Despite the latest Sino-American phase one deal to ease tensions over trade, one former top
US official is now calling for a decoupling between both economies, reported the
South China Morning Post (SCMP).
Former US ambassador to India Ashley Tellis explains in a new book titled Strategic Asia
2020: US-China Competition for Global Influence -- that the world's two largest economies have
entered a new period of sustained competition.
Tellis said Washington had developed a view that "China is today and will be for the
foreseeable future the principal challenger to the US."
"The US quest for a partnership with China was fated to fail once China's growth in economic
capabilities was gradually matched by its rising military power," he said.
Tellis said Washington must resume its ability to support the liberal international order
established by the US more than a half-century ago, and "provide the global public goods that
bestow legitimacy upon its primacy and strengthen its power-projection capabilities to protect
its allies and friends."
He said this approach would require more strategic cooperation with allies such as
Australia, Japan, and South Korea.
"The US should use coordinated action with allies to confront China's trade malpractices
should pursue targeted decoupling of the US and Chinese economies, mainly in order to protect
its defense capabilities rather than seeking a comprehensive rupture."
The latest phase one deal between both countries is a temporary trade truce -- likely to be
broken as a strategic rivalry encompasses trade, technology, investment, currency, and
geopolitical concerns will continue to strain relations in the early 2020s.
A much greater decoupling could be dead ahead and likely to intensify over time, as it's
already occurring in the technology sector.
Tellis said President Trump labeling China as a strategic
competitor was one of "the most important changes in US-China relations."
The decoupling has already started as Washington races to safeguard the country's
cutting-edge technologies, including 5G, automation, artificial intelligence, autonomous
vehicle, hypersonics, and robotics, from getting into the hands of Chinese firms.
A perfect example of this is blacklisting Huawei and other Chinese technology firms from
buying US semiconductor components.
Liu Weidong, a US affairs specialist from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told SCMP
that increased protectionism among Washington lawmakers suggests the decoupling trend between
both countries is far from over.
The broader shift at play is that decoupling will result in de-globalization ,
economic and financial fragmentation, and disruption of complex supply chains.
Editor's Note: Last month, Foreign Policy ran an article, "Open Borders Are a
Trillion-Dollar Idea," which advocated for Open Borders. So for all those who say, "Oh, no
one supports Open Borders," here it is in writing! Every point made by author Bryan Caplan,
an economics professor, is refutable, and, while the piece is long, we believe it's important
"for the record" to counter all of his points.
As I first read Bryan Caplan's "Open Borders Are a Trillion-Dollar Idea" in Foreign
Policy, besides disbelief, my thoughts were that this person must not get out much or must
not read much. A quote from writer Upton Sinclair came to mind as well: "It is difficult to
get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." https://progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/open-borders-trillion-dollar-mistake/
Earlier this week, the Observer reported on a spat that had broken out between a
division of the giant Samsung empire and the American hedge fund Elliott Management. The
most newsworthy feature of the dispute involved a series of articles on Korean business
sites that pointedly criticized Elliott's CEO Paul Singer and directly attacked him for
being Jewish, noting that "Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless and merciless"
and claiming "It is a well-known fact that the US government is swayed by Jewish
capital."
"Do the Jews Really Control America?" asked one Chinese newsweekly headline in 2009. The
factoids doled out in such articles and in books about Jews in China -- for example: "The
world's wealth is in Americans' pockets; Americans are in Jews' pockets" -- would rightly
be seen to be alarming in other contexts. But in China, where Jews are widely perceived as
clever and accomplished, they are meant as compliments. Scan the shelves in any bookstore
in China and you are likely to find best-selling self-help books based on Jewish knowledge.
Most focus on how to make cash. Titles range from 101 Money Earning Secrets From Jews'
Notebooks to Learn To Make Money With the Jews.
"... Where is AOC in all this? She was th e prime mover on impeachment, specifically impeachment over a phone call rather than concentration camps and genocide. And now with impeachment she gave Pelosi cover to sell the country out again. I was wondering why many libreral centrists were expreasing admiration for her, a socialist. Maybe they recognized something? ..."
Interesting, to me at least, that the rocket docket timetable of the House impeachment
coincided with the deadline to pass a budget to avoid a(nother) govt shutdown. While all msm
eyes were transfixed by the hyperventilating spectacle, behind the scenes the budget passed
through the Dem House was filled with more tax breaks for the corporations and the .001%,
more money than the admin asked for the MIC, and killed a bill that would end medical
'surprise billing' (another gift to medical PE investors and giant hospital corporations),
basically a whole neolib wish list.
Interesting the two events coincided, and, that Nancy decided not to sent on the articles
to the Senate at this time. What gives? Is she hold on to them for a future time when she'll
need to use them as another distraction for the msm to report on? (no, that could not be the
reason. ;) )
Pointed this out a couple of days ago (Slate and Buzzfeed). Happy that it is not just the
online press pointing out it was Democrats killing this measure, Democrats in leadership
positions. I also like that few, if any, of our media is falling for the kabuki used by Neal
to stick the shiv in. Everyone gets that the 'competing plan' was there strictly to derail a
law that end the hugely profitable but fraudulent price gauging of healthcare by private
equity.
If he keeps this up, walking POS Schumer might make me miss Al D'Amato nah Al and Chuck
are just two different colors of tulle, adding illusion to the political process.
..and they could have just passed it for the good PR and then de-fanged it
administratively, but it looks like they wanted to press the point:
"No, Proles, we're not gonna let you breathe, not a bit."
Where is AOC in all this? She was th e prime mover on impeachment, specifically
impeachment over a phone call rather than concentration camps and genocide. And now with
impeachment she gave Pelosi cover to sell the country out again. I was wondering why many
libreral centrists were expreasing admiration for her, a socialist. Maybe they recognized
something?
BEIJING, Dec. 21 (Xinhua) -- The
phase-one economic and trade deal between China and the United States benefits both sides and
the whole world, Chinese President Xi Jinping said Friday.
In a phone conversation with his U.S. counterpart, Donald Trump, Xi noted that the two
countries have reached the phase-one agreement on the basis of the principle of equality and
mutual respect.
Against the backdrop of an extremely complicated international environment, the agreement
benefits China, the United States, as well as peace and prosperity of the whole world, Xi
said.
For his part, Trump said that the phase-one economic and trade agreement reached between
China and the United States is good for the two countries and the whole world.
Noting that both countries' markets and the world have responded very positively to the
agreement, Trump said that the United States is willing to maintain close communication with
China and strive for the signing and implementation of the agreement at an early date.
Xi stressed that the economic and trade cooperation between China and the United States has
made significant contributions to the stability and development of China-U.S. relations and the
advancement of the world economy.
Modern economy and modern technologies have integrated the world as a whole, thus making the
interests of China and the United States more intertwined with each other, Xi said, adding that
the two sides will experience some differences in cooperation.
As long as both sides keep holding the mainstream of China-U.S. economic and trade
cooperation featuring mutual benefits and win-win outcomes, and always respect each other's
national dignity, sovereignty and core interests, they will overcome difficulties on the way of
progress, and push forward their economic and trade relations under the new historical
conditions, so as to benefit the two countries and peoples, Xi said.
China expresses serious concerns over the U.S. side's recent negative words and actions on
issues related to China's Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet, Xi said.
He noted that the U.S. behaviors have interfered in China's internal affairs and harmed
China's interests, which is detrimental to the mutual trust and bilateral cooperation.
China hopes that the United States will seriously implement the important consensuses
reached by the two leaders over various meetings and phone conversations, pay high attention
and attach great importance to China's concerns, and prevent bilateral relations and important
agendas from being disturbed, Xi said.
Trump said he is looking forward to maintaining regular communication with Xi by various
means, adding he is confident that both countries can properly handle differences, and
U.S.-China relations can maintain smooth development.
Xi said he is willing to maintain contacts with Trump by various means, exchange views over
bilateral relations and international affairs, and jointly promote China-U.S. relations on the
basis of coordination, cooperation and stability.
The two heads of state also exchanged views on the situation of the Korean Peninsula. Xi
stressed that it is imperative to stick to the general direction of a political settlement,
saying all parties should meet each other halfway, and maintain dialogue and momentum for the
mitigation of the situation, which is in the common interests of all.
@Colin
Wright Intelligence and bias for co-operation may lead some groups to far greater
achievements, in scams as well as in everything else.
That aside, I think we daily meet plenty of individuals who'd sell their mothers, and
maybe kill lives, for pennies. They are like machines not even conscious of what they are
doing.
I meet them daily, in whatever activity, and none of them is Jewish. Also their shops,
businesses, and so on are always the ones that prosper more: people love being scammed, and
people love the show of power implicit in making you pay some extra for the service you
requested, and still keeping plenty of customers with you.
So, it's the usual with Joyce (and not only Joyce of course). You take something that is
human, talk of Jews, point to that something in Jews, and pretend, trusting that your readers
will pretend the same, that it's a Jewish-specific something.
Because if you were to say: everyone does this, everywhere, but when Jews do it it's just on
a larger scale, then you'd be shining light on the fact that what changes with Jews is just
skills, and that they are intelligent enough to co-operate more than the others.
Like when Mac Donald speaks of Jewish self-deception.
I feel I am swimming in self-deception everytime I talk with people (more so with women), and
they aren't Jewish. Do people do anything, but self-deceive?
So?
Elliott Management is perhaps most notorious for its 15-year battle with the government
of Argentina, whose bonds were owned by the hedge fund. When Argentine president Cristina
Kirchner attempted to restructure the debt, Elliott -- unlike most of the bonds' owners --
refused to accept a large loss on its investment. It successfully sued in US courts, and in
pursuit of Argentine assets, convinced a court in Ghana to detain an Argentine naval
training vessel, then docked outside Accra with a crew of 22o. After a change of its
government, Argentina eventually settled and Singer's fund received $2.4 billion, almost
four times its initial investment. Kirchner, meanwhile, has been indicted for
corruption.
This massive transfer of the American tech industry has largely been the work of one
leading Republican donor -- billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, who also funds the
neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Islamophobic and
hawkish think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Republican Jewish
Coalition (RJC), and also funded the now-defunct Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI).
Singer's project to bolster Israel's tech economy at the U.S.' expense is known as
Start-Up Nation Central, which he founded in response to the global Boycott, Divest and
Sanctions (BDS) movement that seeks to use nonviolent means to pressure Israel to comply
with international law in relation to its treatment of Palestinians.
@Lot
You give partial information which seem misleading and use arguments which are also weak and
not enlightening.
1- Even if its natural that unsafe bonds are sold, this doesn't justify the practices and
methods of those vulture fonds which buy those fonds which are socially damaging. I'm not
certain of the details because it's an old case and people should seek more information. Very
broadly, in the case of Argentina most funds accepted to make an agreement with the country
and reduce their demands. Investors have to accept risks and losses. Paul Singer bought some
financial papers for nothing at that time and forced Argentina to pay the whole price. For
years Argentina refused to pay, but with the help of New York courts and the new Argentinian
president they were forced to pay Singer. This was not conservative capitalism but
imperialism. You can only act like Singer if you have the backing of courts, of a government
which you control and of an army like the US army. A fast internet search for titles of
articles: "Hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer's ruthless strategies include bullying CEOs,
suing governments and seizing their navy's ships". "How one hedge fund made $2 billion from
Argentina's economic colapse".
Andrew Sayer, professor in an English university, says in his book "Why we can't afford
the rich" that finances as they are practiced now may cost more than bring any value to a
society. It's a problem if some sectors of finances make outsized profits and use methods
which are more than questionable.
2- You say that if borrowers become more protected "lenders become more conservative,
investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments." I doubt this is true. In
the first place, risk investments by vulture fonds probably don't create any social value.
The original lenders who sold their bonds to such vulture fonds have anyway big or near total
losses in some cases and in spite of that they keep doing business. Why should we support
vulture fonds, what for? What positive function they play in society? In Germany, capitalism
was much more social in old days before a neoliberal wave forced Germany to change Rhine
capitalism. Local banks lended money to local business which they knew and which they had an
interest that they prosper. Larger banks lended money to big firms. Speculation like in
neoliberal capitalism wasn't needed.
3- The point which you didn't grasp is that there is a component of those business which
isn't publicly clear, the fact that they funcion along ethnic lines.
4- It would be easy to fix excesses of capitalism. The problem is that the people who
profit the most from the system also have the power to prevent any change.
The article bounces back and forth between two completely different fields: private
equity and distressed debt funds. The latter is completely defensible. A lot of
bondholders, probably the majority, cannot hold distressed or defaulted debt. Insurance
companies often can't by law. Bond mutual funds set out in their prospectuses they don't
invest in anything rated lower than A, AA, or whatever. Even those allowed to hold
distressed debt don't want the extra costs involved with doing so, such as carefully
following bankruptcy proceedings and dealing with delayed and irregular payments.
The author is not a finance expert but he correctly spotlights flaws of so-called
'predatory capitalism' which is disproportionately Jewish.
Private equity is rife with vices like asset-stripping and looting e.g Eddie Lampert
('Jewishness' member) plus El Trumpo appointee Steven Mnuchin at Sears.
Vulture funds often load all sorts of costs, even frivolous ones, and extra interest
charges on the original debt to maximize profit.
Some countries have the Duplum rule which limits the amount you are liable to a creditor
when you default on a debt.
I generally like Tucker but thought his piece on Singer was way off base and a silly hit job.
As others above have commented, if you think it's wrong to buy or try to collect on defaulted
debt, what is the alternative set of laws and behavior you are recommending? If debts can
simply be repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function. (Also, while it would take too much
time and space to debate the Puerto Rico situation here, it bears noting that the entire PR
public debt burden of ~$75 billion comes to around $25,000 per resident -- about a third of
the comparable burden of public sector debt per person in the United States, which itself
ignores tens of trillions of "off balance" sheet liabilities for underfunded social security,
Medicare, Medicaid and public sector pension obligations. The source of PR's problems lies
pretty clearly at the feet of PR's long corrupt politicians -- not the incidental holders of
its bonds who would simply like to be repaid or have the debt reasonably restructured.)
Other minor points worth noting:
Joyce names a few Jews associated with Baupost but misleadingly omits its president, the
guy who is running the show: Jim Mooney, a proud graduate of Holy Cross and big supporter of
Catholic and Jesuit causes. If memory serves, Jim was also the guy behind some of Baupost's
biggest and most successeful distressed debt (or "vulture" to use Joyce's pejorative term)
trades. The firm's Jewish founder (Seth Klarman) has also donated tons of money to secular
causes, including something like $60 million for a huge facility at Cornell.
Speaking of donations and Jews, I believe Bloomberg (not technically a "vulture"
capitalist but clearly just as bad -- I.e., Jewish -- on the Joyce scale) gave $1.5 billion
to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins. If memory serves, that may have been the largest donation
to any university ever. Maybe Carnegie's donations were greater in "real" dollars, but
Bloomberg's donation is still pretty significant -- with likely more to come.
@sally
Sally, please, knock it off. If you worked on Wall Street you'd know this article is just the
tip of the iceberg of Jewish financial criminality. Years ago Jim Cramer of CNBC fame, who
used to appear with Goldman Sachs' former and current PR man Larry Kudlow, also headed Wall
Street's top hedge fund at the time, Cramer Berkowitz. A former employee and Jewish at that
wrote an expose, Trading With the Enemy letting non-Jews in the reading public in on
what's really going on. Of course there's a Jewish pipeline giving them the news before it's
news, which is what it means to be a Wall Street insider. Or so says Jim Cramer, and the book
establishes this with solid evidence and not speculation.
For example, one of the Jewish anchors on CNBC would routinely call Cramer, which the
author overheard at the trading desk, and tip Cramer off about a market moving news story
about to be aired so Cramer could front run the market, fanatically divvying the orders out
to avoid scrutiny. His most important client was Norman Podoretz of socialist fame, who put
up the seed money for Cramer, who'd be on the phone to Cramer throughout the day checking on
his investments when not pushing socialism on the stupid goys. That's what socialism means in
America. The big names among Jewish stock and bond analysts at the big houses would also be
on the line with Cramer right before market making analysis was about to be released.
It's also the case that no economy and society can survive the sort of FIRE parasitism
this country's now burdened with, which as Spengler put it a century ago, amounts to tricking
a profit off every penny of goyisher labor. A dog can handle a number of ticks and fleas
sucking its blood, but will die soon enough when the ticks and fleas are consuming a quarter
or more of its blood. As Dr Joyce points out in yet another brilliant article, DJT is
demonstrably a puppet of the Jewish billionaires mentioned, who're in a rage to destroy the
families and everything the fools attending his rallies hold dear.
@J
Adelman Yes, the Jews have always stood up for the underdog (except when they were slave
traders) and promoted social harmony (except for cultural Marxism) and "Jewish influence" is
purely a figment of your imagination (except WWI and the Communist revolution .and and ). And
they definitely have nothing to do with the financial industry or banks (it is all a
conspiracy the protocols ya know).
Do you really believe your own poopaganda? A little introspection goes a long way. Why
have you been persecuted or kicked out of every country you have ever lived in? You never,
ever do anything wrong?
No one is demonizing you. You do it to yourself. People like Epstein and Weinstein are
your standard bearers. Events like 9/11 are your trophies. Your infiltration of the body
politic and malign influence in society is once again becoming visible to everyone and it is
making you afraid.
You have done it again. You never, ever learn. You play the perpetual victim .everyone
hates me without a reason. My sin is greater than I can bear (Cain) everyone who comes across
me will kill me. I spend my time wandering the earth (boo ho). And despite slaying your
brother you are accorded divine protection.
Jesus said (paraphrasing here) that if the unclean spirit is cast out of a man and is not
replaced with something wholesome he takes "seven other spirits" into himself and becomes
totally insane. You did this to yourself and you will realize that your problem is no longer
with man but with God himself. Jacob the deceiver has wrestled all his life against his
fellow man and triumphed but now he will confront God himself. Get ready to meet your Maker
and see how far your excuses will get you with the Almighty.
Jewish financists are no longer Jewish, much like a socialist who became minister is no
longer a socialist minister. Unregulated finance promotes a set of destructive behaviors which
has nothing to do with nationality or ethnicity.
Of course that Joyce is peddling his own obsessions, but I have to admit that Singer &
comp. are detestable. I know that what they’re doing is not illegal, but it should be (in
my opinion), and those who are involved in such affairs are somehow odious. The same goes for
Icahn, Soros etc. Still Ethnic angle is evident, too: how come Singer works exclusively with his
co-ethnics in this multi-ethnic USA? Non-Jewish & most Jewish entrepreneurs don’t
behave that way.
It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson's
recent attack on the activities of Paul Singer's vulture fund, Elliot Associates, a group I
first
profiled four years ago. In many respects, it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like
Singer's escaped major media attention prior to this, especially when one considers how
extraordinarily harmful and exploitative they are. Many countries are now in very significant
debt to groups like Elliot Associates and, as Tucker's segment very starkly illustrated, their
reach has now extended into the very heart of small-town America. Shining a spotlight on the
spread of this virus is definitely welcome. I strongly believe, however, that the problem
presented by these cabals of exploitative financiers will only be solved if their true nature
is fully discerned. Thus far, the descriptive terminology employed in discussing their
activities has revolved only around the scavenging and parasitic nature of their activities.
Elliot Associates have therefore been described as a quintessential example of a "vulture fund"
practicing "vulture capitalism." But these funds aren't run by carrion birds. They are operated
almost exclusively by Jews. In the following essay, I want us to examine the largest and most
influential "vulture funds," to assess their leadership, ethos, financial practices, and how
they disseminate their dubiously acquired wealth. I want us to set aside colorful metaphors. I
want us to strike through the mask.
It is commonly agreed that the most significant global vulture funds are Elliot Management,
Cerberus, FG Hemisphere, Autonomy Capital, Baupost Group, Canyon Capital Advisors, Monarch
Alternative Capital, GoldenTree Asset Management, Aurelius Capital Management, OakTree Capital,
Fundamental Advisors, and Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP. The names of these groups are
very interesting, being either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or
rural/pastoral origins (note the prevalence of oak, trees, parks, canyons, monarchs, or the use
of names like Aurelius and Elliot). This is the same tactic employed by the Jew Jordan Belfort,
the "Wolf of Wall Street," who operated multiple major frauds under the business name Stratton
Oakmont.
These names are masks. They are designed to cultivate trust and obscure the real background
of the various groupings of financiers. None of these groups have Anglo-Saxon or venerable
origins. None are based in rural idylls. All of the vulture funds named above were founded by,
and continue to be operated by, ethnocentric, globalist, urban-dwelling Jews. A quick review of
each of their websites reveals their founders and central figures to be:
Elliot Management
-- Paul Singer, Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn, Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel
Cerberus -- Stephen Feinberg, Lee Millstein, Jeffrey Lomasky, Seth Plattus, Joshua Weintraub,
Daniel Wolf, David Teitelbaum FG Hemisphere -- Peter Grossman Autonomy Capital -- Derek Goodman
Baupost Group -- Seth Klarman, Jordan Baruch, Isaac Auerbach Canyon Capital Advisors -- Joshua
Friedman, Mitchell Julis Monarch Alternative Capital -- Andrew Herenstein, Michael Weinstock
GoldenTree Asset Management -- Steven Tananbaum, Steven Shapiro Aurelius Capital Management --
Mark Brodsky, Samuel Rubin, Eleazer Klein, Jason Kaplan OakTree Capital -- Howard Marks, Bruce
Karsh, Jay Wintrob, John Frank, Sheldon Stone Fundamental Advisors -- Laurence Gottlieb,
Jonathan Stern Tilden Park Investment Master Fund LP -- Josh Birnbaum, Sam Alcoff
The fact that all of these vulture funds, widely acknowledged as the most influential and
predatory, are owned and operated by Jews is remarkable in itself, especially in a contemporary
context in which we are constantly bombarded with the suggestion that Jews don't have a special
relationship with money or usury, and that any such idea is an example of ignorant prejudice.
Equally remarkable, however, is the fact that Jewish representation saturates the board level
of these companies also, suggesting that their beginnings and methods of internal promotion and
operation rely heavily on ethnic-communal origins, and religious and social cohesion more
generally. As such, these Jewish funds provide an excellent opportunity to examine their
financial and political activities as expressions of Jewishness, and can thus be placed in the
broader framework of the Jewish group evolutionary strategy and the long historical trajectory
of Jewish-European relations.
How They Feed
In May 2018, Puerto Rico declared a form of municipal bankruptcy after falling into more
than
$74.8 billion in debt, of which more than $34 billion is interest and fees. The debt was
owed to
all of the Jewish capitalists named above, with the exception of Stephen Feinberg's
Cerberus group. In order to commence payments, the government had instituted a policy of fiscal
austerity, closing schools and raising utility bills, but when Hurricane Maria hit the island
in September 2017, Puerto Rico was forced to stop transfers to their Jewish creditors. This
provoked an aggressive attempt by the Jewish funds to seize assets from an island suffering
from an 80% power outage, with the addition of further interest and fees. Protests broke out in
several US cities calling for the debt to be forgiven. After a quick stop in Puerto Rico in
late 2018, Donald Trump pandered to this sentiment when he told Fox News, "They owe a lot of
money to your friends on Wall Street, and we're going to have to wipe that out." But Trump's
statement, like all of Trump's statements, had no substance. The following day, the director of
the White House budget office, Mick Mulvaney, told reporters: "I think what you heard the
president say is that Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to solve its debt
problem." In other words, Puerto Rico is going to have to figure out a way to pay its Jews.
Trump's reversal is hardly surprising, given that the President is considered extremely
friendly to Jewish financial power. When he referred to "your friends on Wall Street" he really
meant his friends on Wall Street. One of his closest allies is Stephen Feinberg, founder
and CEO of Cerberus, a war-profiteering vulture fund that has now accumulated
more than $1.5 billion in Irish debt , leaving the country prone to a "
wave of home repossessions " on a scale not seen since the Jewish mortgage traders behind
Quicken Loans (Daniel Gilbert) and Ameriquest (Roland Arnall)
made thousands of Americans homeless . Feinberg has also been associated with mass
evictions in Spain, causing a collective of Barcelona anarchists to
label him a "Jewish mega parasite" in charge of the "world's vilest vulture fund." In May
2018, Trump made Feinberg
chair of his Intelligence Advisory Board , and one of the reasons for Trump's sluggish
retreat from Afghanistan has been the fact Feinberg's DynCorp has enjoyed years of lucrative government
defense contracts training Afghan police and providing ancillary services to the military.
But Trump's association with Jewish vultures goes far beyond Feinberg. A recent piece
in the New York Post declared "Orthodox Jews are opening up their wallets for Trump in
2020." This is a predictable outcome of the period 2016 to 2020, an era that could be neatly
characterised as How Jews learned to stop worrying and love the Don. Jewish financiers
are opening their wallets for Trump because it is now clear he utterly failed to fulfil
promises on mass immigration to White America, while pledging his commitment to Zionism and to
socially destructive Jewish side projects like the promotion of homosexuality. These actions,
coupled with his commuting
of Hasidic meatpacking boss Sholom Rubashkin 's 27-year-sentence for bank fraud and money
laundering in 2017, have sent a message to Jewish finance that Trump is someone they can do
business with. Since these globalist exploiters are essentially politically amorphous, knowing
no loyalty but that to their own tribe and its interests, there is significant drift of Jewish
mega-money between the Democratic and Republican parties. The New York Post reports, for
example, that when Trump attended a $25,000-per-couple luncheon in November at a Midtown hotel,
where 400 moneyed Jews raised at least $4 million for the America First [!] SuperPAC, the
luncheon organiser Kelly Sadler, told reporters, "We screened all of the people in attendance,
and we were surprised to see how many have given before to Democrats, but never a Republican.
People were standing up on their chairs chanting eight more years." The reality, of course, is
that these people are not Democrats or Republicans, but Jews, willing to push their money in
whatever direction the wind of Jewish interests is blowing.
The collapse of Puerto Rico under Jewish debt and elite courting of Jewish financial
predators is certainly nothing new. Congo , Zambia , Liberia ,
Argentina , Peru ,
Panama , Ecuador ,
Vietnam , Poland , and
Ireland are just some of the countries that have slipped fatefully into the hands of the
Jews listed above, and these same people are now closely watching
Greece and
India . The methodology used to acquire such leverage is as simple as it is ruthless. On
its most basic level, "vulture capitalism" is really just a combination of the
continued intense relationship between Jews and usury and Jewish involvement in medieval
tax farming. On the older practice, Salo Baron writes in Economic History of the Jews
that Jewish speculators would pay a lump sum to the treasury before mercilessly turning on the
peasantry to obtain "considerable surpluses if need be, by ruthless methods." [1] S. Baron
(ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7. The activities of the
Jewish vulture funds are essentially the same speculation in debt, except here the trade in
usury is carried out on a global scale with the feudal peasants of old now replaced with entire
nations. Wealthy Jews pool resources, purchase debts, add astronomical fees and interests, and
when the inevitable default occurs they engage in aggressive legal activity to seize assets,
bringing waves of jobs losses and home repossessions.
This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the
Belgian and
UK governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to
sue for distressed debt owed by poor nations. Tucker Carlson, commenting on Paul Singer's
predation and the ruin of the town of Sidney, Nebraska, has said:
It couldn't be uglier or more destructive. So why is it still allowed in the United
States? The short answer: Because people like Paul Singer have tremendous influence over our
political process. Singer himself was the second largest donor to the Republican Party in
2016. He's given millions to a super-PAC that supports Republican senators. You may never
have heard of Paul Singer -- which tells you a lot in itself -- but in Washington, he's
rock-star famous. And that is why he is almost certainly paying a lower effective tax rate
than your average fireman, just in case you were still wondering if our system is rigged. Oh
yeah, it is.
Aside from direct political donations, these Jewish financiers also escape scrutiny by
hiding behind a mask of simplistic anti-socialist rhetoric that is common in the American
Right, especially the older, Christian, and pro-Zionist demographic. Rod Dreher, in a
commentary on Carlson's
piece at the American Conservative , points out that Singer gave a speech in May
2019 attacking the "rising threat of socialism within the Democratic Party." Singer continued,
"They call it socialism, but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by
showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing
press rather than the productive efforts of businesspeople and workers." Dreher comments: "The
productive efforts of businesspeople and workers"? The gall of that man, after what he did to
the people of Sidney."
What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn't even any
recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on a
perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his co-ethnics
who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and who ultimately
believe they have a right to be "showered by free stuff promised by politicians." Singer places
himself in an infantile paradigm meant to entertain the goyim, that of Free Enterprise vs
Socialism, but, as Carlson points out, "this is not the free enterprise that we all learned
about." That's because it's Jewish enterprise -- exploitative, inorganic, and attached to
socio-political goals that have nothing to do with individual freedom and private property.
This might not be the free enterprise Carlson learned about, but it's clearly the free
enterprise Jews learn about -- as illustrated in their extraordinary
over-representation in all forms of financial exploitation and white collar crime. The
Talmud, whether actively studied or culturally absorbed, is their code of ethics and their
curriculum in regards to fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement, usury, and financial
exploitation. Vulture capitalism is Jewish capitalism.
Whom They Feed
Singer's duplicity is a perfect example of the way in which Jewish finance postures as
conservative while conserving nothing. Indeed, Jewish capitalism may be regarded as the root
cause of the rise of Conservative Inc., a form or shadow of right wing politics reduced solely
to fiscal concerns that are ultimately, in themselves, harmful to the interests of the majority
of those who stupidly support them. The spirit of Jewish capitalism, ultimately, can be
discerned not in insincere bleating about socialism and business, intended merely to entertain
semi-educated Zio-patriots, but in the manner in which the Jewish vulture funds disseminate the
proceeds of their parasitism. Real vultures are weak, so will gorge at a carcass and
regurgitate food to feed their young. So then, who sits in the nests of the vulture funds,
awaiting the regurgitated remains of troubled nations?
Boston-based Seth Klarman (net worth $1.5 billion), who like Paul Singer has
declared "free enterprise has been good for me," is a rapacious debt exploiter who was
integral to the financial collapse of Puerto Rico, where he hid much of activities behind a
series of shell companies. Investigative journalists eventually discovered that Klarman's
Baupost group was behind much of the aggressive legal action intended to squeeze the decimated
island for bond payments. It's clear that the Jews involved in these companies are very much
aware that what they are doing is wrong, and they are careful to avoid too much reputational
damage, whether to themselves individually or to their ethnic group. Puerto Rican journalists,
investigating the debt trail to Klarman, recall trying to follow one of the shell companies
(Decagon) to Baupost via a shell company lawyer (and yet another Jew) named Jeffrey Katz:
Returning to the Ropes & Gray thread, we identified several attorneys who had worked
with the Baupost Group, and one, Jeffrey Katz, who – in addition to having worked
directly
with Baupost – seemed to describe a particularly close and longstanding relationship
with a firm fitting Baupost's profile on his experience page. I called
Katz and he picked up, to my surprise. I identified myself, as well as my affiliation with
the Public Accountability Initiative, and asked if he was the right person to talk to about
Decagon Holdings and Baupost. He paused, started to respond, and then evidently thought
better of it and said that he was actually in a meeting, and that I would need to call back
(apparently, this high-powered lawyer picks up calls from strange numbers when he is in
important meetings). As he was telling me to call back, I asked him again if he was the right
person to talk to about Decagon, and that I wouldn't call back if he wasn't, and he seemed to
get even more flustered. At that point he started talking too much, about how he was a lawyer
and has clients, how I must think I'm onto some kind of big scoop, and how there was a person
standing right in front of him – literally, standing right in front of him –
while I rudely insisted on keeping him on the line.
One of the reasons for such secrecy is the intensive Jewish philanthropy engaged in by
Klarman under his Klarman Family
Foundation . While Puerto Rican schools are being closed, and pensions and health
provisions slashed, Klarman is regurgitating the proceeds of massive debt speculation to his "
areas of
focus " which prominently includes " Supporting the global Jewish community
and Israel ." While plundering the treasuries of the crippled nations of the goyim, Klarman
and his co-ethnic associates have committed themselves to "improving the quality of life and
access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that they may benefit from the country's
prosperity." Among those in Klarman's nest, their beaks agape for Puerto Rican debt interest,
are the American Jewish Committee, Boston's Combined Jewish Philanthropies, the Holocaust
Memorial Museum, the Honeymoon Israel Foundation, Israel-America Academic Exchange, and the
Israel Project. Klarman, like Singer, has also been an enthusiastic proponent of liberalising
attitudes to homosexuality, donating $1 million to a Republican super PAC aimed at supporting
pro-gay marriage GOP candidates in 2014 (Singer donated $1.75 million). Klarman, who also
contributes to candidates
who support immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants,
has said "The right to gay marriage is the largest remaining civil rights issue of our time. I
work one-on-one with individual Republicans to try to get them to realize they are being
Neanderthals on this issue."
Steven Tananbaum's GoldenTree Asset Management has also fed well on Puerto Rico, owning $2.5
billion of the island's debt. The Centre for Economic and Policy Research has
commented :
Steven Tananbaum, GoldenTree's chief investment officer, told a business conference in
September (after Hurricane Irma, but before Hurricane Maria) that he continued to view Puerto
Rican bonds as an attractive investment. GoldenTree is spearheading a group of COFINA
bondholders that collectively holds about $3.3 billion in bonds. But with Puerto Rico facing
an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, and lacking enough funds to even begin to pay back its
massive debt load, these vulture funds are relying on their ability to convince politicians
and the courts to make them whole. The COFINA bondholder group has spent
$610,000 to lobby Congress over the last two years, while GoldenTree itself
made $64,000 in political contributions to federal candidates in the 2016 cycle. For
vulture funds like GoldenTree, the destruction of Puerto Rico is yet another opportunity for
exorbitant profits.
Whom does Tananbaum feed with these profits? A brief glance at the spending of the
Lisa and Steven Tananbaum Charitable Trust reveals a relatively short list of beneficiaries
including United Jewish Appeal Foundation, American Friends of Israel Museum, Jewish Community
Center, to be among the most generously funded, with sizeable donations also going to museums
specialising in the display of degenerate and demoralising art.
Following the collapse in Irish asset values in 2008, Jewish vulture funds including OakTree
Capital swooped on mortgagee debt to seize tens of thousands of Irish homes, shopping malls,
and utilities (Steve Feinberg's Cerberus took control of public waste disposal). In 2011,
Ireland emerged as a hotspot for distressed property assets, after its bad banks began selling
loans that had once been held by struggling financial institutions. These loans were quickly
purchased at knockdown prices by Jewish fund managers, who then aggressively sought the
eviction of residents in order to sell them for a fast profit. Michael Byrne, a researcher at
the School of Social Policy at University College Dublin, Ireland's largest university,
comments : "The
aggressive strategies used by vulture funds lead to human tragedies." One homeowner, Anna Flynn
recalls how her mortgage fell into the hands of Mars Capital, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital,
owned and operated by the Los Angeles-based Jews Howard Marks and Bruce Karsh. They were "very,
very difficult to deal with," said Flynn, a mother of four. "All [Mars] wanted was for me to
leave the house; they didn't want a solution [to ensure I could retain my home]."
When Bruce Karsh isn't making Irish people homeless, whom does he feed with his profits? A
brief glance at the spending of the
Karsh Family Foundation reveals millions of dollars of donations to the Jewish Federation,
Jewish Community Center, and the United Jewish Fund.
Paul Singer, his son Gordin, and their Elliot Associates colleagues Zion Shohet, Jesse Cohn,
Stephen Taub, Elliot Greenberg and Richard Zabel, have a foothold in almost every country, and
have a stake in every company you're likely to be familiar with, from book stores to dollar
stores. With the profits of exploitation, they
fund campaigns for homosexuality and mass migration , boost Zionist politics,
invest millions in security for Jews , and promote wars for Israel. Singer is a Republican,
and is on the Board of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He is a former board member of the
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, has funded neoconservative research groups like
the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Center for Security Policy, and is among the
largest funders of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He was also
connected to the pro-Iraq War advocacy group Freedom's Watch. Another key Singer project was
the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), a Washington D.C.-based advocacy group that was founded in
2009 by several high-profile Jewish neoconservative figures to promote militaristic U.S.
policies in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and which received its seed money from
Singer.
Although Singer was initially anti-Trump, and although Trump once
attacked Singer for his pro-immigration politics ("Paul Singer represents amnesty and he
represents illegal immigration pouring into the country"), Trump is now essentially funded by
three Jews -- Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon Adelson, together accounting for over $250
million in pro-Trump political money . In return, they want war with Iran. Employees of
Elliott Management were one of the main sources of funding for the 2014 candidacy of the
Senate's most outspoken Iran hawk, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who urged Trump to conduct a
"retaliatory strike" against Iran for purportedly attacking two commercial tankers. These
exploitative Jewish financiers have been clear that they expect a war with Iran, and they are
lobbying hard and preparing to call in their pound of flesh. As one political commentator put
it, "These donors have made their policy preferences on Iran plainly known. They surely expect
a return on their investment in Trump's GOP."
The same pattern is witnessed again and again, illustrating the stark reality that the
prosperity and influence of Zionist globalism rests to an overwhelming degree on the predations
of the most successful and ruthless Jewish financial parasites. This is not conjecture,
exaggeration, or hyperbole. This is simply a matter of striking through the mask, looking at
the heads of the world's most predatory financial funds, and following the direction of
regurgitated profits.
Make no mistake, these cabals are everywhere and growing. They could be ignored when they
preyed on distant small nations, but their intention was always to come for you too. They are
now on your doorstep. The working people of Sidney, Nebraska probably had no idea what a
vulture fund was until their factories closed and their homes were taken. These funds will move
onto the next town. And the next. And another after that. They won't be stopped through blunt
support of "free enterprise," and they won't be stopped by simply calling them "vulture
capitalists."
Strike through the mask!
Notes
[1] S.
Baron (ed) Economic History of the Jews (New York, 1976), 46-7.
To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being a
result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit?
An application of "chutzpah" to business, if you will – the gall to break social
conventions to get what you want, while making other people feel uncomfortable; to wheedle
your way in at the joints of social norms and conventions – not illegal, but selfish
and rude.
Krav Maga applies the same concept to the martial arts: You're taught to go after the
things that every other martial art forbids you to target: the eyes, the testicles, etc. In
other sports this is considered "low" and "cheap." In Krav Maga, as perhaps a metaphor for
Jewish behavior in general, nothing is too low because it's all about winning .
There's a rather good article on the New Yorker discussing the Sacklers and the
Oxycontin epidemic. It focusses on the dichotomy between the family's ruthless promotion of
the drug and their lavish philanthropy. 'Leave the world a better place for your presence'
and similar pieties and Oxycontin.
The article lightly touches on the extent of their giving to Hebrew University of
Jerusalem -- but in general, treads lightly when it comes to their Judaism.
understandably. The New Yorker isn't exactly alt-right country, after all. But can
Joyce or anyone else provide a more exact breakdown on the Sacklers' giving? Are they genuine
philanthropists, or is it mostly for the Cause?
@anon'To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being
a result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit? '
It's important not to get carried away with this. Figures such as Andrew Carnegie, while
impeccably gentile, were hardly paragons of scrupulous ethics and disinterested virtue.
I won't defend high finance because I don't like it either. But this is a retarded and highly
uninformed attack on it.
1. The article bounces back and forth between two completely different fields: private
equity and distressed debt funds. The latter is completely defensible. A lot of bondholders,
probably the majority, cannot hold distressed or defaulted debt. Insurance companies often
can't by law. Bond mutual funds set out in their prospectuses they don't invest in anything
rated lower than A, AA, or whatever. Even those allowed to hold distressed debt don't want
the extra costs involved with doing so, such as carefully following bankruptcy proceedings
and dealing with delayed and irregular payments.
As a result, it is natural that normal investors sell off such debt at a discount to funds
that specialize in it.
2. Joyce defends large borrowers that default on their debt. Maybe the laws protecting
bankrupts and insolvents should be stronger. But you do that, and lenders become more
conservative, investment declines, and worthy businesses can't get investments. I think
myself the laws in the US are too favorable to lenders, but there's definitely a tradeoff,
and the question is where the happy middle ground is. In Florida a creditor can't force the
sale of a primary residence, even if it is worth $20 million. That's going too far in the
other direction.
3. " either blankly nondescript or evoking vague inklings of Anglo-Saxon or rural/pastoral
origins "
More retardation. Cerberus is a greek dog monster guarding the gates of hell. Aurelius is
from the Latin word for gold. "Hemisphere" isn't an Anglosaxon word nor does in invoke rural
origins.
Besides being retardedly wrong, the broader point is likewise retarded: when
English-speaking Jews name their businesses they shouldn't use English words. Naming a
company "Oaktree" should be limited to those of purely English blood! Jews must name their
companies "Cosmopolitan Capital" or RosenMoses Chutzpah Advisors."
4. The final and most general point: it's trivially easy to attack particular excesses of
capitalism. Fixing the excesses without creating bigger problem is the hard part. Two ideas I
favor are usury laws and Tobin taxes.
