In her fourth book Mayer draws on court records, extensive
interviews, and many private archives to examine the growing political influence of extreme libertarians among the one percent,
such as the Koch brothers, tracing their ideas about taxation and government regulation and their savvy use of lobbyists to
further an agenda that advances their own interests at the expense of meaningful economic, environmental, and labor reform. Mayer
is in conversation with James Bennet, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic.
People elected a
billionaire that is appointing other billionaires to fix the system that made them billionaires .... thats a special kind
of stupid !!!
Neoliberalism
opened the public sector up to the predatory capitalists. Financial markets love sick and violent people to increase
healthcare profits and keep the slave wage prison factories pumping. This is why Thatcher had to say "there's no such thing
as society" so she could embark on this fascist agenda to decimate the middle class. Fast forward 40 years, we now have
tent villages, medical bankruptcies, opioid suicides, increased school shootings, mass incarceration, media consolidated
Pentagon mouthpieces, educational corrosion and "market ideology" professors, fracking, poisoned aquifers, a defunct voting
system, career politicians who no longer write legislation, a bloated administrative unelected bureaucracy of agencies
addicted to the MIC budget. The Kochs choked democracy, nearly drowned government in the bathtub, as was their wish.
i've often
wondered how certain memes seem to pop up out of thin air and take on a life of their own, ever notice when a democrat
is in the white house the biggest concern is the debt and federal budget? republicans use this non-stop rhetoric to
stop any social programs, even gut them. this stuff goes back a while like the "liberal media", this election cycle i
was repeatedly confronted with "taxes are theft" when defending social programs, and during the health care debate there
was this "ayn rand" renaissance of "greed is good" taking hold. mayer is dead on with the corporate elites buying our
government, it's nothing less than a coup of our democracy, and they are shredding it to pieces.
Why haven't the
Kochs been arrested yet? They've been prosecuted dozens of times for violating government regulations and
pollution requirements. It does explain their economic libertarianism though, the sociopathic businessmen like the
Koch's want to get away with unreasonable pollution and paying workers 3 dollars an hour.
Earned income and capital gains should be taxed at the same
MUCH MORE PROGRESSIVE RATE, and at this point in our monstrous debt we need to consider a surcharge on huge wealth.
This situation has been brought about by the extreme right wingers like the Koch Brothers to try to bandrupt the
country into shutting down the whole social spending aspect of government ... which is basically fascist and
anti-democratic. Want to do the right thing. I think you create a list of human rights, and back up it but a UBI
Universal Basic Income, and then get rid of the minimum wage and let people find out where they stand in the economy
on their own merits. BUT, they also need free education and an infrastructure of government jobs to offer some
competition and experience to people so they can if they want and show the aptitude for private for-profit work.
Very interesting that you say that the Devos family is very
much involved in changing the education system to a right wing system... And Trump has Betsy Devos as his education
head. But I would say that public schooling has been degraded and moved to privately owned and run Charter Schools
since the first Bush President - and continued under Bill Clinton, Bush II and Obama. Both Democrats and Republicans
have been pushing the agenda to the right - where education is concerned. It is an illusion to believe that the
Democrats would move the needle in the opposite direction. The goal is to enslave all middle and working class people
with student debt. Student debt is the only debt you cannot extinguish through bankruptcy... it stays with you until
death. This debt enslavement then creates a society of desperate and compliant workers. This is the goal and it is an
agenda that corporations want - served by both democrats and republicans. And for most part it the agenda has been
achieved. So the dark money does coalesce for certain agendas. But the Devos's have a religious agenda where
education is concerned... they want to make sure Genesis is taught as science and ban the teaching of evolution and
things like that.
1984. Truly the symbolic year that the Orwellian
neoliberal war on Americans began. Why? To "lower our expectations" of the 60's decade. Democracy is fine until
it's been activated. Then the hammer comes down. But other countries enjoy a high quality of life, no threats of
revolt or overthrow, so why does this unnecessarily continue? It must just be greed. Exploiting the public sector
for profit.
I think the key
strategic 'leverage point' is the money, specifically the money system. We need to elect a Congress and President
ethical enough to pass the NEED Act which would create a public for-care money system, stop banks from creating
our money for profit and establish a monetary authority that would only be tasked with determining the amount of
new money required each year to support public objectives determined by Congress, like healthcare, education,
infrastructure and a citizen's dividend.
Excellent review
and information on KOCH BROS. Enjoyed. Thank you. Hope more people listen MORE about these Brothers (2) knowing
how they have infiltrated into our GOVT and now own GOP Congress/PENCE (lobbied for them w/Manafort) and TRUMP.
The are also friends w/Bush. Hence, Kavanaugh was put in as SCOTUS. Citizens United MUST BE REMOVED! Our democracy
is in danger. Hope it's not too late. I want my country back.
"To allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of
the fate of human beings and their natural environment ...would result in the demolition of society." ~ Karl
Polanyi, 1944 We've had a President Koch for 40 years now. This book explains their takeover of government so that
predatory capitalists could turn social services into financial markets for exploitation and profit. This destroys
society but they didn't care.
Fred Koch made
his money building an oil industry for Stalin, then became anti-communist after returning with the money? Sounds like
guilt to me. Then Fred Koch worked for Hitler's war efforts. Fred became a John Bircher and his money went to his
four trust fund sons, the Koch Bros. who now stealth control U.S. politics and Republican politicians from the Cato
Institute, Heritage Foundation, Tea Party with black money support, including funding rightwing chairs and think
tanks .at all the Ivy League universities.They have much, much, much too much money. it's time to tax their pants off
so they understand what work. is.
- Koch brothers
story is hillarious , just for example Charles Koch got Defender of Justice award from the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers , LOL
- Koch brothers
story is hillarious , just for example Charles Koch got Defender of Justice award from the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers , LOL
It's fascinating
the Koch Brothers do not truly believe their own philosophy, because if they did they would go all the way in and
champion worker cooperatives = complete freedom, freedom from government and freedom from a dictator boss. Like
all ideologues with a quasi-engineering view of human relations and a Freudian fear of communism, they are blinded
by the merits of anything that sounds remotely like socialism even when it logically matches their more reasonable
libertarian ideals. In other words, they are fake libertarians, they are rank abusive authoritarian oligarchs,
wannabe plutocrats. Ironically the Koch Bros are closer to Stalin in their ideology than they are to Reagan.
Albert Morris, 1 year ago
Jane Mayer is in a class all her own as a journalist. God bless her. I hope her next project is on the corporate media itself
and its shameful railroading of Julian Assange. We need all the good journalism we can get.
James Gillis, 2 years ago
"Free Market is a utopia". I'm glad you said that so I can read your book knowing your political philosophy...
She does not use the term neoliberalism but she provide interesting perspective about
connection of neoliberalism and Trotskyism. It is amazing fact that most of them seriously
studied communist ideology at universities.
Trotskyites are never constrained by morality and they are obsessed with raw power
(especially political power) and forceful transformation of the society. They are for global dominance so they were early
adherents of "Full spectrum Dominance" doctirne approporitated later be US neocons. Their Dream -- global run from Washington
neoliberal empire is a mirror of the dream of Trotskyites of global communist empire run from Moscow (Trotsky "Permanent war" till
the total victory of communism idea)
Inability to understand that neoliberal is undermines Diana West thinking, but still she is a good researcher and she managed
to reveal some interesting facts and tendencies. She intuitively understand that both are globalist ideologies, but that
about all she managed to understand. Bad for former DIA specialist on the USSR and former colleague of Colonel Lang (see
Sic Semper Tyrannis)
It is funny that Sanders is being accused of being a 'self-identified' socialist, while neoliberal elite is shoulder-deep in socialism for the 1%
and enjoy almost unlimited access to free Fed funds.
I received my copy just a few days before the Mueller investigation closed shop. There is
an old saying "You can't tell the players without a program." As the aftermath of the Mueller
investigation begins, you need this book. Some pundits and observers of the political scene
have observed that the Mueller investigation didn't come about because of any real concern
about "Trump Russia collusion," it was manufactured to protect the deep state from a
non-political interloper. That's the case Diana West makes and does it with her exceptional
knowledge of the Cold War and the current jihad wars. Not to mention her deadly aim with her
rhetorical darts.
The Red Thread by Diana West
Diana states, "the anti-Trump conspiracy is not about Democrats and Republicans. It is not
about the ebb and flow of political power, lawfully and peacefully transferred. It is about
globalists and nationalists, just as the president says. They are locked in the old and
continuous Communist/anti-Communist struggle, and fighting to the end, whether We, the
anti-Communists, recognize it or not."
Diana traces the Red Thread running through the swamp, she names names and relates the
history of the Red players. She asks the questions, Why? Why so many Soviet-style acts of
deception perpetrated from inside the federal government against the American electoral
process? Why so many uncorroborated dossiers of Russian provenance influencing our politics?
Why such a tangle of communist and socialist roots in the anti-Trump conspiracy?
In this book, these questions will be answered.
If you have read her book "American Betrayal," I'm sure you will have a good idea about
what is going on. I did. I just didn't know the major players and the red history behind each
of them.
The book is very interesting and short, only 104 pages, but it is not finished yet. Easy
to read but very disturbing to know the length and width of the swamp, the depth, we may not
know for a long time. I do feel better knowing that there are people like Diana uncovering
and shining a light into the darkness. Get the book, we all need to know why this is
happening and who the enemies are behind it. Our freedom depends on it.
"In America moral relativism is now so deeply embed that there is no ideology, including
communism, that can bar you from joining our most powerful intelligence agency (which was
essentially stood up to fight communism) and even rise to control it and all of its secrets."
–Diana West, The Red Thread
I think Diana West might want to consider the "just war" theory as something Niebuhr.would
have been talking about. I do not know the writings of either Niebuhr or Tillich well but it
is my understanding that both did much good in the world so I wouldn't write them off without
very careful consideration. Many deeply religious people I know consider some of the ideas
contained within socialism to be Christian friendly. Thank you for considering my
statements.
For 3 years i argued with my Left wing friend. One day he called out "I just want to
control people". Talk about 'the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks'. I finally worked
out what made my friend consider government programs as the solution to every problem: He is
a closet control freak! Every person on the Left is a control freak hiding in the closet!!
Beware of these dictators coming to control your life!!!
"Last year, the faculty at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government voted to offer Mr.
Zucman, 33, a tenured position. But Harvard's president and provost nixed the offer, partly
over fears that Mr. Zucman's research could not support the arguments he was making in the
political arena, according to people involved in the process." NYT
He subsequently got a post at the University of California, Berkeley.
Finnian Cunningham weighs in with an excellent article about Bloomberg as symbolic of the
demise of the Outlaw US Empire's nationwide electoral political system,
"With Bloomberg Entering Race, U.S. Oligarchy Takes Stage" . A portion of the juicy meat:
"In a nutshell, the political party is bought. It has become a vehicle that is patently
the political property of an oligarch. And not just this one oligarch, but the entire
oligarchic system of super-wealth in the United States. Hillary Clinton, the Democrat
candidate in 2016, was despised by voters because of her solicitous connections to Wall
Street and Big Business. That corruption has now only become starkly manifest in the form an
oligarch-in-person taking the political stage instead of a politician-surrogate. The same can
be said for the other side of the oligarch coin, the Republicans.
"It is rather fitting too that Bloomberg stood as a Republican when he was elected Mayor
of Gotham (er, New York City) between 2001-2013. Since leaving that office be flipped to the
Democrats, no doubt sensing a more expedient route for buying his way to the White House.
That again demonstrates how hollow the party names are of any substantive meaning regarding
policy.
"In the 2018 mid-term elections, Bloomberg donated $100 million to the DNC to promote 16
new female lawmakers to Congress. Enamored by that superficial progressive benevolence, the
party bosses are in his pocket."
Cunningham concludes with an observation that many of us arrived at long ago:
"The only 'superhero' that can save Gotham (er, the U.S.) from the oligarchs is the
American people themselves finding the strength and independence to rise up against the
endemic two-party corruption, and voting for real change.
" That, however, requires mass organization, mobilization and a class consciousness
about the predatory capitalist, oligarch-ridden system that the U.S. has descended into
." [My Emphasis]
The bolded sentence above provides us with our task and goal, that is if we--non-Americans
included--wish to save the nation and the world from Oligarchical Ruin. Our only chance is to
provide Sanders with 1991+ delegates so he can gain the nomination outright on the first
ballot before the corrupt delegates can enter the fray. Yes, he has issues with his foreign
policy record; but it's his domestic record most voters will want to know about since so many
are struggling. And it's on that part of his record that I intend to focus upon, while I'm
certain the naysayers like the rabbit will focus exclusively elsewhere.
"As I wrote the other day echoing Solomon and Sanders, it's a Class War, and we need
everyone to come to the barricades and the polling stations"
Karlof1, I admire your knowledge. That being said, can you tell me of any instance in the
history of mankind, wherein a national government has changed its behavior due to the results
of an election? As far as I can see, governments have only changed their ways after
catastrophic war, economic or foundational collapse or a peasant revolt.
Bloomberg bought his way onto the debate stage by getting the rules changed in exchange for
money to the DNC (and assorted Dem big shots).
He could've, and should've, paid them to not change the rules, even as he pretended
to clamor to be included, thereby keeping the initial bubble in his popularity going until
after the big Super Tuesday primaries, while playing the victim for being excluded from the
debates.
He still would have been exposed eventually, but only after having had a shot at
collecting a large number of delegates, strengthening his position.
But Bloomberg was too engorged with the knowledge he can pay these corrupt Dems to do
anything he wants to realize that this was a case where it was better not to (or rather,
to be seen not to be able to ).
Posted on February 18,
2020 by Yves
Smith Yves here. Richard Murphy makes an extremely important point about how Keynes' belief
in the importance of well-functioning, cohesive societies and how sound economic policy could
promote them. However, he skips over the fact that Keynes did not approve of much of Keynesian
thinking, particularly the American Keynesianism developed and promoted by Paul Samuelson.
Samuelson had done his PhD thesis on neoclassical economics and admitted he had difficulty
wrapping his mind around Keynes. An English economist, John Hicks, had developed a mathematical
formalization that treated Keynesian theory simply as a special case of neoclassical economics,
and that was embraced by Samuelson and his fellow travelers. Not only did Keynes repudiate
Hicks, Hicks recanted his own work in his later life.
Admittedly, the most important difference between Keynes and these Keynesian knockoffs is
their view of instability. Keynes viewed economies as inherently unstable; investors could
freak out and withhold liquidity, which would dampen and even crash real economy activity.
Economists like Samuelson who aspired to turn economics into a science recoiled at this view,
since it meant they would not be able to model economic behavior in mathematical terms (for
instance, recently retired professor Mark Thoma who taught macroeconomics said any
macroeconomic modeler who was honest would have to admit their forecasts for more than six
months out were unreliable).
So Samuelson and other mainstream economists embraced the assumption of ergodicity that
economies have a natural propensity to stability, and that stable state is one of full
employment! For a longer-form discussion, see Chapter 2 of ECONNED or Paul Davidson's The
Keynes Solution.
Putting the "Keynesian" nitpicking aside, Murphy is correct to point out the need for
governments to deliver what Lambert likes to stress as "material concrete benefits" for
citizens. The Democratic party civil war between the progressive upstarts and the leadership is
all about the growing and well-founded perception that government in the US is increasingly
about promoting redistribution to and rent extraction by the rich at the expense of everyone
else.
MMT proponents similarly make central the notion that government spending is constrained by
real economy productive capacity. By implication, they would favor spending that increases
capacity, such as infrastructure spending, more day care and after school programs to help
working parents, and increased elder care.
By Richard Murphy, a chartered accountant and a political economist. He has been
described by the Guardian
newspaper as an "anti-poverty campaigner and tax expert". He is Professor of Practice in
International Political Economy at City University, London and Director of Tax Research UK. He
is a non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics . He is a member of the
Progressive Economy Forum.
Originally published at Tax
Research UK
Many authoritarians are now using state power to lock in the dominance of the rich.
I think this indisputable.
I also think that the editorial missed a killer punch. That was, first of all, because they
kept referring to Keynes, and not his motives, and yet it is his motives, and their contrast
with those of monetarism that is critical. Keynes was motivated by social concern: monetarism
was motivated by the desire for private profit. Keynes was about creating fairer societies, and
monetarism was about creating inequality.
It is then appropriate to say, as the Guardian do, that:
Austerity meant the economy was starved of demand when inflation was low. The answer is
for governments to spend.
But [the right are] not talking about the state intervening on the side of labour,
redistributing wealth or socialising investment. Instead, the right now proposes a
Keynesianism without Keynes.
This is correct, and yet it needs contextualisation. We have just seen an election where
policies in the shadow of Keynes did not prevail. Whilst nationalisation, social housebuilding,
the welfare state and much else that might be associated with Keynesian policy all poll well
with focus groups they did not deliver election success for Labour.
Nor, come to that, did the Green New Deal in the way that Labour presented it. And that is
because Keynes did not just want these things, as if they in themselves mattered. What he was
particularly interested in, I suggest, was what they could deliver for people. In other words,
what he wanted to address was not just an economic crisis, but the oppression of people's hopes
and aspirations and their replacement by fear. He knew he was fighting fascism, and he played a
key role in achieving that goal.
This is the point that I think the Guardian misses. A new dose of Keynesianism is not
enough. Nor, most especially, is a bout of non-Keynesian government spending. Keynesian
spending is about transforming relationships in society. It is, then, about much more than the
spend itself.
I believe that the Green New Deal, when properly done, is exactly that. It is aspirational.
Instead of Labour being paranoid about the private sector gaining advantage from it, I would
have every hope that a plethora of new businesses will be promoted by Green New Deal activity.
Wouldn't that make sense?
And I would hope too that the training programs, which have to be at the absolute core of
everything that the Green New Deal does or no progress can be made, will provide skills for
life, and not just for retrofitting insulation and triple glazed windows.
The spending that the government is now proposing is all about reinforcing Conservative
control, and at its best that is about the maintenance of a power elite. The Green New Deal is
all about the diversification of power to people and localities.
Both policies have at their core increased public spending. But one delivers that spending
to maintain the status quo. The other spends to change that status quo for the benefit of all
in society. Not all, then, is equal in what looks like Keynesian spending. In fact, the
opposite is very much the case. And that has to be said, time and again.
Keynes viewed economies as inherently unstable; investors could freak out and
withhold liquidity, which would dampen and even crash real economy activity. Economists
like Samuelson who aspired to turn economics into a science recoiled at this view, since it
meant they would not be able to model economic behavior in mathematical terms (for
instance, recently retired professor Mark Thoma who taught macroeconomics said any
macroeconomic modeler who was honest would have to admit their forecasts for more than six
months out were unreliable).
Yes, and weather is inherently unstable, is only predictable 3-6 days out as a
dynamic system (and a steady state description would just be wrong), and further out people
switch to descriptions of the chaotic attractors ("climate").
And so? Does that mean that we retreat to BS "weather philosophy" or "political
weather"?
No -- it's perfectly well mathematically modelable, as long as you a) don't use 18th
century steady state models for inherently non-steady state system -- you have to have
dynamic systems; b) mathematically well-define how long dynamic trajectories are stable, and
their envelope of evolution; c) switch to the stochastic ensemble after that, using 20th
century perturbation and chaos theory, for example.
The problem is plainly NOT that economics uses mathematical models -- that's a bit
of nonsense.
The problem is that they apply 18th century steady state modeling and early 20th
century game theory willy-nilly, without defining the limits of these models because doing
the mathematics properly means recognizing the inherently limited predictive + control
ability over these feedback loops. Only the wrong math gives the "right" answers.
Basically the same nonsense that killed Soviet economics -- if the right math tells
you you're doing nonsense, choose the wrong math. (By the 50s, Soviet economists had already
shown that their variety of central planning was inherently unstable -- so the folks using
the right math were driven off).
But waving your arms in despair and saying that there's no good math throws you into
the fallacy of the Austrians -- that there's no reasonable constraints and understanding, and
it's ultimately purely ideological (a buncha words with no science).
No -- it's perfectly well mathematically modelable, as long as you a) don't use
18th century steady state models for inherently non-steady state system -- you have to have
dynamic systems; b) mathematically well-define how long dynamic trajectories are stable,
and their envelope of evolution; c) switch to the stochastic ensemble after that, using
20th century perturbation and chaos theory, for example.
I think even for this, the (necessary) abstracting into assumptions is highly
problematic, and (correspondingly), a lot has to do with the definition of the 'it'
('economic behaviour); both are necessarily political I would argue. So there is no 'right
math' in a objective sense.
Whether or not the weather system is indeed mathematically modelable is a question.
Whether the model is a "perfect" model is absolutely questionable! (Waddya mean
"perfect"?)
The real problem is solving the model numerically. An unstable model cannot be
solved exept for short time periods (Waddya mean "short?") And anyway, we don't have any way
to accumulate all the necessary date, i.e., initial conditions, to numerically approximate a
solution. In fact we never actually solve the equations, we only approximate a
solution
This is a truly hard problem.
And this is a perfect analog to a the problem of building and solving a global
economic model. Economics ain't science.
"Whether or not the weather system is indeed mathematically modelable is a
question."
Weather is 100% physics. It contains nothing random. The difficulty with modelling
it mathematically is purely its complexity and the subtleties of its feed-backs. As the
historical data has been becoming more fine-grained and the computers doing the mathematical
modelling have grown more powerful its predictive power has become more accurate at smaller
and smaller scales. The only limiting factor for short term forecasting is the computing
power available to be thrown at it. Longer term accurate forecasting, though, will always be
hampered by the unpredictable, such as vulcanism.
Economics can never be mathematically moddled as it is riddled with the random
– I had great sex last night so I'm feeling relaxed and in a good mood so what the
hell, I'll sell some shares and buy that new x (or treat the wife to it) – and the
unpredictable, ie CoronaVirus.
One might argue that at the molecular level fluid dynamics (weather theory) is
random. Einstein described Brownian motion as random. Assuming that the atmosphere is
completely deterministic is necessary to apply certain conditions to make the mathematics
easy (Navier-Stokes) but there is much that is truly random at the molecular and atomic (not
sub atomic) level in our atmosphere.
I'll add only one other item to Mr Brdford's comment in the second paragraph and
that is that all economic data contains unadmitted errors. The article is an easy and rewarding
read.
Before the maths and physics can be applied one has to grapple with theory and what
it quantifies. No good in applying the aforementioned to wonky prescriptive ideology or some
romanticized notion of antiquity in order to burnish it, sell it, and then have politicians
absolve their ability to react to anti social outcomes.
Then to top it all off have funding skew it, let alone instill path dependency
– see Hicks or GDP.
Anywho
Basically, the classical model is a model for a corn economy: households decide
whether to consume the corn or to save it. If it is saved it can be supplied to investors who
sow the grains, repaying to the households one period later the credit amount plus
interest.
In the Keynesian model the 'funds' exchanged on the capital market are made up of
money -- 'funds' are bank deposits. Funds are not created here by a renunciation of
consumption but by the banks granting credit
In the classical model, there is a strict crowding out of private investors on the
capital market by government deficits. The all-purpose good, which functions equally as
'funds' and as investment good, can only be used once.
In the Keynesian model, on the other hand, 'funds' (money) and investment goods are
independent of each other. Therefore there is no crowding out on the capital market, if
deficits are financed by banks or the central bank. This is the fundamental insight of Modern
Monetary Theory
Young students need to wake up and realise they are being taught models whose laws
of motion are as inconsistent with reality as Ptolemy's world view. We need a 'Fridays for
Keynesianism' movement. – Peter Bofinger
That does not even redress experiences like some I know of being threatened by
orthodoxy yes threatened on a personal level for begging the question.
Its just so Nicaeaian, where anything that does not conform to some simplistic
notion that reinforces the political agenda is left on the editing room floor or worse
labeled as heresy. Once that is done and dusted the orthodoxy – in a box –
becomes empiric, where only A political is allowable – in lieu of political response
– yet all unwashed are lead to believe [tm] their vote matters in a Market [tm]
Democracy.
Lastly
The Reformation in Economics is a book written by the Irish economist Philip
Pilkington. It is a book that aims to deconstruct contemporary neoclassical economic theory
in order to determine to what extent it is scientific and to what extent it is
ideological.
The book is divided into three sections: Ideology and Methodology, Stripped-Down
Macroeconomics and Approaching the Real World. The first section of the book engages in a
deconstruction of economic theory that seeks to weed out the ideological elements of economic
theory while introducing a coherent methodology that allows for the reconstruction that
follows.
The second section lays out a theory of the macroeconomy that builds on the
methodology described in the first section and tackles: money, prices, profits, income
distribution, income determination, investment and finance. The final section sketches out
how such a theory should be applied to real-world empirical data, with a particular emphasis
on the fact that working economists are faced with fundamental uncertainty and so applying
their theories is not as simple or straightforward as applying theories in the hard sciences,
like physics.
In bold – Epistemology, Modelling and Bias
Pilkington argues that economists do not actually understand what they are doing
when they build economic models. He argues that this is because economists have no coherent
epistemology. In order to ground economics in a proper epistemology and render it useful and
clear he draws on the work of the philosophers George Berkeley and Immanuel Kant. He argues
that economics should move away from models altogether and toward a form of schematism as
outlined in the philosophy of Kant. He also argues that since economists deal with
abstractions they must be careful in order to ensure that their theories remain close to
reality.
The book also argues that disciplines like economics can be subject to extreme
biases that can have a highly negative impact on both theory and empirical studies.
Pilkington writes that the reason for this is that economic studies cannot provide repeatable
controlled experiments and so they can reach extremely biased results. In order to counter
this he claims that economists should be aware of their biases and lays out a theory of bias
in science to help elucidate this. – snip
So what are you applying maths and physics too again @pe?
With all due respect, this is ludicrous. You take a dismissive tone when you've put
your foot in mouth and chewed.
It shows you have no idea of what risk and uncertainty mean, no real understanding
of statistics, and no understanding of Keynes either.
I'm not even going to dignify this. Go do some homework. Google "Knightian
uncertainty" for starters. Also bother doing basic reading on Mandelbrot and Lévy
distributions. Mandelbrot, a vastly more accomplished mathematician than you will ever be,
established that the alphas of the Lévy distributions of financial markets could not
be calculated reliably but were certainly less than two, which is fatal to ANY modeling
effort.
In the context of the UK there is a fair chance that what will be seen will be
increased public spending on infrastructure projects in Tory marginal constituencies –
pork barrel politics in other words – rather than any attempt to alleviate social
problems more broadly. This is portrayed as moving to the centre but will it be? Time will
tell.
Yes, I think we'll certainly see a Keynesian approach (if you want to grace it with
such a term) for infrastructure from Bojo – none of the people around him are macro
austerians, they only believe in austerity for people not like them. He's already proven to
be an enthusiast for big glossy infrastructure schemes, especially the planning, where you
get to have lovely models and flashy presentations – he is a little less enthusiastic
about the reality of actually building things. PPP type schemes are ideal for funnelling vast
amounts of public cash to the consultancy classes.
I'm not sure but weren't schools of economics filled with professors that supported
neoliberal economics? It resulted in neoliberalism being the dominate thinking.
Back when I did a mediocre economics undergraduate degree in the late 1980's, my
lecturers were often jokingly cynical about the general uselessness of the mathematical
models they were teaching use. The highly respected macro Professor we had openly told us
about the 'crisis in macro' – namely that the models were useless at predicting the
future, which had us all wondering why on earth were were spending so much time studying
them.
It was eyeopening to me over the years to see how these 'useless' models became
fundamental to public policy, the underlying assumptions accepted unquestioningly by people
who found them very useful indeed, but not in the manner intended. One lecturer in my course,
who accurately predicting the Celtic Tiger crash, famously said that he knew the economy was
doomed when he heard so many of his ex students on the radio, introduced as 'Senior Bank
Economists', all assuring the public that a big crash couldn't possibly happen.
Significantly, he is an economic historian (a specialist in medieval Europe), not a
theoretician.
Are you *sure* it was "not in the manner intended"? The ecological economist Herman
Daly argues that economics is fundamentally an exercise in corruption: that post-Smith
economists chose sides in the power struggle between resource-based landowners and
trade-based merchants. They evidently chose the winning side, and may have contributed to the
win, but we're paying the price for that today.
Which is not to say the landowners were any nicer people or any more legitimate, but
their loss is the reason economic models ignore resource constraints. Both Capitalist and
Marxist models use only TWO "production factors," labor and capital. There are three.
Artificial capital and natural "capital" are not at all the same; landowners would know that,
or go broke. As a lot of them did, of course.
Maybe the best place to start is to enforce antitrust laws. Follow that up with
ending all regime change wars. Then the national energies can be put to more productive use,
like building a more resilient real economy.
Those two statements seem totally reasonable and foundational beliefs of any American
patriot. However, in the current political climate, these principles are viewed as totally
unreasonable- by both political parties. The ruling factions of both parties embrace monopoly
and desire war.
For an ordinary citizen, trying to feed their family and make ends meet, bringing
about theses changes would mean changing the entire US political economy. In a word
revolution- a true revolution. A revolution is required because the US economy has been
fundamentally changed.
No monopolies, no wars of choice. The status quo elites view that stance as
un-American.
This debate sounds like the anti-war isolationists leading up to the outbreak of
WWII. The isolationists believed the country would be better served if it stayed out of
foreign wars and focused on local problems. They lost that information and propaganda battle
and the world went to war.
An argument can be made that WWII never really ended. The cold war that immediately
followed the end of hostilities being a purposeful continuation of that hot war. It seems
that every time peace breaks out, a war of choice must be found- at all costs. Hot wars
fought by proxy armies, while the propaganda war rages non stop.
The US went into WWII in order to fight fascism, and ended up embracing fascism and
hating communism- the idea of communism. So now authoritarian billionaires rule the US and
are unfit to cope with any problem but protecting their billions and the nation seethes with
fear and hate. This quality emanates from both parties.
Peace and strong economies embedded in local communities is the only way
forward.
It is amusing to read all the "Keynes wanted this," Keynes wanted that," "Keynesian
means this," "Keynesian means that." Not only do the writers generally not know what they are
talking about, but more importantly, who cares?
Who cares what Keynes wanted and who cares what Keynesian means?
Rather than stressing about Keynes, stress about the economic realities. For
example, I read that annual federal deficits were likely to exceed $1 Trillion dollars for
the next decade. So,
I predicted that if that proves true, we will not have a recession for the next
decade.
That's the important point, not whether Keynes would or would not
approve.
MMT proponents similarly make central the notion that government spending is
constrained by real economy productive capacity. By implication, they would favor spending
that increases capacity, such as infrastructure spending, more day care and after school
programs to help working parents, and increased elder care.
Is there something wrong with the idea that government spending is constrained by
real economy productive capacity? Is there something wrong with spending that increases
capacity? I can't figure out what is the purpose of that paragraph.
The implication is, I think, in contrast to prevailing neoliberal views that support
the ability of the powerful to continue to exploit the less powerful, leading to e.g. social
spending on privatization of public goods
Government spending usually increases production capacity. So if spending is
constrained by capacity AND spending increases capacity, where does that leave us?
How does one determine whether capacity increases are sufficient to support the very
thing that increases them?
I visualize an oil drilling machine that is fueled by oil. The more oil you pump
into the machine, the more oil it pumps out of the ground.
Or consider the nuclear fusion problem. The purpose of a nuclear fusion reactor is
to create more electricity than it consumes for operation. The machine is constrained by the
amount of electricity it can consume, but it creates electricity. To date, none as passed the
threshold of creating more than it uses.
So in an economy, does government spending create enough more capacity than it uses?
Is the marginal return greater than zero?
I submit the question cannot be answered without answering myriad other questions,
so to make the flat statement that spending is constrained by capacity adds nothing to zero
knowledge.
Not that I'm against it, but "increased elder care" would not increase capacity. It
employs a lot of people, but it's consumption, not production – actually an example of
th eproblems with GDP as a measurement.
Off the top, I liked that this fellow Murphy described himself as a political
economist and a non-executive director. Those kinds of things get my attention.
What is missing from the critique is the dominance, at least in the US, of Military
Keynesianism. The prime directive of Military Keynesianism is the production of
non-consumables within the paradigm of maintaining aggregate demand without excessive
inflation. That the suppression of labor was a handmaiden in this effort also goes
unmentioned. Oh well, maybe he will write a column about this next week, but I don't think
that we will see it in The Guardian. In the meantime, read a bit of Seymour
Melman.
I agree the GND is the best way to go. It seems like such a no-brainer that I worry
there is some pitfall. Just thinking more about Picketty than Keynes here – it seems
Keynes knew healthy societies were important for healthy economies, but what Picketty pointed
out (with all the dreaded statistical analysis) is that unequal societies actually create bad
economies and to rectify all of the inequality we need to regulate by taxing. Taxing the
"rich". It seems safe to say, imo, that grossly unequal societies not only create bad
economies, they are self-defeating, they cannot succeed. Whether or not Picketty is promoting
redistribution without good regulation is hard to say; and likewise Keynes seemed to assume
that if societies were healthy everything would run like clockwork. So we can see that's not
really true and what we do need is environmental as well as social awareness. We need much
better housekeeping. Regulation. That thing we all love to hate.
I drive a car. It has built in stability wrt the steering apart from driver input.
That's sane design. Likewise with airplanes except for some that are impossible for humans to
fly without massive computer assistance.
The liabilities of depository institutions are supposed to serve the same purpose of
providing built-in stability but the banks have long lobbied to render those liabilities a
mere sham. The result is built-in instability.
So attempting to regulate an inherently unstable (not to mention unjust) system is
an exercise in futility as centuries of experience with government privileged banks keep
reminding us.
I think a much easier solution to the upward siphoning of wealth rather than its
redistribution for infrastructure and social good would be to repeal Bill Clinton's terrible
tax code "exception."
The policy goes back to Bill Clinton, who campaigned for president on rolling back
excessive CEO pay, which according to the Economic Policy Institute jumped from an average
of $1.49 million in 1988 to $4.9 million in 1992 (adjusted for inflation). At the time,
companies could deduct all of their compensation from their corporate taxes, as a normal
business expense. Clinton's idea was to cap that: No corporation could write off an
executive's salary above the first $1 million. This measure passed in Clinton's first
budget in 1993, and became section 162(m) of the IRS tax code.
But there was one exception. Companies would still be allowed to deduct compensation for
high-earning executives if it was deemed "performance" pay. So if you paid a CEO with a
bonus, then you could deduct it all. And that bonus could be composed of stock options, so
that the executive's compensation rose along with the stock price.
"Keynes viewed economies as inherently unstable; investors could freak out and
withhold liquidity, which would dampen and even crash real economy activity." IIRC, Keynes
was a successful investor himself. What did he propose to do about this obvious flaw in
fundamental design? It implies that boys gambling have a gun to everyone else's head –
as The Moustache (OK, Friedman) highlighted in Lexus and the Olive Tree, apparently without
drawing the obvious lesson.
Some forms of instability, like epidemics, are unavoidable; but purely financial
ones, like a handful of people "freaking out," as they will do, are not. They're design
failures. Granted, the system was never really designed; it grew "like Topsy", as my mother
would say: piecemeal. But it has a design; there've been repeated efforts to improve it, but
if the above is true, they've failed. I assume that reflects the distribution of power. The
boys enjoy their power.
The positive effects of Keynesian spending on an economy depend on the existence of
an economy to spend on that produces goods and services and puts people to work. Does the
U.S. still have a 'real' economy to spend on? What do we produce in the U.S.? What kind of
firms produce/provide goods to our economy? I agree with Norb [7:04 am] that "the best place
to start is to enforce antitrust laws". After that the U.S. must initiate policy to rebuild
Industry -- much of it from the ground up. This Industrial policy must include new Trade
policy to dismantle 'globalization'. Without rebuilding our economy Keynesian spending would
fatten Corporate Cartels, employee Chinese, Indians, and employee more truck drivers, perhaps
a few more waiters and waitresses, and maybe some more baristas.
Existing antitrust laws have proven themselves ineffectual, and highly dependent on
political decisions. They require bureaucrats with political bosses to make judgements about
what is "too much" concentration.
To be effective, they can't be dependent on essentially personal judgments. That
would mean either flat limits on the size of businesses, or a steeply graduated tax rate
based on size, objectively measured. Any exemptions should be legislated, and regulated like
utilities. But financial businesses should NEVER be exempt. We need to "drown them in the
bath."
Not very principled since it boils down to "a few big thieves, bad; thousands of
little thieves good" in the case of government-privileged depository institutions.
How about instead we eliminate ALL thievery by de-privileging ALL depository
institutions?
How do you propose eliminating ALL depository institutions? I hope you might allow a
few 'all-right' 'OK' depository institutions [?]. There are indeed little thieves to worry
about. I am remiss in thinking other wise . I like to think that little thieves are less
rapacious which is not necessarily the case -- sorry
I am uncertain what you mean/intend by depository institutions in relation to
government funding of a spending program. Please elaborate. I believe we may share concerns
but I am not sure what you refer to.
How do you propose eliminating ALL depository institutions?
Not eliminate, DE-PRIVILEGE.
Of course, one of their privileges is FREE* use of the Nation's fiat and if charged
enough for the use of fiat, banks, credit unions, etc. might find it unfeasible to keep
deposits and thus eliminate themselves from that business and act as pure loan brokers
instead.
*Worse than FREE, banks, credit unions, etc are PAID (Interest on Reserves) for
their use of the Nation's fiat – an outrage.
Richard Murphy is absolutely right imo. Society rules. How can a government get the
cooperation of its people if it constantly takes their money and abuses them. This fudge
today of have two factions running parliament, each offering precisely the same policies is
silly. The British people may believe they were right to throw away Corbyn but the time is
not far off when they might regret their media-driven hysteria.
I know nothing of Corbyn. But is there no one of lesser stature who might represent
whatever he represents? Is there no way and no one to re-assert his policies?
This was an outright declaration of "class war" against working-class voters by a
"university-credentialed overclass" -- "managerial elite" which changed sides and allied with
financial oligrchy. See "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" by
Michael Lind
Notable quotes:
"... By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama factions in CIA and FBI. ..."
It looks like Bloomberg is finished. He just committed political suicide with his comments
about farmers and metal workers.
BTW Bloomberg's plan is highly hypocritical -- like is Bloomberg himself.
During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was
staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a
neoliberal coup d'état) changed sides and betrayed the working class.
So those neoliberal scoundrels reversed the class compromise embodied in the New Deal.
The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the neoliberal managerial class and financial
oligarchy who got to power via the "Quiet Coup" was the global labor arbitrage in which
production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations.
So all those "improving education" plans are, to a large extent, the smoke screen over the
fact that the US workers now need to compete against highly qualified and lower cost
immigrants and outsourced workforce.
The fact is that it is very difficult to find for US graduates in STEM disciplines a
decent job, and this is by design.
Also, after the "Reagan neoliberal revolution" ( actually a coup d'état ), profits
were maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of the
immigrant workforce (the collapse of the USSR helped greatly ). They push down wages and
compete for jobs with their domestic counterparts, including the recent graduates. So the
situation since 1991 was never too bright for STEM graduates.
By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War
II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft
neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms
with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US
population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism
campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama
factions in CIA and FBI.
See also recently published "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial
Elite" by Michael Lind.
One of his quotes:
The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist,
but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of
an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is
hidden in plain sight.
This was an outright declaration of "class war" against working-class voters by a
"university-credentialed overclass" -- "managerial elite" which changed sides and allied with
financial oligrchy. See "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" by
Michael Lind
It looks like Bloomberg is finished. He just committed political suicide with his comments
about farmers and metal workers.
BTW Bloomberg's plan is highly hypocritical -- like is Bloomberg himself.
During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was
staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a
neoliberal coup d'état) changed sides and betrayed the working class.
So those neoliberal scoundrels reversed the class compromise embodied in the New Deal.
The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the neoliberal managerial class and financial
oligarchy who got to power via the "Quiet Coup" was the global labor arbitrage in which
production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations.
So all those "improving education" plans are, to a large extent, the smoke screen over the
fact that the US workers now need to compete against highly qualified and lower cost
immigrant and outsourced workforce.
The fact is that it is very difficult to find for US graduates in STEM disciplines a
decent job, and this is by design.
Also, after the "Reagan neoliberal revolution" ( actually a coup d'état ), profits
were maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of the
immigrant workforce (the collapse of the USSR helped greatly ). They push down wages and
compete for jobs s with their domestic counterparts, including the recent graduates. So the
situation since 1991 was never too bright for STEM graduates.
By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War
II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. Many of the "soft
neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms
with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US
population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism
campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama
factions in CIA and FBI.
See also recently published "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial
Elite" by Michael Lind.
One of his quotes:
The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist,
but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of
an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is
hidden in plain sight.
"... To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. ..."
"... Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt. ..."
"... Many on the left have been incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of "Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists." ..."
"... To Lind, the case is much more straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on Social Security) and right on immigration. ..."
"... Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the working class set sector-wide wages. ..."
"... This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from the ground up. ..."
"... But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent populist backlash on itself. ..."
"... American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms; they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are capitalistically run enterprises. ..."
"... In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist (albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism." ..."
"... A cursory glance at the recent impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability of the vital center from polar extremes. ..."
A FEW DAYS AFTER Donald Trump's electoral upset in 2016, Club for Growth co-founder Stephen
Moore told an
audience of Republican House members that the GOP was "now officially a Trump working class
party." No longer the party of traditional Reaganite conservatism, the GOP had been converted
instead "into a populist America First party." As he uttered these words, Moore says, "the
shock was palpable" in the room.
The Club for Growth had long dominated Republican orthodoxy by promoting low tax rates and
limited government. Any conservative candidate for political office wanting to reap the
benefits of the Club's massive fundraising arm had to pay homage to this doctrine. For one of
its formerly leading voices to pronounce the transformation of this orthodoxy toward a more
populist nationalism showed just how much the ground had shifted on election night.
To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings
in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against
what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. The title of
Lind's new book, The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite ,
leaves no doubt as to where his sympathies lie, though he's adamant that he's not some sort of
guru for a " smarter
Trumpism ," as some have labeled him.
Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too
personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help
solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and
democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what
Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt.
The New Class War is a breath of fresh air. Many on the left have been incapable of
coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a
neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of
"Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists."
To Lind, the case is much more
straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and
containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free
trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage
levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and
Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on
Social Security) and right on immigration.
The strategy has since been successfully repeated in the United Kingdom by Boris Johnson,
and it looks, for now, like a foolproof way for conservative parties in the West to capture or
defend their majorities against center-left parties that are too beholden to wealthy,
metropolitan interests to seriously attract working-class support. Berating the latter as
irredeemably racist certainly doesn't help either.
What happened in the preceding decades to produce this divide in Western democracies? Lind's
narrative begins with the New Deal, which had brought to an end what he calls "the first class
war" in favor of a class compromise between management and labor. This first class war is the
one we are the most familiar with: originating in the Industrial Revolution, which had produced
the wretchedly poor proletariat, it soon led to the rise of competing parties of organized
workers on the one hand and the liberal bourgeoisie on the other, a clash that came to a head
in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the
consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries
from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at
the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and
organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the
working class set sector-wide wages.
This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was
made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and
rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well
as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from
the ground up.
But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set
in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the
newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is
outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits
can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an
unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic
counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist
societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent
populist backlash on itself.
Likewise, only it can contain this backlash by returning to the bargaining table and
reestablishing the tripartite system it had walked away from. According to Lind, the new class
peace can only come about on the level of the individual nation-state because transnational
treaty organizations like the EU cannot allow the various national working classes to escape
the curse of labor arbitrage. This will mean that unskilled immigration will necessarily have
to be curbed to strengthen the bargaining power of domestic workers. The free-market orthodoxy
of the Club for Growth will also have to take a backseat, to be replaced by government-promoted
industrial strategies that invest in innovation to help modernize their national economies.
Under which circumstances would the managerial elites ever return to the bargaining table?
"The answer is fear," Lind suggests -- fear of working-class resentment of hyper-woke,
authoritarian elites. Ironically, this leaves all the agency with the ruling class, who first
acceded to the class compromise, then canceled it, and is now called on to forge a new one lest
its underlings revolt.
Lind rightly complains all throughout the book that the old mass-membership based
organizations of the 20th century have collapsed. He's coy, however, about who would
reconstitute them and how. At best, Lind argues for a return to the old system where party
bosses and ward captains served their local constituencies through patronage, but once more
this leaves the agency with entities like the Republicans and Democrats who have a combined
zero members. As the third-party activist Howie Hawkins remarked cunningly elsewhere ,
American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms;
they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the
Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are
capitalistically run enterprises.
Thus, they would hardly be the first options one would think of to reinvigorate the forces
of civil society toward self-rule from the bottom up.
The key to Lind's fraught logic lies hidden in plain sight -- in the book's title. Lind does
not speak of "class struggle ," the heroic Marxist narrative in which an organized
proletariat strove for global power; no, "class war " smacks of a gloomy, Hobbesian
war of all against all in which no side truly stands to win.
In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital
Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to
excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free
society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after
World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the
ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist
(albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces
in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The
midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he
end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism."
Looked at from this perspective, the break between the postwar Fordist regime and
technocratic neoliberalism isn't as massive as one would suppose. The overclass antagonists of The New Class War believe that they derive their power from the same "liberal order"
of the first-class peace that Lind upholds as a positive utopia. A cursory glance at the recent
impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President
Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been
nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability
of the vital center from polar extremes.
A more honest account of capitalism would also acknowledge its natural tendencies to
persistently contract and to disrupt the social fabric. There is thus no reason to believe why
some future class compromise would once and for all quell these tendencies -- and why
nationalistically operating capitalist states would not be inclined to confront each other
again in war.
Reagan was a free-trader and a union buster. Lind's people jumped the Democratic ship
to vote for Reagan in (lemming-like) droves. As Republicans consolidated power over labor
with cheap goods from China and the meth of deficit spending Democrats struggled with
being necklaced as the party of civil rights.
The idea that people who are well-informed ought not to govern is a sad and sick cover
story that the culpable are forced to chant in their caves until their days are done, the
reckoning being too great.
At
the Munich Security Conference the U.S. and its allies had no idea of how to handle China, a
problem of their greed and stupidity. The West is divided, confused. What to do about Huawei?
Really, what to do with China?
So when Mike Pompeo proclaimed "we are winning," the largely European audience was silent
and worried in what sense "we" existed longer.
In the meantime, Europe, including the U.K, finds itself in a mincer between the U.S. and
China
Unfortunately for us. China has followed the U.S. playbook and has outplayed the West,
especially the U.S.
Walter Rostow of the Johnson administration, an avid anti-communist, wrote the playbook: How
can an undeveloped nation take its place among the leaders of the world.
The answer : Industrialize as rapidly as possible. Do whatever it takes. China did just
that.
