?
Has the impact of taxation been carefully considered in the planned withdrawal rate?
Have future inflation expectations been carefully considered?
Have drawdowns from portfolios during declining market environments, which accelerates
principal bleed, been considered?
Have plans been made to harbor capital during up years to allow for reduced portfolio
withdrawals during adverse market conditions?
Has the yield chase over the last decade, and low interest rate environment, which has
created an extremely risky environment for retirement income planning been carefully
considered?
What steps should be considered to reduce potential credit and duration risk in bond
portfolios?
Have expectations for compounded annual rates of returns been dismissed in lieu of a plan
for variable rates of future returns?
If the answer is "no" to the majority of these questions then feel free to contact one of the CFP's
in our office who take all of these issues into account.
With debt levels rising globally, economic growth on the long-end of the cycle, interest
rates rising, valuations high, and a potential risk of a recession, the uncertainty of
retirement plans has risen markedly. This lends itself to the problem of individuals having to
spend a bulk of their "retirement" continuing to work.
Two previous bear markets have devastated the retirement plans of millions of individuals in
the economy today which partly explains why a large number of jobs in the monthly BLS
employment report go to individuals over the age of 55.
So, not only should retirees worry about bear markets, they should worry about them a
lot.
The insidious and hidden tax - inflation. Retirement is mostly fantasy - it is always
being one step away from poverty. Even after decades of sacrifice and saving.
the nikkei topped out in 1989 and still hasn't recovered nearly 30 years later. most old
farts, including family members, aren't balanced, they are almost totally in stocks because
they believe that the fed guarantees the s&p only goes up. if someday it doesn't, too bad
for them.
The only way to retire [ unless you are very wealthy ] from the system is to adopt a
self-reliant lifestyle where your cost of living is way down. A single adult, in fair
condition, living a self reliant lifestyle can live comfortably on 15k per year. Thats
assuming no debt. To do that privately, you'll need about 400-600k, the right piece of land [
paid for ], and a whole mess of specific skills.
You wont be laying on your ***. This isnt your father's retirement of leisure. This is a
shifting of focus away from contribution / compensation through the system and towards
independence and literal "Self" reliance.
bull, bear who gives a ****? Only an idiot eats up the seed capital in pensions. All that
does is set down a death date you better follow thru with- With a bullet if neccesary.
Did they pick only companies that existed and survived the 30-year duration, in which case
they may not be representative of the market? Or did they use index, in which case there is
no complementary aggregate P/E ratio to account for dividends - or did they ignore dividends
altogether?
Very easy to calculate amortization of a retirement boodle. Just go online to a mortgage
amortization calculator. 1) Put in the initial amount of the retirement stake (= the amount
of a mortgage to be paid off, e.g. $1 million) 2) Punch in the projected interest rate (= the
interest on the mortgage). This will be the amount the retirement boodle pays in
interest/dividends over time as it's being drawn upon 3) Punch in the number of years the
retirement principle will have to pay out (= the number of years the mortgage is for). Crunch
these with the calculator provided and you'll get the amount the account will pay out each
month (= monthly payment of a mortgage with interest). Simple and free. The only uncertain
thing is the interest/dividend rate of the account. But one can be conservative (Say 2-3%)
and still get a very accurate monthly payout figure.
Also, nothing personal, but why should I take investment advice from someone who is still
working or paid to give it? I could never figure that one out.
If I were an investment genius, I would be rich, retired long before reaching age 65, and
avoiding people who need investment advice.
Retirees shouldn't worry about bear markets because retirees should never be in the equity
market in the first place. Especially during the times of rate normalization, where
sell-siders view every utterance by the Fed as 'dovish', and algos need ultra-volatility to
keep in business.
Assume $1 million in savings and Social Security of $25,000/yr based on a life of very
decent wages. At 4%, very easy to earn during normalized rates from fixed income, that's
$65,000/yr with NO principal reduction. Paltry for NYC or CA, but very decent for a
comfortable life almost everywhere else for an old person with no debts.
""Overall, between bank accounts and retirement savings, the median American household
currently holds about $11,700 , according to MagnifyMoney. Almost 30 percent of households
have less than $1,000 saved, MagnifyMoney finds, though the amount varies drastically by
age.Aug 28, 2018""
The article says, " For instance, imagine a retiree who has a $1,000,000 balanced portfolio, and wants to
plan for a 30-year retirement . . . "
It's not aimed at the median American household. The median American household doesn't
have a financial advisor, portfolio, or any hope for a retirement that goes beyond a $1,800 a
month Social Security check.
and to make matters worse it is becoming more and more difficult to find a reasonably
priced canned cat food that can substituted as a Decent Liver Pate. We have a high net worth
Bridge Owners party next week and the stuff we tried last month pulled the bridges right out
of their mouths.
You proved his point. You would be very concerned if you knew the true Money Power Monopolist Game of
Thrones.
===============
"Modern slaves are not in chains, they are in debt."
~Anonymous
"Let the American people go into their debt-funding schemes and banking systems, and from
that hour their boasted independence will be a mere phantom."
~William Pitt, (referring to the inauguration of the first National Bank in the United States
under Alexander Hamilton).
"The new law will create inflation whenever the trusts want inflation. From now on
depressions will be scientifically created."
~Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, after the passage of the Federal Reserve act 1913.
"The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable
debt."
~Henry Ford
"Retirement" is a fairly new fad- prior to the 1950s it was unheard of - expect that fad
to end some point soon. The whole concept resembles a Pyramid Scheme- as long as there are
enough people at the bottom supporting those at the top everything is OK- the problem occurs
when there are not enough at the bottom contributing to support those above them - which we
have now.
the answer is simple; the math of a distribution portfolio is vastly different than that
of a portfolio NOT making withdrawals.....depending on the amount being withdrawn the
recovery point will take longer if at all.
just keep dry powder ready for when FERAL Reserve jacks discount rate up in the teens, the
geezers will make it back fast. I do not doubt I will see rates in CDs at 10%. They have to
drain 4.4 trillion of gravy from the system to protect what they stole in 2008 or inflation
will get it fast.
The problem is not Russia; the problem is the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. And related legitimization of neoliberal
elite, which now Deep State is trying ot patch with anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... That is, in the modern history of US-Russian summits, we are told by a former American ambassador who knows, the "secrecy of presidential private meetings has been the rule, not the exception." He continues, "There's nothing unusual about withholding information from the bureaucracy about the president's private meetings with foreign leaders . Sometimes they would dictate a memo afterward, sometimes not." Indeed, President Richard Nixon, distrustful of the US "bureaucracy," sometimes met privately with Kremlin leader Leonid Brezhnev while only Brezhnev's translator was present. ..."
Baseless Russiagate allegations continue to risk war with Russia.
Anti-Trump Frenzy Threatens to End Superpower Diplomacy | The Nation
The New Year has brought a torrent of ever-more-frenzied allegations that President Donald Trump has long had a conspiratorial relationship
-- why mince words and call it "collusion"? -- with Kremlin leader Vladimir Putin.
Why the frenzy now? Perhaps because Russiagate promoters in high places are concerned that special counsel Robert Mueller will
not produce the hoped-for "bombshell" to end Trump's presidency. Certainly,
New York Times columnist
David Leonhardt seems worried, demanding, "The president must go," his drop line exhorting, "What are we waiting for?" (In some
countries, articles like his, and there are very many, would be read as calling for a coup.) Perhaps to incite Democrats who have
now taken control of House investigative committees. Perhaps simply because Russiagate has become a political-media cult that no
facts, or any lack of evidence, can dissuade or diminish.
And there is no new credible evidence, preposterous claims notwithstanding. One of The New York Times '
own recent "bombshells,"
published on January 12, reported, for example, that in spring 2017, FBI officials "began investigating whether [President Trump]
had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests." None of the three reporters bothered to point out that those "agents
and officials" almost certainly included ones later reprimanded and retired by the FBI itself for their political biases. (As usual,
the Times buried its self-protective disclaimer deep in the story: "No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly
in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials.")
Whatever the explanation, the heightened frenzy is unmistakable, leading the "news" almost daily in the synergistic print and
cable media outlets that have zealously promoted Russiagate for more than two years, in particular the Times , The Washington
Post , MSNBC, CNN, and their kindred outlets. They have plenty of eager enablers, including the once-distinguished Strobe Talbott,
President Bill Clinton's top adviser on Russia and until recently president of the Brookings Institution.
According to Talbott
, "We already know that the Kremlin helped put Trump into the White House and played him for a sucker . Trump has been colluding
with a hostile Russia throughout his presidency." In fact, we do not "know" any of this. These remain merely widely disseminated
suspicions and allegations.
In this cult-like commentary, the "threat" of "a hostile Russia" must be inflated along with charges against Trump. (In truth,
Russia represents no threat to the United States that Washington itself did not provoke since the end of the Soviet Union in 1991.)
For its own threat inflation, the Times featured not an expert with any plausible credentials but Lisa Page, the former FBI
lawyer with no known Russia expertise, and who was one of those reprimanded by the agency for anti-Trump political bias. Nonetheless,
the Times quotes Page
at length : "In the Russian Federation and in President Putin himself you have an individual whose aim is to disrupt the Western
alliance and whose aim is to make Western democracy more fractious in order to weaken our ability to spread our democratic ideals."
Perhaps we should have guessed that the democracy-promotion genes of J. Edgar Hoover were still alive and breeding in the FBI, though
for the Times , in its exploitation of the hapless and legally endangered Page, it seems not to matter.
Which brings us, or rather Russiagate zealots, to the heightened "threat" represented by "Putin's Russia." If true, we would expect
the US president to negotiate with the Kremlin leader, including at summit meetings, as every president since Dwight Eisenhower has
done. But, we are told, we cannot trust Trump to do so, because,
according to The Washington Post , he has repeatedly met with Putin alone, with only translators present, and concealed
the records of their private talks, sure signs of "treasonous" behavior, as the Russiagate media first insisted following the Trump-Putin
summit in Helsinki in July 2018.
It's hard to know whether this is historical ignorance or Russiagate malice, though it is probably both. In any event, the truth
is very different. In preparing US-Russian (Soviet and post-Soviet) summits since the 1950s, aides on both sides have arranged "private
time" for their bosses for two essential reasons: so they can develop sufficient personal rapport to sustain any policy partnership
they decide on; and so they can alert one another to constraints on their policy powers at home, to foes of such détente policies
often centered in their respective intelligence agencies. (The KGB ran operations against Nikita Khrushchev's détente policies with
Eisenhower, and, as is well established, US intelligence agencies have run operations against Trump's proclaimed goal of "cooperation
with Russia.")
That is, in the modern history of US-Russian summits, we are told by a former American ambassador who knows, the "secrecy
of presidential private meetings has been the rule, not the exception." He continues, "There's nothing unusual about withholding
information from the bureaucracy about the president's private meetings with foreign leaders . Sometimes they would dictate a memo
afterward, sometimes not." Indeed, President Richard Nixon, distrustful of the US "bureaucracy," sometimes met privately with Kremlin
leader Leonid Brezhnev while only Brezhnev's translator was present.
Nor should we forget the national-security benefits that have come from private meetings between US and Kremlin leaders. In October
1986, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev met alone with their translators and an American official who took
notes -- the two leaders, despite their disagreements, agreed in principle that nuclear weapons should be abolished. The result,
in 1987, was the first and still only treaty abolishing an entire category of such weapons, the exceedingly dangerous intermediate-range
ones. (This is the historic treaty Trump has said he may abrogate.)
And yet, congressional zealots are now threatening to subpoena the American translator who was present during Trump's meetings
with Putin. If this recklessness prevails, it will be the end of the nuclear-superpower summit diplomacy that has helped to keep
America and the world safe from catastrophic war for nearly 70 years -- and as a new, more perilous nuclear arms race between the
two countries is unfolding. It will amply confirm a thesis set out in my book
War with Russia? -- that anti-Trump
Russiagate allegations have become the gravest threat to our security.