Jewishness aside, maximizing shareholder is the holy grail of all capitalist enterprises. The
capitalist rush to abandon the American working class when tariff barriers evaporated is just
another case of vulturism. Tax corporations based on the domestic content of their products
and ban usury and vulturism will evaporate.
Someone with the username kikz posted a link to this article in the occidental observer. I
read it and thought it was a great article. I'm glad it's featured here.
The article goes straight for the jugular and pulls no punches. It hits hard. I like
that:
1. It shines a light on the some of the scummiest of the scummiest Wall Street
players.
2. It names names. From the actual vulture funds to the rollcall of Jewish actors running
each. It's astounding how ethnically uniform it is.
3. It proves Trump's ties with the most successful Vulture kingpin, Singer.
4. It shows how money flows from the fund owners to Zionist and Jewish causes.
This thing reads like a court indictment. It puts real world examples to many of the
theories that are represents on this site. Excellent article.
Andrew Carnegie left behind institutions like Carnegie Hall, Carnegie-Mellon University,
and over 2500 Free Libraries from coast to coast, in a time when very little was done to
help what we now call the “underprivileged”.
And he funded the building of the Peace Palace (“Vredespaleis”) in The Hague,
presently the seat of the International Court of Justice, an institution not held in high
esteem in the home country of the generous donor.
Jimmy1969 says: December
19, 2019 at 2:12 pm GMT 200 Words Golden Tree Asset Management bought up Post Media in
Canada at a fire sale years ago from the bankrupt Asper family. Post Media is a conglomerate
that controls dozens and dozens of media outlets in all of Canada including 95% of all the
major Newspapers in every large city. Therefore Canadian news is de facto controlled by an
American New York Jewish hedge fund. That fact has been known for years and is joked about on
all of the bar stools in Canada where reporters hang out .but not in the Press. No one writes
about it none of the Nationalistic Professors, Journalists, Members of Parliament no one. One
fact is certain you will never ever see a single bad word in any of their papers critical of
Israel, or any actions of Israelis. Any comment critical of Israel or Zionist power, no matter
how objective or moderate is immediately deleted. And sadly this is no joke. The world should
take note of how Canada is strangled. Read More Replies: @bike-anarkist
Replies: @the
grand wazoo , @eah
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
@silviosilver
Paying what you owe is perfectly fine and moral. Paying double of what you owe on account of
inflated fees and interest is blood sucking. Doing this to developing nations is downright
cruel.
Let's say Congo owes $10 billion. A finance firm buys that debt for $8 billion, collects
the full $10 billion (which already includes interest) and make a $2 billion profit. That's
not too terrible.
But to buy the debt for $8 billion and then force Congo to pay $60 billion is Jewish.
Playing the victim while accusing Congo of financial mismanagement and forcing them to close
their schools and hospitals – very Jewish. Evading the ethical implications of one's
actions and seeking cover behind legalism like a coward –> Jew level –
Godlike
Jews see themselves as the ingroup, and the "goyim" as the outgroup. Since Whites are the
"outgroup" it's not just acceptable, but praiseworthy, to exploit them. To "beat" them at
war.
The problem is that Whites wrongly do not see Jews as an outgroup – something that
Jews themselves take great pains to discourage via their various front groups like the
ADL.
There is no "technical" fix, there is no objective "system" that can change this dynamic.
There is no "level playing field."
Whites need to ostracize Jews at all levels. Boycott, Divest and Sanction – not just
their apartheid regime of Jew bigotry in Zionist-occupied Palestine, but at every level of
society, business, civil institutions, etc.
Jews are destroying the world. Everywhere they go, they leave behind nations in ruins.
Look at Europe, Africa and the Americas, Jews have left their ugly footprints. Corruption,
prostitution, drugs and human trafficking are their trade.
Reading the (obvious) Jews commenting here on their various financial swindle-systems is a
lot like reading zionists defending Israel. The basic tactics are always the same:
1.) Focus on some small aspects or most recent events and make a comparison to Gentiles or
other events with similar micro-narratives. "See? Everyone else does it! Why single out us
poor, persecuted Jews?"
2.) Use these minute distractions to drown out the overall issues, underlying concepts,
long history or guiding ideology in noise and minutiae.
3.) Never start at the beginning of the story and follow the trajectory though; always
start in the middle and focus on some trivial detail, use it to defend the (never stated)
sicko ideology that started the problem in the first place. Completely ignore any timelines
or larger perspectives.
David Icke calls it (or used to call it -- - back when his backbone was healthy) the
Reptilian Brain. The ability to manipulate trivial minutiae while never addressing underlying
concepts or timelines.
It is hard to feel sorry for WASPs, they struck a deal with the Jews centuries ago
Catholic political powers have been "striking deals with Jews" for two thousand years.
There is a synagogue in Rome right next to the Vatican which has been legally privileged
since the days of Christ. As E. Michael Jones detailed in his book, Jewish Revolutionary
Spirit , the Catholic Church itself defended Jews from the angry mobs time and time again
throughout their history, to the point bishops and priests would harbor Jews in the
cathedrals and lock the doors before the peasants could arrest them.
Indeed, the infighting among Whites promoted by the likes of Jones is yet again another
assist from Catholic powers to their partners, the Jews.
The popular "neo-reactionary/NRx" movement, started by the Ashkenazi Curtis Yarvin, is yet
another "right-wing" fad that blames Calvinists for all the problems in the world.
Jews are blameless, yet again another White ethnicity/religion is at fault.
No wonder Jews get away with what they do. Whites are too busy infighting over false
history demonizing various rival cults.
So, the "vultures" flew out to the West after devouring the Russian empire and now with the
help of the likes of the homeboy or more like a two bit whore, Ben Sasse, they've descended
on America and have started gutting it out.
Where will they fly next? White Christians don't want them and black/brown Muslims can't
stand them but perhaps China is their next destination being that they have shipped most of
the jobs out there and the whole lot of them are marrying "Chinese-American" women in droves
for good measure.
In the coming battle of the titans, the one who's name can't be pronounced, viz. Yahweh,
hopefully has better guns than Jehovah and Allah, for it sure is gonna need it when the
latter two gang up on it maybe Buddha will give it a helping hand being that they're
practically in-laws now!
My question is how do entities like Puerto Rico get so far in debt in the first
place?
For the same reason individuals get into debt, financial incompetence and sometimes a bit
of bad luck.
I've personally never understood how people can take out loans from companies like Wonga
or QuickQuid (both Jewish owned incidentally) seeing as they quite clearly advertise their
exorbitant interest rates.
Look up income by ethnic group in the UK and US, you will find that Indians and Chinese
(South Asians) are the richest in both countries (except for Jews of course).
What I have found is that these two groups come from a debt-averse culture, their kids
actually live with their parents until they have saved enough money for a house and other
such things required to start a family.
Whites meanwhile are WAY to trusting of these faceless financial institutions, they get
into debt very easily and thus become slaves, if you have kids, the first thing you should
educate them about is finance and debt, don't throw them out to the dogs either, it's tragic
to see some getting into debt and then having other problems like drugs and alcohol
addictions.
I came out of that book with the utmost admiration for Bill Browder.
You don't seem to be serious, if I understood what you want to say. Even Der Spiegel has
published a critical article in English about Browder, Browder is the one who pushed for
sanctions against Russia because of the case Magnitsky:
Questions Cloud Story Behind U.S. Sanctions
The story of Sergei Magnitsky has come to symbolize the brutal persecution of
whistleblowers in Russia. Ten years after his death, inconsistencies in Magnitsky's story
suggest he may not have been the hero many people -- and Western governments -- believed him
to be.
@Anonymous
Sure, but you're talking utopia. The reality is that public entities issue bonds to finance
special projects or even their operations. Somebody then buys the bonds and expects to be
paid back.
@Realist
There is something especially deficient with Whites when it comes to money matter, how can
such a large number of Whites take short-term loans from companies like Wonga and QuickQuid,
when the nature of their business (usury) is very clearly advertised. I was around 10 years
old when I was astounded at the 5000% APR loans advertised on TV, and wondered if I
understood interest right.
Parents, especially White ones, really need to educate their children on personal finance
and debt, it seems a lot of Whites these days do not actually own anything and all their
flashy gadgets and whatnot are being loaned out (buying Iphone on contract for example),
these people are the hardest hit as they can't scrape together even a couple of hundred
pounds/dollars/euros when hard times come. Its farcical albeit tragic.
Wow what a confused mess. Here's a summary: Vulture capitalism is bad for no particular
reason but only an evil anti-Semite (like you) would dare criticize capitalism.
And they want the island of Puerto Rico for themselves, save a few thousand able bodies to
serve as maids and gardeners. But what about the triple-raced residents of the island itself?
Well, that's easy! Dump them in states like Florida and New York and let the suckers pay for
it. After all, it's not like they are going to vote for the other side we get to eat the cake
and keep it too!
An article that appeared in Goebbels newspaper, Der Angriff (The Attack) titled
"The Jew", a short excerpt that is relevant to your comment;
The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite,
swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and
you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back:
"I've been found out."
I think the term "vulture capitalism" is calumnious to vultures, who, as carrion birds,
perform a useful and purifying function in nature.
The Jews as a collective, i.e., the Jews who identify as such, concur in the death
sentence of Christ handed down by their Sanhedrin and espouse the Talmudic mitzvah of killing
the best of the gentiles (which naturally implies elevating the worst of the gentiles to
power and prominence) are more to be likened to plague bearing rodents. Unlike vultures, rats
feast on corruption and putrescence, spread disease and also kill the living.
We embrace the finance capitalist worldview at our peril. In its essence, it is nothing
but the worship of money making and profiteering as the supreme aspiration of life,
irregardless of its horrible effects on our compatriots and fellow humans. In doing so, we
become Jews at heart.
There is nothing wrong with industry and the profit motive per se. Predatory finance
contributes nothing to the well being of a nation and the needs of the physical economy- it
is supremely toxic and corrosive of both. It must be expunged and its champions expropriated
and exiled. People like the odious Peter Singer have no place in a moral world; they ought to
be first expropriated, then exiled as far away from their host societies as possible.
I was personally wounded by the anti gay rhetoric peppered across this article. I can't help
making the association that Paul singer's son came out as gay and that this must be the
source of the author's animus against him and the others. Shakespeare, who was also
homosexual, described this state of mind as "a green eyed monster," i.e. jealousy. I'm
mortified that other members of the commentariat have not taken issue with this. Maybe we
would be more compassionate to the denizens of middle America if they allowed our most basic
civil rights.
@J
Adelman Oh those kind jews have always been for the working class? But there is a white
working class and jews want them extinct from the face of the earth. Read 'Abolishing
whiteness has never been more urgent.' By Mark Levine
@silviosilver
You make several good points but you don't address the issue of capitalists manipulating the
politicians with campaign contributions. If a fund gets paid off by public money due to
politicians putting the fund owners ahead of the taxpayers, that's corrupt. What happened to
the 'creative destruction' principle by which large IBs like Goldman would have been allowed
to collapse and their principals carried off in leg-irons in 2008? Oh -- they are "too big to
fail and too big to jail." So much for the free market myth.
Moreover, most Jews support endless free money for "victim groups" to be forcibly
extracted from the middle-class. Never mind if Mr. Jones has a lengthy criminal record, let's
pay for him to go to college, let's pay his rent, let's pay his medical bills, etc. Why then
take such a hard line on people who foolishly get into debt?
Moreover, the economic downturn that caused many mortgagors to default was CAUSED BY the
big Wall Street firms' irresponsible behavior.
Also, most people do tend to temper economic contracts with a degree of compassion.
Gentile capitalism does not exist in a vacuum.
I recall reading about a young female environmentalist who was refusing to leave a
venerable redwood tree that was scheduled to be cut down. The WASP businessman who owned the
tree was extremely patient with the girl, tried to win her over, threw her food and drinks,
and so on. The land with the tree was then sold to some Jewish firm. At that point the
article left off. The tree was cut down with no further negotiation.
The greatest jewish vulture fund is the zionist privately owned feral reserve aka the FED ,
is creates money out of thin air and feeds this money to the otherwise bankrupt zionist banks
and not just here in the ZUS but in Europe, and the BIS is the vulture fund of vulture funds
owned by the zionists, the biggest scam in the history of the world.
By the way, Tucker Carlson said that 911 truthers were nuts, that says it all about
him.
Mass immigration for cheap labor, the weaponization of the grievance industry against
white majority/European nations and the use for the production of anti-white race baiting
media.
Much great work!! Very impressed. Would recommend to Moses himself.
@Colin
Wright I remember seeing a clip where Jared Taylor was on some talk show. He was calmly
citing statistics on how blacks are over represented among violent criminals. A sassy black
women broken in with "Jeffrey Dahmer Ted Bundy they were all white!" Not her exact words but
something to that effect. Naxalt, in other words.
I don't think Joyce is suggesting that all unscrupulous capitalists are Jews, or vice
versa. It is true that gentiles can be scumbags (the Enron boys.)
Now most Muslims are not terrorists, and many terrorists are not Muslims.
And yet it seems like there are many people who will notice patterns among other groups,
rightfully roll their eyes when they hear PC arguments in favor of those groups, and then
pull out the naxalt and what-about-isms when you notice patterns in Jewish behavior.
@Dutch
Boy Your statement: "maximizing shareholder is the holy grail of all capitalist
enterprises" statement is spot on.
I've been saying that for decades.
Labor is never given value, but is a commodity-a "necessary evil" according to the Wall
Street types and is to be minimized and marginalized at all costs.
Adolph Hitler's Germany monetized labor and gave it value. THAT is the reason that the
jews went after Germany. Post WW1 Germany was successful in its economy due to throwing off
the shackles (and shekels) of the internationalist banksters.
Henry Ford CREATED a market which had not existed when he paid his employees $5.00 per day
when the average wage of the day was around $1.25 per day. His premise was not entirely
altruistic as assembly line work was monotonous; a way had to be found to retain employees as
well.
Of course, the wall street types and the banksters howled that Ford's wage rates would
destroy capitalism (as they knew it-those at the top reap all of the benefits while the
proles are forced to live on a bare subsistence wage, due to the machinations of those at the
top).
Guess what??
The OPPOSITE happened. Henry Ford knew one of the basic tenets of a truly free,
capitalistic society, that a well-paid work force would be able to participate and contribute
to a strong economy, unlike what is taught in business schools today-that wages must be kept
to a bare minimum and that the stockholder is king.
Our "free trade" politicians have assisted the greedy wall street types and banksters in
depressing wages on the promise of cheap foreign labor and products.
A good example of this is the negative criticism that Costco receives for paying its
employees well above market wages. These same wall street types praise Wal-Mart for paying
its employees barely subsistence wages while assisting them in filling out their public
assistance (welfare) forms.
Any sane person KNOWS that in order for capitalism to work, 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) . .
@lavoisier
I'm not sure I'd put Buffett in that category. For example, in one of the companies he
bought, he kept a factory with declining profits open as long as he could to avoid throwing a
large chunk of people out of work overnight. He has mostly made his money by avoiding dopey
fads and a disciplined buy-and-hold approach to stocks.
@J
Adelman' Jewish people have always stood against tyranny against the working class,
the poor and other people of color." '
Right. I'd say Jews actually collaborated extensively in the imposition of tyranny
on the working class in Eastern Europe from 1917 to 1991. That'd be one counter-example.
Should we explore others? The role of Jews in the medieval slave trade? After all,
somebody had to castrate all those Christian boys who were to serve as harem
guards.
No reason to dredge up ancient history -- except here you are, making a blatantly false
claim about it. 'Always stood against ', my ass.
They are gunning for India now who do you think that brought in the Turks who ruled as the
Moguls to exploit the Hindu wealth and later on who did in the Muslims?
Disraeli and his ilk always knew that India was poor but their temples were rich with gold
and it's that they are after one can't build one's own "Third Temple" without it.
Why are the black cohens being promoted (South Brahmins the most pliable ones) at Google,
Microsoft and Pepsi etc.? Because the waterboys, and girls, will help rope in what's left of
the Indian carcass for thirty pieces of silver!
@secondElijah
You are probably the most antisemitic troll I have ever met online.
So, when did Epstein and Weinstein become the standard bearers of the Jewish community?
It is your jealousy of the Jewish people that makes you spew such vile hatred here.
Smug, obnoxious white people like you who have always considered this country their private
preserve are an endangered species. The demographic trends cannot be denied.
In less than 25 years white folks will become a minority in this country. So enjoy it while
you can, Bubba, your days of driving the bus are numbered.
You and other whites here are like the bad guys in every horror movie ever made, who gets
shot five times, or stabbed ten, or blown up twice, and who will eventually pass -- even if
it takes four sequels to make it happen -- but who in the meantime keeps coming back around,
grabbing at our ankles as we walk by, we having been mistakenly convinced that you were
finally dead this time. Fair enough, and have at it. But remember how this movie ends. Our
ankles survive.
YOU DO NOT.
@Saguaro
The soup has boiled over, the horse has bolted and the barn has burnt down and yet you
Yankees haven't woken up.Your politicians are whores who cannot function without funding from
the jews. And Jeffery got them all for Mossad. Enjoy
@Vaterland
The "standing up for People of Color" schtick is particularly disingenous, as all the Jews
have really done isuse their disproportionate control of the media to peddle false narratives
and distort history. One good example of this is the case of then president of the Atlanda
chapter of B'nai B'rith, Leo Frank. Frank had raped and murdered 13 year-old Mary Phagan and
when he was found out, he used his connection with New York Jews to get lots of money and
hire the best defence lawyers, his lawyer then launched vicious racial attacks on a Black
semi-literate janitor who worked in the factory that Frank was in charge of (and where Phagan
worked) to try and convict him of the horrible crime.
Jews will be friends of POC when it suits them. The funny thing about the Frank case is
that the Jewish media has made it out that Frank was innocent and wrongly lynched (only after
his death sentence had been commuted by a judge who was suspected to have been bribed by
powerful New York Jews), and that the Black janitor was the guilty one. This is absurd seeing
as the racist Southern jury would never favour a "White" man over a Black man (anti-semtism
wasn't that big in the South, and especially so considering this was before the Bolsheviks
took control of Russia), and that if Frank had truly been White, this case would be a
landmark case in which the evil rich White man was tried and the Black man was given
justice.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States.
I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of
the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the
profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I
take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families.
That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin
fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I
have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I
will rout you out!"
Islam stands in their way of usury-ripping of mankind of their
resources and defrauding mankind via bank thefts.
Bring on the Shariah Law. I would much rather live under Shariah, God's Constitution than
under Euoropean/Western diabolic, satanic, fraudulent monies, homosexual, thievery, false
flag hoaxes, WMD's, bogus wars, Unprovoked oppression, tel-LIE-vision, Santa Claus lies,
Disney hocus pocus , hollywood, illuminati, free mason, monarchy, oligarchy, millitary
industrial complex, life time congressman/senators, upto the eye balls taxation, IRS
thievery, Fraudulent federal reserve, Rothchild/Rockerfeller/Queens and Kings city of London
satanic cabal, opec petro$$$ thievery, ISISraHELL's, al-CIA-da hoaxes, Communist, Atheist,
Idol worshippers, Fear Monger's, Drugged and Drunken's oxy crystal coccaine meth psychopath,
child pedeophilia, gambler's, Pathological and diabolical liars, Hypocrites, sodomites ..I
can't think of any right now, because my mind is exploding with rage because of these
troubling central banker's satanic hegemony!
Quran Chapter 30
39. The usury you practice, seeking thereby to multiply people's wealth, will not multiply
with God. But what you give in charity, desiring God's approval -- these are the
multipliers.
40. God is He who created you, then provides for you, then makes you die, then brings you
back to life. Can any of your idols do any of that? Glorified is He, and Exalted above what
they associate.
41. Corruption has appeared on land and sea, because of what people's hands have earned, in
order to make them taste some of what they have done, so that they might return.
@Really
No Shit Jews are doing to White countries what Whites and Jews did to India, no honour
amongst thieves, the ones with the higher verbal IQ wins.
Also it is important to note that the reason India came under the sway of Anglo-Zionist
banking cartels so easily was because how divided it was, I reckon that is why they are
promoting mass immigration. Import lots of different groups, then run lots of race-baiting
stories to distract the plebs from their financial machinations.
This is why Jews are well represented in non-antisemitic White Nationalist organisations
like Jared Taylor's AmRen, they are great at playing both sides.
And he funded the building of the Peace Palace ("Vredespaleis") in The Hague, presently
the seat of the International Court of Justice, an institution not held in high esteem in
the home country of the generous donor.
@Wally
You can act confused all you want, you know exactly what I am talking about, the fact of the
matter is Whites like you and Joyce would be laughing it up at countries/territories like
Puerto Rico, Congo, Vietnam etc etc being carved up and financially enslaved if Whites were
also allowed a piece of the pie along with Jews (as was the case in the days of the British
Empire when WASP's and Jews worked together), but now that the low-IQ countries have been
looted, the Jews have turned on the Whites and the latter are now crying that their criminal
comrades have now betrayed them.
You quite clearly have a clue, you are just terrified and trying to divert because I am
right, the Jews will do to the White nations what the White nations and Jews did to the
non-White nations. All I can say is that you WASPs should have kept to youselves like Eastern
Europeans and Eastern Asians, they didn't really engage in lofty ambitons to dominate the
world and as such are intact at the moment and seem like they will remain that way for a long
time, they are the true conservatives, WASPs have always had a Jewish streak within their
corrupt souls and are now paying the price for engaging with a criminal race.
Why do you think Epstein has all these Gentiles in his pocket? You think do-gooding
gentiles just randomly decided to get into bed with Epstein and Co.? How many East Asians and
Eastern Euros do you see terrified of being outed as paedophiles.
Don't deceive yourselves, all debts are paid in the end, especially when the creditors are
Jews.
@Adrian
They are a function of Empire in Hague, who protect empire criminals, and assume a non
existent legitimacy and jurisdiction as a private entity to take down empire opponents.
It is the very same kangaroo court as the IMT or Tokio show trials.
In the book "Heaven is for real" a 4 year old boy who supposedly is dead for a short period,
but actually visits heaven; when he returns, is asked : what is the meaning, the purpose of
life on earth?
His response is so simple, that it could only be true. And it could only come from
knowing
Don't deceive yourselves, all debts are paid in the end, especially when the creditors
are Jews.
It is a mathematical impossibility due to interest. The FED probably goes negative
interest like ECB mafia.
Chances are higher they do a reset and start anew with an electronic ponzi scheme.
No one seriously plans to pay these "debts", they can't be paid, and are actually a nothing
burger, pure fiction.
" it is truly remarkable that vulture funds like Singer's escaped major media attention prior
to this ."
Not really. The Jew's grip is starting to slip now, though. More and more people are
becoming aware that they are virulent parasites and always have been.
@Mulegino1
Real capitalism is the competition of ideas, innovation, efficient manufacturing and quality
products made and produced by honest companies. That competition can, in theory at least,
make people (and companies) "try harder". But only when a company's success is determined by
the strength of its products, not by the "deals" it cuts with Jewish financial, advertising,
"marketing" and swindling rackets, designed to line the pockets of the Jew while destroying
honest competition by Gentiles who struggle to play fair and innovate.
Jewish vulture "capitalism" contributes NOTHING of value to any company or any culture. It
never has and never will.
You and other whites here are like the bad guys in every horror movie ever made, who
gets shot five times, or stabbed ten, or blown up twice, and who will eventually pass --
even if it takes four sequels to make it happen -- but who in the meantime keeps coming
back around, grabbing at our ankles as we walk by, we having been mistakenly convinced that
you were finally dead this time. Fair enough, and have at it. But remember how this movie
ends. Our ankles survive.
YOU DO NOT.
Talk about deflection. Any nation, empire, culture or civilization wherein the Jewish
collective gains critical mass and ultimately absolute power turns into a real horror,
not a movie. The Jews may be said to be the true prototype of the "bad guys in every horror
movie", since they can only be gotten rid of by very rigorous means taken in the healthiest
and most vigorous cultures and societies. Indeed, antisemitism itself is the healthy
immunological reaction of a flourishing culture, and its lack thereof the pathology of a
moribund one.
Woke Christians of European provenance have nothing to envy the Jew (the archetypal Jew)
over. We realize that the true measure of success is not primarily monetary or the
fulfillment of cheap ambitions, but a spiritual and cultural one. On the contrary, the Jewish
hatred against Christian Europe and the civilization that it constructed is engendered out of
sheer envy and malice, because Jewry understands that is would never be capable of
constructing anything similar, and never has. In all of the arts, Jewry has produced nothing
of note.
This is not to say that individual Jews have not made contributions to the arts and sciences,
but they have done so only by participation in gentile culture, not qua Jews. Jewry only
tears down and deconstructs; it is not creative in the sense of high art, and can thrive only
in the swamp of gentile decadence and moral putrefaction. Whatever Jewry touches, it turns to
merde.
European Jewish IQ has only gone 1/2 a standard deviation above the white norm in the last
100 years. Interesting to know why, but the belief Jews have always been more intelligent is
just lack of data.
bias for co-operation
Nazis did this too – they worked reaaally well with each other. The issue was how
they thought of and treated others.
That aside, I think we daily meet plenty of individuals who'd sell their mothers, and
maybe kill lives, for pennies. They are like machines not even conscious of what they are
doing.
Your 1 data point aside, are you saying all humans act in identical ways, regardless of
how the ideologies they embrace ask them to act?
Take the ideology of Islam – it does not allow for aggressive war, surprise attacks,
the killing of women or children (unless they take up arms)..
Judaism allows for aggressive war, surprise attack, and demands the killing of all
when a state of war is declared.
Do you believe these declarations lead to identical actions by their practitioners? (in
other words – people act how they would wish to act, and don't really engage in any
belief systems beyond what pulls their own selves?)
So, it's the usual with Joyce (and not only Joyce of course). You take something that is
human, talk of Jews, point to that something in Jews, and pretend, trusting that your
readers will pretend the same, that it's a Jewish-specific something.
Yes, correct – no ideology is perfect at taming human action, and corruption is a
human action, not a Jewish action. But we could still engage in comparative ideology, and
this is what Joyce (and not only Joyce, of course) engage in.
Saying 'well, all peoples engage in force and deceit, so is there any actual difference
between them and their beliefs?' is absurdism. In such a world, I will build a nation of
priests, fashioned along the lines of the Aztek priesthood. Give me your children so I can
rip out their hearts and make it rain – after all 'we are all the same'!!
The argument is that, for the proportion of the population, the fraction of monopoly power
in Western economies that is taken up by Jewish power is much disproportional to other
nations/belief systems.
It is fair to ask whether people who engage in other belief systems have the same level of
desire for monopoly, just less skill to get it due to their belief systems.. I would say yes,
they have the same level of desire (we are all human after all (not that if you read chapter
1 of the Tanya, you will be offered that point of view)) – but that their belief
systems specifically push them away from materialism and desire for money and power, even at
the expense of others. That is the exact point of religion (self-improvement) btw, so
the next question is – is the Jewish religion effective?
At which point, the Jewish ideology becomes the wolf in the hen house – because it
fails to tame the human away from such materialistic desire (as it btw claims it does
best).
Should the hens be allowed to point out what they see as a wolf? Yes.
That the supposed wolf then obfuscates and justifies their actions by pointing to others,
mostly, betrays that it is, in fact, a wolf.
I have become totally disenchanted with the SEC. Stupid, Evil, Crazy! It would not surprise
me if they are the ones that have been terrorizing me, with stupid, evil, crazy chants
through appliances after illegallly implaced RFIDs, microchips, or sensors illegally
implanted in my ears and nose that started after my first phone was hacked in 2017! Can't
expect stupid people not to be stupid, evil people not to be evil, and crazy people not to be
crazy! They were just born that way!
@J
Adleman brookings.edu : "The US will become minority white in 2045 Census projects "
:
"During that year [2045] whites will comprise 49.7 per cent of the population in contrast to
24.6 per cent for Hispanics , 13.1 per cent for Blacks , 7.9 per cent for Asians and 3.8 per
cent for multi-racial populations " Are these projections good or bad for the "Jewish people
" ?
Nov 22, 2013 Thomas DiLorenzo – The Revolution Of 1913
From the Tom Woods show Loyola economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo discusses three events
from 1913 that greatly escalated the transmogrification of America from the founder's vision
(limited government) to its current state (unlimited government).
@silviosilver
Yes, and just because you can doesn't mean you should. And if there's a predilection among
jewish men to engage in predatory lending and collecting tactics that is disproportionate to
their of the population, there's something about their genes or their culture that shapes
them to be this way.
Also, notice how you left out the part where they jack up the interest rates and debtor's
fees to grossly inflate their income. Is there a reason to do this other than as a quick way
to make money off already impoverished people? It's kind of like opening up a rent to own
place in a low income place. The people who do that shit know exactly why they should set up
among poor people; low wealth and bad decision making abound.
And yes, it does seem to be particularly jewish given how many jews are involved in its
practice and given that it used to be frowned upon in Christian Europe. Hell, God himself (as
Jesus) went and beat the shit out of a bunch of jews for their money lending in the temple.
That's the best part of the Bible, frankly. God gets so sick of the his own chosen people
that he sends himself to chastise and whip them for their greed and hubris. No lesson was
learned.
And then they killed him. And they lost their homeland for 2000 years. And then were
kicked out of a hundred plus kingdoms, cities and countries. And then a miserable liberal
shows how vile and stupid their children are:
You know, maybe instead of making excuses, you can just acknowledge the wrongdoing and
acknowledge that some jews are particularly malicious. Cuz eventually, people are
gonna get sick of the shit jews pull and see jewish (or gentile zionist) people defending
their obvious misdeeds and get pissed at them as well. Remember, the well is open to
everyone.
Besides being retardedly wrong, the broader point is likewise retarded: when
English-speaking Jews name their businesses they shouldn't use English words. Naming a
company "Oaktree" should be limited to those of purely English blood! Jews must name their
companies "Cosmopolitan Capital" or RosenMoses Chutzpah Advisors."
Telling that you go with hyperbole here: the only two options must be Albion
Whyteman Capital or Foreskin-Chewing Pornographers Incorporated!
There are two interesting things about the onomastics of the prepuce-free business world.
One is that far fewer sons of Abraham name their businesses after themselves (I'm sure this
will insincerely be attributed to some fear of native kulaks' repressed urge-to-pogrom, even
in Finland or Japan.) The other is an observation made by an associate of a famous Austrian
landscapist: even merely remarking on their origins causes these guys mental distress.
Here in the melting pot, the difference couldn't be any starker. You can make small talk
with any flavor of goy based on it: that's a Polish name, isn't it? Yeah, how did you
know! Try this one with Levy or Nussbaum down at The Smith Group or The Jones Foundation
and watch them plotz.
Jews have always weaponized usury. Long before Christianity, Jews operated the East/West
mechanism on donkey caravan trade routes. Silver would drain from the West, and Gold would
drain from the east, while Jewish caravaneers would take usury on exchange rate differences.
This operated for thousands of years.
Haibaru donkey bones have been discovered outside of Sumer. The Aiparu/Haibaru (Hebrew)
tribes were formed as merchants operating between city states. In those days, psychopaths and
criminals would be excommunicated from civilized city states, and would take up with the
wandering merchant tribe.
Why do you think the Jew is always interested in owing the money power? Why do you think
the Jew perpetually stands outside the walls of the city state, plotting its destruction?
History tells us things, and we had better listen. That is – real history, not what
you learned in (((public skool))). There are two ways to deal with the Jew: 1) Remove him
from your country. 2) Limit him.
Limiting was done by Byzantium under Justinian. The Jew was limited FROM money
counting/banking; limited from participation in government; limited from access to pervert
young minds – especially as school teachers and professors.
It takes a King or Tsar who cares about his population, and is willing to eject or filter
out toxins from the body politic. (((Democracy))) is a failed form of government, whereby
monied Oligarchs control the polity by compromat and pulling strings.
You are not going to be able to vote your way out of the Jew problem.
@Colin
Wright Echoing words once supposedly used by Hermann Goering: whenever I here the word
'philanthropist' these days, I instinctively reach for my revolver!
Take the ideology of Islam – it does not allow for aggressive war, surprise
attacks, the killing of women or children (unless they take up arms)..
Ilya,
There is deception in Islam. Sorry. You cannot make claims about Islam not allowing for
aggressive war and surprise attacks.
These concepts even have names and doctrine that support them. Wahabbi/Salafist Islam is
exactly in alignment with Islamic teachings, especially when using abrogation techniques.
Taqiyya is lying with intent to deceive. The analog in Judaism is the Kol-Niedre, which
allows one pre-forgiveness for lying, cheating, even murder of Goyim.
Hudnas is are used to lay in wait, build up strength, to then attack the enemy.
Islam has derogatory terms to demean e.g. Kaffirs, which is similar to Goyim.
There is also deception in Christianity, but this deception is OUT OF ALIGNMENT WITH
DOCTRINE. The doctrine of super-session means the old testament is superseded, completed, a
historical record.
In Islam the doctrine of Abrogation means that the more pacific Meccan verses are
abrogated (made less relevant) that post Medina. Ergo, Wahabbi Islam and the Takfiri's are
doctrinaly correct, while Judaizer Christians (those that worship the old testament) are out
of alignment and heretics.
Judaism is actually a new religion that came into being after 73 AD, when the verbal
tradition (Caballa) became written down into Talmud.
Our Jewish friends have always been practicing usury, going back to since forever.
Our Jewish friends, I count as worse that Islamics. However two wrongs don't make a right.
Islam badly needs reform or to be expunged. Talmudic Judaism is by far the worst religion on
the planet, and its adherents must malfunction by definition.
o ..kill all the Jewish, er, "vulture capitalists" , right? Or should we go "easy" on
them all and merely ship them all off to special "re-education" camps? Or am I missing
something here ?
You are missing something because you are unwilling to adapt and learn with new
information. This makes you an ideologue.
Lolbertarianism IS A JEWISH CONSTRUCT.
There are no such things as free markets. Money's true nature is law, not gold. Money
didn't come into being with barter and other nonsense lolbertarians believe.
Most of the luminaries that came up with "libertarian" economics are Jews, and it is a
doctrine of deception. The idea is to confuse the goyim with thoughts and ideas that make
them easy pickings.
A determined in-group of predators operating in unison, will take down an "individual"
every-time.
Don't expect anything to improve with Jay Clayton as SEC Chair, and his wife and her father
Gretchen Butler Clayton who was CEO of CSC and mysterious WMB Holdings which share the same
address in addition to many Goldman Sachs divisions. Gretchen was employed by Goldman Sachs
as an attorney from 1999-2017. Many companies affiliated with the Panama Papers share the
same address as well.
Jewish people have treated me better than my own White Euro family.
Jews are tribal, gee what a surprise after 1000's of years of people trying to wipe them
out . and so their charity is within the tribe, but there is no charity within the tribe
among Whites.
Jews, along with Asians and at least some Africans, believe in not just climbing the
ladder, but in actually helping others – at least family – up it also. Whites
believe in climbing the ladder and then pulling it up after them.
I was explaining to a friend recently: My (relative) has proven that if I showed up at
their door, starving, they'd not give me a cheese sandwich, while in my experience, strangers
have been overall a fairly kind lot and a stranger, 50/50, might. Therefore, while I find the
idea of robbing or burning down the house of a stranger abhorrent, I don't mind the idea so
much when it involves a person who's proven to be cold and evil.
For more on this, see the book Angela's Ashes. The Irish family could have stayed in New
York where they were being befriended by a Jewish family. There was a ray of hope. The Irish
kids, at least, would have been fed, steered into decent schooling, etc. But foolishly they
went back to Ireland, to be treated like utter dogshit by their fellow White family and
"people".
Most of the predation going on in the US and worldwide is being done by WASPS who are
using Jews as a convenient scapegoat.
@tono
bungay Feel free to offer us some counter-examples, tono. How many such funds to you know
of that aren't disproportionately Jewish? We're all ears!
@Robjil
This is an example of what I was saying. Less Euro whites in the world is not going to be a
good world for Big Js. Non-Euros believe in freedom of speech.
Jewish Bigwigs can't get control of businesses in East Asia. They have been trying. Paul
Singer tried and failed. In Argentina he got lots of "success". Why? Lots of descendants of
Europeans there went along with "decisions" laid out by New York Jews.
Little Paulie tried to get control of Samsung. No such luck for him in Korea. In Korea
there are many family monopolies, chaebols. A Korean chaebol stopped him. Jewish Daniel Loeb
tried to get a board seat on Sony. He was rebuffed.
I was moved to reflect on the universality of this theme recently when surveying media
coverage on Korean and Argentinian responses to the activities of Paul Singer and his
co-ethnic shareholders at Elliott Associates, an arm of Singer's Elliott Management hedge
fund. The Korean story has its origins in the efforts of Samsung's holding company, Cheil
Industries, to buy Samsung C&T, the engineering and construction arm of the wider
Samsung family of businesses. The move can be seen as part of an effort to reinforce
control of the conglomerate by the founding Lee family and its heir apparent, Lee Jae-yong.
Trouble emerged when Singer's company, which holds a 7.12% stake in Samsung C&T and is
itself attempting to expand its influence and control over Far East tech companies,
objected to the move. The story is fairly typical of Jewish difficulties in penetrating
business cultures in the Far East, where impenetrable family monopolies, known in Korea as
chaebols, are common. This new story reminded me very strongly of last year's efforts by
Jewish financier Daniel Loeb to obtain a board seat at Sony. Loeb was repeatedly rebuffed
by COO Kazuo Hirai, eventually selling his stake in Sony Corp. in frustration.
Here is how the Koreans fought off Paul Singer.
The predominantly Jewish-owned and operated Elliott Associates has a wealth of
self-interest in preventing the Lee family from consolidating its control over the Samsung
conglomerate. As racial outsiders, however, Singer's firm were forced into several tactical
measures in their 52-day attempt to thwart the merger. First came lawsuits. When those
failed, Singer and his associates then postured themselves as defending Korean interests,
starting a Korean-language website and arguing that their position was really just in aid
of helping domestic Korean shareholders. This variation on the familiar theme of Jewish
crypsis was quite unsuccessful. The Lee family went on the offensive immediately and,
unlike many Westerners, were not shy in drawing attention to the Jewish nature of Singer's
interference and the sordid and intensely parasitic nature of his fund's other
ventures.
Cartoons were drawn of Singer being a vulture.
Other cartoons appearing at the same time represented Elliott, literally, as humanoid
vultures, with captions referring to the well-known history of the fund. In the above
cartoon, the vulture offers assistance to a needy and destitute figure, but conceals an axe
with which to later bludgeon the unsuspecting pauper.
ADL got all worked about this. The Koreans did not care. It is reality. Freedom of speech
works on these vultures. The west should try some real freedom of speech.
After the cartoons appeared, Singer and other influential Jews, including Abraham
Foxman, cried anti-Semitism. This was despite the fact the cartoons contain no reference
whatsoever to Judaism – unless of course one defines savage economic predation as a
Jewish trait. Samsung denied the cartoons were anti-Semitic and took them off the website,
but the uproar over the cartoons only seemed to spur on even more discussion about Jewish
influence in South Korea than was previously the case. In a piece published a fortnight
ago, Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed "Jewish money has long been known to be ruthless
and merciless." Last week, the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco, Park Jae-seon,
expressed his concern about the influence of Jews in finance when he said, "The scary thing
about Jews is they are grabbing the currency markets and financial investment companies.
Their network is tight-knit beyond one's imagination." The next day, cable news channel YTN
aired similar comments by local journalist Park Seong-ho, who stated on air that "it is a
fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are born." It goes
without saying that comments like these are unambiguously similar to complaints about
Jewish economic practices in Europe over the course of centuries. The only common
denominator between the context of fourteenth-century France and the context of
twenty-first-century South Korea is, you guessed it, Jewish economic practices.
The Koreans won. Paulie lost. Good win for humanity. The Argentines were not so lucky.
They don't have freedom speech like the Koreans and East Asians have.
In the end, the Lee strategy, based on drawing attention to the alien and exploitative
nature of Elliott Associates, was overwhelmingly effective. Before a crucial shareholder
vote on the Lee's planned merger, Samsung Securities CEO Yoon Yong-am said: "We should
score a victory by a big margin in the first battle, in order to take the upper hand in a
looming war against Elliott, and keep other speculative hedge funds from taking short-term
gains in the domestic market." When the vote finally took place a few days ago, a
conclusive 69.5% of Samsung shareholders voted in favor of the Lee proposal, leaving
Elliott licking its wounds and complaining about the "patriotic marketing" of those behind
the merger.
@jack
daniels Now that I think about it, it was unfair to make an anecdotal judgment that
Jewish lenders are less forgiving. There are plenty of examples, I'm sure, of compassionate
Jews and flinty gentiles.
Finally! An intelligent criticism of Trump for a change. So tired of the brainless
Democrat/MSM impeachment circus. They make me feel like a reflexive MAGAtard just for
defending the constitution, logic, etc., from their never-ending stream of inanities.