In its five year plans, China acknowledged its debt to Rostow and started to industrialize.
While I have described this process many years ago, I again outline it briefly here.
First : China entered the W.T.O. Bill Clinton and Congress were accommodating and
instrumental:
Last fall, as all of you know, the United States signed an agreement to bring China into the
W.T.O, on terms that will open its markets to American products and investments.
Bill Clinton speaking before Congress, March 9, 1998
Second : China offered dirt cheap labor, labor that had no effective right to bargain
Third : China did not require a company to obey any environmental regulations.
Fourth : China often offered a ten-year grace period without any taxation. If there were taxes
they were less than those on its own indigenous firms.
Fifth : China manipulated its currency, making products cheaper to make but getting higher
profits in the West.
The net resul t: Massive trade imbalance in favor of China. CEOs and their henchmen made
enormous profits. Devastated American workers were told to go to school, to work harder, to make
themselves invaluable to their companies. A cruel joke.
In droves, Western companies outsourced to China, emptying one factory after another. Anything
that could be outsourced was outsourced. China, of course, was not the sole beneficiary of U.S.
foolishness. India, Mexico, Vietnam wherever environmental standards were non-existent, wherever
workers had no effective rights these were the third world countries the U.S. used. The health
and safety of third world workers was of no concern. They were many–and they were
expendable.
U.S. companies were so profitable that special arrangements were made to repatriate those
profits back to the states: pennies on the dollar. Many billionaires should really be thanking
China.
Americans were considered only consumers/ The more they consumed, the richer the rich became.
Credit was made easy. George Bush's answer to 911 was: Go out and shop.+
Between The Financial Modernization Act of 1999 and Free trade insanity, the working class of
American faced the crash of 2008.
China became the factory of the world, not through automation, but through dirt cheap labor.
China poisoned its atmosphere and polluted its water. Face masks were everywhere. Nonetheless,
China had become undeniable economic power, challenging the U.S.
At the same time, China educated great numbers of engineers, inventors, and scientists. Huwaii
became the problem really, Huwaii is just an emblem of it.
The U.S. in its greed had became lazy. It poured money into weapons. The U.S. decided to build
a space force. U.S. bullied countries with foolish sanctions if those countries did not make
their billionaire class more profitable. Sanctions instead of competition became last gasp, the
last grasp at profit. Flabby and greedy, the U.S.is no longer competitive. It has become just a
bully, a threat to everyone.
Trump, of course, played both sides of the problem. He railed against the outsourcing, but has
done little to correct it, giving instead massive tax breaks to the wealthy, gutting
environmental regulations laying waste to everything he touches. Pelosi and Schumer pretend to
care, but they have nothing to offer. Like Trump, they worry about China. Like Trump, they have
no answer, except for more wars and more sanctions.
Hillary and Bill should take a bow. They began this debacle. Once things were made in the
U.S.A. Go to any Walmart store and read the label: Made in China.
Pelosi and the free trade Democrats should take a bow as should all the Republicans. All of
them should hold hands, give each other a quick hug and smile. They and their friends are
rich.
To China belongs the future.
Terry , February 16, 2020 8:27 pm
Economics 101 says trade benefits all participants. The problem is not China but the United
States. The oligarchs have sucked up all the benefits of trade and have bought the government
to keep the good times going. Obama played along unlike FDR with the result that the oligarchs
came out stronger than ever while everyone else had a second rate rather than a third rate
health care system which Trump and the GOP are struggling to return to a third rate system. You
can blame China or the "laziness " of Americans, but the real problem is the moneyed class who
do not give a crap about the country or its citizens but only how to hang onto their privileged
existence. I hate to even think it but I do not see this thing ending peacefully.
MARK LOHR , February 16, 2020 8:27 pm
And in turn funding China's considerable, unabated, and ongoing military expansion.
The screws are turning; the noose tightening.
That Western governments of all leanings have not counter-vailed for many decades now is a tale
of enormous short-sightedness and cultural hubris.
davebarnes , February 16, 2020 9:24 pm
Didn't I read the same thing about Japan 20+ years ago?
MARK LOHR , February 16, 2020 10:50 pm
Yes. And to be sure, China faces all the limits inherent to a totalitarian system. However,
unlike Japan, they have remilitarized and have demonstrated expansionist goals –
artificial island military outposts, Belt and Road, etc.
Besides stealing/extorting etc our IP.
Mark,
Where do you get your information? China has one military base outside its borders. The U.S.
has over 800. China does not pour its money into a military budge; the U.S. does.
Try the actual facts, for a change.
likbez , February 17, 2020 9:34 am
To China belongs the future.
I think it is too early to write down the USA. Historically the USA proved to be highly
adaptable society (look at the New Deal). And I think that still there is a chance that it
might be capable of jumping the sinking ship of neoliberalism. Although I have problems with
Sanders's economic program, Sanders's victory might be instrumental for that change.
China adopted neoliberalism, much like the USA. It was just lucky to be on the receiving end
of the outflow of the capital from the USA. It has a more competent leadership and avoided the
fate of the USSR for which the attempt to the adoption of neoliberalism ( aka Perestroika )
proved to be fatal.
I suspect that the main problem for China is that Neoliberalism, as a social system, is
incompatible with the rule of the Communist Party.
Fundamentally what China has now is a variation of the Soviet "New Economic Policy" (NEP)
invented by Bolsheviks after the Civil War in Russia, and while providing a rapid economic
development, China has all the problems that are known for this policy.
One is the endemic corruption of state officials due to the inability of capital to rise
above a certain level of political influence and systematic attempts to buy this influence.
That necessitates periodic campaigns against corruption and purges/jailing of officials,
which does not solve the fundamental problem which is systemic.
The other problem is that the Communist Party is such mode degrades into something like
amorphous "holding company" staff for the country (managing state tier in the two tie economy
-- state capitalism at the top; neoliberalism at the middle and the bottom)
Which necessitates the rule of a strong leader, the Father of the Nation, who is capable to
conduct purges and hold the Party together by suppressing the appetite of local Party
functionaries using brutal repressions. But the Party functionaries understand that they no
longer conduct Marxist policies, and that undermines morale. That they are essentially
renegades, and that creates a huge stimulus for "make money fast" behavior and illicit
self-enrichment.
Which paradoxically necessitate the hostility with the USA as the mean to cement the Party
and suppress the dissent. So not only the USA neocons and MIC are interested in China, China,
China (and/or Russia, Russia, Russia) bogeyman.
That also creates for Chinese senior Communist Party leadership an incentive at some point
to implement "Stalin-style solution" to the problems with New Economic Policy.
So it looks like Neo-McCarthyism in the USA has a long and prosperous future, as both sides
are interested in its continuation
BTW another example of NEP as a policy was Tito Yugoslavia, which no longer exists.
Yet another example was Gorbachov's "Perestroika," which logically led to the dissolution of
the USSR. With the subjective factor of the total incompetence of Gorbachov as a leader -- with
some analogies as for this level of incompetence with Trump.
As well as general "simplification," and degeneration of Politburo similar to what we
observe with the USA Congress now: the USSR in the 1980th has become a gerontocracy.
But the major factor was that the top KGB officials and several members of Politburo,
including Gorbachov, became turncoats and changed sides attempting to change the system to
neoliberalism, which was at the time on the assent; Russia always picks the worst possible time
for the social change
While neoliberalism is definitely in decline and its ideology is discredited, I still think
there are fundamental problems in tis interaction with the Communist Party rule, that might
eventually cause the social crisis for China.
But only time will tell
BTW Professor Stephen Cohen books contain very interesting information about NEP, Russia
adoption of neoliberalism (and related dissolution of the USSR) and Russia social development
in general
"... Imperialism – the highest stage of capitalism ..."
"... Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel. ..."
At the moment, the United States has great difficulty in retaining its hegemony in the
Middle East. Its troops have been declared unwanted in Iraq; and in Syria, the US and their
foreign legion of terrorists lose terrain and positions every month. The US has responded to
this with a significant escalation, by deploying more troops and by constant threats against
Iran. At the same time, we have seen strong protest movements in Lebanon, Iraq and
Iran.
When millions of Iraqi took to the streets recently, their main slogan was "THE UNITED
STATES OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST!"
How should one analyze this?
Obviously, there are a lot of social tensions in the Middle East – class based,
ethnic, religious and cultural. The region is a patchwork of conflicts and tensions that not
only goes back hundreds of years, but even a few thousand.
There are always many reasons to rebel against a corrupt upper class, anywhere in the world.
But no rebellion can succeed if it is not based on a realistic and thorough analysis of the
specific conditions in the individual country and region.
Just as in Africa, the borders in the Middle East are arbitrarily drawn. They are the
product of the manipulations of imperialist powers, and only to a lesser extent products of
what the peoples themselves have wanted.
During the era of decolonization, there was a strong, secular pan-Arab movement that wanted to create
a unified Arab world. This movement was influenced by the nationalist and socialist ideas that
had strong popular support at the time.
King Abdallah I
of Jordan envisaged a kingdom that would consist of Jordan, Palestine and Syria. Egypt and
Syria briefly established a union called the United Arab Republic . Gaddafi wanted
to unite Libya, Syria and Egypt in a federation of Arab republics
.
In 1958, a quickly dissolved confederation was established between Jordan and Iraq, called
the Arab Federation
. All these efforts were transient. What remains is the Arab League, which is, after all, not a
state federation and not an alliance. And then of course we have the demand for a Kurdish
state, or something similar consisting of one or more Kurdish mini-states.
Still, the most divisive product of the First World War was the establishment of the state
of Israel on Palestinian soil. During the First World War, Britain's Foreign Minister Arthur
Balfour issued what became known as the Balfour Declaration
, which " view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people."
But what is the basis for all these attempts at creating states? What are the prerequisites
for success or failure?
The imperialist powers divide the world according to the power
relations between them
Lenin gave the best and most durable explanation for this, in his essay Imperialism
– the highest stage of capitalism . There, he explained five basic features of
the era of imperialism:
The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a
high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; The
merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this
"finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; The export of capital as distinguished from the
export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; The formation of international
monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves; The territorial
division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
But Lenin also pointed out that capitalist countries are developing unevenly, not least
because of the uneven development of productive forces in the various capitalist countries.
After a while, there arises a discrepancy between how the world is divided and the relative
strength of the imperialist powers. This disparity will eventually force through a
redistribution, a new division of the world based on the new relationship of strength. And, as
Lenin states :
The question is: what means other than war could there be under capitalism to overcome the
disparity between the development of productive forces and the accumulation of capital on the
one side, and the division of colonies and spheres of influence for finance capital on the
other?"
The two world wars were wars that arose because of unevenness in the power relationships
between the imperialist powers. The British Empire was past its heyday and British capitalism
lagged behind in the competition. The United States and Germany were the great powers that had
the largest industrial and technological growth, and eventually this misalignment exploded. Not
once, but twice.
Versailles and Yalta
The victors of the First World War divided the world between themselves at the expense of
the losers. The main losers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia (the Soviet Union) and the
Ottoman Empire. This division was drawn up in the Versailles treaty and the following minor
treaties.
Europe after the Versailles Treaties (Wikipedia)
This map shows how the Ottoman Empire was partitioned:
At the end of World War II, the victorious superpowers met in the city of Yalta on the
Crimean peninsula in the Soviet Union. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin made an agreement on how
Europe should be divided following Germany's imminent defeat. This map shows how it was
envisaged and the two blocs that emerged and became the foundation for the Cold War.
Note that Yugoslavia, created after Versailles in 1919, was maintained and consolidated as
"a country between the blocs". So it is a country that carries in itself the heritage of both
the Versailles- and Yalta agreements.
The fateful change of era when the Soviet Union
fell
In the era of imperialism, there has always been a struggle between various great powers.
The battle has been about markets, access to cheap labor, raw materials, energy, transport
routes and military control. And the imperialist countries divide the world between themselves
according to their strength. But the imperialist powers are developing unevenly.
If a power collapses or loses control over some areas, rivals will compete to fill the void.
Imperialism follows the principle that Aristotle in his Physics called horror vacui – the
fear of empty space.
And that was what happened when the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. In 1991, the Soviet
Union ceased to exist, and soon the Eastern bloc was also history. And thus the balance was
broken, the one that had maintained the old order. And now a huge area was available for
re-division. The weakened Russia barely managed to preserve its own territory, and not at all
the area that just before was controlled by the Soviet Union.
Never has a so large area been open for redivision. It was the result of two horrible
world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Pål
Steigan, 1999
"Never has a so large area been open for re-division. It was the result of two horrible
world wars that anew was up for grabs. It could not but lead to war." Map: Countries either
part of the Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc or non-aligned (Yugoslavia)
When the Soviet Union disintegrated, both the Yalta and Versailles agreements in reality
collapsed, and opened up the way for a fierce race to control this geopolitical empty
space.
This laid the foundation for the American
Geostrategy for Eurasia , which concentrated on securing control over the vast Eurasian
continent. It is this struggle for redistribution in favor of the United States that has been
the basis for most wars since 1990: Somalia, the Iraq wars, the Balkan wars, Libya, Ukraine,
and Syria.
The United States has been aggressively spearheading this, and the process to expand NATO
eastward and create regime changes in the form of so-called "color revolutions" has been part
of this struggle. The coup in Kiev, the transformation of Ukraine into an American colony with
Nazi elements, and the war in Donbass are also part of this picture. This war will not stop
until Russia is conquered and dismembered, or Russia has put an end to the US offensive.
So, to recapitulate: Because the world is already divided between imperialist powers and
there are no new colonies to conquer, the great powers can only fight for redistribution. What
creates the basis and possibilities for a new division is the uneven development of capitalism.
The forces that are developing faster economically and technologically will demand bigger
markets, more raw materials, more strategic control.
The results of two terrible wars are
again up for grabs
World War I caused perhaps 20 million deaths , as well as at least as many
wounded. World War II caused around 72 million deaths . These are
approximate numbers, and there is still controversy around the exact figures, but we are
talking about this order of magnitude.
The two world wars that ended with the Versailles and Yalta treaties thus caused just below
100 million dead, as well as an incredible number of other suffering and losses.
Since 1991, a low-intensity "world war" has been fought, especially by the US, to conquer
"the void". Donald Trump
recently stated that the United States have waged wars based on lies, which have cost $ 8
trillion ($ 8,000 billion) and millions of people's lives. So the United States' new
distribution of the spoils has not happened peacefully.
"The Rebellion against
Sykes-Picot"
In the debate around the situation in the Middle East, certain people that would like to
appear leftist, radical and anti-imperialist say that it is time to rebel against the
artificial boundaries drawn by the Sykes-Picot and Versailles treaties. And certainly these
borders are artificial and imperialist. But how leftist and anti-imperialist is it to fight for
these boundaries to be revised now?
In reality, it is the United States and Israel that are fighting for a redistribution of the
Middle East. This is the basis underlying Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century", which aims to
bury Palestine forever, and it is stated outright in the new US strategy for partitioning
Iraq.
Again, this is just an updated version of the Zionist Yinon plan that aimed to cantonize the
entire Middle East, with the aim that Israel should have no real opponents and would be able to
dominate the entire region and possibly create a Greater Israel.
It is not the anti-imperialists that are leading the way to overhaul the imperialist borders
from 1919. It is the imperialists. To achieve this, they can often exploit movements that are
initially popular or national, but which then only become tools and proxies in a greater
game.
This has happened so many times in history that it can hardly be counted.
Hitler's Germany exploited Croatian nationalism by using the
Ustaša gangs as proxies. From 1929 to 1945, they killed hundreds of thousands of
Serbs, Jews and Roma people. And their ideological and political descendants carried out an
extremely brutal ethnic cleansing of the Krajina area and forced out more than 200,000 Serbs in
their so-called Operation Storm in 1995.
Hitler also used the extreme Ukrainian nationalists of Stepan Bandera's OUN, and after
Bandera's death, the CIA continued to use them as a fifth column against the Soviet Union.
The US low-intensity war against Iraq, from the Gulf War in 1991 to the Iraq War in 2003,
helped divide the country into enclaves. Iraqi Kurdistan achieved autonomy in the oil-rich
north with the help of a US "no-fly zone". The United States thus created a quasi-state that
was their tool in Iraq.
Undoubtedly, the Kurds in Iraq had been oppressed under Saddam Hussein. But also
undoubtedly, their Iraqi "Kurdistan" became a client state under the thumb of United States.
And there is also no doubt that the no-fly zones were illegal, as UN Secretary General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali
admitted in a conversation with John Pilger .
And now the United States is still using the Kurds in Northern Iraq in its plan to divide
Iraq into three parts. To that end, they are building the world's largest consulate in Erbil.
What they are planning to do, is simply "creating a country".
As is well known, the United States also uses the Kurds in Syria as a pretext to keep 27
percent of the country occupied. It does not help how much the Kurdish militias SDF and PYD
invoke democracy, feminism and communalism; they have ended up pleading for the United States
to maintain the occupation of Northeast Syria.
Preparations for a New World War
Israel and the US are preparing for war against Iran. In this fight, they will develop as
much "progressive" rhetoric as is required to fool people. Real dissatisfaction in the area,
which there is every reason to have, will be magnified and blown out of all proportion. "Social
movements" will be equipped with the latest news in the Israeli and US "riot kits" and receive
training and logistics support, in addition to plenty of cold hard cash.
There may be good reasons to revise the 1919 borders, but in today's situation, such a move
will quickly trigger a major war. Some say that the Kurds are entitled to their own state, and
maybe so. The question is ultimately decided by everyone else, except the Kurds themselves.
The problem is that in today's geopolitical situation, creating a unified Kurdistan will
require that "one" defeats Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. It's hard to see how that can happen
without their allies, not least Russia and China, being drawn into the conflict.
And then we have a new world war on our hands. And in that case, we are not talking about
100 million killed, but maybe ten times as much, or the collapse of civilization as we know it.
The Kurdish question is not worth that much.
This does not mean that one should not fight against oppression and injustice, be it social
and national. One certainly should. But you have to realize that revising the map of the Middle
East is a very dangerous plan and that you run the risk of ending up in very dangerous company.
The alternative to this is to support a political struggle that undermines the hegemony of the
United States and Israel and thereby creates better conditions for future struggles.
It is nothing new that small nations rely on geopolitical situations to achieve some form of
national independence. This was the case, for example, for my home country Norway. It was
France's defeat in the Napoleonic War that caused Denmark to lose the province of Norway to
Sweden in 1814, but at the same time it created space for a separate Norwegian constitution and
internal self rule.
All honor to the Norwegian founding fathers of 1814, but this was decided on the
battlefields in Europe. And again, it was Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War that laid
the geopolitical foundation for the dissolution of the forced union with Sweden almost a
hundred years later, in 1905. (This is very schematically presented and there are many more
details, but there is no doubt that Russia's loss of most of its fleet in the Far East had
created a power vacuum in the west, which was exploitable.)
Therefore, the best thing to do now is not to support the fragmentation of states, but to
support a united front to drive the United States out of the Middle East. The Million Man March
in Baghdad got the ball rolling. There is every reason to build up even more strength behind
it. Only when the United States is out, will the peoples and countries in the region be able to
arrive at peaceful agreements between themselves, which will enable a better future to be
developed.
And in this context, it is an advantage that China develops the "Silk Road" (aka Belt and
Road Initiative), not because China is any nobler than other major powers, but because this
project, at least in the current situation, is non-sectarian, non-exclusive and genuinely
multilateral. The alternative to a monopolistic rule by the United States, with a world police
under Washington's control, is a multipolar world. It grows as we speak.
The days of the Empire are numbered. What this will look like in 20 or 50 years, remains to
be seen.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial
backers. We are not funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only
means of income. Even the smallest amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe newest oldest most voted Notify of
George Mc ,
Off topic – but there's nowhere else to put this at the moment:
The BBC was taken aback by leftwing attacks on its general election coverage
No idea what they are talking about. They patiently explained that Corbyn was Hitler. What
more could they do?
Dungroanin ,
Ok roll up the sleeves, time to concentrate. I've had enough of being baited as a judae-
phobe.
The 'Balfour Declaration' – he didn't write it and it was a contract published in
the newspapers within hours of it being inveigled.
Ready?
'Balfour and Lloyd George would have been happy with an unvarnished endorsement of
Zionism. The text that the foreign secretary agreed in August was largely written by Weizmann
and his colleagues:
"His Majesty's Government accept the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as
the national home of the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the
achievement of this object and will be ready to consider any suggestions on the subject which
the Zionist Organisation may desire to lay before them."
Got that – AUGUST?
Dungroanin ,
The leading figure in that drama was a charismatic chemistry professor from Manchester, Chaim
Weizmann – with his domed head, goatee beard and fierce intellect. Weizmann had gained
an entrée into political circles thanks to CP Scott, the illustrious editor of the
Manchester Guardian, and had then sold his Zionist project to government leaders, including
David Lloyd George when he was chancellor of the exchequer.
Dungroanin ,
Author(s)
Walter Rothschild, Arthur Balfour, Leo Amery, Lord Milner
Signatories
Arthur James Balfour
Recipient
Walter Rothschild
Dungroanin ,
'In due course the blunt phrase about Palestine being "reconstituted as the national home of
the Jewish people" was toned down into "the establishment of a home for the Jewish people in
Palestine" – a more ambiguous formulation which sidestepped for the moment the idea of
a Jewish state. '
Dungroanin ,
'Edwin Montagu, newly appointed as secretary of state for India, was only the third
practising Jew to hold cabinet office. Whereas his cousin, Herbert Samuel (who in 1920 would
become the first high commissioner of Palestine) was a keen supporter of Zionism, Montagu was
an "assimilationist" – one who believed that being Jewish was a matter of religion not
ethnicity. His position was summed up in the cabinet minutes:
Mr Montagu urged strong objections to any declaration in which it was stated that
Palestine was the "national home" of the Jewish people. He regarded the Jews as a religious
community and himself as a Jewish Englishman '
Dungroanin ,
'Montagu considered the proposed Declaration a blatantly anti-Semitic document and claimed
that "most English-born Jews were opposed to Zionism", which he said was being pushed mainly
by "foreign-born Jews" such as Weizmann, who was born in what is now Belarus.'
Dungroanin ,
The other critic of the proposed Declaration was Lord Curzon, a former viceroy of India, who
therefore viewed Palestine within the geopolitics of Asia. A grandee who traced his lineage
back to the Norman Conquest, Curzon loftily informed colleagues that the Promised Land was
not exactly flowing with milk and honey, but nor was it an empty, uninhabited space.
According to the cabinet minutes, "Lord Curzon urged strong objections upon practical
grounds. He stated, from his recollection of Palestine, that the country was, for the most
part, barren and desolate a less propitious seat for the future Jewish race could not be
imagined."
And, he asked, "how was it proposed to get rid of the existing majority of Mussulman
[Muslim] inhabitants and to introduce the Jews in their place?"
Dungroanin ,
Sorry for the length of this bit – but it only makes sense in the whole:
'Between them, Curzon and Montagu had temporarily slowed the Zionist bandwagon. Lord
Milner, another member of the war cabinet, hastily added two conditions to the proposed
draft, in order to address the two men's respective concerns. The vague phrase about the
rights of the "existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" hints at how little the
government knew or cared about those who constituted roughly 90 per cent of the population of
what they, too, regarded as their homeland.
After trying out the new version on a few eminent Jews, both of Zionist and
accommodationist persuasions, and also securing a firm endorsement from America's President
Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31
October. By now the strident Montagu had left for India, and on this occasion Balfour, who
could often be moody and detached, led from the front, brushing aside the objections that had
been raised and reasserting the propaganda imperative. According to the cabinet minutes, he
stated firmly: "The vast majority of Jews in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the
world, now appeared to be favourable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favourable to
such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and
America."
This was standard cabinet tactics: a strong lead from a minister supported by the PM,
daring his colleagues to argue back. And this time Curzon did not, though he did make another
telling comment. He "attached great importance to the necessity of retaining the Christian
and Moslem Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem". If this were done, Curzon added, he "did
not see how the Jewish people could have a political capital in Palestine".'
Dungroanin ,
Dates again crucial and the smoking gun:
'securing a firm endorsement from America's President Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George and
Balfour took the issue back to the war cabinet on 31 October.'
Dungroanin ,
The two conditions had bought off the two main critics. That was all that seemed to matter,
even though the reference to the "rights of the existing non-Jewish communities" stood in
potential conflict with the first two clauses about the British supporting and using their
"best endeavours" for the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people".
Dungroanin ,
There is MORE but I'll pause and see how many are really interested in FACTS, as opposed to
invented History, Economics and Capital instead of the only real human motivations of the
ages – Money and Power.
George Mc ,
the only real human motivations of the ages – Money and Power.
If this is true then we are all doomed.
Dungroanin ,
Not if we are aware of it George.
Dungroanin ,
Ok a summary fom Brittanica:
'Balfour Declaration Quick Facts
The Balfour Declaration, issued through the continued efforts of Chaim Weizmann and Nahum
Sokolow, Zionist leaders in London, fell short of the expectations of the Zionists, who had
asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as "the" Jewish national home. The declaration
specifically stipulated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and
religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The document, however,
said nothing of the political or national rights of these communities and did not refer to
them by name. Nevertheless, the declaration aroused enthusiastic hopes among Zionists and
seemed the fulfillment of the aims of the World Zionist Organization (see Zionism).
The British government hoped that the declaration would rally Jewish opinion, especially
in the United States, to the side of the Allied powers against the Central Powers during
World War I (1914–18). They hoped also that the settlement in Palestine of a
pro-British Jewish population might help to protect the approaches to the Suez Canal in
neighbouring Egypt and thus ensure a vital communication route to British colonial
possessions in India.
The Balfour Declaration was endorsed by the principal Allied powers and was included in
the British mandate over Palestine, formally approved by the newly created League of Nations
on July 24, 1922.
In May 1939 the British government altered its policy in a White Paper recommending a
limit of 75,000 further immigrants and an end to immigration by 1944, unless the resident
Palestinian Arabs of the region consented to further immigration.
Zionists condemned the new policy, accusing Britain of favouring the Arabs. This point was
made moot by the outbreak of World War II (1939–45) and the founding of the State of
Israel in 1948.'
Dungroanin ,
But what about the timing?
Well there are twin tracks, here is the first.
'But talking about the return of the Jews to the land of Israel was only meaningful
because that land seemed up for grabs after the Ottoman Empire sided with Germany in 1914.
For Britain, France and Russia – though primarily focused on Europe – war against
a declining power long dubbed the "Sick Man of Europe" opened up the prospect of vast gains
in the Levant and the Middle East.
The Ottoman army, however, proved no walkover. In 1915 it threatened the Suez Canal,
Britain's imperial artery to India, and then repulsed landings by British empire and French
forces on the Dardanelles at Gallipoli. Although Baghdad fell in March 1917, two British
assaults on Gaza that spring were humiliatingly driven back, with heavy losses. Deadlock in
the desert added to Whitehall's list of woes.
In this prescribed narrative of remembrance for 1914-18, what happened outside the Western
Front has been almost entirely obscured. The British army's "Historical Lessons, Warfare
Branch" has published in-house a fascinating volume of essays about what it tellingly
entitles "The Forgotten Fronts of the First World War" – with superb maps and
illustrations. The collection covers not only Palestine and Mesopotamia (roughly modern-day
Iraq and Kuwait), but also Italy, Africa, Russia, Turkey and the Pacific – indeed much
of the world – but sadly it is not currently available to the public. '
Dungroanin ,
The second track is the 'money' track and what everything is about and why we live in such a
miasma of blatant lies.
IT can only make sense by asking questions such as :
Can we follow the money?
When was the Fed set up? Why? By whom?
How much money did it lend &
to whom?
When was the first world war started?
When did US declare war?
When did US troops arrive in numbers to enter that war?
What happened in Russia at the same time?
And in Mesopotamia?
How did it end?
How did it fail to end?
What happened to the contract?
Etc.
I have attempted to research and answer some of these already above.
Next I will attempt to walk the other track but be warned that opens more ancient
tracks.
Dungroanin ,
'On 2 November, Balfour sent his letter to Lord Rothschild.
7 November, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had seized power in Petrograd. ransacked the Tsarist
archives, they published juicy extracts from the "secret treaties" that the Allied powers had
made among themselves in 1915-16 to divide the spoils of victory.
The same day the Ottoman Seventh and Eighth Armies evacuated the town of Gaza
9 November Letter published in Times.
Mid November – The Bolsheviks did not discover that the British were also playing
footsie with the Turks. In the middle of November 1917, secret meetings took place with
Ottoman dissidents in Greece and Switzerland about trying to arrange an armistice in the Near
East. The war cabinet recognised that, as bait, it might have to let the Ottomans keep parts
of their empire in the region, or at least retain some appearance of control. When Curzon got
wind of this, he was incensed: "Almost in the same week that we have pledged ourselves, if
successful, to secure Palestine as a national home for the Jewish people, are we to
contemplate leaving the Turkish flag flying over Jerusalem?"
End November. The Manchester Guardian's correspondent in Petrograd, Morgan Philips Price,
was able to examine the key documents overnight, and his scoop was published by the paper at
the end of November. It revealed to the world, among other things, that the British also had
an understanding with the French – the Sykes-Picot agreement of January 1916 – to
carve up the Near East between them once the Ottoman empire had been defeated. In this,
Palestine was slated for some kind of international condominium – not the British
protectorate envisaged in the Balfour Declaration.
11 December Allenby formally entered Jerusalem. '
So just a few loose ends left to tie up anyone actually want to go there?
The paramount goal of the Fed's founders was to eliminate banking panics, but it was not
the only goal. The founders also sought to increase the amount of international trade
financed by US banks and to expand the use of the dollar internationally. By 1913 the United
States had the world's largest economy, but only a small fraction of US exports and imports
were financed by American banks. Instead, most exports and imports were financed by bankers'
acceptances drawn on European banks in foreign currencies. (Bankers' acceptances are a type
of financial contract used for making payments in the future, for example, upon delivery of
goods or services. Bankers' acceptances are drawn on and guaranteed, i.e., "accepted," by a
bank.) The Federal Reserve Act allowed national banks to issue bankers' acceptances and open
foreign branches, which greatly expanded their ability to finance international transactions
Further the Act authorized the Reserve Banks to purchase acceptances in the open market to
ensure a liquid market for them, thereby spurring growth of that market.
President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913.
The task of determining the specific number of districts, district boundaries, and which
cities would have Reserve Banks was assigned to a Reserve Bank Organization Committee.
On April 2, 1914, the Committee announced that twelve Federal Reserve districts would be
formed, identified the boundaries of those districts, and named the cities that would have
Reserve Banks.1 The Banks were quickly organized, officers and staff were hired, and boards
of directors appointed. The Banks opened for business on November 16, 1914.
..
The Federal Reserve Act addressed perceived shortcomings by creating a new national
currency -- Federal Reserve notes -- and requiring members of the Federal Reserve System to
hold reserve balances with their local Federal Reserve Banks.
World War I began in Europe in August 1914, before the Federal Reserve Banks had opened
for business. The war had a profound impact on the US banking system and economy, as well as
on the Federal Reserve.
War disrupted European financial markets and reduced the supply of trade credit offered by
European banks, providing US banks with an opening. Low US interest rates, abundant reserves,
and new authority to issue trade acceptances enabled American banks to finance a growing
share of world trade.
Dungroanin ,
So the denouement :
It appears that the 'first world war' was designed to diminish European banks and boost
the US banks.
However the fuller history of the US bankers is worth knowing- the Jekyll Islanders story
is widely publicised.
Into this time track enters the Balfour Declaration addressed to Lord Rothschild, steered
by Milner (heir to Rhodes empire building and the old EIC), approved by the potus Wilson
(another hireling) that finally sent US troops to overwhelm the Germans, while the great
gamers took out the Romanovs and the Ottoman Empire.
-- --
When we try to understand such facts and timelines and are attacked as Judaeo-phobes,
because we identify Bankers and Robber Barons, it becomes even clearer how deep and wide they
have controlled history and it has NOTHING to do with RELIGION (except perhaps Ludism).
Nothing to do with Judaism (except perhaps Old Jewry in the City, but Lombard Street was most
powerful!) and EVERYTHING to do with POWER and it's representation MONEY. The obscuring of
that through various Economic theories including Marxism is the work of the same old bastards
who are responsible for all our current malaises.
Thankyou and good evening, if anyone made it this far!
😉
George Mc ,
Well OK Dunnie, let's say I go along with you and assume that all the shit we are facing has
nothing to do with religion or all that "Marxian porridge" (as Guido Giacomo Preparata called
it). The question is: What do we do about it?
Speaking of GGP , it seems to me that you and him have much in common. He also goes on
about "Power" but seems to be on the verge of referring this "Power" to mystical entities in
a disconcertingly Ickean manoeuvre. Not that I'm attibuting such a thing to yourself. (No
irony intended.)
Dungroanin ,
George – i don't want you or anyone to just go along with me.
I want everyone to make their minds up on FACTS. That is the only way humanity has
actually progressed by inventing the only self correcting philosophical system and method of
the ages that goes beyond 'personal responsibility teligions' – SCIENTIFIC METHOD
– that takes away arbitrary power to rule, from these that inhabit the top of the human
pyramid by virtue of being born there and having control over the money and so the power to
remain in these positions, which does not benefit the totality of humanity or all life on
Earth.
I am not a messiah, I am angry as fuck and I am not going to sit around enjoying whatever
soma has been handed to us to keep compliant and leave this Planet worse than I found it.
That is the scientific conclusion I have reached.
I suppose some proto buddhist / zoroastrianism / animalist / Shinto / Jain & Quakers
seek religious truth in inner experience, and place great reliance on conscience as the basis
of morality.
I suppose Ghandi's non-violence rebellion against Imperialists is a model as are various
peasants revolts – the Russian / Chinese / Korean / Vietnamese couldn't have survived
without the literal grassroots!
..
As for Guido Giacomo Preparata that you have introduced to me – i had nevet heard of
him before this morning – my first take on him is that he seems to have arrived at
similar conclusions by similar methodology. He seems to have a lot of formal education and a
enviable career so far – i'll have to look into him further but the interview that i
just read seems to indicate concurrence with what i said above. I see no Ickean references
– please give a link.
-- -
As a observation do you not find it funny that there is not a single objection to the
verity of the facts which I have presented above?
Good luck George if you are a real seeker of truth. If not insta-karma awaits.
George Mc ,
The Preparata statement I was referring to is in this interview:
Power is a purely human suggestion. Suggested by whom? That is the question. The NSDAP
thus appeared to have been a front for some kind of nebula of Austro-German magi, dark
initiates, and troubling literati (Dietrich Eckhart comes to mind), with very plausible
extra-Teutonic ramifications of which we know next to nothing. Hitler came to be inducted
in a lodge of this network, endowed as he seemed with a supernatural gift of inflaming
oratory.
This is a theme that I am still studying, but from what I gathered, the adepts of the
Thule Gesellschaft communed around the belief of being the blood heirs of a breed that
seeks redemption / salvation / metempsychosis in some kind of eighth realm away from this
earth, which is the shoddy creation of a lesser God -- the archangel of the Hebrews,
Jehovah. It all sounds positively insane to post-modern ears, but it should be taken very
seriously, I think.
Admittedly it isn't quite interdimensional reptiles but there is a distinct metaphysical
flavour there.
I wouldn't go along with everything Preparata says but he is a wonderful writer and I have
bought almost everything I can find by him. His "biggie" is "Conjuring Hitler". It was Nafeez
Mosaddeq Ahmed that brought GGP to my attention via that book.
milosevic ,
images on this website look terrible, with very little colour. the problem seems to be caused
by this rule, from the file "OffGstyle.css":
.content-wrap-spp img {
filter: sepia(20%) saturate(30%);
}
Open ,
This sepia effect usually works well with Off-Guardian articles, but with these maps in
today's article it is definitely terrible. Why have maps if they don't want to show them
clearly?
(any extra steps for the user to see the pictures clearly is not the answer)
Another area neglected on this website is crediting photos. The majority of images carry
no atribution/credit, despite it [crediting photos] is the best ethical practice even for
public domain pictures. I wish Admin gets expert advice on this.
Open ,
Look at the language used by the americans:
On feb. 12 [2020], Coalition forces, conducting a patrol near Qamishli, Syria ,
encountered a checkpoint occupied by pro-Syrian .. forces .
So, the supremacist unites states' army has found that Syrian forces are occupying Syrian
land .. wow wow wow .. according to this logic, Russian forces are occupying Russian land.
Iranian forces are occupying Iranian land (how dare they?!). But american forces are not
occupying any land, and Israel is not occupying Palestinian and Syrian lands.
This language needs to be known more widely.
Open ,
The americans always use the term 'Coalition forces' when they talk about their illegal
presence in Syria. I tried to search online for what countries are in this coalition. I
recall I was able to find that in the past, but now, it seems this information is being
pushed under wrap.
What are they afraid of? What are they hiding?
Joe ,
Just bring about the end of "Israel" and there'll be peace in the Middle East, and probably
in the wider world, too.
Open ,
Ending the Israeli project is certainly a step in the right direction to improve global
stability. However, alone, it will not bring about peace because the
British/Five-Eyes/Washington's doctrine of spreading disorder and chaos permeates (saturates)
the planet.
In fact, current disorders are the results of convergence of Israeli interests with those
of Western White Supremacy's* resolve to dominate, erh, eveything.
* Western White Supremacy can also be called Western White Idiocy and Bigotry.
Israel manipulates the West's political and military might. The West also uses Israel to
spread Chaos and Disorder.
Antonym ,
Right, back to the good old peace of the graveyard inspired by Mohamed's male sex riot
ideology and plunder legitimization before the Westerners showed up with their superior
(arms) tech legitimization for their plunder.
Before Israel's 1947 creation the world was a bed of roses .
Open ,
"srael's 1947 creation"
Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Ukranians
and Germans, and later South Americans, found home in the Middle East.
How ligitimate is that?
Antonym ,
Without the natives' consent and without the neighbouring countries approval, Moroccans,
Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians, found home in the EU thanks to madame Merkel.
How ligitimate is that?
Open ,
"Moroccans, Somalis, and later Afghans and Syrians .. etc.."
Do these comments reflect the Zionists' perspective? This is important because they prove
that the whole existence of Israel is based on total fabrication and lies.
Maggie ,
Did you have to practice at being THAT stupid! Or did they lobotomise you in Langley?
Somalis, Afghans, Syrians would not have had any cause to leave their homeland had it not
been for your employers the CIA/MOSSAD facilitating the raping and pillaging of their homes
by the Oil Magnates, leaving them starving and desolate. https://www.hiiraan.com/op2/2007/may/somalia_the_other_hidden_war_for_oil.aspx
and where does our Aid money go?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5OInaYenHkU?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent
But of course Antonym, if you were in their situation, you would just stick it out?
Shame on you .
To those who care, read "The confessions of an Economic Hitman by John Perkins" to
understand how this corrupt system is conducted.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Its 'creation' in blood, murder, rape and terror, in a great ethnic cleansing-the sign of
things to come, ceaselessly, for seventy years and ongoing.
paul ,
Ask the people in Gaza about the Zionist "peace of the graveyard."
Antonym ,
Gaza before 2005 was relatively peaceful + prosperous. After the Israeli withdrawal the
inhabitants messed up their own economy but kept on making lots of babies just like
before.
Quite the opposite of a graveyard or a Warsaw ghetto or a Dachau.
Despite the disengagement, the United Nations, international human rights organisations
and most legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by
Israel, though this is disputed by Israel and other legal scholars. Following the
withdrawal, Israel has continued to maintain direct external control over Gaza and indirect
control over life within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, and six of Gaza's
seven land crossings, it maintains a no-go buffer zone within the territory, and controls
the Palestinian population registry, and Gaza remains dependent on Israel for its water,
electricity, telecommunications, and other utilities.
Interesting definition of "withdrawal". It's amazing those Gazans even managed to have
babies!
Richard Le Sarc ,
You would have made a grand Nazi, Antsie-cripes, you have!
paul ,
Gaza was, and is, a huge Zionist concentration camp hermetically sealed off from the outside
world and blockaded just like the Warsaw Ghetto. With Zionist thugs and kiddie killers
shooting hundreds of kids in the head for the fun of it with British sniper rifles and dum
dum bullets, and periodically dropping 20,000 tons of bombs at a time on it, a higher
explosive yield than Hiroshima. With parties of Jews going along to hold barbecues and
picnics to watch all the fun. Nice people, those chosen folk.
Richard Le Sarc ,
I rather think that Epstein, Weinstein, Moonves and all those orthodox and ultra-orthodox who
are such prolific patrons of the sex industry in Israel, know a bit about 'male sex riot
ideology', Antsie.
Dungroanin ,
Pathetic.
'Nandy won a major boost when members of the Labour affiliate Jewish Labour Movement gave her
their backing after a hustings, saying she understood the need to change the party's
culture.'
From the Groaniad
How many members? How many by denomination?
As for the Balfour Contract there were actual English Jewish establishment figures against
its premise. Actual imperial servants. The declaration was a stitch up by the new banking
powers in the US which then sent in the yanks to stop the Germans in 1917.
History is rewritten daily to memory hole such facts.
Capricornia Man ,
The 'Jewish Labour Movement' is so Jewish that most of its members are not Jewish. And it is
so Labour-affiliated that it did not support Labour in the December general election. But it
has no shortage of money. It exists solely to prosecute the interests of a foreign power.
Much the same could be said for any politician who accepts its endorsement.
Rhys Jaggar ,
Given that Jews are vastly outnumbered by non Jews, the simplest way to stop Jewish
manipulation of politics is to form a party from which Jews are specifically banned.
You will not propose any policies harming Jews in any way, you will just make it clear
that this is a party free from any Jewish influence in its constitution.
If Jews cannot accept that, then they are utterly racist and must be dealt with without
sensibility.
Maggie ,
A better solution Rhys would be to form a party that denies all and any dual citizens
That way all the Zionists would be barred.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Full public financing of political parties would end Zionist control.
paul ,
Thornberry has just thrown in the towel.
She will now have more time to "get down on her hands and knees" and "beg forgiveness" from
the Board of Deputies.
Those good little Shabbos are so easily trained.
Dungroanin ,
BoD's??? Another random organisation!
Who are they? Who do they represent? How many people? Which people? How did they get
elected? How can they be fired?
Richard Le Sarc ,
The next world war has already started, with the bio-warfare atttack on China aka Covid19.
lundiel ,
Why no comment on the government reshuffle? I don't agree with the Indian middle-class
uplifting but totally agree with neutering the ultra-conservative treasury.
Maggie ,
I think it's a case of who gives a fck. We now know that our elections are rigged, and so
there is no point in us being involved. My family and I all realised and voted for the last
time.
They are all bloody crap actors reading their scripts and playing their parts, whilst the
never changing suits in the background pull the strings.
I had to explain to my 10 year old Grandson how politics work, and he said "Why doesn't
anyone know the names of, or see the suits?"
What I want to know is why no-one ever asks this question or demands an answer?
tonyopmoc ,
Completely Brilliant Article, but it is Valentines Day, so as I am 66 years old, and in love
with my wife (nearly 40 years together = LOVE), I wrote this in response to Craig Murray, who
has banned me again.
It may be off topic for him, but it ain't off topic for me. I am still in Love.
"Churchill's mental deterioration from syphilis – which the Eton and Oxford ."
Never had it, and she didn't either. We were young and in love, but we didn't know, if
either of us had sex before, but I had a spotty dick, and went to the VD clinic. I had a
blood test, and they gave me some zinc cream.
She also had the same thing, and showed her Mum.
We were both completely innocent, and had a sexually transmitted disease called Thrush. It
is relatively harmless, but can also give you a sore throat.
We both laughed at each other, and nearly got married.
Natural Yoghurt, is completely brilliant at preventing it.
Far better than Canestan.
Happy Valentines Day, for Everyone still In Love.
Let us all look forwad to a Brighter Day for our Grandchildren.
Tony
Loverat ,
Hey Tony
Dont worry. Craig Murray might not like you but I do. Your stories, here and elsewhere
have entertained me for many years.
Mind you, if I were your other half I would have chucked you years ago.
paul ,
Tell him how much you like haggis and tossing your caber.
Dungroanin ,
Without Stalins say so Poland would not have had its borders at the end of ww2.
Also,
On these maps just off the right hand edges is missing Afghanistan.. which the imperialists
invaded in 2002 as the Taliban wiped out the opium crops. Back to full production immediately
after invasion and 18 years later secret negotiations to hand over to Taliban while leaving
8,000 CUA troops delivering the huge cash crop.
Seeking possession and control – in competition with those you see as seeking to
dispossess and control or deny you – is the identity or belief in 'kill or be
killed'.
This belief overrides and subordinates others – such as to subsume all else to such
private agenda that will seek alliance against common threat but only as a shifting strategy
of possession and control.
One of the things about this 'game' of power struggle, is that it loses any sense of WHY
– and so it is a driven mind or dictate of power or possession for it own sake that
cannot really ENJOY or HAVE and share what it Has. The image of the hungry ghost comes to
mind here. It will never have enough until you are dead – and even then will offer you
torment beyond the grave.
Until this mindset is recognised and released as an 'insanity' it operates as accepted
currency of exchange, and maps our a world of its own conflicting and conflicted
meanings.
The willingness to destroy or kill, deny or undermine and invalidate others in order to
GET for a private agenda set over the whole instead of finding balance within the whole
– is destructive to life, no matter how ingenious the thinking that frames it to seem
to be progressive, protective, or in fact powerful.
But in our collective alignment and allegiance with such a way of thinking and identifying
– we all give power to the destructive – as if to protect the life that it gives
us.
The hungry ghost is also in the mass population when separated from their land and lives
to seek connection or meaning in proffered 'products and services' instead of creating out of
our own lives. Products and services that operate a hidden agenda of possession and control
or market and mind capture under threat of fear of pain of loss in losing even the little
that we have.
Having – on a spiritual level is our being – and not a matter of stuffing a
hole.
Madness that can no longer mask as anything else is all about – and brings a choice to
conscious awareness as to whether to persist in it or decide to find another way of seeing
and being.
This is not to say there is no place to call upon or seek to limit people in positions of
trust from serving an unjust outcome by calling for transparency and accountability –
but not to wait on that or make that the be all and end all.
If there is another way and a better way than war masking in and misusing and thus
corrupting anything and everything, then it has to be lived one to another.
Everyone seeks a better experience – but many seek it in a negative framing.
Negative in the sense of self-lack seeking power in the terms of its current identity. Evils
work their own destruction, but find sustainability in selling destructive agenda or toxic
debt as ingeniously complex instruments of deceit – by which the targeted buyer
believes they have or shall save their 'self' or add to their 'self' rather than growing
hollow to a driven mindset of reactive fear-addiction.
I don't need to 'tell this to those who refuse to listen' – but I share it with any
moment of a willingness to listen. In the final analysis, we are the ones who live the result
of choices in our lives, whatever the times and conditions.