The following correction and clarification were made to the original version of this article on January 17: Reagan and Gorbachev
met privately with translators during their summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, in October 1986, not February, and Reagan was also accompanied
by an American official who took notes. And it would be more precise to say that the two leaders, despite their disagreements, agreed
in principle that nuclear weapons should be abolished.
Stephen F. Cohen is professor emeritus of politics and Russian studies at Princeton and NYU and author of the new book
War with Russia? From Putin and
Ukraine to Trump and Russiagate . This commentary is based on the most recent of his weekly discussions of the new US-Russian
Cold War with the host of the John Batchelor radio show. (The podcast is
here . Previous installments, now in their fifth year, are at
TheNation.com . )
"... The whole affair is psyop, we know that already ..."
"... Stranger and stranger British press is saying that they did CPR on both victims at the scene of their collapse; being a trained nurse one of the first things they would have done is to have taken their pulse and other vitals and miraculously managed to do this and not become contaminated. Methinks something doth stink! ..."
"... Before any free-trade agreement can be reached with the United States, the Queen must issue a written apology to President Trump for attempting to overthrow his government. ..."
The case of poisoned double-agent Sergei Skripal just got weirder after it was revealed that
the first responder to the scene was the Chief Nursing Officer for the British Army after he
daughter spotted Skripal and his daughter collapsed on a bench at the Maltings shopping center
in Salisbury on March 5 of last year.
According to
Spire FM , 16-year-old Abigail McCourt spotted the poisoned Russians while "out celebrating
her brother's birthday," and then quickly alerted her mother - Alison McCourt. The two McCourts
gave first aid to the Skripals until paramedics arrived.
Colonel McCourt - who was decorated
for her efforts to fight Ebola in Sierra Leone, proposed her daughter as a candidate for the
Lifesaver Award at Spire FM's Local Hero Awards.
"As a qualified nurse it was a fairly routine situation for me but my daughter was amazing.
Her prompt actions, spotting them in difficulty, and the way she assisted me to put Yulia
Skripal in the recovery position had a significant impact on the outcome of the two victims , "
said Alison of her daughter.
The coincidence - kept under wraps for nearly a year , is sure to give skeptics plenty of
new ammunition to refute the official narrative that Russia attempted to kill Skripal 10 years
after the voluntarily gave him up in a spy exchange with the UK.
... ... ...
Christopher Steele connection walked back
In an embarrassing walkback of a story from March 2018, The Telegraph now says that the
Kremlin laid a "false trail" linking Sergei Skripal to Christopher Steele - the former MI6 spy
who crafted the infamous anti-Trump "Steele Dossier" paid for by Hillary Clinton's
campaign.
The Telegraph understands that Col Skripal moved to Salisbury in 2010 in a spy swap and
became close to a security consultant employed by Christopher Steele, who compiled the Trump
dossier.
The British security consultant, according to a LinkedIn social network account that was
removed from the internet in the past few days, is also based in Salisbury.
On the same LinkedIn account, the man listed consultancy work with Orbis Business
Intelligence, according to reports. -
Telegraph
On Sunday that entire connection - which implied that Skripal was somehow involved with the
Steele Dossier, was
blamed on Russia .
Russian intelligence created a false trail linking the double agent Sergei Skripal to the
former MI6 officer behind the Trump dossier before carrying out the Salisbury nerve agent
attack, the Telegraph has been told.
Well-placed sources now believe that the plot to kill Col Skripal may have included a
'black ops' attempt to sow doubt on the veracity of the explosive dossier that claims Donald
Trump received Kremlin backing.
The year before the attempted assassination of Col Skripal, a mysterious post on LinkedIn
suggested his MI6 handler, who is not being named, worked as a "senior analyst" at Orbis
Business Intelligence, the firm that produced the Trump dossier.
...
But a number of sources have told The Telegraph that the LinkedIn profile is false - if it
ever properly existed at all - and that Skripal's MI6 handler never worked for Orbis.
It is now suspected that the LinkedIn profile was created by the GRU, the Russian military
intelligence unit which tried to kill Col Skripal with novichok nerve agent. -
Telegraph
"By creating this link, they are suggesting that MI6 are involved with the dossier or
Skripal or both. It adds to the confusion and acts as a wedge between the White House and
Downing Street. It is exactly the kind of operation the Russians would order to sow confusion,"
said the Telegraph 's "well placed source."
"An internet hyperlink to the LinkedIn page appeared in an obscure blog posting in January
2017 - more than a year before the Salisbury attack - but the actual LinkedIn page itself has
never been visible ," the Telegraph writes.
In other words, The Telegraph wrote an entire story in March of last year based on nothing
more than "an internet hyperlink to the LinkedIn page" without actually having viewed the
profile now blamed on a Russian black op.
But there was another possibility - one that is utterly ludicrous and now disproved - that
was none the less championed by conspiracy theorists. Namely, that the death of Col Skripal
was not ordered by the Kremlin at all - but carried out by British agents to silence the
former Russian intelligence officer.
The reason was simple. Col Skripal - so the theory went - had helped provide information
to Christopher Steele, a former senior MI6 officer, who authored an extraordinary dossier on
Donald Trump, alleging that the soon-to-be president was effectively a puppet of Putin. The
dossier claimed that the Kremlin had been "cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at
least five years".
Oddly, however, a British spy named Pablo Miller was claimed by Russian media in 2007 as the MI6 agent
who recruited Skripal in 1995. Miller apparently works (or worked) for Orbis - though it is
unclear whether he is the same person noted in the original Telegraph report.
So - the British Army's head nurse was the first one to provide assistance to the dying
Russians, while Skripal's link to Christopher Steele is now thought to be part of a Russian
plot to discredit the Steele Dossier. Fascinating.
Fascinating??? Too much fantasy in this piece of fiction. The author seems uninterested in
going beyond trying to make it look like a fantasy James Bond. Surely someone can give the
'patient in difficulty' symptoms. Good grief, to categorize this fantasy story cooked up by
British Intel and hard-sell journalists, as NEWS. Is this the drivel we have to expect from
journalism schools?
M eye 6 is complicit in the Steele Dossier on Fake Russian collusion, Trying to cover a
big black eye from a so called British ally to USA that tried to run a coup on a sitting
president...
We always knew Pablo Miller worked for Orbis, Steele's consultancy, and was skripals
handler,
the article brings out the the nurses daughter sad Yulia Skripal was not breathing, was
dead, neither suffered any contact problems, unlike the policeman who was first on the scene
on the old story.
The 'actor based reality,' which has always been a tool for TPTB to use the fair and
balanced press to divide the public at large, utilizes much more than vast corps of
characters, writers, producers and directors as the psyops event coordinators executing
preplanned large scale operations to steer our perception with proven mind control tactics.
But, they're tactics have become so simple to spot by researchers as the templates are
basically similar and the plots of they're fake large scale events have become mind numbingly
ridiculous for any body paying attention to even the smallest amount of detail exposed in
these hoaxed
Wow, (((THEY))) sure LOVE gaslighting us. This mess of an attempt at an article shows how
******* stupid they really think we are. Even their warped version of one alternate theory
fits their ******** narrative. ******* absurd.
Porton Down is 8 miles...10 miles away? .. staff live in Salisbury...numbers of medical
staff deployed at PD and area will be large...Interesting is all.
Stranger and stranger British press is saying that they did CPR on both victims at the
scene of their collapse; being a trained nurse one of the first things they would have done
is to have taken their pulse and other vitals and miraculously managed to do this and not
become contaminated. Methinks something doth stink!
British authorities have refined to a whole new level offering bald faced lies and patent
absurdities with a dignified stiff upper lip. I have it from a highly placed source that
envious American and Israeli official and unofficial liars have been practicing posturing as
dignified and putting glue on their upper lips.
It's all a coincidence. In fact the word coincidence is an exaggeration. Because the
coincidences are happening more and more. Which makes them no longer a coincidence.
The previous alleged first responder was a policeman who became dangerously ill because
the novichok was so potent but strangely, this woman and her daughter suffered no ill
effects. I can only guess that due to her work with the British Army, she and her daughter
had fortunately and coincidentally been innoculated with a novichok antidote.
The house was on lockdown forever. Even if you are a trained nurse, doctor, emt, you are
out in a park with your family. What equipment are you carrying to defeat the effects of a
biological weapon??? And they weren't affected. Simply amazing.
Before any free-trade agreement can be reached with the United States, the Queen must
issue a written apology to President Trump for attempting to overthrow his government.
"... By Chris Becker. Originally published at MacroBusiness ..."
"... The problem with capitalism is when it is wedded to an ideology that has limited or perverted checks and balances. Inequality being the most dire and neglected outcome of perverting a system that does not punish the risk takers who fail. Witness the banking industry in the aftermath of the GFC. A properly tuned capitalistic system would have seen the majority of bankers incarcerated, there wealth confiscated by legal and just reparations and an overhaul of the financial sector. ..."
"... Make a system where the actors benefit by cheating and they will cheat – good people included. ..."
"... Sal si puedes. ..."
"... "This general irregularity must be placed within the irregular cycle of the working week (and indeed of the working year) which provoked so much lament from moralists and mercantilists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. ..."
"... A rhyme printed in 1639 gives us a satirical version: ..."
"... You know that Munday is Sundayes brother; Tuesday is such another; Wednesday you must go to Church and pray; Thursday is half-holiday; On Friday it is too late to begin to spin; The Saturday is half-holiday agen. John Houghton, in 1681, gives us the indignant version: ..."
"... "When the framework knitters or makers of silk stockings had a great price for their work, they have been observed seldom to work on Mondays and Tuesdays but to spend most of their time at the ale-house or nine-pins . . . The weavers, 'tis common with them to be drunk on Monday, have their head-ache on Tuesday, and their tools out of order on Wednesday. As for the shoemakers, they'll rather be hanged than not remember St. Crispin on Monday . . . and it commonly holds as long as they have a penny of money or pennyworth of credit." ..."
"... "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." ..."
"... "In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers – not legal and illegal immigrants." ..."
"... "This is an outrageous betrayal of public trust -- but only what can be expected when private bankers are given a governing role in American monetary policy. In a sane world, private bankers would have no more voice than any other citizen in making that decision . It's time to throw these turkeys out of American monetary policy." ..."
"... "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." ..."
"... "The Trilateralist Commission is international (and) is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests BY SEIZING CONTROL OF THE POLITICAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical." ..."
It's always interesting to hear mega-capitalists complain about the very
system that provides them opportunity to turn their talents into Scrooge McDuck size piles of
cash. Furthermore, it's usually the most successful that have the most liberal of views and Ray Dalio, head
of hedge fund Bridgewater, has weighed in again.
"Capitalism basically is not working for the majority of people. That's just the reality," Dalio said
at the 2018
Summit
conference in Los Angeles
in November. Monday, Dalio tweeted a video of his Summit talk.
"Today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent of the population's net worth is equal to the bottom 90 percent
combined. In other words, a big giant wealth gap. That was the same -- last time that happened was the
late '30s," Dalio said. (Indeed,
research
from Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman
of the National Bureau of Economic Research of wealth
inequality throughout the 20th century,
covered
by The Guardian
, bears this out.)
Further, Dalio points to a survey by the Federal Reserve showing that
40
percent of adults can't come up with $400
in the case of an emergency. "It gives you an idea of what
the polarity is," Dalio said. "That's a real world. That's an issue."
"We're in a situation when the economy is at a peak, we still have this very big tension. That's where
we are today," he said in November. "We're in a situation where, if you have a downturn, and we will have
a downturn, I believe that -- I worry that that polarity will become greater."
There is no actual problem with capitalism in and of itself. As a system, compared to other systems in
the past, it has provided the greatest gains to the greatest number of people in the last two centuries of
human development. To borrow a catchphrase, it's settled science, and in fact maybe one of the only theories
of economics that actually holds water, given that communism, socialism and other market structures have
failed time and time again.