Meanwhile, the real problem with Trump is not that he's Hitler; it's that he's not Hitler
enough!
I am also so tired of Zionist-loving cucks bleeting on about the evils of the CRA without
ever considering the role played by the (((profiteers))) who lobbied such policies into law
in the first place. Realize that what Paul Singer does for a living used to be illegal in
this country up until recently. That's right: US bankruptcy law used to forbid investors from
buying up debt second-hand at a discount and then trying to reclaim the entire face
value from the debtor. But I see all kinds of people even on this thread blaming the victim
instead -- 'Damn goyishe deadbeats!' Whatever
What Singer and the other Jewish vultures engage in is not productive, and isn't even
any recognisable form of work or business. It is greed-motivated parasitism carried out on
a perversely extravagant and highly nepotistic scale. In truth, it is Singer and his
co-ethnics who believe that money can be printed on the backs of productive workers, and
who ultimately believe they have a right to be "showered by free stuff promised by
politicians."
To what extent is Jewish success a product of Jewish intellect and industry versus being
a result of a willingness to use low, dirty, honorless and anti-social tactics which, while
maybe not in violation of the word of the law, certainly violate its spirit?
The last Gentleman on WS was not a Jew. Bring back the WASP. You can maintain your honor,
and manners and still succeed. Jews take the easy low road of deception and cheating. WASP
take the higher road of harder work and ethical business practice.
[MORE]
The courtly Mr. Jenrette, who has been dubbed "the last gentleman on Wall Street" earned this
sobriquet largely for his reputation of being particularly sensitive to the human dimension
in an industry where such matters often get sidestepped. Nonetheless, despite Mr. Jenrette's
modest demeanor, he's risen to the top in an often cutthroat business. He remained with
Donaldson Lufkin through good times and bad, guiding it after its two other founding partners
departed for other ventures and, next month, he will step down as the chairman of the
Securities Industry Association, the brokerage trade group.
"Dick has been the one who carried the firm from its original promise through to closure,"
said Samuel Hayes 3d, an investment banking professor at the Harvard Business School.
"Dick's more in tune with human values and that's not frequently found on Wall Street."
Richard Jenrette, 89, Wall Street power, Raleigh native, dies https://www.wral.com ›
richard-jenrette-89-wall-street-power-and-preserva
Apr 23, 2018 – A courtly, soft-spoken North Carolina native whom The New York Times
once called the "last gentleman on Wall Street," Jenrette (pronounced
Wall Street's 'last gentleman' left behind these 24 lessons about life and success: At the
time of his death late last month due to complications from lymphoma, these couple dozen
rules to live by were left on his desk.
Stay in the game. That's often all you need to do -- don't quit. Stick around! Don't be a
quitter!
•Don't burn bridges (behind you)
•Remember -- Life has no blessing like a good friend!
•You can't get enough of them
•Don't leave old friends behind -- you may need them
•Try to be nice and say "thank you" a lot!
•Stay informed/KEEP LEARNING!
•Study -- Stay Educated. Do Your Home Work!! Keep learning!
•Cultivate friends of all ages -- especially younger
•Run Scared -- over-prepare
•Be proud -- no Uriah Heep for you! But not conceited. Know your own worth.
•Plan ahead but be prepared to allow when opportunity presents itself.
•Turn Problems into Opportunities. Very often it can be done. Problems create
opportunities for change -- people willing to consider change when there are problems.
•Present yourself well. Clean, clean-shaven, dress "classically" to age. Beware style,
trends. Look for charm. Good grammar. Don't swear so much -- it's not cute.
•But be open to change -- don't be stuck in mud. Be willing to consider what's new but
don't blindly follow it. USE YOUR HEAD -- COMMON SENSE.
•Have some fun -- but not all the time!
•Be on the side of the Angels. Wear the White Hat.
•Have a fall-back position. Heir and the spare. Don't leave all your money in one
place.
•Learn a foreign language.
•Travel a lot -- around the world, if possible.
•Don't criticize someone in front of others.
•Don't forget to praise a job well done (but don't praise a poor job)
•I don't like to lose -- but don't be a poor loser if you do.
•It helps to have someone to love who loves you (not just sex).
•Keep your standards high in all you do.
•Look for the big picture but don't forget the small details.
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I" care not who makes its laws"
That is what Mayer Amschel Rothchild said in the 1750s. Now, is it a stretch of my
imagination to believe the Central Banks of the West, all Jewish controlled, would unfairly
favor their 'own' when issueing or disbursing the money they are permitted to create.
We are not allowed to audit the Federal Reserve, so we know not what they do with it beyond
what they tell us. In 2016 it was discovered that between the year 1999 and 2016 well over
$23 trillions had been stolen from just 2 departments of our government, the DoD and HUD.
(Someone should look at NASA). Is it possible the seed money, for not only Venture
capitalists schemes but also buying governments and law makers, has been diverted, shoveled
out of the back door of these corrupt central banks and into the hands of their fellow
jews?
Anyway, the more exposure articles like this get the closer we get to ending their reign.
As I noted in my previous examination of contemporary Jewish usury, Jews have been at
the forefront of innovation in debt for many centuries, and remain its most adroit auteurs.
Although obviously rooted in centuries of Jewish financial practice, Singer and his
co-ethnics (all four equity partners of Elliott are Jewish, and its COO is the
charmingly-named Zion Shohet) pioneered the finer points of the vulture-fund concept. The
firm was born in 1977 when Singer pooled $1.3 million from family and friends,
His firm's first big "win" was the pillage of Panama in 1995.
but it only really took off in October 1995, when Elliott Associates L.P. purchased
$28.7 million of Panamanian sovereign debt for the discounted price of $17.5 million. The
banks holding those bonds, a group that included heavy hitters like Citi and Credit Suisse,
had given up on repayment from Panama. To cut their losses, they sold their holdings to
Elliott which, like a medieval tax farmer, went in with a heavy hand. When Panama's
government asked for a restructuring of its foreign debt in 1995, the vast majority of its
bondholders agreed – apart from Elliott. In July 1996, Elliott Associates,
represented by one of the world's most high-profile securities law firms, filed a lawsuit
against Panama in a New York district court, seeking full repayment of the original $28.7
million – plus interest and fees. The case made its way from a district court in
Manhattan to the New York State Supreme Court, which sided with Elliott. In the end,
Panama's government had to pay the Jewish group over $57 million, with an additional $14
million going to other creditors. Overnight, Singer's group made $40 million, and the
people of Panama found their original sovereign debt had more than doubled.
@Mefobills
If you could point to a verse in the Quran that allows for aggressive war, it would help me
learn – when I read it I saw an explosive self defence at any infringment on the Ummah,
but not much beyond that.
Of course the origination story of the faith is one of fighting, and without any wise men
to guide the laypeople, the faith has an issue in that it is easy for people to not follow
what it teaches.
Islam has been assaulted for a millennium, and so the self defence aspect of its faith has
become more active than the rest.. it needs reform I agree (and not in the direction the
Salafists have taken it), but more so there is a need for the Ummah to have a few generations
of non-aggression from the outside world.. without it the pressure will only be towards
violence – for any nation or faith!
Judaism has monopolized for millennia though, and still acts as a victim. Different kettle
of fish.
Also, you can debate the positives and negatives of Islam with a Muslim (not as a rabid
ignoramus of course – you must be polite, and have learnt something, as well as be open
to learning more). Almost every debate with a Jew about Judaism has started with, continued
with, and ended with name calling for me however.
Judaism fails as a religion because it does not encourage the practitioner to look at
themselves when confronted with error, Islam still does imo.
Does anyone here remember how John Leibowitz aka John Stewart spent months ripping Mitt
Romney to shreds? Remember? Evil white man vulture capitalism at Bain? Remember? Romney was
Adolf Hitler, and look he put his golden retriever on the roof once?
Say. How come that Mr Leibowitz never talked about the Jews who basically destroyed yes
the entire Rust belt by acquisition and outsource?
That Mr Johnny Leibovitz sure did hate the goy a lot and all. He never talked about his
own people. What a fair fellow Mr Johnny Leibovitz was. He even changed his name. Why change
the name?
Remember. Bain Capital and that kind of merger pump and dumps is all done by Mormons
goyim.
@Colin
Wright Your statement: "Jews actually collaborated extensively in the imposition of
tyranny on the working class in Eastern Europe from 1917 to 1991" not only applies to Europe,
but the united States of America as well.
It's the JEWS it's always the JEWS
[MORE]
Our present situation and the devolving into the morass of "multiculturalism" and "diversity"
is no accident. The jewish talmud and that jewish invention-communism has "rules" for the
debasement of (white) civil society.
The following statements are a result of personal experiences–your mileage may
vary
I came of age during the first so-called "civil-rights" movement and saw for myself the
underhanded dealings, the demonization of decent, law-abiding whites, and in general, the
deterioration of civil society.
Almost all of the "civil-rights" workers and demonstration "handlers" were of one
persuasion–New York based leftist communist jews. They cared not one wit about true
"civil rights", but were there to create hate and discontent among their black charges (who
were too stupid or naive to see that they were being used to suborn and destroy legitimate
government and society–a favorite communist tactic).
These New York-based "carpetbaggers" fomented their hate and discontent, only to become
future "civil-rights" attorneys, race-hustlers, and America-hating leftist communists and the
ADL and $PLC being invented.
Those of us whites who were in the middle of this "civil-rights" revolution had a saying:
" Behind every negro, there is a jew ". No truer words were spoken.
Let's not forget their infestation of the nation's education and entertainment systems,
(which continues to the present day), in which they can spread their jewish supremacist
poison.
The so-called "non-violent civil-rights demonstrations" were anything but "non-violent".
Robberies, rapes, and other criminal acts were common, but never reported, as even the
"mainstream media" was "in on the game" and conveniently turned off their cameras during the
acts of violence. You see, even then,"creating crises" was a part of the agenda.
The "beginning of the end" of America was the use of federal troops against white
Americans, which, in itself was a violation of "posse comitatus"–the prohibition on the
use of federal troops for domestic "law enforcement" purposes. As most whites were (and still
are) law-abiding, they (we) were "steamrollered" by the use of federal troops to crush honest
dissent. We never recovered from those unconstitutional actions. It was all downhill from
there
The next step may be "civil-war" in which us whites will have to take back our birthright
by force.
"Foreign Policy described the court's decision as "a groundbreaking moment in the modern
history of finance." By taking the case to a New York district court, Elliott broke with
long-standing international law and custom, according to which sovereign governments are not
sued in regular courts meant to deal with questions internal to a nation state. Further, the
presiding judge accepted the case – another break with custom. It set the stage for two
decades of similar parasitism on struggling countries by Elliott Associates, a practice that
has reaped billions for Jewish financiers. "
A year later after the ground breaking decision. Paulie tries this scam on another nation,
Peru.
Just one year after the Panama decision, Singer spent about $11 million on
government-backed Peruvian bank debt in 1996. After Singer took Peru to court in the U.S.,
U.K., Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany, and Canada, the struggling nation finally agreed in
2000 to pay him $58 million. That meant he got better than a 400 percent return.
In 2001, the victim was Argentina.
In 2001, Elliott Associates purchased an Argentinian default for $48 million; the face
value of that debt today is $630 million. The fund wants repayment for the full value of
the debt to all of Argentina's creditors, as it did in 1995 with Panama. This amounts to
$1.5 billion, which could rise to $3 billion including, again, that all-important interest
and fees.
Another victim was the Congo in 2002-03.
..specific activities of Elliott Associates in Congo, where it originally bought $32.6
million in sovereign debt incurred by that country for the knockdown price of under $20
million. In 2002 and 2003, a British court (tactically chosen) forced the Congolese
government to settle for an estimated $90 million, which included that all-important
interest and fees. Elliott Associates rapidly became known as the quintessential "vulture
fund."
1. Re Sidney, Nebraska: Maybe I'm missing something but wasn't it Cabela's owners, for
example co-founder and chairman Jim Cabela, who sold Cabela, not Elliot Management (Singer et
al)? I gather Elliot Management owned only 11% of the company. Was that enough to force them
to sell?
2. The article confuses honest straightforward loans with tax farming and government
corruption. Loans can be very useful, e.g. for a car to get to a job, or for a house so you
build up equity instead of paying rent.
@Hapalong
Cassidy Bain's not much of an exception to Joyce's pattern: although Mitt, like the other
three founders, was a goy, there were plenty of Chosen Ones associated with the company right
from the start:
In addition to the three founding partners, the early team included Fraser Bullock,
Robert F. White, Joshua Bekenstein, Adam Kirsch, and Geoffrey S. Rehnert Early investors
included Boston real estate mogul Mortimer Zuckerman and Robert Kraft, the owner of the New
England Patriots football team.
@BannedHipster
According to the Talmud, we goyim are not the descendants of Adam and Eve, like the
Jews. No, we are the bastard progeny of Adam's first wife, Lilleth, who eloped with the demon
Samael. So we goyim are really all half-demons and therefore we are an abomination in the
sight of Jew-hova, and we get what we deserve at the hands of his 'chosen people'.
improving the quality of life and access to opportunities for all Israeli citizens so that
they may benefit from the country's prosperity
Read 'all Jewish Israeli citizens'. I doubt they're going to do any life-enhancing
or make opportunities available to any of the grunting subhuman goyim .
It's important not to get carried away with this. Figures such as Andrew Carnegie, while
impeccably gentile, were hardly paragons of scrupulous ethics and disinterested virtue.
Andrew Carnegie built something that made life better for people. Making steel is a
beneficial thing.
These evil vulture Jews build nothing – they make people poorer. They suck the
wealth out of people who have little. They know 100% what they are doing.
Jesus expressed anger against the money changers on the temple steps.
It is OK for you to have natural human feelings and be angry at these Jew bastards.
@Anon
Romney is a Mormon, one of the church officials. The Mormons are closer to the Jews pattern
of worshiping money and using charity donation for business investments.
Mormons arent considered Protestants .
"Although the church has not released church-wide financial statements since 1959, in
1997, Time magazine called it one of the world's wealthiest churches per capita.[147] In a
June 2011 cover story, Newsweek stated that the LDS Church "resembles a sanctified
multinational corporation -- the General Electric of American religion, with global ambitions
and an estimated net worth of $30 billion." A whistle blower within the church reported them
to the IRS for using their status as a non taxable religious groups to invest in business
ventures instead of charities.
@anon
Maybe I can answer your question.
I studied and befriended many jews as a student (Imperial College, London etc) – none
were above average intelligent, and although they were very geeky, they only got average
grades.
When I moved to LA – most of my friends were jews and again, none were very bright
(even though a few were famous). Most of these LA jewish friends were probably psychopaths
– thinking back – very manipulative, exploitative and they lied a lot.
I think it's mostly through their cultural nepotism – they work on their own unity
(they help promote each other) while at the same time they work on destroying unity in their
host and everyone else.
Many have changed their Eastern European names.
And they go out of the way to help other jews (only) – a Serbian friend in Toronto
looks very jewish (but is not religious) told me several times here in Toronto, other Jews
(his boss etc) just offered to help him for no reason ("Is there anything I can do for you?"
etc). He did not understand why they did that – then I realized he actually looks like
a Jewish stereotype (as does his twin brother). So he thought he was helping his own
tribe.
When I went to Cuba with a Jewish 'friend' from LA – he was actively looking for
anything jewish (and nothign else – he did not want to see anything famous like a
beautiful cemetery in Havana etc) – only synagogs etc – where he gave some money
to jews he never even met. I was there with him and saw it. He was even angry if I suggested
we see something nice , historical and not-jewish. We met a NY jew there and we gave his a
ride in the car we rented – they immediately teamed up against me – for no reason
– I regretted going with him on this trip. It was an awful experience –
consistent with all the books I read on psychopaths and also that book Jewish History, Jewish
Religion, the weight of 3000 years
Another very wealthy American mother of a friend asked her South African friends (also jews)
to help her book trips in South Africa (and they of course recommended only their Jewish
friends) – it's their son who told me this.
So a lot of backstabbing, cultural nepotism and actively (but in a hidden way as most
psychopaths like to do) they do at wakening and isolating their host. That's their only
advantage – not intelligence (at least in my experience )
I recently learned that from about 1790 to 1967 the USState department refused to issue US
passports to people who held foreign passports. State also didn't hire any dual citizens for
any job from cafeteria dishwasher to ambassador.
Then in the mid sixties, an Israeli immigrant who became a US citizen applied for a US
passport. State refused to issue the US passport. So the Israeli immigrant practiced lawfare.
In 1967 the Supreme Court issued one of its usual detrimental and dangerous rulings. State
was ordered to start issuing US passports to dual citizens.
Soon there were numerous applications to State depot jobs from Israeli citizens residing
in the US. Knowing lawsuits loomed, State caved.
And that children is how and why State, commerce, DOJ CIA treasury, top security civilian
departments in the Pentagon and other federal agencies became flooded with dual American
Israeli citizens who divert money to Israel. Plus they work for Israel instead of the US.
Mysterious how the only Whites who manage to make it past affirmative action barriers are
jews.
Maybe there's a special affirmative action quota for Israelis residing in America.
@J
Adelman Adelman, be careful what you wish for, as in a debate you will be drowned.
Being labeled an ANTISEMITE is the new badge of honor and courage.
Central banks and their fiat fractional reserve banking system is slowly collapsing, as more
and more nations avoid using the BIS. Joyce's article fully explains why Russia is being
promoted as some type of arch-enemy.
@DaveE
I don't even know what capitalism means anymore. It doesn't seem like it's an actual free
market system. Seems like it is slavery for the little guy, and parasitism for the rich.
Maybe we should ditch the word capitalism for usuryism.
"'It was very gratifying to see Tucker Carlson's recent attack on the activities of Paul
Singer's vulture fund, Elliot Associates '"
I am going to avoid the Jew is bad mantra here. I read that article. But it was not an
expose' of hedgefunds, at least not at the level i was expecting. They merged two companies
and sold off or closed that which was least profitable.
In that article there was no clear discussion – about what could have prevented the
closure. So it was hard to respond positively in favor of not closing. I am advocate of
keeping work in the US, but I don't think it is unreasonable that companies be sustainable. I
would have liked that exposure, that the hedge had no intention of exploring possible profit
making alternatives.
And that is where Mr. Carlson lost me. He did not link the companies as you have. Nor
provide the examples you bring to the fore.
What distresses me about Islam is that the pacific practitioners, e.g. Suffi's, many Shias
and Sunnis are out of alignment, and hence are subject to violence from their coreligionists.
I happen to believe there are many wonderful people within the religion what I am saying is
that there is an elephant in the room, and it has a name: abrogation.
I'm going to use a smoke there is fire analogy using data.
If a religion launches repeated attacks against civilizations, then there is something
"in" the religion that is used for justification of said aggression. I'm of the opinion that
data matters, and you have to adjust your position to come into accord with real world
data.
Between 632 and 1922, Islam launched 548 offensive battles against classical
civilization
These attacks were often brutal, especially with rapes being used to "convert women"
rapidly.
In Islam (as in other religions as well) the Imam can turn knobs and get an output. This
means that abrogation is used to pick and choose verses depending on situation, to maneuver
the sheeple in the direction Imam's or political authority want them to go – including
offensive war. I used the term political authority on purpose, because Islam is more than
just a religion, it is a political-theocratic construct that is all-encompassing.
There may not be a specific verse allowing aggressive violence, but there is something
going on based on the data. (I admit to being a lay-man and not an expert on minutia of
Islam. I don't want to go there based on what I already know to be true.)
In Christianity, if there are calls for aggressive violence it is OUT OF ALIGNMENT because
of super-session. Christian adherents who do this are Judaizers, and have to use the old
testament for justification.
@Digital
Samizdat Who the heck is Lillith? Where did she come from? Adam's apple? At least Samael
is a step up from a talking snake. Talk about rewrite. Almost on par to the silly ones on the
daytime soaps. Oh wait . probably same writers.
@Rebel0007
"This won't end well."
-- They cannot help themselves. Two components make it impossible for the tribe to behave in
a preservation mode:
1. the victimhood complex, despite all the recently displayed data about Jewish murderous
ways in the host countries
2. the disproportionate number of psychopaths who are approved by tribal epos and mentality
Perhaps the only solution is to make the aggressive Jews become confined to their Jewish
country. Like an infectious disease that needs to be quarantined. Otherwise, the Jewish
psychopaths will continue leaching and destroying.
Not only the vulture bankers but a complete set of ziocons-infested stink-tanks should be
relocated (with their immediate families) to the Jewish State and prohibited from crossing
the Jewish State borders. Plus the limitations on their involvement in international commerce
and banking. Let the Jews be finally in Jerusalem today, not "next year." Let them enjoy the
company of other Jews.
Jew billionaire globalizer money-grubber Paul Singer has bought and paid for politician
puppet whore Marco Rubio.
JEWS ORGANIZED GLOBALLY(JOG) -- of which Paul Singer is a shady participant -- have plans
for after Trump and they involve the US Senators Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley and Tom Cotton
and others.
Paul Singer pushes mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration. Paul Singer wants
to continue to use mass legal immigration and mass illegal immigration as demographic weapons
to attack and destroy the historic American nation.
Paul Singer wants to continue to use the US military as muscle to fight endless wars on
behalf of Israel.
I wrote this in February of 2019:
I just got reminded that Marco Rubio won a lot of the GOP billionaire Jew donor money away
from Jebby Bush in the 2016 GOP presidential primary because the Jew billionaires -- Paul
Singer in particular -- were not too thrilled with Jebby Bush's connection to James Baker.
James Baker was a factor in the Jew billionaire decision to back Marco Rubio.
George W Bush had dragged the American Empire into a war in Iraq on behalf of Israel and
the GOP Jew billionaire donors were still not convinced of Jebby Bush's slavish devotion to
Israel.
Marco Rubio signalled his willing whoredom to the ISRAEL FIRST foreign policy of endless
war on behalf of Israel in a way that left nothing to chance for the GOP Jew billionaire
donors.
Marco Rubio is nothing more than a filthy politician whore for the GOP Jew billionaire
donors who want to continue to use the US military as muscle to fight wars on behalf of
Israel.
New York Times article:
Mr. Rubio has aggressively embraced the cause of wealthy pro-Israel donors like Mr.
[Sheldon] Adelson, whom the senator is said to call frequently, and Mr. Singer, who both
serve on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition, an umbrella group for Republican
Jewish donors and officials. Mr. Bush has been less attentive, in the view of some of these
donors: Last spring, he refused to freeze out his longtime family friend James A. Baker
III, the former secretary of state, after Mr. Baker spoke at the conference of a liberal
Jewish group.
The lobbying of Mr. Singer intensified in recent weeks as Mr. Bush's debate stumbles and
declining poll numbers drove many donors to consider Mr. Rubio anew. Last week, Mr. Bush's
campaign manager, Danny Diaz, and senior adviser, Sally Bradshaw, flew to New York to make
personal appeals on Mr. Bush's behalf, in the hopes of heading off an endorsement of Mr.
Rubio, according to two people close to the former governor's campaign.
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:
http://media.library.ku.edu.tr/reserve/respring18/Intl313_ZOnis/3_Historical_Structuralism.pdf
The authors write the following:
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
grand wazoo Reagan relaxed the laws on takeovers and as a result what Galbraith called the technostructure (modern
corporation in which the business was run by not with an eye on shareholder value but in the
interests of everyone involved) was ripped apart.
However the technostructure had come about in the 30s when the Depression led to mass lay
offs, which had began to cause social unrest. The Chinese are have already cutting a swath
through Western productive capacity, and now they are coming for the rest to the extent that
the European Union is tightening the limits of foreign direct investment and takeovers. Trump
is calling for negative interest rates, which were not adopted even during the 1930s when
one-quarter of the labor force was idle.
Prospects for severe economic pain being imposed on ordinary working people and the
consequent (eventual) establishment of a new technostructure are excellent. I hate to sound
like an accelerationist, but Jews like Singer are bringing that day closer.
@Ghali
'Everywhere they go, they leave behind nations in ruins. "
-- They always find the willing local collaborators ready to make a big profit. Who can
forget Dick Cheney, the Enemy of Humanity? The same kind of unrestricted criminality and
amorality lives on in Tony Blair the Pious. The fact that this Catholic weasel and major
criminal Tony Blair is still not excommunicated tells all we need to know about the
Vatican.
Assange is rotting in a prison, while Tony Blair and Ghislaine Maxwell are roaming free. The
Jewish connections pay off.
I know some Torah Jews who are angry that Mischlings have no right of return to Israel,
and apparently now aren't part of the ruling American Jewish nation, or American, or have
anywhere to go now. They're also angry at what they see as a repeat of the cycle of
international Jewish action and inevitable reaction they will have to bear the brunt of.
They referred me to this website: The Institute for Historical Review where they
apparently contribute.
" Although Jews make up no more than three or four percent of Russia's population, they
wield enormous economic and political power in that vast and troubled country. "At least half
of the powerful 'oligarchs' who control a significant percentage of the economy are Jewish,"
the Los Angeles Times has cautiously noted. (See also: D. Michaels, "Capitalism in the New
Russia," May-June 1997 Journal, pp. 21-27. )"
So that was the context of who owned capital in Russia, what was the effect?
" According to Harvard University scholar Graham Allison, who is also a former US
assistant Secretary of Defense, ordinary Russians have experienced, on average, a 75 percent
plunge in living standards since 1991 -- almost twice the decline in Americans' income during
the Great Depression of the 1930s. But in the midst of this widespread economic misery, a
small minority has grown fabulously wealthy since the end of the Soviet era ."
But how is that possible? Swashbuckling international capitalists like Bill Browder were
bringing their Ivy League MBA's to more efficiently manage all those assets. And he said how
much he wanted to save the Polish Train-yards.
What happened? A Putin arose. He took the capital from the Jews, and the Jews were
dispatched to the United States. Putin also aligned himself with a different Jewish faction
less virulently dismissive of the needs of the people they ruled.
What do they do in the United States? Something similar as the economy careens towards
another financial crisis and living standards, mortality rates, and the middle class
plummet.
"Jewish power in Russia, Galushin continues, has resulted in millions of homeless
children, widespread tuberculosis and cholera, a shortage of medicines, cheating retirees of
their pensions, suicide in the armed forces, and the death of science. What do the Gusinskys,
the Berezovskys, the Chubais, the Nemtsovs, the Kiriyenkos, the Smolenskys, the Livshits, and
the Gaidars say about this? Millions of Russians have perished under their rule. Are the
Russian people ready to judge these scoundrels for their crimes, Galushin ask",
Robert Maxwell was a Chezch Jew – he also robbed hundreds of millions worth of
pensions. How is it possible that all these Jewish capitalists can be linked to readily to
Jeffrey Epstein?
How did Robert Maxwell get his seed money?
Here is a letter sent to Boris Berezovsky nee Abramovich.
"In sharp contrast to the intense feelings expressed by such Russian writers over the
catastrophic situation in their country today is the seeming indifference of American and
German taxpayers who have unwittingly channeled billions of dollars and marks to the
oligarchs -- who in turn have transferred this largesse to secret Swiss accounts. Who
monitors the distribution of these billions through the World Bank, the IMF, the financial
houses, and various banks? Who is responsible for this terrible injustice?"
That's really strange, because isn't that what the Russians accused Browder of doing? They
say that he channelled billions of dollars out of Russia into the United States. Then we had
the great Russian menace that is still ongoing in the media, and failing.
But Browder said that the Russian collusion story that was created by Fusion GPS, and then
the FISA court warrants issued on the basis of the fabricated Steele 'pissgate' dossier and
media stories was 100% true.
And Steele worked for the Russia desk of British Intelligence, and was being paid by the
Democrats.
Even the proto-Shabbos goys at the National Review had to distance themselves from it.
They showed that the date the FBI and Justice said it was verified it couldn't possibly have
been verified.
So why did so many Jewish capitalists like Browder support it?
And why aren't the Russians being permitted to trace Russian monies into Cyprus if Bill
Browder and now Jewish captialist ever has every done a thing that is wrong?
Because literally to the letter what is said about Donald Trump, the Democrats were
actually doing.
"" It got almost no attention, but in May [2018], CNN reported that Sens. Robert
Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to
Ukraine's prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four
investigations they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that
their support for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as "strong
advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine," the Democratic senators
declared, "We have supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some
in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President
Trump," before demanding Lutsenko "reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation
with this important investigation ."
And yet Trump pulls the Jews ever closer. A ruling race of ubermenschen now.
'No reason'.
Can you imagine what American Blacks and savage Hispanics let alone whites are going to do
if the US economy craters like the Russian economy, and everything is transferred to the
banks?
@Old
and grumpy Yeah . fine idea. I've always maintained there are two uses of the word
"capitalism" industrial capitalism or competition of ideas vs. financial capitalism, the
Darwinian struggle for the most ruthless bankster to rig the "markets" most efficiently.
Whether we give it new terminology I don't care much . but I sure wish people would
understand the difference, one way of another !
Trump and the Republican Party puppets are nothing more than nasty politician whores for
billionaire Jews such as Seth Klarman and Paul Singer and Shelly Adelson and Les Wexner and
Bernie Marcus and many other money-grubber Jew donors.
The Republican Party Jew donors want to continue to flood the USA with mass legal
immigration and mass illegal immigration and the Jew donors want to continue to use the US
military as muscle to fight unnecessary wars and endless wars on behalf of Israel.
The Republican Party Jew donors also want to have all their shady money-grubber scams
protected by the Republican Party politician whores.
I wrote this in October of 2017 about Seth Klarman and Puerto Rican government debt:
Puerto Rico must be allowed to go belly up. The bond owners who own Puerto Rican debt must
go tits up. The US government must not bail out the investors who purchased Puerto Rican
government debt, or any debt whatsoever connected to Puerto Rico. Seth Klarman has been
revealed as a person who has bought Puerto Rican bonds in hopes of cashing out big.
SETH KLARMAN must be given a salt shaker to sprinkle salt on his worthless Puerto Rican
bonds before he eats them. Klarman must lose 100 cents on the dollar for his greedy purchase
of Puerto Rican debt. Klarman has loads of loot, and the Puerto Rican government debt was
purchased for one of his funds. I am sure his investors won't mind getting soaked by Seth for
a bit of money -- it is not even a whole billion dollars, only close to it.
David Dayen says:
Klarman, who has been described as the Oracle of Boston, has a history of buying
unpopular or distressed assets on the cheap in hopes of a payday. Baupost manages over $30
billion in assets. He is known as the top campaign contributor in New England and has been
a major donor in Republican politics in Massachusetts, including largely secret support for
2016's Question 2, an ultimately unsuccessful effort to lift a state cap on charter
schools. Klarman supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, calling Donald Trump "completely
unqualified for the highest office in the land."
Klarman's involvement in Puerto Rican debt will surely come as a surprise to activists
in Massachusetts and Puerto Rico, who have never mentioned him among the "vultures" who are
causing undue pain for the island's U.S. citizens.
Jewish people have treated me better than my own White Euro family.
White Euro people are/were evolved for small tribes. They were hunter gatherers, and
evolved concurrently with dogs. In my opinion the pathological altrusim of whites has to do
with the close relations to dogs, pets and later livestock. The whole "good shepherd" is more
of a Western Construct of Cro-Magnon white people, than the insular goat-herding types of the
middle east.
For example, in Scandinavia and most white countries, a 'baby sitter' can be a neighbor,
while in middle eastern cultures, a baby sitter can only be from a family member.
In other words, white people extend trust to one another, while middle-eastern ethos is
more familal then tribal. Ice age evolution, especially the fourth ice ages, selected for
pathological altruism is whites; which is why whites extend their grace to foreigners, brown
people, and are easily duped by Jews.
All you can do is try to rise above your own families failings. White people have to think
it through intellectually, as it does not come naturally.
Jews are tribal, gee what a surprise after 1000's of years of people trying to wipe them
out . and so their charity is within the tribe, but there is no charity within the tribe
among Whites.
Yes, but what is being debated here is how Jews use their ethnocentrism and in-group
methods to practice usury against out-groups. Euro-whites are a perfect host for the
parasite. The parasitical methods EVOLVED over millenia to operate the usury mechanism, to
take rents and unearned income. This is why they have been kicked out of 109 countries,
because what they do is seen as immoral and against the common good. (Euro whites eventually
smarten up and it always takes a King to eject the Jews.)
For more on this, see the book Angela's Ashes. The Irish family could have stayed in New
York where they were being befriended by a Jewish family.
Let's not get cause and effect reversed. The potato famine in Ireland was devastating
because high-value crops were being exported to England to pay for wait for it . usury on
debts the Irish owed the English. The English in turn were operating the state sponsored
usury system of the Bank of England, which came into being in 1694. The BOE in turn was
JEWISH in construct, being maneuvered into place by Sephardic Jews from Amsterdam.
The Irish, being trusting souls, fell into the usury trap and could not keep up with the
exponential debts.
A general statement: White people can build high trust civilizations that benefit all of
their people, but are easily subverted when the wrong type of predators infiltrate. If your
family was extended, and had aunts and uncles and cousins, who lived in the general area for
centuries, then there would be a network to fall back on.
See slaughter of the cities by Jones:
And yes, the FIRE sector and impetus behind the destruction of your extended family was
JEWISH. The breakdown of neighborhoods and ethnics was on purpose.
The Jew is anti-logos, and whatever he touches he destroys. (There are exceptions of
course – but these people no longer possess a negative Jewish spirit.)
Sorry your family was destroyed. When whites become un-moored they don't know how to
act.
@J
Adleman Quite bizarre post. First,he makes a half ass defense of Jew
character.(Weinstein,Epstein don't represent jews! Well,they kind of do. Any jew who is
called to accounts for his crimes automatically does not represent jews!
You are a used condom. Do you represent the jews? Id day yes.)
Your diatribe sounds like an alt righter's view of jews. Are you real?
if you think it's wrong to buy or try to collect on defaulted debt, what is the
alternative set of laws and behavior you are recommending? If debts can simply be
repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function.
Capitalism includes money. You can't separate the risks in lending from other risks. Bad
investors should be punished and good investors rewarded. Resources should be well allocated.
Otherwise it's not capitalism.
These insane Boomers seem to think that there is a Jewish coup underway to remove Trump
because of all the things that Jews are saying in Jewish publications and every single person
involved being Jewish and stuff.
@Germanicus
About the Carnegie donated "Peace Palace" in The Hague, presently the seat of the In
ternational Court of Justice:
Germanicus claims:
They are a function of Empire in Hague, who protect empire criminals, and assume a non
existent legitimacy and jurisdiction as a private entity to take down empire opponents.
Such as this ruling for instance:
Guardian 3 Oct.2018:
International court of justice orders US to lift new Iran sanctions
Mike Pompeo indicates US will ignore ruling, after judges in The Hague find unanimously in
favour of Iran
@silviosilver
"What Joyce regards as a defect of "vulture" funds, others might regard as an benefit. "
-- Of course. I hope you did not miss the fact that the Jewish vulture funds -- ruthless,
unethical, and leaching on goyim -- contribute to the Jewish Holocaust Museum.
Is not it touching that the same bloody destroyers of nations demand from the same nations a
very special reverence -- out of ethical considerations, of course -- towards the Jewish
victims of WWII? But only Jewish victims. All others were not victims but casualties. See
Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Ukraine. See the unlimited hatred of ziocons towards Russia.
@Anonymous" but maybe a few leftist thinkers would receive a much needed electric shock if they were
to see the JQ framed in marxist terms " – I would not count on the effect of the
electric shock on the leftist thinkers. The role of Jewish Bolsheviks in the Cheka, NKVD,
GULAGs, genocides by famine has been known from the very beginning and yet it left no impact
on the leftist thinkers.
"According to Harvard University scholar Graham Allison, who is also a former US
assistant Secretary of Defense, ordinary Russians have experienced, on average, a 75 percent
plunge in living standards since 1991 -- almost twice the decline in Americans' income during
the Great Depression of the 1930s. But in the midst of this widespread economic misery, a
small minority has grown fabulously wealthy since the end of the Soviet era."
"Although Jews make up no more than three or four percent of Russia's population, they
wield enormous economic and political power in that vast and troubled country. "At least half
of the powerful 'oligarchs' who control a significant percentage of the economy are Jewish,"
the Los Angeles Times has cautiously noted. (See also: D. Michaels, "Capitalism in the New
Russia," May-June 1997 Journal, pp. 21-27.)"
It's interesting how the appeal of Eduard Topol to Jews in Russia is now starting to echo
Jewish calls in the United States for Jews to stop the path they are currently on.
Here is the complete text of Topol's extraordinary "Open Letter to Berezovksy,
Gusinsky, Smolensky, Khodorkovsky and other Oligarchs," translated for the Journal by Daniel
Michaels from the text published in the respected Moscow paper Argumenty i Fakty ("Arguments
and Facts"), No. 38, September 1998:
Magnitsky and Bill Browder is also really interesting.
It turns out that a large measure of the Russiagate story arose because Russian lawyer
Natalia Veselnitskaya, who traveled to America to challenge Browder's account, arranged a
meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump campaign advisers in June 2016 to present this
other side of the story.
Then we had Democrats actually literally word for word doing what they accuse Trump of
doing in Ukraine.
"It got almost no attention, but in May [2018], CNN reported that Sens. Robert Menendez
(D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) wrote a letter to Ukraine's
prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, expressing concern at the closing of four investigations
they said were critical to the Mueller probe. In the letter, they implied that their support
for U.S. assistance to Ukraine was at stake. Describing themselves as "strong advocates for a
robust and close relationship with Ukraine," the Democratic senators declared, "We have
supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to
have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump," before
demanding Lutsenko "reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this
important investigation."
What's the first rule of Communist and Satanist Saul Alinsky? Always accuse your opponents
of what you are doing.
Imagine having a Grandfather as the literal Chairman of the American Communist Party, and
all the amazing lessons you would learn about political maneuvering and ideology.
And it's amazing.
Browder's story is that Russian officials stole his companies seals and then fraudulently
formulated a tax avoidance scheme with a complete paper trail that they fabricated against
him in totem. Precisely matching the amount of money he was trying to remove from their
country, like those other Jewish Oligarchs who imposed conditions that were multiples worse
then even the American depression.
When under oath it turns out that Magnitsky wasn't even a lawyer at all, and didn't go to
law school. Why did the media owned by Mormons of course keep saying that Magnitsky was
Browder's lawyer?
Why did the Russians fraudulently fabricate a paper-trail for another Jewish Oligarch to
steal money out of Russia? Just like they colluded with Trump when a Russian lawyer sought to
explain what happened. Because that totally happened.
Maybe the problem isn't Capitalism. Maybe, when even the ur-Shabbos goys at National
Review are shaking their head and washing their hands like Pilate, maybe it's a different
problem.
Yet Trump holds these people ever close to his beating heart.
And then there are all these connections to Jeffrey Epstein that are like an explosion
linking all these people.
Poor old Russia. Even Putin isn't worse then what came before.
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.
From the review .
"Robinson's claim that nation-states have become, "little more than population containment
zones," while "the real power lies with the decision makers who control global capital" (p.
26). Both propositions are unconvincing: first, populations are clearly not being
contained; second, if states matter so little, and the real decision-makers are global
capitalists, then why do the latter need states
That is such stupid reasoning it blows the mind. He is trying to shift the global problem
to institutions .. instead of the people who head those institutions
Institutions, agencies , financial firms, etc .are ALL run by PEOPLE .who make the
policies,laws, take the actions.
Why does the 'transnational capitalist class' need states? well duh because
people/labor/consumers are indeed "contained' in states subject to the states laws and
system. The transnational capitalist class created the institutions he speaks of 'from
within' those states thru their control of its system and their same goal partners who do the
same from within their respective states.
That the capitalist class is not tied to any territory has been observable since 1960.
I don't have time now to look up how many of 199 directors are Jews . but I know enough of
the economic history of various countries to know that Jews were the first business and
finance globe trotters,,,,.from Spain to Amsterdam, France to Africa , etc.etc. Jew were
first hired as reps and facilitators by the gentile business owners especially because of
their breather tribal contacts in many countries ..that was their stepping stone to becoming
transnational capitalist themselves.
Understanding our global capitalist ruling elite and who they are is not rocket
science
Buy your loans from another lender,
change the terms (add fees, penalties, underhanded stuff),
reposses your collatteral.
Outta be illegal.
White Gentiles, you must infiltrate and take over big business and big finance to help
protect your people from predation .and to give all peoples principled, fair financial
services. To help our society, and even others. Paul Singer doesnt seem to care about most of
his fellow men. We could do better, and help the world be a better place.
Yet more evidence is piling up that Donald J Trump is the Great Betrayer.
A man who had the biggest mandate in post war history to clean up the Swamp that is D.C.,
reform Immigration to save America and reform the economy for American workers.
He has squandered all of it while pandering to Jews.
When the Donald is revealed as the Great Betrayer where will Jews run? Yes, they have
several back up plans. Patagonia, Ukraine and Israel.
Imagine that. They have their own country and 2 back up plans. It is really tough being a
hated, oppressed minority.