The 'repackaging' of reality to self-deceit, is not new but part of the human mind and
experience throughout history. The evil changes forms – as if the good has and shall
triumph. But truth undoes illusion by being accepted. It doesn't war on illusion and thus
make it real – and remain truth.
Judgement divides to rule.
Discernment arises from the unwillingness to division.
One is set apart from and over life as the invocation of an alien will, dealing death, and
the other as the will of true desire revealed.
The idea of independent autonomy is relative to a limited sphere of responsibilities in
the world.
The idea of living our own life is an alignment within the same for others and the freedom to
do so cannot take from others without becoming possessed by our denials, debts and
transgressions – no less so in the driven mind of ingeniously repackaged and wilfully
defended narrative identity.
In our own experience, this is not a matter of applied analysis, so much as awareness or
space in which to seek and find truth in some willingness of recognition and acceptance or
choice, while the triggering or baiting to madness is loud or compelling as the dictate of
fear seeking protection and grievance seeking retribution – as if these give freedom
and power rather than locking into a fear-framed limitation as substitution for life set in
defiance and refusal to look on or share in truth – and so to such a one, war is truth,
and love is weakness to exploit, use and weaponise for getting.
paul ,
If you look at the proposed new map of the Middle East, it mirrors Kushner's Deal Of The
Century for Palestine – because it has the same Zionist authorship.
The same old dirty Zionist games of divide and rule – break up countries in the region
into tiny defenceless little statelets setting different ethnic and religious groups at each
others' throats, so that they can rule the roost and steal whatever they wish.
You see this in the past and the recent past. The way Lebanon was torn away from Syria. Or
Kuwait from Iraq. Or the Ruritanian petty Gulf dictatorships like Bahrain, Qatar, Dubai.
Trump was being honest for the first time in his miserable life when he said none of these
satellites and satraps would last a fortnight if they were not propped up by the US.
paul ,
George Galloway described the whole region as a flock of sheep surrounded by ravenous wolves.
At the same time, there is more than a grain of truth in the Zionists' contention that the
people of the region are to some extent the authors of their own misfortune.
They always fall for the divide-and-rule games of outside powers, Britain, America,
Israel, who invade, bomb, slaughter, humiliate and exploit them. If they had been united,
Israel would not have been created. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, would not have been destroyed
and bombed back to the Stone Age. These countries would be genuinely independent and at
peace.
When I speak to ordinary moslems, it is surprising and depressing to see how much visceral
hatred they express for Shia moslems. They seem blind to the way they are being manipulated
to serve outside interests.
So we see moslem Saudi Arabia trying to incite America and Israel to destroy Iran, and
offering to pay for the whole cost of the war. Or S. Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, UAE et al, in bed
with Israel, paying billions to bankroll the terrorist head choppers in Syria. Or Egypt,
which does not even protest, let alone lift a finger, when Israeli aircraft use its air space
to carpet bomb Gaza. Or going further back in history, when countries like Egypt and Syria
sent troops to join the 1991 US invasion of Iraq. Even though Iraq had sent its forces to the
Golan Heights in 1973 to fight and die to prevent Syria being overrun by Israel. How
contemptible is all that? Yet those are just a few of many examples of all the backstabbing
that has occurred over the years. If these people don't respect themselves, why should
anybody else?
paul ,
And this has been going on for hundreds of years.
1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the
creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were
sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the
Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3
years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200
year disaster for the region. How? Why?
Because the Arabs were so busy fighting a civil war at the time they barely noticed the
foreign invaders. The old, old story. Civil war between Sunnis and Shias.
One day, they will wake up and realise that they have to hang together, or hang
separately.
But I wouldn't hold your breath.
There seems to be an endless supply of quisling stooge dictators ready to do the bidding of
hostile outside powers. The Mubaraks, the Sisis, the King Abdullahs, the Sinioras, the MBS's,
to name but a few.
Conforming to all the worst stereotypes about Arabs and moslems.
You could argue that they deserve all they get, when they are ever ready to bend over and
drop their trousers.
Is it really any surprise that they have been invaded, slaughtered, bombed back to the Stone
Age, robbed, exploited and humiliated from time immemorial.
Maybe one day they will discover an ounce of dignity and self respect. Who knows?
Maggie ,
"1096 marked the beginning of The Crusades, a disaster for the region on a par with the
creation of Israel.
At that time, London was a little village of 25,000. Baghdad and Alexandria and Cordoba were
sophisticated modern cities with populations of hundreds of thousands. They dismissed the
Crusaders as mere bandits who would do some looting, steal some cattle, and go home. But 3
years later Jerusalem had been conquered and its inhabitants slaughtered, the start of a 200
year disaster for the region. How? Why?"
Because despite the mendacious lies that are told about Muslims, they are tolerant and
forgiving. They believe in one God, and live exemplary modest, generous lives in the belief
that they will enter in to the kingdom of heaven.
And these are the people we are being encouraged to hate and fear? To enable the neo cons
to invade and destroy everything in their path to get their oil.
Hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over 'live in democracies' of some shape or
form, from Indonesia to Malaysia to Pakistan to Lebanon to Tunisia to Turkey. Tens of
millions of Muslims' live in -- and participate in' -- Western democratic societies. The
country that is on course to have the biggest Muslim population in the world in the next
couple of decades is India, which also happens to be the world's biggest democracy. Yet a
persistent pernicious narrative exists, particularly in the West, that Islam and democracy
are incompatible. Islam is often associated with dictatorship, totalitarianism, and a lack of
freedom, and many "well paid" analysts and pundits claim that Muslims are philosophically
opposed to the idea of democracy .
Richard Le Sarc ,
'Democracy' as practised in the neo-liberal capitalist West, is a nullity, a fiction, a
smoke-screen behind which the one and only power, that of the rich owners of the economy,
acts alone.
I know. These Zionist morons droning on about how violent Islam is as religion yet ignoring
the fact that the Bible is based on the God of Abraham granting them Canaan (like Trump
giving the Israelis the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) and urging them to
commit complete and utter genocidal annihilation of the inhabitants by not leaving a single
living thing breathing.
No violence there folks. Nope. The book of love my ass!
paul ,
Their God was a demented estate agent, rather like Trump or Kushner.
Personally I believe that the chapters of the bible were written after their genocidal blood
lust simply to justify their despicable acts. Claiming that God made 'em do it.
Loverat ,
My experience of muslims in the UK is many express support for the Palestinians but don't
identify or understand those states which still speak up for their rights, Syria, Iran and a
few others.
Sadly like the general UK population they have been exposed to propaganda which excuses
evil and mass murder carried out by Saudi Arabia and their lackeys and Israel. This is
changing however. People are gradually waking up. Muslims and the general UK public if they
really knew the extent of this would be out demonstrating on the streets.
The realisation these policies have exposed all of us to nuclear wipe out in seconds
should be enough motivation for any normal person.
The wipe out or (preferably) demonstrations will happen. Just a question of when. You can see
why the establishment and people like Higgins, Lucas and York are so active recently. These
idiots, blinded by their pay checks can't see the harm they are causing through their
irresponsible lies even to their own families. Perhaps they all have nuclear shelters in
their back garden.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Saudi Arabia is NOT 'Moslem'. It is Wahhabist, a genocide cult created by doenmeh, ie
crypto-Jewish followers of the failed 17th century Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, which is
homicidally opposed to all Moslems but fellow Wahhabists.
milosevic ,
I thought it was created by the British Empire, in order to provide reliable stooges and
puppet regimes.
Richard Le Sarc ,
What people must realise is that,for the Zionassty secular and Talmudic religious
leaderships, by far the dominant forces in Israel and among many of the Diaspora sayanim, the
drive to create 'Eretz Yisrael', '..from the Nile to the Euphrates' (and some include the
Arabian Peninsula as well), is a real, religious, ambition-indeed an obligation. With the
alliance with the 'Christian Zionist' lunatics in the USA, the fate of humanity is in the
hands of the Evil Brain Dead.
BigB ,
I despair. This is why there is 'No Deal For Nature' because the hegemonic cultural movement
is to extend cultural hegemony over nature. We cannot seem to help it or stop ourselves. Do
we suppose a glossy website will change that? Or empty sloganneering subvertisements? Or
waiving placards outside banks? Or some other futile conscience salving symbolic gesture?
No, we have to subvert the cultural hegemony over nature at every point at every chance.
Which is thankless because cultural normativity is ubiquitous. And it's killing us. And BRI
is the very antithesis of alternative an eternal return into the cultural consumerism and
commodification that is the global hegemony at least at an elite level. And we are among that
elite – in terms of consumption and pollution. We are the problem. If we seek to extend
or preserve our own Eurocentric priviliges and consumptions we can only do so by extracting
evermore global resources and maldeveloping the Rest. Which is also what Samir Amin said:
following Wallerstein's World Systems Theory.
The progressive packaging of all our sins and transferring them to something called
'American Imperialism' is nothing less than mass psychological transference to a Fetish. By
which we maintain autonomy from any blame in the ecological disaster we are co-creating.
Which is why it is a powerful cultural narrative constructivism. 'We' do not have to reform:
the scapegoated Otherised 'they' do. Whilst we all sit smugly in our inauthentic imaginary
autonomy: the ecological destruction caused entirely by our collectivist consumption carries
on. 'They' have to clean up 'their' act – not us. 'We' align with the
'counter-hegemonic alliance': the alternative BRI. 'We' are so bourgeois and progressive in
our invented independence and totally aligned with the destructive forces of capitalist
endocolonised culture because of our own internalised screening discourse. Which is why there
is #NoDealForNature. 'We' don't actually give a flying fuck not beyond some hollow totemic
gestures in transference of our own responsibility.
'We' are pushing for the financialisation of nature: as the teleology of our particular
complicit cultural narratives. It's not just 'them'. Supply and demand are dialectically
exponential. Who is demanding less, more fairly distributed North to South? Exponential
expansionism via BRI is no more alternative than colonising the Moon or Mars. For nature to
have a deal: we have to stop demanding growth. And in doing that: become self-responsible
right through to the narratives we produce. For which every person in the global consumer
bourgeoisie – that's us – will have to change their imperatives from culture to
nature. Which means a new naturalised culture: not just complicitly advocating the 'same old,
same old' exponential expansionism of the extractivist commodification of every last standing
resource. Under the guise of new narrative constructions like this. That's not progress: it's
capitalist propaganda and personal self-propaganda. We are among the consumer elite. Which is
driving the financialisation and commodification of everything. For us.
#NoDealForNature until we take full and honest self-responsibility to create one with our
every enaction including speech-enactivism.
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive
commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our
utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed,
and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save
the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has
preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.
Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to
the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of
man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the
degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is
so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of
the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but
subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration
in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an
operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were
intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit,
with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly
bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at
least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not
marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this
is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from
marriage."
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
BigB ,
Every appraisal from a cultural POV extends the cultural hegemony over nature – with no
exceptions. If we do not address the false dichotomy of culture and nature – and invert
the privileged status of cultural domination over nature – this never changes. If
nothing changes its going to be a very short century the last in the history of culture.
I'm expressing my own private POV with the intention of at least highlighting the issue of
only ever expressing the distorted cultural-centric POV. It would be nice if we could all
agree to do something other than waste our privileged status and access to resources for
other than meaningless sarcasm. It's not like we'd all benefit from a change in POV and the
entailed potential in a change of course that can only happen if we think of nature first, is
it? 😉
The only thing I don't like about the environmentally "woke" is that many are easily
manipulated by the neoliberal elite. Greta is a perfect example.
That is they go after the little guy while the Military and big industry continue to
pollute unhampered.
George Mc ,
I despair.
Well that's what you do.
Dungroanin ,
The M5 highway is secured. Allepo access points too and Idlib is surrounded- where are the US
backed /Saudi paid / Tukish passport holding Uighars and various Turkmen proxy jihadist anti
Chinese / anti Russian, Central asian caliphate establishing mercenaries supposed to go now??
Pompeo is buzzing around Africa now like a blue bottomed cadaverous fly, non-stop buzzing
from piles of shot, trying to find them homes – no Libya doesn't want anymore of them,
nor the UAE and Saudis, or Turks maybe dump them in Canada with all these ex Ukrainian still
nazis? Its a big country nobody will know!
Or bring them to the US and give them a ticker tape parade?
Or let them surrender and have them testify as to how the fuck they let themselves be
bought for $$$$ maybe just fry them with the low yield nuke and blame Assad for it!
Dumbass yanks, fukus, 5+1 eyed gollum and Nutty- 'it's the Belgian airforce bombing
Russian weapons in Syria' -yahoo!
Up-Pompeos farce and buzzing is about to sizzle in the blue light of death for dumbfuck
poison spreading flies.
normal wisdom ,
so much disrespect here hare here.
these takfiri these giants these beards are hero
of the oded yinon plan
they raped murdered and stole
dustified atomised the syriana so
is rael can become real
the red heffers have been cloned the temple will grow
the semites must leave for norway,sweden wales scotland and detroit
already
the khazar ashkanazim need the land returned to it's true owners from the turkic russio
steppe
tonight back to back i watch reality
fiddler on the roof and exodus and schindlers lists.
i watch bbc simon scharmas new rabbi revised history of mighty israel.
every day it grows massive every day hezbollah become weak husk
shirley you can sea more that
my life already
Francis Lee ,
Very interesting and informative article. Lenin's 5 conditions of the imperialism of his time
have been matched by similar conditions in our own time, as listed by the Egyptian Marxist,
Samir Amin. These conditions being as follows.
1. Control of technology.
2. Access to natural resources.
3. Finance.
4. Global media.
5. The means of mass destruction.
Only by overturning these monopolies can real progress be made. Easily said. But a life
and death struggle for humanity.
The collapse of the Soviet Union opened up the space for increased penetration of Europe
to the East by the US and its West European allies in NATO. At that time the subaltern US
powers in Europe were the UK and West Germany, as it then was. There was a semblance of
sovereignty in France under De Gaulle, but this has since disappeared. Europe as a whole is
now occupied and controlled by the US which has used EU/NATO bloc to push right up to the
Russian border. Most, if not all, the non-sovereign quasi states, in Europe, particularly
Eastern Europe, are Quisling-Petainist puppet regimes regardless of whether they are inside
our outside of the EU. (I say 'states' but of course if a country is not sovereign it cannot
be a 'state' in the full meaning of the word).
A political, social and economic crisis in Europe seems to be taking taking shape. Perhaps
the key problem, particularly Eastern Europe, has been depopulation. There is not one
European state in which fertility (replacement) rates has reached 2.1 children. Western
European imperial states have to large degree been able to counter-act this tendency by
immigration from their former colonies, particularly the UK and France. But this has not been
possible in states such as Sweden and Germany where the migration of non-christian guest
workers from Turkey to Germany and Islamic refugees
from the middle-east hot-spots have had a free passage to Sweden. This has become a serious
social and economic problem; a problem resulting from a neoliberal open borders policy. The
fact of the matter is that radically different cultures will tend to clash. Thank you Mr
Soros.
British immigration policy was successful in so far as immigrants from the Caribbean were
English speakers, they were also protestant Christians, and the culture was not very
different from the UK. Later immigration from the Indian sub-continent and Indian settled
East Africa were generally professional and middle-class business people. Again English
speakers. Assimilation of these newcomers was not unduly difficult.
However it wouldn't be exaggerating to say that Eastern Europe is facing a demographic
disaster. This particular zone is literally bleeding people. Ukraine for example has lost 10
million people since 1990. Every month it is estimated that 100,000 Ukrainians leave the
country, usually for good. In terms of migration – no-one wants to go to Eastern
Europe, but everyone wants to leave, asap. This process is complemented by low birth rates,
and high death rates. These are un-developing states in an un-developing world. But now we
have new kids on the bloc. A counter-hegemonic alliance. No guesses who.
BigB ,
Rubbish. There is no 'counter-hegemonic alliance' to humanities rapacious demand for fossil
fuels and ecological resources. Where are the material consumption resources for BRI coming
from – the Moon, Mars? Passing asteroids? Or from the Earth?
When its gone: its gone. Russia and China provide absolutely no alternative to this.
China's consumption alone is driving us over the brink. To which the real alternative is a
complicit silence. As we all align with culture-centric capitalist views: there is no
naturalistic 'counter-hegemonic alliance'. Just some hunters in the Amazon we are having shot
right now so we can have the privilige of extending cultural hegemony over nature.
When it's gone: it's gone. And so will we be too. Probably as we are still praising the
wonders of the 'counter-hegemonic alliance' that killed us.
Actually there is a naturalistic alliance forming but it seems you haven't been paying
attention because you seem stuck in some Malthusian mind set. In order to defeat capitalism
you have to defeat Globalism so you first have to eliminate the Anglo-American Hegemony and
get back to a multipolar world.
Ranting on about like Gretchen doesn't do any good.
BigB ,
Resources are finite and thermodynamics exist. These are the ineliminable, indisputable, and
rock solid epistemology of the Earth System. Everything else is metaphysics – literally
'beyond nature; beyond physics'. Or, as it is more commonly known – economics. The
imaginary epistemology of political economics and political theory. 'Theory' is the
non-scientific sense of unfounded opinion and non-sense. A philosophical truth-theory that is
not and cannot ever be true. Hypothetical non-sense.
I get my information from a wide range of sources that realise these foundational
predicates. That is: a foundational set of beliefs that require no underpinning. I can only
paraphrase Eddington on thermodynamics: "if your theory is found to be against the second law
I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Which is to say all modern political theory and economics – and by extension all
opinions based on its internalisation – is the product of vivid and unfounded
imagination. To which a naturalised epistemology is the only remedy.
There are lots of people working on the problem: but not in the political sphere. Which is
why we are stuck in a hallucinated metaphysical political-economic theatre of the absurd and
absolutised cultural non-sense. Which is not beyond anyone to rectify: if and when we accept
the limitations of the physical-material Earth System. And apply them to our thinking.
#NoDealForNature until we accept that the thermodynamics of depletion naturally limit
growth. Anything anyone says to the contrary should be treated with scepticism and cause a
collapse into deepest humiliation of any rational thinker.
Richard Le Sarc ,
'Depopulation' is only a problem if you believe in the capitalist cancer cult of infinite
growth on a finite planet, ie black magic. If you value Life on Earth, and its continuance,
human depopulation is necessary. Best done slowly and humanely, by redistributing the wealth
stolen by the capitalist parasites. The process seen in the Baltics and Ukraine is the
capitalist way, cruel and inhumane. Even worse is planned for the Africans, south Asians and
Chinese etc.
They don't for a minute believe in "infinite growth". They believe in the "bottom
line","instant gratification" and "primitive accumulation". "Infinite growth" is a sales
pitch that they use to sell the unwary on their rapaciousness. That is all. If they actually
believed in "infinite growth" they've be investing in renewable resources not fracking, strip
mining and other environmentally unfriendly practices.
The problem for Imperialists is that they only know how to plunder, rape and destroy thus all
their weaponry and tactics is used for aggression they know nothing about actual defense
which is their weak point. General George C Custer found this out some time back and so did
Trump just recently when the American were assaulted by a barrage of missiles they couldn't
stop.
Iran, Russia and China have one of the most advanced arsenal of defensive weapons ever
developed such as the S- series of air defense system that can turn a Tomahawk attack into a
turkey shoot. What was it? I think it was 100 Tomahawks fired on Syria after that false flag
chemical attack and only 15 or so got through and this was the earlier version of the S
missile defense S-300. They've already developed 500 which practically makes them impervious
and is a true iron dome compared the iron sieve that the Israelis got for free during GW1 and
then repackaged and sold back to the US Military for 15B with very few improvements except
maybe for a pretty blue bow.
Not only that but they can return fire with hypersonic weapons that are unstoppable and
can turn a base or Aircraft Carrier into a floating pinnate.
Actually the US proudly waving the banner of the East India Company is following in the
footsteps of the deceased British Empire into the boneyard of empires which is Afghanistan.
Iraq, Syria and Ukraine are just side shows. America can not escape history no matter what it
does now since its days of empire are now numbered. Just as they were for the late unlamented
Soviet Union.
The "New American Century" is ending preemptively early like Hitler's "Thousand Year
Reich" and we can all breath a sigh of relief when it does.
Frank ,
The only thing that will get the bastard yanks out of the middle east is dead Americans.
Lots and lots of dead Americans.
Enough dead Americans to make the braindead jingoistic American masses notice.
Enough dead Americans to touch every family that produces grunts that serve their criminal
state by raping and pillaging foreign countries.
Enough dead Americans to make dumbfuck Americans who say, 'Thank you for your service"
squirm in literal pain at the words.
Dungroanin ,
They got brain damage in their bunkers in the best US base in the ME from just a handful of
Kinetic energy missiles.
Their low yield nuke is their response.
The Israelis keep prodding the Bear – they even targeted a Russian Pantir system in
Syria!
I suppose only a downing or infact destroying on the ground of a squadron of useless F35's
with a threat to escalate into a full blown mobilisation is ever going to stop these
imperialist chancers. Or a fully coordinated assassination campaign of the leads and their
heirs as they frolic on their superyachts and space stations and secret Tracey islands.
And they can pay their taxes in full.
The Third world war is already fought – this really is a world war rather than some
Anglo Imperialist bankers playing king of the castle – and they have LOST – the
Empire is dead.
Long live the new Empire – the first not beholden to the bankers.
wardropper ,
Even with a new empire, our godless world would soon enough breed another generation of
bankers to which we would be beholden.
That's what the fundamentally dishonest people in any society do.
Something wrong? Oh, well, we'll form a committee to discuss it, and in future we will look
into creating a banking system which will enable us pay ourselves high wages for our
invaluable contribution to human evolution.
It's MORALITY which is lacking today, not more legislation or a new constitution.
All one has to do is move off the centralized banking system developed and controlled by the
Rothschilds that is totally based on creating finance out of thin air and return to a
commodity based currency (not gold!!) that represents actual value like scrip or wampum or
barter and the bankers will eventually starve.
Actually this system is starting to take hold in the US to a small extend to avoid the
depredations of the IRS since Tax is based mostly on currency.
Stop using fiat currency and the problem's solved.
After WW II the French didn't have a press to press Francs so their standard of exchange
became cigarettes and chocolate. It worked quite well until the presses started churning out
paper again.
wardropper ,
My fear is that without the Rothschilds, some other over-ambitious family would simply step
in and fill their shoes. It's the motivation to be greedy and wicked which needs addressing.
How that would be done, of course, I have no idea.
This is only if you embrace the concept of centralized banking and the "magic" of compound
interest. Current "banking" is all smoke and mirrors that favors the parasite who lives on
the production of others through what is called "unearned income".
Actually the Israelis are going a little slower now that isolated reports indicate that those
flying turkeys AKA F-35s are getting popped out of the skies of Syria by antiquated Soviet
SAMs. Of course there is no mention of this in the Mainstream Press. Just like there wasn't a
word of a IDF General and his staff taken out by a shoulder launched RPG fired by Hezbollah
in retaliation for attacking their media center in Beirut.
Antonym ,
Anybody who believes that the Israeli tail wags the US mil-ind. complex dog is contributing
to the Jewish superiority myth.
Ken ,
They're not superior, but they do wag the US MIC dog in and ebb-and-flow kind of way. That
9/11 thing was quite the wag. Read Christopher Bollyn and study other aspects of the event if
you're not sure of this.
Antonym ,
Langley and Riyadh love you; you fell for their ploy. See: Tel Aviv is much worse them.
The CIA/FBI failure explained.
The Mossad loves you too: for keeping mum on this Entebbe Mach 2.0 on their familiar New
York crap they got huge US support in the ME.
Makes them look invincible too as a bonus .
5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history.
Ken ,
"5 dancing guys was all the proof needed – cheapest op in history"
Oh please, that was such a minor bit of evidence of any Zionist/Israeli involvement, which
spanned nearly every facet of the event and its aftermath.
The list of false flagging Zionist Jews in love with you is too long to list.
Oh please. What about the close to 200 Israelis who were arrested that day? Not to mention
the helpful warning by Odigo which was only given to citizens of Israel?
Also one has to act who benefitted? Definitely not the Saudis or the Americans leaving
Sharon who was trying to suppress a Palestinian uprising that he arrogantly started.
Speaking of your friendly five doing a fiddler on the roof on top of an Urban Moving Van
that just happened to owned by another Israeli who fled the country. Didn't they say
something stupid when arrested like "we are not your problem. It's the Palestinians who are
your problem!"?
A pathetic frame up attempt but a frame none the less. Speaking of frame ups wasn't Fat
Katz at SiteIntel (propaganda) who posted some stock footage of Palestinians celebrating
which has been proven to be false since the only people who seem to celebrating that day was
your friends the Dancing Israelis which doesn't prove their mental superiority at all but
their arrogant stupidity,
Richard Le Sarc ,
The three, the USA, Saudi Arabia and the USA, are allies in destruction-the Real Axis of
Evil. The dominant force, these days, given the control of the USA by Israel First Fifth
Columnists, in the MSM, political 'contributions', the financial Moloch etc, is most
certainly the Zionassties. Why don't you, like so many other Zionassties, glory in your
power, Antsie. Nobody believes your ritual denials.
They don't really wag the dog by themselves. They have a lot of help from the Stand with
Israel brain dead Christian Zionists who like Israelis consider themselves the chosen ones as
well.
Ken ,
@Gall Yep! I had a long time friend who went Pentecostal and we drifted apart but still kept
in touch. I lost him completely just after telling him that Israelis played a big part in
9/11.
Chuck Baldwin and a few other it seems have seen the light and are now questioning their
colleagues undying support of Israel. Maybe you could show this article to your friend who
seems enthralled by the terrorist snake er I mean state: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/02/13/emperor-trump/
Yes that pretty much sums up how 9/11 was carried on. Both Heinz Pommer and VT have done some
excellent research based on facts not fantasy.
As far as your friend and many Christian Zionists in general. They seem to live in some
alternative universe and dislike being confused by such irrelevant things as facts.
It is a story that can be told in some detail – but when you say myth do you actually
mean fallacy – ie – are you saying that Jewish power doesn't exercise
considerable influence – if not control over US social and political and corporate
development across of broad spectrum of leverages?
Richard Le Sarc ,
Yes-all those addresses of Congress, by Bibi, where the Congress critters compete to display
the most extreme groveling and adulation, are just the natural expression of reverence and
awe at his semi-Divine moral excellence. Denying the undeniable is SOP for Zionassties.
normal wisdom ,
what jews?
i do not see any jews
just a sea of khazar ashkanazim pirates
a kaballa talmudick race trick
a crime syndicate pretending to be semite
jew is just the cover
init
For a fictional character, homo economicus has had a pretty good run
.
Since the 1950s,
this mono-motivated, self-seeking figure has stalked the pages of economics textbooks, busy deciding each
action according to a rational calculus of personal loss and gain. But more recently his territory has
shrunk as experts on human nature have demonstrated what any decent novelist could have told them: our real
selves are nothing like this.
Unfortunately, many economists still plug this flawed view of people into computer models that determine
all kinds of things that impact our lives, from how much workers get paid to how we value life or common
goods, such as a clean environment. The results can be disastrous.
Typically, economists aren't that keen on admitting that their work is deeply connected to morality --
never mind that Adam Smith himself was a moral philosopher. But if you ask a question as simple as how to
price a used car, you quickly find that moral concerns and economic activity happen together all the time.
In his 2012 book,
The Righteous Mind
, New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt
explored why so many perfectly intelligent people have misread human nature– and not just economists, but
plenty of psychologists and even (shocker!) people who identify as politically liberal. For him, the key to
getting to know ourselves properly lies with moral psychology, a newish strain that pulls together
evolutionary, neurological, and social-psychological research on moral emotions and intuitions.
As Haidt sees it, we are creatures driven by moral intuition and attuned to both our personal interests
as well as what's good for the groups with which we identify. He points out that in order to thrive, we have
to appreciate our complex, interactive natures and see each other more clearly and empathetically – an
observation that may be especially useful at a time when threats like climate change and the concentration
of money and power threatens all of us, no matter who we are or what groups we belong to. At the moment, we
aren't doing such a good job of this.
In Haidt's view, the conscious mind is like a press secretary spewing after-the-fact justifications for
decisions already made. Thinkers like David Hume and Sigmund Freud were certainly hip to this idea, but
somehow a lot of economists missed the memo, as did psychologists following dominant rationalist models in
the 1980s and '90s.
Haidt invites us to consider ourselves as a rider (our analytical, rational part) and an elephant (our
emotional, intuitive part). The rider holds the reins, but the beast below is in charge, urged on by the
complex interaction of genetic influence, neural wiring, and social conditioning. The rider can advise the
elephant, but the elephant calls most of the shots.
Fortunately, the elephant is quite intelligent and equipped with all sorts of intuitions that are good
for conscious reasoning. But elephants get very stubborn when threatened and like to stick to what's
familiar. The rider, for her part, is not exactly a reliable character. She's not really searching for
truth, but mostly for ways to justify what the elephant wants.
That's why a rebel economist challenging conventional thinking about subjects like human nature faces a
heavy lift. Experts have to see a lot of evidence accumulating across many studies before they reach a point
where they are finally forced to think differently. Scientific studies are even less helpful in persuading
the general public.
When I asked Haidt how the mavericks could help their cause, he noted that humans are social creatures
more influenced by people than by ideas. So, it matters
who
says something as much as
what
they say. It also makes a difference how they say it: elephants don't like to be insulted, and they lean
towards arguments made by people they like and admire. Not very rational, perhaps, but likely true.
Homo Duplex
The notion that human beings are social creatures is another strike against homo economicus. We are
selfish much of the time, but we are also "groupish," as Haidt puts it, and perhaps better described as
"homo duplex" operating on two levels. Here he offers another animal analogy, suggesting that we're 90%
chimp and 10% bee, meaning that from an evolutionary perspective, we are selfish primates with a more
recently developed a "hivish" overlay that lets us occasionally devote ourselves to helping others, or our
groups.
This helps explain why you can't predict how someone is going to vote based on their narrow
self-interest. Political opinions are like badges of social membership. We don't just ask what's in it for
us, but also what it means to our groups. Having a kid in public school doesn't tell you that a person will
support aid to public schools, probably because there are group interests in play. What unifies us in
groups, Haidt argues, are certain moral foundations that allow us to share emotionally compelling worldviews
that we can easily justify and defend against any attack by outsiders who don't share them. And we can get
pretty nasty about those outsiders.
This begins to sound like ugly tribalism, the kind of stuff that leads to war. But Haidt reminds us that
this propensity also prepares us to get along within our groups and even to cooperate on a large scale -- our
human superpower. We differ from other primates because we exhibit shared intentionality: we're able to plan
things together and work together towards a common goal. You never see two chimps carrying a log – they just
don't act in concert that way. We do, and in our groups we've developed mechanisms to suppress cheaters and
free riders and reap the benefit of division of labor. Groups of early humans may well have triumphed over
other hominids not because they smashed them with clubs , but because they out-cooperated them.
To better understand how we operate in political groups, which have lately become more antagonistic,
Haidt created a map of our moral landscape called Moral Foundations Theory which delineates multiple
"foundations" we presumably use when making moral decisions, including care/harm, fairness/cheating,
loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. (Some scholars have
challenged
his system, offering alternative maps). His research indicates that liberals and
conservatives differ in the emphasis they place on each of these foundations, with conservatives tending to
value all six domains equally and liberals valuing the first two much more than the other three.
Haidt argues that liberals tend to home in on care and fairness when they talk about policy issues, which
can put them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis conservatives, who tend to activate the whole range of foundations.
Republicans are thus better able to talk to elephants than Democrats because they possess more ways to go
for the gut, as it were. If Democrats want to win, Haidt warns, they need to think of morality as more than
just care and fairness and to try to better understand that foundations more important to conservatives,
like deference to authority or a reverence for sacredness, are not pathological, but aspects human social
evolution that have helped us survive in many situations.
When he wrote
The Righteous Mind
, Haidt noted that Democrats had espoused a moral vision that
did not resonate with many working class and rural voters. In the current presidential race, he sees some
progress on economic populism from the Bernie Sanders wing, in part because Occupy Wall Street got people
attuned to issues of fairness and the oppression of the 1%. When politicians talk about the abuse of
political and economic power, they can activate not only care and fairness concerns, but also the
liberty/oppression foundation which people respond to across the political spectrum.
But this line is also tricky because, as Haidt pointed out to me, "Americans don't really hate their
rich." (One
recent study
suggested only 25% of Americans have a negative view of the rich, though a majority said
they should be taxed more).
Haidt also worries that many Democrats, particularly elites, are currently engaging with cultural issues
by embracing a what he called a "common enemy" form of identity politics which "demonizes people at the
intersectional point of evil (white men)" rather than focusing on a "common humanity" story which "draws a
larger circle around everyone. (Haidt plunged into controversial territory with his 2018 book,
The
Coddling of the American Mind
, which argues that college campuses are shutting down useful debate
through "safetyism" that protects students from ideas considered harmful or offensive).
He observed to me that while the polarizing Donald Trump may have turned off the younger generation "for
the next few decades," Democrats may be failing "to look seriously at the ways that their social
policies -- and their messengers -- alienate many moderates." Newly "woke" white elites, for example, who see
racism as the driver of nearly every phenomenon, may be having an unintended negative effect in his view.
When they ascribe Trump's victory to racial resentment and ignore the concerns of those who fear sliding
down the economic ladder, for example, they may turn off potential allies. Call a person or a group racist
and you won't be able to convince them to support your view on anything. Their elephants aren't listening.
Haidt acknowledges that our moral matrices are not written in stone; they can and do evolve, sometimes
quite rapidly within a couple of generations. Economic forces surely act to shift attunement to moral
foundations, making people more susceptible, for example, to anti-immigration arguments. If you fail to
consider the economic influence on this kind of moral activation, you'll be less equipped to address
problems like ethnic conflict. Being able to step outside our own moral matrix is essential to persuasion.
We not only have to talk to the elephant, but see the beehive.
We also have to remember the truth is not likely to be something held by any one individual, but rather
something that emerges as a large number of flawed and limited minds exchange views on a given subject. Our
smarts and flexibility are increased by our ability to cooperate and share information. Economists, for
example, improve their understanding of human nature by opening up to other social sciences and the
humanities for insight.
There is evidence that economists are paying attention to moral psychology. In their book
Identity
Economics
, Nobel laurate
George
Akerlof
and Rachel Kranton argue that people identify with "social categories," and that each category,
whether it be Christian, mother, or neighbor, has associated norms or ideals to which people want to aspire.
Sam Bowles'
The Moral Economy
shows that monetary incentives don't work in many situations and that
policies targeting our selfish instincts can actually weaken the institutions which depend on our more
selfless impulses– including financial markets. At the Institute of New Economic Thinking (INET), the
connection between economics and morality has been explored by
INET president Rob
Johnson and political philosopher Michael Sandel
as well as thinkers like
economic historian Robert Skidelsky
and
economist Darrick Hamilton
.
All of this rather bad news for homo economicus. But pretty good news for humanity.
we're 90% chimp and 10% bee, meaning that from an evolutionary perspective, we are selfish primates
with a more recently developed a "hivish" overlay that lets us occasionally devote ourselves to helping
others, or our groups.
Well if one wants to take an "evolutionary perspective" (works for me) then obviously our instincts are
shaped to promote survival of the species and not just the individual. And if that's true then the
Randian/economics version of rational isn't rational at all. Perhaps it would be clearer to talk about this
problem in terms of rational versus irrational rather than appealing to some "altruism gene" that will
supposedly save us. IMO only that rational, intelligent, creative aspect of humans will save us from that
irrational side that is indeed totally instinctive. Somehow we've gotten this far–despite everything–"by the
skin of our teeth." Here's hoping those minds will find a path.
Over what? Carol's point about the sociology of Ayn Rand?
In point of fact, Carol, altruism is always secondary (where it appears) in nature. Selfishness
ensures the fittest genes survive to carry on the species. Only in the face of catastrophe does
altruism at
the individual level become more valuable than selfishness. So, indeed it is because of our
selfishness, because we've struggled by the skin of our teeth, that we as a species have survived and
prospered.
but, but erik, that leaves out all the energy saving advantage we get from a cohesive group
which is also determined to survive and carry on centuries of knowledge on just how to do so .
Just a quick jab: why does Haidt, and others, assume that feelings are inferior to logic and intellect?
Seems to me they are inter-twined, separate-able, but equal in value, if not dimension.
It could be a three way set-up instead of a two way (like markets, which are commonly spoken of as two:
buyer and seller, but are three: buyer, seller, and banker /money man). Man's consciousness could be 1)
feelings, 2) logic /intellect, and 3) the decider (call out to ex-prez W, so got political jab in too!).
In fairness to Haidt, I think he's more nuanced than "rationality good; feelings bad"
I have encountered more of that rather rigid approach among those who have read "Thinking Fast and
Slow" perhaps because that book doesn't do as good a job of outlining as crucial the capacity to
recognize which situations favor System 1 thinking and those which favor System 2 -- a problem compounded
by the emphasis in the book on the rather narrow range of circumstances in which System 2 is clearly
superior.
Jeez – I spent years getting an Econ degree in the homo economus/monetarist era (dark times), when I
should've been making my way through my D&D Dungeon Master's sci fi collection!
I always thought that the Professors who thought up homo economus never went with their wives (as
it was back then) to the grocery store.
The rational choice, always, was the store brand. DelMonte and all other such brands owed their
very existence to non-rational, emotional choices–by tons of people.
'Rational' just means 'consistently following an internally sound logic.' A machine does that –
following the logic of its mechanics. A computer does that – following the logic of code. An animal does
that – following the logic dictated by emotion. And an animal certainly does that better than we humans
whose behaviors become muddled by ideas. Truly, by this measure animals are better machines than humans –
more mechanical, more emotional, more logical, more rational.
That's why a rebel economist challenging conventional thinking about subjects like human nature faces
a heavy lift. Experts have to see a lot of evidence accumulating across many studies before they reach a
point where they are finally forced to think differently.
As an ex-organic chemist, I was astonished to find that more than a few scientists cling to outdated
paradigms with a tenacity that would shame the most rigid religious fundamentalist. Cf. heliobacter,
continental drift, even the heliocentric solar system.
While "continental" drift was first proposed in about 1600 AD it was not completely wrong. Like many
initial geologic theories it was partially correct. It is now known that it is not the "continents" that
move across the earth, but tectonic plates, on which the continents are located, that is creating
movement. The convection of the earths interior magma is thought to be the movement vector for the
plates.
"this propensity also prepares us to get along within our groups and even to cooperate on a large scale --
our human superpower"
Yuval Harari's central point revolves around this. Humans, like other primates, engage in "grooming"
activities to maintain group cohesion. With the development of language, this "grooming" went from picking
lice out of each other's hair (fun!) to gossiping about each other. But this behavior seems to be unable to
maintain a group size larger than 150 individuals, not surprising considering the person-to-person contact
necessary.
To gather a larger group around common goals requires myth, Harari says. Early myths involved gods, often
imagined as living in a separate world with structures parallel to our own. In a polytheistic society, the
head god related to the lesser gods as a king related to his human subjects. In the henotheistic Ancient
Near East, nations like Babylon, Assyria and even the southern Israelite kingdom of Judah envisioned a
parallel war occurring in "heaven" between the national gods when two countries went to war. These days,
there are new, completely secular myths like what Harari calls "Money" that orient our world around
materialism, competition and power.
William H. McNeill also noted the almost universal human behaviours of mass marching/dancing (which
requires and reinforces cooperation) as indicative of a social behaviour rooted in a biological need
We also have "mirror neurons" for a reason -- one that baffles the proponents of "homo economicus"
I was more interested in this article from the political perspective; i.e. what liberals get wrong.
Like many who read this site, I'm interested in the primary elections and want Bernie to win.
But Bernie's message could be better by being more attuned to some of the "Moral Foundation" issues Haidt
raises.
Take Medicare for All which, by most accounts, is the leading issue to most voters:
Talking more about Medicare being a simple and successful 50+ year program appeals to authority. Medicare
Advantage plans can be framed as subversion. Or loyalty / betrayal. Also consider sanctity / degradation.
Talking more about the 80/20 aspect of coverage addresses fairness / cheating and "free stuff"
Not talking about eliminating private insurance shows concern for liberty / oppression. I would actually
make a joke about people who would still want private insurance after M4A becomes available
Just food for thought in terms of how the ideas contained in the article could be applied.
And the next time some nefarious reporter asks how we will pay for this or that; I wish someone will just
say "Mexico will pay for it".
As an economist (M.A. in Econ), I am elated to see Jonathan Haidt's work receive this kind of attention
from serious thinkers. In addition to the reasons cited by Lynn Parramore, I believe Professor Haidt's work
validates, by building on, the work of Humanistic Economics by Professor Mark Lutz (Ph.D. UC-Berkeley) and
Dr. Kenneth Lux. Moreover, Professor Haidt's work appears, to me, to further validate the astute criticisms
of Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot for neoclassical Marxists' use of "Rational Economic Man" in their
paradigm's modls (no "e"). Having obtained my degree about 25 years ago, basically in humanistic economics,
I am sure that adoption of such thinking by grad students in economics can help rescue humanity from its
current barbaric state. I just hope there's still time left.
On hate and having negative view on the rich
: this article mentions that "only" 25% of
Americans have a negative or very negative view of the rich". Only is the proper word? I would say that is a
lot of bad feelings. Hate is not a sane feeling and we are inclined to hate in stressful situations. So, if
25% of Americans, have these negative feelings (8% very negative) about the rich this spells quite a lot of
despair/stress. It would be interesting a comparison with other countries to evaluate if this is normal by
international standards.
I mention this because stress & despair might explain, at least partially, the relative low turnout in
general elections in the US compared with other OECD countries. Does anybody here know the evolution of
electoral turnout in the US since 1950? Has turnout declined with time?
I remembered an old David Brooks column mentioning that Americans vote their aspirations.
I'm not a fan of Brooks, but this 20 year old column may explain some USA citizens' current
attitudes..
Here is a sample quote (about a proposed Al Gore estate tax):
"The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey that asked
people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the
richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right away you have 39 percent of
Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a
direct shot at them."
While it has been 20 years since this was published, one might suspect American "I'll be rich"
aspirations have taken a beating during this interval.
The economics profession has ridden the hydrocarbon energy spend of the last 100+ years as hydrocarbon
energy has been pulled from the ground and converted into "economic growth".
It will be interesting to see how the profession responds to future events with climate change, peak
human population and peak energy inexorably (in my view) arriving.
One thing that has happened is that over the past several decades so- called liberals have agreed with
conservatives that the market represents freedom and efficiency and the government represents the opposite.
Some younger people are rebelling, but older voters have been hearing this their whole lives without
challenge until Sanders came along.
I just read a description of a Trump rally at the NYT and I think it was accurate. The reporters just
repeated what ordinary people said there. One guy claimed the Democrats have just swung so far left he can't
support them anymore, yet on economics this simply isn't the case. Sanders just represents what Democrats
used to be on economic issues.
I enjoyed the article, and agree with the main ideas, but he was a little rough on our primate cousins.
Chimps may not cooperate by "carrying logs", but, like a lot of social animals, they work together when,
say, hunting other primates. And most social animals have a pretty well-developed sense of fairness (watch
what happens if you give one of your dogs a treat and ignore the other one).
Yes I am trying to think about what chimps would actually need to transport a log for. That famous
jocular saying by one of the researchers "we were beginning to think the difference between us was merely
cultural".
Is that a sense of fairness or a sense of competition or perhaps a sense of both? Each dog would
prefer being the favorite but will accept being the equal.
Dogs are an interesting analogy because in my observation they are, as social animals, so much like
us. Perhaps the main takeaway from the above article is the belief that there is such a thing as "human
nature" and that we have a kinship with the other species. Needless to say such a view was once anathema
in an intellectual climate dominated by religion and a human centric world view. Even now people like
Pence are "dominionists" and believe that humans have been given dominion over the planet and all its
other species because of what it says in the Bible. Power always needs to justify itself–perhaps because
of that innate sense of fairness/competition that you mention.
Haidt got me thinking about language too. His thesis could be talking about the evolution of
language itself. The evolution of rationalization. Since he seems to premise his insights on human
intuition and a certain bedrock of morality that all animals seem to have. Pre language. Can we
attribute the morality of animals to a lack of rationalization? They do seem to lack immorality. If we
were mute, but very intuitive as we are, what effect would our intuition have on our communication
skills and our actions? Raising the question here, Is language the emotional middleman that is always
(duplex) less than rational and causing all this confusion? Sort of thinking here about someone giving
an over-the-top sermon, like an economics professor claiming that we are all homo-economicus.
Morality traditionally implies conscious choice so I'm not sure that's relevant to the animal
world. Guess what I'm saying is that we are similar to certain animals in our instincts, not our
intelligence.
However the language of economic profs is deceptive since they should be saying "irrational self
interest" rather than "rational self interest." Pure selfishness usually ends up being bad even for
the selfish.
Also on this very subject, last night on Nova, the one about dogs, their domestication (or
ours?) and their amazing ability to relate – communicate. They attribute a dog's ability to
communicate to oxytocin – because they thrive on love and friendship. I do believe that because
I've only had one aloof dog and he was very wolf-like. A throwback. Indicating that evolution
tends toward love – not to be too corny. Maybe Oxytocin will save us ;-)
If by "pack animals" you mean species that live in societies I never said they didn't. But
obviously there is also cooperation on some level and social bonding. I do think this is a very
complicated subject and not easily reduced to simplifications by yours truly–not a biologist–or the
above article. But arguably the above is correct in asserting that economists themselves are
ignoring the complications.
And for those interested, here is
a paper published in 2008
that empirically demonstrates that the "Homo economicus" approach in this case
disguised in the form of "median-voter model" is bullshit regarding inequality, redistribution and public
opinion, though they regard it as intelectually compelling. Economists!
>Experts have to see a lot of evidence accumulating across many studies before they reach a point where
they are finally forced to think differently.
Ummm, the whole, underlying maybe, point of the rest of the article is that the dominant economic thought
of our age has nothing to do with evidence. Yet they overthrew Keynes. "Trust us, We're Experts" or
something like that right?
I just finished slogging through The Master and His Emissary by Iain McGilchrist, which harmonizes with
this article. Instead of the rider on an elephant, McGilchrist writes of the functions of the left and right
hemispheres of the brain, which are significantly different. The left brain is verbal, analytical, and task
oriented. It likes straight lines. (This strikes me as a description of the pseudo-accuracy and busyness of
economics.) The right brain sees a larger picture, is less talky, and is generally better at perceiving the
world around us. It is the hemisphere that can attain greater knowledge even if it is not as adept at
expressing such knowledge in words. (The "bee" part of the brain–and more than 10 percent.)
McGilchrist's book is good, but way too long, which is an irony given that he asserts that the left
brain, the emissary, is trying to subvert the master, the part of the brain less likely to go on and on and
on in words.