The problem with capitalism is when it is wedded to an ideology that has limited or perverted checks
and balances. Inequality being the most dire and neglected outcome of perverting a system that does not
punish the risk takers who fail. Witness the banking industry in the aftermath of the GFC. A properly tuned
capitalistic system would have seen the majority of bankers incarcerated, there wealth confiscated by legal
and just reparations and an overhaul of the financial sector.
Captured regulatory authorities and legislative assemblies overturned the fundamental
cornerstone of capitalism – if you fail, you take a loss – and turned it into an even more perverse form of
socialism where the losers become winners and society bears the entire burden of their mistakes.
Dalio, like Buffet and Gates before him are pointing out the problems of extreme wealth, but this is not
a new phenomenon. History shows that when income and wealth inequality become widely disparate, the forces
of populism rise to shake the foundations. And inequality in the US and in the Western world is again
reaching those heady heights where "unbridled" (read:captured) capitalism resulted in the Great Depression:
The concentration of wealth by capturing the full yield of capitalism without distributing any seeds is
worse than ever as
The Economist
explains:
The 16,000 families making up the richest 0.01%, with an average net worth of $371m, now control 11.2%
of total wealth -- back to the 1916 share, which is the highest on record. Those down the distribution have
not done quite so well: the top 0.1% (consisting of 160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of
America's wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak -- and exactly the same share as the bottom 90% of the
population.
Dalio is right to point out that an unworkable capitalist system, where the majority of the gains are
kept by the few, creating an oligarchy that is inflexible to change, or risk, has not benefited the
majority.
Lost in the amazing advances in the developing world which has embraced versions of capitalism over the
last thirty years is that the average Westerner has gone nowhere in terms of wage growth and real wealth:
Similar forces have been in play in Australia:
Creating these instabilities, where it's extremely hard for someone to rise above the average wage, let
alone no wage, is going to cost the whole system eventually if it is not reformed and brought back to the
center where it belongs.
Capitalism "works" because it is a flawed system that steals from society.
Limited liability corporations protect profits and socialize losses.
Companies get society provided benefits for well well below cost, but spend zillions avoiding contributing
to their improvement (think infrastructure, public education, legal system).
Consumers over consume because they are not charged the full cost of their consumption. So we get pollution,
resource depletion and worker exploitation.
Capitalism is a wild stallion that can take you to places you would never get to on your own, but unharnessd
it will likely also take you into a ditch. Capitalism needs to be harnessed by society. It needs to serve
society. Society should not be serving capitalism.
The actions of the actors in a system can be predictable. Make a system where the actors benefit by cheating
and they will cheat – good people included. Make a system that encourages good behaviour and people will be
better.
The planet can not handle much more of capitalism's "success".
"To borrow a catchphrase, it's settled science, and in fact maybe one of the only theories of
economics that actually holds water, given that communism, socialism and other market structures have
failed time and time again."
Remember when capitalism started in earnest in the early Renaissance and the already established,
competing ideology tried to strangle it in its crib and destabilize any state, no matter how small,
that didn't hew to the orthodox economic and political hegemony? Oh right, me neither.
"Socialism didn't work" without acknowledging the entire resources of the European and American
"first world" attempted to put down the USSR from 1917-1921, and undeclared covert war on any state
with a constitution to the left of Harry Truman ever since is kind of a mitigating circumstance of
"capitalism > socialism"
Not true. See the uk revolution, the dutch revolution, and the French. Each one was an attempt
by capitalism to revolutionize a region and the feudal lords tried to strangle it.
But it slowly built basic accounting methods and legal social frameworks that ended up
dominating the world.
Just like socialism has created legal structures that have changed basic sense with 2 steps
forwards and 1 back. Who knows where it may go after a few more centuries of revolutions?
Make a system where the actors benefit by cheating and they will cheat – good people included.
That's the basic question in a nutshell. Can Capitalism
ever
be configured in such a way in
which that doesn't happen? The historical record says no, not for long, "cheating" being a relative term
anyway. Good capitalists will tell you they don't cheat, they simply redefine the legal meaning of the
word to benefit their own interests, the law and its makers being simply another commodity to be bought
and sold like any other.
This debate on "capitalism" feels like the black mirror discussion of MMT.
MMT = Good because it is a theory that runs contrary to norms that have produced bad results.
Capitalism = Bad because it is the widely accepted theory that has led to bad results.
Reality is they are both amoral concepts that need to be applied appropriately to produce the desired
results. Coming to consensus on what those results need to be is the issue.
Dalio is an interesting character. If he went public with this in November, you can bet he's been
modeling it for years, made piles of money on it and he sees it at the end of its cycle. What he's not
saying is how they've modeled it out for the next 5-10 years and what those outcomes entail, which is
unfortunate.
I disagree with the characterization of both MMT and capitalism. MMT is mostly not theoretical, but
descriptive. The system is operated as economists like Stephanie Kelton describe. What is not the "norm"
is the
open acknowledgement
of the way in which the monetary system operates. That
particular self-delusion is about 300 years old.
Capitalism is driven by the need to always expand. But what seems possible on the micro level is not
possible on the macro level, at least not forever.
Capitalism is based on two kinds of theft. Private ownership of the gifts of nature is theft from the
community. Appropriation of the surplus is theft from the workers.
This is the kind of lectures you will get when you bail out scoundrels. Scoundrels will blame capitalism
when in reality these scoundrels define capitalism as "privatize profits and socialize losses". The temerity
of these scoundrels is galling. These arsonists talk of capitalism. If capitalism had been allowed to do its
job, many of these scoundrels would have been languishing in jails and the companies they run would have
been dead and buried.
Capitalism doesn't prescribe right or wrong in moral terms, only profits. The idea that markets could
ever be self-policing is laughably misguided. We're living with that truth as we speak. Profits buy power
and influence, which are then used to change the rules of the game to enable even more profits in a
classic vicious cycle. Rinse and repeat until a clear winner emerges or the entire system collapses in a
mass of warring factions. Looks like we've got the latter to me.
It is the bailouts (in the guise of saving the common man from something unimaginably worse, mind
you) and the lack of accountability (no one going to jail, arsonists being asked to put out the fire
etc.) that is simply covering capitalism with the moral hazard muck to an extent that capitalism is
now unrecognizable. The rottenness of the system has been in the works since 1987 (Greenspan put) and
has taken this long to germinate into a monster. Let us see how it ends!
Gotta be real specific in our terminology here. When you say Capitalism it is like saying Religion. Just
as with Religion you have different flavours of it such as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. you have
also different types of Capitalism as well. I suppose that you can best describe the type of Capitalism that
we have in place now as 'Crony Capitalism' though others may disagree. Another aspect of the type of
capitalism that has evolved is that it is built on the premise of expansion as it came of age during the
past two centuries when expansion was just the way it was.
Not only has this caused problems in a world of finite resources which we are pushing the envelope off but I
have no idea what would happen when the Age of Expansion ends and we instead go into the Age of Contraction
which will maybe last just as long. Another problem with our brand of Capitalism is that it never captures
all the costs associated with a venture. An example? All those toxic sites that fracking will leave behind?
The companies will never pay to clean that mess up but it will be done – maybe – by the taxpayer so of
course those companies never add those costs into their accounts. A more sustainable form of Capitalism
would be forced to calculate those costs into their accounts. Just because Capitalism is the way that it is
does not mean that that is the way that it has to be.
Looking back, it appears that when humans came out of Africa, they intermixed with Neaderthals,
acquiring some of the local immunity DNA, among others, and that gave them survival advantages.
And the hybridization has enabled them to overpopulate the planet, with commentators of all kinds,
including those wiser ones who are aware of the over-popluation problem and climate change.
So, in the same way, we should look to combining ideas and -isms.
Not just socialism all good, capitalism all bad, etc.
oh it's obvious to them too, but as Upton Sinclair said, it's impossible to get someone to understand
something when their paycheck depends on them not understanding it.
Correct. Without "restraint", unbridled capitalism cannot be sustained; it will eventually devour the
planet and render it uninhabitable. Unbridled capitalism is an animal uncaged. That uncaged animal today,
globally is devouring the commons. "Capitalism" is now, "off the rails".
"There is no actual problem with capitalism in and of itself. As a system, compared to other systems in
the past, it has provided the greatest gains to the greatest number of people in the last two centuries of
human development. To borrow a catchphrase, it's settled science, and in fact maybe one of the only theories
of economics that actually holds water, given that communism, socialism and other market structures have
failed time and time again."
Precisely wrong. Capitalism is a donut machine, doing its job, and spitting out donuts, it's working
exactly as it's supposed to. The externalities and corruption are part and parcel of the system. Saying that
"pure" capitalism wouldn't have the impurities we see in the system is the exact same arguement socialists
and communists could argue for their own systems. "Communism (or capitalism) (or socialism) failed because
it wasn't pure enough", essentially. Capitalism takes the worst aspects of human nature, promotes them as
virtues, then acts surprised when everyone starts acting like pirates and vampire squid.
capitalism assumes rational actors will balance out its flaws. He claims socialism fails but the new
deal had some elements of socialism which assuaged the winner take all nature of capitalism. Deregulation
basically is unmaking the rules and the result is global casino capitalism, and that's a disease just as
it would be in vegas or atlantic city. I am unsurprisingly not optimistic, we had a great chance to rein
it all in, twice with obama (i say twice because I was cajoled into voting for him a second time because
he was supposedly going to do something good in his second term when the poor man became unshackled from
the need to be re elected [irony alert: if obama had made any effort to help regular "folks" he wouldn't
have had any problem getting re elected and the dnc wouldn't have needed to cheat the voters and shove
her republican leaning highness down our collective throats]) and a third time with b sanders, so that's
12 years of active enrichment of the worst fackers in the world, and now this article makes it seem like
maybe they are worried but they won't do anything to rein in bezos, or fix student loans, or any of the
other crises facing the population. Self driving tech is going to increase traffic and consumption, who
here thinks waymo and uber will give up on the fantasy because they're worried about global warming?
They're worried about patents. They're worried someone else will get the mountainous payoff. It's all
about the self and there is no sign that hand wringing of the nature Mr Dalio is engaging in, as sensible
and reasoned as it may be, is going to lead to any changes that result in concrete material benefits
going to people who the upper class, for lack of a better word, hates. The only good mope is one with a
catalog of unpayable debts, who works to survive all the while paying into their social security account
so the worst fackers in the world can garnish it and put a bottom tranche on their greedy securitization
schemes.
My first thought was: climate change. If your system of producing goods and services leads to
environmental destruction that interferes with the ability of the planet to harbor human life, well .I'd
say that's a major problem with your system.
The one difference with the purity argument is that the communist apologists are pointing to the
impurity of the system. The tried systems were either too capitalist or too despotic or not despotic
enough or too reformist or etc.They posit that the solution is just that the system needs to have the
purity of the way their political theory describes a communist system.
The capitalist apologists, apropos, point to the impurity of the individual instead. The system cannot
fail, as they don't even see it as a system, it is simply "human nature." The morality of the individuals
at the top of the hierarchy determines all. If capitalism is failing, it is because of the bad choices of
those individuals.
"The morality of the individuals at the top of the hierarchy determines all. If capitalism is
failing, it is because of the bad choices of those individuals."
That's incorrect, though. The system favors those willing to exploit others and the system as
structured puts those people at the top of the pyramid. Anyone with morality cannot have outstanding
success in rising to the top of the economic hierarchy in this system due to their morality being a
major limitation, with the possible exception of being born into wealth.
From my background as an engineer, I have come to the conclusion that economics is not a science and
should be renamed as political economics as that is a much more descriptive.
All of the "isms" are constructs of the governing rules established by governing bodies (mostly
national governments) and agreements between governing bodies. All of the "isms" depend on a means to
enforce the rules. I know this is all obvious to anybody who has studied this stuff. It was not to me
until I started paying attention in the late 90's, and ignored all the BS we get bombarded with on a
daily basis.
The current set of rules (including the unwritten class rules where the rich and poor have different
rules) guarantees the end of a human inhabitable world. It seems to me that we need to re-write the rules
very quickly before we are overtaken by events.