@Anonymous
Thanks for your comment. You've come to the right place. Unz is an ideal hangout for
left/right fusionists who don't fit in perfectly with either side, but are interested in
hearing from both. In addition, if you're looking for other good right-wing sites that aren't
libertarian, Zionist or overly Christian, I can also heartily recommend Dr. Kevin MacDonald's
Occidental Observer ,
where Dr. Joyce himself usually posts.
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.
Or, more correctly, it would be a re -marriage of anti-Semitism and Marxism. If you
have a background in Marxism yourself, maybe you recall reading or hearing about Karl Marx's
pre-Kapital classic, On the Jewish Question , where he basically identifies
finance-capitalism as a Jewish phenomenon in essence and origin. Money quote
:
"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew but the everyday
Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the
secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical
need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his
worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may
exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities . The
bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange .
The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of
money in general.[ ] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because
he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him,
money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical
spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the
Christians have become Jews. [ ] In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the
emancipation of mankind from Judaism."
Marx himself, of course, came from a family of rich conversos, so he knew whereof he
spoke.
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.
As a third-way national socialist, I hope so, too. Libertarianism/capitalism and mainline
socialism are dead-ends, having both been thoroughly co-opted (founded?) by the Jews. Both
fail to address the pink elephant in the corner; both put some hopelessly abstract ideology
before the welfare of my people–while benefiting another. And so, as the original NS
used to say: 'Neither godless Bolshevism nor soulless capitalism!'
Reality: Contrary to popular mythology, not all serial killers are white. Serial killers
span all racial and ethnic groups in the U.S. The racial diversity of serial killers
generally mirrors that of the overall U.S. population. There are well documented cases of
African-American, Latino and Asian-American serial killers. African-Americans comprise the
largest racial minority group among serial killers, representing approximately 20 percent of
the total. Significantly, however, only white, and normally male, serial killers such as
Ted Bundy become popular culture icons.
@Lot
Your defense of bond holders do not hold water. They agreed to take the risk at the given
price. If the debtor can't pay back, they have the eat the losses, period. Usury law needs to
be put in place to outlaw these vulture funds. Then the bond funds will adjust by demanding
better terms that truly reflects the risk from the get go, and the debtors will adjust by
being much more cautious in their borrowing since the borrowing cost is so high.
Instead, this current arrangement basically uses bond funds to put up a false front,
telling a debtor they can borrow at 2% when the real rate should be at 20% given the known
risks, then the debtor goes crazy borrowing because it's so cheap to borrow, and when they
can't pay back, the bond gets sold to the vultures who come collecting at 20% or they seize
assets. This is no different than the subprime mortgage crap, except now that is regulated so
they go after sovereign debt and corporate debt instead. These vultures need to go die
period.
Trump is now essentially funded by three Jews -- Singer, Bernard Marcus, and Sheldon
Adelson, together accounting for over $250 million in pro-Trump political money. In return,
they want war with Iran.
Hmm -- The day after Trump in inaugurated for his second term -- will Iran be in his
crosshairs?
@Jimmy1969
This is a great, concise overview of Canadian media influence by the "silent" Jewish
overlords via Golden Tree.
I tried copy/paste of your comment on CBC, but it did NOT last 2minutes before being
suspended!!
I am sorry to have used your comment without your permission, but I am going to "misspell"
some words to defeat the algorithm to get your message across.
@Lot
For points 1 and 2, I think that you would learn a lot from reading his previous article (
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/08/01/paul-singer-and-universality-of-anti-semitism/
) on vulture capitalism. It is not just that they are recovering assets from defaults. These
vulture groups will use the courts to increase the size of the debts and sue for extra "fees"
on top, even when all other lenders are against it. They typically manage to get US courts in
NYC to try these cases, which also is apparently abnormal (apparently it would be more normal
to use international courts). This is what Joyce refers to here:
"This type of predation is so pernicious and morally perverse that both the Belgian and UK
governments have taken steps to ban these Jewish firms from using their court systems to sue
for distressed debt owed by poor nations. "
These funds do not do something that normal investors do, especially not to the bonds of
governments of struggling third-world countries.
As for 3, you are misunderstanding. Joyce never demanded that they name their charities
anything in particular, but it is obviously the case that your typical normie thinks that
"white males," presumably golf-playing Episcopalians or something, are the ones running
finance, and these golfy-sounding names (Elliot, Monarch, GoldTree, OakTree, Canyon, Tilden
Park) fit the perception. We whites receive the society's hate for the wealth disparities
created by high finance.
4. No, it is not difficult to do finance differently. Every other investor has higher
patience for poor countries in Central America and Africa, and they all look at Elliot with
confused scorn.
And, things would probably run fine without hyper-aggressive multi-billionaires in pushing
the courts to f- over those who default on debts they owe to the maximum degree. Japan and
Norway do quite fine with businesses that are run by gentle and humble goys who feel ashamed
at the thought of getting "too rich."
@J
Adleman You will be thrown out.
You will have to choose between Israel, Ukraine and Patagonia. No one else will take you.
You have destroyed our politics, media and economy.
You are not respected.
You buy compliance with money.
You have bankrupted the U.S. dollar with debt pursuing Israel's enemies.
Do any of you goys remember when the Jewish funded Democrats through the US State
department gave Russia one third of the US strategic uranium reserve and also funnelled
military tech to Russia's Skolkovo Valley? At a time when they were working on the Hypersonic
ballistic missile engine?
It's almost like there was this plan for people to move back into Russia, just like China,
but for some reason the Russians and Chinese didn't cooperate.
Remember when David Spengler wrote about this a few years back hence?
Do you think disloyal Jews had anything to do with 18 American CIA assets getting captured
and murdered by the Chinese Intelligence services through 2010 to 2012?
Could it be that there were loyal Americans who were interfering with Chinese pay for play
with the Jewish nation in the United States? Or might have come upon it?
Imagine being an American military service member knowing that your Jewish commanders and
Jewish senior officers have got your back.
It's amazing isn't it.
Clinton was receiving tens of millions of dollars from Skolkovo Valley Syndicate owners in
Russia, and in exchange all she gave them were military secrets that may have given Russia
for example it's lead in hypersonic military technology.
And then we're told China had a duplicate version of her emails in China, in exchange for
what?
US Taxpayer money funded the Russian weapons program.
How much China tech was also funded by US taxpayers?
And then these people accused Trump of collusion with Russia, because the Russians were
telling the Trump family that the Magnitsky Act was unjust because the Russians were trying
to secure their assets against the kind of predatory practices that lowered Russian mortality
to where it's headed in the Midwest. Right now. For the same reasons.
Yeah – this trend is absolutely going to be permitted to continue.
The American nation forewarned and forearmed is simply going to allow itself to go the way
of the Russian Slav under a century of Jewish and proto-Jewish (the man who was made to call
himself Stalin) leadership.
Maybe, just maybe, an American President might consider a Magnitsky Act the subjects of
which were different. Maybe Trump is the last civic-nationalist President, maybe.
Look at how loyal the ruling nation in the United States is to their fellow Americans.
There aren't enough hours in the day to trace the labyrinthine set of Jewish betrayals and
asset transferrals – remember the Panama Papers? Remember the Samson Option?
Why won't Browder let the Russians investigate Cyprus?
Maybe good old fashioned local corruption with noblesse oblige is preferable to this
international corruption.
The Jews got out-leveraged by the Russians, and now, finally, the Empire might be able to
take back Korriban from the Jewdi.
Of course that's impossible. You have to trade one for the other. Just one set for the
other set.
If you want to find a list of these capitalists – you just look at who attends the
World Jewish Congress Galas.
" Ira Rennert (net worth $3 billion, previously, $6 billion, investor, known as a "junk
bond billionaire," found guilty of corruption in 2015, placed a mill in Baltimore's outer
harbor into bankruptcy, causing more than 2,000 workers to lose their jobs, owes Baltimore $8
million in unpaid city water bills, allegedly used money he looted from his business to build
a 29-room mansion & compound – a garage holds 100 cars)
Dick Parsons (former Time Warner CEO, CBS chair, & Citibank chair; in 2012 shareholders
filed a lawsuit against Parsons and some other executives for "stuffing their pockets while
running the bank into the ground")
Ben Ashkenazy (net worth $4 billion, Israeli American real estate tycoon, a benefactor of the
2015 AIPAC Real Estate Luncheon at New York's Grand Hyatt Hotel)
Jack Chehebar (real estate mogul, sued for alleged breach of contract, accused of beating his
son)
Ray Kelly (longest serving commissioner in the history of the New York City Police
Department, for a period was an Interpol vice president, charged by Muslim groups of
discrimination: "The commissioner oversaw a spying program that targeted Muslims based solely
on their religion, showed poor judgment by participating in a virulently anti-Islamic film,
and approved a report on terrorism that equated innocuous behavior such as quitting smoking
with signs of radicalization."
What did God say once?
In Genesis 18:32 He said he would spare Sodom and Gamorrah if Abraham could find just 10
honourable men. He couldn't find them. Only the family of Lot.
There isn't much time left. It might simply be the case that the rot goes too deep and too
dark.
Valhalla is a worthy place. I think there might be some Russians there, along with the
souls of those 18 Americans who were tortured and murdered in China for reasons unknown.
Capitalism includes money. You can't separate the risks in lending from other risks. Bad
investors should be punished and good investors rewarded. Resources should be well
allocated. Otherwise it's not capitalism.
There are different kinds of capitalism. It is part of today's hypnotism that people don't
know the different types.
For example, there is finance capitalism, industrial capitalism, and what Andrew Joyce
calls vulture capitalism.
Vulture capitalism is a subset of finance capitalism.
Industrial capitalism was invented in the American colonies, especially Massachusetts bay.
The American system of economy (industrial capitalism with mixed economy and sovereign money)
has since been lost to America, as it imported Jewish/British finance capitalism as the
operating construct after 1913.
You can separate risks in lending. That is more hypnosis that you have been imbibing on.
The entire corpus of Classical economics goes about trying to separate unearned from earned
income, how to tax properly, what is site value, and it also is able to separate risk
types.
The fact that you do not know these things is not surprising, as most of western man is
living inside of a Jewish inverted reality bubble. The agents of mammon won, and classical
economics is not even taught in university.
Homosexuality is present in our society, but doesn't register much in demographics and as
such, I am happy to call gays as homosexuals. Tackling animus towards homosexuals requires
NOT trying to enforce new nomenclature of gender etc., otherwise an unexpected nasty backlash
can occur. Within your "ingroup", you can say what you like, but do not try and force ingroup
dynamics on the majority that are not interested.
Otherwise, you are behaving by identity politics, just like the Jews force their identity
upon the majority.
@sally
" Time after time I have asked my Jewish friends are you are Zionist, and most say they do
not really know what Zionism is? "
Zionism is a name which is more well known as an identifier by the critical (among the
Goy), carrying by now negative connotations. Broadly it is not an ism which is well known to
the man in the street. It could well be that among Jews, the name Zionism is only handled by
certain groups.
The question should have been rephrased asking what position these Jewish friends take with
regard to Israel. It comes down roughly to the same thing.
To not know of Zionism might be strategically a good thing, it refers to convergent
interests, actually a power block, you don't want to throw around such things, it could make
people aware Keep it diluted, diversity, obfuscation.
Ben Franklin and the American revolution was almost put in a similar pinch by the Amsterdam
banker Jean DeNeufville. In a letter to John Adams, 14 December 1781*, Franklin explained
that DeNeufville wanted as security for a loan "all the lands, cities, territories, and
possessions of the said Thirteen States, which they may have or possess at present, and which
they may have or possess in the future, with all their income, revenue, and produce, until
the entire payment of this loan and the interests due thereon."
Franklin considered that "extravagant" but Newhouse rejoined, "this was usual in all loans
and that the money could not otherwise be obtained". Franklin retold in this lengthy letter,
"Besides this, I was led to understand that it would be very agreeable to these gentlemen if,
in acknowledgment of their zeal for our cause and great services in procuring this loan, they
would be made by some law of Congress the general consignee of America, to receive and sell
upon commission, by themselves and correspondents in the different ports and nations, all the
produce of America that should be sent by our merchants to Europe."
Talk about shooting the moon
While Wikipedia says DeNeufville was Mennonite, Franklin concluded with this colorful --
and bitter -- remark , "By this time, I fancy, your Excellency is satisfied that I was wrong
in supposing John de Neufville as much a Jew as any in Jerusalem, since Jacob was not content
with any per cents, but took the whole of his brother Esau's birthright, and his posterity
did the same by the Canaanites, and cut their throats into the bargain; which, in my
conscience, I do not think Mr. John de Neufville has the least inclination to do by us while
he can get any thing by our being alive. I am, with the greatest esteem, etc., ✪ B.
Franklin."
Perhaps it was just an expression based on an earlier stereotype?
*Bigelow, 1904. The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. 9 Letters and Misc. Writings
What our Jewish friends have done to Argentina, through maneuvering the elections, killing
dissidents, and marking territory, is a cautionary tale to anybody woke enough to see with
their own eyes.
Zion had the opportunity to go to Uganda and Ugandans were willing, but NO Zion had to
have Palestine, and they got it through war, deception, and murder. It was funded by usury,
as stolen purchasing power from the Goyim.
The fake country of Israel, is not the biblical Israel, and it came into being by
maneuverings of satanic men determined to get their way no matter what, and is supported by
continuous deception. Even today's Hebrew is resurrected from a dead language, and is fake.
Many fake Jews (who have no blood lineage to Abraham), a fake country, and fake language.
These fakers, usurers, and thieves do indeed have their eyes set on Patagonia, what they call
the practical country.
Unz is an ideal hangout for left/right fusionists who don't fit in perfectly with either
side, but are interested in hearing from both
You just described me to a tee. I defy categorization, especially ideological ones
(although I half jokingly refer to myself as a free-thinkist), and I feel this makes me
weird.
I've been to TOO. However I can't bring myself to start commenting on a white nationalist
website. I will admit I am unable to articulate this discomfort presently.
As to your point about Marx – I actually forgot about his work on the JQ. The Saker,
who is a columnist on this site, referenced Marx's essay on the JQ some time ago. I must have
not read the whole thing or I'd have remembered it. I didn't know that Marxism originated
with anti-Semitism, but that is fascinating. I have encountered some Marxists in my time and
they focus exclusively (predictably) on the cis-white-male patriarchy, or whatever occupies
their brainwashed minds after an Introduction to Gender Studies class.
@Anon
"If debts can simply be repudiated at will, capitalism cannot function."
Is this children's capitalist theory class time? throwing around some simple slogans for a
susceptible congregation of future believers?
Should be quite obvious that people, groups of people, if not whole nations , can be
forced and or seduced into depths by means of certain practices. There are a thousand ways of
such trickery and thievery, these are not in the theory books though. In these books things
all match and work out wonderfully rationally
Then capitalism cannot function? Unfortunately it has become already dysfunctional, if not
a big rotten cancer.
Isaiah 1:4 4 Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers,
Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, They have provoked to anger The
Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward.
Ezekiel 21:25 25 'Now to you, O profane, wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose
iniquity shall end
Jeremiah 5:9 Shall I not punish them for these things?" says the LORD. "And shall I not
avenge Myself on such a nation as this?
As Jesus said which of the prophets have you not killed or persecuted? The truth hurts. As
for me I do not hate Jews ..I feel terribly sad for a people that are capable of greatness
and squandered the gifts given to them by God. Are you a holy nation? Don't make me laugh.
Repent. Your time is coming. No more running and hiding. Deception will no longer save you
only acceptance of the Messiah.
Hey! Don't mention anything a Jew ever did, especially usury, or else the entire cult will go
up in a holocaustal mushroom cloud of emo nasal whining. In Judaism you've got a fanatical
sect that systematically selects and brainwashes its members to inculcate extreme values of
two Big Five personality axes: high neuroticism and low intellect (where intellect means
open-mindedness.) Note the existential crisis triggered by a straightforward lecture from The
Society for the Study of Unbelievably Obvious Shit.
Of course Israel is holocausting the Palestinians. This is what happens when the founding
myth of a nation is, We wiped em all out and then they wiped us almost all out so now we
gotta wipe em all out etc., etc., etc.
Well, the only difference between a narcissist and a psychopath is that the former need
people to like them whereas psychopaths genuinely could not care less (although they learn
early that acting as if they do can be very helpful , as can always trying to elicit sympathy
etc).
As I noticed while reading a few books on psychopathy (I was inspired to after reading Steve
Job's biography) – their whole 'culture' is structured as a (collective )
PSYCHOPATH.
It seems that (collectively) they cannot care about others even if they wanted to. Due to
their sickness
I am not saying they are all that way – but overall their 'culture' seems to be that
way
@Digital
Samizdat Indeed I cannot agree more. I quote from a 1923 interview of Hitler:
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party
programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of
dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The
Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from
the Socialists.
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain
lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to
disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private
property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is
patriotic.
@Colin
Wright The Sacklers occupy a hoity-toity rung in the philanthropy universe, as they have
given enough $$$ to Harvard for H to paste their name on its museum housing I believe its
whole Asian art collection. Students have now protested Harvard's high-profile gift of
probity and cultural status to the Sacklers via, literally, an "Aushangerschild" on a major
university museum. Harvard protests back: Jeez, if we don't take the Sacklers' dough we might
be obliged to stop taking the dough from Exxon, etc.
@Anon
you are right about repaying the loan
but Banksters have managed over decades I think starting with Clinton to remove protection
laws (which were stating how much interest was the maximum a bankster could charge his pray
etc). They also removed the rules of how much was the maximum they could lend (according to
how much their victim makes a year etc).
So even though you are right that loans should be repaid – it is immoral to allow a
well connected mafia to change all the laws and remove protections while pushing up prices of
everything because it suits the lender (who has a licence to print).
They basically lend money that does not exist and get interest for that. So the more sheeple
are tricked into borrowing the better for them, but the worse for everyone else
They should not be allowed to bribe politicians to remove all the protection that was there
since 1920s I think.
It's a marriage from hell: easy to bribe Anglosheep meets the masters of predatory bribing
who own the printing press
That stupid cuck Trump just got impeached by the House. Thats a good lesson to everybody
how much good Jew-ass kissing does for you .you get stabbed in the back anyway lol
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving and treacherous scumbag!
But he should have been impeached for his treachery to the constitution and to the
American people for his slavish devotion to all things Jewish!
@Digital
Samizdat True, but irrelevant. The Jews that matter don't read the Talmud or believe in
"Adam and Eve."
It's 2020. The Jewish religion is "The Holocaust" and we're all "Nazis."
Frankly, it's these traditional religious notions of "anti-semitism" that get in the way
of understanding what is, at the core, an ethnic issue. It's Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist
entity in Palestine, and the ADL that are the problem, not some looney-tunes rabbi living in
Brooklyn.
The other side of the expalnation is the laking of reaction of the victim,the american
people.
The least that the people that loot the world trough and with the USA power should do, is ,at
least ,let us,the american people, a free ride.
Not illegal in the Talmud either but most certainly illegal in all of the countries that
DynCorp was caught profiting from this type of business. For some reason they never seem to
suffer for their exposure suggesting that they may be wielding the same influence that
Epstein had over our elected officials.
We dont have to get back to the Singer of this world but to our own politicians ,that allowed
them to do this to us,and to the world.In this kind of abusive realtionship the 2 sides are
to blame.
@Just
passing through "Look up income by ethnic group in the UK and US, you will find that
Indians and Chinese (South Asians) are the richest in both countries (except for Jews of
course)."
And why is that? Think about it. These are members of the Indian and Chinese elite who the
multinational corporations are doing business with.
In order to do business in China, the Chinese stipulated that the western corporations had
to give one of the members of the Chinese elite half ownership in the company. They were also
required to turn over the western technology to the China-based company. Western technology,
western money, cheap Chinese slave labor, ability to pollute to your heart's content. For
both sides, it was a win-win. The Chinese elite got filthy rich and then moved over to the
West with their newfound gains, buying up properties, forcing prices up for the natives. The
western corporations not only wanted cheap products to export back to the U.S., but they were
also developing a whole new market – Chinese consumers who would buy their products as
well. Double plus good!
And once in the West, the Chinese and the Indians stick to their groups. They hire their
own, promote their own, do business together. A lot of corruption, money laundering,
cheating, taking advantage of and bending laws. Rule of law? Code of ethics? Morals? Do unto
others? They never learned it. Opportunistic dual citizens.
I would not count on the effect of the electric shock on the leftist thinkers. The role
of Jewish Bolsheviks in the Cheka, NKVD, GULAGs, genocides by famine has been known from
the very beginning and yet it left no impact on the leftist thinkers.
It unfortunately has not had much of an effect on a lot of people in the West, who remain
ignorant or in denial of the role played by Jewish Bolsheviks in historic mass murders and
totalitarian repression.
Waiting for the Hollywood movie to tell the story.
This is an expensive, weighty, and important book, which will take some time to
digest.
Classical economists re-learn the science of money, starting with Prodhoun and even Marx
in Das Kapital volume 3. (Leftists are often correct about money, but wrong on social
issues.)
The jew Marx does do some deception in volume 3 with a sneaky equation that does not
compound interest, but otherwise he is pretty accurate. Marx was probably beholden to his
finance masters.
This is why you need to start with Zarlinga, as there is no BS to lead you astray. Hudson
tends to drill the bulls-eye too. There is so much deception in the field of money and
economy, that it is easy to get caught up in false narratives, like one-born free
libertarianism. Usury flows fund the deception, even to the point of leaving out critical
passages in translations, such as in Aristotle's works. Or, important works are bought up and
burned.
Michael Hudson is the leading economist resurrecting Classical Economics. Reading all of
Hudson and Zarlinga will take some time and effort, but it is good to take a first step.
@Anon
I respectfully disagree that "Kenya was given up [by Great Britain] before there was even an
anti-colonial movement in Kenya ."
According to Wikipedia : " The armed rebellion of the Mau Mau was the culminating response to
Colonial rule . Although there had been previous instances of violent resistance to
colonialism , the Mau Mau revolt was the most prolonged and violent anti-colonial warfare in
the British Colonial colony. From the start the land was the primary British interest in
Kenya ."
Just as the Kenyans suffered the consequences of British colonialism , the "Palestinians will
suffer
the consequences of Zionist colonialism until Israel's original sin is boldly confronted and
justly remedied " foreignpolicyjournal.com
@anon
A particular distinction of Jewish investors versus gentile investors – on average, of
course – is their use of bribery to get the force of government behind them. Rather
than taking a bet about some group being able to pay back some bonds and letting the chips
fall where they may, Jews start bribing or influencing politicians to force that group to pay
back the bonds.
Buy some bonds, charge outrageous fees, bribe officials in some form or other, get govt to
force the payment of bonds and outrageous fees. Rinse and repeat. Jews have been doing this
in some form aor another for 1500 years. It's why the peasants get a tad angry at both the
Jews and their bribed politicians/nobility.
@lavoisier
"But he should have been impeached for his treachery to the constitution and to the American
people for his slavish devotion to all things Jewish!"
A purely political impeachment, right down party lines. I hear Schiff has got his hands
full of Ukrainian-Jewish oligarchic money. Dear me, wait until that comes out.
Trump is in league with the Jews? Yeah, who isn't? Obama's lips are still sore from
kissing Jewish Wall Street bankers' asses (notice that none of them went to jail). Same with
the Clinton's.
You can get politicians to pass all sorts of laws in your favor if you've got enough dirt
on them. After all, your side owns the media, Hollywood, academia, the courts, the banks.
If dirt doesn't work, you can always threaten to impeach them in order to get what you
want.
But Trump is also revealing every last dirty one of them (accidentally or on purpose).
People see them now.
@J
Adelman J Adelman comes out swinging. He's such a tough guy. But does he make sense? Does
he care if he makes sense? The writer is talking about those Jews who are vulture
capitalists. He's not talking about every Jew. Isn't it a little odd that nearly all of these
funds are run by Jews? Can your corrupt mind accept that fact and address the question? Or
are you going to bore us with your religion and by that I mean your obsession with
anti-semitism, which is your religion.
@PCA
Stop splitting hairs. Is this the best you can do? Are you one of Lot's cronies? I don't
normally address petty matters of this kind but Joyce is describing a multitude of sins and
misconduct orchestrated by various Jewish financiers around the globe. It is not merely one
phenomenon; thus, 'phenomena' fits. Go troll someone else.
Lobelog ran some articles in Singer, Argentina, Iran Israel and the attorney from Argentina
who died mysteriously . Singer is a loan shark. Argentinian paid dearly .
Google search –
NYT's Argentina Op-Ed Fails to Disclose Authors – LobeLog
https://lobelog.com/tag/paul-singer/
Paul Singer NYT's Argentina Op-Ed Fails to Disclose Authors' Financial Conflict of Interest
by Eli Clifton On Tuesday, Mark Dubowitz and Toby Dershowitz, two executives at the hawkish
Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), took
The Right-Wing Americans Who Made a Doc About Argentina
https://lobelog.com/the-right-wing-americans-who-made-a-doc-about-argentina/
Oct 7, 2015 One might wonder why a movie about Argentina, in Spanish and . of Nisman's and
thought highly of the prosecutor's work, told LobeLog, FDD, for its part, has been an
outspoken critic of Kirchner but has From 2008 to 2011, Paul Singer was the group's
second-largest donor, contributing $3.6 million.
NYT Failed to Note Op-Ed Authors' Funder Has $2 Billion
@mark
green Mark green the queen of self rightousness.
There are many non jews runny vulture funds worldwide with at least 100 in china
alone.
The list joyce provided is selective and politically motivated.There are many more non
jews who are guilty of financial crimes.The jails are full of them.
The vulture funds are a product of a system that punishes failure.Do not blame the
funds,blame the system.
This story and like many that appear here is designed to pressure israel to change
politically.Israels future lies in the hands of God not some mutt with a serious case of
mutters.
@Lot
venture capital funds are only made necessary because we have a federal reserve.. which is a
private bank and private banks want to earn interest.
consider the difference between when a private lender makes loans to the USA
(treasury)
on the books of the feds is the following
due from the USA $11,000
new cash printed and given to dumb clucks at the USA $10,000
profit on the loan $ 1,000
what happened here is the fed printed $10,000 in new bills.
Assume the loan made at 10% interest and it is due in 1 year.
Ok so what is the loan on the USA books
cash $10,000
amount payable to the Federal Reserve $11,000
loss on the deal $ 1,000
this loan becomes the loan on the local bank books
the government gives the bank its loan and its obligation to repay the principal plus
interest
If there were no interest (that is the government printed its own money and made
venture loans to entrepreneurs at 0% interest the entries would look like this )
Amount due in one year from venture borrower $10,000
new cash printed and loaned to venture $10,000
so if the venture guy spent the $10,000 and then went broke the treasury would still gets
its money back in taxes from those who earned profit the money the venture paid.. no one has
to beat somebody to pay the interest (the economy does not have the extra $1000 dollars in
interest so somebody has to lose)
When interest must be paid its like musical chairs.. each time the music stops there are
not enough chairs to go around, someone is left standing ( its like that in money lending,
the debtors dance until the music stops, but because the private bank only put the principal
amount $10,000 in circulation the guy needs $11,000 to pay the loan back where does he get
the extra $1,000? <=If ten $10,000 loans are made, and 1 guy goes broke, there will be
enough cash in the system for the 9 others to pay the interest they each owe and enough for
the local private bank and lawyers to get paid for handling the bankruptcy. . <= we
started with 10 loans, one loan went broke the 9 remaining borrowers each pay $11,000 to
retire the debt , there are 9 loans "$99,000 to repay them and $1000 to pay debt service
costs and legal fees.
if there were no interest on the loans, the bankruptcy would not matter.
What makes the venture capitalist have a business at all is the Federal reserve is a
private profit making bank. Lending printed money from the Federal reserve requires interest
to be paid, and that requirement of interest makes the economy horde its capital and the
economic players playing king of the mountain to get the extra money they need to pay the
interest . ..
Zionism brought private banking to the USA and the USA wrote a tax law to collect the
money from the Americans it governs to pay the interest on the debt.
this is a really simplistic description of what is happening to our economy so don't rely
on it but instead use its simplistic idea to model the impact of having interest on the
national debt is having each year. If our government reversed what it privatized to the
Federal Reserve, we could make the economy run more or less as we please. \we could eliminate
the national debt and with it income tax es.
Typical Jew baiting article. Mitt Romney isn't a "Jew" Ashish Masih isn't. Many more examples
of gentiles taking advantage of their brothers. May as well consider the Walton family of
Wal-Mart to be vultures as well since they benefit the most from this system, they're so
called Christians, not Jews. The problem is capitalism. Author seems to suggest that a moral
economic system has been corrupted. The system was designed in an era of widespread slavery
folks. Its an immoral system that requires theft, slavery, war, immigration, all the things
you hate, to survive. The system is working exactly as it is designed to work. Exploit
workers, the environment and resources, shift all the profits from workers to the owners of
capital, period. Welcome to the late stage, it eats and destroys itself
From the days of the colonists slaughtering the Injuns and stealing their land. The days
of importing African slaves, and indentured servants. The days of child labor and factory
owners hiring Pinkertons to gun down workers who protested shitty wages and working
conditions. The good ol days of the gilded age. Now the age of offshoring to China or some
other lower wage nation. Overthrowing leaders not willing to let their resources and people
be plundered and enslaved, driving refugees to our borders fleeing violence and poverty.
Importing H1B workers to drive down wages. It was always a corrupt system of
exploitation/theft/slavery. This is nothing new and doesn't require "Jews" to be immoral.
And all these so called "Christians" like Pastor Pence approve. Usury and capitalism run
amok. I'm sure Jesus is smiling down on all these Bible toting demons who allow their fellow
man to be exploited by the parasites. Sad!
Good for Tucker. He has his moments I'd watch his show if he wasn't a partisan hack. But
that will never happen working for Fox or any other corporate media.
@Colin
Wright I doubt Trump promised to go to war with Iran before he was elected. In his
Inauguration Speech, Trump said he wanted to bring the troops home and stop the wars. He
didn't have to say these things, he had already won the election, but he said them anyway.
One of the few times the media has laid off Trump was when he sent some missiles into
Syria (after he gave them hours of warning ahead of time that the missiles were coming). If
Hillary had been elected, Syria would have been leveled by now and flying an Israeli
flag.
Obama brought us the destruction of Libya and the murder of Gaddafi, the coup in Ukraine,
and through ISIS, which the U.S. armed, trained and paid for, tried to destroy Syria.
I don't really blame Obama or Bush Jr. or Clinton. They were all puppets who did as they
were told. If they hadn't, in the words of Chuckie Schemer, there would have been "six ways
from Sunday of getting back at them".
If you don't do what they want, you're impeached, some of your dirty laundry is aired, or
they purposely crash the stock market on you. If you still don't get the message, maybe
you're just assassinated.
Trump loves his daughter and she is married to a Jew. If they're not getting their way, I
could see them telling Trump: "Sad what happened at the Pittsburgh synagogue, isn't it? Sure
hope nothing like that happens to your daughter."
I don't envy Trump. He not only is up against the Democrats, but he is also fighting the
globalist neocons in his own party. Both parties want open borders and more war, something
Trump does not believe in. As far as I can see, he's throwing them bones in order to shut
them up. If he gets elected again, which I think he will, we might see a different Trump. Who
knows.
@Jimmy1969
I think this deal has already taken place. Israel has given away to China for 99 years the
hall commercial incomming This deal has taken place 2 or 3 years ago
Don't blame it on the Talmud. These Jews act in accordance to their Torah: "If Yahweh your
God blesses you as he has promised, you will be creditors to many nations but debtors to
none; you will rule over many nations, and be ruled by none" (Deuteronomy 15:6). "feeding on
the wealth of the nations" (Isaiah 61:5) is Israel's destiny according to Yahweh.
@mcohen
I took a squint at both your own and Mark Green's comment history. Your comment history
cannot even begin to compare in value, but I should have already guessed that from the
name-calling in the first line of your comment. Just weak, extremely weak.
Rather amusing to read our resident Jewish apologists carrying on about the absolute sanctity
of the necessity of collecting debts to the functioning of the capitalistic system. These
nations and corporate entities that are now in thrall of the Wall Street Jews , were herded
into debt by that other faction of the capitalist system, the dealers in easy money.
Snookering the rubes into lifelong debt, telling them that money is on the tap, promoting
unsustainable spending habits and then let the guillotine come down, for the vultures to feed
on. They are two sides of the same coin.
Its damned funny that the rich Jews nowadays are absolutely addicted to usury, rentier
activities, and debt collection, when the Bible itself condemns such activities. But they are
our elder brothers in faith according to some.
@Colin
Wright Carnegie was a Protestant. The Protestant cancer serves it's Jewish masters. Read
'The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit' by E. Michael Jones. There is definitely a revolutionary
nature to the international Jew just as there is to their Protestant dupes. Jewish nature is
to subvert the natural order and the west was built by the guidance of LOGOS. The Catholic
Faith created by God guided the creation of the west. These Jewish exploits are a result of
the Wests rejection of its nature and its enslavement
1. rich or poor, creditor or debtor, in the final analysis, ultimately, all will become equal
in the grave. the filthy rich might decide to lay their corpses in coffins made of gold, but
it will be in vain. the sorrows and the joys of this fleeting world shall quickly pass like
the shadow.
2. talmudics feel the need to accumulate money in order to have sense of security since they
were stateless for two millennia. paradoxically, amount of wealth is indirectly proportional
to a sense of security, provoking backlash from aggrieved host people.
3. establishment of State of Israel did not reduce the need for the accumulation but has only
heightened it since now talmudics feel the need to support it so that she could maintain
military superiority over neighbouring threats.
4. as long as Palestinians are not free and Israel does not make peace, talmudics will
continue to meddle in American politics. if you don't want to save the Palestinians for the
sake of humanity and truth or justice, at least you should do it for your own sake.
5. loan sharking, vulture whatever, etc., is the ugliness of big capitalism with capital C,
what is beyond sickening is the promotion of sodomy. if one becomes poor or homeless, it's a
pity. to go against nature is an abomination.
6. by using such words as "homosexual" you have accepted the paradigm of the social engineers
and corruptors, and are therefore collaborating with them. words have consequences since that
is how we convey ideas unless you own Hollywood and can produce your own moving pictures
too.
7. talmudics is a better word than as a great American scholar says, since people who promote
sodomy are absolutely opposed to the Torah (O.T.). those who still struggle to follow it
couldn't care less what happens to benighted goyim, only becoming reinforced in pride of
their own purity as opposed to disgraced nations. thus, practically, they too are talmudics,
alien to the spirit of the ancient holy fathers and prophets of Israel. the word "Orthodox"
has been stolen and now has lost all meaning or it means the exact opposite of what it
originally meant.
8. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Matthew 5:5
@Colin
Wright Well there's nothing wrong in principle about specialists in valuing distressed
debt and managing it nuying such debt and using the previously established mechanisms for
getting value out of their investment. So the problem is how they go about enforcing their
rights and the lack of regulation to mitigate hardship in hard cases.
Still it is notable that it should, overwhelmingly be a Jewish business and such a
powerful medium for enriching Jewish causes and communities at the expense of poor
Americans.
While Whites theoretically still have the numbers to affect/determine the outcome of
elections, a majority of Whites usually stay home because they are tired of the 'evil of two
lessers' choice they are offered -- even voting for Trump got them little/nothing.
@Colin
Wright George Bush needed Tony Blair's support to attack Iraq , Donald Trump now has the
support of Boris Johnson to attack Iran : "Boris Johnson refuses to rule out military
intervention on Iran ." metro.co.uk
It is said that the "deep state " removed Theresa May from office as she was "too soft" on
Iran . As you suggest the attack will not happen until Trump's second term unless, in the
meantime , there is a false flag attack like 9/11 which can be blamed on the Iranians .
East Asians have freedom of speech. That is all that is needed to end Jewish Mafia vulture
capitalism. If it was Italian Mafia vulture capitalism, the west would end it a few seconds.
When one is in a "no see, no say, no hear" tribal group one can get away with everything.
East Asians don't believe in hiding reality.
Here is more on how Samsung fought back against little Paulie.
Samsung published controversial sketches in response to row over merger
Jewish U.S. hedge fund boss Paul Singer was trying to stop a Samsung business deal
In response the firm released cartoons on its website depicting Singer as a vulture
A row has broken out in South Korea with media there describing Jews as 'ruthless' with
money
Merger between Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries was approved today
This is how Paulie's row with Samsung started.
These are the extraordinary cartoons Samsung posted on its website which reportedly
depict a Jewish hedge fund boss as a money-grabbing vulture.
The row between Samsung and one of its major shareholders, Paul Singer, has sparked an
anti-Semitism row in South Korea.
Harvard-educated Mr Singer, 70, whose hedge fund Elliott Management owns a seven per
cent stake in Samsung C&T fell out with the company after he objected to a merger
deal.
Cartoons shown what Paul's company did to the Congo, just one of many nations he
pillaged.
In response Samsung posted a number of inflammatory cartoons on its website showing Mr
Singer as a long-beaked vulture, which have since been taken down.
In one of the sketches a poor-looking man goes, cap in hand, to the vulture who has an
axe hidden behind his back.
The caption reads: 'Elliott Management's representative method of earning money is,
first of all, to buy the national debt of a struggling country cheaply, then insist on
taking control as an investor and start a legal suit'
In another people appear to be dying in the desert from dehydration. Underneath is the
caption: 'Because of it, Congo suffered even more hardship'.
This is believed to refer to Elliott Management's business dealings in the Congo.
Samsung wanted to keep their company in the Lee family. They did not want a Jewish Mafia
tribal group take over.
The bitter fall out came because Samsung Group's founding family wanted to complete a
merger with its holding company Cheil Industries and Samsung C&T to shore up its
control of the firm as its chairman, Lee Kun-hee's health is in decline.
In the End, Samsung won. Paul lost.
The Lee family, who control Samsung, owns 43 per cent of Cheil Industries. The
controversial merger was finally approved today.
South Koreans are not shy to express reality as it is. The west has to learn the value of
freedom of speech before it too late for the west.
But the row has sparked an outpouring of anti-Semitism in South Korea.
One columnist described Jewish money as 'ruthless and merciless'.
And on Tuesday the former South Korean ambassador to Morocco Park Jae-seon expressed his
concern about the influence of Jews in finance.
In an extraordianry outburst he said: 'The scary thing about Jews is they are grabbing
the currency markets and financial investment companies.
'Their network is tight-knit beyond one's imagination,' Park added.
The next day, cable news channel YTN aired similar comments by local journalist Park
Seong-ho.
'It is a fact that Jews use financial networks and have influence wherever they are
born,' he said.
Neither Park Jae-seon and Park Seong-ho were available for comment.
In a piece published a fortnight ago, Media Pen columnist Kim Ji-ho claimed 'Jewish
money has long been known to be ruthless and merciless'.
While Whites theoretically still have the numbers to affect/determine the outcome of
elections, a majority of Whites usually stay home because they are tired of the 'evil of
two lessers' choice they are offered -- even voting for Trump got them little/nothing.
I said nothing of an electoral solution to America's problems the problems will not be
solved that way.
@Art
That scary thought has crossed my mind, too, Art. I've even started wondering if this whole
impeachment circus is really part of an elaborate plot to guarantee Trump's re-election. I
mean, would Pelosi's insane actions make the slightest sense otherwise? And everyone has
noted how this is such a 'Jew coup,' haven't they? It all looks so suspicious
What our Jewish friends have done to Argentina, through maneuvering the elections,
killing dissidents, and marking territory, is a cautionary tale to anybody woke enough to
see with their own eyes.
True, but irrelevant. The Jews that matter don't read the Talmud or believe in "Adam and
Eve."
Whether they believe it or not, they act as though they do. That shows it is an ancient
and essential part of their ethnic subculture. Who knows? Maybe Kevin MacDonald is right and
it's actually genetic .
It's 2020. The Jewish religion is "The Holocaust" and we're all "Nazis."
The holo-hoax is just their modern version of 'chosenness'. Pretending to be the
biggest victims evah! is just another way of making themselves appear collectively as
morally superior to the rest of mankind–even the darkies:
But whether it's being wielded by the Zionists or the lefty Social Jewish Warriors, it's
really just a power play down deep. It's really just another way of reminding us
goyim–white and colored–that we are all just half-demons (so to speak) compared
to The Chosen.
@Wally
It is rather entertaining watching you kvetch, Jewish colonialism over WASP nations will be
glorious.
Vietnam & Congo can choose as they wish, it is they who vote for their leaders.
In fact, Congo was better off with colonialism.
America voted for Zion Don, he is now receving hundreds of millions of dollars from Jews
to do their bidding. It is hilarious that you can't see the irony of your comments.
In fact, it is even more funny what the Jews will do to WASP nations, enjoy your future of
transexualism and fast food, WASPs totally deserve everything that is coming at them.
Then you change the subject to Epstein. Pathetic.
If you had an IQ above room temperature, you would realise my segue into the Epstein
affair was a response to your question of "What deal was supposedly struck".