But this era of too many easy paradigms (economics, "free markets"), too much flimsy analysis (critical
studies, queer studies, economics, New York Times op-ed columnists), and too much talk (social media) is
very much left-brained. I think that what is wearing all of us out is the endless tsunami of word salad.
Economics, with its insistance on rationality rather than reasonableness (left brain rather than right
brain), fell into the salad bowl a long time ago.
Yes. I, too, think this is a very important book. Being retired, I don't think it's too long. I revel
in how much stuff I got for only thirty bucks (or whatever it was -- something like that.)
The neurological case is complete after 94 very dense pages. (535 citations. Pleasantly readable prose,
though, and that bizarre experiment that "proves" that porcupines are monkeys.) After that he traces the
effects and footprints of the two independent modes of thought through philosophy, art, music, and,
generally, the working of our societies from ancient to post-modern.
There's a strong parallel to Daniel Kahneman's Fast and Slow thinking, the right hemisphere being the
fast one. The one wrinkle is that language is the province of the left hemisphere, but Kahnemann finds
that fast thinking is perfectly adept at small-talk, as long as it doesn't get too abstract.
Worst for me is that now that I've read it, I've got to go back into Heidegger, all the other modern
Germans, John Dryden, classical and modern painting, religion
So how would homo economicus work out in anything other than a modern industrial system? In earlier
times, I would say that at the least they would be shunned as a danger to the community or maybe even thrown
out altogether as being incapable of working in a close-knit community. Want a modern example instead? How
about the fact that you cannot have a military based on the idea of homo economicus unless you are talking
about a band of mercenaries. This whole stupid idea is why every relationship these days whether for work,
employment, government, etc is defined by contracts. In short, it is a cookie-cutter idea that come in only
one shape.
"Since the 1950s, this mono-motivated, self-seeking figure has stalked the pages of economics
textbooks, busy deciding each action according to a rational calculus of personal loss and gain."
Advertising gave up with that sort of approach years ago.
Advertisers appeal to deep seated wants and desires and this works really well, so they haven't looked back.
Are the wealthy much more rational?
Let's have a look at adverts targeted at wealthy people.
Are they a long list of specifications and comparisons saying why these products are better?
No.
An advert for a Sunseeker luxury yacht conveys luxury, elegance, being able to get away from it all and
there is usually a young woman in the back in a bikini; the less said about that the better.
What about PR and propoganda?
How do they work?
The same as advertising really, and it's got nothing to do with appealing to rational human beings.
It works; they are not going to be doing it differently anytime soon.
A propos of nothing, long, long ago there was an ad during the Superbowl placed by Cadillac. It was
all about authority, power, celebrity, and it hardly mentioned cars at all, if it even did. Blog
commenters had to work very hard to explain how this was selling Cadillacs. IMHO, it didn't sell
Cadillacs. It told the top Cadillac executives all the things about themselves that they most longed to
hear. It didn't sell cars to wealthy people, it sold the ad itself to the Cadillac C-suite. It worked
like a charm.
Y-axis – top to bottom
X-axis – Across genders, races, etc ..
As long as the Democrats wealthy donors keep them focussed on identity politics and the X-axis, the
donors should be able to keep making progress in the reverse direction on the Y-axis.
and he's MUCH better than Haidt. I recommend this book and lots
of his earlier work, much of it done with Herbert Gintis.
Their 1976 "Schooling in capitalist America" is no less necessary
reading now than it was then, and their 1986 "Democracy & capitalism"
is maybe even more relevant now (Milanovic credits it as a forerunner
to his current "Capitalism, alone", which it is–and much more than that).
More recent stuff is referenced in "The moral economy" and pretty
much always worthwhile.
Morality is a big part of decision making, but I'll argue that is secondary to our cognitive biases that
exist at an even lower level of consciousness to enable us to retain function and decision making in the
face of an overwhelming number of variables.
The opposite of cognitive bias or perhaps the antidote is critical thinking, which must be
taught/learned, so yeah it is preposterous to assume people use solid reasoning that could only come about
with the use of critical thinking, which vasts swaths of society almost never exercise.
The article to me is all over the place, which builds on Haidt's views that seem all over the place too.
Interesting though. Comments too. The experimental data about Haidt's classifications of moral decision
making elements, and where self-described liberals and conservatives rank them in importance was
interesting. I suppose the liberals regarding only two of the six as important could be due to their college
educations. As a math professor I had once observed about a smart student in his class: "he learned his
subject too well". Or to paraphrase Othello: "One that learned not wisely but too well".
The most important takeaway from this is that we should not let economists guide the economy. Not the
economists believing in homo economicus anyway (and, while we are at it, believing in equilibrium as
well). The reason for existence of such a concept is clearly to replace ethics and morality as a guiding
principle of human economic activity with a pseudo- "natural law" (humans by nature are "economicus" –
i.e. self-interested and materialistic – phew!), which once entrenched, relieves those in power from
moral obligations because it safely explains away almost any economic outcome as result of "natural"
forces – i.e. no one to blame (globalization=natural force). It's a great tool for them. Down with it.
The asumption of rationality has been defeated by many economists, as well as psychologists,
sociologists, etc.. Carrying on about this is unncessary. Assuming that humans worry about "care and
fairness' is true. The "12" prophets of the Tanakh (Old Testament") raised this concern numerous times, and
one can find it as a major issue in the Synoptic Gospels. Smith also worried about this in his first book on
economocs, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." The only reason for any further consideration of "rationality"
in economics is due to the attemprt by economists to treat economics as a "science" like physics. There are
also numerous misguided attempts to mathemaize economics.
But one insidious reason to pretend that economics is a "science" is to justify the idea of a "Nobel
Prize" in economics, or to give a "halo" to economists that win the "Swedish Central Bank Prize in Economic
Scholarship in Memory of Alfred Nobel."
Avner Offer and Gabriel Söderberg have written a good book about the creation of this prize, "The Nobel
Factor." Please note, the words "Nobel Prize" do not seem to appear on either the certificates or medal
awarded.
Daniel Kahneman who won the prize (justifiably, (and John Nash a famous mathematicin who won many real
prizes) notd that giving labels often transfers a false aura to those being labeled. Offer and Söderberg
noted that this is true of the label "winner of the Nobel Prize." Given that there is no decent
encompasssing theory of economics similar to Newton's Laws and how often the prizes are awarded to
economists who don't produce anything like such a theory, we should once and for all abandone the pretense
that economis is a science. It is an attempt to describe social behaviour in a very restricted context.
Leaving it to psychologists, sociologists and others has produce better undertandings of human behaviour.
Academic historians reject anything smacking of inevitably . Instead they emphasize the
contingency of events as manifested through the inherent agency of human beings and the
countless decisions they make. On the merits, such scholars are basically correct. That said,
there was something – if not inevitable – highly probable, almost (forgive me)
deterministic about the two cataclysmic world wars of the 20th century. Both, in retrospect,
were driven, in large part, by collective – particularly Western – nations'
adherence to a series of geopolitical philosophies.
The first war – which killed perhaps nine million soldiers in the sodden trench lines
(among other long forgotten places) of Europe – began, in part, due to the continental,
and especially maritime, competition between Imperial Great Britain, and a new, rising, and
highly populous, land power, Imperial Germany. Both had pretensions to global leadership;
Britain's old and long-standing, Germany's recent and aspirational – tinged with a sense
of long-denied deservedness. Political and military leaders on both sides – along with
other European (and the Japanese) nations – then pledged philosophical fealty to the
theories
of an American Navy man, Alfred Thayer Mahan. To simplify, Mahan's core postulation –
published from a series of lectures as The Influence of Sea Power Upon History – was that
geopolitical power in the next (20th) century would be inherently maritime. The countries that
maintained large, modern navies, held strategic coaling stations, and expanded their coastal,
formal empires, would dominate trade, develop the strongest economies, and, hence, were apt to
global paramountcy. Conversely, traditional land power – mass armies prepared to march
across vast land masses – would become increasingly irrelevant.
Mahan's inherently flawed, or at least exaggerated, conclusions – and his own clear
institutional (U.S. Navy) bias – aside, key players in two of the major powers of Europe
seemed to buy the philosophy hook-line-and-sinker. So, when Wilhelmine Germany took the
strategic decision to rapidly expand its own colonial fiefdoms (before the last patches of
brown-people-inhabited land were swallowed up) and, thereby necessarily embarked on a crash
naval buildup to challenge the British Empire's maritime supremacy, the stage was set for a
massive war. And, with most major European rivals – hopelessly hypnotized by nationalism
– locked in a wildly byzantine, bipolar alliance system, all that was needed to turn the
conflict global was a spark: enter the assassin Gavrilo Princip, a pistol, Austrian Archduke
Franz Ferdinand, and it was game
on .
The Second World War – which
caused between 50-60 million deaths – was, of course, an outgrowth of the first. It's
causes were multifaceted and complicated. Nonetheless, particularly in its European theater,
it, too, was driven by a geopolitical theorist and his hypotheses. This time the culprit was a
Briton, Halford John Mackinder. In contrast with Mahan, Mackinder postulated a land-based,
continental power theory. As such, he argued that the "pivot" of global
preeminence lay in the control of Eurasia – the "World Island" – specifically
Central Asia and Eastern Europe. These resource rich lands held veritable buried treasure for
the hegemon, and, since they lay on historical trade routes, were strategically positioned.
Should an emergent, ambitious, and increasingly populated, power – say, Nazi Germany
– need additional territory (what Hitler called " Lebensraum ") for
its race, and resources (especially oil) for its budding war machine, then it needed to seize
the strategic "heartland" of the World Island. In practice, that meant the Nazis theoretically
should, and did, shift their gaze (and planned invasion) from their outmoded Mahanian rival
across the English Channel, eastward to the Ukraine, Caucasus (with its ample oil reserves),
and Central Asia. Seeing as all three regions were then – and to lesser extent, still
– dominated by Russia, the then Soviet Union, the unprecedentedly bloody existential war
on Europe's Eastern Front appears ever more certain and explainable.
Germany lost both those wars: the first badly, the second, disastrously. Then, in a sense,
the proceeding 45-year Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union – the only two big
winners in the Second World War – may be seen as an extension or sequel to
Mackinder-driven rivalry. The problem is that after the end of – at least the first
– Cold War, Western, especially American, strategists severely
miscalculated . In their misguided triumphalism, US geopolitical theorists both provoked a
weak (but not forever so) Russia by expanding the NATO alliance far eastward, but posited
premature (and naive) theories that assumed global finance, free (American-skewed) trade, and
digital dominance were all that mattered in a "Post" Cold War world.
No one better defined this magical thinking more than the still – after having been
wrong about just about every US foreign policy decision of the last two decades –
prominent New York Times columnist , Thomas Friedman. In article after article,
and books with such catchy titles as The World is Flat , and The Lexus and the Olive Tree ,
Friedman argued, essentially, that old realist geopolitics were dead, and all that really
mattered for US hegemony was the proliferation of McDonald's franchises worldwide.
Friedman was wrong; he always is (Exhibit A: the 2003 Iraq War). Today, with a surprisingly
– at least with his prominent base – popular president, Donald J. Trump, impeached
in the House and
just acquitted by the Senate for alleged crimes misleadingly summed up as "Ukraine-gate," a
look at the
real issues at hand in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, demonstrate that, for better or
(probably) worse, the ghost of Mackinder still haunts the scene. For today, I'd argue, the
proxy battle over Ukraine between the U.S. and its allied-coup-empowered government –
which includes some neo-nazi political
and military elements – and Russian-backed separatists in the country's east, reflects a
return to the battle for Eurasian resource and geographic predominance.
Neither Russia nor the United States is wholly innocent in fueling and escalating the
ongoing Ukrainian Civil War. The difference is, that in post-Russiagate farce, chronically
(especially among mainstream Democrat) alleged Russia-threat-obsessed America, reports of
Moscow's ostensible guilt literally saturate the media space. The reporting from Washington?
Not so much.
The truth is that a generation of prominent "liberal" American, born-again Russia-hawks
– Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, the whole DNC
apparatus , and the MSNBC corporate media crowd –
wielded State Department, NGO, and
economic pressure to help catalyze a pro-Western coup in Ukraine during and after 2014.
Their opportunism seemed, to them, simple, and relatively cost-free, at the time, but has
turned implacably messy in the ensuing years.
In the process, the Democrats haven't done themselves any political favors, further sullying
what's left of their reputation by – in some
cases – colluding with Ukrainians to undermine key Trump officials; and consorting
with nefarious
far-right nationalist local bigots (who may have conspired to kill protesters in the
Maidan "massacre," as a means to instigate further Western support for the coup). What's more,
while much of the conspiratorial Trump-team spin on direct, or illegal, Biden family
criminality has proven false, neither Joe nor son Hunter, are exactly "clean." The Democratic
establishment, Biden specifically, may, according to an excellent recent Guardian editorial
, have a serious "corruption problem" – no least of which involves explaining exactly why
a then sitting vice president's son, who had no serious diplomatic or energy sector experience,
was paid $50,000 a month to serve on the board of a Ukrainian gas company .
Fear not, the "Never-Trump" Republicans, and establishment Democrats seemingly intent on
drumming up a new – presumably politically profitable – Cold War have already
explanation. They've dug up the long ago discredited, but still publicly palatable,
justification that the US must be prepared to fight Russia "over there," before it has no
choice but to battle them "over here" (though its long been unclear where "here" is , or how ,
exactly, that fantasy comes to pass). First, there's the distance factor: though several
thousands of miles away from the East Coast of North America, Ukraine is in Russia's
near-abroad. After all, it was long – across many different generational
political/imperial structures – part of the Soviet Union or other Russian empires. A
large subsection of the populace, especially in the East, speaks, and considers itself, in
part, culturally, Russian.
Furthermore, the Russian threat, in 2020, is highly exaggerated. Putin is not Stalin. The
Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union; and, hell, even the Soviet (non-nuclear) military
threat and geopolitical ambitions were embellished throughout Cold War "Classic." A simple
comparative "
tale-of-the-tape " illustrates as much. Economically and demographically, Russia is
demonstrably an empirically declining power –
its economy, in fact, about the size of
Spain's.
Nor is the defense of an imposed, pro-Western, Ukrainian proxy state a vital American
national security interest worth bleeding, or risking nuclear war, over. As MIT's Barry Posen
has argued ,
"Vital interests affect the safety, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and power position of
the United States," and, "If, in the worst case, all Ukraine were to 'fall' to Russia, it would
have little impact on the security of the United States." Furthermore, as retired US Army
colonel, and president of the restraint-based Quincy Institute, Andrew Bacevich,
has advised , the best policy, if discomfiting, is to "tacitly acknowledge[e] the existence
of a Russian sphere of influence." After all, Washington would expect, actually demand, the
same acquiescence of Moscow in Mexico, Canada, or, for that matter, the entire Americas.
Unfortunately, no such restrained prudence is likely, so long as the bipartisan American
national security state continues to subscribe to some vague version of the Mackinder theory.
Quietly, except among wonky regional experts and investigative reporters on the scene, the US
has, before, but especially since the "opportunity" of the 9/11 attacks, entered full-tilt into
a competition with Russia and China for physical, economic, and resource dominance from Central
Asia to the borderlands of Eastern Europe. That's why, as a student at the Army's Command and
General Staff College in 2016-17, all us officers focused almost exclusively on planning
fictitious, but highly realistic, combat missions in the Caucasus region. It also partly
explains why the US military, after 18+ years, remains ensconced in potentially $3 trillion
resource-rich Afghanistan, which, not coincidentally, is America's one serious physical
foothold in land-locked Central Asia.
Anecdotally, but instructively, I remember well my four brief stops at the once ubiquitous
US Air Force way-station into Afghanistan – Manas Airbase – in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.
Off-base "liberty" – even for permanent party airmen – was rare, in part, because
the Russian military had a mirror base just across the city. What's more, the previous, earlier
stopover spot for Afghanistan – Uzbekistan – kicked out the US
military in 2005, in part, due to Russian political and economic pressure to do so.
Central Asia and East Europe are also contested spaces regarding the control of competing
– Western vs. Russian vs. Chinese – oil and natural gas
pipeline routes and trade corridors. Remember, that China's massive " One Belt
– One Road " infrastructure investment program is mostly self-serving, if sometimes
mutually beneficial . The plan means to link Chinese manufacturing to the vast consumerist
European market mainly through transportation, pipeline, diplomatic, and military connections
running through
where? You guessed it: Central Asia, the Caucasus, and on through Eastern Europe.
Like it or not, America isn't poised to win this battle, and its feeble efforts to do so in
these remarkably distant locales smacks of global hegemonic ambitions and foolhardy, mostly
risk, nearly no reward, behavior. Russia has a solid army in close proximity, a hefty nuclear
arsenal, as well as physical and historical connections to the Eurasian Heartland; China has an
even better, more balanced, military, enough nukes, and boasts a far more powerful,
spendthrift-capable, economy. As for the US, though still militarily and (for now) economically
powerful, it lacks proximity, faces difficult logistical / expeditionary challenges, and has
lost much legitimacy and squandered oodles of good will with the regional countries being vied
for. Odds are, that while war may not be inevitable, Washington's weak hand and probable
failure, nearly is.
Let us table, for the purposes of this article, questions regarding any environmental
effects of the great powers' quest for, extraction, and use of many of these regional
resources. My central points are two-fold:
first, that Ukraine – which represents an early stage in Washington's rededication
to chauvinist, Mackinder geostrategy – as a proxy state for war with Russia is not an
advisable or vital interest;
second, that Uncle Sam's larger quest to compete with the big two (Eur)Asian powers is
likely to fail and symptomatic of imperial confusion and desperation.
As the U.S. enters an increasingly bipolar phase of world affairs, powerful national
security leaders fear its diminishing power. Washington's is, like it or not, an empire in
decline; and, as we know from history, such entities behave badly on the downslope of hegemony.
Call me cynical, but I'm apt to believe that the United States, as perhaps the most powerful
imperial body of all time, is apt, and set, to act poorest of all.
The proxy fight in Ukraine, battle for Central Asia in general – to say nothing of
related American aggression and provocations in Iran and the Persian Gulf – could be the
World War III catalyst that the Evangelical militarist nuts, Vice President Pence and Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo, unwilling to wait on Jesus Christ's eschatological timeline, have long
waited for . These characters seemingly possess the heretical temerity to believe man
– white American men, to be exact – can and should incite or stimulate Armageddon
and the Rapture.
If they're proved "right" or have their way – and the Mikes just might – then
nuclear cataclysm will have defied the Vegas odds and beat the house on the expected human
extinction
timeline. Only contra to the bloody prophecy set forth in the New Testament book of
Revelations, it won't be Jesus wielding his vengeful sword on the back of a white horse, but
– tragic and absurdly – the perfect Antichrist stooge, pressing the red button, who
does the apocalyptic deed .
* * *
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com . His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation,
Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat
tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma
mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,
Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . His forthcoming book,
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War , is available for preorder on Amazon.
Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet . Check out his professional website for contact info, scheduling speeches,
and/or access to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.
"it won't be Jesus wielding his vengeful sword on the back of a white horse, but –
tragic and absurdly – the perfect Antichrist stooge, pressing the red button, who does
the apocalyptic deed .'
The World is full of people who would like to be the one who pushes that button, no matter
what happens!
There is an hint of Samson Option, which basically says; If I can't have it all, then none
shall have anything! Don't blame anyone it is just the nature of man, probably both sides
believe in this! Who will wiling submit to slavery?
Europe will become free when the last armed American occupier leaves the European
continent. This axiom is also valid for Japan, South Korea and other countries.
Space and the moon is the latest theory for how to acheive empire and defend yourself from
empire.
Well defended soverignty that is helpful and useful to other sovereign trading partners in
a diverse mutipolar world of sovereigns, not so much as yet. Switzerland is kind of that and
Russia looks like they're working on it.
China aspires to empire and America aspires not to lose theirs and is taking instructions
from Israel on how to do that.
Melchizedek gave Abraham these seven laws of how to get along. Empire ambitious nations
have trouble with numbers 3, 4 and 5.
93:4.7 (1017.9) 1. You shall not serve any God but the Most High Creator of heaven and
earth.
93:4.8 (1017.10) 2. You shall not doubt that faith is the only requirement for eternal
salvation.
93:4.9 (1017.11) 3. You shall not bear false witness.
93:4.10 (1017.12) 4. You shall not kill.
93:4.11 (1017.13) 5. You shall not steal.
93:4.12 (1018.1) 6. You shall not commit adultery.
93:4.13 (1018.2) 7. You shall not show disrespect for your parents and elders.
When China and Russia abandon the dollar, all that's left for the Empire is Canada and
South America, and they've never been able to stop themselves making a mess of everywhere
south of the fence.
Pretty good article and summation of what America has become and what to expect. America
has sure lost a lot of ground since the 1990's. It's really hard to see America winning at
anything these days.
When the "strategists" were penning their hegemonic theories, they woefully failed to
peruse history properly, especially that of human nature put on existential defense..
Either they were not human, or stunted development humans for were they properly developed
humans, they'd have understood eventual reaction to unprovoked aggression..
Such responses often tend to be totally destructive, especially after long suffering from
aggression..
Now, regarding the BRI/OBOR, we've been saying to the West, if they think it's not good
enough, what inputs, devoid of coercion, rapine, aggression, or deceit, they'd suggest to
improve it..
And it was crickets for a while, until Germany woke up, and decided with Europe that
they'd contribute trade diplomacy..
We're still waiting for that of America under the current Admin, and all we observe is
bullying, coercion, and reality denial..
Until a Bernard Sanders seized the initiative, that with a continously finessed Green New
Deal, the United States of America will lead in the environmental aspect of global trade and
commerce, which the EU has also committed to doing as well..
So then Major, perhaps the time has finally arrived for America to eschew aggression and
imperialism, in favor of the erstwhile business of America.. Trade and Commerce..
So for those who desire swamp drained, and a fresh start for America, you might wanna go
chat with, and support Bernard Sanders, the future, and Us..
Then dump the swamp critters and their current admin enabler..
But as in all things, we can only show you the way.. Traveling on it however, is your
sovereign prerogative..
The author still tends to think that it is all because of missteps, mistakes, ignorance,
incompetence, stupidity....
If you step back from the fray.....and don't get caught up in red/blue team nonsense, it
becomes apparent that there is a theme/strategy that is being played out. It appears to be
conducted in evolutionary phases with Wars allowing larger and more overt advances in their
agenda. Simply put order out of chaos.
We are now about to be manipulated into another major evolutionary phase to advance the
globalist agenda. All the conditions are set for their next major order out of
chaos...scheme. It is pretty obvious that Nationalism/Populism will be the scapegoat for the
cause of the chaos to come. The US will take center stage as an example that you cannot trust
a single country (uni-polar world) not to abuse its power....and history has shown a
multi-polar situation leads to major wars...creating chaos around the world.
Their answer will be global governance and their dream of a global feudalistic utopia will
be well on its way to being realized. Hold on, we are about to enter a global "great leap
forward"...
The democratic party must be thee only political party in all world history that actively
suppresses people who want to vote for them.
Looks like the democrats are set to lose the same way they did in 2016. Basically as Matt
Bruenig wrote in his article "The Boring Story
of the 2016 Election
Donald Trump did not win because of a surge of white support. Indeed he got less white
support than Romney got in 2012. Nor did Trump win because he got a surge from other
race+gender groups. The exit polls show him doing slightly better with black men, black
women, and latino women than Romney did, but basically he just hovered around Romney's
numbers with every race+gender group, doing slightly worse than Romney overall.
However, support for Hillary was way below Obama's 2012 levels, with defectors turning
to a third party. Clinton did worse with every single race+gender combo except white women,
where she improved Obama's outcome by a single point. Clinton did not lose all this
support to Donald. She lost it into the abyss. Voters didn't like her but they weren't
wooed by Trump .
The Third Wave neocons pointed out an interesting fact. Clinton won bigly CA, NY, and MA
which gave her something like 7 million votes. However, Trump won the remaining 47 states by
four million.
"... How can they change? The owners are the warmongering monopoly capitalist ruling class. Are you imagining that any decision can ever be made by the lowly peons, the rank and file? ..."
Unless They Change The Democrats Deserve To LoseTrisha , Feb 6 2020 16:12 utc
|
6
The Democratic Party seems to intend to lose the 2020 elections.
The idiotic impeachment attempt against Trump ended just
as we predicted at its beginning:
After two years of falsely accusing Trump of having colluded with Russia [the Democrats]
now allege that he colludes with Ukraine. That will make it much more difficult for the
Democrats to hide the dirty hands they had in creating Russiagate. Their currently
preferred candidate Joe Biden will get damaged.
...
Trump should be impeached for his crimes against Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
But the Democrats will surely not touch on those issues. They are committing themselves
to political theater that will end without any result. Instead of attacking Trump's
policies and proposing better legislation they will pollute the airwaves with noise about
'crimes' that do not exist.
There is no case for impeachment. Even if the House would vote for one the Senate would
never act on it. No one wants to see a President Pence.
The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump
will again present himself as the victim of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is
the only one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the bad
politicians in Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will
motivate them to vote for him.
The Senate acquitted Trump of all the nonsense the Democrats have thrown against him.
The state party is now being forced to walk back their error of giving @BernieSanders
delegates to @DevalPatrick who received zero votes in Black Hawk County. Press can dm
me.
We have known for over 24 hours as verified by our county party that @BernieSanders won
the #iacaucuses in Black Hawk County with 2,149 votes, 155 County Delegates. #NotMeUs
#IowaCaucuses
The whole manipulation was intended to enable Buttigieg to claim that he led in Iowa even
though it is clear that Bernie Sanders won the race. It worked:
If a progressive is about to win #IowaCaucuses:
- remove final polls
- use mysterious app created by former Clinton staffers
- Funnel results thru untested app
- Claim app fails
- Hold results
- Reveal only 62% to give false impression of who won
- Refuse to reveal final results
But the cost of such open manipulations is the
loss of trust in the Democratic Party and in elections in general:
In sum: We are 24 hours into the 2020 campaign, and Democrats have already humiliated their
party on national television, alienated their least reliable progressive supporters,
demoralized their most earnest activists, and handed Trump's campaign a variety of potent
lines of attack.
The other leading candidates are not much better. Sanders might have a progressive agenda
in domestic policies, but his foreign policies are fully in line with his party. Matt Duss,
Sanders' foreign policy advisor, is the son of a lifelong key front man for CIA
proxy organizations. He spills out mainstream imperial blabber:
The only thing that Trump's Venezuela regime change policy achieved is giving Russia an
opportunity to screw with the US in our own hemisphere. That's what they were
applauding.
Giving a standing ovation to Trump's SOTU remarks on Venezuela were of course the
Democratic "resistance" and Nancy Pelosi . That was before she theatrically ripped up her
copy of Trump's speech, the show act of a 5 year old and one which
she had trained for . She should be fired.
Impeachment, the Iowa disaster and petty show acts will not win an election against Donald
Trump. While they do not drive away core Democratic voters, they do make it difficult to get
the additional votes that are needed to win. Many on the left and the right who dislike Trump
will rather abstain or vote for a third party than for a party which is indistinguishable
from the currently ruling one.
Either the Democrats change their whole course of action or they will lose in November to
an extend that will be breathtaking. It would be well deserved.
Posted by b on February 6, 2020 at 15:57 UTC |
Permalink The donor class owners of the "Democratic" party have every incentive to
support Trump, who has cut their taxes, hugely inflated the value of their assets, and
mis-directed attention away from substantial issues that might degrade either their assets or
their power, by focusing on identity politics.
It's obvious to me that the two war parties function as one. The Democrats have been winning
since Trump took office--they get their money and they get their wars. If Trump wins, the
Democrats win as billionaires flood more money into the DNC. If Trump loses, the Republicans
win for the same reasons.
The behavior of a five year old is an appropriate reference point for most of the people
working in DC, albeit engaged parents expect more of their children. This vaudeville routine
is giving satisfaction to Republicans, Trump supporters, and those who have been looking for
a clearer opportunity to say "I told you so" to diehard Democratic believers (who will
continue to refuse to listen).
For an American, even one who has always been somewhat cynical regarding cultural notions of
democracy and the "American Way," the show has become patently and abusively vulgar and
revulsive. It does not appear to be anywhere near "hitting bottom." There can be no recovery
without emotional maturity, and the leaders in Washington exhibit nothing of the kind. The
level of maturity and wisdom of the individuals involved is determinative of the political
result, not the alleged quality of the politics they purport to sell. Right now we don't have
that.
"Unless They Change The Democrats Deserve To Lose"
Aren't there 2 levels of "change"?
1. How can they change? The owners are the warmongering monopoly capitalist ruling
class. Are you imagining that any decision can ever be made by the lowly peons, the rank and
file? If you thought anything like that, you should try to find one single instance, in
all history, of this "party" ever having done anything at all out of line with the express
policy of the owners of the country (the high level of people-friendly noise, intended for
the voting peons, never translates into any action of that sort.)
2. If you mean change the electoral policy to win this election, how could they
conceivably manage to change this late? Like a supertanker launched at full speed trying to
make a sharp turn a few seconds before hitting the shore, you mean?
Anyway, in both cases forget what it "deserves", it should be destroyed and buried under,
not only lose.
It would take extreme mental contortions to take U.S. "democracy" seriously at this
point.
I would like to believe that it makes some difference who is elected, but increasingly
doubtful.
How different would it really have been had Hillary been elected (much as it pains me to
consider such a scenario)?
Trump was elected (aside from interference from AIPAC) partly because he was republican
candidate and for some that's all it takes but aside from that because;
- end pointless wars
- improve healthcare
- control immigration
- jobs for coal miners
- somehow address corruption and non-performance of government
- improve US competitiveness, bring back jobs, promote business, improve economy
He claims having improved the economy but more likely is done juice from the FED.
So really, what grade does he deserve?
And yet people are rallying to his side.
Personally I think that the entrenched interests have moulded Trump to meet their
requirements and now it is inconvenient to have to start work on a new president, unless it
would be one of their approved choices.
I voted for Trump because of Hillary.
Now I would not vote for Trump given a decent choice. Fortunately there is an excellent
alternative.
All who count have known for a long time that Trump will have a second term. Baked in. (1)
The Dems agitate and raucously screech and try to impeach to distract or whatever to show
da base that they hate Trump and hope to slaughter! him! a rapist! mysoginist! racist!
liar ! He is horrors! in touch with the malignant criminal authoritarian ex-KGB Putin! Russia
Russia Russia - and remember Stormy Daniels! ( :) ! )
The top corp. Dems prefer to lose to Trump, I have said this for years, as have many
others. In rivalry of the Mafia type, it is often better to submit to have a share of the
pie. Keep the plebs on board with BS etc. Victim status, underdog pretense, becomes ever more
popular.
1. Trump might fall ill / dead / take Melania's advice and wishes into account, or just
quit.
People still talk like democracy really exists in USA.
They channel their anger toward Party and personality.
If only the democrats would ... If only Sanders would ... If only people would see that
...
A few understand the way things really are, but most are still hoping that
somehow that the bed-time stories and entertaining kayfabe are a sort of
democracy that they can live with.
But the is just normalcy bias. A Kool-Aid hang-over. This is not democracy. It is a soft
tyranny encouraged by Empire stooges, lackeys, and enabled by ignorance.
The lies are as pervasive as they are subtle: half-truths; misdirection; omitting facts
like candidate/party affiliations with the Zionist/Empire Death Cult.
The REAL divide among people in the West is who benefits from an EMPIRE/ZIONIST FIRST
orientation that has polluted our politics and our culture and the rest of us.
Wake up. War is on the horizon. And Central Banks can't print money forever.
After watching Pelosi it reminded me that during the Geo. W. Bush era the Democrats were
always claiming to be the adults in the room. It's odd that Mayo Pete's 'husband' is never
seen or heard from. I wonder why? Biden's toast and Epstein didn't kill himself. AND Seth
Rich leaked Hillary's emails to Wikileaks.
-- --
The Clinton-Obama administration had scores of corrupt officials and associates (the
Podestas, for instance). It was necessary to create a firewall once Trump won the nomination.
As so, they attacked his campaign manager, his national security adviser, his family,
himself, using all the means of FISA, wire tapping done by NSA and CIA and Mi6 and probably
Mossad.
Red Ryder | Feb 6 2020 16:56 utc | 14
-- --
Trump is an installment of The Mossad via blackmail and media manipulation, check "Black
Cube Intelligence", a Mossad front operating from City of London. It would make sense the
establishment in the US would eavesdrop on him. Mossad on the other hand would wiretap the
wiretapers and give feedback on Trump. The Podesta you mentioned once threatened the factions
with "disclosure" possibly to keep the runaway black projects crazies in check not that I
wish to play advocate of these people.
-- --
After they lose again in November, they will unleash their street thugs, Antifa, to terrorize
the winners. Meanwhile for the purists of the Liberal Cult there will be many real suicides.
So, bloodshed and death will become reality.
Red Ryder | Feb 6 2020 16:56 utc | 14
-- --
Yes, what we need is just a nazi party in the US to keep communism in check, right? We are
half way there with Trump already aren't we? "Black Sun" technologies (which a part off I
described above) already there, leaking to anyone interested enough that would aid in the
great outsourcing for the Yinon project, so why not? "Go Trump 2020"! (sarcasm)
For whatever reason the only thing the Dems seem to find more terrible than a loss to Trump
is a win with Bernie. I'm no fan of Bernie but it's clear they're out to sabotage the one guy
that would actually beat Trump in an election
While I have no illusions that a Sanders administration will have good foreign policy
objectives, is there not something to be said for shifting money away from the
military-industrial complex in the US? In general Sanders gives me the impression that he
wants to reduce US intervention in foreign affairs in favor of spending more money on
domestic issues. Even a slight reduction in pressure is helpful for giving other countries
the ability to expand their spheres of influence and becoming more legitimate powers in
opposition to the US and EU. Based on this I still see voting for Sanders as helpful even if
he won't bring about any meaningful change in the US's foreign policy.
it's not an actual Stalin quote, but often used as such
he did say something in the same vein, though.
it IS absolutely spot on here:
"It's not who vote that counts, it's who counts the votes"
congratulations, DNC, you're on a par with Joseph Stalin; the most ruthless chairman the
Sovyets have ever had.
so here is your real Russia Gate.
oh, come and smell the Irony. In fake wrestling the producers determine the winner in advance
and the wrestlers ate given their script to follow. The Dems have no intention to win this,
look at the clowns they have running the show not to mention the flawed candidates . The
script calls for the king of fake wrestling, Trump himself, to win yet again. Only a
concerted effort by the Dems and Deep State media, along with some tech help from Bibis crew
can engineer this result, but they are all on board. Dems willing to wait for 2024 when the
producers will write them in for a big Win over somebody not named Trump. The world will be
ready for a Green change by then, and Soros/Gates boys will have their chance to step up to
the plate again.
Enjoy the show if you wish, I'm changing the channel.
Yes pft, the favored candidate of the DNC is clearly Trump.
Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Feb 6 2020 19:25 utc | 58
Only if the ungrateful commoners who identify as Democrats or moderates can't be brought to
heel and give their full throated support for the DNC's favoured Cookie Cutter candidate who
might as well be one of those dolls with a string and a recording you hear when you pull the
string.
Then yes, they would prefer 'fore moar years!!' of the Ugliest American ever to be
installed as President of the United States.
One of things I respect about Tulsi Gabbard is she ain't no Doll with a string attached.
When she made the comment about cleaning out the rot in the Democratic Party, she left no
doubt her intent and goals. And to take on hillary, the Red Queen to boot, why that was
simply delicious.
Alas, the View, the DNC, it's web of evil rich and the media will never forgive her for
Soldiering for her Country.
It should be clear on what the fight is really about in the US. It's about stopping the rise
of socialism. Regardless of party affiliation, the elites know what the populace wants and
are desperately trying to stop it. I refuse to accept that the Democrats have no idea what
they're doing.
I honestly can't see Sanders getting the nomination with all the corruption openly being
displayed. I would be pleasantly surprised if Sanders did manage to get it, but he still have
to deal with the ELECTORAL COLLEGE (EC). The Electors have the final say. Yes, one can point
out that some States have laws forcing Electors to vote what the populace wants, but that is
being challenged in court. The debate on whether such laws are unconstitutional or not,
remains to be seen. It's too late now to deal with the EC for this election, but people need
to be more active in politics at the State level as that's where Electors are (s)elected.
IF Sanders is genuine then he should prepare to run as an independent just to get the EC
attention.
RR @ 14;
Everything in the U$A today, is driven by the unofficial Party of $, and it's reach
transcends both Dems & repubs. It's cadre is the majority of the D.C. "rule makers", so
we get what they want, not what "we the people" want or need.
They own the banks, MSM media, and even our voting systems.
IMO, to assume one party is to blame for conditions in the U$A is a bit naive.
Question is, can anything the masses do, change the system? Or is rank and file America
just along for the ride?
I'm assuming us peons will get what the party of $ wants this November also.
P.S. If any blame is given, it needs to go to the American public, because " you get the
kind of Gov. you deserve" through your inactions...
It's a lot like living, death is certain, but until that occurs, I'll move forward trying
to mitigate current paradigms.
Another Trotskyist attempt at convincing people they don't need nations anymore. No need to
feel proud in your cultural difference which makes the world a beautiful and ineffable place.
Instead, they want monoculture ruled by Technocrats. How "eastern."
I don't mind, because I know that in Christianity's early days, many converts had to hide
to preserve the faith.
Indeed, Philip K. Dick had fever dreams about being a Christian in ancient MENA and hiding
himself amongst the Romans. Jews, similarly, I am sure, felt something akin during the war in
Germany and occupied territory.
Freedom in the neo-liberal lexicon means freedom of the strong to predate on the weak. Free
Trade is a particular example of this. A rational person must expect the UK to be brutally
savaged in dealing with the EU, US and China.
@1, It is true that at present not having a Mediterranean coast is an advantage. But an
optimist might hope that the defeat of the US in Eurasia will bring new peace along the Belt
and Road, and Africa and the ME will see the greatest boom.
"The affirmative task we have now is to actually create a new world order."
-- Vice President Joe Biden, April 5, 2013
"Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective -- a new world order -- can
emerge."
-- President George H. W. Bush, September 11, 1990
"We saw deterioration where there should have been positive movement toward a new world
order."
-- Mikhail Gorbachev, October 19, 2011
"I think that his [Obama's] task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in
this period, when really a 'new world order' can be created. It's a great
opportunity."
Remember it was the British that basically established political Zionism as a state back
in Palestine.
It was Trump that declared Jerusalem as the 'eternal capital' of anti-Christ Judaism.
Boris Johnson is a 'passionate Zionist' by his own proclamation.
This is about a realignment of Zionist interest in the English speaking world.
The EU wasn't going to play ball on the terms of American (and British) Zionism.
The English (KJV) world of eschatology demands a pseudo-Christianity to bow down to the
interests of anti-Christ Jewish nationalism. (It is why the U.S. Senate has passed
legislation making it illegal to criticize 'Israel' as 'anti-Semitic')
American evangelicals are being misrepresented by heretics like John Hagee and a
pseudo-Christianity that cares not for Jesus Christ at all but rather maintains a focus only
on 'Israel'. A dual covenant theology mixed with heresies galore served up in a controlled
media that doesn't allow for the recognition of Christianity as the real Israel against a
history of the destruction of ancient Israel because of their rejection of Jesus Christ as
the Son of God.
The New Testament Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen is Jesus foretelling and giving clear
reason for the destruction of anti-Christ Judaism in 70 AD.
The heresies of John Darby and Cyrus Scofield (again nearly exclusively in English) have
created everything from British Israelism to fear and anxiety hustling crapola such as Hal
Lindsey and The Late Great Planet Earth end of the world heresies.
On the basis of Christian heresy has emerged anti-Christ political Zionism and its vast
adherents in the English speaking world now realigning.
The tell tale sign; debt rises much faster than GDP in the US in the 1920s.
(Japan 1980s; US, UK and Euro-zone before 2008; China after 2008)
The bankers were inflating asset prices with bank credit.
Bank credit effectively brings future prosperity into today.
The 1920s boomed on borrowed money and the 1930s were impoverished as they made the
repayments.
In the 1930s, they pondered over where all that wealth had gone to in 1929 and realised
inflating asset prices doesn't create real wealth, they came up with the GDP measure to track
real wealth creation in the economy.
The transfer of existing assets, like stocks and real estate, doesn't create real wealth
and therefore does not add to GDP. The real wealth creation in the economy is measured by
GDP.
Inflated asset prices aren't real wealth, and this can disappear almost over-night, as it
did in 1929 and 2008.
Real wealth creation involves real work, producing new goods and services in the
economy.
Henry Simons was a founder member of the Chicago School of Economics and he had worked out
what was wrong with his beliefs in free markets in the 1930s.
Banks can inflate asset prices with the money they create from bank loans.
Henry Simons and Irving Fisher supported the Chicago Plan to take away the bankers ability
to create money.
"Simons envisioned banks that would have a choice of two types of holdings: long-term
bonds and cash. Simultaneously, they would hold increased reserves, up to 100%. Simons saw
this as beneficial in that its ultimate consequences would be the prevention of
"bank-financed inflation of securities and real estate" through the leveraged creation of
secondary forms of money."
"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." Irving Fisher
1929.
This 1920's neoclassical economist that believed in free markets knew this was a stable
equilibrium. He became a laughing stock, but worked out where he had gone wrong.
Banks can inflate asset prices with the money they create from bank loans, and he knew his
belief in free markets was dependent on the Chicago Plan, as he had worked out the cause of
his earlier mistake.
It was those bankers inflating the US stock market with margin lending.
It's not quite the same this time.
Let the bank's collapse for a Great Depression
Save the banks, but leave the debt in place for Japanification .
How did this old belief set come back again?
A new ideology, neoliberalism, was wrapped around 1920s neoclassical economics, to make it
look brand new.
The reckless bankers and robber barons had made a lot of money in the 1920s and they
rather liked the way things had been before, but after the reckless bankers and robber barons
had run riot in the US in the 1920s, beliefs in economic liberalism and the markets were in
short supply.
Just a few diehards, like Hayek, were left and they were hiding out at the LSE in the UK
in the 1930s. He was looking to put a new slant on those old ideas.
In the 1940s, Hayek put together his theories of the markets being a mechanism for
transmitting the collective wisdom of market participants around the world through pricing.
It was never going to get into the mainstream until nearly everyone had forgotten what
happened last time they believed in the markets.
At last, in the 1980s, the people were ready to believe in the markets again.
Before 1980 – banks lending into the right places that result in GDP growth
(business and industry, creating new products and services in the economy)
Debt grows with GDP
After 1980 – banks lending into the wrong places that don't result in GDP growth
(real estate and financial speculation)
Debt rises much faster than GDP
2008 – Minsky Moment
After 2008 – Balance sheet recession and the economy struggles as debt repayments to
banks destroy money. We are making the repayments on the debt we built up from 1980 –
2008.
What happened in 1979?
The UK eliminated corset controls on banking in 1979 and the banks invaded the mortgage
market and this is where the problem starts.
This is the UK, but everyone has made the same mistake.
One economics, one ideology.
Global groupthink.
At 25.30 mins you can see the super imposed private debt-to-GDP ratios.
What Japan does in the 1980s; the US, the UK and Euro-zone do leading up to 2008 and China
has done more recently.
The tell tale sign of neoclassical economics; debt rises much faster than GDP
The PBoC saw the Chinese Minsky Moment coming and you can too by looking at the chart
above. The Chinese bankers had been loading their economy up with their debt products and it
was just about to crash.
Our experts look at public debt and consumer price inflation, but the problems develop in
private debt and asset price inflation so the "black swan" flies in under their radar.
Davos 2018 – The Chinese know financial crises come from the private debt-to-GDP
ratio and inflated asset prices
thatcher was a neoliberal. neoliberalism is both nationalism (for the long con game) and
globalist (the goal)
The Mont Pelerin Society's (Austria 1940's) favorite "economist" F. v Hayek proposed path
of "liberty" and "freedom" [only for the inbred 1% (Neoliberalism)] (Friedman, Buchanan,
"Chicago School", were later disciples)
1) Deregulate global financial markets - DONE
2) Deregulate global trade - DONE
3) Create the illusion and urgency of national bankruptcy with fake (fiat) debt (thereby
neuter a nation's capability to enforce laws - eliminate the people's ability to defend
against being overwhelmed and consumed by the 1%) - DONE
this manufactured illusion of bankruptcy is critical path for the inbred 1%'s agenda. the
"debt" is used to justify austerity measures for the people, and to tee up, the privatization
plan, which is about transforming the public debt, into private debt, where the 1% can
extract usury, ad infinitum.
#AusterityIsCode4Looting - austerity measures are plain evidence, the system has already
been looted by generational globalist wealth.
then lastly, the kill shot:
4) Privatize Everything. recreate us ALL as permanent rent payers of even the most basic
necessities of life (Air, water, food, shelter, health care). the public debt of a ntion has
been effectively eliminated, transmuted into private debt; the service of which (usury) is
FOREVER- Almost COMPLETE
#PrivatizationIsTheft - privatization today is STRICTLY about prioritizing national
productivity (work) away from the commons and general welfare, extracting and transferring it
to the inbred 1% rent-seeking parasites (Extreme Redistribution of wealth from the people TO
the Billionaires, NOTHING for the people)
"People only accept change when they are faced with necessity, and only recognize
necessity when crisis is upon them."
Same old process...Problem, Reaction, Solution
They corrupt the current system and advance their agenda as far as they can (gaining
public support using the process above). When they detect growing resistance and distrust of
the system...they then encourage and use that trend to advance their agenda further using the
same Problem, Reaction, Solution process. The crash/destruction of the current status quo and
the fear and chaos that comes with it will be blamed on populism/nationalism. The people (in
chaos and fear) will seek safety and security...and will willingly accept the solutions
offered up to them. Rinse and repeat.
The bottom line is they know that acceptance of global centralization of power and
control...is a bottoms up process (the people must willing accept/demand it). It must be
accomplished in evolutionary stages through gradualism. However, when they have reach a
certain point and want to take the next major step, they undermine the peoples trust in the
current system and encourage and use the people's blow-back. Blow-back will be blamed for all
the chaos and fear.
Antonym Cruelty is a sign of a degrading society. Cultures promoting cruelty and torture
have lost any arguments. The Roman empire went down the public games till death phase just
before it collapsed, but that was two millennia ago. The US doesn't have the time excuse but
still promoted its Hollywood violence.
From the biggest kid on the block to bully gone bad
Richard Le Sarc ,
You have to remember that under Talmudic Judaic Law, killing civilians is not just
permissible, but is considered a mitzvah or good deed. And killing children, even babies, is
permissible if it can be said that they would grow up to 'oppose the Jews'. Quite
understandable in a hate-cult where, as the 'revered' Rabbi Kook the Elder declared, it is
believed that, 'There is a greater difference between the soul of a Jew and that of a non-Jew
than there is between the soul of a non-Jew and that of an animal'. What a Divine Burden you
bear, Ant-and with such dignity.
paul ,
Charming, these Levantine folk.