>As a system, compared to other systems in the past, it has provided the greatest gains to the greatest
number of people in the last two centuries of human development.
How do we actually know that? What was, during the peak years, an "average" Aztec's quality of life, for
example? Let alone knowing what work/remuneration system he/she existed under. And in truth, the measurement
itself is capitalism's measurement. It's like ranking everybody in the country by how hard they can throw a
baseball. It's useful for winning at baseball, doesn't say anything about the country's metallurgical
capabilities. Capitalism is best at Capitalism! Yea!
I actually think the biggest contributor to what they claim as "the greatest gains to the greatest number
of people" is sewage treatment. Which I believe has been a government initiative, yes?
Now, I'm actually not comfortable kicking over the table. Universal Health Care and really high marginal
tax rates would, in my model of the world (which may be completely wrong) work well enough. We would have to
study not-so-Great Britain's problems when they tried the same thing, to be sure.
For me, the question is:
once capitalism is established, is it possible to rein it in? Will it not allways turn out to get out of
control, to become the „real existing" capitalism. Is a capitalism „with a human face" a stable possibilty.
Communism „with a human face" doesn't seem to be possible. Sytems have their own dynamics and tend to find a
stable equlibrium, and for each there are only a finite number of stable states, probably defined by human
nature. Power tends to concentrate.
In short: Is a capitalist system, in which the TBTF are allowed to fail, a realistic possibility?
"To borrow a catchphrase, it's settled science, and in fact maybe one of the only theories of economics
that actually holds water, given that communism, socialism and other market structures have failed time and
time again." Seems like the author is ignoring those successful socialistic countries like Denmark, Sweden,
etc.
Sorry, but the USA's biggest trading partner is a self declared Communist state. Anytime someone
brings up the Communist boogeyman this needs to be given right back to them. Vietnam isn't doing so bad
either. Of course what the Corporatists love is not the Communism but the Totalitarianism. You can still
be Communist and be involved in a market economy, and China has plenty of state involvement in it's
industry
Seemingly a significant portion of the folk desire more stuff, regardless of the consequences. Capitalism
provides more stuff for many of them, or can pretend to. Therefore they will continue to support it until it
collapses.
Sal si puedes.
Classical economics – observations and deductions from the world of small state, unregulated capitalism
around them
Neoclassical economics – Where did that come from?
Keynesian economics – observations, deductions and fixes for the problems of neoclassical economics
Neoclassical economics – Why is that back?
We thought small state, unregulated capitalism was something that it wasn't as our ideas came from
neoclassical economics, which has little connection with classical economics.
On bringing it back again, we had lost everything that had been learned in the 1930s, by which time it
had already demonstrated its flaws.
Let's find out what capitalism really is again by going back to the classical economists.
We really need to get the cost of living back into economics.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Cutting taxes but letting the cost of living soar has been a pointless neoliberal exercise.
Let's find out what real wealth creation is again as they worked out in the 1930s.
It's measured by GDP that excludes the transfer of existing assets like stocks and real estate as
inflating asset prices isn't creating real wealth. That fictitious financial wealth has a habit of
disappearing as they realised after 1929.
We need to remember the problem with the markets they discovered in the 1930s.
"This general irregularity must be placed within the irregular cycle of the working week (and indeed
of the working year) which provoked so much lament from moralists and mercantilists in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries.
A rhyme printed in 1639 gives us a satirical version:
You know that Munday is Sundayes brother;
Tuesday is such another;
Wednesday you must go to Church and pray;
Thursday is half-holiday;
On Friday it is too late to begin to spin;
The Saturday is half-holiday agen.
John Houghton, in 1681, gives us the indignant version:
"When the framework knitters or makers of silk stockings had a great price for their work, they have
been observed seldom to work on Mondays and Tuesdays but to spend most of their time at the ale-house or
nine-pins . . .
The weavers, 'tis common with them to be drunk on Monday, have their head-ache on Tuesday, and their tools
out of order on Wednesday. As for the shoemakers, they'll rather be hanged than not remember St. Crispin on
Monday . . . and it commonly holds as long as they have a penny of money or pennyworth of credit."
Merrie England gave way to the dark satanic mills.
Maybe because they had plenty of time to think while they were weaving but historically, if you had an
active politically minded group, it was guaranteed that the weavers would be part of them. Until they got
industrialized that is. Certainly that was true in Scotland in the 19th century.
The article is interesting, but do we truly have to be lectured by Becker?:
To borrow a catchphrase, it's settled science, and in fact maybe one of the only theories of economics
that actually holds water, given that communism, socialism and other market structures have failed time
and time again.
In other words, capitalism is dogma that has defeated the Arians. Try going to Wikipedia, put in "Panic
of," and you will get fifteen major crashes in the U.S. economy from 1792 to 1930. That's fifteen crashes in
150 years. And this is a system that hasn't failed time and time again?
Mixed economies with strong government intervention and subsidies to the citizenry (the welfare state)
have done quite well. The Venetian republic used that economic model for some 1100 years. There are
alternatives to U.S. buccaneer capitalism and its endless slogans about its bestness.
They are never honest about socialism, "its been tried and it failed"
Never mention that any country that dares go socialist will immediately be economically attacked by
capitalist countries. Has it ever been given a chance where it wasn't?
I always thought it funny that capitalists always say socialism doesn't work but then why are they so
desperately afraid of it.
it's not clear that China's present system isn't also capitalism. Russia neither only it's also
particularly corrupt. It's a raw power contest with them and the U.S. government, not an ideological
one,
Russia has been capitalist since the wall fell, China since Deng Xiaopings reforms. Russia is just
a regular capitalist country at this point, whereas China is State Capitalism (in fact, the only major
extant example of such).
What I find so frustrating about this kind of analysis is that it takes as given that "capitalism" is a
thing, something actually existing in the real world. In reality, it's a sound we make with our mouths, and
nothing more. At most it's a rather vague concept whose definition there does not seem to be any real
agreement on. It's a shibboleth with no actual referent in the physical world.
I think words like "capitalism" and "socialism" get used as mental shorthand because most of us can't be
bothered with the nuance of reality. The policies, norms, and systems we have in place now are there because
they serve (or served) the interests of some person or group of people who had enough influence/power to get
them put in place. Sheldon Adelson demanding the Feds regulate on-line gambling is a perfect example.
Adelson doesn't give a rip whether having the gov't remove his competitors is "capitalism" or not. It's in
his interests, and if he can flex enough muscle to get the Feds to go along, he'll get his way. What label
you put on the outcome is irrelevant.
The strong take what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Seems like that's been true in every
large-scale society I'm familiar with, regardless of how they labled themselves.
A clear definition of capitalism is not to the advantage of capitalists, so we never hear one, except
"private ownership of the means of production" which is not it.
People have been taught to think of capitalism simply as "the source of all good things" so by
definition any alternative must be worse. No need to think about the details.
for leftists it seems it's often shorthand for the status quo, and the status quo economics and power
relationships. So sure that's a catch all for the water us fishes hardly know we swim in.
They aren't wrong on the fact that any system that uses more resources than the earth produces WILL
NOT and CAN NOT end well and that the only hope, if hope there is, is in reigning this in. And that
probably, or at least probably if it is to be humane in any sense and not just be mass extermination,
requires an economy geared toward human needs, not consumerism, not excess for anyone beyond what the
world can produce.
Sometimes this system we live in produces more or less inequality, how much depends on how much the
powerful are able to take, how much power they have to direct all wealth to themselves. Always it
produces wage slavery, deprived as wage slaves are of their own subsistence other than by selling their
labor. They might have more of less of a voice in the workplace, in the U.S. they have pretty much none.
So the U.S. status quo is a powerless vast mass of people that must work for a living whose lives are
dictated by economic powers beyond their control. And then there are the rentiers taking their cut from
everyone working for a living as well. The returns just from owning property etc. – almost all real
property being owned by a few large players.
The biggest failure of capitalism is environmental. In a system which everything is privatized except the
externalities which are dumped on public plate with no way to pursue public interest and which will bring us
down sooner than later. Inequality is at the core of the system, but it isn't the worst outcome. A system
that produces much more than needed and pollutes the environment, we find ourselves sitting on piles of
garbage and killing ourselves in the name of production efficiency. In a socialist system the public has
potentially control over resources and could potentially divert resources to less destructive production, or
make a conscious decision to stop altogether. Even if we, in this stage, distribute wealth equaly we won't
be able to avert the environmental catastrophe that awaits us.
Capitalism has been historically a system of exploitation of the Masses, and remains so today, even after
decades of attempts to reform it. Talk regarding the system has largely been of a circular and utopian
nature since the collapse of the U.S.S.R.. The Center-Left coalition has been searching for a way to make
Capitalism "work," i.e. make it palpable enough for the majority of people so as to keep the Owner Classes
feeling secure. You can't fix what something is by its very nature, though. Capitalism is a socio-economic
model for a Class based organizing of society; it's chief claim to progress was that it operated as a
universal (neither religiously or ethnically demarcated) organizational structure outside of the hereditary
based systems of feudalism that preceded it–though given projected trends for Wealth concentration one might
find the later claim to be somewhat specious.
The Keynesian economists tried to make Capitalism work and they were axed back in the 70's, along with
the older generations of the CED, the moment the owner classes felt secure again after the Great Crash.
Unions, Regulatory Bodies, and the promises of a Great Society where undermined and attacked, dismantled,
and largely turned into empty talking points. The triumph of Right Wing politics, aka the last four to five
decades, should be observed as nothing short of absolute failure on the part of the Center-Left,
Triangulationists (Neo-Liberals), and the Soft-Politics of Identity in providing substantive answers to
systemic questions of exploitation of the Many by the Few. The Liberal Theory of Reform has ultimately
proved to be very divergent from Reality, which has largely demonstrated that it takes both large scale
emergent catastrophes (Great Depression), a militant population (Socialists, Fascists, Organized Labor,
and/or Disgruntled Peasantry), and the acceptance or acquiescence of the Power Elites in order for Change to
place. The gradualism of reformist policy has largely been debunked thanks to over a century of sloppy and
mostly reactive implementation and subsequent repeal.
In the Western context, however, Capitalism is the softest form of Power enforcement, in that it is
largely an idea that most in the society at least tentatively accept as the deterministic apparatus for
"success" and "failure." Even intellectual debate is referred to as, "the Marketplace of Ideas." Once it is
gone as viable option, the Elites have one of two options: submit to egalitarianism or resort to older forms
of control.
To be more frank, we also need to start talking about actual material breaking points, rather than
pretending that abstract "polarization" will continue on.
For me the question is if the "system", broken as it is, is or isn't already repairable, and whether guys
like this are really ready for the necessary steps.
Capitalism works! The problem are all those brainwashed by neoliberal propaganda nonsense, that
capitalism is a system that will deliver to all and sundry, sort of market socialism.
Only a child could believe that?
That the minority of the elite that owns and control the means of production and not least the financial
institutions would have identical interests with common people?
Some people still not get that neoliberalism is and was a counter revolution, by the capitalist class, on
the postwar mixed economy that did spread economic growth to all and sundry. That it should generate welfare
to everybody was just a propaganda ploy. Everyone who didn't engage in self-deception did see that from the
beginning.
It have worked beyond any expectations, a total success for the few that owns this world. Some counter
counter revolution on this aren't even remotely visible on the horizon. And if it would come the few will
defend their progress with whatever it takes, if a bloodbath are required they won't hesitate.
A Benevolent Dictator will be needed to displace capitalism as the means for supplying the goods and
services needed for a survivable and sustainable society. A new enlightened elite conscious of rational
needs instead of marketers and self-promoters.
Millions of individuals are beginning to extricate themselves, the best way they can, from this corrupt
system. The die hard capitalists will be the last to notice that the world has changed around them. Climate
change will make this a necessity. People not working together to ensure their common survival will be dead.
Capitalism depends on various forms of exploitation to persist. When the world has been ground down to
such an extent that growth and exploitation cannot continue, those practiced in radical conservation have
the best chance for survival. I just don't see slave societies meeting that requirement. Slaves can always
sabotage the system if they don't fear for their lives. An elite spending their time and energies focused on
preventing slave revolts won't have the luxury of abundance to pursue their follies- they will be too busy
trying to survive themselves.