You killed Lumumba," she roared at the Belgian officials on the platform, before being
escorted away by the police. The music and speeches resumed.
She was right: they did. Belgium was heavily implicated in the 1961 killing of the
radical, first prime minister of an independent Congo, now the war-torn Democratic Republic
of Congo. In 1975 a US inquiry also pointed conclusively to CIA involvement in the
execution carried out by a Katangan police unit under a Belgian officer.
Paul Singer, a Jewish Mafia vulture capitalist did some "work" on the Congo too.
He also bought some of Congo's debt for $10m and sued for $127m. The Congolese
government was found to be corrupt and under US racketeering law, Singer may be able to
claim triple damages, reaping as much as $400m.
On March 9, 2016, Department of Justice (DOJ) oversight personnel learned that the FBI
had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was
completed.
This information was disclosed in a 99-page FISA court ruling on April 26, 2017, that was
declassified by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats.
That wasn't an isolated incident and the improper access granted to outside contractors
"seems to have been the result of deliberate decisionmaking" (footnote – page 87).
The FISA court noted the "FBI's apparent disregard of minimization rules" and questioned
"whether the FBI may be engaging in similar disclosures of raw Section 702 information that
have not been reported."
"This is bigger than Watergate + 9/11 + the Bay of Pigs + almost every other conspiracy
theory you can name combined. It is also why you're seeing definite signs of panic and
desperation everywhere from the House of Representatives to the mainstream media to the
boardrooms of the Fortune 500. This reaches from the heart of the Swamp in Washington DC to
Silicon Valley and Seattle, Washington. In East Germany, it came out after the Wall fell that
one-fifth of the population was involved in the surveillance of the other four-fifths of the
population; now keep in mind that due to the mathematical reach of the FISA warrants, the 825
million surveillance orders issued actually exceeds the 320 million population of the
USA.
Now we know how and why Google and Amazon and Facebook got so big, so fast. They were the
corporate arm of the surveillance state."
You disloyal Jews used government resources and private contractors to surveil the entire
country.
I wonder what's going to happen next?
Also why haven't you responded to any of the comments about what the Jews did in
Russia?
@RealistI said nothing of an electoral solution to America's problems
And I said nothing about an "electoral solution", or any other kind of "solution", to
"America's problems" -- I said/implied that blaming Whites, or the way they vote, more or
less exclusively, as you did, for the way things are, was not exactly a genius take -- there
is literally no one for a race conscious white person, eg a WN, to vote (affirmatively)
for at the moment -- and it is hard to imagine anyone emerging in the near future.
For the record: I (also) do not think just voting, especially in the current
one two party system with the usual 'evil of two lessers' choices offered,
will do anything for Whites.
What We abrogate (of) a sign or [We] cause it to be forgotten, We bring better than it
or similar (to) it. Do not you know that Allah over every thing (is) All-Powerful?
2:106
The verses on abrogation read as to only allow Allah to abrogate, so any human action on
this is stepping over the line imo.. maybe other than when 100% of the Ummah agree on
something, I read that could remove a surah of the Quran, like a voice of God. That rhymes
nicely imo.
Of course how to judge which ruling to use? I agree, it brings in a casuistry into the
faith that generally helps to confuse.. I don't know much about it though yet.
I think Islam preaches a decent message, but the average practitioner is open to
misinterpret it quite a bit. This is a failing of the teaching.. but I think Mohammed's
message was corrupted like Christ's message pretty much straight after his death. Gospel of
Thomas and Tolstoy's rewrites all the way for something closer imo.
venture capital funds are only made necessary because we have a federal reserve.. which
is a private bank and private banks want to earn interest.
Sentiments are correct and you are hovering over the target, but some details are
needed.
The federal reserve is the tail on the dog, not the dog. The Fed was created as a part of
the corporate banking money trust. Before Fed the reserve loops of banks were not tied
together, and they had to use treasuries (T bills or Lincoln Green-backs) to balance their
ledgers.
Banksters wanted to extend their money power beyond their region. In the days before
federal reserve bank money power would fall off the further you got away from the bank. Banks
hypothecate new bank credit, and the credit has to swim home to the debt instrument. This
"swimming home" is done easily when the ledgers are all connected through reserve loops (also
called the overnight market).
After Federal Reserve (1913) and before Wright Pattman, the Federal Reserve was recycling
its profits made on public debt back to its stock owners and member banks. The member banks
especially, were guaranteed profits no matter how the economy did. After Wright Pattman (mid
60's) Fed has to rebate to treasury they couldn't face up to the allegations they were
stealing from the commons, which they were.
Today, the FED rebates interest on TBills and public debt back to Treasury. The private
banks within the system continue to hypothecate new money at interest, as that is their
business model. This business model does not include morality, nor does it work in the public
interest. It works to enrich finance at the expense of the working/laboring economy.
So, central banks are not profit centers, but instead they ensure profit lower down
– within the private banking system. Central banks are backstops to prevent instability
within the already unstable debt money system.
Recent Example: The Repo Crises, whereby FED is monetizing repurchase agreements. Non bank
actors such as hedge funds, REIT's and others have been given access to the overnight market
(where reserves are supposed to be traded). The FED now swaps new keyboard dollars for
various finance paper to keep the non bank actors in the repo market liquid.
This action is artificial and props up the finance sector at the expense of the normal
working economy, and hence it is usurious.
Usury is a word that has been normed out of our language. Why? Because our (((friends)))
are agents of mammon, and they cannot help themselves. It may be genetic.
Usury is a power relation, where you steal from others because you can. Laws are changed
to enable the thefts.
In the case of the FED it was taking 6 percent from the people on public debts. Public
debts were funded by taxpayers. This money was then funneling backwards from FED into their
crony banks and paid off sycophants.
We don't know what the FED is doing today because the bad guys won't allow an audit. The
general statement is that private corporate banking is usurious, and was born in iniquity,
and that is where your eye should gaze, not necessarily at the FED or any central bank.
The debt money system and finance capitalism is state sponsored usury, and is a Jewish
construct.
Vulture capitalism is simply vultures buying up or creating distressed assets and then
changing the law, or using force to then collect face value of the debt instrument or other
so called asset. Vultures will use hook or crook to force down what they are buying, and hook
or crook to force up what they are selling. God's special people can do this because when
they look in the mirror, they are god, and are sanctioned to do so.
Maybe the vulture should replace the bald eagle as America's favorite bird since our dear
shabbos goy President Trump and cohorts are undermining the First Amendment and trying to
make it a crime to criticize Jews and/or Israel. Oh and don't think I am promoting the other
Zionist and their shabbos goy on the demshevik side. The Jew CONTROLS both sides and "our"
two party system has become Jew vs. Jew, not republican vs. democrat. Lenin said that the
best way to control the opposition was to lead it and (((they))) are at it AGAIN.
I think Islam preaches a decent message, but the average practitioner is open to
misinterpret it quite a bit. This is a failing of the teaching.. but I think Mohammed's
message was corrupted like Christ's message pretty much straight after his death. Gospel of
Thomas and Tolstoy's rewrites all the way for something closer imo.
The line of good and evil runs down the middle of each person's heart, and they have to
decide.
My line of attack on Judaism, Islam, Christianity, or whatever, has to answer the
question: "Is it good narrative for high civilization." Does the narrative make people
malfunction?
There are branches of Islam that are good narrative – where people choose the better
side of Islam.
The point is that these good branches, say the Suffi's, have to keep the crazy aunt in the
basement.
Abrogation allows what comes later, to gain power over what comes earlier. And what comes
earlier is the best part of Islam.
Christianity has the same problem, it does not do a good job of policing its crazies, who
twist scripture. Judaism, especially Talmudic Judaism is Kabala and utterances of the sages,
and it morphs and changes over time. For example, after Sabatai Sevi, the Kol-Neidre was
weaponized, and this construct is used by today's Zionists to wreak havoc. Before Sabatai,
there was Hillel, who weaponized usury.
Yes, I agree about Christianity changing quite a bit. In the first 300 years it was much
different than today, especially after the Arien controversy was settled by Constantine's
maneuvering of Bishops at council of Nicea. For example, before; reincarnation was part of
Christian doctrine, and after; reincarnation was excluded.
Trump should be impeached and convicted. But not for the reasons in the two Articles passes
by the House.
He should be for
Violating the Symington and Glenn amended 1961 Foreign Assistance Act to ban any aid to
clandestine nuclear powers that were not NPT signatories. Trump increased aid to Israel.
Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem in violation of numerous UN Security Council and
General Assembly resolutions.
The abuse of Office via Nepotism in having totally unqualified Jared and Ivanka Kushner
serve as US Government respresentatives.
Executive Order classifying Jews as a Nationality protected from Free Speech criticism of
them, in violation of the First Amendment.
Of course those in Congress, that facilitated and cheered on the Israeli centric Trump
acts, should all be voted out forever.
I have long maintained that libertarianism/capitalism is really like a kind of Calvinism
for atheists. Calvinists used to assume that, since whatever happened was God's will and
God's will was invariable good, then whatever happened was good. Likewise, many modern cucks
seem to have just substituted The Market for God. Morally speaking, it all lets man off the
hook for anything that results–especially when those men happen to be Jewish
financiers!
No, boys and girls, The Market is not inherently good. It requires that a moral system be
superimposed on top of it in order to make it moral.
@Anon
After reading the book of this MI6 asset (and potential killer) who tried to fleece Russia,
you probably can benefit from watching a movie by Nekrasov about him. See references in:
It looks like it was Browder who killed Magnitsky, so that he can't spill the beans. And
then in an act of ultimate chutzpah played the victim and promoted Magnitsky act.
If true this china capitulation. Or some shrewd tactical maneuver, as the next year it is
China who hold trump cards -- it can derail Trump re-election with ease.
I have my doubts about Trump being the Grand Dealmaker he calls himself. Looking at seven
bankruptcies as a proof of that ... mythical skill I don't find much. I recall Trump suing the
Deutsche Bank after the bank wanted a credit back. His lawyers in court referred to the bank
crisis, called the Deutsche Bank as a bank responsible for that and said that thus they don't
deserve repayment. that was Chutzpah in the First Degree, For very obvious reasons Trump lost
that case and did pay back.
When Trunmp recently went on searching lawyers to work and sue for him he didn't find any. A
big corp lawyer anonymously briefly explained why: "Doesn't pay. Doesn't listen.'
A US-China trade deal was announced to chaotic fanfare late Friday Asian time – and we
are sceptical. First, we still don't have details other than that December tariffs were
postponed by both sides, the 15% US tariffs imposed on 1 September are to be reduced to 7.5% as
a sign of goodwill, and the 25% tariffs on USD250bn stay in place . Second, we aren't going to
get a signing ceremony between the US and Chinese leaders, which does not send an encouraging
signal. And third, what we see is close to the terms we previously criticized for being
unrealistic in reports such as 'A Great Deal of Nonsense" and "LOL-A-PLAZA".
The US Trade Representative (USTR) says the final text of the phase one
agreement is still being finalised, and he will sign it early next year for a likely incept
date of end-January 2020. The areas covered include: Intellectual Property (IP); Technology
Transfer; Agriculture; Financial Services; Currency; Expanding Trade; and Dispute Resolution.
Each of these promises much and yet potentially delivers little.
China has pledged to address issues of geographical indications, trademarks, and enforcement
against pirated and counterfeit goods. That's just after a Chinese court ruled that Japanese
retailer Muji doesn't own its own name in China and a local rival started years afterwards
does. Enforcement matters, not promises: more on that in a moment.
China has agreed to end forcing or pressuring foreign companies to transfer their tech as a
condition for obtaining market access or administrative approvals. Again, enforcement is all
that matters here. China also " commits to refrain from directing or supporting outbound
investments aimed at acquiring foreign technology pursuant to industrial plans that create
distortion. " That is China's reason for outbound investment! For example, Sweden's Defence
Research Agency just released a detailed survey of Chinese corporate acquisitions in their
country showing at least half are correlated with the "Made in China 20205" plan.
China will " support a dramatic expansion of US food, agriculture and seafood product
exports " , with the USTR stating the target is to jump to USD40bn in 2020, a USD16bn increase
over the pre-trade war level of USD24bn, and to aim for USD50bn. Part of that reflects China's
decimated pork herd, so is hardly a concession. Yet it is hard to conceive of how the total
figure can be achieved without China using the US to displace agri imports from other nations,
e.g., Argentinean and Brazilian soy, and perhaps Aussie and Kiwi farm goods. That also
increases China's economic exposure to the US at a time of rising geopolitical tensions between
the two (see news of the US' secret expulsion of two Chinese diplomats), and US' farmers
exposure to China in kind. For its part, the Chinese press are not mentioning these US hard
targets, and are talking about WTO trading terms, which bodes poorly.
The financial services chapter pledges China to an opening up already underway as it
searches for new sources of USD inflows, so again is not a concession. Interestingly, it also
says US ratings agencies will get access – which will be fun given the evident credit
stresses emerging in China just as US banks will be trying to sell China as an investment
destination. .
On currency the US is requiring "high-standard commitments" to refrain from competitive
devaluations and targeting of exchange rates. Everyone knows the CNY is not freely-traded
– but also that China is doing its best to prop it up, not to try to push it lower. The
key message is CNY is not going to be allowed to do what it ought to be doing, i.e., weakening,
as China is pledging new fiscal stimulus in 2020 that will decrease its external surplus. That
runs counter to market forces, and smacks of a kind of Plaza Accord. Of course, as long as this
US-China agreement holds that might be sustainable due to the promised higher capital
inflows...
Eexcept the expanding trade chapter implies the opposite. The USTR says China is pledging to
boost its 2020 imports of US goods and services by USD100bn over the level in 2017, and by
USD100bn again in 2021, for a total increase of USD200bn . Given 2017 was pre-trade war and US
exports to China dropped off a cliff in 2019, this means around a 110% y/y increase in
purchases in 2020 – and agri is only a portion of that. The problems should be obvious.
How can a slowing Chinese economy (imports are down y/y from most sources), see this kind of
increase without substituting US for world exports or local goods? How can a China with a USD
liquidity shortage serious enough to be driving said lowered import bill, and
'1USD-in/1USD-out' de facto capital controls, cope with the net reduction on the trade side? As
of November, the 12-month rolling Chinese global trade surplus with the US it was USD330bn and
globally was USD440bn. We are talking about reducing that US figure by 2/3 and the global total
by 1/2!
Which brings us to the last chapter: Dispute Resolution. Getting China to comply is far
harder than getting it to sign. The USTR notes the agreement " establishes strong procedures
for addressing disputes related to the agreement and allows each party to take proportionate
responsive actions that it deems appropriate ." In other words, each side can unilaterally do
what they want when they want! So much for the unilateral US control of the process.
So how to see this in summary? The reduction in tariffs from 15% to 7.5% is a positive,
albeit far less than the Wall Street Journal had promised. (NB, the USTR took the
extraordinary step of publicly chastising the WSJ journalists who wrote that story –
regular readers may recall I have also called them out more than once in the past.) Indeed, if
China really has agreed to all that is stated here then further incremental tariff rollbacks
can be seen – though the USTR has said the 25% tariffs will stay as collateral for a
phase two deal that nobody really expects to happen. Yet the terms of this phase one still seem
to be A Great Deal of Nonsense. How can China stop buying foreign tech? How can it buy as much
US stuff as pledged? How can it do so and not undermine the WTO? How can it do so and not
weaken CNY? And how can it do so with a strong CNY without increasing its USD debts, its
strategic reliance on the USD, and to US goods? In short, if China does as the USTR claims, the
US is a huge winner here (and there are lots of losers); if China does not comply with what
look an impossible import targets, then the US can frame China as the bad guy and the tariffs
can go back up again. Arguably, the question is not if that will happen, but when.
The most important thing about the "phase one" trade agreement announced Friday by U.S. and
Chinese officials is what won't happen: The two countries won't impose additional tariffs on
Sunday that would have further escalated the trade war.
There will also be a bit of de-escalation. In September, Trump imposed 15 percent
tariffs on $110 billion worth of Chinese consumer goods, such as clothing; those tariffs will
be cut in half, to 7.5 percent. But the largest piece of Trump's China tariffs -- a 25 percent
tariff on $250 billion in goods mostly sold to businesses rather than consumers -- will stay
unchanged, for now.
Awaited confirmation by China about the Trade Deal before writing about it. This article is what I
waited to be published: "Phase one trade deal a step forward, a new beginning," yes, an
optimistic tone, although tempered in the text:
"Rome was not built in a day. Trade protectionism has expanded in some places of the
world, affecting some people's thinking. It is not easy for China and the US to agree on the
text of the deal. But how to define this deal and whether it can keep its positive effects
on the global market and even accumulate more positive energy will depend on further efforts
from China and the US , as the global market has been disturbed by the trade war.
" We must see that the first phase of the trade agreement is a win-win outcome which
will deliver tangible benefits to the world . The response from investors around the
world is most real because they would not use their own money just to make a grand gesture.
However, some people in both China and the US may hype that their own country suffers loss
from this deal. This is a natural counter-stream of public opinion, but does not represent
the mainstream attitude on either side." [My Emphasis]
Gee, "benefits for the whole world," not just China and Outlaw US Empire? What forced the
Empire to compromise:
"The US-China trade war happens at a time when the US' strategic thinking on China has
changed. This requires Washington to find a strategic impetus to end the trade war. So what
would be such a strategic impetus?
"We believe as long as the US side is realistic, it is possible that such a strategic
impetus can be formed and gradually expanded. The trade war is not an effective way to
resolve the strategic competition between China and the US. It can neither scare China nor
effectively weaken China, but will cause a gradual rise in the cost of the US economy" .
[My Emphasis]
IMO, China's assessment's correct. The financialized economy of the Evil Outlaw US Empire
has drained it of the resilience it once enjoyed and that China's economy has obtained. Plus,
as I wrote several months ago, China's employing geoeconomic levers which the Empire can no
longer deploy and is thus stuck with using the only remaining tool it has--its waning
geopolitical levers.
Awaited confirmation by China about the Trade Deal before writing about it. This article is what I
waited to be published: "Phase one trade deal a step forward, a new beginning," yes, an
optimistic tone, although tempered in the text:
"Rome was not built in a day. Trade protectionism has expanded in some places of the
world, affecting some people's thinking. It is not easy for China and the US to agree on the
text of the deal. But how to define this deal and whether it can keep its positive effects
on the global market and even accumulate more positive energy will depend on further efforts
from China and the US , as the global market has been disturbed by the trade war.
" We must see that the first phase of the trade agreement is a win-win outcome which
will deliver tangible benefits to the world . The response from investors around the
world is most real because they would not use their own money just to make a grand gesture.
However, some people in both China and the US may hype that their own country suffers loss
from this deal. This is a natural counter-stream of public opinion, but does not represent
the mainstream attitude on either side." [My Emphasis]
Gee, "benefits for the whole world," not just China and Outlaw US Empire? What forced the
Empire to compromise:
"The US-China trade war happens at a time when the US' strategic thinking on China has
changed. This requires Washington to find a strategic impetus to end the trade war. So what
would be such a strategic impetus?
"We believe as long as the US side is realistic, it is possible that such a strategic
impetus can be formed and gradually expanded. The trade war is not an effective way to
resolve the strategic competition between China and the US. It can neither scare China nor
effectively weaken China, but will cause a gradual rise in the cost of the US economy" .
[My Emphasis]
IMO, China's assessment's correct. The financialized economy of the Evil Outlaw US Empire
has drained it of the resilience it once enjoyed and that China's economy has obtained. Plus,
as I wrote several months ago, China's employing geoeconomic levers which the Empire can no
longer deploy and is thus stuck with using the only remaining tool it has--its waning
geopolitical levers.
This year's winner is Branko Milanovic's
Capitalism, Alone: The Future of the System That Rules the World . (This is the second
Globie for Milanovic, who won it in 2016 for Global Inequality .) The book is based on
the premise that capitalism has become the universal form of economic organization. This type
of system is characterized by "production organized for profit using legally free wage labor
and mostly privately owned capital, with decentralized coordination." However, there exist two
different types of capitalism: the liberal meritocratic form that developed in the West, and
state-led political capitalism, which exists primarily in Asia but also parts of Europe and
Africa.
The two models are competitors, in part because of their adoption in different parts of the
world and also because they arose in different circumstances. The liberal meritocratic system
arose from the class capitalism of the late 19th century, which in turn evolved out of
feudalism. Communism, Milanovic writes, took the place of bourgeoise development. Communist
parties in countries such as China and Vietnam overthrew the domestic landlord class as well as
foreign domination. These countries now seek to re-establish their place in the global
distribution of economic power.
Milanovic highlights one characteristic that the two forms of capitalism share: inequality.
Inequality in today's liberal meritocratic capitalism differs from that of classical capitalism
in several features. Capital-rich individuals are also labor-rich, which reinforces the
inequality. Assortative mating leads to more marriages within income classes. The upper classes
use their money to control the political process to maintain their position of privilege.
Because of limited data on income distribution in many of the countries with political
capitalism, Milanovic focuses on inequality in China. He attributes its rise to the gap between
growth in the urban areas versus the rural, as well the difference in growth between the
maritime provinces and those in the western portion of the country. There is also a rising
share of income from capital , as well as a high concentration of capital income. In addition,
corruption has become systemic, as it was before the communist revolution.
The mobility of labor and capital allows capitalism to operate on a global basis.
Migrants from developing economies benefit when they move to advanced economies. But residents
in those countries often fear migration because of its potentially disruptive effect on
cultural norms, despite the positive spillover effects on the domestic economy. Milanovic
proposes granting migrants limited rights, such as a finite term of stay, in order to
facilitate their acceptance. He points out, however, the potential downside of the creation of
an underclass.
Multinational firms have organized global supply chains that give the parent units in their
home countries the ability to coordinate production in different subsidiary units and their
suppliers in their host nations. Consequently, the governments of home countries seek to limit
the transfer of technology to the periphery nations to avoid losing innovation rents. The host
countries, on the other hand, hope to use technology to jump ahead in the development
process.
The Trump administration clearly shares these concerns about the impact of globalization.
President Trump has urged multinational firms to relocate production facilities within the U.S.
Government officials are planning to limit the
export of certain technologies while carefully scrutinizing foreign acquisitions of
domestic firms in tech-related areas. New
restrictions on legal immigration have been enacted that would give priority to a
merit-based system. Moreover, the
concerns over migration are not unique to the U.S.
Milanovic ends with some provocative thoughts about the future of capitalism. One path would
be to a "people's capitalism," in which everyone has an approximately equal share of both
capital and labor income. This would require tax advantages for the middle class combined with
increased taxes on the rich, improvements in the quality of public education, and public
funding of political campaigns. But it is also feasible that there will be a move of liberal
capitalism toward a form of political capitalism based on the rise of the new elite, who wish
to retain their position within society.
Milanovic's book offers a wide-ranging review of many of the features of contemporary
capitalism. He is particularly insightful about the role of corruption in both liberal and
political capitalism. Whether or not it is feasible to reform capitalism in order to serve a
wider range of interests is one of the most important issues of our time.
==quote==
The Trump administration clearly shares these concerns about the impact of globalization.
President Trump has urged multinational firms to relocate production facilities within
the U.S. Government officials are planning to limit the export of certain technologies
while carefully scrutinizing foreign acquisitions of domestic firms in tech-related
areas. New restrictions on legal immigration have been enacted that would give priority
to a merit-based system. Moreover, the concerns over migration are not unique to the
U.S.
== end ==
In plain language that means the collapse of neoliberal globalization.
The take away quotes
"
...... the FT reports that Beijing has ordered all government offices and public institutions
to remove foreign computer equipment and software within three years.
..........
The take home message here is that US PC and software giants are about to lose billions in
sale to Chinese customers, a move that will infuriate Trump who will, correctly, see such
attempts to isolate the Chinese PC market from US vendors.
"
This is going to be difficult for China but they have a domestic OS, the Kylin OS, that is
Unix/Linux based, so much Open Source software is available to replace the Microsoft/Apple
software they currently use until they develop their own.
This speaks to Trump saying he can wait for a trade deal until after the (s)election but
it seems obvious that his negotiating position is going to get weaker by the day.
-------------------------------
Another aspect of the tech war that is financial also is that I am reading the China is on
the cusp of releasing a digital fiat RMD currency. This will have serious disintermediation
effects on the BIS, City of London Corp and others doing currency exchange if any can do such
on their phones. I am reading about digital currencies needing a blockchain underpinning but
if the US dollar can exist without one currently then what are the show stoppers except the
private finance dead weight in the middle?
As the Chicago revolution took hold, Bork's views crept into the judiciary. Eventually in a
fit of activism, the courts did away with the prohibition on predatory pricing. In its 1993
decision in Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation , the United
States Supreme Court completely re-imagined the Robinson-Patman Act.
The case originally involved the tobacco oligopoly controlled by six firms. Liggett had
introduced a cheap generic cigarette and gained market share. When Brown & Williamson saw
that generics were undercutting their shares, it undercut Liggett and sold cigarettes at a
loss. Liggett sued, alleging that the predatory behavior was designed to pressure it to raise
prices on its generics, thus enabling Brown & Williamson to maintain high profits on
branded cigarettes.
In its decision, the Court held that in order for there to be a violation of the Clayton Act
and the Robinson-Patman Act, a plaintiff must show not only that the alleged predator priced
the product below the cost of its production but also that the predator would be likely to
recoup the losses in the future. The recoupment test dealt a death blow to predatory pricing
lawsuits because it is, of course, impossible to prove a future event.
The Supreme Court parroted Bork, noting that "predatory pricing
schemes are rarely tried, and even more rarely successful ." The Court also argued that it was
best not to pursue predatory pricing cases because doing so would "chill the very conduct the
antitrust laws are designed to protect."
The result has been severe. After 1993, no plaintiff alleging predatory pricing has
prevailed at the federal level, and most cases are thrown out in summary judgement. The DOJ and
FTC have completely ignored the law and ceased enforcing it.
Through judicial activism and executive neglect, the laws regarding antitrust and predatory
pricing have become odd relics, like those on greased pigs and cannibalism.
Predatory pricing is symptomatic of the broader problems when it comes to antitrust. Today,
except in extreme circumstances such as outright monopoly, courts are unlikely to block mergers
over an increase in market concentration. The Supreme Court has now tilted so far the other way
that it prefers to allow too much concentration rather than too little. It made this clear in
its Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP decision, where
it stated its preference for minimizing incorrect merger challenges rather than preventing
excessive concentration.
In the Trinko case, for example, Justice Scalia suggested that those who enforce
antitrust laws ought to be deferential to firms with monopoly power, which are "an important
element of a free market system."
Scalia continued: "Against the slight benefits of antitrust intervention here, we must weigh
a realistic assessment of its costs ." The opportunity to acquire monopoly power and charge
monopoly prices is "what attracts 'business acumen' in the first place," he said, and "induces
risk taking that produces innovation and economic growth." He wrote that the "mere possession
of monopoly power, and the concomitant charging of monopoly prices, is not only not unlawful;
it is an important element of the free-market system."
The result of all this has been an increase of monopolies. Professor John Kwoka reviewed
decades of merger cases and concluded that "recent merger control has not been sufficiently
aggressive in challenging mergers." The overall effect has been "approval of significantly more
mergers that prove to be anticompetitive."
The Sherman Act and the Robinson-Patman Act may be deeply misguided; perhaps they should
even be repealed. But they haven't been. Passing new legislation is the proper way to change
laws one disagrees with. Getting rid of them in practice via judicial activism or an an
unwilling executive is not democratic.
The death of antitrust and predatory pricing reflects not only a failure of jurisprudence
but of economics. For all the claims of up-to-the-minute economic sophistication that activist
judges have used in the field of antitrust, the scholarship on predatory pricing is wildly out
of date. Brooke made Robinson-Patman irrelevant by citing "modern" economic
scholarship, yet the research the Supreme Court relied on goes back to studies by John McGee
and Roland Koller, published in 1958 and 1969 respectively.
Predatory pricing has only become more rational in a world where winner-take-all platforms
are happy to sustain short-term losses for the sake of long-term market share gains. What they
lose on one side with free shipping or below cost products, they make up for in other parts of
their business.
The rationality of predatory pricing is not some new economic finding. Almost 20 years ago,
Patrick
Bolton , a professor at Columbia Business School, wrote that "several sophisticated
empirical case studies have confirmed the use of predatory pricing strategies. But the courts
have failed to incorporate the modern writing into judicial decisions, relying instead on
earlier theory no longer generally accepted."
According to Bork, predatory pricing didn't work in theory, but does it work in practice?
Antitrust experts remember the Brooke case, but none seem to recall what actually
happened to the companies involved in the lawsuit.
After the Supreme Court decision left it without any legal remedy, Liggett succumbed to
pressure from Brown & Williamson and raised its prices. The entire industry raised prices
too. In the end, Liggett was not able to attract enough market share and ended up selling most
of its brands to Phillip Morris a few years later. Ever since, the tobacco oligopoly has raised
prices in lockstep twice a year with no competition. No company is foolish enough to lower
prices for fear of predatory pricing.
The losers from the judicial activism of Brooke are consumers and the rule of law.
The winners are the oligopolies and monopolies who protect their markets.
When it comes to enforcing antitrust, it's worth remembering the words of Robert Bork. As he
wrote in 1971 in his seminal piece " Neutral
Principles and Some First Amendment Problems ," "If the judiciary really is supreme, able
to rule when and as it sees fit, the society is not democratic."
The Supremes have been the Federal legislature since 1803. Recommending restraint is the
same thing as ordering one party in a legislature to surrender to the opposite party
regardless of majorities.
Monopolization is the core of Free Market economics. Free, literally, means free to become
a monopoly, free to practice vulture capitalism, free to use superior capitalization to
destroy competition, free to move your factory to China.
Free Market is a buzz phrase among bankers and other well-to-do to increase their income
at your expense instead of through superior production, design, and advertising methods. If
you want to know why we live in such a dysfunctional economy, its because we've abandoned
competitive capitalism for a free market economy.
Adam Smith (yes, that Adam Smith) noted in Wealth of Nations that if you put
two competing businessmen in a room together, not only do they get along just fine, their
conversation quickly turns to the subject of how they can work work together to rig markets
and screw the consumer for moar profitt.
Adam Smith was a much more interesting and sophisticated thinker than the B-school
Cliffs Notes version.
I think we could us more purist views of capitalism in conversations about capitalism. The
kinds of behaviors engaged designed to put others out of business described in the article
is not exemplary of capitalism.
The purpose of capitalism is not explicated with models of destroying competition. And
it certainly does not have mechanisms in which the government acts as an arm of business.
The notion that the business of "America" (the US) is business is misleading. Because when
it comes the government of the US her role is to ensure fair play. And power dynamics used
to destroy the ability of another to tap into the available market share is not a
capitalist principle. When one reads about the level and kinds of antics that corporate
boards and CEO's play to damage competition, to include the use of campaign funds to "buy"
or influence unique favors at cost to consumers - then we are talking about kind of faux
"law of the jungle". Bailing out business but not the defrauded customers of those same
businesses -- mercantilism not capitalism.
And it is these types of behaviors guised as capitalism, that fuels liberal demands for
a system of governance that is more akin to communism and socialism. They note the abuses,
but apply the wrong remedy.
I would agree that predatory pricing actually undercuts better pricing, improved
products or innovation (product creativity).
Conservatives are outraged, still, that Democrats refused to confirm Bork to the Supreme
Court.
Never mind the fact the Democrats were fully within their rights not to confirm, advise
and consent does not mean rubber stamp, Bork was the guy who actually carried out Nixon's
Saturday Night Massacre. Why would conservatives want a corrupt and unethical person like
this in the Supreme Court in the first place?
Conservatives' outraged is very ironic considering Reagan still got to nominate another
candidate, which the Dems confirmed. Meanwhile in a completely unprecedented and vindictive
move, Republicans denied a Democratic president outright his right to a Supreme Court
appointment. There is no comparison between these two episodes.
I have long thought that paul singer is representative of the worst people in the world
(argentina wtf)
and I'm glad carlson put his face up there so many times for his victims to see, in case he
ever ventures out of mordor undisguised. For all the money he has, a truly worthless pos, as
the closing comment made so clear. Good for Carlson, though, almost seems like actual
journalism. Kudos.
Glad to see someone in the MSM point out the obvious .Carlson called out Singer, but in
doing so he also called out the Republican Party, specifically Sen. Ben Sasse from Nebraska.
It will be interesting to see if Sasse is reelected.
Nebraskans – R and D both – should toss Sasse to the curb. He's angered
regular bat-poo crazy Republicans by his "never Trump" blather, then angered Nebraska
Democrats (both of us) by voting Trump/GOP well over 90 percent of the time.
Add to this his folksy BS appearances in the media and his execrable books, and he's a
classic empty suit. Closer to a straight Republican Mayor Pete than any thing else –
over-credentialed, over-ambitious and under performing.
Our Nebraska Democratic Party problem is two-fold: incredibly thin bench for decent
candidates and preponderance of Clinton/Obama/HRC leftovers running the state party. Will be
knocking on doors for Bernie come 2020 but state races are iffy at best.
Tucker has good sense. Perhaps Paul Singer is probably retiring from vultury. He's old and
it's a nasty fight. Singer is at the end of a 30 year stint of dispossessing other people.
Being vicious really isn't enough to keep the federal government at bay. Nor are his bribes.
There has been an unspoken policy of dispossessing poor and middle class people. Why? Is the
United States actually looking at a specific future? That wouldn't align with the free market
– tsk tsk. Or would it? Live free, die free. Somebody needs to define the word "free".
Did TPTB decide to deindustrialize this country that long ago? That's when they attacked the
unions. And the consensus might have been, "Go for it; get it while you can." So Paul Singer
did just that, along with other creepy people like Mitt Romney. Because once the country has
been hosed out by these guys we won't be pushing the old capitalist economy at all. We will
be pushing a globally connected, sustainable economy. Paul Singer is just a dung beetle. And
our government didn't want to discuss it because they would have had to create a safety net.
If we despise Singer, we must also despise Congress.
If we despise Singer, we must also despise Congress. -Susan the Other
Agreed. I think you can argue Congress (and the Executive Branch) have done more to help
the Chinese middle class than the American middle class over the last 30 years. Co-locating
our industrial base with the CCP on communist soil should be looked upon as the most radical
policy in our history but is not. Imagine if at the height of the Cold War we had told
Kruschev hey..how about you make all the stuff we need and we'll pay you $20 or $30T in trade
surplus over a number of years in hard currency which you can then parlay into geopolitical
power in Africa, South America, the ME and else where. What would the America of the fifties
think of this policy?
>Because once the country has been hosed out by these guys we won't be pushing the old
capitalist economy at all. We will be pushing a globally connected, sustainable economy.
Tucker Carlson Tears into Vulture Capitalist Paul Singer for Strip Mining American Towns
Posted on
December 5, 2019
by
Yves Smith
In a bit of synchronicity, Lambert gave a mini-speech tonight that dovetails with an important Tucker
Carlson segment about how hedge funds are destroying flyover. As UserFriendly lamented, "It is beyond sad
that Tucker Carlson is doing better journalism than just about anywhere else." That goes double given that
Carlson has only short segments and TV isn't well suited to complicated arguments.
Lambert fondly recalled the America he grew up in in Indiana, before his parents moved to Maine, where
most people were comfortable or at least not in perilous shape, where blue collar labor, like working in a
factory or repairing cars, was viewed with respect, and where cities and towns were economic and social
communities, with their own businesses and local notables, and national chain operations were few. Yes,
there was an underbelly to this era of broadly shared economic prosperity, such as gays needing to be
closeted and women having to get married if they wanted a decent lifestyle.
I'm not doing his remarks justice, but among other things, the greater sense of stability contributed to
more people being able to be legitimately optimistic. If you found a decent job, you weren't exposed to
MBA-induced downsizings or merger-induced closures. Even in the transitional 1970s, Lambert got his first
job in a mill! He liked his work and was able to support himself, rent an apartment, and enjoy some modest
luxuries. Contrast that with the economic status of a Walmart clerk or an Amazon warehouse worker. And even
now, the small towns that remain cling to activities that bring people together, as Lambert highlighted in
Water Cooler earlier this week:
Please watch this clip in full. Carlson begins with an unvarnished description of the wreckage that
America's heartlands have become as financial predators have sucked local businesses dry, leaving shrunken
communities, poverty and drug addiction in their wake.
Readers may wonder why Carlson singles out hedge funds rather than private equity, but he has
courageously singled out one of the biggest political forces in DC, the notorious vulture capitalist Paul
Singer, best known for his pitched battles with Peru and Argentina after he bought their debt at
knocked-down prices. Carlson describes some US examples from his
rapacious
playbook, zeroing on Delphi, where Singer got crisis bailout money and then shuttered most US
operation, and Cabela's, where a Singer-pressured takeover wrecked one of the few remaining prosperous
American small towns, Sidney, Nebraska. Not only are former employees still afraid of Singer, but even
Carlson was warned against taking on the famously vindictive Singer.
Kev said; "It will also slit your throat tomorrow."
This, aggressive mergers and acquisitions, has been going on for a very long time and everybody
always says that but I have yet to see any wealthy person suffer more than a small loss of a point or
2.
The fact is thats where we are at with capitalism. Money MUST become more money. There are no
outside considerations not even human life.
We all talk about robots going rogue and killing off humanity. Well money is already doing that.
Sound of the Suburbs, your comment suggests that this is the way things are and that there is nothing
to do about it, but that is wrong. It's not inherent to markets or to nature. In fact, "it's not even
hard" because we have agreed to it as part of the social contract, and created policies that enable it.
We can reverse the calculation by changing the tax rules, accounting rules, and legal liability rules and
this calculation reverses. TLDR; vote Bernie.
Which "we" are you talking about? You assume an entity with agency, when there is no such thing.
How do YOU suggest "WE" rewrite the non-existent "social contract?" Or change the tax rules, the
accounting rules, the Delaware corporations law, the Federal Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure,
the current contents of the Code of Federal Regulations, the United States Code and all the other
trappings of legitimacy that give "us" the looting we suffer and remove any access to 'agency" to
re-fix things? I hope Bernie wins/is allowed to win, but he would need the skills of a Machiavelli and
Richelieu and Bismarck to "drain the swamp" of all the horrible creatures and muck that swirls there.
Not to say it's not worth trying "our" mope-level damndest to make it happen.
That said – it doesn't seem to me that Cabelas was 'forced' to sell. Singer owned less than 12% of the
stock. Is he to blame for either managerial greed, or lack of cojones? I'm not praising Singer, just saying
ISTM that he had couldn't have succeeded there without the greed or cowardice of management. I could be
wrong.
Carlson said this behavior is banned in the UK, how does that work?
Tthis is standard operating procedure for takeovers and greenmail in the US. First, 11% is going to be
way way above average trading volumes. Second, unless management owns a lot of shares or has large blocks
in the hands of loyal friends, many investors will follow the money and align with a greenmailer.
When a hostile player is forced to announce that he has a stake >5% by the SEC's 13-D filing
requirement, managements start sweating bullets. "Activist" hedge funds regularly make tons of trouble
with 10% to 15% stakes. CalPERS was a very effective activist investor in its glory years (not even
hostile but pushing hard for governance changes) with much smaller stakes.
The New York Post, which is very strong on covering hedge funds, confirms Carlson's take. From a 2016
article:
Hedgie Paul Singer hit another bull's-eye with his Cabela's investment.
Singer's Elliott Management bought an 11 percent stake in the hunting supply chain last October and
pressed the Springfield, Mo., chain to pursue strategic alternatives -- including a sale.
On Monday, his suggestion was heeded as the 55-year-old company said it agreed to a $5.5 billion,
$65.50-per-share takeover offer from rival Bass Pro Shops.
For Singer, who purchased much of his Cabela's stake at between $36 and $40 a share, Monday's news
means that the fund gained roughly 72 percent on its investment.
The same story depicts Singer as able to exert pressure with even smaller interests:
The hedge fund had an 8.8 percent stake in the company and was expected to net $58 million in
profits, The Post reported.
Elliott, which in June announced a 4.7 stake in PulteGroup, named three board members to the
Atlanta-based homebuilding company.
Last Thursday, it readied a new target, taking an 8.1 percent stake in Mentor Graphics, a
Wilsonville, Ore.-based developer of electronic design automation software.
Since then, shares of the company have risen 6 percent, to $26.24.
Mentor represents a "classic" Elliott investment, a source close to the matter told The Post,
adding that it is a "perfect time" for the company to sell itself.
You have a gift for explaining these things to people with a lot of education but not in finance. I
was confused by this, too, until I read your comment.
"CalPERS was a very effective activist investor in its glory years (not even hostile but pushing
hard for governance changes) with much smaller stakes."
Does that mean they pulled the same parasitical stripping of companies to raise money to help pay
pensions?
But, since it represents public employees and their paymasters, the taxpayers, couldn't CALPERS be
forced to only effect deals that create the most employment, ideally in California, rather than
destroy it? i.e. a ban on job destroying deals.