Luckily, Tony Blair is now on the job, working to suppress "the global pandemic of anti
Semitism."
That certainly puts my mind at rest.
Antonym ,
The CIA might have "inspired" Al Qaida or ISIS hangmen but not Assad's. They definitely
trained most Central and South America sadists in official uniform.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Come on Ant-don't be so shy. Israeli trained many Latin American killers and aided them in
drawing up death-lists. You should be proud of Zionist achievements.
Charlotte Russe ,
Guantanamo Bay provided a striking "stage setting" proving there's indeed a "War on Terror."
A "War on Terror is a nebulous concept–how do you battle terror. Terror is an "emotion"
which quickly evolved into rage felt by millions devastated in imperialist wars. How does an
Empire win a War on Terror with 1,000 military bases scattered throughout every continent.
The War on Terror was never conceived to be won, it was meant to be endless.
Now getting back to Guantanamo Bay, most of the victims were gathered by bounty hunters in
Afghanistan or were targeted because of past grievances. The unlucky captives, had nothing to
do with terrorist activities or 9/11. Guantanamo Bay, diabolically tests the limitless way an
Empire can abscond with an individual's freedom. Extrajudicial concepts like "enemy
combatant" are auditioned proving all legal rights can be immediately abrogated with just a
stroke of a pen. The War on Terror produced a new type of captive–someone who was
neither a prisoner of war or a US criminal. An abducted victim held indefinitely in a black
site. In other words, the War on Terror justified extrajudicial transfers from one country to
another circumventing the former country's laws on interrogation, detention and
torture. The War on Terror proved that a mind-boggling event such as a "false flag like 9/11"
generates enough shock to gain public acceptance for legislation like the "Patriot Act" where
frightened citizens are willing to capitulate freedom for safety.
paul ,
Many of the unfortunates murdered or tortured or held indefinitely without trial in US
concentration camps were basically just Afghan or Pakistani yokels handed over to CIA spooks
for a $5,000 bounty. They reckon half the villages in Pakistan were suddenly missing the
village idiot, who had been sold to the CIA.
The Taliban fighters rounded up were engaged in a civil war in Afghanistan at the time
against assorted warlords and drug lords from non Pashtun communities who rejected the
authority of the Taliban government. They had never fought against America, and had no plans
to. Some of them probably didn't know that America existed. They were probably somewhat
bewildered that the US was muscling in on their civil war.
Bin Laden was there as a hang over from the war against Russia. He had been on the CIA
payroll for years, a "heroic freedom fighter" invited round the White House for tea and
buns.
Incidentally, the "enemy combatant" routine is nothing new for the US. In 1945, German
POWs were suddenly designated "surrendered enemy personnel" to deprive them of the protection
of POW status. Eisenhower hated Germans, and wanted to treat prisoners as harshly as
possible. German prisoners held by US forces in the Rhineland area were deliberately deprived
of food, water and shelter, and certainly very large numbers died, though figures are
disputed. There were many murders and summary executions. Wherever they have operated, US
forces have always committed atrocities and war crimes on both a casual and more organised
basis.
Richard Le Sarc ,
It is actually a War OF Terror. And torture is as American as apple-pie.
paul ,
As bad as they are, the US concentration camps at Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib and the
issue of waterboarding, are just the tip of a very large iceberg.
There is a global US Gulag of concentration camps, torture chambers and secret prisons
(including UK territory) where thousands of people have been horrifically tortured and
murdered on an industrial scale.
The torture employed exceeds by far anything Guy Fawkes or the Knights Templar would have
experienced in the 17th and 14th centuries.
paul ,
This torture is the product of very sick and diseased minds from a very sick and diseased
society.
Extreme sexual torture and humiliation. Murder, blindings and maimings. Agonising confinement
in tiny boxes for protracted periods. One unfortunate chained up naked in a freezing cell in
a standing position, medieval style, and just left there until somebody noticed, 17 days
later, that he was dead.
Another kidnapped from Canada and spirited away to US torture chambers in Morocco and
Yugoslavia, where his private parts were mutilated. It transpired that this unfortunate was
not the man they wanted. He just had a similar name to somebody else.
paul ,
And of course the UK and all the US satellites were fully complicit in these crimes and
atrocities.
Not that this will in any way inhibit them from climbing up on their high horse and giving
lofty sermons and pious lectures to all the benighted natives on the rest of the planet about
their human rights failings, and their need to comply with our exalted "Rules Based Order."
paul ,
"We tortured some folks."
paul ,
Of course these are just 2 isolated cases out of thousands and thousands.
One of the worst torturers known as NZ7 was a religious nut job who liked to bring people to
the point of death so he could feel the soul leaving the body.
People were tortured three times a day for weeks and months on end.
Scenes of torture replicated and far exceeded anything in medieval dungeons.
Torture doctors were on hand to advise on how to intensify the torment.
The motivation seems mainly to have been sadism and sexual sadism for its own sake rather
than any genuine interest in obtaining information.
Anal rape was a routine part of the CIA torture manual.
So was freezing people to death and shoving nuts and hummus up people's arses.
People with specialist knowledge of the subject have said that the Gestapo record of
torture was actually far better than that of the US. The Gestapo did torture people, but it
was a very bureaucratic process, and they preferred to intimidate people into cooperating by
playing on their bad reputation.
Richard Le Sarc ,
Many of the worst torture practises used by the USA were borrowed from the Israelis, drawing
on decades of experience torturing tens of thousands of Palestinians. But they are the ' most
moral torturers on Earth'-and don' t you dare forget it.
Human. Beings. Doing Earth Life. There is no separation in our species, except that, a
disconnect occurred. Who, When, What, Where, and How did the disconnect become an all
powerful power? Acting as though the species Human isn't. The tap root "dis~ease"
(disconnect) must be eradicated/ healed/ rejoining our species into oneness, again.
Top~bottom junk yard dogs is barbaric.
Posted by: charliechan | Jan 30 2020 19:36 utc | 85
An excellent question, "who benefits", clearly it's not everybody. "Profitable for whom",
"rights for whom", "safe for whom", "justice for whom". If the answer is not "everybody",
it's bullshit. What's good for corporations is not what is good for people. We are infested
with economic parasites who blather on about how they are taking "care" of us and giving us
"choices".
From comments: "Even though the article is exaggerating there is some truth to it. People in
Europe are getting tired of the US's economic bullying. The extraterritoriality of the US law is
nonsense and is driving Europeans and Russians slowly but surely away from the King Dollar. More
and more transactions are conducted in Euro and Europe is moving towards using the Euro both for
internal as well as international transactions."
Notable quotes:
"... Washington's stranglehold over the Iraqi economy is an extreme example of a broader, worrying trend: more and more often, the United States is using its privileged role as custodian of the global financial system to coerce and punish those who object to its methods, be they friend or foe. It has slowly usurped a system intended to provide benefits to the world at large and made of it an instrument for its own geopolitical goals. ..."
"... In turning financial relationships into a tool of empire, the United States follows in the footsteps of ancient Athens. The experience of this predecessor does not augur well for Washington. Athens used its financial power to abuse its allies and in doing so precipitated its own ruination. The United States risks doing the same. ..."
"... During the Great Recession it became evident that in some (not all) respects the United States was unable to fulfil its responsibility as the international economy's manager. After all, an economic hegemon is supposed to solve global economic crises, not cause them. But it was the freezing up of the US financial system triggered by the sub-prime mortgage crisis that plunged the global economy into hot water. The economic hegemon is supposed to be the lender of last resort in the international economy. ..."
"... The United States, however, has become the borrower of first resort -- the world's largest debtor. When the global economy falters, the economic hegemon is supposed to jump-start recovery by purchasing other nations' goods. From the end of the Second World War until the Great Recession struck, it was America's willingness to consume foreign goods that constituted the primary firewall against global economic downturns. ..."
"... When the Great Recession hit, however, the US economy proved too infirm to lead the global economy back to health. ..."
"... The task facing American statesmen over the next decades is to recognize that broad trends are under way, and that there is a need to 'manage' affairs so that the relative erosion of the United States' position takes place slowly and smoothly, and is not accelerated by policies which bring merely short-term advantage but longer-term disadvantage. ..."
"... The authors are doing the hypothesis the fall of an empire is founded by using oppression as a primary means to support it's own interests. To support their hypothesis they are comparing the fall of Athens with the US. ..."
"... The article could be summarized as the insight, power projection needs more than a simple projection of force. ..."
"... The usage of financial coercion to get allies in line and putting pressure on other nations is implying others will search for a circumvention of a possible financial coercion ..."
"... I agree that dominance does not vanish overnight but the night is long and full of terrors ..."
"... It has slowly usurped a system intended to provide benefits to the world at large and made of it an instrument for its own geopolitical goals. ..."
"... It continues to exploit a system that was put in place after WW2 and intended to be an instrument for its own geopolitical goals. FTFY ..."
When Iraqi lawmakers voted to expel U.S. forces from the country earlier this month, the
Trump administration's response was swift and forceful: it refused to withdraw and, for good
measure, threatened financial retaliation, saying it would freeze Iraq's accounts at the U.S.
Federal Reserve.
The threat seems to have been effective. Although Iraqi officials still seethe over a U.S.
drone strike that killed a top Iranian commander in Baghdad on January 3, Prime Minister Adel
Abdul-Mahdi has said that his caretaker government lacks the authority to push for a U.S.
withdrawal, and American troops have resumed joint operations with their Iraqi
counterparts.
But that sense of normalcy is deceiving. U.S. forces were in the country at the invitation
of the Iraqi government to help in the fight against the Islamic State, or ISIS. By refusing to
withdraw them, the Trump administration is turning a relationship of choice into one of
coercion. Just as alarming, Washington is doing so by threatening to starve its ally of
critical funds, a step that could set off a financial crisis in Iraq, perhaps even economic
collapse.
Washington's stranglehold over the Iraqi economy is an extreme example of a broader,
worrying trend: more and more often, the United States is using its privileged role as
custodian of the global financial system to coerce and punish those who object to its methods,
be they friend or foe. It has slowly usurped a system intended to provide benefits to the world
at large and made of it an instrument for its own geopolitical goals.
In turning financial relationships into a tool of empire, the United States follows in
the footsteps of ancient Athens. The experience of this predecessor does not augur well for
Washington. Athens used its financial power to abuse its allies and in doing so precipitated
its own ruination. The United States risks doing the same.
THE PRICE OF
ARROGANCE
Scholars of the realist school of international relations tend to think of the
During the Great Recession it became evident that in some (not all) respects the
United States was unable to fulfil its responsibility as the international economy's
manager. After all, an economic hegemon is supposed to solve global economic crises, not
cause them. But it was the freezing up of the US financial system triggered by the
sub-prime mortgage crisis that plunged the global economy into hot water. The economic
hegemon is supposed to be the lender of last resort in the international economy.
The United States, however, has become the borrower of first resort -- the world's
largest debtor. When the global economy falters, the economic hegemon is supposed to
jump-start recovery by purchasing other nations' goods. From the end of the Second World
War until the Great Recession struck, it was America's willingness to consume foreign goods
that constituted the primary firewall against global economic downturns.
When the Great Recession hit, however, the US economy proved too infirm to lead the
global economy back to health. It fell to China to pull the global economy out of its
nose-dive by stepping up to the plate with a massive stimulus program. Barack Obama
acknowledged the deeper implications of this when, at the April 2009 G20 meeting in London,
he conceded that, in important respects, the United States' days as the economic hegemon
were numbered because it was too deeply in debt to continue as the world's consumer of last
resort. Instead, he said, the world would have to look to China (and other emerging market
states, plus Germany) to be the motors of global recovery. 'If there is going to be renewed
growth,' Obama stated, 'it can't just be the United States as the engine, everybody is
going to have to pick up the pace.'
Rather, the declinists, in Paul Kennedy, Rob Gilpin, David Calleo and P. Huntington of
the 1980s pointed to domestic and international economic drivers that, over time,would
cause American economic power to diminish relatively, thereby shifting the balance of
power. In essence, the declinists believed that the United States was experiencing a slow
-- 'termite-like' -- decline caused by fundamental structural weaknesses in the American
economy that were gradually nibbling at its foundations.
Layne states even Kennedy (JFK that is) knew that American power would decline into the
21st century,
The task facing American statesmen over the next decades is to recognize that broad
trends are under way, and that there is a need to 'manage' affairs so that the relative
erosion of the United States' position takes place slowly and smoothly, and is not
accelerated by policies which bring merely short-term advantage but longer-term
disadvantage.
Source; Layne, C., 2018. The US -- Chinese power shift and the end of the Pax Americana.
International Affairs , 94(1), pp.89-111. level 1
... There are other things to say about the negative impact of America's financial empire
(primarily the impact of the petro dollar internationally), but that's again an unavoidable
result of USA being something like 1/8th of the global economy.
The authors are doing the hypothesis the fall of an empire is founded by using oppression
as a primary means to support it's own interests. To support their hypothesis they are
comparing the fall of Athens with the US.
The usage of financial coercion to get allies in
line and putting pressure on other nations is implying others will search for a circumvention
of a possible financial coercion which then leads to a weakening of the financial system as
we know it. The article could be summarized as the insight, power projection needs more than
a simple projection of force.
As for now, most people would agree the capability of the US to coerce everyone will not
vanish over night. Even when this article is directed towards the US, the conclusion is
almost universal. Whether it's the US, EU or China nobody can escape the consequences of his
own actions. level 2
The usage of financial coercion to get allies in line and putting pressure on other
nations is implying others will search for a circumvention of a possible financial
coercion
They are assuming this is a new phenomenon. It is not, the US has been doing the same
thing for 100 years, and 100 years ago there wasn't a risk of the empire falling, so why is
there a risk today?
The difference between 100 years ago and today is information sharing and the internet. So
we know about it.
We are entering a world with 2 dominant global superpowers, after a generation of having
only 1. The real question is how US domestic politics drives outward projects to the rise of
China. Does the US elect politicians who want trade wars and real wars? or does the US turn
more into what the UK did, a very strong first world country that is OK losing the mantle of
dominant superpower relatively peacefully.
Being a superpower or not has no meaningful impact on residents day to day lives.
I agree that dominance does not vanish overnight but the night is long and full of
terrors. [Sorry GOT] What worked for US is we being this beacon of liberty. It is
disappearing as a beacon and also in reality.
Once setting up your technology hubs in Canada
and Western Europe becomes the obvious choice because of American politics, once right and
left just refuse to compromise and want to eliminate each other, it does not matter if other
countries are weak now, what matters is how much gains they can make while the US is fighting
its own civil war.
Foreign investment is attracted to the US economic system, and the rules that govern it,
in part BECAUSE they are different from those in Europe and Canada. "Tech hubs" won't bail on
the US until that changes alonside myriad other economic incentive reversals.
"... During the Great Recession it became evident that in some (not all) respects the United States was unable to fulfil its responsibility as the international economy's manager. After all, an economic hegemon is supposed to solve global economic crises, not cause them. But it was the freezing up of the US financial system triggered by the sub-prime mortgage crisis that plunged the global economy into hot water. The economic hegemon is supposed to be the lender of last resort in the international economy. ..."
"... The United States, however, has become the borrower of first resort -- the world's largest debtor. When the global economy falters, the economic hegemon is supposed to jump-start recovery by purchasing other nations' goods. From the end of the Second World War until the Great Recession struck, it was America's willingness to consume foreign goods that constituted the primary firewall against global economic downturns. ..."
"... When the Great Recession hit, however, the US economy proved too infirm to lead the global economy back to health. ..."
"... The task facing American statesmen over the next decades is to recognize that broad trends are under way, and that there is a need to 'manage' affairs so that the relative erosion of the United States' position takes place slowly and smoothly, and is not accelerated by policies which bring merely short-term advantage but longer-term disadvantage. ..."
"... It has slowly usurped a system intended to provide benefits to the world at large and made of it an instrument for its own geopolitical goals. ..."
"... It continues to exploit a system that was put in place after WW2 and intended to be an instrument for its own geopolitical goals. FTFY ..."
During the Great Recession it became evident that in some (not all) respects the United
States was unable to fulfil its responsibility as the international economy's manager. After
all, an economic hegemon is supposed to solve global economic crises, not cause them. But it
was the freezing up of the US financial system triggered by the sub-prime mortgage crisis
that plunged the global economy into hot water. The economic hegemon is supposed to be the
lender of last resort in the international economy.
The United States, however, has become
the borrower of first resort -- the world's largest debtor. When the global economy falters,
the economic hegemon is supposed to jump-start recovery by purchasing other nations' goods.
From the end of the Second World War until the Great Recession struck, it was America's
willingness to consume foreign goods that constituted the primary firewall against global
economic downturns.
When the Great Recession hit, however, the US economy proved too infirm to lead the global
economy back to health. It fell to China to pull the global economy out of its nose-dive by
stepping up to the plate with a massive stimulus program. Barack Obama acknowledged the
deeper implications of this when, at the April 2009 G20 meeting in London, he conceded that,
in important respects, the United States' days as the economic hegemon were numbered because
it was too deeply in debt to continue as the world's consumer of last resort. Instead, he
said, the world would have to look to China (and other emerging market states, plus Germany)
to be the motors of global recovery. 'If there is going to be renewed growth,' Obama stated,
'it can't just be the United States as the engine, everybody is going to have to pick up the
pace.'
Rather, the declinists, in Paul Kennedy, Rob Gilpin, David Calleo and P. Huntington of the
1980s pointed to domestic and international economic drivers that, over time,would cause
American economic power to diminish relatively, thereby shifting the balance of power. In
essence, the declinists believed that the United States was experiencing a slow --
'termite-like' -- decline caused by fundamental structural weaknesses in the American economy
that were gradually nibbling at its foundations.
Layne states even Kennedy (JFK that is) knew that American power would decline into the 21st
century,
The task facing American statesmen over the next decades is to recognize that broad trends
are under way, and that there is a need to 'manage' affairs so that the relative erosion of
the United States' position takes place slowly and smoothly, and is not accelerated by
policies which bring merely short-term advantage but longer-term disadvantage.
Source; Layne, C., 2018. The US–Chinese power shift and the end of the Pax Americana. International Affairs , 94(1), pp.89-111. level 1
Yeah this is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, the fed is a complete mess, and has been the
primary driver of asset price inflation, slowing total factor productivity, and marginal labor
productivity (ie limited wage growth), and putting this all together, has been the primary
cause of wealth inequality.
Yes, the fed is a bald-faced nationalized monopoly, and the biggest company in the world.
Yes, it is a clearly political institution that enacts policy for the benefit of stakeholders,
and has issued far more debt than a competitive market otherwise would.
But America's financial system is still the shiniest turd on the block. East Asia is a mess,
Europe is completely stalled, and those are your only real competitors. Bond yields have
bifurcated, with the spread between real yields in the US (which are stable to growing) and
basically every other central bank (which has been or is headed negative, in real terms) so
capital has been increasingly flowing into US assets. China is a slightly different story but
its not worth mentioning because the result is the same.
This is both cause and effect of being the most powerful and effective financial centre.
There are other things to say about the negative impact of America's financial empire (primarily the impact of the petro
dollar internationally), but that's again an unavoidable result of USA being something like 1/8th of the global economy.
The authors are doing the hypothesis the fall of an empire is founded by using oppression as
a primary means to support it's own interests. To support their hypothesis they are comparing
the fall of Athens with the US. The usage of financial coercion to get allies in line and
putting pressure on other nations is implying others will search for a circumvention of a
possible financial coercion which then leads to a weakening of the financial system as we know
it. The article could be summarized as the insight, power projection needs more than a simple
projection of force.
As for now, most people would agree the capability of the US to coerce everyone will not
vanish over night. Even when this article is directed towards the US, the conclusion is almost
universal. Whether it's the US, EU or China nobody can escape the consequences of his own
actions. level 2
The usage of financial coercion to get allies in line and putting pressure on other
nations is implying others will search for a circumvention of a possible financial
coercion
They are assuming this is a new phenomenon. It is not, the US has been doing the same thing
for 100 years, and 100 years ago there wasn't a risk of the empire falling, so why is there a
risk today?
The difference between 100 years ago and today is information sharing and the internet. So
we know about it.
We are entering a world with 2 dominant global superpowers, after a generation of having
only 1. The real question is how US domestic politics drives outward projects to the rise of
China. Does the US elect politicians who want trade wars and real wars? or does the US turn
more into what the UK did, a very strong first world country that is OK losing the mantle of
dominant superpower relatively peacefully.
Being a superpower or not has no meaningful impact on residents day to day lives.
I agree that dominance does not vanish overnight but the night is long and full of terrors. [Sorry GOT] What worked for US
is we being this beacon of liberty. It is disappearing as a beacon and also in reality. Once setting up your technology hubs
in Canada and Western Europe becomes the obvious choice because of American politics, once right and left just refuse to
compromise and want to eliminate each other, it does not matter if other countries are weak now, what matters is how much
gains they can make while the US is fighting its own civil war.
Foreign investment is attracted to the US economic system, and the rules that govern it, in
part BECAUSE they are different from those in Europe and Canada. "Tech hubs" won't bail on the
US until that changes alonside myriad other economic incentive reversals.
Contemporary US politics in a nutshell is rule by the rich for the rich, and it's amazing
that 40 years in we are still debating whether or not neoliberal policies are benefiting the
majority (they clearly are not). The income gap continues to grow, economic growth continues
to be siphoned to the top, education and healthcare remain unaffordable for most people, and
the response of the current administration is...to cut taxes further for the wealthy??
In The Great Democracy, Ganesh Sitaraman shows us how both the left and the right have
embraced neoliberalism over the past four decades along with its emphasis on tax cuts,
deregulation, trade liberalization, and limited government. Neoliberalism's faith in the
market has narrowed our conception of democracy, replacing discussions about the common good
and general welfare with discussions about economic efficiency and profit maximization. The
ideology is so deep most people don't even realize that there could be another way.
Sitaraman does a better job than most diagnosing the problems and continually emphasizing
the point that economics cannot be separated from politics. Even if you don't believe that
income and wealth inequality necessarily contributes to a lower standard of living for the
majority -- and that people should earn whatever the market pays them -- the existence of
inequality is detrimental to democracy and skews legislation to favor the rich. The
wealthiest Americans and corporations spend massive amounts of money on elections and
legislation to get the politicians and regulations (or lack thereof) that benefit them the
most. If this wasn't the case, they would not consistently spend tens and hundreds of
millions of dollars on campaign financing and lobbying.
Forty years of neoliberalism is going to be tough to dig ourselves out from, and this
demands some bold and broad legislation. But it cannot be disjointed; it has to be part of a
larger philosophy with clear goals. In this respect, The Great Democracy provides a complete
political philosophy to replace neoliberalism and compete with oligarchic nationalism. It is
based on restoring the ideals of democracy, recognizing that the common good and general
welfare of the people means more than economic growth at all costs. It also recognizes that
political and economic fixes must be implemented together, and that massive discrepancies in
wealth threatens democracy.
Sitaraman goes much further than simply outlining the problems and proposing an overall
political philosophy. He provides several detailed economic and political reforms that seek
to reduce inequality, expand democracy, and improve the standard of living for the bottom 90
percent of the population. His suggestions range from mandatory voting requirements to
reinstating a top marginal tax rate of 70 percent to fundamentally reworking the structure of
the Supreme Court to make it less political. His reform agenda also includes getting money
out of politics, overturning Citizens United, mandating employee representation on corporate
boards, and restructuring executive compensation.
The bottom line is that more of the same will not work. Our political problems will not
solve themselves, and the market certainly won't solve them for us, mainly because it is the
market that has caused them. But we don't want to turn to nationalism either. Sitaraman
simultaneously provides us with a political philosophy that appeals to the ideals of
democracy -- to use as a guide for policy implementation -- while suggesting reforms that
will make our our society more equitable, engaged, and fair. Let's hope the next era of
politics follows this path.
Stop wondering why, "We can't just get along?" Ganesh Sitamaran explains the deep wounds
to our country that aren't going away with the application of civility. Neverthless this
isn't a pessamistic book; in fact it describes how to face the problems that are undermining
our country and start living up to the ideals that are our political birth right, a route
that will bring us better lives and better, more enduring communities. So get this
excellently reasoned and quite readable book. It will save you a shouting match or two at
extended family gatherings as you will then be able to spread some much needed light on the
divisions of the day with irrefutable arguments and a optimism about the future that has
escaped many another current thinker. One person found this helpful
Helpful
A nonpartisan review of the recent history that has hurt our democracy. An important part
of this history is that economics and politics can t be separated. Our government now serves
the rich, not the majority. This book is about how to restore representation of the majority.
Helpful 0 Comment Report abuse
This is a very valuable article, probably the best written in 2019 on the topic, that discusses several important aspects of neoliberalism
better then its predecessors...
Notable quotes:
"... For some, and especially for those in the millennial generation, the Great Recession and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started a process of reflection on what the neoliberal era had delivered. ..."
"... neoliberal policies had already wreaked havoc around the world ..."
"... "excessively rapid financial and capital market liberalization was probably the single most important cause of the crisis"; he also notes that after the crisis, the International Monetary Fund's policies "exacerbated the downturns." ..."
"... In study after study, political scientists have shown that the U.S. government is highly responsive to the policy preferences of the wealthiest people, corporations, and trade associations -- and that it is largely unresponsive to the views of ordinary people. The wealthiest people, corporations, and their interest groups participate more in politics, spend more on politics, and lobby governments more. Leading political scientists have declared that the U.S. is no longer best characterized as a democracy or a republic but as an oligarchy -- a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. ..."
"... Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism. ..."
"... neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. ..."
"... Demagogues rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism, which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for a free and democratic society. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. ..."
"... In spite of these failures, most policymakers did not have a new ideology or different worldview through which to comprehend the problems of this time. So, by and large, the collective response was not to abandon neoliberalism. After the Great Crash of 2008, neoliberals chafed at attempts to push forward aggressive Keynesian spending programs to spark demand. President Barack Obama's advisers shrank the size of the post-crash stimulus package for fear it would seem too large to the neoliberal consensus of the era -- and on top of that, they compromised on its content. ..."
"... When it came to affirmative, forward-looking policy, the neoliberal framework also remained dominant. ..."
"... It is worth emphasizing that Obamacare's central feature is a private marketplace in which people can buy their own health care, with subsidies for individuals who are near the poverty line ..."
"... Fearful of losing their seats, centrists extracted these concessions from progressives. Little good it did them. The president's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections, and this time was no different. For their caution, centrists both lost their seats and gave Americans fewer and worse health care choices. ..."
"... The Republican Party platform in 2012, for example, called for weaker Wall Street, environmental, and worker safety regulations; lower taxes for corporations and wealthy individuals; and further liberalization of trade. It called for abolishing federal student loans, in addition to privatizing rail, western lands, airport security, and the post office. Republicans also continued their support for cutting health care and retirement security. After 40 years moving in this direction -- and with it failing at every turn -- you might think they would change their views. But Republicans didn't, and many still haven't. ..."
"... Although neoliberalism had little to offer, in the absence of a new ideological framework, it hung over the Obama presidency -- but now in a new form. Many on the center-left adopted what we might call the "technocratic ideology," a rebranded version of the policy minimalism of the 1990s that replaced minimalism's tactical and pragmatic foundations with scientific ones. The term itself is somewhat oxymoronic, as technocrats seem like the opposite of ideologues. ..."
"... The technocratic ideology preserves the status quo with a variety of tactics. We might call the first the "complexity canard." ..."
"... The most frequent uses of this tactic are in sectors that economists have come to dominate -- international trade, antitrust, and financial regulation, for example. The result of this mind-set is that bold, structural reforms are pushed aside and highly technical changes adopted instead. Financial regulation provides a particularly good case, given the 2008 crash and the Great Recession. When it came time to establish a new regulatory regime for the financial sector, there wasn't a massive restructuring, despite the biggest crash in 70 years. ..."
"... Instead, for the most part, the Dodd-Frank Act was classically technocratic. It kept the sector basically the same, with a few tweaks here and there. There was no attempt to restructure the financial sector completely. ..."
"... The Volcker Rule, for example, sought to ban banks from proprietary trading. But instead of doing that through a simple, clean breakup rule (like the one enacted under the old Glass-Steagall regime), the Volcker Rule was subject to a multitude of exceptions and carve-outs -- measures that federal regulators were then required to explain and implement with hundreds of pages of technical regulations ..."
"... Dodd-Frank also illustrates a second tenet of the technocratic ideology: The failures of technocracy can be solved by more technocracy. ..."
"... Dodd-Frank created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a government body tasked with what is called macroprudential regulation. What this means is that government regulators are supposed to monitor the entire economy and turn the dials of regulation up and down a little bit to keep the economy from another crash. But ask yourself this: Why would we ever believe they could do such a thing? We know those very same regulators failed to identify, warn about, or act on the 2008 crisis. ..."
"... In the first stage, neoliberalism gained traction in response to the crises of the 1970s. It is easy to think of Thatcherism and Reaganism as emerging fully formed, springing from Zeus's head like the goddess Athena. ..."
"... Early leaders were not as ideologically bold as later mythmakers think. In the second stage, neoliberalism became normalized. It persisted beyond the founding personalities -- and, partly because of its longevity in power, grew so dominant that the other side adopted it. ..."
"... Eventually, however, the neoliberal ideology extended its tentacles into every area of policy and even social life, and in its third stage, overextended. The result in economic policy was the Great Crash of 2008, economic stagnation, and inequality at century-high levels. In foreign policy, it was the disastrous Iraq War and ongoing chaos and uncertainty in the Middle East. ..."
"... The fourth and final stage is collapse, irrelevance, and a wandering search for the future. With the world in crisis, neoliberalism no longer has even plausible solutions to today's problems. ..."
"... The solutions of the neoliberal era offer no serious ideas for how to restitch the fraying social fabric, in which people are increasingly tribal, divided, and disconnected from civic community ..."
Welcome
to theDecade From Hell,
our look back at an arbitrary 10-year period that began with a great outpouring of hope and
ended in a cavalcade of despair.The long-dominant ideology brought us forever
wars, the Great Recession, and extreme inequality. Good riddance.
With the 2008 financial crash and the Great Recession, the ideology of neoliberalism lost
its force. The approach to politics, global trade, and social philosophy that defined an era
led not to never-ending prosperity but utter disaster. "Laissez-faire is finished," declared
French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted in testimony
before Congress that his ideology was flawed. In an extraordinary statement, Australian Prime
Minister Kevin Rudd declared that the crash "called into question the prevailing neoliberal
economic orthodoxy of the past 30 years -- the orthodoxy that has underpinned the national and
global regulatory frameworks that have so spectacularly failed to prevent the economic mayhem
which has been visited upon us."
"... Yet it took until 1860 for the UK to fully embrace free trade, and even then the unpalatable historical record is that during this 'golden age', the British: Destroyed the Indian textile industry to benefit their own cloth manufacturers; Started the Opium Wars to balance UK-China trade by selling China addictive drugs; Ignored the Irish Potato Famine and continued to allow Irish wheat exports; Forced Siam (Thailand) to open up its economy to trade with gunboats (as the US did with Japan); and Colonized much of Africa and Asia. ..."
"... Regardless, the first flowering of free trade collapsed back into nationalism and protectionism - bloodily so in 1914. Free trade was tried again from 1919 - but burned-out even more bloodily in the 1930s and 1940s. After WW2, most developed countries had moderately free trade - but most developing countries did not. We only started to re-embrace global free trade from the 1990s onwards when the Cold War ended – and here it is under stress again. In short, only around 100 years in a total of 5,000 years of civilization has seen real global free trade, it has failed twice already, and it is once again coming under pressure. ..."
"... Of course, this doesn't mean liked-minded groups of countries with similar-enough or sympathetic-enough economies and politics should avoid free trade: clearly for some states it can work out nicely - even if within the EU one could argue there are also underlying strains. However, it is a huge stretch to assume a one-size-fits-all free trade policy will always work best for all countries, as some would have it. That is a fairy tale. History shows it wasn't the case; national security concerns show it can never always be the case; and Ricardo argues this logically won't be the case. ..."
"When I used to read fairy tales, I fancied that kind of thing never happened, and now here I am in the middle of one!" (Alice
in Wonderland, Chapter 4, The Rabbit Sends in a Little Bill)
Submitted by Michael Every of Rabobank
2020 starts with markets feeling optimistic due to a US-China trade deal and a reworked NAFTA in the form of the USMCA. However,
the tide towards protectionism may still be coming in, not going out.
The intellectual appeal of the basis for free trade, Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage, where Portugal specializes in
wine, and the UK in cloth, is still clearly there. Moreover, trade has always been a beneficial and enriching part of human culture.
Yet the fact is that for the majority of the last 5,000 years global trade has been highly-politicized and heavily-regulated . Indeed,
global free-trade only began following the abolition of the UK Corn Laws in 1846, which reduced British agricultural tariffs, brought
in European wheat and corn, and allowed the UK to maximize its comparative advantage in industry.
Yet it took until 1860 for the UK to fully embrace free trade, and even then the unpalatable historical record is that during
this 'golden age', the British:
Destroyed the Indian textile industry to benefit their own cloth manufacturers;
Started the Opium Wars to balance UK-China trade by selling China addictive drugs;
Ignored the Irish Potato Famine and continued to allow Irish wheat exports;
Forced Siam (Thailand) to open up its economy to trade with gunboats (as the US did with Japan); and
Colonized much of Africa and Asia.
As we showed back in '
Currency
and Wars ', after an initial embrace of free trade, the major European powers and Japan saw that their relative comparative advantage
meant they remained at the bottom of the development ladder as agricultural producers, an area where prices were also being depressed
by huge US output; meanwhile, the UK sold industrial goods, ran a huge trade surplus, and ruled the waves militarily. This was politically
unsustainable even though the UK vigorously backed the intellectual concept of free trade given it was such a winner from it.
Regardless, the first flowering of free trade collapsed back into nationalism and protectionism - bloodily so in 1914. Free
trade was tried again from 1919 - but burned-out even more bloodily in the 1930s and 1940s. After WW2, most developed countries had
moderately free trade - but most developing countries did not. We only started to re-embrace global free trade from the 1990s onwards
when the Cold War ended – and here it is under stress again. In short, only around 100 years in a total of 5,000 years of civilization
has seen real global free trade, it has failed twice already, and it is once again coming under pressure.
What are we getting wrong? Perhaps that Ricardo's theory has major flaws that don't get included in our textbooks, as summarized
in this overlooked quote
"It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England [that] the wine and cloth should both be made in Portugal
[and that] the capital and labour of England employed in making cloth should be removed to Portugal for that purpose." Which is pretty
much what happens today! However, Ricardo adds that this won't happen because "Most men of property [will be] satisfied with a low
rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations," which
is simply not true at all! In other words, his premise is flawed in that:
It is atemporal in assuming countries move to their comparative advantage painlessly and instantly;
It assumes full employment when if there is unemployment a country is better off producing at home to reduce it, regardless
of higher cost;
It assumes capital between countries is immobile , i.e., investors don't shift money and technology abroad. (Which Adam Smith's
'Wealth of Nations', Book IV, Chapter II also assumes doesn't happen, as an "invisible hand" keeps money invested in one's home
country's industry and not abroad: we don't read him correctly either.);
It assumes trade balances under free trade - but since when has this been true? Rather we see large deficits and inverse capital
flows, and so debts steadily increasing in deficit countries;
It assumes all goods are equal as in Ricardo's example, cloth produced in the UK and wine produced in Portugal are equivalent.
Yet some sectors provide well-paid and others badly-paid employment: why only produce the latter?
As Ricardo's theory requires key conditions that are not met in reality most of the time, why are we surprised that most of reality
fails to produce idealised free trade most of the time? Several past US presidents before Donald Trump made exactly that point. Munroe
(1817-25) argued: " The conditions necessary for Free Trade's success - reciprocity and international peace - have never occurred
and cannot be expected ". Grant (1869-77) noted "Within 200 years, when America has gotten out of protection all that it can offer,
it too will adopt free trade".
Yet arguably we are better, not worse, off regardless of these sentiments – so hooray! How so? Well, did you know that Adam Smith,
who we equate with free markets, and who created the term "mercantile system" to describe the national-protectionist policies opposed
to it, argued the US should remain an agricultural producer and buy its industrial goods from the UK? It was Founding Father Alexander
Hamilton who rejected this approach, and his "infant industry" policy of industrialization and infrastructure spending saw the US
emerge as the world's leading economy instead. That was the same development model that, with tweaks, was then adopted by pre-WW1
Japan, France, and Germany to successfully rival the UK; and then post-WW2 by Japan (again) and South Korea; and then more recently
by China, that key global growth driver. Would we really be better off if the US was still mainly growing cotton and wheat, China
rice and apples, and the UK was making most of the world's consumer goods? Thank the lack of free trade if you think otherwise!
Yet look at the examples above and there is a further argument for more protectionism ahead. Ricardo assumes a benign global political
environment for free trade . Yet what if the UK and Portugal are rivals or enemies? What if the choice is between steel and wine?
You can't invade neighbours armed with wine as you can with steel! A large part of the trade tension between China and the US, just
as between pre-WW1 Germany and the UK, is not about trade per se: for both sides, it is about who produces key inputs with national
security implications - and hence is about relative power . This is why we hear US hawks underlining that they don't want to export
their highest technology to China, or to specialize only in agricultural exports to it as China moves up the value-chain. It also
helps underline why for most of the past 5,000 years trade has not been free. Indeed, this argument also holds true for the other
claimed benefit of free trade: the cross-flow of ideas and technology. That is great for friends, but not for those less trusted.
Of course, this doesn't mean liked-minded groups of countries with similar-enough or sympathetic-enough economies and politics
should avoid free trade: clearly for some states it can work out nicely - even if within the EU one could argue there are also underlying
strains. However, it is a huge stretch to assume a one-size-fits-all free trade policy will always work best for all countries, as
some would have it. That is a fairy tale. History shows it wasn't the case; national security concerns show it can never always be
the case; and Ricardo argues this logically won't be the case.
Yet we need not despair. The track record also shows that global growth can continue even despite protectionism, and in some cases
can benefit from it. That being said, should the US resort to more Hamiltonian policies versus everyone, not just China, then we
are in for real financial market turbulence ahead given the role the US Dollar plays today compared to the role gold played for Smith
and Ricardo! But that is a whole different fairy tale...
The deep state clearly is running the show (with some people unexpected imput -- see Trump
;-)
Elections now serve mainly for the legitimizing of the deep state rule; election of a
particular individual can change little, although there is some space of change due to the power
of executive branch. If the individual stray too much form the elite "forign policy consensus" he
ether will be JFKed or Russiagated (with the Special Prosecutor as the fist act and impeachment
as the second act of the same Russiagate drama)
But a talented (or reckless) individual can speed up some process that are already under way.
For example, Trump managed to speed up the process of destruction of the USA-centered neoliberal
empire considerably. Especially by launching the trade war with China. He also managed to
discredit the USA foreign policy as no other president before him. Even Bush II.
>This is the most critical U.S. election in our lifetime
> Posted by: Circe | Jan 23 2020 17:46 utc | 36
Hmmm, I've been hearing the same siren song every four years for the past fifty. How is it
that people still think that a single individual, or even two, can change the direction of
murderous US policies that are widely supported throughout the bureaucracy?
Bureaucracies are reactionary and conservative by nature, so any new and more repressive
policy Trumpy wants is readily adapted, as shown by the continuing barbarity of ICE and the
growth of prisons and refugee concentration camps. Policies that go against the grain are
easily shrugged off and ignored using time-tested passive-aggressive tactics.
One of Trump's insurmountable problems is that he has no loyal organization behind him
whose members he can appoint throughout the massive Federal bureaucracy. Any Dummycrat whose
name is not "Biden" has the same problem. Without a real mass-movement political party to
pressure reluctant bureaucrats, no politician of any name or stripe will ever substantially
change the direction of US policy.
But the last thing Dummycrats want is a real mass movement, because they might not be able
to control it. Instead Uncle Sam will keep heading towards the cliff, which may be coming
into view...
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me.
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to believe A politician will/can change anything and give your consent to
war criminals and traitors?
NO person(s) WILL EVER get to the top in imperial/vassal state politics without being on the
rentier class side, the cognitive dissonans in voting for known liars, war criminals and
traitors would kill me or fry my brain. TINA is a lie and "she" is a real bitch that deserves
to be thrown on the dump off history, YOUR vote is YOUR consent to murder, theft and
treason.
DONT be a rentier class enabler STOP voting and start making your local communities better
and independent instead.
The amount of TINA worshipers and status quo guerillas is starting to depress me. <-
Norway
Of course, There Is Another Way, for example, kvetching. We can boldly show that we are
upset, and pessimistic. One upset pessimists reach critical mass we will think about some
actions.
But being upset and pessimistic does fully justify inactivity. In particular, given the
nature of social interaction networks, with spokes and hubs, dominating the network requires
the control of relatively few nodes. The nature of democracy always allows for leverage
takeover, starting from dominating within small to the entire nation in few steps. As it was
nicely explained by Prof. Overton, there is a window of positions that the vast majority
regards as reasonable, non-radical etc. One reason that powers to be invest so much energy
vilifying dissenters, Russian assets of late, is to keep them outside the Overton window.
Having a candidate elected that the curators of Overton window hate definitely shakes the
situation with the potential of shifting the window. There were some positive symptoms after
Trump was elected, but negatives prevail. "Why not we just kill him" idea entered the window,
together with "we took their oil because we have guts and common sense".
From that point of view, visibility of Tulsi and election of Sanders will solve some
problems but most of all, it will make big changes in Overton window.
The first is that the U.S. is the ultimate law-based society, one whose structure derives
entirely from a single four-thousand-word document created in 1787. The second is that while
Americans think of the Constitution as the greatest plan of government known to man, it's
actually the opposite: a grotesque pre-modern relic that grows more unrepresentative and
unresponsive with each passing year. A pro-rural Electoral College that has overridden the
popular vote in two of the last five presidential elections; a lopsided Senate that allows the
majority in ten urban states to be outvoted four-to-one by the minority in the other forty;
lifetime Supreme Court justices who can veto any law at variance with an ancient constitution
that only they understand – it's a broken-down old rattletrap in need of a top-to-bottom
overhaul. Yet it's so thoroughly frozen that structural reform is all but unthinkable.
The third thing to keep in mind is that as the constitutional system grows more and more
undemocratic, the two-party system that grew out of it in the nineteenth century grows more
undemocratic as well. The result is a bipartisan race to the right. Sometimes, the Republicans
seem to be in the lead as Trump imprisons thousands of immigrants fleeing murderous conditions
in Central America that the U.S. war on drugs helped create. Other times it's the Democrats as
they beat the drums for imperialist war against Russia.
Take all these factors – xenophobia, mindless obeisance to ancient law, a president
imposed against the popular will, etc. – mix thoroughly, place in a super-hot oven due to
a growing imperial crisis, and impeachment is what pops out. The process itself is very old, a
by-product of fourteenth-century Anglo-Norman law. (Impeachment derives from the Old French
empeechier, meaning to ensnare or entrap.) The British abandoned it in the late
eighteenth century when Edmund Burke wasted seven years impeaching an Indian colonial governor
named Warren Hastings on grounds of corruption. (The House of Lords finally acquitted him in
1795). But then the Americans took it up and now, two centuries later, are immersed in the same
brainless exercise.
The results were all too evident in mid-December when one Democrat after another took to the
House floor to denounced Donald Trump for violating the ancient constitution by withholding
lethal military aid from the neo-Nazis of the Ukraine's Azov Battalion.
"We used to stand up to Putin and Russia – I know the party of Ronald Reagan used to,"
declared Adam Schiff, the Democratic point man on impeachment, his voice quivering with
emotion. The fight to defend the Ukraine is "about more than Ukraine. It's about us. It's about
our national security. Their fight is our fight. Their defense is our defense . And when the
President sacrifices our interests, our national security for his election, he is sacrificing
our country for his personal gain."
This was the Democratic line in a nutshell. In order to safeguard the ancient republic at
home, the U.S. must pay foreign satraps to defend its imperial interests abroad. Since no
patriotic American could possibly disagree, any and all problems must stem from meddling by the
evil dictator Vladimir Putin and his traitorous puppet in the Oval Office. Americans must
therefore fulfill the ancient law by impeaching him just as the "founding fathers" would have
wanted. Only then will peace and freedom return to the land of the free and the home of the
brave.
It's all quite ridiculous, but what's even more bonkers is that millions of Americans think
it's true. Trump is meanwhile in his element. Now that Democrats have voted to impeach him in
the House, he'd like nothing more than a lengthy trial in the Senate because (a) acquittal in
the upper house is a certainty and (b) it will allow the Republican majority to put the
torturers to the rack by subpoenaing everyone from Joe and Hunter Biden to Adam Schiff himself
and declaring them in contempt of Congress if they refuse to testify. Senator Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell has described an all-out Senate war as "mutual assured destruction," and he's
right since, once unleashed, the ancient constitutional machinery will grind everything to dust
in its path.
American politics will grow only more farcical. If Putin looms larger and larger on the
world stage; if "the moment has come," as the Times Literary Supplement recently announced , "for
even the most hardened skeptics to admit that he is one of the most successful world leaders of
our era"; if the U.S. at the same time staggers from one imperial disaster to another even
while descending into civil war – then it's not because the Russian leader is
particularly clever, but because the U.S. is locked in an ancient mindset that is increasingly
divorced from reality. It's lost in a constitutional labyrinth of its own making, and
impeachment is leading it deeper and deeper into the maze.
"... The decision to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11, 2001, while declaring an "axis of evil" to be confronted that included nuclear-armed North Korea and budding regional hegemon Iran, can be said to be the reason for many of the most significant strategic problems besetting the U.S.. ..."
"... The U.S. often prefers to disguise its medium- to long-term objectives by focusing on supposedly more immediate and short-term threats. Thus, the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and its deployment of the Aegis Combat System (both sea- and land-based) as part of the NATO missile defense system, was explained as being for the purposes of defending European allies from the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. ..."
"... As was immediately clear to most independent analysts as well as to President Putin , the deployment of such offensive systems are only for the purposes of nullifying the Russian Federation's nuclear-deterrence capability . Obama and Trump faithfully followed in the steps of George W. Bush in placing ABM systems on Russia's borders, including in Romania and Poland. ..."
"... There is no defense against such Russian systems as the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, which serves to restore the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which in turn serves to ensure that nuclear weapons can never be employed so long as this "balance of terror" exists. Moscow is thus able to ensure peace through strength by showing that it is capable of inflicting a devastating second strike with regard regard for Washington's vaunted ABM systems. ..."