Maybe this has a silver lining. The future elite will be members of the community, not some sequestered
and pampered minority granted the privilege to live in this seclusion- it just won't be possible any more.
" .is going to cost the system eventually. " This is the reality .. Systems DO NOT reform themselves;
they can't because they don't know how to. Something new has to emerge to fill the vacumm they create when
they collapse.No one knows what that will be. So just be prepared . Hold to what you know to be true.
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow
work for the benefit of us all." –J. M. Keynes
"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
Neoliberalism is extreme capitalism, the libertarian purists' dream that, if left unabated, would
eliminate human rights, safety regulations and environmental protections. That's why they've taken Civics
out of the educational curriculum. Why should people learn about rights in a future world of no citizenship?
And forget about freedom to roam. There would be restricted zones, less car ownership, more mass transit,
less private property ownership. Why do you think the housing prices are so out of reach today?
"In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property lines, not
borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real property, there are owners,
guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers – not legal and illegal immigrants."
~ Jeff Deist,
president of the Mises Institute
They've already tried their experiment of replacing nations with privately owned "charter cities" in
Honduras, but it didn't work, unsurprisingly. Co-ops must be restored in that region, which were very
successful.
Private bankers can't control BOTH forms of money creation – government issuance of new currency and
credit creation, but they do and have been in the US for the past 40 years now.
Gov't finance is being intentionally mismanaged because banks make money on loans (and deficits cut into
their profits), so they suppressed wages and shut off fiscal policy gov't investment in order to force the
nation to borrow credit. This has caused a massive private debt over the past 40 years, all dishonorably
accrued because it never had to have happened in the first place. It should all be cancelled.
We need to reclaim the State from the money lenders.
"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."
~ Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages, 1970
"The Trilateralist Commission is international (and) is intended to be the vehicle for multinational
consolidation of the commercial and banking interests BY SEIZING CONTROL OF THE POLITICAL GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and
consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical."
~ Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies, 1979
One week ago, when we discussed why the Fed now finds itself trapped by the slowing economy
on one hand, and the market's response to the Fed's reaction to the slowing economy (namely the
market's subsequent sharp rebound, only the third time since 1938 that we've seen a V-shape
recovery of this magnitude when the market dropped down more than ~10% and spiked +10% in the
subsequent period), we said that the "obvious problem" is that the Fed is cutting because the
economy is indeed entering a recession, even as market have already rebounded by over 10% from
the recent "bear market" low factoring in a the economic response to an easier Fed, effectively
cutting the drop in half expecting the Fed to react precisely to this drop, while ignoring the
potential underlying economic reality (the one confirmed by the bizarrely low neutral rate,
suggesting that the US economy is far weaker than most expect).
Ultimately, what this all boils down to as
Bank of America explained yesterday , is whether the economy is entering a recession, or -
somewhat reflexively - whether the suddenly dovish Fed, trapped by the market, has started a
chain of events that inevitably ends with a recession. The historical record is ambivalent: as
Bloomberg notes, similar to 1998 and 1987, the S&P fell into a bear market last month (from
which it immediately rebounded) following a Fed rate hike. The difference is that in the
previous two periods, the Fed cut rates in response to market crises - the collapse of
Long-Term Capital Management in 1998 and the Black Monday stock crash in 1987 - without the
economy slipping into a recession. In comparison, the meltdown in December occurred without a
similar market event.
And yet, a meltdown did occur, and it has a lot to do with confusing messaging by the Fed,
which did a 180-degree U-Turn when in the span of just two weeks, the Fed chair went from
unexpectedly hawkish during the December FOMC press conference (which unleashed fire and
brimstone in the market), to blissfully dovish when he conceded at the start of January that
the Fed will be "patient" and the balance sheet unwind is not on "autopilot."
But it wasn't just the Fed's messaging in a vacuum that prompted the sharp December drop: it
is also the fact that the Fed and the market continue to co-exist in a world of perilous
reflexivity, a point made - in his typical post-modernist, James Joyceian, Jacque Lacanian
fashion - by Deutsche Bank's credit strategist Aleksandar Kocic, who writes that
"the underlying ambiguities of the market's interpretation of economic conditions are an
example of financial parallax – the apparent disorientation due to displacement caused
by the change in point of view that provides a new line of sight" (or, said much more simply,
the Market reacts to the Fed, and the Fed reacts to the market in circular, co-dependant
fashion).
Yet while there is nothing new in the reflexive nature of the coexistence between the Fed
and market, this process appeared to short-circuit in Q4. So "where is the problem and what are
the sources of misunderstanding" asks Kocic, and answer by taking "the timeline from November
of last year as the onset of the subverted perspective and the beginning of the
self-referential circularity" (as we have said before, Kocic takes a certain delight in using
just a few extra words than is necessary for the attention spans of most traders, even if
liberal majors find a particular delight in his narrative). Anyway, continuing the Kocic
narrative of where the reflexivity between the Fed and market broke down, in the chart below
the Deutsche Bank strategist shows two snapshots of the swaps curve from November and
January.
As we noted repeatedly over the past 4 weeks, while the long end has largely experienced a
parallel shift lower, Kocic correctly points out that "the biggest drama has occurred in the
belly of the curve which has inverted through the five-year horizon", yet where Kocic's view
differs is that according to him, this is not indicative of a risk off trade but is instead "a
radical repricing of the Fed." Meanwhile, according to the DB strategist, the inversion of the
front end is the main source of the reinforcing loop "as it brings in the uncomfortable mode of
what we think is a misidentified alarm and incorrect interpretation of its economic
significance."
To make his point, Kocic looks at the previous episodes of curve flattening during the past
two tightening cycles.
As DB notes, unlike the past two episodes of Fed tightening, when rate hikes were
responsible for bear inversions, the last three months represent a bull inversion. In other
words, "the recent flattening and inversion of some sectors of the curve has been driven by a
decline in long rates that outpaced the decline in short rates."
As others have observed, this departure from history highlights a potential flaw in the
logic behind the connection between inversion and recession, Kocic writes, and explains:
If excessive Fed tightening is the likely trigger of the next recession, then the
underlying logic and causality must go as follows. The Fed continues to hike until it becomes
restrictive and the economy begins to contract which eventually forces the Fed to reverse its
direction. The former causes curve inversion and a tightening of financial conditions through
a decline in the stock market and wider credit spreads together with an economic slowdown.
The Fed then begins to cut rates in order to counter the effect of excessive tightening and
the curve re-steepens.
Simple enough, and also extremely problematic, because as we explained
last weekend , it's not the Fed tightening that is the recession catalyst: it is when the
Fed begins cutting rates that one should be worried as all three prior recessions followed
within 3 months of the first rate cut after a hiking cycle:
... while many analysts will caution that it is the Fed's rate hikes that ultimately
catalyze the next recession and the every Fed tightening ends with a financial "event", the
truth is that there is one step missing from this analysis, and it may come as a surprise to
many that the last three recessions all took place with 3 months of the first rate cut after
a hiking cycle !
If that wasn't bad enough, Kocic notes that if " this were how things work, the recent
market dynamics would be consistent with the US economy already being in a recession" and
explains that "with rates already rallying, the implication is that the Fed deliberately and
mistakenly continued to hike. This is the territory of a serious policy mistake."
In other words, bull inversion and rate hikes would indicate that the Fed was totally
detached from the realities of the market.
Yet after laying out this scenario, one which the market was obsessed with for much of
December, Kocic counters that a closer look at the recent repricing "suggests that this
narrative of a policy mistake may be misleading and market dynamics reveal something very
different from a recessionary market mode" and further claims that what happened fits with the
Fed sticking to the script of market normalization as a priority to wit:
this interpretation runs contrary to the recent response from the Fed, in which they have
shown an unmistakable attention to detail with a thorough understanding of the complexity of
the situation with all the risks associated with the stimulus unwind. The Fed has also gone
to great lengths throughout this normalization process to prepare the markets for its exit
and take care not to generate additional problems along the way. The well-telegraphed unwind
of the balance sheet, which has come under increasing scrutiny over the past month is just
one example of the Fed understanding the potential pitfalls of providing too little
guidance.
Kocic then goes on to further claim that the market reaction is "a clear demonstration that
the Fed is on track with the normalization of the rates market", and thatr "by sticking to its
script, the Fed has forced another leg of normalization. The two aspects of this are shown both
in the decline of the correlations back into negative territory as well as the migration of
volatility to the front end of the curve, both corresponding to the pre-2008 curve
functioning."
Why does Kocic take such a contrarian view, at least relative to the broader market?
Because, as he explains, "if bear steepeners and bull flatteners were to continue to be the
dominant curve modes, monetary policy shocks are at risk of being amplified, and the potential
for a disruptive unanchoring of the back end of the curve, with its hazardous ramifications for
risk assets and credit in particular, is heightened."
This is why normalization requires front-loading monetary policy shocks and focusing on
the front end with the fed funds rate remaining the primary policy tool, while –
despite some calls to the contrary – the balance sheet unwind should remain predictable
and controlled.
Whether Kocic is correct or not we will know shortly, perhaps as soon as March, when the Fed
- which as we discussed previously remains a hostage
to markets - will be pressed to halt its balance sheet reduction, and which would
immediately crush Kocic's theory that the Fed is purposefully normalizing instead of simply
being forced to react to the market's every whim.
In any case - accuracy of the DB strategist notwithstanding - the bigger problem, and this
goes back to our point from last week, is that no matter what the Fed does at this point, its
actions will almost certainly precipitate the very recession it hopes to avoid.
Why? The following chart from SocGen answers that question in grandiose simplicity: because
it is not the curve flattening that is the recession catalyst - it is sharp curve steepening,
whether bull or bear-driven, that precedes the immediate onset of the recession.
And once the steepener trade finally takes off, Kocic's variant perception that " recent
market dynamics would be consistent with the US economy already being in a recession" would be
spot on: at that point, the bond market would finally admit that everything that happened ever
since the Fed though it could normalize has been one massive mistake.... just as Ben Bernanke
predicted admitted in May 2014, when he said that there would be "
no rate normalization during my lifetime ." Tags Business Finance
it is not a problem to raise rate and shrink sheet. they pumped trillons of dollar into
market is the problem. they pumped the biggest bubble in human history. they are evils
Robert Snefjella says:
January 20, 2019 at 4:21 pm GMT 200 Words
@Erebus Going from memory, in Hellyer's book The Money Mafia, his impression was that
Bouey's decision was taken without real political understanding or guidance. Noteworthy was an
attempt in recent years to restore that Bank of Canada fund-emission function via the court
system. The attempt failed. The lawyer representing the group making the effort, Rocco Galati,
indicated that the media in Canada had received pressure not to cover the story. The government
of Canada at the time the court case was initiated was under Harper Conservative rule.
As to how astute Trudeau was, or how much practical influence he had when it came to
national financial matters, I don't know. There was a lot of economic flux at the time
involving the US dollar, oil, high inflation and gold. There was a big jump in Canadian
interest rates around 1974. In any case, the emission of funds directly for productive purpose,
without taxation and borrowing, is a beneficent unacknowledged elephant in the economic
policy-options room.
If there's one thing everyone in today's Washington can agree on, it's that whenever an
official or someone being paid by the government says something truly outrageous or dangerous,
there should be consequences, if only a fleeting moment of media fury.
With one notable exception: Arguing that the US should be quietly working to promote the
violent disintegration and carving up of the largest country on Earth.
Because so much of the discussion around US-Russian affairs is marked by hysteria and
hyperbole, you are forgiven for assuming this is an exaggeration. Unfortunately it isn't.
Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title "Managing
Russia's dissolution," author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not only
seek to contain "Moscow's imperial ambitions" but to actively seek the dismemberment of Russia
as a whole.