That would be a long term investment in California, rather than a short term means to raise cash,
no?
Tucker Carlson has taken remarkably courageous positions on a number of issues, including Syria,
Ukraine, Russia, etc.
Matt Stoller tweets praise of Carlson's report on Singer:
"There is a real debate on the right.
@TuckerCarlson just guts billionaire Paul Singer over the destruction of a Nebraska town through
financial predation. And Carlson is merciless towards Senator @BenSasse for taking $$$ and remaining
silent."
I have noticed a considerable uptick in comments across a whole range of sites about things "going to
get biblical".
When the next downturn happens there seems to be every indication that it's going to be on an
unprecedented scale.
Traditionally that's always seem to be time to have a good war, you can get the country to focus on an
external common enemy, you can ramp up industrial production providing full employment and you can use
national security to clamp down on dissent. Nuclear weapons seems to have put paid to that idea unless
our leaders convince themselves that they can survive and flourish in their bunkers (while simultaneously
relieving themselves of a large surplus of global population)
The populations willing embrace of the security state through all our electronic devices will be a large
hurdle for revolutionary elements as well as the crushing of dissent via institutions like the FBI and
the mainstream media.
The French and the Russians succeeded in the past. I doubt if I will either live long enough to see it
(being old) or even less likely to live through it.
Biblical in the OT sense. In the NT going biblical was a sacrifice.
I'm not fond of the phrase as it is a euphemism for violence or war. Under that definition, the US,
through declared and undeclared wars, has been going biblical for most of my life.
In the Jimmy Dore show this is almost a running joke now: He shows a clip with Tucker Carlson, where
Tucker is doing what you would expect the "liberal" media to do, like going against the deep state,
criticizing regime change wars (a few times with Tusi as his guest), or something like this great piece
against Singer and the hedge funds. Jimmy Dore then, each time, shakes his head in disbelief and asks, "Why
the hell is Tucker Carlson the only one who is allowed to say things like this? Its a mystery! I dont get
it!"
-- indeed: Why, and why on Fox News?
Because it sells. Can't let RT steal all the money with anti-war voices, Watching the Hawks, Jesse
Ventura, On Contact with Chris Hedges, these shows have viewership, and the Fox news owners know it.
Perhaps they'll have to make Tucker Carlson FOX, the TCFOX news channel. An anti-establishment,
pro-capitalism libertarianesque program experience, where they can decry all the pro-war democrats, and
RINO's, while making a case that capitalism isn't working cause of "big government".
Of course "private property" requiires state enforcement, which, when you remind libertarians that
they are "statists", they don't like that too much
It sells, but also doesn't pose a real threat to the powers that be. He creates very accurate,
specific, personally moving, well-produced, diagnoses of problems (he even names names!)
Then he and his ilk imply that the only solution is to magically create a government free white
Christian ethnostate where the good non-corrupt capitalists (like, as he states in this video, the
rockefellers and carnegies apparently were) will bring us back to the good ol days.
I strongly recommend sitting down for a good long policy discussion with a Tucker Carlson fan. In
my experience they will, without exception, go to great lengths to convince you that a vote for Bernie
will, undoubtedly, make all the problems Tucker describes worse, cuz gubmint bad and racist dog
whistles.
I suspect absent Carlson and his ilk, Bernie would actually have an easier time making inroads into
the republican base.
I heard no Carlson mention of "magically create a government free white Christian ethnostate
where the good non-corrupt capitalists (like, as he states in this video, the rockefellers and
carnegies apparently were) will bring us back to the good ol days."
Carlson seemed to suggest that prior US capitalists "felt some obligation" while, to me,
implying that current US capitalist versions do not feel this obligation.
Bernie could show he will listen to good ideas from all sides, even when the ideas surface on
Fox.
Carlson did mention some "countries have banned this kind of behavior, including the United
Kingdom" which suggests legislative changes are possible.
If Bernie were to pitch a legislative fix, he might pick up some Tucker Carlson fans.
Maybe Bernie might get mentioned favorably by Carlson.
Carnegie built hundreds of public libraries, Rockefeller donated thousands of acres of land,
Sears founder
Julius Rosenwald funded the beginnings of the NAACP.
Well, we can agree to disagree on whether or not Carlson's regularly invoked vision of
deserving Americans is racist or ethnocentric, and I'll admit his view of the role of
government can seem a bit schizophrenic at times – as far as I can tell he has strongly
libertarian sensibilities but in recent years figured out that "free" markets do, in fact,
require government regulations.
But I do strongly recommend reading a few social/economic histories of the US from the
industrial revolution through the beginning of the great depression.
I promise those fellows you mention were not quite so swell as Tucker makes out, and that
the relationship between philanthropy and capital hasn't changed as much as you seem to
think.
I'll just say this, if I were playing for the other team so to speak, and I were a GOP strategist
trying to secure a future for the party, the easy move would be to adopt a degree of populist rhetoric
and at least make some gestures towards easing the pain of towns which have been rendered post-industrial
wastelands by people like Singer and acknowledge what's been done. It would be almost comically easy to
paint the Democrats as the political party of globalized capitalism (because they are), even more so
because most of the places that are key liberal constituencies are also centers of the financial industry
(Manhattan and San Fransisco, for example). It wouldn't take much to graft the loathing of "urban elites"
in these communities onto PE and hedge funds. This, combined with toning down the nationalist rhetoric,
cutting back on the racism and homophobia (hell, even just keeping your mouth shut about it) would pretty
much build an unstoppable electoral majority.
Back in the days when I was more optimistic about the Democrats, I always tried to warn people that if
the Democrats (and other center left parties) waited too long and let the GOP be the first ones to the
lifeboats when neoliberalism started to sink, they'd get stuck holding the bag even if the GOP had more
to do with those policies historically. But pursuing this strategy would imply that the GOP is somehow
less beholden to its donors than the Democrats, which it isn't, but maybe Tucker Carlson is the canary in
the coal mine. Even people on the right realize the jig is up, and that they better start trying to cut
some kind of deal with the rising populist currents in US politics if they want to stay in power.
Tucker Carlson on Fox is making sense, while MSNBC and CNN peddle nonsense. What better reason to cancel
your cable and say adios to the fakery and programming.
In other unrelated news, Paul Singer has announced that he is providing funding to the Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research to try and understand why so many "flyover" Americans give their votes to
Trump. "It's a mystery. I have no idea why they would not vote for a good Republican candidate instead –
like my boy Mitt Romney" he stated. "Why would they do that? Maybe I should run for President like my buddy
Mike. Then they could all vote for me. Or else!"
Reading his Wikipedia page, I notice that he only donates money to things that effect him personally. He
went to Harvard so he gives to Harvard. He lives in New York so he gives money to the Food bank and the
Police – which both serve to keep the place calm. He is Jewish so he gives a ton to money to pro-Israel
causes. He votes Republican so he helps fund Republicans that will defend wealthy people like him. One son
comes out as gay so he gives to same-sex marriage & LGBTQ causes. He provides money to organizations that
fight taxes being imposed on wealthy people like himself. It is a very narrow circle of concerns that he
has. And the vast bulk of Americans are outside this circle I note.
But of all people to call him on his part in destroying the real economy of the United States. That which
actually makes stuff and does stuff instead of financial bs. Of all the people to do so it is
Tucker-goddamnn-Carlson. And on Fox News to boot. The same person that "liberal" protesters were
demonstrating outside his home with his family inside because they did not like his beliefs. It is kinda
funny when you think about it. A right wing commentator is attacking the Left. But from their left.
It is kinda funny when you think about it. A right wing commentator is attacking the Left. But from
their left.
What better proof that there is no Left left in the Left any more? Today's Left is to the right of
what used to be the Centre, Liberals are what used to be Conservative and Conservatives have moved into
"here there be dragons" territory. .
This is nonsense, the DSA for example is to the right of what used to be the Center? They aren't
left enough for some, including some of their members I suspect but .. But the left period has little
actual power is the thing. And it's all about taking power.
Like I've mentioned previously – politically .. our society has gone through a phase-shift. Mr.
Carlson is but just one example. So are those of us who held our noses, after seeing how transparently
conniving the DNC et al were, and voted for the Julius de Orange !
"the crushing of dissent via institutions like the FBI and the mainstream media"
This will be unnecessary. Recent research indicates that when people feel like they are being
watched, they self-censor.
The growing number of activist special interest groups with a myriad of hot topics and disparate
worldviews and interests just about guarantees that anything you say other than parroting the current
majority opinion will offend someone.
Couple that with murky legal powers, the unpredictability of the Twitter/Instagram mob, doxing, and
the expansion, both in extent and number of players, of ubiquitous surveillance, and significant
dissent becomes more and more a thing of the past.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the growing unreliability of political polls?
There is a populist Left. Its figurehead is Bernie but there are growing local/state organizations
like the DSA that may become relevant nationally in the not-too-distant future. AOC is a
current/future leader for this faction.
There is a populist Right. Its figurehead is Trump. From what I can tell, they're primarily online
but are also gaining strength in traditional conservative institutions like churches, community orgs,
etc.. Tucker appeals to this group. Josh Hawley is a Senator from MO with presidential ambitions who I
expect will lead this faction after Trump is gone. He is the slick-but-folksy and deadly serious
neo-Fascist type many on this board worry/warn about taking power if a real Left does not arise to
counter it/him.
Then there is the establishment elites (or ruling class, or deep state, whatever), which are
primarily Neoliberal (domestic policy) and Neoconservative (foreign policy). There have long been
these types in both parties, differing only by degree, but Trump has forced most of the "liberal"
Republicans into the D party. This group controls the money and most of the key institutions,
particularly the major media, tech, energy, and financial corporations, but their grip is slipping and
the mask is falling off. Some will side with the populist Left, but most will welcome the new Fascism,
i.e. the DNC apparatchiks who would rather lose to Trump than win with Bernie.
Mitt Romney, Bain Capital, another species of parasite, sucking some of the last marrow out of the
bones of America. Beware of billionaires who demonstrate that they are aliens to our society.
I read Tucker Carlsons book "ship of fools". It is all in there: criticism of the war fare state, Wall
Street, TBTF bail outs a.s.o. He spares neither Republicans nor Democrats. Kinda crazy but he voices more or
less exactly what Sanders is saying as well. Except he doesn´t get "Medicare for all" and he is social
conservative. Still you might think that there is enough common ground to work together. Instead we get
crazy idendity politics. I more and more believe that it is indeed so that the people on top have realised
that "identity politics" is the best thing that ever happened to them: divice et impera. Divide and rule as
already the Romans knew
And the biggest threat from Tucker Carlson is that the lower orders will believe that
Carlson-cum-Trump are as much their friend as Sanders. One of the longest-standing Idpol divisions in
US history has been unions vs. scabs. Over the past half-century, the Democratic Party has realigned
its public image in favor of the scabs. The union leadership stayed with the Dems, but the
rank-and-file long ago moved over to the Repubs. Old wine, new bottle.
Unions were weakened and made easier to destroy using IdPol. First by encouraging banning,
sometimes expelling, blacks from the various unions and secondly getting rid of first the
communists, then the socialists, and finally those deemed too liberal (not conservative enough).
Although the efforts by business interests, often helped by government at all levels, to
segregate unions was mainly in the 19th century and the "Better Dead Than Red" campaign was in the
20th especially after 1947, the use of racism and anti-leftism was done in both centuries.
You can see similar successful splintering of the Civil Rights Movements. First separating the
Suffragettes from from the anti-racism efforts. Then later the efforts to unite the Women's Rights
Movement with the successful efforts against racism was the 1960s were thwarted.
Let us just say that reform movement of the past two centuries has been splintered. The earlier
women's rights and the abolitionists, blacks and whites throughout the unions, suffragettes and the
anti lynching efforts, communists from everyone else, anti poverty from equal rights ( MLK did get
lead poisoning when he tried) and so.
So when I see the latest efforts to use IdPol to split poor people from everyone else or blacks
from whites, and see people falling for the same tactics I just lose my mind. Obviously.
You might think but you'd be wrong. St Clair in Counterpunch calls hims Tuckkker Carlson–apparently
because Carlson agrees with Trump on things like immigration. I read Carlson's book too and would say
only about half of it was material I would agree with. But the notion that anyone who doesn't stand up to
IDPol standards is a villain is crushing the left. They obsess over Trump while the wealthy of both
parties wreck the country.
I'd go along sooner with Tucker Carlson than Mr. St Clair, whose CP smeared both Caitlin Johnstone
and CJ Hopkins. St Clair and CP are controlled "oppo", IMO.
The commenter you were replying to had it right: divide et impera is the order of the day;
sometimes from unexpected sources, like the one mentioned above.
Great post! TC has strode out of the Fox News subset of the Overton window a number of times in recent
years.
PS: Yves, some introductory text to the part about Lambert's speech apparently didn't make it into the
post. It would fit between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs.
In my opinion, Tucker Carlson represents a very real and very active right-libertarian view that has been
consistently present within the Republican Party for decades. Anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-big
business/pro-small business, and of course, anti-big union. Robert Taft comes to mind. I don't share their
"ideologies" but as a self-described socialist, I am deeply attracted to their criticisms. And criticisms
ARE important and necessary, even if the solutions are left wanting. I dearly hope that his popularity is a
sign of the realignment of politics, where issues of class and war become commonplace and issues of "to
impeach or not to impeach" fall by the wayside. I recognize that my hopes may not turn to realities.
But for an employee it makes no difference if they work for a big or small business (only big business
on average is LESS exploitative if anything – if for no other reason but they can afford to be – some of
the worst exploitation out there is employees working for small business owners).
Exactly,
right
libertarian. Within the libertarian spectrum there are real and then
royal libertarians, Tucker is of the latter.
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
What are his immigration views? Are people motivated to come here because this global vulture octopus
thing has ruined their home market?
I have long thought that paul singer is representative of the worst people in the world (argentina wtf)
and I'm glad carlson put his face up there so many times for his victims to see, in case he ever ventures
out of mordor undisguised. For all the money he has, a truly worthless pos, as the closing comment made so
clear. Good for Carlson, though, almost seems like actual journalism. Kudos.
If we assume that good mergers achieve cost savings which ultimately benefit the consumer (they very
often do, assuming a good merger), is it better that a relatively large number of people save money on
goods, or that a relatively smaller number of people keep duplicate, unnecessary jobs?
Can you name such a good merger? Mergers by definition must reduce competition, and by classical
Liberal theory competition is what reduces prices for consumers.
In Neoliberal theory monopoly is the just reward for beating the competition. Sorry consumers! Bad
luck workers!
By what criteria do you deem a job unnecessary? Neoliberal criteria.
Here are some ways a merger can be bad for the US consumer.
If a merger results in employee pensions being transferred to the Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation (US government funded) then employee pension costs are being transferred to the US
taxpayer/consumer.
Or consider that a merger might create a monopoly that can raise consumer prices.
How does one determine that a proposed merger will be a good one that will "ultimately benefit the
consumer."?
Good morning Yves.
Tucker Carlson invoke Paul Singer noted ultra vulture as vehicle to transport Yves, others to Fox News
Commentary!
Seems the Good Night and Good Luck segue from Edward R Murro via Keith Olbermann to Tucker Carlson is
complete.
Thank you for this. It is a story that has been repeated countless times across the country, including
the midwestern town where I was born and raised.
As for Carlson being the only source of occasional light in the MSM -- the clarification continues. It has
truly become Bizarro World.
I wonder if the powers at be at Fox News allow Tucker to go on these rants because they know two things:
1.) 99% of bought and paid for Republican politicians will never do anything about this except perhaps some
lip service here and there.
2.) The fact that it's on Fox News will cause the Vichy left to not believe it's real or perhaps a Russian
phy op against American capitalism. Thus outside of the Sanders camp there will be no push/support for any
change.
Glad to see someone in the MSM point out the obvious .Carlson called out Singer, but in doing so he also
called out the Republican Party, specifically Sen. Ben Sasse from Nebraska. It will be interesting to see if
Sasse is reelected.
Nebraskans – R and D both – should toss Sasse to the curb. He's angered regular bat-poo crazy
Republicans by his "never Trump" blather, then angered Nebraska Democrats (both of us) by voting
Trump/GOP well over 90 percent of the time.
Add to this his folksy BS appearances in the media and his execrable books, and he's a classic empty
suit. Closer to a straight Republican Mayor Pete than any thing else – over-credentialed, over-ambitious
and under performing.
Our Nebraska Democratic Party problem is two-fold: incredibly thin bench for decent candidates and
preponderance of Clinton/Obama/HRC leftovers running the state party. Will be knocking on doors for
Bernie come 2020 but state races are iffy at best.
In a wacky pre apocalyptic world, truth and justice is pined for by many. Conservation is a critical
requirement. I now look at what is true and what is not, I know, very subjective. Those folks that tell us
to do things that harm us are transparent. We follow them at our peril.
I consider Sanders the most conservative option we have for the nation. He intends to 'conserve' our nation
and the people first. Something we have not had for decades, or ever, perhaps. Giving the people with the
most to lose a voice in how things move forward is a critical point of distinction from the rest of the
field.
so vote conservative. Protect that which makes us whole. Stop the looting and take back what has been stolen
to benefit all instead of a small clique of criminals.
But I'm an optimist.
Tucker has good sense. Perhaps Paul Singer is probably retiring from vultury. He's old and it's a nasty
fight. Singer is at the end of a 30 year stint of dispossessing other people. Being vicious really isn't
enough to keep the federal government at bay. Nor are his bribes. There has been an unspoken policy of
dispossessing poor and middle class people. Why? Is the United States actually looking at a specific future?
That wouldn't align with the free market – tsk tsk. Or would it? Live free, die free. Somebody needs to
define the word "free". Did TPTB decide to deindustrialize this country that long ago? That's when they
attacked the unions. And the consensus might have been, "Go for it; get it while you can." So Paul Singer
did just that, along with other creepy people like Mitt Romney. Because once the country has been hosed out
by these guys we won't be pushing the old capitalist economy at all. We will be pushing a globally
connected, sustainable economy. Paul Singer is just a dung beetle. And our government didn't want to discuss
it because they would have had to create a safety net. If we despise Singer, we must also despise Congress.
If we despise Singer, we must also despise Congress.
-Susan the Other
Agreed. I think you can argue Congress (and the Executive Branch) have done more to help the Chinese
middle class than the American middle class over the last 30 years. Co-locating our industrial base with
the CCP on communist soil should be looked upon as the most radical policy in our history but is not.
Imagine if at the height of the Cold War we had told Kruschev hey..how about you make all the stuff we
need and we'll pay you $20 or $30T in trade surplus over a number of years in hard currency which you can
then parlay into geopolitical power in Africa, South America, the ME and else where. What would the
America of the fifties think of this policy?
>Because once the country has been hosed out by these guys we won't be pushing the old capitalist
economy at all. We will be pushing a globally connected, sustainable economy.
Tucker Carlson has been making comments like this for a long time. And he's not a libertarian. He
believes in regulated capitalism.
What we might be seeing is a the beginning of the two parties flipping from left to right on economic
issues. The social issues just obscure it, as they were designed to do.
the only question then is to what extent social issues DERAIL the economic issues then. If social
issues mean paid family leave must be opposed for example because women oughta be barefoot and pregnant,
then that's derailing of real concrete material benefits period. Of course progressive socially is where
demographics trend.
But of course using the example of paid family leave, we're starting from a country with almost no
safety net to begin with, and there are bigger problems with the labor market as well (people having gig
jobs with NO benefits, they aren't going to be helped by policy changes to job provided benefits period).
Medicare for All is the issue that most incisively cuts through this ruling-class kayfabe. Both the
top-dog Dems and the top-dog Repubs get their jollies having their boots licked by workers in abject fear
for the health and life of their families. It is a neon testosterone line that neither Carlson nor Trump
will cross.
I find a good explanation for many behaviors is the human practice of favoring people in their circle of
acquaintances, friends and families, and showing some degree of contempt to others.
Some phrases
He (She) is not one of us! (Typically in an upper class UK accent)
The Others (Typically in a string ulster accent)
Not on our team (US)
He's a Catholic
He's a peasant
The attitude of "them and us" coupled with Greed, appears to drive many bad Human behaviors.
Indeed! My libertarian friend* is all about helping friends and family, I have seen him do it many
times. I totally agree with him, but I have concluded that his definition of "friends and family" is just
somewhat more restrictive than mine.
* True convo: "What about if listeria in the bologna at the nursing home kills your granny?" "Ah, a
whacking great lawsuit!"
Paul Singer is leading the hedge fund group that is trying to take over PG&E from the existing
stockholders/hedge funds through the bankruptcy process. He even offered more money to PG&E fire victims
($2.5B), that PG&E almost met (they want to pay part of the funds in stock).
Does anyone have an idea how he plans to make money by taking over PG&E? While the stock is very low, its
chance of going back to where it was is very low. Besides, PG&E is under pressure to actually maintain and
fire proof the distribution/transmission system and that won't be cheap.
Here's Jon Stewart roasting Tucker Carlson back in 2006 when he was just a clown with a bow-tie. A rare
and well deserved confrontation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
Since then Tucker has ditched his bow-tie and developed a conscience.
We used to call this "being Dutch uncle."
Tucker has CHANGED his views on lots of things. Like I have. To be able to admit you were wrong is a big
deal. He supported the Iraq War. I didn't. In retrospect, he realized he did this because of group think
cool kids thing. Then he realized that he had been conned, He doesn't like being conned. I thought Obama's
speech was the opposite of John Edwards "2 Americas". Obama was delivering a "con" I.e. "We are all One
America". So now Tucker and I, from different sides, are more skeptical. I started questioning my groupthink
Democratic viewpoint in 2004. Slowly I realized that I too had been conned. So some of those on the "right"
and Some of those on the "left" have sought other ports to dock in as we figure this all out. Naked
Capitalism is one of those docks. So soon we should introduce Tucker to Yves.
As I have frequently pointed out to my once-upon-a-time "liberal" friends, Tucker Carlson is often these
days a worthwhile antidote to the collective yelpings & bleatings of the brain-snatched amen corner on MSNBC
& CNN. In this instance (and others) his observations are rational and clearly articulated. He makes sense!
And he is on the correct (not far right) side of the topic. The continuing Iraq/Syria catastrophe, PutinGate
and the hedge fund hooligan Paul Singer are just three recent examples. His arguments (and his snark) are
well played. Alas, following these sensible segments, he is still a Fox guy and is obliged to revert to Fox
boilerplate for most of the rest of the night. But in our present crackbrained media environment, be
thankful for small mercies such as Tucker's moments.
Thanks for the post. I probably would have missed this without you.
There are a couple things that are interesting to me. First, why does Tucker Carlson call out Ben Sasse
for accepting a maxed out campaign contribution from Paul Singer? The Governor of Nebraska then and now is
Pete Ricketts. His father (Joe – TD Ameritrade, Chicago Cubs) is a "very good friend" of Paul Singer.
Everyone believes Pete Ricketts wants to run for US Senate and the nearest opportunity is Ben Sasse's seat.
More than meets the eye?
Two, a longtime director of Cabela's is Mike McCarthy of McCarthy Capital. [Former Secretary of Defense
Chuck Hagel worked for McCarthy.] ES&S (electronic voting machines) is owned by McCarthy Group, LLC.
"... When you factor in reelection worries, Trump needs to find a mutually agreeable solution to at least pause the trade war. Such a move will surely revive economic growth hurt by sanctions and ensure the smoothest possible path toward a second term. People vote with their wallets, and Trump gets that. ..."
"... Nothing could be worse for Xi than the markets concluding that China is in a recession with one of its prime economic centers now in open revolt. Just as quickly as China was dubbed the next rising superpower, her economic and political obituary could be written. ..."
"... Here is where a so-called Phase One trade deal could help patch up the relationship and give both sides the short-term domestic boost their leaderships are looking for. ..."
"... But there are reasons to worry. A recent report in Axios claims that China is quite angry over Trump's decision to sign the Hong Kong bill, and as a result talks between the two nations have "stalled." Still, both sides have ample reasons to get a trade deal done. However, if Trump does indeed get reelected and China feels stable domestically once again, the pull of history -- specifically, which nation will dominate geopolitics in the 21st century -- may be too strong to resist. ..."
Consider America's position. President Trump surely has incentives to push for what I would
call a strategic pause in his quest to contain a rising China through tough trade moves. At the
moment, staring down a possible vote on articles of impeachment and a Senate trial, rising
trade tensions, which could reignite fears of a recession, are the last thing the president
needs. When you factor in reelection worries, Trump needs to find a mutually agreeable
solution to at least pause the trade war. Such a move will surely revive economic growth hurt
by sanctions and ensure the smoothest possible path toward a second term. People vote with
their wallets, and Trump gets that.
Chinese president Xi Jinping, meanwhile, has similar concerns. China's 6 percent economic
growth, something Washington can only dream of, is likely a number that exists only on paper,
for Beijing is known to cook their books. With growth more than likely just barely in positive
territory, thanks in large part to U.S. trade tariffs, and the challenges in Hong Kong not
looking as if they will subside anytime soon, Xi needs to deliver what he can claim is a
victory that also revives economic growth, at least for the time being. This will help
stabilize China domestically, plus give Xi time to allow Hong Kong's protests to burn out while
not having to worry about economic troubles at the same time.
Nothing could be worse for Xi than the markets concluding that China is in a recession
with one of its prime economic centers now in open revolt. Just as quickly as China was dubbed
the next rising superpower, her economic and political obituary could be written.
Here is where a so-called Phase One trade deal could help patch up the relationship and
give both sides the short-term domestic boost their leaderships are looking for. A
potential deal could involve China rolling back tariffs on all U.S. goods, agreeing to a large
purchase of American agricultural goods, and providing basic protections on all U.S.
intellectual property involving high-technology goods (think 5G, computers, and robotics). In
turn, America would roll back all tariffs -- something China wants very badly --
including, and most importantly, agreeing not to launch the scheduled new round of massive
tariffs on December 15, which are viewed as potentially the most damaging to date. While such
an interim deal is far from perfect -- China hawks will surely go ballistic, calling the deal
nothing more than appeasement or select your other favorite neocon smear -- Xi and Trump are
pragmatic enough to see that a deal is in both sides' interests.
But there are reasons to worry. A recent report in Axios claims that China is
quite angry over Trump's decision to sign the Hong Kong bill, and as a result talks between the
two nations have "stalled." Still, both sides have ample reasons to get a trade deal done.
However, if Trump does indeed get reelected and China feels stable domestically once again, the
pull of history -- specifically, which nation will dominate geopolitics in the 21st century --
may be too strong to resist.
Harry J. Kazianis is a senior director at the Center for the National Interest and the
executive editor of The National Interest magazine.
By offering Hong Kong official tools of support, President Trump has broadened the trade
dispute...
Throughout negotiations, the Chinese have been reluctant to get a deal over the line,
walking away from agreed upon terms several times. By supporting Hong Kong, President Trump is
showing the Chinese Communist Party that he will not sit idly by while they jerk trade
negotiations around.
A video from Tucker Carlson. Every once in a while he's allowed to say things the
mainstream media isn't allowed to say.
The video is about Paul Singer (Elliott Management) and his hedge fund buying into
Cabela's which was headquartered in Sydney, Nebraska. Cabela's was merged with Bass Pro Shops
and the town lost 2000 jobs and was hard hit by Singer and his fund but Elliott Management
and Singer made a nice profit.
It shows the people and town left behind after the jobs leave. Watching this was
depressing.
American tech companies are
getting the go-ahead to resume business with Chinese smartphone giant Huawei Technologies
Co., but it may be too late: It is now building smartphones without U.S. chips.
Huawei's latest phone,
which it unveiled in September -- the Mate 30 with a curved display and wide-angle
cameras that competes with Apple
Inc.'s iPhone 11 -- contained no U.S. parts, according to an analysis by UBS and Fomalhaut Techno Solutions, a Japanese
technology lab that took the device apart to inspect its insides.
In May, the Trump administration banned U.S. shipments to Huawei as trade tensions with
Beijing escalated. That move stopped companies like Qualcomm Inc. and Intel Corp. from exporting chips to the company, though
some shipments of parts resumed over the summer after companies determined they weren't
affected by the ban.
Meanwhile, Huawei has made significant strides in shedding its dependence on parts from
U.S. companies. (At issue are chips from U.S.-based companies, not those necessarily made in
America; many U.S. chip companies make their semiconductors abroad.)
Huawei long relied on suppliers like Qorvo Inc., the North Carolina maker of chips that are used
to connect smartphones with cell towers, and Skyworks Solutions Inc., a Woburn, Mass.-based company that
makes similar chips. It also used parts from Broadcom Inc., the San Jose-based maker of Bluetooth and
Wi-Fi chips, and Cirrus Logic Inc.,
an Austin, Texas-based company that makes chips for producing sound.
Yet Another Trump Trade Win
Trump cut off supplies so China looked elsewhere.
Trump changed his mind.
This is what constitutes a win.
"When Huawei came out with this high-end phone -- and this is its flagship -- with no U.S.
content, that made a pretty big statement," said Christopher Rolland, a semiconductor analyst
at Susquehanna International Group.
Huawei executives told Rolland that the company was moving away from American parts, but it
was still surprising how quickly it happened.
This was likely going to happen anyway, but Trump escalated the speed at which it
happened.
The trade war is the first act in the much larger game of hegemony.
Both sides are disentangling.
Apple finished their Indian plant.
Huawei went ex-US (but almost certainly not US IP)
Europe is already muttering about human rights in Hong Kong and Xiangjang.
We're nearly ready for act 2. That's when Europe joins in on squeezing trade, and the rest
of the democratic world and a few others is bullied and bribed to follow.
Do you know why Russia still sells rocket engines to US after being hit US sanctions?
Don't tell me they need US dollar.
Do you know that China is facing US embargo under the pretext of national security from
1949 until now and things allowed to export to China mostly agriculture produce, gas and oil?
This is the reason they develop their own technologies which the media told me stolen from
the US even that the US doesn't have like 5G, quantum satellite, hypersonic weapons just to
name a few.
russia needs to stop selling those engines to merica and cut them out of space... what a
dumb move... russia always trying to be friends with evil merica
Plainly, China will never buy the same amount of soybeans or chips than before as Russia
will never accumulate US dollars in its Reserve. They have discovered than US is not a
reliable partner.
Those that think that China is only about ripping off US technology are going to be
surprised. Sure that was once China's main method as it was for the early USA to rip off
British textile secrets. Trump trying to take down China's biggest technology company has
been a real wake up call for them. Now, they will own all of the content and will dominate in
Asian markets, the middle east, etc. They already did it in solar panels and much else. They
have a plan. They build infrastructure, we let it ours decay. They invest in education, we
leave out students in debt up to their eyeballs and then give them Starbucks jobs. They have
high speed trains everywhere, we have Amtrak. They are looking outward, we are looking
inward. America first, rah rah. This will end badly - for the USA.
no average american benefits from international trade unless the product is unattainable
state side. if we can grow it, we should. if we can make it, we should. excess can be sold
outside the nation but since everything has been weaponized, we are the ones caught in the
middle who suffer.
tariffs are good and we should use them to protect our industries. the problem is that our
industry was destroyed before implementing tarrifs.. that part doesn't make sense and all of
our major corporations have sold out anyways, further screwing john q public because lets be
real, companies are out for profit and shareholder return, not protecting employees and
consumers. so they could care less where its being made / sold as long as they see their
bottom line increase, no worries.
problem is big business doesn't want to pay it. it has always been that way. when the
money system was put in place, business owners didn't like the idea of increased competition
(less slaves and more company owners) and therefore they were given the ability to claim you
for tax purposes, hence why anytime you take a job they want your SS#. investment in the past
happened because of things that were to come in the future. the future in america from her
current vantage is trans/post humanism with the idea of automation, human/machine integration
and that leaves little room or interest in building $100m slave factories for working class
people to grind away in
chips have been made consistently in Malaysia, Taiwan and Korea for the better part of
almost 25 years, not real sure how any of what you said is relative to current events. just
syncrhonicity and morons like you saying dumb ****.
Wow, the article is really insulting to the Chinese. Like building a smart phone for them
was like landing on the moon or something. They steal everything from everyone anyways, so
who cares what they build.......
This is why they are trying to ban Chinese hardware... not because they fear they are
spying on us but because their govt mandated backdoors aren't installed on Chinese hardware.
The US govt wants to ban their use because they can't spy on them... That is the real
reason.
US is losing the technology race against China. In the first phase China copied the tech,
now it is on par, and in five to ten years the murican chip manufacturers are out of
business.
The point is this: the muricans are lazy bastards, most of the brain power is imported.
They lived too long off the dollar reserve currency status, soon enough nobody will
interested in that toilet paper anymore.
Two years ago, Donald *** Trumptard on behalf of his handler, the US War State/Dark
State/Deep State , launched a world wide war against the Chinky company, Huawei, in order, to
kill it.
But that failed spectacularly. Not only is Huawei not dead, but its revenue actually grown
24% in 2019.
Now, its smart phones, and 5G cell tower equipments are totally free of US components.
WHY IS THE US DARK STATE SO TERRIFIED OF HUAWEI'S 5G WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY?
The US Dark State/War State/Deep State, that is the NSA/CIA/Pentagon/MIC/MSM . . . etc has
forced every western tech companies to install backdoors and malwares on their equipments,
except Huawei. They have tried to force Huawei to install those NSA backdoors and malwares,
in 2014, but the company categorically refused.
"The real issue is that nothing has changed since a 2014 report from The Register that
Huawei categorically refuses to install NSA backdoors into their hardware to allow unfettered
intelligence access to the data that crosses their networks.
All our emails, text messages, phone calls, internet searches, web browsing, library
records, . . . etc, are recorded and stored by NSA/CIA's vast servers farms.
Now, Huawei is not only the leading 5G wireless provider, but it is the only one, so far.
The other companies like Nokia and Ericsson are far behind.
5G is going to completely replace 4G and 3G. It is about 200 times faster than 4GLTE, in
download speed.
What this means is that if the world adopts the Huawei equipments and standards, it will
threaten to UNDO the US Dark State's vast global surveillance network.
This is what terrifies the US Dark State. Their vast Global Surveillance Network is the
basis of its power, and tools to enslave mankind.
There is a very good reason, why the American Founding Fathers , enacted every measures,
to protect our rights and privacy, so that we will not be controlled and enslaved by the
tyranny of totalitarian government, which is already upon us, in the form of US Dark
State/War State .
The US Dark State/Deep State/War State does not represent America. It is Un-American. It
is not the American Republic founded by our Founding Fathers, and enshrined in the US
Constitution.
Maybe so, Asoka. I think the Rothschild Clan plays both sides. They are in China. Some
purport the family carrying that lineage is named Li.
The U.S. is slowly but surely being isolated for The Great Fall...when we lose world
currency status. The Banking Cartel will evidently make huge money and gain enormous power
once the U.S. collapses. China already has the massive surveillance state, lack of privacy,
institutionalized social scoring, and workers' living cubes located on factory premises...so
the Rothshilds are in love. Sigh. So much control!! So much degradation!!! They're in
love!!!
"I think the Rothschild Clan plays both sides. They are in China. Some purport the family
carrying that lineage is named Li."
They are trying hard to infiltrate China. But the Chinese banks and financial service
firms are State Owned . They are hard penetrate. That is why they are using Donald *** Trump
to launch the Mother of All Great Trade War , to force the Chinese to open up their financial
sector for infiltration and plundering.
Plus, Chinese and westerner looks distinctively different. And so, they are trying the
inter-marriage trick with the rich and powerful Chinese families.
While Obama organized 2014 coup data that smashed contitutional oder in Ukraine and installed far-right nationalists in power (Nulandgate) Obamam did not suppled arms toUkrains; Trump did
In his foreign policy Trump looks
like a Republican Obama, save Nobel Peace Price. If Obama was/is a CIA-democrat, this guy is a Deep State controlled republican. Why
is the Deep State is attacking him is completely unclear. May be they just do not like unpredictable, impulsive politicians
Despite his surrender "Neocon crazies from the basement" still attack his exactly the same way as they attacked him for
pretty mundane meeting with Putin and other fake "misdeeds" like Ukrainegate
And that means that he lost a considerable part of his electorate: the anti-war republicans
and former Sanders supporters, who voted for him in 2016 to block Hillary election.
And in no way he is an economic nationalist. He is
"national neoliberal" which rejects parts of neoliberal globalization based on treaties and
prefer to bully nations to compliance that favor the US interests instead of treaties. And his "fight" with the Deep state resemble so closely to complete and unconditional
surrender, that you might have difficulties to distinguish between the two. Most of his appointees are rabid neocons. Just look at Pompeo, Bolton, Fiona Hill. That that extends far beyond
those obvious crazies.
Washington
Post stating that he "has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details" of his
discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin - telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in a
phone interview that he would be willing to release the details of a private conversation in
Helsinki last summer.
"I would. I don't care," Trump told Pirro, adding: "I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I
couldn't care less."
"I mean, it's so ridiculous, these people making up," Trump said of the WaPo report.
The president referred to his roughly two-hour dialogue with Putin in Helsinki -- at which
only the leaders and their translators were present -- as "a great conversation" that
included discussions about "securing Israel and lots of other things."
"I had a conversation like every president does," Trump said Saturday. "You sit with the
president of various countries. I do it with all countries." -
Politico
In July an attempt by House Democrats to subpoena Trump's Helsinki interpreter was quashed
by Republicans. "The Washington Post is almost as bad, or probably as bad, as the New York Times," Trump
said. When Pirro asked Trump about a Friday night New York Times report that the FBI had opened an
inquiry into whether he was working for Putin, Pirro asked Trump "Are you now or have you ever
worked for Russia, Mr. President?" "I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked," Trump responded. "I think it's
the most insulting article I've ever had written."
Trump went on an
epic tweetstorm Saturday following the Times article, defending his 2017 firing of former
FBI Director James Comey, and tweeting that he has been "FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush
or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, & as I have often
said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday
we will have good relations with Russia again!"
"... More generally, I think AI gets far too much of the billing in authoritarian apocalypse forecasts. Cheap, ubiquitous cameras, microphones, and location trackers are the real issue. If the state can track everyone's movements and conversations, then it can build a better Stasi even with crude, simple ai. ..."
The theory behind this is one of strength reinforcing strength – the strengths of
ubiquitous data gathering and analysis reinforcing the strengths of authoritarian repression to
create an unstoppable juggernaut of nearly perfectly efficient oppression. Yet there is another
story to be told – of weakness reinforcing weakness. Authoritarian states were always
particularly prone to the deficiencies identified in James Scott's Seeing Like a State
– the desire to make citizens and their doings legible to the state, by
standardizing and categorizing them, and reorganizing collective life in simplified ways, for
example by remaking cities so that they were not organic structures that emerged from the
doings of their citizens, but instead grand chessboards
with ordered squares and boulevards, reducing all complexities to a
square of planed wood . The grand state bureaucracies that were built to carry out these
operations were responsible for multitudes of horrors, but also for the crumbling of the
Stalinist state into a Brezhnevian desuetude, where everyone pretended to be carrying on as
normal because everyone else was carrying on too. The deficiencies of state action, and its
need to reduce the world into something simpler that it could comprehend and act upon created a
kind of feedback loop, in which imperfections of vision and action repeatedly reinforced each
other.
So what might a similar analysis say about the marriage of authoritarianism and machine
learning? Something like the following, I think. There are two notable problems with machine
learning. One – that while it can do many extraordinary things, it is not nearly as
universally effective as the mythology suggests. The other is that it can serve as a magnifier
for already existing biases in the data. The patterns that it identifies may be the product of
the problematic data that goes in, which is (to the extent that it is accurate) often the
product of biased social processes. When this data is then used to make decisions that may
plausibly reinforce those processes (by singling e.g. particular groups that are regarded as
problematic out for particular police attention, leading them to be more liable to be arrested
and so on), the bias may feed upon itself.
This is a substantial problem in democratic societies, but it is a problem where there are
at least some counteracting tendencies. The great advantage of democracy is its openness to
contrary opinions and divergent perspectives . This opens up democracy to a specific set of
destabilizing attacks but it also means that there are countervailing tendencies to
self-reinforcing biases. When there are groups that are victimized by such biases, they may
mobilize against it (although they will find it harder to mobilize against algorithms than
overt discrimination). When there are obvious inefficiencies or social, political or economic
problems that result from biases, then there will be ways for people to point out these
inefficiencies or problems.
These correction tendencies will be weaker in authoritarian societies; in extreme versions
of authoritarianism, they may barely even exist. Groups that are discriminated against will
have no obvious recourse. Major mistakes may go uncorrected: they may be nearly invisible to a
state whose data is polluted both by the means employed to observe and classify it, and the
policies implemented on the basis of this data. A plausible feedback loop would see bias
leading to error leading to further bias, and no ready ways to correct it. This of course, will
be likely to be reinforced by the ordinary politics of authoritarianism, and the typical
reluctance to correct leaders, even when their policies are leading to disaster. The flawed
ideology of the leader (We must all study Comrade Xi thought to discover the truth!) and of the
algorithm (machine learning is magic!) may reinforce each other in highly unfortunate ways.