"... In addition to the continued economic and military pressure placed on Iran, one of the most immediate consequences of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear deal) has been Tehran being forced to examine all options. Although the country's leaders and political figures have always claimed that they do not want to develop a nuclear weapon, stating that it is prohibited by Islamic law, I should think that their best course of action would be to follow Pyongyang's example and acquire a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves from U.S. aggression. ..."
"... Once again, Washington has ended up shooting itself in the foot by inadvertently encouraging one of its geopolitical opponents to behave in the opposite manner intended. Instead of stopping nuclear proliferation in the region, the U.S., by scuppering of the JCPOA, has only encouraged the prospect of nuclear proliferation. ..."
"... Trump's short-sightedness in withdrawing from the JCPOA is reminiscent of George W. Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. By triggering necessary responses from Moscow and Tehran, Washington's actions have only ended up leaving it at a disadvantage in certain critical areas relative to its competitors. ..."
Starting from the presidency of George W. Bush to that of Trump, the U.S. has made some
missteps that not only reduce its influence in strategic regions of the world but also its
ability to project power and thus impose its will on those unwilling to genuflect appropriately
.
Some examples from the recent past will suffice to show how a series of strategic errors
have only accelerated the U.S.'s hegemonic decline.
ABM + INF = Hypersonic Supremacy
The decision to invade Afghanistan following the events of September 11, 2001, while
declaring an "axis of evil" to be confronted that included nuclear-armed North Korea and
budding regional hegemon Iran, can be said to be the reason for many of the most significant
strategic problems besetting the U.S..
The U.S. often prefers to disguise its medium- to long-term objectives by focusing on
supposedly more immediate and short-term threats. Thus, the U.S.'s withdrawal from the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and its deployment of the Aegis Combat System (both
sea- and land-based) as part of the NATO missile defense system, was explained as being for the
purposes of defending European allies from the threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. This
argument held little water as the Iranians had neither the capability nor intent to launch such
missiles.
As was immediately clear to most independent analysts as well as to President Putin , the deployment of such
offensive systems are only for the purposes of nullifying the
Russian Federation's nuclear-deterrence capability . Obama and Trump faithfully followed in
the steps of George W. Bush in placing ABM systems on Russia's borders, including in Romania
and Poland.
Following from Trump's momentous decision to
withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), it is also likely
that the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) will also be abandoned, creating more
global insecurity with regard to nuclear proliferation.
Moscow was forced to pull out all stops to develop new weapons that would restore the
strategic balance, Putin revealing to the world in a speech in 2018 the introduction of
hypersonic weapons and other technological breakthroughs that would serve to disabuse
Washington of its first-strike fantasies.
Even as Washington's propaganda refuses to acknowledge the tectonic shifts on the global
chessboard occasioned by these technological breakthroughs, sober
military assessments acknowledge that the game has fundamentally changed.
There is no defense against such Russian systems as the Avangard hypersonic glide
vehicle, which serves to restore the deterrence doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD),
which in turn serves to ensure that nuclear weapons can never be employed so long as this
"balance of terror" exists. Moscow is thus able to ensure peace through strength by showing
that it is capable of inflicting a devastating second strike with regard regard for
Washington's vaunted ABM systems.
In addition to ensuring its nuclear second-strike capability, Russia has been forced to
develop the most advanced ABM system in the world to fend off Washington's aggression. This ABM
system is integrated into a defensive network that includes the Pantsir, Tor, Buk, S-400 and
shortly the devastating S-500 and A-235 missile systems. This combined system is designed to
intercept ICBMs as well as any future U.S. hypersonic weapons
The wars of aggression prosecuted by George W. Bush, Obama and Trump have only ended up
leaving the U.S. in a position of nuclear inferiority vis-a-vis Russia and China. Moscow has
obviously shared some of its technological innovations with its strategic partner, allowing
Beijing to also have hypersonic weapons together with ABM systems like the Russian S-400.
No
JCPOA? Here Comes Nuclear Iran
In addition to the continued economic and military pressure placed on Iran, one of the
most immediate consequences of the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA, better known as the Iran nuclear deal) has been Tehran being forced to examine all
options. Although the country's leaders and political figures have always claimed that they do
not want to develop a nuclear weapon, stating that it is
prohibited by Islamic law, I should think that their best course of action would be to
follow Pyongyang's example and acquire a nuclear deterrent to protect themselves from U.S.
aggression.
While this suggestion of mine may not correspond with the intentions of leaders of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, the protection North Korea enjoys from U.S. aggression as a result of
its deterrence capacity may oblige the Iranian leadership to carefully consider the pros and
cons of following suit, perhaps choosing to adopt the Israeli stance of nuclear ambiguity or
nuclear opacity, where the possession of nuclear weapons is neither confirmed nor denied. While
a world free of nuclear weapons would be ideal, their deterrence value cannot be denied, as
North Korea's experience attests.
While Iran does not want war, any pursuit of a nuclear arsenal may guarantee a conflagration
in the Middle East. But I have long maintained that the risk of a nuclear war (once nuclear
weapons have been acquired)
does not exist , with them having a
stabilizing rather than destabilizing effect, particularly in a multipolar environment.
Once again, Washington has ended up shooting itself in the foot by inadvertently
encouraging one of its geopolitical opponents to behave in the opposite manner intended.
Instead of stopping nuclear proliferation in the region, the U.S., by scuppering of the JCPOA,
has only encouraged the prospect of nuclear proliferation.
Trump's short-sightedness in withdrawing from the JCPOA is reminiscent of George W.
Bush's withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. By triggering necessary responses from Moscow and
Tehran, Washington's actions have only ended up leaving it at a disadvantage in certain
critical areas relative to its competitors.
The death of Soleimani punctures the myth
of the U.S. invincibility
I wrote a couple of articles in the wake of General Soleimani's death that
examined the incident and then
considered the profound ramifications of the event in the region.
What seems evident is that Washington appears incapable of appreciating the consequences of
its reckless actions. Killing Soleimani was bound to invite an Iranian response; and even if we
assume that Trump was not looking for war (I
explained why some months ago), it was obvious to any observer that there would be a
response from Iran to the U.S.'s terrorist actions.
The response came a few nights later where, for the first time since the Second World War, a
U.S. military base was subjected to a rain of missiles (22 missiles each with a 700kg payload).
Tehran thereby showed that it possessed the necessary technical, operational and strategic
means to obliterate thousands of U.S. and allied personnel within the space of a few minutes if
it so wished, with the U.S. would be powerless to stop it.
U.S. Patriot air-defense systems yet again failed to do their job, reprising their failure
to defend Saudi oil and gas facilities against a missile attack conducted by Houthis a few
months ago.
We thus have confirmation, within the space of a few months, of the inability of the U.S. to
protect its troops or allies from Houthi, Hezbollah and Iranian missiles. Trump and his
generals would have been reluctant to respond to the Iranian missile attack knowing that any
Iranian response would bring about uncontrollable regional conflagration that would devastate
U.S. bases as well as oil infrastructure and such cities of U.S. allies as Tel Aviv, Haifa and
Dubai.
After demonstrating to the world that U.S. allies in the region are defenseless against
missile attacks from even the likes of the Houthis, Iran drove home the point by conducting
surgical strikes on two U.S. bases that only highlights the disconnect between the perception
of U.S. military invincibility and the reality that would come in the form of a multilayered
missile conflict.
Conclusion
Washington's diplomatic and military decisions in recent years have only brought about a
world world that is more hostile to Washington and less inclined to accept its diktats, often
being driven instead to acquire the military means to counter Washington's bullying. Even as
the U.S. remains the paramount military power, its ineptitude has resulted in Russia and China
surpassing it in some critical areas, such that the U.S. has no chance of defending itself
against a nuclear second strike, with even Iran having the means to successfully retaliate
against the U.S. in the region.
As I continue to say, Washington's power largely rests on perception management helped by
the make-believe world of Hollywood. The recent missile attacks by Houthis on Saudi Arabia's
oil facilities and the Iranian missile attack a few days ago on U.S. military bases in Iraq
(none of which were intercepted) are like Toto drawing back the curtain to reveal Washington's
military vulnerability. No amount of entreaties by Washington to pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain will help.
The more aggressive the U.S. becomes, the more it reveals its tactical, operational and
strategic limits, which in turn only serves to accelerate its loss of hegemony.
If the U.S. could deliver a nuclear first strike without having to worry about a retaliatory
second strike thanks to its ABM systems, then its quest for perpetual unipolarity could
possibly be realistic. But Washington's peer competitors have shown that they have the means to
defend themselves against a nuclear first strike by being able to deliver an unstoppable second
strike, thereby communicating that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) is here
to stay. With that, Washington's efforts to maintain its status as uncontested global hegemon
are futile.
In a region
vital to U.S. interests , Washington does not have the operational capacity to stand in the
way of Syria's liberation. When it has attempted to directly impose its will militarily, it has
seen as many as 80% of its cruise missiles
knocked down or deflected , once again highlighting the divergence between Washington's
Hollywood propaganda and the harsh military reality.
The actions of George W. Bush, Obama and Trump have only served to inadvertently accelerate
the world's transition away from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. As Trump follows in the
steps of his predecessors by being aggressive towards Iran, he only serves to weaken the U.S.
global position and strengthen that of his opponents.
Up to the election of our current President, I agree that we were bullying for the
personal gain of a few and our military was being used as a mercenary force. The current
administration is working on getting us out of long term conflicts. What do you think "drain
the swamp" means? It is a huge undertaking and need to understand what the "deep state" is
all about and their goals.
The death of Soleimani was needed and made the world a safer place. Dr. Janda / Freedom
Operation has had several very intriguing presentations on this issue. It is my firm belief
that there is a worldwide coalition to make the world a better and safer place. If you want
to know about the "deep state" try watching: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cYZ8dUgPuU
All mostly true, but the constant drone of this type of article gets old, as the comments
below attest. We really don't need more forensic analysis by the SCF, what we need is an
answer to America's dollar Imperialism problem. But we'll never get it, just as England never
got an answer to it's pound Imperialism problem.
I like Tulsi Gabbard, but she can never truly reveal the magnitude of the dollar
Imperialism behind her "stop these endless wars" sloganism. Besides, she doesn't have the
billions required to mount any real successful campaign. Only billionaires like Bloomberg
need apply these days.
The Truth is that NO ONE will stand up to Wall Street and it's system of global dollar
corporatism (from which Bloomberg acquired his billions, and to which the USG is bound). It's
suicide to speak the truth to the masses. The dollar must die of its own disease.
Trump is America's Chemo. The cure nearly as bad as the cancer, but the makers of it have
a vested interest in its acceptance.
General Bonespur murders a genuine military man from the comfort of his golf course.
America is still dangerous, Pinky might be tired but the (((Brain))) is working feverishly on
solutions for the jaded .
There has been a perception in the last 25 years that the US could win a nuclear war. This
perception is extremely dangerous as it invites the US armed forces to commit atrocities and
think they can get away with it (they are for now). The world opinion has turned, but the
citizens of the United States of America are not listening.
If the US keeps going down the path they are currently on, they are ensuring that war will
eventually reach its coast.
To challenge the US Empire the new Multipolar World is focused on a two-pronged
strategy:
1. Nullifying the US nuclear first strike (at will) as part of the current US military
doctrine - accomplished (for a decade maybe).
2. Outmaneuvering the US petrodollar in trade, the tool to control the global fossil fuel
resources on the planet - in progress.
What makes 2.) decisive is that the petrodollar as reserve currency is the key to recycle
the US federal budget deficit via foreign investment in U.S. Treasury Bonds (IOUs) by the
central banks, thus enabling the global military presence and power projection of the US
military empire.
All their little plots and schemes failed, as corrupt arsehole after corrupt arsehole
stole the funding from those plots and schemes to fill their own pockets. They also put the
most corrupt individuals they could find into power, so as much as possible could be stolen
and voila, everywhere they went, everything collapsed, every single time.
Totally and utterly ludicrous decades, of not punishing failure after failure has resulted
in nothing but more failure, like, surprise, surprise, surprise.
Routine failures have forced other nation to go multipolar or just rush straight to global
economic collapse as a result of out of control US corruption. Russia and China did not
outsmart the USA, the USA did it entirely to itself by not prosecuting corruption at high
levels, even when it failed time and time again, focusing more on how much they could steal,
then on bringing what ever plot or scheme to a successful conclusion.
The use of the terms "Unintended Consequences", shortsightedness, mistakes, stupidity, or
ignorance provides the avenue to transfer or divert the blame. It excuses it away as bad
decisions so that the truth and those responsible are never really exposed and held
accountable. The fact is, these actions were not mistakes or acts of shortsightedness...they
were deliberate and planned and the so-called "unintended consequences" were actually
intended and part of their plan. Looking back and linking the elites favorite process to
drive change (problem, reaction, solution)...one can quickly make the connection to many of
the so-called "unintended consequences" as they are very predictable results their actions.
It becomes very clear that much of what has occurred over the last few decades has been
deliberate with planned/intended outcomes.
I think the biggest advantage USA used to have was that they claimed to stand for Freedom
and Democracy. And for a time, many people believed them. That's partly why the USSR fell
apart, and for a time USA had a lot of goodwill among ordinary Russians.
But US political leaders squandered this goodwill when they used NATO to attack Yugoslavia
against Russia's objections and expanded NATO towards Russia's borders. This has been long
forgotten in USA. But many ordinary Russians still seethe about these events. This was the
turning point for them that motivated them to support Putin and his rebuilding of Russia's
military.
When you have goodwill among your potential competitors, then they don't have much
motivation to increase their capabilities against you. This was the situation USA was in
after the USSR fell apart. But USA squandered all of this goodwill and motivated the Russians
to do what they did.
And now, USA under Trump has done something like this with China. USA used to have a lot
of goodwill among the ordinary Chinese. But now this is gone as a result of US tariffs,
sanctions, and its support for separatism in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Now, the Chinese will be
as motivated as the Russians to do their best at promoting their interests at the expense of
USA. And together with Russia, they have enough people and enough natural resources to do
more than well against USA and its allies.
I think USA could've maintained a lot more influence around the world through goodwill
with ordinary people, than through sanctions, threats, and military attacks. If USA had left
Iraq under Saddam Hussein alone, then Iran wouldn't have had much influence in there. And if
USA had left Iran alone, then the young people there might've already rebelled against their
strict Islamic rule and made their government more friendly with USA.
Doing nothing, except business and trade, would've left USA in a much better position,
than the one USA is in now.
Now USA is bankrupting itself with unsustainable military spending and still falling
behind its competitors. USA might still have the biggest economy in the world in US Dollar
terms. But this doesn't take into account the cost of living and purchasing parity. With
purchasing parity taken into account, China now has a bigger economy than that of USA.
Because internally, they can manufacture and buy a lot more for the same amount of money than
USA can. A lot of US military spending is on salaries, pensions, and healthcare of its
personnel. While such costs in Russia and China are comparatively small. They are spending
most of their money on improving and building their military technology. That's why in the
long run, USA will probably fall behind even more.
The Anglos in the U.S. are not from there and are imposters who are claiming
characteristics and a culture that doesn't belong to them. They're using it as a way
to hide from scrutiny, so you blame "Americans", when its really them. That's why
there's such a huge disconnect between stated values and actions. The values belong to
another group of people, TRUE Americans, while the actions belong to Anglos, who have a
history of aggressive and forced, irrational violence upon innocents.
It's true that ordinary people are often different from their government, including in
Russia, in China, in Iran, in USA, and even in Nazi Germany in the past.
But the people in such a situation are usually powerless and unable to influence their
government. So, their difference is irrelevant in the way their government behaves and
alienates people around the world.
USA is nominally a democracy, where the government is controlled by the people. But in
reality, the people are only a ceremonial figurehead, and the real power is a small minority
of rich companies and individuals, who fund election campaigns of politicians.
That's why for example most Americans want to have universal healthcare, just like all
other developed countries have. But most elected politicians from both major parties won't
even consider this idea, because their financial donors are against it. And if the people are
powerless even within their own country, then outside with foreigners, they have even less
influence.
1. Nation Building? It worked with Germany and Japan, rinse and repeat. So what if it's
comparing apples to antimatter?
2. US won the Cold War? So make the same types of moves made during Reagan adm? The real
reason the Soviet Empire collapsed was because it was a money losing empire while the US was
a money making empire. Just review the money pits they invested in.
3. Corruption? That was your grandfather's time. The US has been restructured. Crime
Syndicate and Feudal templates are the closest. Stagnation and decline economically and
technologically are inevitable.
4. Evaluating the competition is problematic. However perhaps the most backward and
regressive elements in this society are branding themselves as progressive and getting away
with it. That can't work.
"... The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They have refused to finish building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for Iraq giving up 50% of oil imports. So, I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement with it. Today, Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement. ..."
"... After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I also refused, and he threatened [that there would be] massive demonstrations to topple me. Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, whereby a third party [presumed to be mercenaries or U.S. soldiers] would target both the demonstrators and security forces and kill them from atop the highest buildings and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement." ..."
"... It could also explain why President Trump is so concerned about China's growing foothold in Iraq, since it risks causing not only the end of the U.S. military hegemony in the country but could also lead to major trouble for the petrodollar system and the U.S.' position as a global financial power. Trump's policy aimed at stopping China and Iraq's growing ties is clearly having the opposite effect, showing that this administration's "gangster diplomacy" only serves to make the alternatives offered by countries like China and Russia all the more attractive. ..."
After the feed was cut, MPs who were present wrote down Abdul-Mahdi's remarks, which were
then given to the Arabic news outlet Ida'at .
Per that transcript , Abdul-Mahdi stated that:
The Americans are the ones who destroyed the country and wreaked havoc on it. They
have refused to finish building the electrical system and infrastructure projects. They have
bargained for the reconstruction of Iraq in exchange for Iraq giving up 50% of oil imports.
So, I refused and decided to go to China and concluded an important and strategic agreement
with it. Today, Trump is trying to cancel this important agreement. "
Abdul-Mahdi continued his remarks, noting that pressure from the Trump administration over
his negotiations and subsequent dealings with China grew substantially over time, even
resulting in death threats to himself and his defense minister:
After my return from China, Trump called me and asked me to cancel the agreement, so I
also refused, and he threatened [that there would be] massive demonstrations to topple me.
Indeed, the demonstrations started and then Trump called, threatening to escalate in the
event of non-cooperation and responding to his wishes, whereby a third party [presumed to be
mercenaries or U.S. soldiers] would target both the demonstrators and security forces and
kill them from atop the highest buildings and the US embassy in an attempt to pressure me and
submit to his wishes and cancel the China agreement."
"I did not respond and submitted my resignation and the Americans still insist to this day
on canceling the China agreement. When the defense minister said that those killing the
demonstrators was a third party, Trump called me immediately and physically threatened myself
and the defense minister in the event that there was more talk about this third party."
Very few English language outlets
reported on Abdul-Mahdi's comments. Tom Luongo, a Florida-based Independent Analyst and publisher of The Gold
Goats 'n Guns Newsletter, told MintPress that the likely reasons for the "surprising"
media silence over Abdul-Mahdi's claims were because "It never really made it out into official
channels " due to the cutting of the video feed during Iraq's Parliamentary session and due to
the fact that "it's very inconvenient and the media -- since Trump is doing what they want him
to do, be belligerent with Iran, protected Israel's interests there."
"They aren't going to contradict him on that if he's playing ball," Luongo added, before
continuing that the media would nonetheless "hold onto it for future reference .If this comes
out for real, they'll use it against him later if he tries to leave Iraq." "Everything in
Washington is used as leverage," he added.
Given the lack of media coverage and the cutting of the video feed of Abdul-Mahdi's full
remarks, it is worth pointing out that the narrative he laid out in his censored speech not
only fits with the timeline of recent events he discusses but also the tactics known to have
been employed behind closed doors by the Trump administration, particularly after Mike Pompeo
left the CIA to become Secretary of State.
For instance, Abdul-Mahdi's delegation to China ended on September 24, with the protests
against his government that Trump reportedly threatened to start on October 1. Reports of a
"third side" firing on Iraqi protesters were picked up by major media outlets at the time, such
as in this
BBC report which stated:
Reports say the security forces opened fire, but another account says unknown gunmen
were responsible .a source in Karbala told the BBC that one of the dead was a guard at a
nearby Shia shrine who happened to be passing by. The source also said the origin of the
gunfire was unknown and it had targeted both the protesters and security forces .
(emphasis added)"
U.S.-backed protests in other countries, such as in Ukraine in 2014, also saw evidence of a
"
third side " shooting both protesters and security forces alike.
After six weeks of intense protests , Abdul-Mahdi
submitted
his resignation on November 29, just a few days after Iraq's
Foreign Minister praised the new deals, including the "oil for reconstruction" deal, that had
been signed with China. Abdul-Mahdi has since stayed on as Prime Minister in a caretaker role
until Parliament decides on his replacement.
Abdul-Mahdi's claims of the covert pressure by the Trump administration are buttressed by
the use of similar tactics against Ecuador, where, in July 2018, a U.S. delegation at the
United Nations
threatened the nation with punitive trade measures and the withdrawal of military aid if
Ecuador moved forward with the introduction of a UN resolution to "protect, promote and support
breastfeeding."
The New York Times reported at the time that the U.S. delegation was seeking to
promote the interests of infant formula manufacturers. If the U.S. delegation is willing to use
such pressure on nations for promoting breastfeeding over infant formula, it goes without
saying that such behind-closed-doors pressure would be significantly more intense if a much
more lucrative resource, e.g. oil, were involved.
Regarding Abdul-Mahdi's claims, Luongo told MintPress that it is also worth
considering that it could have been anyone in the Trump administration making threats to
Abdul-Mahdi, not necessarily Trump himself. "What I won't say directly is that I don't know it
was Trump at the other end of the phone calls. Mahdi, it is to his best advantage politically
to blame everything on Trump. It could have been Mike Pompeo or Gina Haspel talking to
Abdul-Mahdi It could have been anyone, it most likely would be someone with plausible
deniability .This [Mahdi's claims] sounds credible I firmly believe Trump is capable of making
these threats but I don't think Trump would make those threats directly like that, but it would
absolutely be consistent with U.S. policy."
Luongo also argued that the current tensions between U.S. and Iraqi leadership preceded the
oil deal between Iraq and China by several weeks, "All of this starts with Prime Minister Mahdi
starting the process of opening up the Iraq-Syria border crossing and that was announced in
August. Then, the Israeli air attacks happened in September to try and stop that from
happening, attacks on PMU forces on the border crossing along with the ammo dump attacks near
Baghdad This drew the Iraqis' ire Mahdi then tried to close the air space over Iraq, but how
much of that he can enforce is a big question."
As to why it would be to Mahdi's advantage to blame Trump, Luongo stated that Mahdi "can
make edicts all day long, but, in reality, how much can he actually restrain the U.S. or the
Israelis from doing anything? Except for shame, diplomatic shame To me, it [Mahdi's claims]
seems perfectly credible because, during all of this, Trump is probably or someone else is
shaking him [Mahdi] down for the reconstruction of the oil fields [in Iraq] Trump has
explicitly stated "we want the oil."'
As Luongo noted, Trump's interest in the U.S. obtaining a significant share of Iraqi oil
revenue is hardly a secret. Just last March, Trump
asked Abdul-Mahdi "How about the oil?" at the end of a meeting at the White House,
prompting Abdul-Mahdi to ask "What do you mean?" To which Trump responded "Well, we did a lot,
we did a lot over there, we spent trillions over there, and a lot of people have been talking
about the oil," which was widely interpreted as Trump asking for part of Iraq's oil revenue in
exchange for the steep costs of the U.S.' continuing its now unwelcome military presence in
Iraq.
With Abdul-Mahdi having rejected Trump's "oil for reconstruction" proposal in favor of
China's, it seems likely that the Trump administration would default to so-called "gangster
diplomacy" tactics to pressure Iraq's government into accepting Trump's deal, especially given
the fact that China's deal was a much better offer. While Trump demanded half of Iraq's oil
revenue in exchange for completing reconstruction projects (according to Abdul-Mahdi), the deal
that was signed between Iraq and China would see around
20 percen t of Iraq's oil revenue go to China in exchange for reconstruction. Aside from
the potential loss in Iraq's oil revenue, there are many reasons for the Trump administration
to feel threatened by China's recent dealings in Iraq.
The Iraq-China oil deal – a prelude to something more?
When Abdul-Mahdi's delegation traveled to Beijing last September, the "oil for
reconstruction" deal was only
one of eight total agreements that were established. These agreements cover a range of
areas, including financial, commercial, security, reconstruction, communication, culture,
education and foreign affairs in addition to oil. Yet, the oil deal is by far the most
significant.
Per the agreement, Chinese firms will work on various reconstruction projects in exchange
for roughly 20 percent of Iraq's oil exports, approximately 100,00 barrels per day, for a
period of 20 years. According to Al-Monitor
, Abdul-Mahdi had the following to say about the deal: "We agreed [with Beijing] to set up a
joint investment fund, which the oil money will finance," adding that the agreement prohibits
China from monopolizing projects inside Iraq, forcing Bejing to work in cooperation with
international firms.
The agreement is similar to one negotiated
between Iraq and China in 2015 when Abdul-Mahdi was serving as Iraq's oil minister. That
year, Iraq joined China's Belt and Road Initiative in a deal that also involved exchanging oil
for investment, development and construction projects and saw China awarded several projects as
a result. In a notable similarity to recent events, that deal was put on hold due to "political
and security tensions" caused by unrest and the surge of ISIS in Iraq, that is until
Abdul-Mahdi saw Iraq rejoin the
initiative again late last year through the agreements his government signed with China
last September.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, center left, meet with Iraqi Prime Minister
Adil Abdul-Mahdi, center right, in Beijing, Sept. 23, 2019. Lintao Zhang | AP
Notably, after recent tensions between the U.S. and Iraq over the assassination of Soleimani
and the U.S.' subsequent refusal to remove its troops from Iraq despite parliament's demands,
Iraq quietly announced that it would dramatically increase its oil exports to China to
triple the
amount established in the deal signed in September. Given Abdul-Mahdi's recent claims about
the true forces behind Iraq's recent protests and Trump's threats against him being directly
related to his dealings with China, the move appears to be a not-so-veiled signal from
Abdul-Mahdi to Washington that he plans to deepen Iraq's partnership with China, at least for
as long as he remains in his caretaker role.
Iraq's decision to dramatically increase its oil exports to China came just one day after
the U.S. government
threatened to cut off Iraq's access to its central bank account, currently held at the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, an account that
currently holds $35 billion in Iraqi oil revenue. The account was
set up after the U.S. invaded and began occupying Iraq in 2003 and Iraq currently removes
between $1-2 billion per month to cover essential government expenses. Losing access to its oil
revenue stored in that account would lead to the "
collapse " of Iraq's government, according to Iraqi government officials who spoke to
AFP .
Though Trump publicly promised to rebuke Iraq for the expulsion of U.S. troops via
sanctions, the threat to cut off Iraq's access to its account at the NY Federal Reserve Bank
was delivered privately and directly to the Prime Minister, adding further credibility to
Abdul-Mahdi's claims that Trump's most aggressive attempts at pressuring Iraq's government are
made in private and directed towards the country's Prime Minister.
Though Trump's push this time was about preventing the expulsion of U.S. troops from Iraq,
his reasons for doing so may also be related to concerns about China's growing foothold in the
region. Indeed, while Trump has now lost his desired share of Iraqi oil revenue (50 percent) to
China's counteroffer of 20 percent, the removal of U.S. troops from Iraq may see American
troops replaced with their Chinese counterparts as well, according to Tom Luongo.
"All of this is about the U.S. maintaining the fiction that it needs to stay in Iraq So,
China moving in there is the moment where they get their toe hold for the Belt and Road
[Initiative]," Luongo argued. "That helps to strengthen the economic relationship between Iraq,
Iran and China and obviating the need for the Americans to stay there. At some point, China
will have assets on the ground that they are going to want to defend militarily in the event of
any major crisis. This brings us to the next thing we know, that Mahdi and the Chinese
ambassador discussed that very thing in the wake of the Soleimani killing."
Indeed, according to news reports, Zhang Yao -- China's ambassador to Iraq -- " conveyed
Beijing's readiness to provide military assistance" should Iraq's government request it
soon after Soleimani's assassination. Yao made the offer a day after Iraq's parliament voted to
expel American troops from the country. Though it is currently unknown how Abdul-Mahdi
responded to the offer, the timing likely caused no shortage of concern among the Trump
administration about its rapidly waning influence in Iraq. "You can see what's coming here,"
Luongo told MintPress of the recent Chinese offer to Iraq, "China, Russia and Iran are
trying to cleave Iraq away from the United States and the U.S. is feeling very threatened by
this."
Russia is also playing a role in the current scenario as Iraq initiated talks with Moscow
regarding the
possible purchase of one of its air defense systems last September, the same month that
Iraq signed eight deals, including the oil deal with China. Then, in the wake of Soleimani's
death, Russia
again offered the air defense systems to Iraq to allow them to better defend their air
space. In the past, the U.S.
has threatened allied countries with sanctions and other measures if they purchase Russian
air defense systems as opposed to those manufactured by U.S. companies.
The U.S.' efforts to curb China's growing influence and presence in Iraq amid these new
strategic partnerships and agreements are limited, however, as the U.S. is increasingly relying on China
as part of its Iran policy, specifically in its goal of reducing Iranian oil export to zero.
China remains Iran's main crude oil and condensate importer, even after it reduced its imports
of Iranian oil significantly following U.S. pressure last year. Yet, the U.S. is now attempting to
pressure China to stop buying Iranian oil completely or face sanctions while also
attempting to privately sabotage the China-Iraq oil deal. It is highly unlikely China will
concede to the U.S. on both, if any, of those fronts, meaning the U.S. may be forced to choose
which policy front (Iran "containment" vs. Iraq's oil dealings with China) it values more in
the coming weeks and months.
Furthermore, the recent signing of the "phase one" trade deal with China revealed another
potential facet of the U.S.' increasingly complicated relationship with Iraq's oil sector given
that the trade deal
involves selling U.S. oil and gas to China at very low cost , suggesting that the Trump
administration may also see the Iraq-China oil deal result in Iraq emerging as a potential
competitor for the U.S. in selling cheap oil to China, the world's top oil importer.
The Petrodollar and the Phantom of the Petroyuan
In his televised statements last week following Iran's military response to the U.S.
assassination of General Soleimani, Trump insisted that the U.S.' Middle East policy is no
longer being directed by America's vast oil requirements. He
stated specifically that:
Over the last three years, under my leadership, our economy is stronger than ever before
and America has achieved energy independence. These historic accomplishments changed our
strategic priorities. These are accomplishments that nobody thought were possible. And
options in the Middle East became available. We are now the number-one producer of oil and
natural gas anywhere in the world. We are independent, and we do not need Middle East
oil . (emphasis added)"
Yet, given the centrality of the recent Iraq-China oil deal in guiding some of the Trump
administration's recent Middle East policy moves, this appears not to be the case. The
distinction may lie in the fact that, while the U.S. may now be less dependent on oil imports
from the Middle East, it still very much needs to continue to dominate how oil is traded and
sold on international markets in order to maintain its status as both a global military
and financial superpower.
Indeed, even if the U.S. is importing less Middle Eastern oil, the petrodollar system --
first forged in the 1970s -- requires that the U.S. maintains enough control over the global
oil trade so that the world's largest oil exporters, Iraq among them, continue to sell their
oil in dollars. Were Iraq to sell oil in another currency, or trade oil for services, as it
plans to do with China per the recently inked deal, a significant portion of Iraqi oil would
cease to generate a demand for dollars, violating the key tenet of the petrodollar
system.
Chinese representatives speak to defense personnel during a weapons expo organized
by the Iraqi defense ministry in Baghdad, March, 2017. Karim Kadim | AP
The takeaway from the petrodollar phenomenon is that as long as countries need oil, they
will need the dollar. As long as countries demand dollars, the U.S. can continue to go into
massive amounts of debt to fund its network of global military bases, Wall Street bailouts,
nuclear missiles, and tax cuts for the rich."
Thus, the use of the petrodollar has created a system whereby U.S. control of oil sales of
the largest oil exporters is necessary, not just to buttress the dollar, but also to support
its global military presence. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the issue of the U.S. troop
presence in Iraq and the issue of Iraq's push for oil independence against U.S. wishes have
become intertwined. Notably, one of the architects of the petrodollar system and the man who
infamously described U.S. soldiers as "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign
policy", former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, has been advising
Trump and informing his China policy since 2016.
This take was also expressed by economist Michael Hudson,
who recently noted that U.S. access to oil, dollarization and U.S. military strategy are
intricately interwoven and that Trump's recent Iraq policy is intended "to escalate America's
presence in Iraq to keep control of the region's oil reserves," and, as Hudson says, "to back
Saudi Arabia's Wahabi troops (ISIS, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are
actually America's foreign legion) to support U.S. control of Near Eastern oil as a buttress of
the U.S. dollar."
Hudson further asserts that it was Qassem Soleimani's efforts to promote Iraq's oil
independence at the expense of U.S. imperial ambitions that served one of the key motives
behind his assassination.
America opposed General Suleimani above all because he was fighting against ISIS and other
U.S.-backed terrorists in their attempt to break up Syria and replace Assad's regime with a
set of U.S.-compliant local leaders – the old British "divide and conquer" ploy. On
occasion, Suleimani had cooperated with U.S. troops in fighting ISIS groups that got "out of
line" meaning the U.S. party line. But every indication is that he was in Iraq to work
with that government seeking to regain control of the oil fields that President Trump has
bragged so loudly about grabbing. (emphasis added)"
Hudson adds that " U.S. neocons feared Suleimani's plan to help Iraq assert control of its
oil and withstand the terrorist attacks supported by U.S. and Saudi's on Iraq. That is what
made his assassination an immediate drive."
While other factors -- such as pressure
from U.S. allies such as Israel -- also played a factor in the decision to kill Soleimani,
the decision to assassinate him on Iraqi soil just hours before he was set to meet with
Abdul-Mahdi in a diplomatic role suggests that the underlying tensions caused by Iraq's push
for oil independence and its oil deal with China did play a factor in the timing of his
assassination. It also served as a threat to Abdul-Mahdi, who has claimed that the U.S.
threatened to kill both him and his defense minister just weeks prior over tensions directly
related to the push for independence of Iraq's oil sector from the U.S.
It appears that the ever-present role of the petrodollar in guiding U.S. policy in the
Middle East remains unchanged. The petrodollar has long been a driving factor behind the U.S.'
policy towards Iraq specifically, as one of the key triggers for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was
Saddam Hussein's decision to sell Iraqi oil in Euros opposed to dollars beginning in the year
2000. Just weeks before the invasion began, Hussein boasted that Iraq's Euro-based oil revenue
account was earning a higher interest rate than
it would have been if it had continued to sell its oil in dollars, an apparent signal to other
oil exporters that the petrodollar system was only really benefiting the United States at their
own expense.
Beyond current efforts to stave off Iraq's oil independence and keep its oil trade aligned
with the U.S., the fact that the U.S. is now seeking to limit China's ever-growing role in
Iraq's oil sector is also directly related to China's publicly known efforts to create its own
direct competitor to the petrodollar, the petroyuan.
Since 2017, China has made its plans for the petroyuan -- a direct competitor to the
petrodollar -- no secret, particularly after China eclipsed the U.S. as the world's largest
importer of oil.
The new strategy is to enlist the energy markets' help: Beijing may introduce a new way to
price oil in coming months -- but unlike the contracts based on the U.S. dollar that currently dominate global
markets, this benchmark would use China's own currency. If there's widespread adoption, as the
Chinese hope, then that will mark a step toward challenging the greenback's status as the
world's most powerful currency .The plan is to price oil in yuan using a gold-backed futures contract in
Shanghai, but the road will be long and arduous."
If the U.S. continues on its current path and pushes Iraq further into the arms of China and
other U.S. rival states, it goes without saying that Iraq -- now a part of China's Belt and Road
Initiative -- may soon favor a petroyuan system over a petrodollar system, particularly as the
current U.S. administration threatens to hold Iraq's central bank account hostage for pursuing
policies Washington finds unfavorable.
It could also explain why President Trump is so concerned about China's growing foothold
in Iraq, since it risks causing not only the end of the U.S. military hegemony in the country but
could also lead to major trouble for the petrodollar system and the U.S.' position as a global
financial power. Trump's policy aimed at stopping China and Iraq's growing ties is clearly having
the opposite effect, showing that this administration's "gangster diplomacy" only serves to make
the alternatives offered by countries like China and Russia all the more attractive.
One can see how all these recent wars and military actions have a financial motive at their
core. Yet the mass of gullible Americans actually believe the reasons given, to "spread
democracy" and other wonderful things. Only a small number can see things for what they really
are. It's very frustrating to deal with the stupidity of the average person on a daily basis.
This is not Trump's policy, it is American policy and the variation is in how he implements
it. Any other person would have fallen in line with it as well. US policy has it's own inner
momentum that can't change course. The US depends upon continuation of the dollar as the
world's reserve currency. Were that to be lost the US likely would descend into chaos without
end. When the USSR came apart it was eventually able to downsize into the Russian state. We
don't have that here; there is no core ethnicity with it's own territory left anymore, it's
just a jumble. For the US it's a matter of survival.
The Chinese, for now, are not contradicting the Trump administration on the promise of
Chinese mega-purchases, because when Trump is more amicable their interests align. If an empty
promise that wasn't even made means the trade war de-escalation goes on, that is fine with
them. They would like to calm the markets as much as Trump would, and in this way they have
added leverage on Trump. Should they change their minds they can always explode the fiction
later on and injure Trump, perhaps strategically right around October.
Now that the dust has settled on the US-China trade deal and analysts have had some time to
pore over its 90+ pages, various chapters and (non-binding) terms that comprise the body of the
agreement, one high-level observation noted by Rabobank, is that the agreement foresees the
total amount of goods exports from the US to China to reach above $ 290BN by end-2021.
The implication of this is that the chart for US exports to China should basically look like
this for the next two years:
As Rabobank's senior economist Bjorn Giesbergen writes, t here are probably very few
economists that would deem such a trajectory feasible (except for the perpetually cheerful
economics team at Goldman , of course), seeing that it took the US more than 15 years to
raise exports from around USD16bn in 2000 to USD 130bn in 2017.
Moreover, the Chinese purchases of goods are beneficial to US companies, but at the cost of
other countries, and the agreement is only for two years. If China will buy more aircraft from
the US, that could be to the detriment of the EU.
According to the document "the parties project that the trajectory of increases will
continue in calendar years 2020 through 2025." But "to project" does not sound as firm as
"shall ensure." So, as the Rabo economist asks, "are we going to see a repetition of the 2019
turmoil caused by the phase 1 trade negotiations after those two years? Or is this supposed to
be solved in the phase 2 deal that is very unlikely to be made? What's more, while the
remaining tariffs provide leverage for US trade negotiators, they are still a tax on US
importers and US consumers of Chinese goods."
But before we even get there, going back to the chart shown above, Bloomberg today points
out something we have pointed out in the past, namely that China's $200 billion, two-year
spending spree negotiated with the Trump administration appears increasingly difficult to
deliver, and now a $50 billion "hole" appears to have opened up : that is the amount of U.S.
exports annually left out and many American businesses still uncertain about just what the
expectations are.
Some background: while Trump officials stressed the reforms aimed at curbing
intellectual-property theft and currency manipulation that China has agreed to in the "phase
one" trade deal signed Wednesday, the Chinese pledge to buy more American exports has become an
emblem of the deal to critics and supporters alike.
The administration has said those new exports in manufactured goods, energy, farm shipments
and services will come over two years on top of the $130 billion in goods and $57.6 billion in
services that the U.S. sent to China in 2017 -- the year before the trade war started and
exports were hit by Beijing's retaliatory measures to President Donald Trump's tariffs.
And while
Goldman said it is certainly feasible that China can ramp up its purchases of US goods ,
going so far as providing a matrix "scenario" of what such purchases could look like
that now appears virtually impossible, because as Bloomberg notes, the list of goods
categories in the agreement covers a narrower group of exports to China that added up to $78.8
billion in 2017, or $51.6 billion less than the overall goods exports to the Asian nation that
year. The goods trade commitment makes up $162.1 billion of the $200 billion total, with $37.9
billion to come from a boost in services trade such as travel and insurance.
Here, the math gets even more ridiculous:
The target for the first year that the deal takes effect is to add $63.9 billion in
manufactured goods, agriculture and energy exports. According to Bloomberg economist Maeva
Cousin's analysis, that would be an increase of 81% over the 2017 baseline. In year two, the
agreement calls for $98.2 billion surge in Chinese imports, which would require a 125%
increase over 2017.
Importantly for China, the deal requires those purchases to be "made at market prices based
on commercial considerations," a caveat which spooked commodities traders, and led to a sharp
drop in ags in the day following the deal's announcement.
Can China pull this off? Yes, if Beijing tears up existing trade deals and supply chains and
imposes explicit procurement targets and demands on China's local business. As Bloomberg notes,
"critics argue that such pre-ordained demand amounts to a slide into the sort of
government-managed trade that U.S. presidents abandoned decades ago" and the very sort of act
of central planning that U.S. officials have , paradoxically, spent years trying to convince
China to walk away from.
This may also explain why a key part of the trade deal will remain secret: the purchase plan
is based on what the administration insists is a specific – if classified – annex
of Chinese commitments. "The 20-page public version of that annex lists hundreds of products
and services from nuclear reactors to aircraft, printed circuits, pig iron, soybeans, crude oil
and computer services but no figures for purchases."
Going back to the critics, it is this convoluted mechanism that has them arguing that
China's stated targets will likely never be met: "This is ambitious and it will create some
stresses within the supply system," said Craig Allen, the president of the U.S.-China Business
Council.
That's not all: as Allen said, among the outstanding questions was whether China would lift
its retaliatory duties on American products as the US keeps its tariffs on some $360 billion in
imports from China as Trump seeks to maintain leverage for the second phase of
negotiations.
Allen also made clear the overall purchase schedule left many U.S. companies uncomfortable
even as they saw benefits in other parts of the deal. "The vast majority of our members are
looking for no more than a level playing field in China," Allen said. "We are not looking for
quotas or special treatment."
As a result, for many manufacturers what is actually changing -- and what China has
committed to instead of given a "best efforts" promise to achieve -- remains unclear.
Major exporters such as Boeing Co., whose CEO Dave Calhoun attended Wednesday's signing
ceremony, have stayed mum about what exactly the deal will mean for their business with China.
In an attempt to "clarify", Trump tweeted that the deal includes a Chinese commitment to buy
$16 billion to $20 billion in Boeing planes. It was unclear if he meant 737 MAX planes which
nobody in the world will ever voluntarily fly inside again.
Finally, prompting the latest round of cronyism allegations, Trump's new China pact also
includes plans for exports of American iron and steel , "a potential gain for an industry close
to the president that has benefited from his tariffs and complained about Chinese production
and overcapacity for years." As Bloomberg adds, the text of the agreement lists iron and steel
products ranging from pig iron to stainless steel wire and railway tracks, but steel industry
sources said they had been caught by surprise and not been given any additional details on
China's purchase commitments.
It is unclear why Beijing would need US product s: after all, in its scramble to erect ghost
cities and hit a goalseeked GDP print, China produces more than 50% of the world's steel,
drawning criticism from around the world – if not Greta Thunberg – for the massive
coal-derived pollution that comes from flooding global markets with cheap steel.
"In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles
of the world, and beyond them is more than memory."
J.R.R. Tolkien
"We were promised sufferings. They were part of the program. We were even told, 'Blessed are
they that mourn,' and I accept it. I've got nothing that I hadn't bargained for. Of course it
is different when the thing happens to oneself, not to others, and in reality, not
imagination."
C.S. Lewis
"If the devil tells you something is too fearful to look at, look at it. If he says
something is too terrible to hear, hear it. If you think some truth unbearable, bear it."
G.K. Chesterton
"The barbarian hopes -- and that is the mark of him, that he can have his cake and eat it
too. He will consume what civilization has slowly produced after generations of selection and
effort, but he will not be at pains to replace such goods, nor indeed has he a comprehension of
the virtue that has brought them into being.
We sit by and watch the barbarian. We tolerate him in the long stretches of peace, we are
not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certitudes; we
laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces
there are no smiles."
Hilaire Belloc
"In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they
would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and
that nothing was true. The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the
dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and
false, no longer exists."
Financialization killed Boeing. All those MBA's who dreamed up outsourced supply-chains
for the Dreamliner. Thought they were going to make a lot of money through savings.
Silly rabbit MBA's... if you don't spend money? You don't make money.
MBA graduates are f*cking useless retards trained in only one system: FAILURE.
What sank McDonald Douglas - bought out by Boeing? Is the same bullsh*t that is ruining
Boeing. Boeing kept a lot of board member & management failures around from McDonald
Douglas. Poisoned the Boeing culture.
How many of you remember all the McDonald Douglas passenger jet success stories? There
wasnt any - the whole mgmt of MD was to to strip out every possible cost and maximize very
profit at the expense of the end customer and the government - and these are the guys who
bought Boeing - and then made the first step of moving the headquarters to chicago. Guess
which party gave lots and lots of government boondoggles to MD?
I had a Polish executive tell me how proud they were as they were about to hire an
American executive who graduated with an MBA.
That is, until I asked him... "Have you checked what happened to the previous companies
that he worked at?"
So the Polish executive did just that. This led to a ban on hiring any American MBA. Turns
out, the American MBA worked at companies, all of which FAILED.
Though, somehow, despite a track record of working at failed companies? The American was
still quite well off.
The ******* alternative you stupid ******* americunt is already in the air. They are
labelled Airbus A220 and A230, otherwise known as Bombardier CS200 and CS300 and they are
sold out 15 years in advance.
That was part of the problem. The parts from Boeing's foreign suppliers MET
SPECIFICATIONS.
That is, until they went to assemble the Dreamliner. Where parts did not fit together.
You see, Boeing found out LONG, LONG AGO... that it was necessary to have manufacturing
close to design. That way, when parts that "met specifications" did not fit? The engineers
and machinists were there to correct deficiencies. Thus leading to reliable planes that were
fit together very well. Only THEN could Boeing could assemble parts in other locations and
mate them together.
This never happened with the Dreamliner. Quadrupled costs. The Dreamliner only exists
thanks to taxpayer subsidies through the ExIm Bank. The Dreamliner WILL NEVER BE PROFITABLE.
Accounting gimmicks make it appear as if Boeing makes money on the Dreamliner.
Amazing that in less than a generation, we go from "if it's not Boeing, I'm not going" to
wondering what the next Boeing screw-up will be and how many will be killed as a result.
The existing 777 is a fantastic plane and, other than pilot error (Asiana at SFO), a
missile attack (Malaysia 17) and some unknown (but apparently not mechanical) issue (Malaysia
370), the 777 has been the safest plane around.