Engagement, criticism and limited sanctions have simply reinforced Kremlin perceptions
that the West is weak and predictable. To curtail Moscow's neo-imperialism a new strategy is
needed, one that nourishes Russia's decline and manages the international consequences of its
dissolution.
Like many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping
Russia's might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and
regional fragmentation. But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively
stoke longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the
Russian Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an "imperial construct."
The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia
needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and
economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly
ungovernable...
To manage the process of dissolution and lessen the likelihood of conflict that spills
over state borders, the West needs to establish links with Russia's diverse regions and
promote their peaceful transition toward statehood.
Even more alarming is Bugajski's argument that the goal should not be self-determination for
breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other countries . "Some
regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom Moscow has
forcefully appropriated territories in the past."
It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking
a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would
directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear
warheads.
So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?
The author bio on the Hill's piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for
European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop:
Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US
government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to
NATO, the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable
who's who of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed
Martin and Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at
the Foreign Service Institute of the US Department of State.
To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and
arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if
possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is
not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now
openly talk of a "Calexit," and many more in Mexico of a reconquista .)
Meanwhile, it's hard to imagine a quasi-official voice like Bugajski's coming out in favor
of a similar policy vis-a-vis China, which has its own restive regions, and which in
geopolitical terms is no more or less of a threat to the US than Russia. One reason may be that
China would consider an American call for secession by the Tibetans or Uyghurs to be a serious
intrusion into their internal affairs, unlike Russia, which doesn't appear to have noticed or
been ruffled by Bugajski's immodest proposal.
Indeed, just as the real scandal in Washington is what's legal rather than illegal, the real
outrage in this case is that few or none in DC finds Bugajski's virtual declaration of war
notable.
But it is. It is the sort of provocation that international incidents are made of, and if
you are a US taxpayer, it is being made in your name, and it should be among your outrages of
the month.
Putin knows that if he ignores the West and provides strong path for Russia growth,
re-building economy, manufacturing and military; building international relationships - it
will strengthen the country in a horror of it's enemies.
While others panicked over drop in oil prices - Putin was making adjustments to weather
out the storm. While many nations were taking out massive development loans [advised by city,
chase, goldman, etc] - Russia balanced the budget. While US government is in mayhem over
protecting the border [seems like no brainer] - Putin continues with strong central policy.
And the US sanction that crushed so many countries - appears to have limited effect [slowing
down some growth].
This author, Bugajski, [MI5 agent] wrote countless self-promoting books. Russia will never
want to fight a war with NATO [their customers]. Britain and France already lost that war.
Russia is just waiting for EU and NATO to collapse over money disagreement. Because they were
all happy as long as US was paying for all of it. Not anymore. Standby for Collapse of EU and
NATO show coming soon.
The Russian Confederation of Labour (KTR) says that the average life expectancy for men is
actually less than 65-years-old in over 60 regions in Russia. "KTR does not support such
decisions and declares its intention to launch a broad public campaign against their
implementation," the organization said in a statement .
You start off with "Putin is a cuck" which may or may not be a fact but if you actually
read the article it clearly states "President Medvedev" and raising the retirement age
from...wait for it... 60 to 63?? Really??
Most west european countries have a retirment age of around 65 years. In scandinavic
countries they are going to increase to 67. They realized that importing rapefugees is not
going to solve the demographic crisis.
Part 10 – How Margaret Thatcher systematically destroyed the British industry along
with the trade unions
While there were many elements out of which consent for a neoliberal turn could be constructed, the Thatcher phenomenon would
surely not have arisen, let alone succeeded, if it had not been for the serious crisis of capital accumulation during the 1970s.
Stagflation was hurting everyone. In 1975 inflation surged to 26 per cent and unemployment topped one million. The nationalized industries
were draining resources from the Treasury.
This set up a confrontation between the state and the unions. In 1972, and then again in 1974, the British miners (a nationalized
industry) went on strike for the first time since 1926.
The miners had always been in the forefront of British labour struggles. Their wages were not keeping pace with accelerating inflation,
and the public sympathized. The Conservative government, in the midst of power blackouts, declared a state of emergency, mandated
a three-day working week, and sought public backing against the miners. In 1974 it called an election seeking public support for
its stand. It lost, and the Labour government that returned to power settled the strike on terms favourable to the miners.
The victory was, however, pyrrhic. The Labour government could not afford the terms of the settlement and its fiscal difficulties
mounted. A balance of payments crisis paralleled huge budget deficits. Turning for credits to the IMF in 1975–6, it faced the
choice of either submitting to IMF-mandated budgetary restraint and austerity or declaring bankruptcy and sacrificing the integrity
of sterling, thus mortally wounding financial interests in the City of London. It chose the former path, and draconian budgetary
cutbacks in welfare state expenditures were implemented . The Labour government went against the material interests of its
traditional supporters. But it still had no solution to the crises of accumulation and stagflation. It sought, unsuccessfully,
to mask the difficulties by appealing to corporatist ideals, in which everyone was supposed to sacrifice something for the benefit
of the polity.
Its supporters were in open revolt, and public sector workers initiated a series of crippling strikes in the ' winter of discontent
' of 1978. ' Hospital workers went out, and medical care had to be severely rationed. Striking gravediggers refused to bury the
dead. The truck drivers were on strike too. Only shop stewards had the right to let trucks bearing "essential supplies" cross picket
lines. British Rail put out a terse notice "There are no trains today" . . . striking unions seemed about to bring the whole nation
to a halt. '
The mainstream press was in full cry against greedy and disruptive unions, and public support fell away. The Labour government
fell, and in the election that followed Margaret Thatcher won a significant majority with a clear mandate from her middle-class
supporters to tame public sector trade union power .
The commonality between the US and the UK cases most obviously lies in the fields of labour relations and the fight against inflation.
With respect to the latter, Thatcher made monetarism and strict budgetary control the order of the day. High interest rates meant
high unemployment (averaging more than 10 per cent in 1979–84, and the Trades Union Congress lost 17 per cent of its membership
in five years ). The bargaining power of labour was weakened.
Alan Budd, an economic adviser to Thatcher, later suggested that 'the 1980s policies of attacking inflation by squeezing
the economy and public spending were a cover to bash the workers' . Britain created what Marx called ' an industrial
reserve army ', he went on to observe, the effect of which was to undermine the power of labour and permit capitalists to make
easy profits thereafter. And in an action that paralleled Reagan's provocation of PATCO in 1981, Thatcher provoked a miners' strike
in 1984 by announcing a wave of redundancies and pit closures (imported coal was cheaper).
The strike lasted for almost a year, and, in spite of a great deal of public sympathy and support, the miners lost. The back of
a core element of the British labour movement had been broken. Thatcher further reduced union power by opening up the UK to foreign
competition and foreign investment. Foreign competition demolished much of traditional British industry in the 1980s –– the steel
industry (Sheffield) and shipbuilding (Glasgow) more or less totally disappeared within a few years, and with them a good deal of
trade union power.
Thatcher effectively destroyed the indigenous nationalized UK automobile industry, with its strong unions and militant labour
traditions, instead offering the UK as an offshore platform for Japanese automobile companies seeking access to Europe. These built
on greenfield sites and recruited non-union workers who would submit to Japanese-style labour relations.
The overall effect was to transform the UK into a country of relatively low wages and a largely compliant labour force (relative
to the rest of Europe) within ten years. By the time Thatcher left office, strike activity had fallen to one-tenth of its former
levels. She had eradicated inflation, curbed union power, tamed the labour force, and built middle-class consent for her policies
in the process .
"... Identity politics are no help here either. Indeed, to Scialabba, they are part of the problem because they are too easily coopted by capital: "Identity politics are an essential component of neoliberalism, the extension of market relations across borders and into all spheres of life. When rewards are assigned efficiently in proportion to merit, then not only is total output maximized, but the winners feel no qualms about the plight of the losers." Corporate power sees no distinction between funding diversity efforts and pursuing profit, becoming "woke" through advertising. ..."
"... vigorous self-assertion of working classes and small proprietors, which I think as close to mass democracy as the world has come, was transformed, largely by the advent of mass production, into a mass society of passive, apathetic, ignorant, deskilled consumers ..."
George Scialabba continues to work in a political-literary vein almost forgotten in our
partisan times. Along with Todd Gitlin, Thomas Frank perhaps, Jedediah Purdy (who introduces
this volume), and a few others, Scialabba is a liberal without being progressive, in solidarity
with workers against the capitalists rather than "woke" activists aligned with corporate
interests, and respectful of tradition while also criticizing the past's faults.
The last two years have seen a drastic realignment of conservatives, where the stranglehold
free-market and interventionist conservatives had has been loosened. Arguments from
traditionalists such as Russell Kirk are being heard once again, and new voices are rising
against Conservatism, Inc.
But the debate among liberals is just as interesting, if not more so, because of
[neo]liberalism's own dominance over the media, academia, and entertainment. They are fighting
in public, whereas conservatives mostly argue in the corners of the internet. A new generation
of activists and progressives disdain the liberalism espoused by their once-radical elders. A
world where Angela Davis gets awards rescinded for being insufficiently progressive and
prominent liberals are protested at commencements is very different indeed from the heady 1960s
and 1970s.
This new progressivism is sincere, but largely performative. It is too often in service to
an individualistic view of the self and lacks the solidarity Scialabba sees as one of the
strongest points of the Left. Resistance is a workers' collective, not a world in which choice
-- mediated by corporations and advertising -- is king.
Identity politics are no help here either. Indeed, to Scialabba, they are part of the
problem because they are too easily coopted by capital: "Identity politics are an essential
component of neoliberalism, the extension of market relations across borders and into all
spheres of life. When rewards are assigned efficiently in proportion to merit, then not only is
total output maximized, but the winners feel no qualms about the plight of the losers."
Corporate power sees no distinction between funding diversity efforts and pursuing profit,
becoming "woke" through advertising.
This collection covers what may broadly be called questions of political culture. Like the
best philosophical critics, Scialabba wants to know how we can live our common life with
dignity and justice. He considers writers like Ronald Dworkin, Christopher Lasch, Yuval Levin,
Michael Sandel, and others to probe how best to achieve public goods. The goods Scialabba
advocates, it should be obvious, are not aligned with mainstream conservative goals. And one
can argue with Scialabba's romance with a non-market economy in which redistributive justice
has pride of place. The "utopia" toward which we are slouching is remote indeed.
But perhaps not that remote. In an interview republished here, "America Pro and Con,"
Scialabba praises the " vigorous self-assertion of working classes and small proprietors,
which I think as close to mass democracy as the world has come, was transformed, largely by the
advent of mass production, into a mass society of passive, apathetic, ignorant, deskilled
consumers ." That vision would attract not a few Benedict Optioners, and not only
them.
Scialabba has harsh words for Republicans -- the free market Paul Ryan types and the later
MAGA incarnations. These comments are less interesting, and not just because they are
unsurprising. It is more because Scialabba realizes the problem is more nuanced than just bad
Republicans. Most of the elite Left and Right is in thrall to capital, and he can be as harsh
on liberal autonomy as any conservative. In an essay titled "Ecology of Attention," which
discusses Simon Head's Mindless: Why Smarter Machines are Making Dumber Humans and
Matthew Crawford's The World Beyond Your Head , he writes: "Seeing past this liberal
model of individual autonomy might also mean recognizing that consumerism can have civic
consequences. Just as atmospheric fine particles can clog our lungs and impair our society's
physical health, an unending stream of commercial messages can clog our minds, fragment our
attention, and, in the long run, impair our society's mental and civic health."
Drawing on a long left-wing tradition, he disputes the liberal capitalist view of people as
those who simply seek to maximize their own individual gain (in wealth, pleasure, or status,
for example). Rather, he says we are "situated beings" with our own pasts. In a perceptive,
sympathetic piece on Leszek Kolakowski, the "Conservative-Liberal Socialist," Scialabba
catalogs the failings of "existing socialism" that the Polish philosopher so ably described.