In short, there is a very plausible set of mechanisms under which machine learning and
related techniques may turn out to be a disaster for authoritarianism, reinforcing its
weaknesses rather than its strengths, by increasing its tendency to bad decision making, and
reducing further the possibility of negative feedback that could help correct against errors.
This disaster would unfold in two ways. The first will involve enormous human costs:
self-reinforcing bias will likely increase discrimination against out-groups, of the sort that
we are seeing against the Uighur today. The second will involve more ordinary self-ramifying
errors, that may lead to widespread planning disasters, which will differ from those described
in Scott's account of High Modernism in that they are not as immediately visible, but that may
also be more pernicious, and more damaging to the political health and viability of the regime
for just that reason.
So in short, this conjecture would suggest that the conjunction of AI and authoritarianism
(has someone coined the term 'aithoritarianism' yet? I'd really prefer not to take the blame),
will have more or less the opposite effects of what people expect. It will not be Singapore
writ large, and perhaps more brutal. Instead, it will be both more radically monstrous and more
radically unstable.
Like all monotheoretic accounts, you should treat this post with some skepticism –
political reality is always more complex and muddier than any abstraction. There are surely
other effects (another, particularly interesting one for big countries such as China, is to
relax the assumption that the state is a monolith, and to think about the intersection between
machine learning and warring bureaucratic factions within the center, and between the center
and periphery).Yet I think that it is plausible that it at least maps one significant set of
causal relationships, that may push (in combination with, or against, other structural forces)
towards very different outcomes than the conventional wisdom imagines. Comments, elaborations,
qualifications and disagreements welcome.
Ben 11.25.19 at 6:32 pm (no link)
This seems to equivocate between two meanings of bias. Bias might mean a flaw that leads to
empirically incorrect judgements and so to bad decisions, and it's true that that type of
bias could destabilize an authoritarian state. But what we usually worry about with machine
learning is that the system will find very real, but deeply unjust, patterns in the data, and
reinforce those pattern. If there's a particular ethnic group that really does produce a
disproportionate number of dissidents, and an algorithm leads to even-more-excessive
repression of that group -- I'm not sure why an authoritarian state would see a stability
threat in that tendency.
More generally, I think AI gets far too much of the billing in authoritarian
apocalypse forecasts. Cheap, ubiquitous cameras, microphones, and location trackers are the
real issue. If the state can track everyone's movements and conversations, then it can build
a better Stasi even with crude, simple ai.
I'd just like to point out (re: the tweet in the original post) that the "Uighur
face-matching AI" idea is bullshit invented by scaremongers, with no basis in fact and
traceable to a shoddy reddit thread. The Chinese government is not using facial recognition
to identify Uighur, and the facial recognition fears about the Chinese government are vastly
overstated.
Australia's border control facial recognition software is far more advanced than
China's, as is the UK's, and facial recognition is actually pretty common in democracies. See
e.g. the iPhone.
The main areas in which China uses facial recognition are in verifying ID for some high
cost functions (like buying high speed rail tickets), and it's quite easy to avoid these
functions by joining a queue and paying a human. The real intrusiveness of the Chinese
security state is in its constant bag searches and very human-centric abuses of power in
everyday life in connection with "security". Whether you get stopped and searched depends a
lot on very arbitrary and error prone judgments by bored security staff at railway stations,
in public squares, and on buses, not some evil intrusive state technology.
Conversely, the UK is a world leader in installing and using CCTV cameras, and has been
for a long time. Furthermore, these CCTV cameras are a huge boon to law-abiding citizens,
since they act as both excellent forms of crime prevention (I have had this experience
myself) and for finding serious criminals. The people responsible for the death of those 39
Vietnamese labourers in the ice truck were caught because of CCTV; so was the guy who
murdered that woman on the street in Melbourne a few years ago.
Finally to address another point that's already been raised (sadly): China no longer
harvests organs, and the 2019 report that says it does is a sham. The social credit system is
also largely a myth, and nobody from China even seems to know wtf it is.
If you're going to talk about how state's work, and the relative merits of autocratic vs.
democratic states and their interaction with technology, it's a really good idea to get the
basic facts right first.
Nathanael 11.26.19 at 6:10 am (no link)
I'll add that John Quiggin's point that Xi has already lost control of the provinces is
correct -- but it DOES threaten his position as dictator. Once the provincial governors know
they can act with impunity, it is absolutely standard for the next step to be getting rid of
that annoying guy who is pretending to be dictator. It may take a few years but Xi now has
dozens of powerful insiders who know that he's a weakling. They'll bide their time but when
he crosses too many of them they'll take him out. And if China doesn't shut down coal, he's
going to look like a weakling internationally too, in a couple of years. This will create a
new group of ambitious insiders with a different reason to take him out.
Xi broke the "technocratic consensus" which was present after Deng, of central committee
members who strove for competence and fact-based decision-making. That was a surprisingly
effective type of junta government which led to lots of thinkpieces about whether
authoritarian China would beat the democratic west. But it succumbed to the succession
problem, like all authoritarian systems; Xi made himself Premier-for-life and the country is
now exhibiting all the usual failures of authoritarian countries.
Hidari 11.26.19 at 9:08 am (no link)
@11 Yes it's strange that allegations of Chinese use of facial recognition software is
gaining so much traction at a time when the Trump regime is deliberately ratcheting up
tensions with China to pursue nakedly imperial goals, when the objective facts of Israeli use
of similar software, which the Israelis boast about (
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/why-did-microsoft-fund-israeli-firm-surveils-west-bank-palestinians-n1072116
) doesn't cause so much interest, at a time when the Trump regime has simple decreed that the
Israeli invasion/colonisation of Palestine is 'legal under international law'.
One of life's little mysteries I guess.
If we must talk about China could we at least bring it back to areas where we are
responsible and where, therefore, we can do something about it?
Nice link. It's often interesting to hear from the source the explanation for why their
actions acceptable and everything will be OK. The financial industry is generally a con game
built on managing perception and after all its all about the money when we strip away the
facade. As the former ZH was so effective in making known - when it gets serious one has to
lie.
I have now read completely the St. Louis Fed report that I linked to in comment #7 and I want
to provide a quote from it and discuss the obfuscation therein.
"
In addition to owing money to "the public," the U.S. government also owes money to
departments within the U.S. government. For example, the Social Security system has run
surpluses for many years (the amount collected through the Social Security tax was greater
than the benefits paid out) and placed the money in a trust fund. These surpluses were used
to purchase U.S. Treasury securities. Forecasts suggest that as the population ages and
demographics change, the amount paid in Social Security benefits will exceed the revenues
collected through the Social Security tax and the money saved in the trust fund will be
needed to fill the gap. In short, some of the $22 trillion in total debt is intergovernmental
holdings -- money the government owes itself. Of the total national debt, $5.8 trillion is
intergovernmental holdings and the remaining $16.2 trillion is debt held by the public.
"
The US Social Security Insurance program use to be a stand alone entity with a huge trust
fund of Treasuries that wasn't debt but in the Reagan/Greenspan era the funds were "stolen"
(turned into debt) and used to fund "Star Wars" etc. while payment for the program became a
budget item along with managing the contribution amounts to keep it viable into the
future....they took it away from the actuarial folk, spent the money and it is now a
political debt football.
"Thomas Bowers, a former Deutsche Bank executive and head of the American
wealth-management division, killed himself in Malibu, California, on Tuesday, November 19th,
according to the Los Angeles county coroner's initial report.
You have to look at the banker suicide index. Banker suicides go up exponentially prior to
a banking collapse. I lost count of banker suicides during the 2008 collapse. Bank troubles =
suicides of high ranking employees is the algorithm.
So in due course the trade war was replaced by the full scale cold war.
Notable quotes:
"... Needless to say, no differences will be "settled amicably" and now China will have no choice but to retaliate, aggressively straining relations with the US, and further complicating Trump's effort to wind down his nearly two-year old trade war with Beijing. ..."
"... The legislation, S. 1838, which was passed virtually unanimously in both chambers, requires annual reviews of Hong Kong's special trade status under American law and will allow Washington to suspend said status in case the city does not retain a sufficient degree of autonomy under the "one country, two systems" framework. The bill also sanctions any officials deemed responsible for human rights abuses or undermining the city's autonomy. ..."
"... The House cleared the bill 417-1 on Nov. 20 after the Senate passed it without opposition, veto-proof majorities that left Trump with little choice but to acquiesce, or else suffer bruising fallout from his own party. the GOP. ..."
"... In accordance with the law, the Commerce Department will have 180 days to produce a report examining whether the Chinese government has tried use Hong Kong's special trading status to import advanced "dual use" technologies in violation of US export control laws. Dual use technologies are those that can have commercial and military applications. ..."
"... The new law directs the US secretary of state to "clearly inform the government of the People's Republic of China that the use of media outlets to spread disinformation or to intimidate and threaten its perceived enemies in Hong Kong or in other countries is unacceptable." ..."
"... The state department should take any such activity "into consideration when granting visas for travel and work in the United States to journalists from the People's Republic of China who are affiliated with any such media organizations", the law says. ..."
"... Yes I think getting the western financial institutions out of HK is the plan. I'm sure they appreciate the US doing this for them, but of course they could never admit that. ..."
Less than an hour after Trump once again paraded with yet another all-time high in the
S&P...
... and on day 510 of the trade war, it appears the president was confident enough that a
collapse in trade talks won't drag stocks too far lower, and moments after futures reopened at
6pm, the White House said that Trump had signed the Hong Kong bill backing pro-democracy
protesters, defying China and making sure that every trader's Thanksgiving holiday was just
ruined.
In a late Wednesday statement from the White House, Trump said that:
I signed these bills out of respect for President Xi, China, and the people of Hong Kong.
They are being enacted in the hope that Leaders and Representatives of China and Hong Kong
will be able to amicably settle their differences leading to long term peace and prosperity
for all.
Needless to say, no differences will be "settled amicably" and now China will have no
choice but to retaliate, aggressively straining relations with the US, and further complicating
Trump's effort to wind down his nearly two-year old trade war with Beijing.
Trump's signing of the bill comes during a period of unprecedented unrest in Hong Kong,
where anti-government protests sparked by a now-shelved extradition bill proposal have
ballooned into broader calls for democratic reform and police accountability.
"The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act reaffirms and amends the United States-Hong
Kong Policy Act of 1992, specifies United States policy towards Hong Kong and directs
assessment of the political developments in Hong Kong," the White House said in a statement.
"Certain provisions of the act would interfere with the exercise of the president's
constitutional authority to state the foreign policy of the United States."
The legislation, S. 1838, which was passed virtually unanimously in both chambers,
requires annual reviews of Hong Kong's special trade status under American law and will allow
Washington to suspend said status in case the city does not retain a sufficient degree of
autonomy under the "one country, two systems" framework. The bill also sanctions any officials
deemed responsible for human rights abuses or undermining the city's autonomy.
The House cleared the bill 417-1 on Nov. 20 after the Senate passed it without
opposition, veto-proof majorities that left Trump with little choice but to acquiesce, or else
suffer bruising fallout from his own party. the GOP.
Trump also signed into law the PROTECT Hong Kong act, which will prohibit the sale of
US-made munitions such as tear gas and rubber bullets to the city's authorities.
While many members of Congress in both parties have voiced strong support for protesters
demanding more autonomy for the city, Trump had stayed largely silent, even as the
demonstrations have been met by rising police violence.
Until now.
The bill's author, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, said that with the legislation's
enactment, the US now had "new and meaningful tools to deter further influence and interference
from Beijing into Hong Kong's internal affairs."
In accordance with the law, the Commerce Department will have 180 days to produce a
report examining whether the Chinese government has tried use Hong Kong's special trading
status to import advanced "dual use" technologies in violation of US export control laws. Dual
use technologies are those that can have commercial and military applications.
One other less discussed but notable provision of the Hong Kong Human Rights Act targets
media outlets affiliated with China's government. The new law directs the US secretary of
state to "clearly inform the government of the People's Republic of China that the use of media
outlets to spread disinformation or to intimidate and threaten its perceived enemies in Hong
Kong or in other countries is unacceptable."
The state department should take any such activity "into consideration when granting
visas for travel and work in the United States to journalists from the People's Republic of
China who are affiliated with any such media organizations", the law says.
* * *
In the days leading up to Trump's signature, China's foreign ministry had urged Trump to
prevent the legislation from becoming law, warning the Americans not to underestimate China's
determination to defend its "sovereignty, security and development interests."
"If the U.S. insists on going down this wrong path, China will take strong countermeasures,
" said China's foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang at a briefing Thursday in Beijing. On
Monday, China's Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang summoned the U.S. ambassador, Terry
Branstad to express "strong opposition" to what the country's government considers American
interference in the protests, including the legislation, according to statement. The new U.S.
law comes just as Washington and Beijing showed signs of working toward "phase-one" of deal to
ease the trade war. Trump would like the agreement finished in order to ease economic
uncertainty for his re-election campaign in 2020, and has floated the possibility of signing
the deal in a farm state as an acknowledgment of the constituency that's borne the brunt of
retaliatory Chinese tariffs.
Last week China's Vice Premier and chief trade negotiator Liu He said before a speech at the
Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Beijing, that he was "cautiously optimistic" about reaching the
phase one accord. He will now have no choice but to amend his statement.
In anticipation of a stern Chinese rebuke, US equity futures tumbled, wiping out most of the
previous day's gains... Still, the generally modest pullback - the S&P was around 2,940
when Trump announced the Phase 1 deal on Oct 11 - suggests that despite Trump's signature,
markets expect a Chinese deal to still come through. That may be an aggressive and overly
"hopeful" assumption, especially now that China now longer has a carte blanche to do whatever
it wants in Hong Kong, especially in the aftermath of this weekend's
landslide victory for the pro-Democracy camp which won in 17 of the city's 18
districts.
"Following last weekend's historic elections in Hong Kong that included record turnout, this
new law could not be more timely in showing strong US support for Hongkongers' long-cherished
freedoms," said Rubio
This is another attempt by the US to stop BRICS. They care NOTHING about HK, only its
usefulness in the US war on Chinas growing importance in world trade.
but no no no... trading with communists brings jobs to sell cheap crap. oh what was I
thinking.... cheap crap, jobs, and the richest of the rich get richer... my bad.
it ain’t like the commies are going to use the money to build up their military..
Of course the obvious solution is to just let people choose whatever or whomever they want
to associate with and be respected and left alone for their choice.
But no. We all have to live and abide by the wishes of other people bcuz of "unity" and
****.
Eh guys, you still do not understand that all this (not only China and Hong Kong) is a
very big "elite" performance for ordinary people to keep you (the rest of the boobies) in
subjection. It's like in boxing - contractual fights. Do you think world "elites" benefit
from peace and order? You are mistaken - these guys have the world as death (the death of
their Power and their Control). An example from the history of Europe - in the 18-19 and
early 20th century, Europe only did what it fought. But the funny thing is that the monarchs
(the real owners of Europe) were relatives among themselves. The First World War was
popularly called “The War of Three Cousins” (English monarch, German Kaiser and
Russian emperor). But the Europeans paid for the dismantling of relatives. Now the "monarchs"
are bankers and your position has not changed, you changed only the owners after 1918.
Problem with Hong Kong is, it is dependent on China to survive. That is not only true for
the most basic neccessities, but also as a port for international trade. However, in the last
25 years, Shenzhen and Guangzhou have built up their own trade hubs, which has pulled trade
away from being concentrated in Hong Kong, and consequently more dependent on China. Our
ideas of Hong Kong remaining an independent island nation isn't going to work for three
reasons:
1. Without being a doorway to China, there is no other reason for its existence.
2. Hong Kong is indeed Chinese sovereign territory, that was taken away from it to be made
into a trade colony by the British in 1841, under the Treaty of Nanking. The British gave up
Hong Kong in 1997, under the 1984 signed Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which Britain
agreed to return not only the New Territories but also Kowloon and Hong Kong itself. China
promised to implement a "One Country, Two Systems" regime, under which for fifty years Hong
Kong citizens could continue to practice capitalism and political freedoms forbidden on the
mainland. So, when the year 2047 comes around, Hong Kong will be fully absorbed and
integrated in a One Country, One system Chinese regime. In otherwords, Hong Kong's fate was
already sealed in 1984, and there is nothing America can legally do about it.
3. Hong Kong still needs the basic neccessities from China to survive. Don't count on
either the British or the Americans to provide it.
Yes I think getting the western financial institutions out of HK is the plan. I'm sure
they appreciate the US doing this for them, but of course they could never admit
that.
Xi Jinping tells that bullshit little story about China's 5,000 year History, but the truth
is really much more pragmatic: China doesn't aim to be an empire for the simple reason it
learned from America's mistakes.
The CCP already knows that being the sole superpower is unsustainable and, in the medium
term, goes even against its main objective, which is to establish a "moderately prosperous
society" in China until 2030 (they consider the 2000s Belgium as the standard for "moderately
prosperous").
Socialist China has shown, so far, an incredible capacity of learning from other nations'
mistakes:
1) It correctly read the historical conjuncture of the late 1960s, by concluding that the
historical cycle of socialist revolutions was over, and moved on to try to break the Cold War
embargo in order to initiate a cycle of wealth production. They achieved that in 1972. This was
when Mao Zedong was still alive and commanding China with absolute authority, so it's a myth
China "freed itself" only when and because Mao died (1976);
2) It learned from the failed experiment of the Brazilian liberal dictatorship, by doing
exactly the opposite of the Zona Franca de Manaus . The result was the creation of the
Special Economic Zones, which allowed capitalist investment from abroad to come to China but in
quarentene, and with technological transfer.
3) It learned from the trap the USSR fell, and used a peaceful geopolitical strategy. It
avoided an arms race and was able to expand its allied nations portfolio and slowly tightened
its grip over the American economy.
4) It learned from the the failure of Soviet socialism in producing very good quality
consumer goods. It solved this problem by "opening up" for capitalist exploitation the sectors
which produced and distributed consumer goods, without affecting the strategic sectors
(defense, finance, natural resources, etc.).
5) It learned from the failure of the American empire of maintaining its status as the
world's "lonely superpower" by not adopting a war culture in China and by being more tolerant
with its neighbors. But that didn't mean they didn't consolidated position: military spending
continues to go up and the Armed Forces continues to be modernized and under firm CCP control.
The South China Sea is a "corridor of life" for the Chinese, so the CCP quickly, but in a
peaceful manner, took control of it, very aware that it would probably cost the Vietnamese
friendship. But that was the exception that proves the rule, an exceptional situation where the
benefits were greater than the costs.
This isn't the only
article I've read over the past several days suggesting China won't agree to a trade deal
anytime soon. The following are amongst the reasons why:
"China's trade has gradually steadied as the nation moves to explore third markets. 'A
substantial decline in trade and a drastic fall in economic growth which some international
observers were worried about didn't occur, pointing to the potential and resilience of the
Chinese economy,' he went on to say.
"The US, for its part, has seen its current account deficit as a percentage of GDP shoot
up from 2.9 percent to 3.2 percent. This suggests the trade war is failing to address the
issue of the US' current account deficit, stressed Zhu, who is currently the Chairman of the
National Institute of Financial Research at Tsinghua University. He added that, more
worryingly, tariffs mean additional costs are put on US companies and consumers."
Evil Outlaw US Empire planners in their hubristic zeal to decouple from China's economy
erred massively in thinking China would be the one harmed and come begging for a trade deal.
Instead, China's geoeconomic strategy is clearly working and is more potent than what the
Empire can bring to the table--Oops! China can now play Trump.
psychohistorian 63
I see Trump's envoy Kissinger is standing next to Xi. Seems like Trump is trying to cook
something up with Kissinger regularly on the scene when it comes to Russia and China.
Interesting that Kissinger is there . Steve Pieczenik takes the very strong view
that Pompeo is a dead man walking. Worth every second of his five minute discourse . What I like
about Steve and his various takes on people of note is that he assassinates them immediately
and intensely with a quick turn of phrase.
Kissinger was also Nixon's envoy. He engineered the split between China and the Soviet
Union amongst other things. China and Russia's current leadership though may be above
Kissinger's pay grade.
LYNN FRIES : This newsdoc explores the folly of expecting private enterprise to
operate in the service of the public interest on a grand scale, globally, in key fields:
Financing the United Nations 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals, Climate change,
Health, Digital cooperation, Gender equality and the empowerment of women, Education and
skills. Specifically, it explores the United Nation's Strategic Partnership Agreement with the
World Economic Forum. The agreement was signed by the Office of the UN Secretary-General and
Executives of WEF, the World Economic Forum better known as DAVOS, a leading proponent of
public-private partnerships and a multistakeholder approach to global governance.
The United Nations as the world's intergovernmental multilateral system should always focus
on protecting common goods and providing global public benefits. That's the position of
signatories of an Open Letter sent to the UN Secretary-General by hundreds of civil society
organizations from all regions of the world. The letter states: "This public-private
partnership will permanently associate the UN with transnational corporations, some of whose
essential activities have caused or worsened the social and environmental crises that the
planet faces. This is a form of corporate capture". The letter calls on the Secretary-General
to terminate the Agreement.
I met up with Harris Gleckman to get his take on all this. Harris Gleckman is the author of
"Multistakeholder Governance and Democracy: A Global Challenge" and is currently working on a
handbook on the governance of multistakeholderism. Harris Gleckman is a Senior Fellow at the
Center for Governance and Sustainability, UMass Boston. We go now to our featured clips of that
meeting.
LYNN FRIES : Civil society is calling the World Economic Forum-UN Agreement as a
corporate takeover of the UN.
HARRIS GLECKMAN: The UN Charter starts with the words "We the Peoples". What the
Secretary-General is doing through the Global Compact and now through the partnership with the
World Economic Forum is tossing this out the window. He is saying: I'm going to align the
organization with a particular structural relationship with multinationals, with
multistakeholderism, and set aside attention to all the different peoples of the world in their
particular interests of environment, health, water needs and really talk about how to govern
the world with those who have a particular role in creating problems of wars from natural
resources, of creating problems relating to climate, creating problems relating to food supply
and technologies. That is undermining a core element of what the United Nations has been and
should be for its next 75 years.
LYNN FRIES : It's striking that the Agreement was signed as the UN is celebrating 100
years of multilateralism, the centenary year 1919 to 2019. And next year 2020 will mark the
1945 signing of the UN Charter 75th anniversary.
HARRIS GLECKMAN : Lynn, if I could give you an overview of what I'm concerned about
the aspect of this about multistakeholderism is that the Secretary-General is the leading
public figure for the multilateral system, the intergovernmental system. The World Economic
Forum is the major proponent or one of the major proponents that a multi-stakeholder governance
system should replace or marginalize the multilateral system. So the Secretary-General is
taking steps to just jump on the bandwagon of multistakeholderism without a public debate about
the democratic character of multistakeholderism, about a public debate about whether this is
effectively able to solve problems, without a public debate about how stakeholders are selected
to become global governors or even a public debate about what role the UN should have with any
of these multistakeholder groups.
LYNN FRIES : I noted that the letter that was sent to the UN Secretary-General was
also copied to the President of the General Assembly, the President of the Security Council and
the Chair of the G77 with a request that it be circulated to all Governments as an Official
Document.
HARRIS GLECKMAN : The Secretary-General should have gone to the intergovernmental
process to debate this issue and now civil society is saying to the intergovernmental process:
If the Secretary-General isn't going to tell you about it, we want you to have that debate
anyway.
LYNN FRIES : In addressing the UN Secretary-General the letter by Civil Society
Organizations recognized that the Secretary-General faced serious challenges.
HARRIS GLECKMAN: Yes it is absolutely the case that the Secretary-General is caught
in a very difficult bind. Governments are not able to collect and are not collecting their
taxes from the bulk of international business activities because of movements around tax
havens. Government's say: well we don't have the money, so we cannot underwrite an effort to
have a credible global governance system and this is affecting the operation of the UN. So the
Secretary-General is looking at a challenge. He has the financial challenge: under payment of
current dues and underfunding of the whole organization and an aggressive effort by the Trump
administration to deconstruct all the organizations of the international system in a period
Lynn where as you observed it's the hundredth year of multilateralism and the 75th year of the
United Nations. And here the Secretary-General has two major crises on his hands in terms of
the integrity of the system.
LYNN FRIES: Briefly give us some context on what you see as the motivation of the
World Economic Forum.
HARRIS GLECKMAN : The World Economic Forum's motivation for joining, for perhaps,
even driving forward this idea of a strategic partnership came from their work following the
financial crisis starting n 2008-09. Davos, the common name for the World Economic Forum,
convened 700 people working for a year and a half on a project that they called Global Redesign
Initiative. They created that project because they realized that the whole public view about
globalization as "a good for the world" was crumbling as a result of the financial crisis. And
so they wanted to propose a new method of governing the world. And two of the elements of their
proposal – that's actually a 700 page research paper – were to have a new
relationship with governments in the United Nations system and to advocate that the global
problems of the world should be solved by multistakeholder groups. This new partnership with
the Secretary-General is an implementation of what they laid out in their Global Redesign
Initiative to have a special place in the United Nations system for corporations to influence
the behavior of the international organizations. And also for those corporations to be able to
say to other people: Look we're in partnership with the United Nations so treat us as if we
were neutral friendly bodies.
Let me just share with you a couple of examples that may help convey how serious that is.
The Sustainable Development Goals were negotiated by governments in open sessions and they
determined what the goals should be in 17 areas. Multistakeholder groups have announced that
they are going to implement Goal 8 or Goal 6. And in the process, they declare: Here is how we
will work on health, here's how we will work on education, here's how we will work on the
environment. And rewrite what is the outcome of the Sustainable Development Goals in their own
organizational interest. In some ways, that's not surprising. You bring together a group of
companies, selected governments, selected civil societies, selected academics and they will
have their own internal dynamic of concern. But what they do is they assert that what they are
doing- their rewritten version- actually they are telling the world: Well, we are actually
doing the UN version. But that is not what their text is.
For example, in the energy field, in the energy goal there are five key adjectives that
describe the target about global energy needs. The leading multistakeholder group, Sustainable
Energy for All, their target has four of those adjectives and they drop the one which was
AFFORDABILITY. This is how the process of multistakeholders taking over an area, redefining it
but to the public announcing that they are implementing the intergovernmental goals is an
unhealthy development in global governance.
LYNN FRIES : The Civil Society letter referred to the Agreement as a public-private
partnership as did you in a recent OPED. Explain more about the public interest issue with
public-private partnerships.
HARRIS GLECKMAN : Well let's take a particular effort of a public-private partnership
in providing water in a city. Historically this is a public or a municipal function to make
sure that there is adequate amounts of water. The quality of water is healthy and its safety.
And that it's regularly and reliably available to the residents in the area. When a
public-private partnership comes in, the corporate side may have an interest in some of these
goals but add an additional one. That is they want a return on their investment, they want a
profit from it. So some of the items of those various public functions – access, quality
of material of water, reliability of water, access to all people then gets suddenly changed. So
if there's a manufacturing facility in one part of town more water may be diverted in that
direction. If water purification is a little hard about a particular element: We may get a
little lazy about doing that in the interests of profits. If it's going to take a lot of work
to dig up a street and replace pipes, they'll say: Well, we can wait another five years and use
those pipes which may have lead in them. All because now you add the fact that this
public-private partnership needs to make a return of profit on what should be, what
historically has a public municipal function. So you create this unequal development in terms
of meeting public needs against the now new requirement that if you want a water system, you
have to produce a profit for some of the actors involved.
LYNN FRIES : Food security is a major issue for vast populations. Comment on the
implications for food security.
HARRIS GLECKMAN : If we want to build, recover, create a food secure world, you need
to work with those who are growing, producing foods directly. Not those who are processing,
distributing, marketing, rebranding. We need to start at the very base and create a system of
engagement with small farmers, with small fishing families, with those around the world who are
the actual food producers. Who have been preserving knowledge and building knowledge for
centuries, they received that knowledge from centuries. That's the direction that would change
the way in which we could actually look at the issues of hunger and food security in the world
in a quite different fashion. Going to those who have a profit-centered motive in global
governance will sharply narrow what might be possible to do. That's what the partnership will
tend to do as the Secretary General and WEF have private discussions about how do we address
the issue of food security while not talking very loud about how we make a profit in that
process.
LYNN FRIES : If the UN Secretary-General invited you for a 1:1 what would you
say?
HARRIS GLECKMAN : I think that I would say to the Secretary-General that he needs to
give a major re-examination of the way the United Nations works with all of the peoples of the
world. In order to provide a stronger base for the United Nations, the doors have to be made
wider so that the views of various popular bodies, social movements, communities around the
world have far greater access to the United Nations. I'd also say to him. Mr. Secretary
General, the UN needs an open and clear conflict of interest policy and a conflict of interest
practice. For those multinationals who are causes of problems, who aggravate the global
problems of inequality we need and you as Head of the United Nations need to separate the
United Nations from that process. They should not be invited to attend meetings. They should
not be allowed to make statements. In the climate area, those who are continuing to extract
natural resources from the ground where they should stay we have taken too much of carbon out
of the ground. If we're going to meet the Paris Accord, they should have no role entering the
United Nations. I'd also say to the Secretary General that he needs to establish a much bigger
office to support civil society. At the moment, the UN support for civil society organization
institutional support is about two people. That is absolutely the wrong level of engagement
with the wider elements of civil society. And the last thing I would probably say to the
Secretary-General is that the UN is very proud of having developed a system of internal
governance that protects the weaker countries, the smaller countries, that their views can be
heard in the intergovernmental governance process. The Secretary-General should not engage with
multi stakeholder groups who do not have a rulebook that allows for the protection of smaller
members of the group, that does not have a way to appeal and challenge decisions that does not
require public disclosure of their finances, all of those characteristics of
multistakeholderism. The Secretary General should have and the UN should have no relationship
with those who are not interested in protecting core concepts of democracy
LYNN FRIES : We have to leave it there. Special thanks to our guest contributor,
Harris Gleckman, and thank you for watching and for your interest in this segment of
GPEnewsdocs coming to you from Geneva, Switzerland.
The WEF and its various constituencies try to overtake control of development with their
"public-private partnership" flag but how these, let's say, partnerships, actually work and
interact with local communities and governments is an issue that need to attract more
scrutiny and transparency. If one uses the migratory pressure as a measure, so far,
development in Africa, South America and South Asia is not doing a good job on the part of
local communities. There may be a few success cases, as it seems to be the case that
deforestation in Brazil that while proceeding it's way, has somehow slowed down compared to
the last decade of the XXth century. But when a success story is analysed what you find
behind is simply strong government action as the Brazilian did starting in 2004 when they
begun the monitoring of development in the Amazon basin and expanded in 2006 with a
moratorium in soya culture and beef production. The WEF has a series of initiatives on what
they call sustainable development that sound excellent in their web pages but in reality do
not seem to work so well and the UN should be kept independent and legally above of the WEF
initiatives to monitor development and accountability. This initiative will almost certainly
result in foxes governing henhouses.
As I see it the WEF makes the hell of a good PR job without counterbalancing parties.
Truly scary stuff and why does it remind me of the way public transport was destroyed in
the US: step 1 – starve it of revenue; step 2 – privatize it (while promising
better service); step 3 – let it rot; and step 4 – close it down (responding to
the public, gripping about how bad the service had become). The job accomplished!
One has to wonder what the Sec. General has been smoking lately and where are Russians and
Chinese to push back?
The UN will never accomplish its mission, man is incapable of bringing about world peace.
The UN is here for one reason and one reason only and that is to destroy the false religious
system when the political rulers hand it their power to accomplish just that.
If WEF is looking at doing infrastructure on a global scale that is based on good science,
is sustainable and maintainable, the ultimate power over the "multi-stakeholder groups"
submitting their bids to the UN should be the UN – this means a new UN mandate that
must be ratified yearly by voters, and bureaucrats that must win elections. If this big idea
is going to accomplish what needs to be done the "stakeholders" might want to take a close
look at what happened to the dearly departed ideas of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism was
destroyed from within by the need for ever more profit; by the" rat-race to the bottom" and
by externalizing costs in the form of pollution – by the most obviously unsustainable
practices, both social and environmental. If the goal is clear and comprehensive all these
problems inherent in yesterday's capitalism will have to be addressed at the get-go. It is a
difference of scale whether a city hires a contractor to do new waterlines, or the UN hires
"multi stakeholder groups" to do some continent-wide 50 year project. That means the UN will
need to become answerable to the people for the management of all these big ideas. Because
conflict of interest will be so massive as to be unmanageable otherwise. And one definition
will be imperative – Just what stake or stakes is/are held by "multi-stakeholder
groups"? Because what is at stake is the planet itself. Not money.
The UN problem has always been money. The 200 nation states are dilatory in paying their
dues. This gives the few rich countries power – 'cooperate with us and we'll fund your
activities.' Its not as bare-faced as I state it but you get the picture. To solve this
problem we need the majority of countries to vote to make national dues a precedent claim on
each government. Publish the result of the vote and monthly progress towards the aim. Name
the countries cooperating.
Once the UN administration is confident of its income it can plan its activities better,
make peoples' health and livelihoods a priority and achieve a much higher profile amongst
humanity.
"Mining transnationals find it cheaper to buy water rights than to desalinate seawater and
transport it for tens or hundreds of kilometers. Even more so if they have to use less
polluting but more expensive desalination technologies.
This is an unequal and unjust war where the main victims are the poor population, small
farmers and the sustainable development of our region of Atacama.
We continue to approve and facilitate the approval of mining projects and mega-projects
without making it a condition not to consume water from the basin.
– The population of Copiapó, Caldera, Tierra Amarilla and Chañaral,
particularly the lower income population, suffers the consequences of having to endure
repeated supply cuts, low pressure and a terrible quality of drinking water.
The drinking water crisis in the mentioned cities is a direct consequence of the over
exploitation of the Copiapó river basin by foreign mining companies, of the
purchase-sale and speculation with water rights, as well as of the irrationality and
indolence of the State in not establishing priorities in the use of the vital water" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lGEONBfvTM
Although corporate meddling is not unheard of in the UN system, under the new terms of the
UN-WEF partnership, the UN will be permanently associated with transnational corporations. In
the long-term, this would allow corporate leaders to become 'whisper advisors' to the heads
of UN system departments.
The UN system is already under a significant threat from the US Government and those who
question a democratic multilateral world. Additionally, this ongoing corporatization will
reduce public support for the UN system in the South and the North, leaving the system, as a
whole, even more vulnerable.To prevent a complete downfall, the UN must adopt effective
mechanisms that prevent conflicts of interest consistently. Moreover, it should strengthen
peoples and communities which are the real human rights holders, while at the same time build
a stronger, independent, and democratic international governance system.
There is a strong call to action going on by hundreds of organizations against this
partnership agreement http://bit.ly/33bRQZP
I don't know how well this will retain format but it is the latest from the US Fed on
providing "liquidity" to the private banking system
"
Friday, 11/15/2019- Thursday, 12/12/2019 The Desk plans to conduct overnight repo operations
on each business day as well as a series of term repo operations over the specified period.
OVERNIGHT OPERATIONS DATES AGGREGATE OPERATION LIMIT
Friday, 11/15/2019 - Thursday, 12/12/2019 At least $120 billion
TERM OPERATION DATE MATURITY DATE TERM AGGREGATE OPERATION LIMIT
Tuesday, 11/19/2019 Tuesday, 12/3/2019 14-days At least $35 billion
Thursday, 11/21/2019 Thursday, 12/5/2019 14-days At least $35 billion
Monday, 11/25/2019 Monday, 1/6/2020 42-days At least $25 billion
Tuesday, 11/26/2019 Tuesday, 12/10/2019 14-days At least $35 billion
Wednesday, 11/27/2019 Thursday, 12/12/2019 15-days At least $35 billion
Monday, 12/2/2019 Monday, 1/13/2020 42-days At least $15 billion
Tuesday, 12/3/2019 Tuesday, 12/17/2019 14-days At least $35 billion
Thursday, 12/5/2019 Thursday, 12/19/2019 14-days At least $35 billion
Monday, 12/9/2019 Monday, 1/6/2020 28-days At least $15 billion
Tuesday, 12/10/2019 Monday, 12/23/2019 13-days At least $35 billion
Thursday, 12/12/2019 Thursday, 12/26/2019 14-days At least $35 billion
"
Some take away quotes from various ZH postings
"
In short, the Fed's dual mandate has been replaced by a single mandate of promoting financial
stability (or as some may say, boosting JPMorgan's stock price) similar to that of the
ECB.
Here BofA adds ominously that "by deciding to dynamically assess bank demand for reserves
and reduce the risk of air pockets in repo markets, we believe the Fed has entered
unchartered territory of monetary policy that may stretch beyond its dual mandate." And the
punchline: "By running balance-sheet policy to ensure overnight funding markets remain flush,
the Fed is arguably circumventing the most important brake on excess leverage: the
price."
So if NOT QE is in fact, QE, and if the Fed is once again in the price manipulation
business, what then?
According to BofA's Axel, the most worrying part of the Fed's current asset purchase
program is the realization that an ongoing bank footprint in repo markets is required to
maintain control of policy rates in the new floor system, or as we put it less politely,
banks are now able to hijack the financial system by indicating that they have an overnight
funding problem (as JPMorgan very clearly did) and force the Fed to do their (really
JPMorgan's) bidding.
And this is where BofA's warning hits a crescendo, because while repo is fully
collateralized and therefore contains negligible counterparty credit risk, "there may be a
situation in which banks want to deleverage quickly, for example during a money run or a
liquidation in some market caused by a sudden reassessment of value as in 2008."
Got that? Going forward please refer to any market crash as a "sudden reassessment of
value", something which has become impossible in a world where "value" is whatever the Fed
says it is... Well, the Fed or a bunch of self-serving venture capitalists, who pushed the
"value" of WeWork to $47 billion just weeks before it was revealed that the company is
effectively insolvent the punch bowl of endless free money is taken away.
Therefore, to Bank of America, this new monetary policy regime actually increases systemic
financial risk by making repo markets more vulnerable to bank cycles. This, as the bank
ominously warns, "increases interconnectedness, which is something regulators widely
recognize as making asset bubbles and entity failures more dangerous."
It is, however, BofA's conclusion that we found most alarming: as Axel writes, in his
parting words:
"some have argued, including former NY Fed President William Dudley, that the last
financial crisis was in part fueled by the Fed's reluctance to tighten financial conditions
as housing markets showed early signs of froth. It seems the Fed's abundant-reserve regime
may carry a new set of risks by supporting increased interconnectedness and overly easy
policy (expanding balance sheet during an economic expansion) to maintain funding conditions
that may short-circuit the market's ability to accurately price the supply and demand for
leverage as asset prices rise."
What I didn't include in comment # 137 above but did in the last Weekly Open Thread is the
following about the recent NOT SHORT TERM actions of the US Fed:
The POMO is a Permanent Open Market Operation (purchases from the primary private banks of
Treasuries & MBS) that bought $20 billion between mid-August to mid-September, another
bought $20 billion between mid-September to mid-October and $60 billion between mid-October
to mid-November....totaling $100 billion of US taxpayers money, so far, and is expected to
continue at the $60 billion/month until, supposedly, the middle of next year. (This is the
one that should concern folks the most because the economy has supposedly not crashed yet and
here the Fed is "foaming the runway" of the private banking system on the backs of Americans
already
@ William Gruff # 156 who wrote
"
There is no increase in the domestic US production of anything but bullshit, which America is
cranking out in record quantities, and with delusional fascists leading that productivity
surge.
"
I agree and want to summarize my comments # 137, 138 to add that on top of the manufacturing
recession that you write of and link to that the US has been in a financial recession since
the August/September time frame.
The US Fed has and continues to foam the private banking runway with billions of dollars
to prop up and delay price/value assessment. One reason that I can think of for that is the
coming IPO of Aramco for Saudi Arabia.
Another reason is likely to be a huge game of musical chairs being played where those in
control are arranging a specific set of very few chairs to be available for them when the
music stops. It will all be legal of course since all these financial derivative instruments
that will be in place will have Super-Priority in bankruptcy which gives those creditors of a
bankrupt debtor (America) the right to receive payment before others who would seem to have
superior claims to money or assets. The other losers in this case will be Social Security,
pension funds, state and municipal bonds to say nothing of the savings of the public that
think they are protected with FDIC.
If this event does not incite the pubic to nationalize the private banking system and
imprison many then a super-national cult of folk will own what is left of the Western world
and be defended by xxxx army.
Numbers show joke is on the US, not Huawei US ban lit a fire under Huawei, seen
taking lead in smartphones and awash in cash as bonds trade at a premium
By Umesh Desai
Unlisted Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies was made an international
pariah by US regulators earlier this year after a ban on buying key parts and on access to
crucial markets.
You think that sounded the death knell for the company? Think again.
This week, Huawei announced a US$286 million
bonuses bonanza to its employees . Its bonds continue to trade above par, and its cash
balances are massive. Hardly the signs of a company struggling under sanctions.