American executives are incentivized to manipulate their company's stock. So they squeeze
the workforce and cut everything to the bone. That's why Boeing, GM, and other household
names are crashing.
According to economist William Lazonick, Boeing spent $43.1 billion on stock buybacks
from 2013 to 2019, raising the company's stock price to a record high just 10 days before
the second crash of its 737 MAX. Boeing CEO Muilenburg collects most of his pay through
stock or compensation based on financial metrics. Yet the company reportedly avoided
spending the estimated $7 billion it would have needed to engineer a safer plane. Less than
10 years after a public sector bailout, GM has spent $10.6 billion on stock buybacks, while
engaging in layoffs and plant closures. That amounts to $221,308 for each of the 47,897
active UAW members currently on strike at GM. Walmart spent $9.2 billion on stock buybacks
from August 2018 to July 2019, which, by my calculations, could have been used to give a
raise of roughly $5/ hour to each of its 1 million hourly workers instead.
Boeing should have been spending all its supposed profits on R&D. The other problem is
the military side of the business is grossly corrupt. Remember the blowup over Air Force
1?
This is what happens when the Federal Reserve lets the financial cat out the bag, and pump
up the stock market to the tune of 35-60 billion every 3 days, because some hedge funds
"could" fail and topple the financial system.
If multiple entities are now too important and could topple the financial system if they
failed, the Fed has massively screwed up.
In 1991 a Boeing purchaser told me that he would give us a contract if we transferred 51%
of the shares to a minority.
This is God's truth
He added that when he could not find minority businesses that would make components
according to specifications, he would buy stuff from minority owned businesses and not use it
but store it in warehouses around the country indefinitely. this in order to meet a quota of
20% purchases from minority owned businesses mandated by the Feds for all government
suppliers.
I can just imagine how bad the discrimination is now.
These are politically connected animals who feed from the trough of government pork barrel
a.k.a taxpayer money. Exactly what has Nikki Haley achieved in her life, except for being a
pathological liar?
These animals were responsible for our reckless fiscal deficits and looming debt bombs
which will soon come crashing down. Kinda good metaphor for Boeing.
All former CFOs and politicians ( civilian and military - only political types in the
military get stars ). No evidence of any engineering expertise. Sad for a once-proud global
leader.
In the "investor economy", there is no morality. EVERYTHING is "commoditized". Even you ..
your DNA. A pricetag hovers over your head like a dialog bubble. Bean counters can
incorporate your morbidity and mortality into mathematical equations showing investors why
cutting costs and saving 0.01% is worthy of investment. While 911 was the paradigm shift for
Rights ... the Lehman "crisis" was its own "911" -- the death of the labor economy ... and
rise of the "investor economy". Nobody works, trading time for dollars. They "invest" Why
work? Investors can kill without being held personally responsible. They only risk their fiat
capital. You die.
I just finished the lengthy Dr. Hudson interview/discussion "Democratizing
Money" I was sharing excepts from on the open thread which has great bearing on the
foundational issues of this thread's topic and subtopics, and provides information that help
inform an answer to Rose-Marie Larsson @21, for example.
The history of neoliberalism's rise to power and massive take-off thanks to Clinton, Bush
and Obama is important to understand so it can be undone and the power of both Neoliberals
and Neocons can be diminished.
That Daniel thinks anyone here is trying to argue trump's "some sort of anti-establishment
hero" is grossly incorrect as all the evidence points to him as being an extension of
Clinton, Bush, Obama; although Trump denied any such connection during his campaign, his
actions speak otherwise, the evidence being well presented in Hudson's talk.
Want to learn why the NYSE is going to crack 30,000 by the end of January; read the
discussion. Why 911? To insulate Wall Street from having the set of laws it wanted
established so it could expand its crime spree from being undone or even discussed as it
turned out. (That's my take, not Hudson's.) Finally, what're the main weapons Trump's used in
his foreign policy? Weaponized Financialization and its kin Lawfare.
As Hudson admits, he's radical for the political solution he proposes:
"If you're going to do something so radical as to wipe out the financial class's claims on
the rest of society, you have to go and finish the revolution that Adam Smith, Ricardo, John
Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall, Marx, and almost every 19th century classical economist
advocated.
"You have to change the tax system so that you avoid having a financial system that makes
its money by taking unearned income and monopoly income or land rent that should be basis of
the tax base, for itself....
"So Steve [Keen] has an elegant mathematical solution that would work, but I'm more
radical when it comes to the political solution.
"[Edgar] You want the creditors to lose in the Jubilee.
"Yes, it's one great advantage. It's just as important to wipe out the wealth of creditors
as it is to wipe out the debt. If you leave the post-1980 gains with the creditors, you're
going to have a ruling class much like the feudal landlords. You're going to have financial
feudalism. If you leave all of this financial wealth intact, while the rest of the economy
has so little wealth
"[Edgar] Well, we already have that.
"Yes, and I want to reverse it by wiping out the financial wealth. It's really overhead,
because it's owed by the bottom 99%, siphoning off their income and ultimately depriving them
of property."
Essentially, Hudson proposes we demonetize the 1% such that they lose their power to buy
government while reregulating banks so they must return to a legitimate business model
instead of their current pursuit of fraud as their business model. Once those two legs of the
triangle are severed, the MIC having lost its allies will be easy to downsize to that of a
"normal country."
"The Marxist political parties, including the Social Democrats and their followers, had
fourteen years to prove their abilities. The result is a heap of ruins. All around us are
symptoms portending this breakdown. With an unparalleled effort of will and of brute force the
Communist method of madness is trying as a last resort to poison and undermine an inwardly
shaken and uprooted nation.
In fourteen years the November parties have ruined the German farmer. In fourteen years they
created an army of millions of unemployed. The National Government will carry out the following
plan with iron resolution and dogged perseverance. Within four years the German farmer must be
saved from pauperism. Within four years unemployment must be completely overcome.
Our concern to provide daily bread will be equally a concern for the fulfillment of the
responsibilities of society to those who are old and sick. The best safeguard against any
experiment which might endanger the currency lies in economical administration, the promotion
of work, and the preservation of agriculture, as well as in the use of individual
initiative."
Adolf Hitler, Radio Appeal to the German People, February 1, 1933
"Both religion and socialism thus glorify weakness and need. Both recoil from the world as
it is: tough, unequal, harsh. Both flee to an imaginary future realm where they can feel safe.
Both say to you. Be a nice boy. Be a good little girl. Share. Feel sorry for the little people.
And both desperately seek someone to look after them -- whether it be God or the State.
A thriving upper class accepts with a good conscience the sacrifice of untold human beings,
who, for its sake, must be reduced and lowered to incomplete human beings,to slaves, to
instruments... One cannot fail to see in all these noble races the beast of prey, the splendid
blond beast, prowling about avidly in search of spoil and victory; this hidden core needs to
erupt from time to time, the animal has to get out again and go back to the wilderness."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"At a certain point in their historical cycles, social classes become detached from their
traditional parties. In other words, the traditional parties, in their particular
organisational bias, with the particular men who constitute, represent and lead them, are no
longer recognised by their class as their own, and representing their interests. When such
crises occur, the immediate situation becomes delicate and dangerous, because the field is open
for violent solutions, for the activities of unknown forces, represented by charismatic 'men of
destiny' [demagogues].
The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of
monsters."
Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, 1930-35
"Be human in this most inhuman of ages; guard the image of man for it is the image of God.
You agree? Good. Then go with my blessing. But I warn you, do not expect to make many friends.
One of the awful facts of our age is the evidence that it is stricken indeed, stricken to the
very core of its being by the presence of the Unspeakable."
Thomas Merton, Raids on the Unspeakable
"The more power a government has the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and
desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and
domestic subjects."
R. J. Rummel, Death by Government: A History of Mass Murder and Genocide Since
1900
"This is as old as Babylon, and evil as sin. It is the power of the darkness of the world,
and of spiritual wickedness in high places. The only difference is that it is not happening in
the past, or in a book, or in some vaguely frightening prophecy -- it is happening here and
now."
Jesse
"The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power
as well. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them. Among all others
only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Plunder, rape, and murder they
falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
Tacitus
"Thus did a handful of rapacious citizens come to control all that was worth controlling in
America. Thus was the savage and stupid and entirely inappropriate and unnecessary and
humorless American class system created. Honest, industrious, peaceful citizens were classed as
bloodsuckers, if they asked to be paid a living wage.
And they saw that praise was reserved henceforth for those who devised means of getting paid
enormously for committing crimes against which no laws had been passed. Thus the American dream
turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with
gas, went bang in the noonday sun."
Kurt Vonnegut, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater
"Day by day the money-masters of America become more aware of their danger, they draw
together, they grow more class-conscious, more aggressive. The [first world] war has taught
them the possibilities of propaganda; it has accustomed them to the idea of enormous campaigns
which sway the minds of millions and make them pliable to any purpose.
American political corruption was the buying up of legislatures and assemblies to keep them
from doing the people's will and protecting the people's interests; it was the exploiter
entrenching himself in power, it was financial autocracy undermining and destroying political
democracy. By the blindness and greed of ruling classes the people have been plunged into
infinite misery."
Upton Sinclair, The Brass Check
"Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the
need without ever reaching satisfaction."
Erich Fromm
"We must alter our lives in order to alter our hearts, for it is impossible to live one way
and pray another.
If you have not chosen the kingdom of God first, it will in the end make no difference what
you have chosen instead."
In another sense, however, the passing of the cold war could not have been more
disorienting. In 1987, Georgi Arbatov, a senior adviser to the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev , had warned:
"We are going to do a terrible thing to you – we are going to deprive you of an
enemy."
...Winning the cold war brought Americans face-to-face with a predicament comparable to that
confronting the lucky person who wins the lottery: hidden within a windfall is the potential
for monumental disaster.
Coming decade could see the US take on Russia, China and Iran over the New Silk Road
connection
The Raging Twenties started with a bang with the targeted assassination of Iran's General
Qasem Soleimani.
Yet a bigger bang awaits us throughout the decade: the myriad declinations of the New Great
Game in Eurasia, which pits the US against Russia, China and Iran, the three major nodes of
Eurasia integration.
Every game-changing act in geopolitics and geoeconomics in the coming decade will have to be
analyzed in connection to this epic clash.
The Deep State and crucial sectors of the US ruling class are absolutely terrified that
China is already outpacing the "indispensable nation" economically and that Russia has
outpaced
it militarily . The Pentagon officially designates the three Eurasian nodes as
"threats."
Hybrid War techniques – carrying inbuilt 24/7 demonization – will proliferate
with the aim of containing China's "threat," Russian "aggression" and Iran's "sponsorship of
terrorism." The myth of the "free market" will continue to drown under the imposition of a
barrage of illegal sanctions, euphemistically defined as new trade "rules."
Yet that will be hardly enough to derail the Russia-China strategic partnership. To unlock
the deeper meaning of this partnership, we need to understand that Beijing defines it as
rolling towards a "new era." That implies strategic long-term planning – with the key
date being 2049, the centennial of New China.
The horizon for the multiple projects of the Belt and Road Initiative – as in the
China-driven New Silk Roads – is indeed the 2040s, when Beijing expects to have fully
woven a new, multipolar paradigm of sovereign nations/partners across Eurasia and beyond, all
connected by an interlocking maze of belts and roads.
The Russian project – Greater Eurasia –
somewhat mirrors Belt & Road and will be integrated with it. Belt & Road, the Eurasia
Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Asia Infrastructure Investment
Bank are all converging towards the same vision.
Realpolitik
So this "new era", as defined by the Chinese, relies heavily on close Russia-China
coordination, in every sector. Made in China 2025 is encompassing a series of techno/scientific
breakthroughs. At the same time, Russia has established itself as an unparalleled technological
resource for weapons and systems that the Chinese still cannot match.
At the latest BRICS summit in Brasilia, President Xi Jinping told Vladimir Putin that "the
current international situation with rising instability and uncertainty urge China and Russia
to establish closer strategic coordination." Putin's response: "Under the current situation,
the two sides should continue to maintain close strategic communication."
Russia is showing China how the West respects realpolitik power in any form, and Beijing is
finally starting to use theirs. The result is that after five centuries of Western domination
– which, incidentally, led to the decline of the Ancient Silk Roads – the Heartland
is back, with a bang, asserting its preeminence.
On a personal note, my travels these past two years, from West Asia to Central Asia, and my
conversations these past two months with analysts in Nur-Sultan, Moscow and Italy, have allowed
me to get deeper into the intricacies of what sharp minds define as the Double Helix. We are
all aware of the immense challenges ahead – while barely managing to track the stunning
re-emergence of the Heartland in real-time.
In soft power terms, the sterling role of Russian diplomacy will become even more paramount
– backed up by a Ministry of Defense led by Sergei Shoigu, a Tuvan from Siberia, and an
intel arm that is capable of constructive dialogue with everybody: India/Pakistan, North/South
Korea, Iran/Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.
This apparatus does smooth (complex) geopolitical issues over in a manner that still eludes
Beijing.
In parallel, virtually the whole Asia-Pacific – from the Eastern Mediterranean to the
Indian Ocean – now takes into full consideration Russia-China as a counter-force to US
naval and financial overreach.
Stakes in Southwest Asia
The targeted assassination of Soleimani, for all its long-term fallout, is just one move in
the Southwest Asia chessboard. What's ultimately at stake is a macro geoeconomic prize: a
land bridge from the Persian Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean.
Last summer, an Iran-Iraq-Syria trilateral established that "the goal of negotiations is to
activate the Iranian-Iraqi-Syria load and transport corridor as part of a wider plan for
reviving the Silk Road."
There could not be a more strategic connectivity corridor, capable of simultaneously
interlinking with the International North-South Transportation Corridor; the Iran-Central
Asia-China connection all the way to the Pacific; and projecting Latakia towards the
Mediterranean and the Atlantic.
What's on the horizon is, in fact, a sub-sect of Belt & Road in Southwest Asia. Iran is
a key node of Belt & Road; China will be heavily involved in the rebuilding of Syria; and
Beijing-Baghdad signed multiple deals and set up an Iraqi-Chinese Reconstruction Fund (income
from 300,000 barrels of oil a day in exchange for Chinese credit for Chinese companies
rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure).
A quick look at the map reveals the "secret" of the US refusing to pack up and leave Iraq,
as demanded by the Iraqi Parliament and Prime Minister: to prevent the emergence of this
corridor by any means necessary. Especially when we see that all the roads that China is
building across Central Asia – I navigated many of them in November and December –
ultimately link China with Iran.
The final objective: to unite Shanghai to the Eastern Mediterranean – overland, across
the Heartland.
As much as Gwadar port in the Arabian Sea is an essential node of the China-Pakistan
Economic Corridor, and part of China's multi-pronged "escape from Malacca" strategy, India also
courted Iran to match Gwadar via the port of Chabahar in the Gulf of Oman.
So as much as Beijing wants to connect the Arabian Sea with Xinjiang, via the economic
corridor, India wants to connect with Afghanistan and Central Asia via Iran.
Yet India's investments in Chabahar may come to nothing, with New Delhi still mulling
whether to become an active part of the US "Indo-Pacific" strategy, which would imply dropping
Tehran.
The Russia-China-Iran joint naval exercise in late December, starting exactly from Chabahar,
was a timely wake-up for New Delhi. India simply cannot afford to ignore Iran and end up losing
its key connectivity node, Chabahar.
The immutable fact: everyone needs and wants Iran connectivity. For obvious reasons, since
the Persian empire, this is the privileged hub for all Central Asian trade routes.
On top of it, Iran for China is a matter of national security. China is heavily invested in
Iran's energy industry. All bilateral trade will be settled in yuan or in a basket of
currencies bypassing the US dollar.
US neocons, meanwhile, still dream of what the Cheney regime was aiming at in the past
decade: regime change in Iran leading to the US dominating the Caspian Sea as a springboard to
Central Asia, only one step away from Xinjiang and weaponization of anti-China sentiment. It
could be seen as a New Silk Road in reverse to disrupt the Chinese vision.
Battle of the Ages
A new book, The Impact of China's Belt and Road
Initiativ e , by Jeremy Garlick of the University of Economics in Prague, carries the
merit of admitting that, "making sense" of Belt & Road "is extremely difficult."
This is an extremely serious attempt to theorize Belt & Road's immense complexity
– especially considering China's flexible, syncretic approach to policymaking, quite
bewildering for Westerners. To reach his goal, Garlick gets into Tang Shiping's social
evolution paradigm, delves into neo-Gramscian hegemony, and dissects the concept of "offensive
mercantilism" – all that as part of an effort in "complex eclecticism."
The contrast with the pedestrian Belt & Road demonization narrative emanating from US
"analysts" is glaring. The book tackles in detail the multifaceted nature of Belt & Road's
trans-regionalism as an evolving, organic process.
Imperial policymakers won't bother to understand how and why Belt & Road is setting a
new global paradigm. The NATO summit in London last month offered a few pointers. NATO
uncritically adopted three US priorities: even more aggressive policy towards Russia;
containment of China (including military surveillance); and militarization of space – a
spin-off from the 2002 Full Spectrum Dominance doctrine.
So NATO will be drawn into the "Indo-Pacific" strategy – which means containment of
China. And as NATO is the EU's weaponized arm, that implies the US interfering on how Europe
does business with China – at every level.
Retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff from 2001 to 2005,
cuts to the chase: "America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight
years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American
Empire is. We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as Pompeo is doing right now, as Trump is
doing right now, as Esper is doing right now and a host of other members of my political party,
the Republicans, are doing right now. We are going to lie, cheat and steal to do whatever it is
we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it. And that's the agony of
it."
Moscow, Beijing and Tehran are fully aware of the stakes. Diplomats and analysts are working
on the trend, for the trio, to evolve a concerted effort to protect one another from all forms
of hybrid war – sanctions included – launched against each of them.
For the US, this is indeed an existential battle – against the whole Eurasia
integration process, the New Silk Roads, the Russia-China strategic partnership, those Russian
hypersonic weapons mixed with supple diplomacy, the profound disgust and revolt against US
policies all across the Global South, the nearly inevitable collapse of the US dollar. What's
certain is that the Empire won't go quietly into the night. We should all be ready for the
battle of the ages.
There is a lot of talk here and in comment sections at forums about how the American Empire
is going to collapse soon due to its blunders and Russia and China gaining military
superiority over it. This kind of talk is a type of magical thinking and has no basis in
reality. The United States' most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it
the US government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took
it off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global
economy. The economist Michael Hudson in an article called A Note To China (link at
bottom) explains how this works:
The U.S. strategy is to control your economy in order to force you to sell your most
profitable industrial sectors to US investors, to force you to invest in your industry only
by borrowing from the United States.
So the question is, how do China, Russia, Iran and other countries break free of this
U.S. dollarization strategy?
There are a lot of articles on alt.media sites about how China and Russia are
de-dollarizing their economies in order to resist, and eventually end, the US domination of
the global economy that is preventing them from maintaining independent economic policies
that benefit their citizens rather than global elites and US central bankers.
Russia managed to put a stop to overt US economic imperialism after the looting spree in
the post-Soviet 1990s decimated Russia's ability to provide for its citizens and degraded the
country's ability to maintain economic independence. But it still ultimately got caught in
the neoliberal trap. Hudson again:
Yet Russia did not have enough foreign exchange to pay domestic ruble-wages or to pay for
domestic goods and services. But neoliberal advisors convinced Russia to back all Ruble
money or domestic currency credit it created by backing it with U.S. dollars. Obtaining
these dollars involved paying enormous interest to the United States for this needless
backing. There was no need for such backing. At the end of this road the United States
convinced Russia to sell off its raw materials, its nickel mines, its electric utilities,
its oil reserves, and ultimately tried to pry Crimea away from Russia.
China, Hudson argues, by accepting the advice of American and IMF/World Bank economic
"experts" and through Chinese students schooled in American universities in American
neoliberal theory is in great danger of falling into the same trap.
The U.S. has discovered that it does not have to militarily invade China. It does not have
to conquer China. It does not have to use military weapons, because it has the intellectual
weapon of financialization, convincing you that you need to do this in order to have a
balanced economy. So, when China sends its students to the United States, especially when
it sends central bankers and planners to the United States to study (and be recruited),
they are told by the U.S. "Do as we say, not as we have done."
He concludes that:
The neoliberal plan is not to make you independent, and not to help you grow except to the
extent that your growth will be paid to US investors or used to finance U.S. military
spending around the world to encircle you and trying to destabilize you in Sichuan to try
to pry China apart.
Look at what the United States has done in Russia, and at what the International
Monetary Fund in Europe has done to Greece, Latvia and the Baltic states. It is a dress
rehearsal for what U.S. diplomacy would like to do to you, if it can convince you to follow
the neoliberal US economic policy of financialization and privatization.
De-dollarization is the alternative to privatization and financialization.
Loosening the Empire's hold on economic and geopolitical affairs and moving to a
multipolar world order is a tough slog and the Empire will use everything it can to stop this
from happening. But at the moment even countries under American sanctions and surrounded by
its armies, with the possible exception of Iran, aren't really fighting back. That's a bitter
pill for many to swallow but wishful thinking isn't going to change the world. After all, the
new world has to be imagined before it can appear and right now it's still global capitalism
all the way down.
The article in full, and Hudson's work generally, is well worth reading. He is one of only
a few genuinely anti-imperialist economists and he is able to explain in layman's terms
exactly how the US-centric global economy is a massive scam designed to benefit US empire at
the rest of the world's expense.
I was thinking about
winston2's comment in the previous thread. A good way for China and Russia to respond is
to go after those in the MIC; the CEO, lobbyists, financiers, etc... If they follow the money
and take them out, I suspect we all would see a dramatic turn of events. No need to publicize
their early retirement. Make it messy and public but not to the point of taking out
innocents.
Yes, Michael Hudson is excellent, mostly because he's rare economist, that is, one who
begins from the premise that the 'economy' is a set of historically-situated and specific
modes of exchange and forms of human relations. Aristotle located what we call the economy in
ethics and politics; we follow the fairytales of neo-classical economics and global capital
by imagining that it has some scientific autonomy from human social relations. Marx was right
in following Aristotle's insight by critiquing the very idea of an autonomous economy, which
the chief ideological fiction of late capitalism. Sam Chambers and Ellen Meiksens-Wood are
also excellent critics of this obstacle to reimagining a viable alternative to the economy as
it is propagated by the US neoliberal global apparatus.
Inkan1969 , Jan 16 2020 22:34 utc |
42S , Jan 16 2020 22:37 utc |
43
@Daniel #36:
The United States' most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it the US
government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took it
off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global
economy.
But at the moment even countries under American sanctions and surrounded by its armies,
with the possible exception of Iran, aren't really fighting back.
Exclude me from this squad. I's always from the opinion that the USA would collapse
slowly, i.e. degenerate/decay. I won't repeat my arguments again here so as to spare people
who already know me the repetition.
However, consider this: when 2008 broke out, some people thought the USA would finally
collapse. It didn't - in great part, because the USG also thought it could collapse, so it
acted quickly and decisively. But it cost a lot: the USA fell from its "sole superpower"
status, and, for the first time since 1929, the American people had to fell in the flesh the
side effects of capitalism. It marked the end of the End of History, and the realization -
mainly by Russia and China - that the Americans were not invincible and immortals. It may
have marked the beginning of the multipolar era.
--//--
The world (bar China) never recovered from 2008. Indeed, world debt has grown to another
record high:
The world governments - specially the governments from the USA, Japan and Europe -
absorbed private debt (through purchase of rotten papers and through QE) so the system could
be saved. But this debt didn't disappear, instead, it became public debt. What's worse:
private debt has already spiked up, and already is higher than pre-2008 levels. The Too Big
To Fail philosophy of the central banks only bought them time.
--//--
Extending my previous link (from the previous Open Thread) about money laundering:
The global TV subscription streaming company, Netflix made $1.2bn in profits in 2018, of
which $430m was shifted into tax havens, reports Tax Watch UK.
The estimated revenue from UK subscribers was about $860m, but most of this was booked
offshore in a tax haven Dutch subsidiary. Netflix claims its UK parent company got only
$48m in revenue. When the costs of Netflix UK productions were put against this, Netflix
was able to avoid paying any tax at all to the UK government. Indeed, it received tax
reliefs for productions in the UK from the government.
A simple question requires a simple answer. Russia's defence expenditure in PPP terms is
probably in excess of $180 billion per year which buys a shedload of "capable military
equipment".
It should be noted that the point Hudson's trying to make in his "Note to China" is to warn
China of what if faces by using historical examples. As S points out @43, Russia's Ruble is
very sound and its dollar and T-Bill holdings are extremely low. The message to China and the
entire SCO community is to cease supporting the Outlaw US Empire's military by supporting its
balance of payments by buying T-Bills. The sooner the SCO community, or just the core
nations, can produce a new currency for use in trade, the sooner a crisis can be created
within the Outlaw US Empire--essentially by turning the "intellectual weapon of
financialization" against the global rogue nation foe.
The future of the U.S.'s involvement in the Middle East is in Iraq. The exchange of
hostilities between the U.S. and Iran occurred wholly on Iraqi soil and it has become the site
on which that war will continue.
Israel continues to up the ante on Iran, following President Trump's lead by bombing Shia
militias stationed near the Al Bukumai border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
The U.S. and Israel are determined this border crossing remains closed and have demonstrated
just how far they are willing to go to prevent the free flow of goods and people across this
border.
The regional allies of Iran are to be kept weak, divided and constantly under
harassment.
Iraq is the battleground because the U.S. lost in Syria. Despite the presence of U.S. troops
squatting on Syrian oil fields in Deir Ezzor province or the troops sitting in the desert
protecting the Syrian border with Jordan, the Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces
continue to reclaim territory previously lost to the Syrian government.
Now with Turkey redeploying its pet Salafist head-choppers from Idlib to Libya to fight
General Haftar's forces there to legitimize its claim to eastern Mediterannean gas deposits,
the restoration of Syria's territorial integrity west of the Euphrates River is nearly
complete.
The defenders of Syria can soon transition into the rebuilders thereof, if allowed. And they
didn't do this alone, they had a silent partner in China the entire time.
And, if I look at this situation honestly, it was China stepping out from behind the shadows
into the light that is your inciting incident for this chapter in Iraq's story.
China moving in to sign a $10.1 billion deal with the Iraqi government to begin the
reconstruction of its ruined oil and gas industry in exchange for oil is of vital
importance.
It doubles China's investment in Iraq while denying the U.S. that money and influence.
This happened after a massive $53 billion deal between Exxon-Mobil and Petrochina was put on
hold after the incident involving Iran shooting down a U.S. Global Hawk drone in June.
With the U.S balking over the Exxon/Petrochina big deal, Iraqi Prime Minster Adel Abdul
Mahdi signed the new one with China in October. Mahdi brought up the circumstances surrounding
that in Iraqi parliaments during the session in which it passed the resolution recommending
removal of all foreign forces from Iraq.
Did Trump openly threaten Mahdi over this deal as I covered in my
podcast on this? Did the U.S. gin up protests in Baghdad, amplifying unrest over growing
Iranian influence in the country?
And, if not, were these threats simply implied or carried by a minion (Pompeo, Esper, a
diplomat)? Because the U.S.'s history of regime change operations is well documented. Well
understood color revolution
tactics used successfully in
places like Ukraine , where snipers were deployed to shoot protesters and police alike to
foment violence between them at the opportune time were on display in Baghdad.
Mahdi openly accused Trump of threatening him, but that sounds more like Mahdi using the
current impeachment script to invoke the sinister side of Trump and sell his case.
It's not that I don't think Trump capable of that kind of threat, I just don't think he's
stupid enough to voice it on an open call. Donald Trump is capable of many impulsive things,
openly threatening to remove an elected Prime Minister on a recorded line is not one of
them.
Mahdi has been under the U.S.'s fire since he came to power in late 2018. He was the man who
refused Trump during
Trump's impromptu Christmas visit to Iraq in 2018 , refusing to be summoned to a
clandestine meeting at the U.S. embassy rather than Trump visit him as a head of state, an
equal.
He was the man who declared the Iraqi air space closed after Israeli air attacks on Popular
Mobilization Force (PMF) positions in September.
And he's the person, at the same time, being asked by Trump to act as a mediator between
Saudi Arabia and Iran in peace talks for Yemen.
So, the more we look at this situation the more it is clear that Abdul Madhi, the first
Iraqi prime minister since the 2003 U.S. invasion push for more Iraqi sovereignty, is emerging
as the pivotal figure in what led up to the attack on General Soleimani and what comes after
Iran's subsequent retaliation.
It's clear that Trump doesn't want to fight a war with Iran in Iran. He wants them to
acquiesce to his unreasonable demands and begin negotiating a new nuclear deal which
definitively stops the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, and as P
atrick Henningsen at 21st Century Wire thinks ,
Trump now wants a new deal which features a prohibition on Iran's medium range missiles ,
and after events this week, it's obvious why. Wednesday's missile strike by Iran demonstrates
that the US can no longer operate in the region so long as Iran has the ability to extend its
own deterrence envelope westwards to Syria, Israel, and southwards to the Arabian Peninsula,
and that includes all US military installations located within that radius.
Iraq doesn't want to be that battlefield. And Iran sent the message with those two missile
strikes that the U.S. presence in Iraq is unsustainable and that any thought of retreating to
the autonomous Kurdish region around the air base at Erbil is also a non-starter.
The big question, after this attack, is whether U.S. air defenses around the Ain al Assad
airbase west of Ramadi were active or not. If they were then Trump's standing down after the
air strikes signals what Patrick suggests, a new Middle East in the making.
If they were not turned on then the next question is why? To allow Iran to save face after
Trump screwed up murdering Soleimani?
I'm not capable of believing such Q-tard drivel at this point. It's far more likely that the
spectre of Russian electronics warfare and radar evasion is lurking in the subtext of this
story and the U.S. truly now finds itself after a second example of Iranian missile technology
in a nascent 360 degree war in the region.
It means that Iran's threats against the cities of Haifa and Dubai were real.
In short, it means the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq now measures in months not
years.
Because both China and Russia stand to gain ground with a newly-united Shi'ite Iraqi
population. Mahdi is now courting Russia to sell him S-300 missile defense systems to allow him
to enforce his demands about Iraqi airspace.
Moqtada al-Sadr is mobilizing his Madhi Army to oust the U.S. from Iraq. Iraq is key to the
U.S. presence in the region. Without Iraq the U.S. position in Syria is unsustainable.
If the U.S. tries to retreat to Kurdish territory and push again for Masoud Barzani and his
Peshmerga forces to declare independence Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will go
ballistic.
And you can expect him to make good on his threat to close the Incerlik airbase, another
critical logistical juncture for U.S. force projection in the region.
But it all starts with Mahdi's and Iraq's moves in the coming weeks. But, with Trump rightly
backing down from escalating things further and not following through on his outlandish threats
against Iran, it may be we're nearing the end of this intractable standoff.
Back in June I told you
that Iran had the ability to fight asymmetrically against the U.S., not through direct
military confrontation but through the after-effects of a brief, yet violent period of war in
which all U.S., Israeli and Arab assets in the Middle East come under fire from all
directions.
It sent this same message then that by attacking oil tankers it could make the transport of
oil untenable and not insurable. We got a taste of it back then and Trump, then, backed
down.
And the resultant upheaval in the financial markets creating an abyss of losses, cross-asset
defaults, bank failures and government collapses.
Trump has no real option now but to negotiate while Iraq puts domestic pressure on him to
leave and Russia/China come in to provide critical economic and military support to assist
Mahdi rally his country back towards some semblance of sovereignty
How about "what is the goal?" There is none of course. The assholes in the Washington/MIC
just need war to keep them relevant. What if the US were to closed down all those wars and
foreign bases? THEN the taxpayer could demand some accounting for the trillions that are
wasted on complete CRAP. There are too many old leftovers from the cold war who seem to think
there is benefit to fighting wars in shithole places just because those wars are the only
ones going on right now. The stupidity of the ****** in the US military/MIC/Washington is
beyond belief. JUST LEAVE you ******* idiots.
Sometimes, in treading thru the opaque, sandstorm o ******** swept wastes of the '
desert of the really real '...
one must rely upon a marking... some kind of guidepost, however tenuous, to show you to be
still... on the trail, not lost in the vast haunted reaches of post-reality. And you know,
Tommy is that sort of guide; the sort of guy who you take to the fairgrounds, set him up with
the 'THROW THE BALL THRU THE HOOP... GUARANTEED PRIZE TO SCOOP' kiosk...
and he misses every time. Just by watching Tom run through his paces here... zeroing in on
the exact WRONG interpretation of events ... every dawg gone time... one resets their compass
to tru course and relaxes into the flow agin! Thanks Tom! Let's break down ... the Schlitzy
shopping list of sloppy errors:
Despite the presence of U.S. troops squatting on Syrian oil fields in Deir Ezzor
province or the troops sitting in the desert protecting the Syrian border with Jordan, the
Russians, Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds forces continue to reclaim territory previously
lost to the Syrian government. / umm Tom... the Russkies just ONCE AGIN... at Ankaras
request .. imposed a stop on the IDLIB CAMPAIGN. Which by the way... is being conducted
chiefly by the SAA. Or was that's to say. To the east... the Russkies have likewise become
the guarantors of .... STATIS... that is a term implying no changes on the map. Remember
that word Tom... "map" ... I recommend you to find one... and learn how to use it!
Now with Turkey redeploying its pet Salafist head-choppers from Idlib to Libya to fight
General Haftar's forces there to legitimize its claim to eastern Mediterannean gas
deposits, the restoration of Syria's territorial integrity west of the Euphrates River is
nearly complete. See above... with gravy Tom. Two hundred jihadists moving to Libya has not
changed the status quo... except in dreamland.
Israel continues to up the ante on Iran, f ollowing President Trump's lead by bombing
Shia militias stationed near the Al Bukumai border crossing between Syria and Iraq.
Urusalem.. and its pathetically obedient dogsbody USSA ... are busy setting up RIMFISTAN
Tom.. you really need to start expanding your reading list; On both sides of that border
you mention .. they will be running - and guarding - pipeline running to the mothership.
Shia miitias and that project just don't mix. Nobody gives a frying fluck bout your
imaginary 'land bridge to the Med'... except you and the gomers. And you and they aren't
ANYWHERES near to here.
Abdul Madhi, the first Iraqi prime minister since the 2003 U.S. invasion push for
more Iraqi sovereignty, is emerging as the pivotal figure in what led up to the attack on
General Soleimani and what comes after Iran's subsequent retaliation.
Ok... this is getting completely embarrassing. The man is a 'caretaker' Tom...
that's similar to a 'janitor' - he's on the way out. If you really think thats' being
pivotal... I'm gonna suggest that you've 'pivoted' on one of your goats too many
times.
Look, Tom... I did sincerely undertake to hold your arm, and guide you through this to a
happier place. But you... are underwater my man. And that's quite an accomplishment, since we
be traveling through the deserts of the really real. You've enumerated a list of things which
has helped me to understand just how completely distorted is the picture of the situation
here in mudded east.. is... in the minds of the myriad victims of your alt-media madness. And
I thank you for that. But its time we part company.
These whirring klaidescope glasses I put on, in order to help me see how you see things,
have given me a bit of a headache. Time to return to seeing the world... as it really
works!
The whole *target and destroy* Iran (and Iraq) clusterfuck has always been about creating
new profit scenarios, profit theaters, for the MIC.
If the US govt was suddenly forced to stop making and selling **** designed to kill
people... if the govt were forced to stopping selling **** to other people so
they can kill people... if the govt were forced to stop stockpiling **** designed to
kill people just so other people would stop building and stockpiling **** designed to kill
people... first the US then the world would collapse... everyone would finally see... the US
is a nation of people that allows itself to be propped up by the worst sort of people... an
infinitesimally small group of gangsters who legally make insane amounts of money... by
creating in perpetuity... forever new scenarios that allow them to kill other people.
Jesus ******* Christ ZeroHedge software ******* sucks.
Why has Trump no real option? What do you believe are the limits of Trump's options that
assure he must negotiate? Perhaps all out war is not yet possible politically in the US, but
public sentiment has been manipulated before. Why not now?
One must not yet reject the idea that the road to Moscow and Beijing does not run through
Iran. Throwing the US out of the Middle East would be a grievous failure for the deep state
which has demonstrated itself to be absolutely ruthless. It is hard to believe the US will
leave without a much more serious war forcing the issue.
So far Trump has appeared artless and that may continue but that artlessness may well
bring a day when Trump will not back down.
The motivation behind Trump pulling out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action wasn't
because, after careful analytical study of the plan, he decided it was a bad deal. It was
because Israel demanded it as it didn't fit into their best interests and, as with the
refreezing of relationships with Cuba, it was a easier way to undo Obama policy rather than
tackling Obamacare. Hardly sound judgement.
The war will continue in Iraq as the Shia majority mobilize against an occupying force
that has been asked to leave, but refuse. What will quickly become apparent is that this war
is about to become far more multifaceted with Iraqi and Iranian proxies targeting American
interests across numerous fronts.
Trump is the head of a business empire; Downsizing is not a strategy that he's ever
employed; His business history is a case study in go big or go bust.
trump's zionist overlords have demanded he destroy iran.
as a simple lackey, he agreed, but he does need political cover to do so.
thus the equating of any attack or threat of attack by any group of any political
persuasion as originating from iran.
any resistance by the shia in iraq will be considered as being directed from iran, thus an
attack on iran is warranted.
any resistance by the currect governement of iraq will be considered as being directed
from iran, thus an attack on iran is warranted.
any resistance by the sunni in iraq will be considered subversion by iran, or a false flag
by iran, thus an attack on iran is warranted.
trump's refusal to follow the SOFA agreement, and heed the call of the democratic
government we claim to have gone in to install, is specifically designed to lead to more
violence, which in turn can be blamed on iran's "malign" influence, which gives the entity
lackeys cover to spread more democracy.
I'm more positive that Iraq can resolve its issues without starting a Global War.
The information
shared by the Iraqi Prime Minister goes part way to awakening the population as to what
is happening and why.
Once more information starts to leak out (and it will from those individuals who want to
avoid extinction) the broad mass of the global population can take action to protect
themselves from the psychopaths.
China moving in to sign a $10.1 billion deal with the Iraqi government to begin the
reconstruction of its ruined oil and gas industry in exchange for oil is of vital
importance.
Come on Tom, you should know better than that: the U.S will destroy any agreements between
China and the people of Iraq.
The oil will continue to be stolen and sent to Occupied Palestine to administer and the
people of Iraq will be in constant revolt, protest mode and subjugation- but they will never
know they are being manipulated by the thieving zionists in D.C and Tel aviv.
Agreed. It will take nothing short of a miracle to stop this. Time isnt on their side
though so they better get on it. They will do something big to get it going.
This isn't "humanity." Few people are psychopathic killers. It is being run by a small
cliche of Satanists who are well on their way to enslaving humanity in a dystopia even George
Orwell could not imagine. They control most of the levers of power and influence and have
done so for centuries.
Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to
risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor
for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in
any country.
- Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring's testimony before the Nuremberg tribunal on crimes
against humanity
"... a friend of mine, born in Venice and a long-time resident of Rome, pointed out to me that dogs are a sign of loneliness. ..."
"... And the cafes and restaurants on weekends in Chicago–chockfull of people, each on his or her own Powerbook, surfing the WWW all by themselves. ..."
"... The preaching of self-reliance by those who have never had to practice it is galling. ..."
"... Katherine: Agreed. It is also one of the reasons why I am skeptical of various evangelical / fundi pastors, who are living at the expense of their churches, preaching about individual salvation. ..."
"... So you have the upper crust (often with inheritances and trust funds) preaching economic self-reliances, and you have divines preaching individual salvation as they go back to the house provided by the members of the church. ..."
George Monbiot on human loneliness and its toll. I agree with his observations. I have been cataloguing them in my head for
years, especially after a friend of mine, born in Venice and a long-time resident of Rome, pointed out to me that dogs are
a sign of loneliness.
A couple of recent trips to Rome have made that point ever more obvious to me: Compared to my North Side neighborhood in Chicago,
where every other person seems to have a dog, and on weekends Clark Street is awash in dogs (on their way to the dog boutiques
and the dog food truck), Rome has few dogs. Rome is much more densely populated, and the Italians still have each other, for good
or for ill. And Americans use the dog as an odd means of making human contact, at least with other dog owners.
But Americanization advances: I was surprised to see people bring dogs into the dining room of a fairly upscale restaurant
in Turin. I haven't seen that before. (Most Italian cafes and restaurants are just too small to accommodate a dog, and the owners
don't have much patience for disruptions.) The dogs barked at each other for while–violating a cardinal rule in Italy that mealtime
is sacred and tranquil. Loneliness rules.
And the cafes and restaurants on weekends in Chicago–chockfull of people, each on his or her own Powerbook, surfing the
WWW all by themselves.
That's why the comments about March on Everywhere in Harper's, recommended by Lambert, fascinated me. Maybe, to be less lonely,
you just have to attend the occasional march, no matter how disorganized (and the Chicago Women's March organizers made a few
big logistical mistakes), no matter how incoherent. Safety in numbers? (And as Monbiot points out, overeating at home alone is
a sign of loneliness: Another argument for a walk with a placard.)
In Britain, men who have spent their entire lives in quadrangles – at school, at college, at the bar, in parliament – instruct
us to stand on our own two feet.
With different imagery, the same is true in this country. The preaching of self-reliance by those who have never had to
practice it is galling.
Katherine: Agreed. It is also one of the reasons why I am skeptical of various evangelical / fundi pastors, who are living
at the expense of their churches, preaching about individual salvation.
So you have the upper crust (often with inheritances and trust funds) preaching economic self-reliances, and you have divines
preaching individual salvation as they go back to the house provided by the members of the church.
Scott P@26 :
...a true believer who's spent too long in echo chambers which recognize the US's foreign policy as selfish and destructive, but
then make the entirely unwarranted leap that because it's so bad, any actor that opposes them is morally neutral, or at least
not subject to the same degree of scrutiny and criticism.
It's a bizarre worldview that seems to want to ignore the possibility that every actor in an interaction is a bad actor, or
at the bare minimum confuses the idea of it can be useful for a third party to weaken and distract a common enemy with the idea
that this makes the third party succeeding in their broader aims desirable without considering what those aims are.
It's schadenfreude combined with tunnel vision, and its appeal seems to lie in its creation of a personally satisfying narrative
which demonizes the near enemy – their centrist political rivals – as hopeless authoritarians.
In my golden days, I did manufacturing throughput analysis, cost modeled parts, and
reviewed component and transportation distribution. I am curious. Forget all that
neoliberal stuff . . .
Ohh, those golden days
Measurement has its place and is the cornerstone of science, but it is not equal to
pattern recognition. And when applied to social phenomena with their complexity it is
more often a trap, rather then an insight.
You need to understand that.
Deification of questionable metrics is an objective phenomenon that we observe under
neoliberalism.
A classic example of deification of a questionable metric under neoliberalism is the
"cult of GDP" ("If the GDP Is Up, Why Is America Down?") See , for example
For example, many people discuss stagnation of GDP growth in Japan not understanding
here we are talking about the country with shrinking population. And adjusted for this
factor I am not sure that it not higher then in the USA (were it is grossly distorted by
the cancerous growth of FIRE sector).
So while comparing different years for a single country might make some limited sense,
those who blindly compare GDP of different countries (even with PPP adjustment) IMHO
belong to a modern category of economic charlatans. Kind of Lysenkoism, if you wish
That tells you something about primitivism and pseudo-scientific nature of neoliberal
economics.
We also need to remember the "performance reviews travesty" which is such a clear
illustration of "cult of measurement" abuses that it does not it even requires
commentary. Google has abolished numerical ratings in April 2014.
Recently I come across an interesting record of early application of it in AT&T at
Brian W Kernighan book UNIX: A History and a Memoir at late 60th, early as 70th.
Something is really fishy here. Dynamic IP address is reassigned only if you do not switch on you computer on for several days,
which is not very probable for Krugman. Otherwise it is glued to this device and is difficult to highjack without installing
malware on the computer or router. and he should have static IP anyway, he is not some poor shmuck and can
afford extra $10 a month to have.
Two devices with the same IP on the network are usually automatically detected and it is
difficult to use them for download, as during this time the second device will lose Internet connection completely and the
problem will be detected by the ISP support.
So the only option is that somebody installed backdoor malware on Krugman computer and used his harddrive for storage. That's
an extremely improbable scenario, unless he visited some grey site himself.
34,216 views
Jan 2, 2020, 12:08pm
How Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg
Corrupted Climate Science
Roger Pielke
Contributor
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Energy
I research and write about science, policy and politics.
Share to facebook
Share to twitter
Share to linkedin
Tom Steyer, co-founder of NextGen Climate Action Committee,
smiles during the Global Climate Action
... [+]
Summit in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Friday, Sept. 14, 2018. The Global Climate Action Summit brings
together industry and political leaders working on improving the conditions and concerns facing climate in the world
today. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg
This is a story of American
democracy. In one sense, it's a noble story. People with shared values have come together to petition the government
and the public on their political aims, just
as envisioned by James Madison
in
Federalist 10
.
In another sense it's a story of privilege and conceit – the privilege in American democracy that accompanies
being mindbogglingly wealthy and the conceit that climate politics could be best pursued by corrupting the scientific
literature on climate change.
At the center of the corruption of climate science discussed here a highly technical scenario of the future
(called Representation Concentration Pathway 8.5 or RCP8.5). Over the past decade this particular scenario has moved
from an extreme outlier to the center of climate policy discussions. You can read more about how that happened and
its consequences in my previous columns
here
and
here
.
Today, I will add further details to this incredible story by explaining the important roles played by Tom Steyer
and Michael Bloomberg, both billionaires and current Democratic presidential candidates. (Disclosure: I have endorsed
publicly one of their Democratic opponents, Amy Klobuchar, but I will vote for whomever the Democrats select this
November, including Steyer or Bloomberg.)
Following this meeting, Steyer invited two collaborators and co-funders to join him, to give the appearance of
being non-partisan. One was
Michael Bloomberg
, then a political independent who was completing 12 years as the mayor of New York. The other
was
Hank Paulson
, a Republican who was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs and who had also served as Secretary of the
Treasury under George W. Bush.
But in generating large economic impacts, the approach of the
Risky Business
report made two significant
methodological mistakes. First, they improperly characterized the extreme RCP 8.5 scenario as "business as usual"
reflecting a world without future climate policy. Second, they improperly presented the scenarios of the IPCC as
representing different policy outcomes, suggesting that we could "move" from one scenario to another: "
Moving
from RCP 8.5 to RCP 2.6 (as well as RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0) will come at a cost
."