However, Scialabba cannot find much in that critique today. Soviet socialism may have been
rotten, but the liberal capitalism that has been triumphant since the 1980s in the West "has
seen the rampant financialization of the economy, the pulverizing of organized labor, a drastic
increase in economic inequality, the capture by business of the regulatory system, and the
growth of the national security state." Scialabba instead reaches for the anti-capitalist and
anti-Stalinist Left as a possible source of solutions for these ills. But the problem with this
resort is the same as the neoconservatives' attachment to an abstract capitalism. The dominance
or liberation of private life by the state is no longer the most pressing issue: media
(especially social media) and the supremacy of the "self" against all forms of community are
the new challenges.
As Shadi Hamid has
written recently , "It is difficult to think of a time less suited to Marxist economism
than the current one."
But back to Kolakowski. Scialabba nevertheless praises him for his willingness to be a
debunker of the debunkers, rejoicing in his affliction of "the comfortable unbeliever."
Although Scialabba cannot ultimately follow Kolakowski either in his political or religious
beliefs, nonetheless he praises Kolakowski for two things: the skepticism that allowed him to
break free -- and break others free -- of the illusions of totalitarianism, and a recognition
of the limits of that skepticism. Scialabba concludes that "as he continually reminded
rationalists, the skeptical impulse can't be sustained indefinitely or directed toward
everything simultaneously. We need traditions too."
It is premises like these that make Scialabba interesting to conservatives. Because
beginning from those premises Scialabba goes in directions conservatives typically do not
follow. Because he opposes [neo]liberal capitalism, he is fond of unions. Because he believes
we cannot completely extract ourselves from our cultural, ethnic, and religious inheritances,
ingrained injustices must be recognized and remedied. Because he believes we are situated
beings with traditions, we must construct an economic system that serves our nature rather than
invent abstractions that we then serve. A defender of America's middle-class (described here,
in reviewing a book by Alan Wolfe, as on the whole "generous, trusting, and optimistic"),
nevertheless he faults them for being too gullible in responding to the call of capital and the
military-industrial complex. But he also faults the Left for failing to understand that their
fellow Americans are, in fact, decent, and, for the most part, tolerant people.
Scialabba might be surprised that he has sympathetic readers on the Right, or even that a
form of nationalism might work with his premises. This possible compatibility isn't to ignore
that American nationalism can and has been racist and inhospitable to minorities. But the
conclusion that there is an "America" that has meaning beyond being simply a machine to
generate GDP (on the backs of workers, perhaps, here or elsewhere) could fit, even if not fully
comfortably, within Scialabba's generous intellectual world.
While not quite a utopia, it would be a start.
Gerald J. Russello is editor of The University Bookman .
"... I venture to guess, since Anne goes here several times. The 'militarists', unrelated to LGBT, faction of the DNC will use LGBT comments from Gabbard's past...... to show she is not liberal enough to defend the party's permanent war profiteering plank! ..."
Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate,
Apologizes for Anti-Gay Past https://nyti.ms/2HhUDev
NYT - Liam Stack - Jan. 17, 2019
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who last week announced she was running for
president, apologized Thursday for her history of anti-gay statements and her past work for
an anti-gay advocacy group -- issues that have emerged as an early obstacle as she pursues a
long-shot bid for the Democratic Party's nomination.
I venture to guess, since Anne goes here several times. The 'militarists', unrelated
to LGBT, faction of the DNC will use LGBT comments from Gabbard's past...... to show she is
not liberal enough to defend the party's permanent war profiteering plank!
RW: Well at this point I think it really depends on what indexes you're looking at. The
biggest thing that's kept this economy going in the last few years should make everybody
tremble. It's called debt, let me give you just a couple of examples. Ten years ago, at the
height of the crash, the total debt carried by students in the United States was in the
neighborhood of $700 billion, an enormous sum. What is it today? Over twice that,
one-and-a-half trillion dollars. The reason part of our economy hasn't collapsed is that
students have taken up an enormous amount of debt that they cannot afford, in order to get
degrees which will let them get jobs whose incomes will not allow them to pay back the debts.
And forget about getting married, forget about having a family.
We have paid an enormous price in hobbling the generation of people who would have otherwise
lifted this economy and made us more productive. It is a disastrous mistake historically, and
if you face that, and if you add to it the increased debt of our businesses, and the increased
debt of our government, you see an economy that is held up by a monstrous increase in debt, not
in underlying productivity, not in more jobs that really produce anything, but in debt.
That should frighten us because it was the debt bubble that burst in 2008 and brought us the
crash. It is as if we cannot learn in our system to do other than we've always done and that's
taking us into another crash coming now.
LC: Yeah. This is the land of the free, but it seems like most of us are chained down by
debt peonage.
The breakup of the USSR was due to confluence of factors such as rise of neoliberalism,
stagnation of oversentlised USSR economy, emergence of internat communications and personal
computers which weakened official propaganda power, creation of fifth column within the USSR due
to bad timing and execution of Gorbachev's reforms (Presetoyka was essentially the idea of
repeating NEP on a new level), and extremely weak abilities of Gorbachov as a politician, growth
of nationalism (well financed from theWest), degeneration of Bolshevik's elute and emergence of
multiple neoliberal turncoats (Yeltsin, Gaidar, Yakovlev, etc). but dissolution of the USSR
probably case as a surporse.
But after the dissolution CIA-Mossad-MI6 jumped into the dame with the explicit goal to
destruction of Russian economy, asset stripping (Browder probably is connected to MI6), Harvard
mafia probably also was somehow connected to CIA, and disintegration of the country (Chechnya
insurrection was supported by the USA, Britain and their vassals in Persian gulf).
This is an interesting lesson for future reformers: the presence of CIA-Mossad-MI6 on the
world scene changes the result of almost any forceful overthrow of the government, especially if
it was done with the goal of neoliberalization, imposing a huge cost on the population. Ukraine
is one recent example (the standard of living dropped probably 300 or so). Libya is another.
This particular neocon writing in his official capacity of a MIC lobbyist (that is what all
neocons are), so his views are interesting only as an example of a dangerous trend.
Like
many contemporary cold warriors, Bugajski toggles back and forth between overhyping Russia's
might and its weaknesses, notably a lack of economic dynamism and a rise in ethnic and regional
fragmentation. But his primary argument is unambiguous: That the West should actively stoke
longstanding regional and ethnic tensions with the ultimate aim of a dissolution of the Russian
Federation, which Bugajski dismisses as an "imperial construct."
Even more alarming is Bugajski's argument that the goal should not be
self-determination for breakaway Russian territories, but the annexing of these lands to other
countries . "Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from
whom Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past."
It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without sparking a
series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version the US would
directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800 Serbian nuclear
warheads.
So who is Janusz Bugajski, and who is he speaking for?
The author bio on the Hill's piece identifies him as a senior fellow at the Center for
European Policy Analysis, a Washington, D.C. think-tank. But CEPA is no ordinary talk shop:
Instead of the usual foundations and well-heeled individuals, its financial backers seem to be mostly arms of the US
government, including the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the US Mission to NATO,
the US-government-sponsored National Endowment for Democracy, as well as as veritable who's who
of defense contractors, including Raytheon, Bell Helicopter, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and
Textron. Meanwhile, Bugajski chairs the South-Central Europe area studies program at the Foreign
Service Institute of the US Department of State.
To put it in perspective, it is akin to a Russian with deep ties to the Kremlin and
arms-makers arguing that the Kremlin needed to find ways to break up the United States and, if
possible, have these breakaway regions absorbed by Mexico and Canada. (A scenario which alas is
not as far-fetched as it might have been a few years ago; many thousands in California now openly
talk of a "Calexit," and many more in Mexico of a reconquista .)
The breakup of the USSR was planned also. It was followed by the formation of oligarchs, IMF
loans, and asset stripping. The economic advice and help Russia received from the west almost
accomplished the goal of breaking up Russia.
Russia is well aware that war with NATO cannot be avoided in the long run. One only has to
talk to Russians to see that they understand they are in a Cold war that they have to survive.
From their view they did not seek this confrontation. They truly thought they would be embraced
by the West after the fall and a new relationship benefiting both sides could have emerged. So
now Russia has to turn to China and prepare for a future war within a decade with NATO!
Disgusting projection of US imperialism. The elite never forgave Putin for throwing US
Rothschild elites out of Russia so they could no longer plunder Russias extensive wealth under
Yeltsin..
Let's see what happens when neocunts start that hot war, how Americans then feel about
Russia
We truly have dumbfucks in this country who love the thought of other as enemy other than
THEMSELVES. They never ONCE consider that in demonizing another countries leader, they are
demonizing a whole nation of peoples too. I wonder how Americans would feel if constant
demonizing and threats coming their way, with also say regime change in Mexico to provoke
them?
US neocons are psychopaths that care nothing for Americans. What they do to others in regime
change they will do to us. Oh, wait. They already have #9/11
Published in the Hill under the dispassionate title "Managing
Russia's dissolution," author Janusz Bugajski makes the case that the West should not
only seek to contain "Moscow's imperial ambitions" but to actively seek the dismemberment of
Russia as a whole.
If that is the intended goal then wouldn't it be accurate to state that America, or at least
its government, has imperial ambitions?
The rationale for dissolution should be logically framed: In order to survive, Russia
needs a federal democracy and a robust economy; with no democratization on the horizon and
economic conditions deteriorating, the federal structure will become increasingly
ungovernable...
Russia already tried "democracy" and the end result spelled disaster for their country.
Minorities were put on a pedestal while their economy was in shambles, all the while the
oligarchs, who were mostly Jewish, made a fortune plundering their natural resources. Sound
familiar?
Some regions could join countries such as Finland, Ukraine, China and Japan, from whom
Moscow has forcefully appropriated territories in the past."
The hypocrisy in this statement is breathless. Is America going to return Alaska to Russia?
Allow Hawaii to once again be an autonomous entity? Cease the illegal occupation of countries
throughout the Middle East? Remove their Neo-Nazi stooges from Ukraine?
It is, needless to say, impossible to imagine anything like this happening without
sparking a series of conflicts that could mirror the Yugoslav Wars. Except in this version
the US would directly culpable in the ignition of the hostilities, and in range of 6,800
Serbian nuclear warheads.
The idea seems to be to stoke regional tensions in order to provoke Russia and start a
conflict where the surrounding countries are put on the front lines while being provided with
logistics from the outside, meaning the US. Washington could then play up the plausible
deniability angle, even while technology from Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and other Western
contractors is primarily being used against the Russians.
Russia is not a direct threat to Western nations, only to their (((governments))), because
during any attempted implementation of a JWO (as in the EU for example), Russia will serve as a
reminder to all Western peoples - especially white people - as to what their nations once were:
independent, sovereign and self-determined. Russia prevented ISISrael from taking over Syria,
thwarted their Oded Yinon plan and threw out their oligarchs, so World Judaism is using America
as their bludgeon against the Russian Federation while preventing us from forming an
alliance.
74 years after Nazi Germany miscalculated Russian resolve some idiot dreams of carving
Russia up like it's a Thanksgiving turkey and some people actually take him seriously. Yeah,
good luck with that.
6 hours ago Bug-aj-ski - neocon shrill writing for and paid by the MIC it looks like
from the sponsors of this think tank
"Cultivating new sources of competitive advantage for U.S. strategy."
no list of sponsors tho I can see from the website - real MIC platform it sounds like from the
article
6 hours ago Yep, it's a Zbigniew Brzezinski memorial. The money seems to come mostly from the
MIC and the usual Cold War think tanks, like the Harry and Lynde Bradley Foundation. 5 hours ago
These necons need to remember that chess is the national passtime of Russians, while making
mudpies is the what they do in the West. These "think-tanks" are very childish. 3 hours ago 9
hours ago here's where some of it started/got turbocharged:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v41/n02/seymour-m-hersh/the-vice-presidents-men
LA_Goldbug 10 hours ago The only way I can understand this twat is to think that he is just
earning his shekels. He knows what the Party Line is in DC requires and is writing accordingly. I
just checked a bit of his BS and this one is definitely written for the uninformed or deeply
indoctrinated Western sheep.