Both of these methodological choices were contrary to the appropriate use of the scenarios,
according the modeling experts who created them
: "RCP8.5 cannot be used as a no-climate-policy reference scenario
["business as usual"] for the other RCPs because RCP8.5's socioeconomic, technology and biophysical assumptions
differ from those of the other RCPs." The scenarios are completely independent from each other, and policy cannot
"move" us from one to another. Consider that
RCP2.6 represents a world with 3 billion less people than RCP8.5
. The
Risky Business
methodology ignored
such critical details.
Dodgy science published by climate advocacy groups is certainly not uncommon and it is usually not that
interesting. But the genius of the
Risky Business
project was that it did not stop with a flashy report
aimed at the daily news cycle. It undertook a far more sophisticated campaign focused on introducing its methods into
the mainstream scientific literature, where they could take on a life of their own.
For instance, soon after the initial
Risky Business
report was released in 2014 the
Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson funded work was
the basis for 11 talks
at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, which is the
largest annual gathering of climate researchers. The next step was to get the analyses of the project published in
the scientific literature where they could influence subsequent research and serve as the basis for authoritative
scientific reviews, such as the U.S. National Climate Assessment.
For instance, a
2016 paper published in the prestigious journal
Science
from the
Risky Business
project
introduced the erroneous notion of moving from one RCP scenario to another via policy, comparing "business as usual"
(RCP 8.5) and "strongent emissions mitigation" (RCP 2.6). That paper has subsequently been cited 294 times in other
academic studies,
according to Google Scholar
. Despite the obvious methodological flaw, the paper passed peer review and has
received little or no criticism.
In another example, a more comprehensive study from the
Risky Business
project was
published in
Science
magazine in 2017
, where the abstract brazenly announces its methodological error:
"By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of
county income (90% chance) under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5)." The most
extreme conclusion of this analysis was that the United States would see a 10% hit to its economy under the most
extreme version of RCP8.5 (specifically its 99th percentile), projecting an incredible 8 degree Celsius temperature
change from 2080 to 2099. This paper has been cited 285 times in other studies,
according to Google Scholar
. The 10% GDP loss figure would become
the top line conclusion of the U.S. National Climate Assessment the next year
.
Publishing papers in the academic literature based on the flawed methods was a formula that would be repeated time
and time again. Like the introduction of a virus, the misleading reinterpretation of climate scenarios has
subsequently expanded throughout the climate science literature and into leading assessments.
Many experts well know that such methods are fatally flawed
, but only a few have
raised concerns
.
The 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment offers a particularly notable example. The work initiated by the
Risky Business
project was cited almost 200 times in that report, including direct references to the project's
reports as well as the work of its lead consultant, the
Rhodium Group
. One of the
lead researchers for
Risky Business
was also
a lead author of the NCA
. His research supported by
Risky Business
(and that of his main collaborator),
was
cited more than 150 times in the NCA
. Yet, nowhere that I have seen has it been disclosed by the US government
that this NCA lead author is
under contract
with the Rhodium Group
from 2015 to 2022.
Imagine the reaction if a lead author of the U.S. National Climate Assessment with funding from a Republican
billionaire and working with consultants opposed to climate action had their research, that of their funder and their
colleagues cited some 200 times in the NCA – and that research was fatally flawed and the researcher's financial
connections with the consultants was undisclosed. I'd wager that it would receive some attention.
More recently, the work begun with Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson initial investment
has been taken up
by a group called the
Climate Impact
Lab
. This effort involves the project leaders from the
Risky Business
report and is a collaboration of
several universities and the continued involvement of the
Rhodium Group
. It is
unclear if Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson continue to provide funding via the Rhodium Group.
The Climate Impact Lab has thrived on exploiting RCP8.5 to generate a steady series of media-friendly studies
focused on projecting extreme climate impacts. Among them:
All of these reports are based on the misuse of scenarios, and especially RCP8.5.
Just last month the co-director of the Climate Impact Lab
testified before Congress
and argued that the "social cost of carbon" was far higher than previous estimates. In
doing so he introduced a further methodological error by
improperly pairing
the extreme RCP8.5 scenario (again used as a baseline scenario in the
underlying analyses
) with the most pessimistic socioeconomic pathway (called
Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 3
).
Let me be clear about what is going on here. There is no hidden conspiracy, all of this is taking place in plain
sight and in public. In fact, what is going on here is absolutely genius. We have a well-funded effort to
fundamentally change how climate science is characterized in the academic literature, how that science is reported in
the media, and ultimately how political discussions and policy options are shaped.
Of course, the Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson investments are not solely responsible for the misuse of scenarios in the
scientific literature, but they are clearly a significant part of the story.
The corruption of climate science has occurred because some of our most important institutions have let us down.
The scientific peer review process has failed to catch obvious methodological errors in research papers. Leading
scientific assessments have ignored conflicts of interest and adopted flawed methods. The media has been selectively
incurious as to the impact of big money on climate advocacy.
This is a story of how wealth and power have corrupted science in pursuit of political goals. Climate change is
important, there is no doubt. But the importance of climate change does not mean that we should abandon high
standards of scientific integrity. We are going to need good science in the future -- so it is best to keep it that
way, no matter what cause it is enlisted to support.
And it might well, on top of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, be the long-awaited
beginning of the end of America's imperial ambitions.
One must ask; Is the US presence in the ME really because of imperial ambition? At least
if it is I can understand. I mean, it's bad but that's what nations have done for centuries.
Or is America in the ME at Israel's insistence? Hers's the roll: Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq
2003, Libya in 2011, Syria shortly after that; not one of these countries threatened America,
not one. Yet we invaded these nations, and brutally murdered Qadhaffi and Hussain, and we did
it all based on lies dreamed up by Jewish dual citizens who call themselves American patriots
but who are really agents of Israel.
I'm not using the term neocons any longer, as the term is a lie, a mask. They are just a
large group of powerful dual citizen Jews many descended from Trotskyites that immigrated
from Russia in the 1930s. They hide their real intentions. And what are those intentions? To
protect Israel by scaring the American public through their propaganda organ known as the
MSM, scaring us into allowing a Trillion dollar military budget, and these forever wars. And
anyone who questions them is an anti-Semite. And, that's right from the mouth of Nathan
Perlmutter in his essay; "The Real Anti-Semite In America"
These parasitic dual citizen Jews and their Washington Think Tanks have to go. They are
liars and cowards who will fight for Israel to the last drop of blood spills from the last
American soldier. Trump knowingly, or not, is being used by these bastards. Today he's a
traitor and a liar too. Iran poses no threat to America. None Zilch
Rome was imperialist, Spain, England yes, but the US doesn't fit the definition. What does
fit is 'hired gun'. Right? So, who hired the USA? And, are they paying, or are they somehow
threatening us or blackmailing us?
"... Add in the war-profiteers, wide open borders, collapsing infrastructure and history-making wealth inequality, and an entire generation of healthy young white men destroyed by drugs and suicides, a despair engineered by Jews, who unlike Iranians, mock us as they do it. Let's see tranquility on the home front survive skyrocketing food and gas prices. ..."
"... We must prepare our own populist anti-war protest movement to bring the war home. We must remain steadfast in the face of a coming era of political repression nobody has seen in generations. ..."
"... "The U.S. did not only murder Qassem Soleimani. On December 29 it also killed 31 Iraqi government forces. Five days later it killed Soleimani and the Deputy Commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU/Hashed al-Shabi) and leader of Kata'ib Hizbollah Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. There were also four IRGC and four Kata'ib Hizbollah men who were killed while accompanying their leaders. The PMU are under direct command of the Iraqi Prime Minister. They are official Iraqi defense forces who defeated ISIS after a bloody war. Their murder demands that their government acts against the perpetrators." ..."
"... "Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had it coming and Iran should be nuked. Glass parking lot is the desired end." ..."
"... That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed, believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted, good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade". ..."
"... US murder of another nation's leader has no frigging importance in moral or consequential terms. Such is the general IQ status of the west today. Really, it takes someone intelligent and inquisitive enough for years and years to really get aghast and appreciative enough to ponder what the murder of Soleimani in Trump's hand in the manner it was executed would mean to world peace. MSM counts on this stupidity and thrives in lies and false-flag propaganda. ..."
"... The idiots at the helm of the Evil Outlaw US Empire really have absolutely no clue as their short term thinking has destroyed what mental capacities they once had and has reduced them to imbeciles. ..."
The US shows every symptom of an empire on the brink of collapse: an irreconcilably divided
and decaying citizenry, racial and cultural incoherence, a totally detached oligarchy, no
overarching mission or narrative, and an over reliance on international mercenaries to fight
its wars. By 2009, soldiers of fortune outnumbered US military personnel 3-1 in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Add in the war-profiteers, wide open borders, collapsing infrastructure and history-making
wealth inequality, and an entire generation of healthy young white men destroyed by drugs and
suicides, a despair engineered by Jews, who unlike Iranians, mock us as they do it. Let's see
tranquility on the home front survive skyrocketing food and gas prices.
A war with Iran is our line in the sand as well. All white men must boycott the military,
which is run by people who despise us more than any supposed international enemy ever will.
The last 3 years of having our rights and civil liberties whittled away show that it is white
Americans who will always be the US plutocracy's first and last enemy. If you are currently
serving, you can get honorably discharged by declaring yourself a worshipper of Asatru and
anonymously emailing your superior officers pretending to be a deeply concerned member of
Antifa. Even if open war doesn't break out, the recent massive troop buildups in the Middle
East guarantee you will be a target. Let Zion send its anarchist neo-liberal foot soldiers in
your place!
We must prepare our own populist anti-war protest movement to bring the war home. We must
remain steadfast in the face of a coming era of political repression nobody has seen in
generations.
The people of Iran are not our enemy. They share the same abominable foe and deserve our
solidarity. They must know that the citizens of America are ignorant of who rules them, and
that decisions made using our flag are not made by us.
In the name of the existence of our people and the future of our children, and even
broader in the name of humanity, we must ensure that this will be Judah's last war.
thank you b... i see you articulated a paragraph that is out of grasp of the american msm
crowd, so i am going to repeat it.. it is worth repeating...see bottom of post... my main
thought is that no matter what happens everything will be blamed on iran - false flag, and
etc. etc. you name it... all bad is on iran and all good is on usa-israel.. that is the
constant meme that the msm provides 24-7 and that us politicians and the state dept run with
24-7 as well. it is so transparent it is beyond despicable..
@ 13 old hippie.. that about sums up my impression.. thanks
@ 22 BM.. thanks.. i share your perspective, but am not as articulate..
here is the quote from b..
"The U.S. did not only murder Qassem Soleimani. On December 29 it also killed 31 Iraqi
government forces. Five days later it killed Soleimani and the Deputy Commander of the
Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF/PMU/Hashed al-Shabi) and leader of Kata'ib Hizbollah Abu
Mahdi al-Muhandis. There were also four IRGC and four Kata'ib Hizbollah men who were killed
while accompanying their leaders. The PMU are under direct command of the Iraqi Prime
Minister. They are official Iraqi defense forces who defeated ISIS after a bloody war. Their
murder demands that their government acts against the perpetrators."
Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked.
Glass parking lot is the desired end.
This sentiment is bottom to top in America. Measured response? No way can Iran 'measure' a
response.
More generally the sentiment is that a little war in Iran, a few nukes, is not even a big
thing. Football scores more important.
"Sitting in coffee shop in Chicago listening to Americans. The general sentiment is they had
it coming and Iran should be nuked. Glass parking lot is the desired end."
That's pretty much the picture i get from reading responses in UK MSM, not only from
English, but many giving American addresses. They are all pretty much thoroughly brainwashed,
believing as gospel the lies they've told, and still think that they are the "White hatted,
good guys, who do good things for the places they bomb and invade".
it seems they will be supportive of an attack on Iran, and if their maniac "leaders", the
basement crazies who got out of the basement, realise this, it increases substantially the
chances of a "hot" war. In that case, should it escalate out of control, your Chicago coffee
deadheads will get the Glass parking lot they want. It just wont be in the ME. Or Russia.
They can have their very own, in their own back yard.
You guys are right on money! I'm a retiree in my seventy's. My social circles are old
school college graduates in late fifties to late seventies, supposedly the segment of
population wise enough to decipher world affairs.
But no, they care more about who's gonna
win today between Titans and patriots or whether Tiger Wood will win another major in 2020.
US murder of another nation's leader has no frigging importance in moral or consequential
terms. Such is the general IQ status of the west today. Really, it takes someone intelligent
and inquisitive enough for years and years to really get aghast and appreciative enough to
ponder what the murder of Soleimani in Trump's hand in the manner it was executed would mean
to world peace. MSM counts on this stupidity and thrives in lies and false-flag
propaganda.
"24 hrs ago, an arrogant clown -- masquerading as a diplomat -- claimed people were dancing in the cities of Iraq. Today, hundreds of thousands of our proud Iraqi brothers and sisters offered him their
response across their soil. End of US malign presence in West Asia has begun."
The idiots at the helm of the Evil Outlaw US Empire really have absolutely no clue as
their short term thinking has destroyed what mental capacities they once had and has reduced
them to imbeciles.
"... "The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well." ..."
"... Recently I read Not Fade Away by Laurence Shames and Peter Barton. It's about Peter Barton, the founder of Liberty Media, who shares his thoughts about dying from cancer. ..."
For the longest time, I believed that there's only one purpose of life: And that is to be happy. Right? Why else go through all
the pain and hardship? It's to achieve happiness in some way. And I'm not the only person who believed that. In fact, if you look
around you, most people are pursuing happiness in their lives.
That's why we collectively buy shit we don't need, go to bed with people we don't love, and try to work hard to get approval of
people we don't like.
Why do we do these things? To be honest, I don't care what the exact reason is. I'm not a scientist. All I know is that it has
something to do with history, culture, media, economy, psychology, politics, the information era, and you name it. The list is endless.
Just a few short years ago, I did everything to chase happiness.
You buy something, and you think that makes you happy.
You hook up with people, and think that makes you happy.
You get a well-paying job you don't like, and think that makes you happy.
You go on holiday, and you think that makes you happy.
But at the end of the day, you're lying in your bed (alone or next to your spouse), and you think: "What's next in this endless
pursuit of happiness?"
Well, I can tell you what's next: You, chasing something random that you believe makes you happy.
It's all a façade. A hoax. A story that's been made up.
Did Aristotle lie to us when he said:
"Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence."
I think we have to look at that quote from a different angle. Because when you read it, you think that happiness is the main goal.
And that's kind of what the quote says as well.
But here's the thing: How do you achieve happiness?
Happiness can't be a goal in itself. Therefore, it's not something that's achievable. I believe that happiness is merely a byproduct
of usefulness. When I talk about this concept with friends, family, and colleagues, I always find it difficult to put this into words.
But I'll give it a try here. Most things we do in life are just activities and experiences.
You go on holiday.
You go to work.
You go shopping.
You have drinks.
You have dinner.
You buy a car.
Those things should make you happy, right? But they are not useful. You're not creating anything. You're just consuming or doing
something. And that's great.
Don't get me wrong. I love to go on holiday, or go shopping sometimes. But to be honest, it's not what gives meaning to life.
What really makes me happy is when I'm useful. When I create something that others can use. Or even when I create something I
can use.
For the longest time I foud it difficult to explain the concept of usefulness and happiness. But when I recently ran into a quote
by Ralph Waldo Emerson, the dots connected.
Emerson says:
"The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some
difference that you have lived and lived well."
And I didn't get that before I became more conscious of what I'm doing with my life. And that always sounds heavy and all. But
it's actually really simple.
It comes down to this: What are you DOING that's making a difference?
Did you do useful things in your lifetime? You don't have to change the world or anything. Just make it a little bit better than
you were born.
If you don't know how, here are some ideas.
Help your boss with something that's not your responsibility.
Take your mother to a spa.
Create a collage with pictures (not a digital one) for your spouse.
Write an article about the stuff you learned in life.
Help the pregnant lady who also has a 2-year old with her stroller.
Call your friend and ask if you can help with something.
Build a standing desk.
Start a business and hire an employee and treat them well.
That's just some stuff I like to do. You can make up your own useful activities.
You see? It's not anything big. But when you do little useful things every day, it adds up to a life that is well lived. A life
that mattered.
The last thing I want is to be on my deathbed and realize there's zero evidence that I ever existed.
Recently I read
Not Fade Away by Laurence Shames and Peter Barton. It's about Peter Barton, the founder of Liberty Media, who shares his
thoughts about dying from cancer.
It's a very powerful book and it will definitely bring tears to your eyes. In the book, he writes about how he lived his life
and how he found his calling. He also went to business school, and this is what he thought of his fellow MBA candidates:
"Bottom line: they were extremely bright people who would never really anything, would never add much to society, would leave
no legacy behind. I found this terribly sad, in the way that wasted potential is always sad."
You can say that about all of us. And after he realized that in his thirties, he founded a company that turned him into a multi-millionaire.
Another person who always makes himself useful is Casey Neistat
. I've been following him for a year and a half now, and every time I watch his
YouTube show , he's doing something.
He also talks about how he always wants to do and create something. He even has a tattoo on his forearm that says "Do More."
Most people would say, "why would you work more?" And then they turn on Netflix and watch back to back episodes of Daredevil.
A different mindset.
Being useful is a mindset. And like with any mindset, it starts with a decision. One day I woke up and thought to myself: What
am I doing for this world? The answer was nothing.
And that same day I started writing. For you it can be painting, creating a product, helping elderly, or anything you feel like
doing.
Don't take it too seriously. Don't overthink it. Just DO something that's useful. Anything.
Darius Foroux writes about productivity, habits, decision making, and personal finance. His ideas and work have been featured
in TIME, NBC, Fast Company, Inc., Observer, and many more publications. Join
his free weekly newsletter.
This article was originally published on October 3, 2016, by Darius Foroux, and is republished here with permission. Darius Foroux
writes about productivity, habits, decision making, and personal finance.
@Dutch
Boy rk, employees need to make an adequate wage. Unfortunately, this premise does not
exist in today's business climate.
Henry Ford openly criticized those of the "tribe" for manipulating wall street and
banksters to their own advantage, and was roundly (and unjustly) criticized for pointing out
the TRUTH.
Catholic priest, Father Coughlin did the same thing and was punished by the Catholic
church, despite his popularity and exposing the TRUTH of the American economy and the
outsider internationalists that ran it . . . and STILL run it.
Our race to the bottom will not be without consequences. A great realignment is necessary
(and is coming) . .
This is a timely article for me as I have been pondering the relationship between Jews and
neoliberalism for some time now.
At university I studied under a brilliant Neo-Marxist professor who showed me some theory
and arguments that went a long way towards explaining how to make sense of the global power
structure.
(Just a quick not for those who recoil at the mere mention of Neo-Marxist: the academics
that use a Marxist lens as a tool to criticize the powerful are not all the cuckold communist
SJW types – some of these individuals are extremely intelligent and they make very
powerful arguments backed by loads of data.)
One of the theories I was introduced to was the notion of the Transnational Capitalist
Class in this article called Towards A Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the
Transnational Capitalist Class:
Sklair's work goes the furthest in conceiving of the capitalist class as no longer
tied to territoriality Inherent in the international concept is a system of nation-states
that mediates relations between classes and groups, including the notion of national
capitals and national bourgeoisi. Transnational, by contrast, denotes economic and related
social, political, and cultural processes – including class formation that supersede
nation-states
What distinguishes the TCC from national or local capitalists is that it is involved
in globalized production and manages globalized circuits of accumulation that give it an
objective class existence and identity spatially and politically in the global system above
any local territories and polities.
Since reading your (Dr Joyce) work on the JQ I began to see the connection between age old
complaints of Jews, and what Ford referred to as "The International Jew". In fact, replace
the term "transnational capitalist class" from my passages quoted above (and many others) and
what you have is perfect mirror image of the argument.
This question has come up often lately, synchronistically (or maybe not). I'm somewhat new
to the JQ, having consumed many hours of work (including much of your own) after being sent
down the rabbit hole by the ongoing Epstein case. I was pondering that perhaps, Jews take the
blame for what the predatory capitalists are doing. Not even a week later you addressed this
precise question in your piece about Slavoj Ziszek and now with "vulture capitalism" it is
coming up yet again in Carlson's segment followed by the article right here. It also came up
on the "other side" in the blog I follow of a professor of globalization in this article:
https://zeroanthropology.net/2019/11/27/global-giants-american-empire-and-transnational-capital/
The link above is a review of the book Giants: The Global Power Elite . The review
provides a summary of the book which once again could be a text about Jews if one were to
replace the term "transnational capitalist class" with "Jews". Why I mention it, though, is
the following:
"Chapter 2, "The Global Financial Giants: The Central Core of Global Capitalism,"
identifies the 17 global financial giants -- money management firms that control more than
one trillion dollars in capital. As these firms invest in each other, and many smaller
firms, the interlocked capital that they manage surpasses $41 trillion (which amounts to
about 16% of the world's total wealth). The 17 global financial giants are led by 199
directors. This chapter details how these financial giants have pushed for global
privatization of virtually everything, in order to stimulate growth to absorb excess
capital. The financial giants are supported by a wide array of institutions: "governments,
intelligence services, policymakers, universities, police forces, militaries, and corporate
media all work in support of their vital interests" (p. 60).
Chapter 3, "Managers: The Global Power Elite of the Financial Giants," largely
consists of the detailed profiles of the 199 financial managers just mentioned.
This caught my eye because I immediately wondered how many of those 199 directors are
Jewish. It also pertains directly to this exact article because I am confident that the
vulture capitalists you targeted here are profiled in the book, probably with many
others.
Now, I am not in the business of writing about the JQ, so I wanted to suggest to anyone
out there that is that if they were to obtain a copy of this book and determine how many of
the 199 directors are jews. What this could accomplish is a marriage of the major two
theories of the "anti-semites" (for lack of a better word) and the "Neo-Marxists". I would
argue that perhaps both sides would learn they are coming at the same thing from two
different angles. Most would ignore it, but maybe a few leftist thinkers would receive a much
needed electric shock if they were to see the JQ framed in marxist terms. Perhaps some
alliances could be forged across the cultural divide in this struggle. Personally I believe
that both angles are perfectly valid, and that understanding one without the other will
leaves far too much to be desired when studying the powerful.
"... The book was The Constitution of Liberty by Frederick Hayek . Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an outright racket. The philosophy was called neoliberalism . It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design. Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive. Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone. ..."
"... But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set out to close the gap. ..."
"... He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands. ..."
"... The general thrust is about the gradual hollowing out of the middle class (or more affluent working class, depending on the analytical terms being used), about insecurity, stress, casualisation, rising wage inequality. ..."
"... So Hayek, I feel, is like many theoreticians, in that he seems to want a pure world that will function according to a simple and universal law. The world never was, and never will be that simple, and current economics simply continues to have a blindspot for externalities that overwhelm the logic of an unfettered so-called free market. ..."
"... J.K. Galbraith viewed the rightwing mind as predominantly concerned with figuring out a way to justify the shift of wealth from the immense majority to an elite at the top. I for one regret acutely that he did not (as far as I know) write a volume on his belief in progressive taxation. ..."
"... The system that Clinton developed was an inheritance from George H.W. Bush, Reagan (to a large degree), Carter, with another large assist from Nixon and the Powell Memo. ..."
"... What's changed is the distribution of the gains in GDP growth -- that is in no small part a direct consequence of changes in policy since the 1970s. It isn't some "market place magic". We have made major changes to tax laws since that time. We have weakened collective bargaining, which obviously has a negative impact on wages. We have shifted the economy towards financial services, which has the tendency of increasing inequality. ..."
"... Wages aren't stagnating because people are working less. Wages have stagnated because of dumb policy choices that have tended to incentives looting by those at the top of the income distribution from workers in the lower parts of the economy. ..."
"... "Neoliberalism" is entirely compatible with "growth of the state". Reagan greatly enlarged the state. He privatized several functions and it actually had the effect of increasing spending. ..."
"... When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market. ..."
"... As for the rest, it's the usual practice of gathering every positive metric available and somehow attributing it to neoliberalism, no matter how tenuous the threads, and as always with zero rigour. Supposedly capitalism alone doubled life expectancy, supports billions of extra lives, invented the railways, and provides the drugs and equipment that keep us alive. As though public education, vaccines, antibiotics, and massive availability of energy has nothing to do with those things. ..."
"... I think the damage was done when the liberal left co-opted neo-liberalism. What happened under Bill Clinton was the development of crony capitalism where for example the US banks were told to lower their credit standards to lend to people who couldn't really afford to service the loans. ..."
The events that led to Donald Trump's election started in England in 1975. At a meeting a few months after Margaret Thatcher became
leader of the Conservative party, one of her colleagues, or so the story goes, was explaining what he saw as the core beliefs of
conservatism. She snapped open her handbag, pulled out a dog-eared book, and
slammed it on the table . "This is what we believe," she said. A political revolution that would sweep the world had begun.
The book was The Constitution
of Liberty by Frederick Hayek . Its publication, in 1960, marked the transition from an honest, if extreme, philosophy to an
outright racket.
The philosophy
was called neoliberalism . It saw competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. The market would discover a
natural hierarchy of winners and losers, creating a more efficient system than could ever be devised through planning or by design.
Anything that impeded this process, such as significant tax, regulation, trade union activity or state provision, was counter-productive.
Unrestricted entrepreneurs would create the wealth that would trickle down to everyone.
This, at any rate, is how it was originally conceived. But by the time Hayek came to write The Constitution of Liberty, the
network of lobbyists and thinkers he had founded was being lavishly funded by multimillionaires who saw the doctrine as a means of
defending themselves against democracy. Not every aspect of the neoliberal programme advanced their interests. Hayek, it seems, set
out to close the gap.
He begins the book by advancing the narrowest possible conception of liberty: an absence of coercion. He rejects such notions
as political freedom, universal rights, human equality and the distribution of wealth, all of which, by restricting the behaviour
of the wealthy and powerful, intrude on the absolute freedom from coercion he demands.
Democracy, by contrast, "is not an ultimate or absolute value". In fact, liberty depends on preventing the majority from exercising
choice over the direction that politics and society might take.
He justifies this position by creating a heroic narrative of extreme wealth. He conflates the economic elite, spending their money
in new ways, with philosophical and scientific pioneers. Just as the political philosopher should be free to think the unthinkable,
so the very rich should be free to do the undoable, without constraint by public interest or public opinion.
The ultra rich are "scouts", "experimenting with new styles of living", who blaze the trails that the rest of society will follow.
The progress of society depends on the liberty of these "independents" to gain as much money as they want and spend it how they wish.
All that is good and useful, therefore, arises from inequality. There should be no connection between merit and reward, no distinction
made between earned and unearned income, and no limit to the rents they can charge.
Inherited wealth is more socially useful than earned wealth: "the idle rich", who don't have to work for their money, can devote
themselves to influencing "fields of thought and opinion, of tastes and beliefs". Even when they seem to be spending money on nothing
but "aimless display", they are in fact acting as society's vanguard.
Hayek softened his opposition to monopolies and hardened his opposition to trade unions. He lambasted progressive taxation and
attempts by the state to raise the general welfare of citizens. He insisted that there is "an overwhelming case against a free health
service for all" and dismissed the conservation of natural resources. It should come as no surprise to those who follow such matters
that he was awarded
the Nobel prize for economics .
By the time Thatcher slammed his book on the table, a lively network of thinktanks, lobbyists and academics promoting Hayek's
doctrines had been established on both sides of the Atlantic,
abundantly financed by some of the world's richest people and
businesses , including DuPont, General Electric, the Coors brewing company, Charles Koch, Richard Mellon Scaife, Lawrence Fertig,
the William Volker Fund and the Earhart Foundation. Using psychology and linguistics to brilliant effect, the thinkers these people
sponsored found the words and arguments required to turn Hayek's anthem to the elite into a plausible political programme.
Thatcherism and Reaganism were not ideologies in their own right: they were just two faces of neoliberalism. Their massive tax
cuts for the rich, crushing of trade unions, reduction in public housing, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition
in public services were all proposed by Hayek and his disciples. But the real triumph of this network was not its capture of the
right, but its colonisation of parties that once stood for everything Hayek detested.
Bill Clinton and Tony Blair did not possess a narrative of their own. Rather than develop a new political story, they thought
it was sufficient to
triangulate
. In other words, they extracted a few elements of what their parties had once believed, mixed them with elements of what their
opponents believed, and developed from this unlikely combination a "third way".
It was inevitable that the blazing, insurrectionary confidence of neoliberalism would exert a stronger gravitational pull than
the dying star of social democracy. Hayek's triumph could be witnessed everywhere from Blair's expansion of the private finance initiative
to Clinton's
repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act , which had regulated the financial sector. For all his grace and touch, Barack Obama, who didn't
possess a narrative either (except "hope"), was slowly reeled in by those who owned the means of persuasion.
As I warned
in April, the result is first disempowerment then disenfranchisement. If the dominant ideology stops governments from changing
social outcomes, they can no longer respond to the needs of the electorate. Politics becomes irrelevant to people's lives; debate
is reduced to the jabber of a remote elite. The disenfranchised turn instead to a virulent anti-politics in which facts and arguments
are replaced by slogans, symbols and sensation. The man who sank Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency was not Donald Trump. It
was her husband.
The paradoxical result is that the backlash against neoliberalism's crushing of political choice has elevated just the kind of
man that Hayek worshipped. Trump, who has no coherent politics, is not a classic neoliberal. But he is the perfect representation
of Hayek's "independent"; the beneficiary of inherited wealth, unconstrained by common morality, whose gross predilections strike
a new path that others may follow. The neoliberal thinktankers are now swarming round this hollow man, this empty vessel waiting
to be filled by those who know what they want. The likely result is the demolition of our remaining decencies,
beginning with the agreement to limit global warming .
Those who tell the stories run the world. Politics has failed through a lack of competing narratives. The key task now is to tell
a new story of what it is to be a human in the 21st century. It must be as appealing to some who have voted for Trump and Ukip as
it is to the supporters of Clinton, Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn.
A few of us have been working on this, and can discern what may be the beginning of a story. It's too early to say much yet, but
at its core is the recognition that – as modern psychology and neuroscience make abundantly clear – human beings, by comparison with
any other animals, are both
remarkably social and
remarkably
unselfish . The atomisation and self-interested behaviour neoliberalism promotes run counter to much of what comprises human
nature.
Hayek told us who we are, and he was wrong. Our first step is to reclaim our humanity.
justamug -> Skytree 16 Nov 2016 18:17
Thanks for the chuckle. On a more serious note - defining neoliberalism is not that easy since it is not a laid out philosophy
like liberalism, or socialism, or communism or facism. Since 2008 the use of the word neoliberalism has increased in frequency
and has come to mean different things to different people.
A common theme appears to be the negative effects of the market on the human condition.
Having read David Harvey's book, and Phillip Mirowski's book (both had a go at defining neoliberalism and tracing its history)
it is clear that neoliberalism is not really coherent set of ideas.
ianfraser3 16 Nov 2016 17:54
EF Schumacher quoted "seek first the kingdom of God" in his epilogue of "Small Is Beautiful: a study of economics as if people
mattered". This was written in the early 1970s before the neoliberal project bit in the USA and the UK. The book is laced with
warnings about the effects of the imposition of neoliberalism on society, people and the planet. The predictions have largely
come true. New politics and economics needed, by leaders who place at the heart of their approach the premise, and fact, that
humans are "by comparison with any other animals, are both remarkably social and remarkably unselfish". It is about reclaiming
our humanity from a project that treats people as just another commodity.
Filipio -> YouDidntBuildThat 16 Nov 2016 17:42
Whoa there, slow down.
Your last post was questioning the reality of neoliberalism as a general policy direction that had become hegemonic across
many governments (and most in the west) over recent decades. Now you seem to be agreeing that the notion does have salience, but
that neoliberalism delivered positive rather than negative consequences.
Well, its an ill wind that blows nobody any good, huh?
Doubtless there were some positive outcomes for particular groups. But recall that the context for this thread is not whether,
on balance, more people benefited from neoliberal policies than were harmed -- an argument that would be most powerful only in
very utilitarian style frameworks of thought (most good for the many, or most harm for only the few). The thread is about the
significance of the impacts of neoliberalism in the rise of Trump. And in specific relation to privatisation (just one dimension
of neoliberalism) one key impact was downsizing (or 'rightsizing'; restructuring). There is a plethora of material, including
sociological and psychological, on the harm caused by shrinking and restructured work-forces as a consequence of privatisation.
Books have been written, even in the business management sector, about how poorly such 'change' was handled and the multiple deleterious
outcomes experienced by employees.
And we're still only talking about one dimension of neoliberalism! Havn't even touched on deregulation yet (notably, labour
market and financial sector).
The general thrust is about the gradual hollowing out of the middle class (or more affluent working class, depending on
the analytical terms being used), about insecurity, stress, casualisation, rising wage inequality.
You want evidence? I'm not doing your research for you. The internet can be a great resource, or merely an echo chamber. The
problem with so many of the alt-right (and this applies on the extreme left as well) is that they only look to confirm their views,
not read widely. Open your eyes, and use your search engine of choice. There is plenty out there. Be open to having your preconceptions
challenged.
RichardErskine -> LECKJ3000 16 Nov 2016 15:38
LECKJ3000 - I am not an economist, but surely the theoretical idealised mechanisms of the market are never realised in practice.
US subsidizing their farmers, in EU too, etc. And for problems that are not only externalities but transnational ones, the idea
that some Hayek mechanism will protect thr ozone layer or limit carbon emissions, without some regulation or tax.
Lord Stern called global warming the greatest market failure in history, but no market, however sophisticated, can deal with
it without some price put on the effluent of product (the excessive CO2 we put into the atmosphere).
As with Montreal and subsequent agreements, there is a way to maintain a level playing field; to promote different substances
for use as refrigerants; and to address the hole in ozone layer; without abandoning the market altogether. Simple is good, because
it avoids over-engineering the interventions (and the unintended consequences you mention).
The same could/ should be true of global warming, but we have left it so late we cannot wait for the (inevitable) fall of fossil
fuels and supremacy of renewables. We need a price on carbon, which is a graduated and fast rising tax essentially on its production
and/or consumption, which has already started to happen ( http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SDN/background-note_carbon-tax.pdf
), albeit not deep / fast / extensive enough, or international in character, but that will come, if not before the impacts really
bite then soon after.
So Hayek, I feel, is like many theoreticians, in that he seems to want a pure world that will function according to a simple
and universal law. The world never was, and never will be that simple, and current economics simply continues to have a blindspot
for externalities that overwhelm the logic of an unfettered so-called free market.
LionelKent -> greven 16 Nov 2016 14:59
And persistent. J.K. Galbraith viewed the rightwing mind as predominantly concerned with figuring out a way to justify the
shift of wealth from the immense majority to an elite at the top. I for one regret acutely that he did not (as far as I know)
write a volume on his belief in progressive taxation.
RandomLibertarian -> JVRTRL 16 Nov 2016 09:19
Not bad points.
When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more
expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would
have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market.
Do not forget that the USG, in WW2, took the deliberate step of allowing employers to provide health insurance as a tax-free
benefit - which it still is, being free even from SS and Medicare taxes. In the post-war boom years this resulted in the development
of a system with private rooms, almost on-demand access to specialists, and competitive pay for all involved (while the NHS, by
contrast, increasingly drew on immigrant populations for nurses and below). Next, the large sums of money in the system and a
generous court system empowered a vast malpractice industry. So to call our system in any way a consequence of a free market is
a misnomer.
Entirely state controlled health care systems tend to be even more cost-effective.
Read Megan McArdle's work in this area. The US has had similar cost growth since the 1970s to the rest of the world. The problem
was that it started from a higher base.
Part of the issue is that privatization tends to create feedback mechanism that increase the size of spending in programs.
Even Eisenhower's noted "military industrial complex" is an illustration of what happens when privatization really takes hold.
When government becomes involved in business, business gets involved in government!
Todd Smekens 16 Nov 2016 08:40
Albert Einstein said, "capitalism is evil" in his famous dictum called, "Why Socialism" in 1949. He also called communism,
"evil", so don't jump to conclusions, comrades. ;)
His reasoning was it distorts a human beings longing for the social aspect. I believe George references this in his statement
about people being "unselfish". This is noted by both science and philosophy.
Einstein noted that historically, the conqueror would establish the new order, and since 1949, Western Imperialism has continued
on with the predatory phase of acquiring and implementing democracy/capitalism. This needs to end. As we've learned rapidly, capitalism
isn't sustainable. We are literally overheating the earth which sustains us. Very unwise.
Einstein wrote, "Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to
protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate
abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures,
to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting,
strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual
can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society."
Personally, I'm glad George and others are working on a new economic and social construct for us "human beings". It's time
we leave the predatory phase of "us versus them", and construct a new society which works for the good of our now, global society.
zavaell -> LECKJ3000 16 Nov 2016 06:28
The problem is that both you and Monbiot fail to mention that your "the spontaneous order of the market" does not recognize
externalities and climate change is outside Hayek's thinking - he never wrote about sustainability or the limits on resources,
let alone the consequences of burning fossil fuels. There is no beauty in what he wrote - it was a cold, mechanical model that
assumed certain human behaviour but not others. Look at today's money-makers - they are nearly all climate change deniers and
we have to have government to reign them in.
aLERNO 16 Nov 2016 04:52
Good, short and concise article. But the FIRST NEOLIBERAL MILESTONE WAS THE 1973 COUP D'ETAT IN CHILE, which not surprisingly
also deposed the first democratically-elected socialist government.
accipiter15 16 Nov 2016 02:34
A great article and explanation of the influence of Hayek on Thatcher. Unfortunately this country is still suffering the consequences
of her tenure and Osborne was also a proponent of her policies and look where we are as a consequence. The referendum gave the
people the opportunity to vent their anger and if we had PR I suspect we would have a greater turn-out and nearly always have
some sort of coalition where nothing gets done that is too hurtful to the population. As for Trump, again his election is an expression
of anger and desperation. However, the American voting system is as unfair as our own - again this has probably been the cause
of the low turn-out. Why should people vote when they do not get fair representation - it is a waste of time and not democratic.
I doubt that Trump is Keynsian I suspect he doesn't have an economic theory at all. I just hope that the current economic thinking
prevailing currently in this country, which is still overshadowed by Thatcher and the free market, with no controls over the city
casino soon collapses and we can start from a fairer and more inclusive base!
JVRTRL -> Keypointist 16 Nov 2016 02:15
The system that Clinton developed was an inheritance from George H.W. Bush, Reagan (to a large degree), Carter, with another
large assist from Nixon and the Powell Memo.
Bill Clinton didn't do it by himself. The GOP did it with him hand-in-hand, with the only resistance coming from a minority
within the Democratic party.
Trump's victory was due to many factors. A large part of it was Hillary Clinton's campaign and the candidate. Part of it was
the effectiveness of the GOP massive resistance strategy during the Obama years, wherein they pursued a course of obstruction
in an effort to slow the rate of the economic recovery (e.g. as evidence of the bad faith, they are resurrecting a $1 trillion
infrastructure bill that Obama originally proposed in 2012, and now that they have full control, all the talk about "deficits"
goes out the window).
Obama and the Democratic party also bear responsibility for not recognizing the full scope of the financial collapse in 2008-2009,
passing a stimulus package that was about $1 trillion short of spending needed to accelerate the recovery by the 2010 mid-terms,
combined with a weak financial regulation law (which the GOP is going to destroy), an overly complicated health care law -- classic
technocratic, neoliberal incremental policy -- and the failure of the Obama administration to hold Wall Street accountable for
criminal misconduct relating to the financial crisis. Obama's decision to push unpopular trade agreements didn't help either.
As part of the post-mortem, the decision to continuing pushing the TPP may have cost Clinton in the rust belt states that went
for Trump. The agreement was unpopular, and her shift on the policy didn't come across as credible. People noticed as well that
Obama was trying to pass the measure through the lame-duck session of Congress post-election. With Trump's election, the TPP is
done too.
JVRTRL daltonknox67 16 Nov 2016 02:00
There is no iron law that says a country has to run large trade deficits. The existence of large trade deficits is usually
a result of policy choices.
Growth also hasn't gone into the tank. What's changed is the distribution of the gains in GDP growth -- that is in no small
part a direct consequence of changes in policy since the 1970s. It isn't some "market place magic". We have made major changes
to tax laws since that time. We have weakened collective bargaining, which obviously has a negative impact on wages. We have shifted
the economy towards financial services, which has the tendency of increasing inequality.
The idea too that people will be "poorer" than in the 1920s and 1930s is just plain ignorant. It has no basis in any of the
data. Wages in the bottom quartile have actually decreased slightly since the 1970s in real terms, but those wages in the 1970s
were still exponentially higher than wages in the 1920s in real terms.
Wages aren't stagnating because people are working less. Wages have stagnated because of dumb policy choices that have tended
to incentives looting by those at the top of the income distribution from workers in the lower parts of the economy. The 2008
bailouts were a clear illustration of this reality. People in industries rigged rules to benefit themselves. They misallocated
resources. Then they went to representatives and taxpayers and asked for a large no-strings attached handout that was effectively
worth trillions of dollars (e.g. hundreds of billions through TARP, trillions more through other programs). As these players become
wealthier, they have an easier time buying politicians to rig rules further to their advantage.
JVRTRL -> RandomLibertarian 16 Nov 2016 01:44
"The tyranny of the 51 per cent is the oldest and most solid argument against a pure democracy."
"Tyranny of the majority" is always a little bizarre, given that the dynamics of majority rule are unlike the governmental
structures of an actual tyranny. Even in the context of the U.S. we had minority rule due to voting restrictions for well over
a century that was effectively a tyranny for anyone who was denied the ability to participation in the elections process. Pure
majorities can go out of control, especially in a country with massive wealth disparities and with weak civic institutions.
On the other hand, this is part of the reason to construct a system of checks and balances. It's also part of the argument
for representative democracy.
"Neoliberalism" is entirely compatible with "growth of the state". Reagan greatly enlarged the state. He privatized several
functions and it actually had the effect of increasing spending.
When it comes to social safety net programs, e.g. in health care and education -- those programs almost always tend to be more
expensive and more complicated when privatized. If the goal was to actually save taxpayer money, in the U.S. at least, it would
have made a lot more sense to have a universal Medicare system, rather than a massive patch-work like the ACA and our hybrid market.
Entirely state controlled health care systems tend to be even more cost-effective. Part of the issue is that privatization
tends to create feedback mechanism that increase the size of spending in programs. Even Eisenhower's noted "military industrial
complex" is an illustration of what happens when privatization really takes hold.
daltonknox67 15 Nov 2016 21:46
After WWII most of the industrialised world had been bombed or fought over with destruction of infrastructure and manufacturing.
The US alone was undamaged. It enjoyed a manufacturing boom that lasted until the 70's when competition from Germany and Japan,
and later Taiwan, Korea and China finally brought it to an end.
As a result Americans born after 1950 will be poorer than the generation born in the 20's and 30's.
This is not a conspiracy or government malfunction. It is a quirk of history. Get over it and try working.
Arma Geddon 15 Nov 2016 21:11
Another nasty neoliberal policy of Reagan and Thatcher, was to close all the mental hospitals, and to sweeten the pill to sell
to the voters, they called it Care in the Community, except by the time those hospitals closed and the people who had to relay
on those institutions, they found out and are still finding out that there is very little care in the community left any more,
thanks to Thatcher's disintegration of the ethos community spirit.
In their neoliberal mantra of thinking, you are on your own now, tough, move on, because you are hopeless and non productive,
hence you are a burden to taxpayers.
Its been that way of thinking for over thirty years, and now the latest group targeted, are the sick and disabled, victims
of the neoliberal made banking crash and its neoliberal inspired austerity, imposed of those least able to fight back or defend
themselves i.e. vulnerable people again!
AlfredHerring GimmeHendrix 15 Nov 2016 20:23
It was in reference to Maggie slapping a copy of Hayek's Constitution of Liberty on the table and saying this is what we believe.
As soon as you introduce the concept of belief you're talking about religion hence completeness while Hayek was writing about
economics which demands consistency. i.e. St. Maggie was just as bad as any Stalinist: economics and religion must be kept separate
or you get a bunch of dead peasants for no reason other than your own vanity.
Ok, religion based on a sky god who made us all is problematic but at least there's always the possibility of supplication
and miracles. Base a religion on economic theory and you're just making sausage of your neighbors kids.
TanTan -> crystaltips2 15 Nov 2016 20:10
If you claim that the only benefit of private enterprise is its taxability, as you did, then why not cut out the middle man
and argue for full state-directed capitalism?
Because it is plainly obvious that private enterprise is not directed toward the public good (and by definition). As we have
both agreed, it needs to have the right regulations and framework to give it some direction in that regard. What "the radical
left" are pointing out is that the idea of private enterprise is now completely out of control, to the point where voters are
disenfranchised because private enterprise has more say over what the government does than the people. Which is clearly a problem.
As for the rest, it's the usual practice of gathering every positive metric available and somehow attributing it to neoliberalism,
no matter how tenuous the threads, and as always with zero rigour. Supposedly capitalism alone doubled life expectancy, supports
billions of extra lives, invented the railways, and provides the drugs and equipment that keep us alive. As though public education,
vaccines, antibiotics, and massive availability of energy has nothing to do with those things.
As for this computer being the invention of capitalism, who knows, but I suppose if one were to believe that everything was
invented and created by capitalism and monetary motives then one might believe that. Energy allotments referred to the limit of
our usage of readily available fossil fuels which you remain blissfully unaware of.
Children have already been educated to agree with you, in no small part due to a fear of the communist regimes at the time,
but at the expense of critical thinking. Questioning the system even when it has plainly been undermined to its core is quickly
labelled "radical" regardless of the normalcy of the query. I don't know what you could possibly think left-wing motives could
be, but your own motives are plain to see when you immediately lump people who care about the planet in with communist idealogues.
If rampant capitalism was going to solve our problems I'm all for it, but it will take a miracle to reverse the damage it has
already done, and only a fool would trust it any further.
YouDidntBuildThat -> Filipio 15 Nov 2016 20:06
Filipo
You argue that a great many government functions have been privatized. I agree. Yet strangely you present zero evidence of
any downsides of that happening. Most of the academic research shows a net benefit, not just on budgets but on employee and customer
satisfaction. See for example.
And despite these privitazation cost savings and alleged neoliberal "austerity" government keeps taking a larger share of our
money, like a malignant cancer. No worries....We're from the government, and we're here to help.
Keypointist 15 Nov 2016 20:04
I think the damage was done when the liberal left co-opted neo-liberalism. What happened under Bill Clinton was the development
of crony capitalism where for example the US banks were told to lower their credit standards to lend to people who couldn't really
afford to service the loans.
It was this that created too big to fail and the financial crisis of 2008. Conservative neo-liberals believe passionately in
competition and hate monopolies. The liberal left removed was was productive about neo-liberalism and replaced it with a kind
of soft state capitalism where big business was protected by the state and the tax payer was called on to bail out these businesses.
THIS more than anything else led to Trump's victory.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