"Taking Stock of Ukraine's Achievements Amidst Russia's Aggression
Five years ago, the Ukrainian people staged a peaceful "revolution of dignity" against a
corrupt regime sponsored by the Kremlin. They stood firm even under gunfire and it was the
discredited President Viktor Yanukovych who eventually retreated and took refuge in Russia. With
Moscow engaging in renewed attacks against Ukraine in the Sea of Azov it is important to take
stock of Ukraine's achievements since those fateful days in Kyiv's Independence Square."
You need to be brain dead to think it was peaceful !!!!
"... Mispricing risk is the new normal, apparently. The assumption is that the stock market is now in hand and will be fine -- unless something startles it. ..."
We will be getting more individual company financial results now that we are in the
reporting period again. These may help to sway the markets in some direction, or not.
Mispricing risk is the new normal, apparently. The assumption is that the stock market
is now in hand and will be fine -- unless something startles it.
Stocks and Precious Metals Charts -
Who Could See It
Coming?
- Dead Reckoning the Minsky Moment
"
In particular, over a protracted period of good times, capitalist economies tend to
move from a financial structure dominated by hedge finance units to a structure in
which there is large weight to units engaged in speculative and Ponzi finance."
Hyman Minsky,
The Financial Instability Hypothesis
"Twenty-five years ago, when most economists were extolling the virtues of financial
deregulation and innovation, a maverick named Hyman P. Minsky maintained a more
negative view of Wall Street; in fact, he noted that bankers, traders, and other
financiers periodically played the role of arsonists, setting the entire economy
ablaze. Wall Street encouraged businesses and individuals to take on too much risk, he
believed, generating ruinous boom-and-bust cycles. The only way to break this pattern
was for the government to step in and regulate the moneymen.
Many of Minsky's colleagues regarded his 'financial-instability hypothesis,' which he
first developed in the nineteen-sixties, as radical, if not crackpot. Today, with the
subprime crisis seemingly on the verge of metamorphosing into a recession, references
to it have become commonplace on financial web sites and in the reports of Wall Street
analysts. Minsky's hypothesis is well worth revisiting."
John Cassidy,
The Minsky Moment
, The New Yorker, 4 February 2008.
"The period of financial distress is a gradual decline after the peak of a speculative
bubble that precedes the final and massive panic and crash, driven by the insiders
having exited but the sucker outsiders hanging on hoping for a revival, but finally
giving up in the final collapse."
Charles Kindelberger,
Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises
"The sense of responsibility in the financial community for the community as a whole is
not small. It is nearly nil. Perhaps this is inherent. In a community where the
primary concern is making money, one of the necessary rules is to live and let live.
To speak out against madness may be to ruin those who have succumbed to it. So the
wise in Wall Street [and in the professional and credentialed class] are nearly always
silent."
John Kenneth Galbraith,
The Great Crash of 1929
"People who lost jobs -- and those are in the millions in 2008, 2009, and 2010 -- have
now gotten jobs, that's true, but the jobs they've gotten have lower wages, have less
security and fewer benefits than the ones they lost, which means they can't spend money
like we might have hoped they would if they had got the kinds of jobs they lost, but
they didn't...
The big tax cut last December, 2017, gave an awful lot of money to the richest
Americans and to big corporations. They had no incentive to plow that into their
businesses, because Americans can't buy any more than they already do. They're up to
their necks in debt and all the rest.
So what they did was to take the money they saved from taxes and speculate in the stock
market, driving up the shares and so forth. Naive people thought that was a sign of
economic health. It wasn't. It was money bidding up the price of stock until the
underlying economy was so far out of whack with the stock market that now everybody
realizes that and there's a rush to get out and boom, the thing goes down."
Bubbles most often resolve their imbalances irresponsibly and jarringly, with a correction
that is sharp and destructive. It is often triggered by some seemingly trivial event,
especially if its predatory mispricing of risk has been allowed to fester for an extended
period of time.. How can this be?
Credit cycles explain bubbles in modern finance, but the elite protect themselves and
their banks from the effects. Hence, only the middle and working class loses. And this has
been the case for many years now. Hence the growing unrest abroad, and the decisions by
the electorate at home that seem to puzzle and provoke the very comfortable 'credentialed'
class.
The reason for this is quite easy to understand. Those who benefit the most from the
bubble both actively and passively help sustain it. They are reluctant to surrender any
potion of their enormous advantage and personal gains, even if it might be better for them
in the long term.
They do not consider the damage that may be done to the underlying social fabric that
supports and protects their wealth. Contrary to all of the familiar assumptions, they are
not acting rationally or prudently, even for themselves. Their focus is short term and
short-sighted. They are drunk on their own success.
The interpreters and creators of the prevailing narrative are themselves beneficiaries of
the bubble economy, and will go to great lengths to misdirect the public discussion from
any root causes, and often from its very existence. They will distract the public with
inflammatory issues, economic fear, stage-managed spectacles, and manufactured
complexity. And finally, in the extremes of their shamelessness, they will seek to blame
the victims for their lack of sophistication and the government for its efforts to
restrain their predatory frauds.
This enables the cycle of boom and bust to repeat and worsen beyond all reasonable
expectations.
The lesson from history is that a system based on the ascendant greed of powerful insiders
is rarely rational and self-correcting, and is often spectacularly self-destructive. And
those with the most power, in their wonderful self-delusion, simply do not care until it
is too late. They are blinded by the moment, in their competition with each other, and
the insatiable nature of greed itself. 'Enough' is not in their reckoning.
To this end governments are fashioned, and people organize themselves from the damage that
can be done to society as a whole by a few. Unfortunately people forget, and it seems
that at least once every generation or so the madness slips loose its restraints, and this
sad lesson from history repeats.
And so once again the world must face its rendezvous with destiny.
The box scores for today's market action are shown in the graphs below.
Apparently rough weather is heading towards the east coast. The local grocery store was a
nuthouse even in the early afternoon. I am making some chicken soup for myself and Dolly.
Even if I could coax her out of her fuzzy blanket and pillows, Dolly would offer limited
assistance. She is clearly just in it for the chicken.
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders
from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker's famous "not one inch eastward" assurance about NATO
expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of
a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other
Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991 ,
according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by
the National Security Archive at George Washington University ( http://nsarchive.gwu.edu ).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and
Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991 , that discussions of
NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited
to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints
about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and
telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates's criticism of "pressing ahead with
expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that
wouldn't happen. "
[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is "led to believe."
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989
that the U.S. would not take advantage ("I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall") of
the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at
that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the
collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.
[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990 , when
West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public
speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1)
informed Washington that Genscher made clear "that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German
unification process must not lead to an 'impairment of Soviet security interests.' Therefore,
NATO should rule out an 'expansion of its territory towards the east , i.e. moving it closer to
the Soviet borders.'" The Bonn cable also noted Genscher's proposal to leave the East German
territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.
[3]
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
falconflight 13 hours ago It was a horrible betrayal of a promise that should have been greatly
enhanced by promoting free enterprise concepts, and personal freedoms propaganda (Not lies),
and even economic assistance where reasonable. A historical opportunity lost. Those powerful
Kremlinologists couldn't pivot, it was easier to continue to treat Russia as an existential
adversary and in certain circumstances, purposely attempt to humiliate them, such as in
Serbia.
Following what the Washington Post
has described as "the highest-profile misstep yet for a news organization during a period
of heightened and intense scrutiny of the press," mass media representatives are now flailing
desperately for an argument as to why people should continue to place their trust in mainstream
news outlets.
On Thursday Buzzfeed News delivered
the latest "bombshell" Russiagate report to fizzle within 24 hours of its publication, a
pattern that is now so consistent that I've personally made a practice of declining to comment
on such stories until a day or two after their release. "BOOM!" tweets were issued by
#Resistance pundits on Twitter, "If true this means X, Y and Z" bloviations were made on mass
media punditry panels, and for about 20 hours Russiagaters everywhere were riding the high of
their lives, giddy with the news that President Trump had committed an impeachable felony by
ordering Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about a proposed Trump office tower in Moscow, a
proposal which died within weeks
and the Kremlin never touched .
There was reason enough already for any reasonable person to refrain from frenzied
celebration, including the fact that the story's two authors, Jason Leopold and Anthony
Cormier, were giving the press two very different accounts of
the information they'd based it on, with Cormier telling CNN that he had not personally seen
the evidence underlying his report and Leopold telling MSNBC that he had. Both Leopold and
Cormier, for the record, have already previously suffered a
Russiagate faceplant with the clickbait viral story that Russia had financed the 2016
election, burying the fact that it was a Russian election .
Then the entire story came crashing down when Mueller's office took the extremely rare step
of issuing an
unequivocal statement that the Buzzfeed story was wrong , writing simply, "BuzzFeed's
description of specific statements to the special counsel's office, and characterization of
documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional
testimony are not accurate."
According to journalist and economic analyst Doug Henwood, the print New York Times covered
the Buzzfeed report on its front page when the story broke, but the report on Mueller's
correction the next day was shoved back to page 11 .
This appalling journalistic malpractice makes it very funny that NYT's Wajahat Ali had the gall
to tweet , "Unlike the Trump
administration, journalists are fact checking and willing to correct the record if the Buzzfeed
story is found inaccurate. Not really the actions of a deep state and enemy of the people,
right?"
This is the behavior of a media class that is interested in selling narratives, not
reporting truth. And yet the mass media talking heads are all telling us today that we must
continue to trust them.
"Those trying to tar all media today aren't interested in improving journalism but
protecting themselves," tweeted NBC's Chuck Todd.
"There's a lot more accountability in media these days than in our politics. We know we
live in a glass house, we hope the folks we cover are as self aware."
More accountability in media than in politics, Chuck? Really? Accountability to whom? Your
advertisers? Your plutocratic owners? Certainly not to the people whose minds you are paid
exorbitant sums to influence; there are no public elections for the leadership of the mass
media.
"Mueller didn't do the media any favors tonight, and he did do the president one,"
griped
the odious Chris Cuomo on CNN. "Because as you saw with Rudy Giuliani and as I'm sure
you'll see with the president himself, this allows them to say 'You can't believe it! You can't
believe what you read, you can't believe what you hear! You can only believe us. Even the
Special Counsel says that the media doesn't get it right.'"
"The larger message that a lot of people are going to take from this story is that the
news media are a bunch of leftist liars who are dying to get the president, and they're
willing to lie to do it, and I don't think that's true" said Jeffrey Toobin on a CNN panel , adding "I
just think this is a bad day for us."
"It does reinforce bad stereotypes about the news media," said Brian Stelter on the same CNN
panel.
"I am desperate as a media reporter to always say to the audience, judge folks
individually and judge brands individually. Don't fall for what these politicians out there
want you to do. They want you to think we're all crooked. We're not. But Buzzfeed now, now
the onus is on Buzzfeed. "
CNN, for the record, has been guilty of an arguably
even more embarrassing Russiagate flub than Buzzfeed 's when they wrongly reported that
Donald Trump Jr had had access to WikiLeaks' DNC email archives prior to their 2016
publication, an error that was hilariously due to to the simple misreading of an email date by
multiple people.
The mass media, including pro-Trump mass media like Fox News, absolutely deserves to be
distrusted. It has earned that distrust. It had earned that distrust already with its constant
promotion of imperialist wars and an oligarch-friendly status quo, and it has earned it even
more with its frenzied promotion of a narrative engineered to manufacture consent for a
preexisting agenda to shove Russia off the world stage.
The mainstream media absolutely is the enemy of the people; just because Trump says it
doesn't mean it's not true. The only reason people don't rise up and use the power of their
numbers to force the much-needed changes that need to happen in our world is because they are
being propagandized to accept the status quo day in and day out by the mass media's endless
cultural engineering project . They are the reason why wars go unopposed, why third parties
never gain traction, why people consent to money hemorrhaging upward to the wealthiest of the
wealthy while everyone else struggles to survive. The sooner people wake up from the perverse
narrative matrix of the plutocratic media, the better.
"