The company has repeatedly denied US allegations that it is a front for the Chinese
government – the justification Washington cited for banning US companies from using
Huawei-manufactured gear.
Huawei is the world's biggest telecom equipment maker and it's the second biggest smartphone
maker.
According to data from International Data Corporation, smartphone shipments in the
July-September quarter rose 18.6% to 66.6 million, just behind global leader Samsung's 78.2
million.
"Huawei has been gaining market share in China and overseas despite US trade war frictions
and may become the leading smartphone maker in the next two quarters," said Nitin Soni,
director of corporate ratings at Fitch Ratings.
He said telcos across emerging markets, which are facing capital expenditure pressures
and limited 5G business viability in the short term, may be willing to buy Huawei's 5G
equipment given it is cheaper and has better technology than European counterparts.
It's not just Soni. Industry leaders also acknowledge Huawei's quality standards
.
Indian telco Bharti Enterprises' chairman Sunil Mittal said recently, for example, "I can
safely say their products in 3G and 4G that we have experienced are significantly superior to
Ericsson and Nokia. I use all three of them. "
Indeed, the bond-market performance of the unrated, unlisted company confirms Huawei's
strength. Its dollar-denominated bonds traded in global markets are changing hands at above
par, indicating bond investors are confident about the company's cash position and liquidity
situation.
Its bonds due 2025, which pay a coupon of 4.125%, are trading at a price of $104 while the
holder would only get $100 at maturity. The premium would be compensated by the annual coupon,
which would reduce the yield. The bonds are currently yielding 3.4% compared with the 4.25%
yield at the time of the issuance. In price terms the bonds have rallied from $99 in 2015 to
$104. Prices move inversely to yields.
The financial highlights also betray no signs of weakness. The company has a cash hoard of
$39 billion and generates $10 billion from operations each year.
So, in fact, the US ban on Huawei may be helping the company.
"A ban on US companies such as Google to supply software to Huawei may lead to faster
innovation by Huawei to develop its own operating system and chips," said Soni.
"... There is no strong evidence of a positive impact of TSR plans on firm performance ..."
"... "Despite the fact that just under 50% of S&P 500 firms have this pay metric as part of their executive compensation plans and that this pay metric is designed to align the interest of shareholders and executives," Enayati told Yahoo Finance, "we find that there's no relationship between the pay metric and top-line business outcomes like 1-, 3-, or 5-year total shareholder return, return on equity, earnings per share growth, or revenue growth." ..."
The analysis, done in conjunction with consultants Pearl Meyer & Partners, examined a decade's
worth of data from every company in the S&P 500 (^GSPC). It compared companies that offer their
top brass a total shareholder return (TSR) plan to those that don't and found the increasingly
popular pay plans haven't significantly boosted any of a number of key metrics.
Total shareholder return is how well an investment in a company has done over a given period.
It's a combination of the stock's price change and dividends paid. With TSR plans, managers are
rewarded with shares, options, or even cash to give them a stake in how well the stock does.
For a growing number of corporate heads, big bonuses based on stock performance is a large
part of their pay.
In 2004, just 17% of S&P 500 companies gave CEOs and top executives some form of a TSR plan. A
decade later, nearly half of the companies in the index offered it.
As for those S&P 500 CEOs that have TSR plans, it represents on average some 29% of their
total direct compensation, though that percentage is a decline from 38% a decade ago. That's
because as more companies adopt TSR plans, they are doing so with less weight than companies who
took on these kinds of bonuses earlier.
The average CEO of an S&P 500 company made $13.8 million – or 204 times their average employee
– in 2014, according to job website Glassdoor.com.
Get the Latest Market Data and News with the Yahoo Finance App
Nonetheless, giving CEOs more for total shareholder return doesn't make a difference,
according to the Cornell study.
"There is no strong evidence of a positive impact of TSR plans on firm performance,"
wrote Hassan Enayati, Kevin Hallock, and Linda Barrington of Cornell University's Institute for
Compensation Studies.
"Despite the fact that just under 50% of S&P 500 firms have this pay metric as part of
their executive compensation plans and that this pay metric is designed to align the interest of
shareholders and executives," Enayati told Yahoo Finance, "we find that there's no relationship
between the pay metric and top-line business outcomes like 1-, 3-, or 5-year total shareholder
return, return on equity, earnings per share growth, or revenue growth."
Interestingly, the researchers discovered that while the number of companies paying top
executives for shareholder return incentives is increasing, the size of those bonuses relative to
total compensation is on the decline.
According to Enayati, part of that has to do with companies decreasing the weight of total
shareholder return compensation plans. "But then also the new adopters are coming in at lower
weights, perhaps just to test the water," he explained.
But Enayati doesn't rule out other performance bonuses. "While there's no evidence that this tool
hits the mark, that isn't to say that other metrics shouldn't be pursued as a solid way to align
those incentives," he said.
The analysis, done in conjunction with consultants Pearl Meyer & Partners, examined a decade's
worth of data from every company in the S&P 500. It compared companies that offer their top brass
a total shareholder return (TSR) plan to those that don't and found the increasingly popular pay
plans haven't significantly boosted any of a number of key metrics. ...
likbez said...
Looks to me like a generic problem of any neoliberal regime that became more acute as secular
stagnation of economics became a "new normal".
High compensation (which is just a part of generic redistribution of wealth up -- the goal
on neoliberalism) drives up ruthless sociopaths making short term stock performance the priority
and displaces engineers who are capable drive the firm into the future.
Short termism and financial machinations to boost the stock price are probably among key reasons
of decline of IBM and HP.
Paradoxically Icahn recently provided us with some interesting insights into bizarre world
of stock buybacks. See video on http://carlicahn.com/
America's misguided war on Chinese technology By Jeffrey D Sachs November 8,
2019
The worst foreign-policy decision by the United States of the last generation – and
perhaps longer – was the "war of choice" that it launched in Iraq in 2003 for the stated
purpose of eliminating weapons of mass destruction that did not, in fact, exist. Understanding
the illogic behind that disastrous decision has never been more relevant, because it is being
used to justify a similarly misguided US policy today.
The decision to invade Iraq followed the illogic of then-US vice-president Richard Cheney,
who declared that even if the risk of WMD falling into terrorist hands was tiny – say, 1%
– we should act as if that scenario would certainly occur.
Such reasoning is guaranteed to lead to wrong decisions more often than not. Yet the US and
some of its allies are now using the Cheney Doctrine to attack
Chinese technology. The US government argues that because we can't know with certainty that
Chinese technologies are safe, we should act as if they are certainly dangerous and bar
them.
Proper decision-making applies probability estimates to alternative actions. A generation
ago, US policymakers should have considered not only the (alleged) 1% risk of WMD falling into
terrorist hands, but also the 99% risk of a war based on flawed premises. By focusing only on
the 1% risk, Cheney (and many others) distracted the public's attention from the much greater
likelihood that the Iraq war lacked justification and that it would gravely destabilize the
Middle East and global politics.
The problem with the Cheney Doctrine is not only that it dictates taking actions predicated
on small risks without considering the potentially very high costs. Politicians are tempted to
whip up fears for ulterior purposes.
That is what US leaders are doing again: creating a panic over Chinese technology companies
by raising, and exaggerating, tiny risks. The most pertinent case (but not the only one) is the
US government attack on the wireless broadband company Huawei. The US is closing its markets to
the company and trying hard to shut down its business around the world. As with Iraq, the US
could end up creating a geopolitical disaster for no reason.
I have followed Huawei's technological advances and work in developing countries, as I
believe that fifth-generation (5G) and other digital technologies offer a huge boost to ending
poverty and other Sustainable Development Goals. I have similarly interacted with other telecom
companies and encouraged the industry to step up actions for the United Nations' SDGs. When I
wrote a short foreword (without compensation) for a
Huawei report on the topic, and was criticized by foes of China, I asked top industry and
government officials for evidence of wayward activities by Huawei. I heard repeatedly that
Huawei behaves no differently than trusted industry leaders.
The US government nonetheless argues that Huawei's 5G equipment could undermine global
security. A "back door" in Huawei's software or hardware, US officials claim, could enable the
Chinese government to engage in surveillance around the world. After all, US officials note,
China's laws require Chinese companies to cooperate with the government for purposes of
national security.
Given the technology's importance for their sustainable development, low-income economies
around the world would be foolhardy to reject an early 5G rollout. Yet despite providing no
evidence of back doors, the US is telling the world to stay away from Huawei
Now, the facts are these. Huawei's 5G equipment is low-cost and high-quality, currently
ahead of many competitors, and already rolling out. Its high performance results from years of
substantial spending on research and development, scale economies, and learning by doing in the
Chinese digital marketplace. Given the technology's importance for their sustainable
development, low-income economies around the world would be foolhardy to reject an early 5G
rollout.
Yet despite providing no evidence of back doors, the US is telling the world to stay away
from Huawei. The US claims are generic. As a US Federal Communications Commissioner
put it , "The country that owns 5G will own innovations and set the standards for the rest
of the world, and that country is currently not likely to be the United States." Other
countries, most notably the United Kingdom, have
found no back doors in Huawei's hardware and software. Even if back doors were discovered
later, they could almost surely be closed at that point.
The debate over Huawei rages in Germany, where the US government threatens to curtail
intelligence cooperation unless the authorities exclude Huawei's 5G technology. Perhaps as a
result of the US pressure, Germany's spy chief recently made a claim
tantamount to the Cheney Doctrine: "Infrastructure is not a suitable area for a group that
cannot be trusted fully." He offered no evidence of specific misdeeds. Chancellor Angela
Merkel, by contrast, is fighting
behind the scenes to leave the market open for Huawei.
Ironically, though predictably, the US complaints partly reflect America's
own surveillance activities at home and abroad. Chinese equipment might make secret
surveillance by the US government more difficult. But unwarranted surveillance by any
government should be ended. Independent UN monitoring to curtail such activities should become
part of the global telecommunications system. In short, we should choose diplomacy and
institutional safeguards, not a technology war.
The threat of US demands to blockade Huawei concerns more than the early rollout of the 5G
network. The risks to the rules-based trading system are profound. Now that the US is no longer
the world's undisputed technology leader, President Donald Trump and his advisers don't want to
compete according to a rules-based system. Their goal is to contain China's technological rise.
Their simultaneous attempt to neutralize the World Trade Organization by
disabling its dispute settlement system shows the same disdain for global rules.
If the Trump administration "succeeds" in dividing the world into separate technology camps,
the risks of future conflicts will multiply. The US championed open trade after World War II
not only to boost global efficiency and expand markets for American technology, but also to
reverse the collapse of international trade in the 1930s. That collapse stemmed in part from
protectionist tariffs imposed by the US under the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act , which
amplified the Great Depression, in turn contributing to the rise of Adolf Hitler and,
ultimately, the outbreak of World War II.
In international affairs, no less than in other domains, stoking fears and acting on them,
rather than on the evidence, is the path to ruin. Let's stick to rationality, evidence and
rules as the safest course of action. And let us create independent monitors to curtail the
threat of any country using global networks for surveillance of or cyberwarfare on others. That
way, the world can get on with the urgent task of harnessing breakthrough digital technologies
for the global good.
Globalism sounds like such a nice thing for many, it even has a nice ring to it! At least to
the naïve, whom actually believe that if the world could just get together and work out
its problems under one big umbrella, all would be great. I think most people would agree that
true free trade, coupled with safeguards to protect American jobs would be fine. The corrupted
globalism that this world has become nearly immersed in is a mechanism that, in reality, is
intent on creating a one world corporate owned planet operated under a top-down, locked-down,
political and economic management system backed up by coercion. Whew! That is a mouthful I
agree! It will be run by a partnership of the top .001% of wealthiest elites and administered
by the United Nations. International rules and laws for every single decision will nearly all
come under the auspices the United Nations. This plan has been laid out in various United
Nations publications and official policy.
President Trump has vowed to, and succeeded in some ways, to buck these one world
globalists, not to say he hasn't treated them to overly generous tax breaks since he has been
in charge! Not withstanding the prior, these one world globalists include even some of the most
prominent lawmakers in Washington D.C. far too often. The entrenched snake sales people over at
the White House lawmaking division are far too often part of the plan to decimate America
whether they believe it or not. We can only hope that a large part of them are do not realize
what the end-game is of this globalist cabal. Perhaps this is of course why we so often shake
our heads in disbelief when they utter ideas and beliefs that sound so foreign to ears,
anti-American and even scary!
So far, Pres. Trump seems to have accomplished about as much as any one president ever could
accomplish when walking into a room of entrenched den of thieves! Washington is not going to be
a part of solving the problems of globalism, for they and the globalists are in bed together.
Part of the problem remains that the establishment agenda is overrun by statists who walk in
lock-step with their leaders and party platforms even if corrupted. It is just too profitable
for them to ignore. Yet, the truth is that statism has no sense of proportion. These sometimes
well-meaning politicians, once they are put into power, knowingly or unknowingly become slaves
to their corporate owners. This is corporatocracy, and it is unsustainable. The one world
corporate pirates, comprising a collection of the largest 100 or so family dynasties, do in
fact control approximately 90 percent of the wealth of the world, hidden inside a dark web of
very complex multi-structured organizations and corporate nameplates. Such makes it very
difficult, but not impossible to truly figure out who the real owners are behind the maze. This
is perhaps the reason why I contend that President Trump, an outsider with a new direction for
America, may be our last chance. Most of these types hate Trump because he is hitting them
where it hurts on most fronts and is slowing down the globalist agenda!
Corporate socialism IS globalism. It is a growing and controlled oligarchy. As such, it
affords both the supranational capitalists, world's governments and non-elected quasi
governmental agencies to profit together as a baseball team would. Yes, working together with
one unified grand vision for the profit and powers of both. Globalism is the name. We already
see how nearly everything around us is becoming part of the so-called global order. These,
creating quid-pro-quo systems of control over the entire world economies, whom create wars for
profit, create inflation to inadvertently benefit themselves and enact so-called "free-trade
partnerships" that portend to help creates jobs here at home, only succeed occasionally of
creating low wage service jobs in large part in the parts of the world that the globalists
venture with their self-serving con-game. Limiting competition, being on the inside, having
power over others, this is what the global government and one world monopolistic corporations
are all about. The free trade agreements offer all of its members to petition, (and usually
get) allowances to get around many of the safeguards and traditional legal rules that used to
be sacrosanct in world trade. Especially as to food processing. The move toward monopolization
is perhaps the biggest motivator these have for supporting globalist (un)free trade
agreements.
What the true elite globalists (who reside in both political parties in Washington and world
power centers in particular) want is unbridled control over nearly everything in order to unite
us into a global world of subservient slaves unto them. So, what's the answer?
It is easy to witness that the far leftists often do not divulge they are socialists at all.
In recent years, this is changing, now that millions of young voters have been convinced by
their colleges and mass media outlets that socialism IS the answer. In the past, no candidate
would utter the word socialism for fear of many lost votes. Today, a surprisingly large
percentage of politicians in government are onboard. We can easily spot them if we compare
their voting records. Then compare them to the promises made when running for election! So,
before you get too comfortable with politicians who come off as infectiously kind and
compassionate while often using the words 'fairness', "world community", "social equality",
"open borders", "free trade", "globalism", "social justice" and other such pleasantly
attractive bleeding heart politicians using such catch-phrases, be careful. Although Democrats
will more often than not fall into this category of unsung globalists, many on both sides of
the isle fit the bill as well. Some more than others knowingly use these kind sounding
platforms in order to garner votes from the gullible young in particular. History shows over
and over again how gullible citizens can be duped into voting for someone they thought was a
caring politician, then come to discover they voted for a hidden socialist or communist in
fact. Although we can all agree on the responsibilities of our government as spelled out in the
Constitution, our founding fathers warned the new country that we must beware of politicians
who promise more than that great document promises.
Government / corporate partnerships, whether formal or consensual, create insanely
profitable fortunes for their owners while too often screwing over not only Americans but the
worlds taxpaying citizens and their industrialized countries as well. Who do you think the
prime contractors are who build and supply trillions of dollars of military weapons to the
huge, high testosterone American military machine? These war factories are largely owned by
billion-dollar super elites whose huge goliath corporations very often operate under a
duplicity of names that largely hides the true identities of the owners behind them. These true
owners often use layers of sub-corporations operating under various, differing names and
locations providing legal and illegal tax havens around the world. Apple pays zero US taxes for
example using such a scheme. This is just one case amongst thousands. Often the tax havens are
claimed are justified by the existence of a foreign post office box. Seldom are these caught or
fined by our U.S. authorities. When they do occasionally get caught, the fines are typically
just a miniscule part of the total savings they have accumulated over the past years.
With a little research we can find many of the same board members appearing again and again
on the rosters of the quietly interconnected mega corporations. This creates the long-time
problem of immoral collusions that often allow shifting of profits to other tax havens,
allowing American profits to go untaxed and shifting the responsibility fully onto the American
worker. Does it not make sense that a corporation that makes ridiculous record profits such as
Apple and others do, that they should pay their share? This globalist mindset of the elites
creates record profits at the expense of American workers and their spending powers.
Within our public "screwling system" as I call it, students are increasingly taught that
"globalism" is a new religion of sorts, a "cure-all" for world discourse perhaps! Those with
enough power to create massive changes in culture are behind the politically correct culture,
the green movement and most other leftist power grabs. These are often the very same
supra-national corporations and political kingpins who wish to undermine the America we
remember, its legal system while creating a monopolistic economic and totalitarian one world
state. It is wise to remember the confirmed beliefs and admissions o f the godfathers of the
one world order. Of course I am speaking of the Rockefellers, J.P. Morgan and dozens more of
the wealthiest families of the world whom have for centuries verifiably acted upon and talked
of such plans. Their heirs, as well as the new titans such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos (Amazon
fame), Elon Musk (Tesla) and other such billionaire or trillionaire types are nearly all on
board vocally with a one world order system of governance. I will cover this much more further
on.
For over 100 years, much of American education has been stealthily entrenched in
anti-Western "cultural Marxism" propaganda and other damaging indoctrinations (as I document
later). Public schools have long promoted the globalism lie, teaching such as the yellow brick
road towards acceptance of a one world order that delivers utopia. It is hard indeed to find a
young person today in America who still believes strongly in traditional values and ideas of
self-responsibility, detest government interference in their lives, loves the Constitution,
what it stands for and protects. They have been indoctrinated by our schools to the point that
common sense no longer matters, for honest discourse in discussions are heavily discouraged in
many a classroom. I prove further along that most of the liberal ideology being increasingly
touted by the left is borne out of a long dreamt of socialist utopia carried out by a
partnership between the corporate globalists, the U.N. and those elites who desire power over
the world. And I can guarantee to you that these are getting impatient. These, their
cohorts/devotees are those whom desire to make the choices as to everything you buy, eat,
drive, live, your job destiny, how much or how little you make, etc. etc. Most of this agenda
is not so hidden, contained already within the prime vehicle to bring about the one world order
with the United Nations Agenda 21 policies taking place around the world.
Considering that at least 50% of the world's wealth is verifiably controlled by the top 1%
consisting of only 67 of the world's wealthiest individuals (and shrinking), this is pretty
good evidence that we are essentially being controlled by a very small corporate global elite
club designed and run for the few. These stats are verified later. The pace of their
destruction is staggering.
Today, the top 200 corporations are bigger than the combined economies of 182 countries and
have twice the economic influence than 80 per cent of all humanity as I prove!
Globalism has come very far in rendering world with greatly reduced amounts of anything
amounting to a capitalistic system that comes with practical safeguards against abuses that
place too much harm to the hard working stiffs. Increasingly, we witness wage inequalities
worse than in the Great Depression. Truly, the top 10 percent earners have left everyone else
in the dust increasingly over the last 50 years. The top 1 percenters incomes during this time
has gone to the moon at the expense of the masses.
Globalism is the vehicle to achieve the elite globalist goals of a one world order,
separate, nationalistic and independent nations with their own borders must be eliminated,
which shouldn't be too much of a problem to accomplish in much of the world, especially in the
current socialist run countries in and around the European continent and America who largely
embrace socialism. What is ironic is that socialist Briton's have turn their backs on Brexit,
meant to centralize nearly all power to the elite globalists. Little did they realize that you
can't have both, at least in the long run.
The League of Nations was the precursor of the United Nations. From their beginnings, the
primary long-term reason for both of them had always been to be the primary central agency of
the world, an assemblage of the top global power brokers created to steer and carry out the new
world order which has been dreamt of for millennium. Its creation has not been, as it touts,
"to create a harmonious and peaceful world". No, the U.N.'s overarching goal has been to create
a one world government using the ploy of globalism. There are ample records dating back before
its very creation, direct from the U.N.'s own publications and top officers and founders to
support this statement which I document quite fully in order to prove that point. This UN has
with much ambition endorsed and sanctioned one world inspired leaders, corporations, groups,
agencies, NGO's and billionaires from countries all around the globe in a long term unified
vision of this new world order in order to further the one world agenda. The help that the UN
has supplied in the creation of most planned wars, coups and disruptions across the world is
well known by those who have done their homework on that subject. It is this cabal and others
that are the enemies of true freedoms, borders, sovereignty across the globe yet are completely
onboard with creating a one world government. Americanism or any other type of governance
besides their one world order. These are the a major part of the world's Deep State apparatus
who are in fact often hidden forces behind the worlds corporate powered global power
structure.
The global multinational corporatist leaders have pushed their un-free trade treaties, long
creating a horrid record of killing millions of good paying jobs across America and nearly
everywhere they venture. These stealing of good jobs have swelled the bank accounts and powers
of these globalist multinational corporations while boosting their wealth into the top 1%
largely at the expense of the masses who now work for far less. lowered wages.
The globalists new world order plan requires a complete breakdown of the required systems
that have historically allowed nation to prosper on its own merits. Sold by both parties is the
false belief that big government can fix everything. This long-running sales job actually
promotes self-interest above all, using deceptive techniques as I cover. Such a sales job
requires a break away from traditions that bind us with our neighbors and family. It requires a
growth in narcissism, self above God so much so that we can now even witiness the horrid
reality of pedophilia becoming more mainstream! Since President Trump's reign, thousands of
pedophilia people and groups have been arrested as never before! Thousand of killer gang
members have been arrested as never before, especially those inside of the MS-13 ruthless
group. This is just one of many actions by this President that leads to my belief that our new
President is holding up his end of the agreement. Like him or not, he at least is holding up
his promises.
History is replete with all the immense damages that the globalist movement has brought upon
the world. These have sold the lie that globalism is the answer to the inequalities between the
haves and the have nots. While the opposite is the real truth! The truth is now evident when
one looks at the condition of the world they have pushed upon all of us over the last many
years.
The elite new world order operatives have infiltrated all the major nations governmental
agencies, top positions of power. Led by the lure of power, connectedness, money, these are
often not aware that they are actually perpetuating a plan that is deadly for much of the world
if the globalist elites they serve should get their way. Unfortunately for these self serving
minions only are concerned with self promotion often. Yet the fact remains that political
expediency and promotions come with compliance. The heads of nearly every major country are
working together with this huge one world apparatus machine that is enclosed within the UN,
World Bank, IMF, European Union, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal
Family, the corporation called America, and hundreds of other governmental and non-governmental
centers of power. Many of these hide behind nice sounding, humanitarian nameplates. Nearly all
the crises we see play out are ones they actually create, (of which American hegemony around
the world is a large player). For these, the ends always justify the means.
Continual non-stop conflicts around the world, of which America is often at the forefront of
are exponentially increasing. I will explain why and how America's endless war policies has
been implemented over the last many years, but I cannot divulge my take on who and what is
behind much of the openly visible powers working behind much of the news we hear.
Explained will be real, actual reasons why America has spent over 15 years in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Libya with nothing to show besides disasters and deaths, while earning a bad
reputation around the world as a bully. Be assured that the elites and banking system have made
trillions of dollars from these three examples. And lives mean little. Psychopaths don't care
about anything beyond their own desires and powers, and many of these are psychopaths indeed.
They use false justifications as a passport to sell many of their warring's and destructions.
This is globalism.
I predict that the CIA, (a globalist arm of the U.S. Government and deep state), armed with
an unlimited budget and trillions of dollars derived from their years of secret under the radar
dirty operations, are likely to be an agency to be reviewed, revamped or remodeled within the
not so distant future. The truths behind this clandestine, above the law and corrupted agency
may finally be surfacing as well. Ever since the Trump Russian collusion witch hunt also with
an unlimited budget as well both of these conducted, likely during Pres. Trump's time as
president, we should expect to witness a firestorm of controversy and change more momentous
than anything in American history, hopefully.
President Donald Trump has his work cut out, but his years in office have shown he is no
typical deep state establishment fixture of either political party! What we are now witnessing
is perhaps the most important and fateful elections in America's entire history. The results
will either allow the Republican Party to prove itself to be the party of the people, or become
impotent, simply becoming water boys for the Democrat Party, thereafter having little real
power for decades perhaps. The results of the coming elections leading into 2020, (general and
mid-terms), will in fact be the determining factor for whether America and the world reject
conservativism or falls into the clutches of a highly touted, yet untruthful liberalism that
doesn't even resemble the old party of the people that dems used to own in the far past. So, we
must ask ourselves, how did this all come to such a historic moment as we are living in?
The world's worst negotiating strategy is to give the other side everything they want in
exchange for worthless empty promises, yet this is exactly what Trump and his trade team are doing.
All
the Chinese trade team has to do to get rid of tariffs and other U.S. bargaining chips is mutter
some empty phrase about "agreeing in principle" and the U.S. surrenders all its bargaining chips.
If the other side are such naive chumps that they give you everything you want without
actually committing to anything remotely consequential, why bother with a formal agreement?
Just
play the other side for the chumps they are: if they threaten to reinstate tariffs, just issue
another worthless press release about "progress has been made."
The other guaranteed losing strategy in negotiation is advertise your own fatal
weakness, which in Trump's case is his obsession with pushing the U.S. stock market to new highs.
There
is no greater gift he could hand the Chinese trade team than this monumental weakness, for all they
have to do is talk tough and the U.S. stock market promptly tanks, sending the Trump Team into a
panic of appeasement and empty claims of "progress."
The Chinese team has gotten their way for a year by playing Trump's team as chumps and
patsies, so why stop now?
The Chinese know they can get way without giving anything away
by continuing to play the American patsies and using the president's obsession with keeping U.S.
stocks lofting higher to their advantage: declare the talks stalled, U.S. stocks crater, the
American team panics and rushes to remove anything that might have enforcement teeth, reducing any
"trade deal" to nothing but empty promises.
Given their success at playing America's team, why do a deal at all? Just play the
chumps for another year,
and maybe Trump will be gone and a new set of even more naive
patsies enter the White House.
If we put ourselves in the shoes of the Chinese negotiators, we realize there's no need
to sign a deal at all:
the Trump team has gone out of its way to make it needless for
China to agree to anything remotely enforceable. All the Chinese have to do is issue some stern
talk that crushes U.S. stocks and the Trump Team scurries back, desperate to appease so another
rumor of a "trade deal" can be issued to send U.S. stocks higher.
It would be pathetic if it wasn't so foolish and consequential.
"... Pompeo said the United States had long cherished its friendship with the Chinese people, adding the Communist government was not the same thing as the people of China. ..."
"... We are in a civilization war about the global social contract and whether sovereign public finance gets a chance to be compared against the Western centuries old private finance controlled world. ..."
"... The USA has been successful at bribing foreign leaders, taking them under their wing, and getting them to accept their place in the world order. They think they can do this with anybody. ..."
"... The US never really counts on foreign leaders taking their peoples interests at heart and standing up to the hegemon. As far as Pompeo goes this is classic projection. It is a sign they are losing and are worried about it. ..."
Below is a Reuters posting about Mike Pompeo presenting the public/private finance "dog
whistle" at a Hudson Institute think tank gala dinner....the pot calling the kettle
black.
"
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday stepped up recent
U.S. rhetoric targeting China's ruling Communist Party, saying Beijing was focused on
international domination and needed to be confronted.
Pompeo made the remarks even as the Trump administration said it still expected to sign
the first phase of deal to end a damaging trade war with China next month, despite Chile's
withdrawal on Wednesday as the host of an APEC summit where U.S. officials had hoped this
would happen.
Pompeo said the United States had long cherished its friendship with the Chinese people,
adding the Communist government was not the same thing as the people of China.
"They are reaching for and using methods that have created challenges for the United
States and for the world and we collectively, all of us, need to confront these challenges
... head on," Pompeo said in an address to a gala dinner in New York of the conservative
Hudson Institute think tank.
"It is no longer realistic to ignore the fundamental differences between our two systems,
and the impact that the differences in those systems have on American national security."
"
I posted the above about 6 hours ago on the Weekly Open thread and now get up to read that
the financial markets are down and Trump is tweeting that it is the Fed's fault for not
lowering rates even further even though there are a couple of ZH postings that refer to
China's response to Pompeo's remarks as offensive and maybe a trade deal won't get
signed...
We are in a civilization war about the global social contract and whether sovereign public
finance gets a chance to be compared against the Western centuries old private finance
controlled world.
Haha. The fight is an old one. Who is to be master and who is to be slave. China was supposed to happily be the world's
cheap manufacturer and not get too big for its britches. The USA has been successful at bribing foreign leaders, taking
them under their wing, and getting them to accept their place in the world order. They think they can do this with anybody.
They think every leader is a budding Lenin Moreno or that they can arrange a coup and force into office another Lenin
Moreno. Russia, China, and India will not allow it.
All have at one time or another (Russia quite recently) been under the heel of Western empire. All have old and proud
civilizations.
The US never really counts on foreign leaders taking their peoples interests at heart and standing up to the hegemon.
As far as Pompeo goes this is classic projection. It is a sign they are losing and are worried about it.
Chinese Patriotism: Huawei Smartphone Sales Jump 66% In China As Apple iPhone Sales Slump
by
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/30/2019 - 13:50
0
SHARES
We're starting to get first-hand knowledge of what we're coining as the
"
blowback
period
"
in the trade war. This is a point in time when Chinese consumers, downright
furious of President Trump's protectionist policies that targeted Chinese companies over the
summer, have collectively stood up to an aggressor (the US), and have
secretly fired back,
targeting US firms by abandoning their products for domestic ones, all in the name of patriotism.
Honestly, over time, the trade war, if solved next month or next year, or who knows at this point
when it'll be solved, will have devastating consequences for corporate America as their market
share in China will erode as patriotism forces consumers to gravitate towards domestic brands.
A new report from
Canalys
, an
independent research firm focused on technology, has linked patriotism in China for the jump in
Huawei smartphone sales in the third quarter.
Huawei's 3Q19 smartphone sales soared by 66% YoY in China
, compared with a 31%
increase in 2Q19.
Between 2Q-3Q, President Trump escalated the trade war to near full-blown, and also attacked
individual companies with economic sanctions and banned certain ones from doing business in the US.
Chinese consumers responded by
ditching American products, like Apple iPhones
, as
this is some of the first evidence we've seen of the blowback period, likely to worsen in 4Q19
through 1Q20.
As shown in the chart below, the July-September period of 2019 was a devastating quarter for
Huawei's top rivals, including Vivo, Oppo, Xiaomi (other Chinese brands), along with depressing
sales from Apple.
Smartphone shipments overall were 97.8 million, down 3% from 100.6 million for the same period
last year.
Apple's YoY slump gained momentum from -14% in 2Q to -28% for 3Q
.
Chinese patriotism
allowed Huawei's market share in the country to expand from
24.9% to 42.4% over the past year.
Canalys analyst Mo Jia said, "The U.S.-China trade war is also creating new opportunities,"
adding that, "
Huawei's retail partners are rolling out advertisements to link Huawei with
being the patriotic choice, to appeal to a growing demographic of Chinese consumers willing to take
political factors into account when making a purchase decision.
"
The blowback period has begun, and corporate America should be terrified that their market share
in China is about to evaporate.
Oh No! Interest on the Debt Is Half As Large as the 1990s Peak!
By Dean Baker
The Washington Post had a piece * on newly released data on the federal budget deficit.
The piece included the obligatory comments from the always wrong budget "experts" at the
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It also warned readers:
"U.S. debt is considered one of the safest investments in the world and interest rates
remain low, which is why the government has been able to borrow money at cheap rates to
finance the large annual deficits. But the costs are adding up. The government spent about
$380 billion in interest payments on its debt last year, almost as much as the entire federal
government contribution to Medicaid."
"Almost as much as the entire federal government contribution to Medicaid!" Think about
that. Try also thinking about the fact that interest payments were around 1.7 percent of GDP
last year (before deducting money refunded from the Federal Reserve). That compares to a peak
of 3.2 percent of GDP in 1991. Are you scared yet?
It's also not quite right to claim that interest rates in the United States are especially
low, at least not compared to other rich countries. The U.S. pays an interest rate on 10-year
government bonds that is more two full percentage points higher than the interest rate paid
by Germany and the Netherlands. It's even higher than the interest rate paid by Greece.
"As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that
I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy
and obliterate the Economy of Turkey
(I've done before!)
"
Donald J. Trump
"China uses a host of monopolizing strategies to extend its geopolitical and commercial
power, everything from below cost pricing to grab market share, patent trolling,
espionage, mergers, and financial manipulation. In fact, the CCP is best understood as
a giant monopoly that also controls a nation of 1.4 billion people and a large military
apparatus...
China's biggest asset in gaining power was how most people in the West just didn't
realize that the CCP aimed to use it. Now China's cover is blown. The raw exercise of
power to censor a random Houston Rockets basketball executive has made millions of
people take notice. Everyone knows, the Chinese government isn't content to control its
own nation, it must have all bow down to its power and authority.
Matt overstates the headline I think. The empowerment of China may have gone into higher
gear with Bill Clinton perhaps, but has been fully supported by every President, both
parties, and especially the moneyed interests in the US, who place their short term greed
first and foremost.
Follow the money. China is certainly not alone among organizations, and even nations, in
playing on the personal greed, divided loyalties, and lust for power of our political and
financial class.
This in itself is nothing new. But the extent of it, and the fashionable acceptance of it
amongst our society's elites, the industrialization of political corruption and big money
in politics, has been breathtaking.
That looks like vast and generally incorrect exaggeration. While China mode substantial
progress in catching up with the West, the technology is still dominated by the West.
But as technological revolution is slowing down and in some areas coming to the end (die size
in semiconductors in one example; it is impossible to shrink it further; smartphones reached
saturation level, and hardware wise their capabilities are far above what a regular user needs or
wants) it is easier for other countries to catch up.
In any case, the main reason for trade war with China is to try to slow down its
ascendance.
The problem for China is that China converted to neoliberalism, and as such (like Russia) is
subject to all the ills the neoliberal society tend to bring into the country. Including a very
high level of inequality.
And while backlash against neoliberalism is growing and in the USA
neoliberalism entered a prolong crisis with secular stagnation as the "new normal" , the question
is what is that alternative ? And while backlash against neoliberalism is growing and in the USA
neoliberalism entered a prolong crisis with secular stagnation as the "new normal" , the question
is what is that alternative ?
Notable quotes:
"... Precisely! The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of the United States. It was an ideological battle, which the United States, unfortunately won, because it utilized both propaganda and economic terror (the arms race and other means). ..."
"... Now, China is next on the list, and the White House is not even trying to hide it. But China is savvy. It is beginning to understand the game. And it is ready, by all means, to defend the system which has pulled almost all its citizens out of misery, and which could, one day soon, do the same for the rest of the world. ..."
"... China has more problems than the United States. Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong, persecuting Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Indonesia and Malaysia because of Islam, Inner Mongolia separatists, Kashmir and India, USA trade pressure, Japan and South Korea are competitors. ..."
It is very popular these days to talk and write about the "trade war" between the United
States and China. But is there really one raging? Or is it, what we are witnessing, simply a
clash of political and ideological systems : one being extremely successful and optimistic, the
other depressing, full of dark cynicism and nihilism?
In the past, West used to produce almost everything. While colonizing the entire planet (one
should just look at the map of the globe, between the two world wars), Europe and later the
United States, Canada and Australia, kept plundering all the continents of natural resources,
holding hundreds of millions of human beings in what could be easily described as 'forced
labor', often bordering on slavery.
Under such conditions, it was very easy to be 'number one', to reign without competition,
and to toss around huge amounts of cash, for the sole purpose of indoctrinating local and
overseas 'subjects' on topics such as the 'glory' of capitalism, colonialism (open and hidden),
and Western-style 'democracy'.
It is essential to point out that in the recent past, the global Western dictatorship (and
that included the 'economic system) used to have absolutely no competition. Systems that were
created to challenge it, were smashed with the most brutal, sadistic methods. One only needs
recall invasions from the West to the young Soviet Union, with the consequent genocide and
famines. Or other genocides in Indochina, which was fighting its wars for independence, first
against France, later against the United States.
*
Times changed. But Western tactics haven't.
There are now many new systems, in numerous corners of the world. These systems, some
Communist, others socialist or even populist, are ready to defend their citizens, and to use
the natural resources to feed the people, and to educate, house and cure them.
No matter how popular these systems are at home, the West finds ways to demonize them, using
its well-established propaganda machinery. First, to smear them and then, if they resist, to
directly liquidate them.
As before, during the colonial era, no competition has been permitted. Disobedience is
punishable by death.
Naturally, the Western system has not been built on excellence, hard work and creativity,
only. It was constructed on fear, oppression and brutal force. For centuries, it has clearly
been a monopoly.
*
Only the toughest countries, like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea or Cuba, have managed to
survive, defending they own cultures, and advancing their philosophies.
To the West, China has proved to be an extremely tough adversary.
With its political, economic, and social system, it has managed to construct a
forward-looking, optimistic and extraordinarily productive society. Its scientific research is
now second to none. Its culture is thriving. Together with its closest ally, Russia, China
excels in many essential fields.
That is precisely what irks, even horrifies the West.
For decades and centuries, Europe and the United States have not been ready to tolerate any
major country, which would set up its own set of rules and goals.
China refuses to accept the diktat from abroad. It now appears to be self-sufficient,
ideologically, politically, economically and intellectually. Where it is not fully
self-sufficient, it can rely on its friends and allies. Those allies are, increasingly, located
outside the Western sphere.
*
Is China really competing with the West? Yes and no. And often not consciously.
It is a giant; still the most populous nation on earth. It is building, determinedly, its
socialist motherland (applying "socialism with the Chinese characteristics" model). It is
trying to construct a global system which has roots in the thousands of years of its history
(BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, often nicknamed the "New Silk Road").
Its highly talented and hardworking, as well as increasingly educated population, is
producing, at a higher pace and often at higher quality than the countries in Europe, or the
United States. As it produces, it also, naturally, trades.
This is where the 'problem' arises. The West, particularly the United States, is not used to
a country that creates things for the sake and benefit of its people. For centuries, Asian,
African and Latin American people were ordered what and how to produce, where and for how much
to sell the produce. Or else!
Of course, the West has never consulted anyone. It has been producing what it (and its
corporations) desired. It was forcing countries all over the world, to buy its products. If
they refused, they got invaded, or their fragile governments (often semi-colonies, anyway)
overthrown.
The most 'terrible' thing that China is doing is: it is producing what is good for China,
and for its citizens.
That is, in the eyes of the West, unforgiveable!
*
In the process, China 'competes'. But fairly: it produces a lot, cheaply, and increasingly
well. The same can be said about Russia.
These two countries are not competing maliciously. If they were to decide to, they could
sink the US economy, or perhaps the economy of the entire West, within a week.
But they don't even think about it.
However, as said above, to just work hard, invent new and better products, advance
scientific research, and use the gains to improve the lives of ordinary people (they will be no
extreme poverty in China by the end of 2020) is seen as the arch-crime in London and
Washington.
Why? Because the Chinese and Russian systems appear to be much better, or at least, simply
better, than those which are reigning in the West and its colonies. And because they are
working for the people, not for corporations or for the colonial powers.
And the demagogues in the West – in its mass media outlets and academia – are
horrified that perhaps, soon, the world will wake up and see the reality. Which is actually
already happening: slowly but surely.
*
To portray China as an evil country, is essential for the hegemony of the West. There is
nothing so terrifying to London and Washington as the combination of these words: "Socialism/
Communism, Asian, success". The West invents new and newer 'opposition movements', it then
supports them and finances them, just in order to then point fingers and bark: "China is
fighting back, and it is violating human rights", when it defends itself and its citizens. This
tactic is clear, right now, in both the northwest of the country, and in Honk Kong.
Not everything that China builds is excellent. Europe is still producing better cars, shoes
and fragrances, and the United States, better airplanes. But the progress that China has
registered during the last two decades, is remarkable. Were it to be football, it is China 2:
West 1.
Most likely, unless there is real war, that in ten years, China will catch up in many
fields; catch up, and surpass the West. Side by side with Russia.
It could have been excellent news for the entire world. China is sharing its achievements,
even with the poorest of the poor countries in Africa, or with Laos in Asia.
The only problem is, that the West feels that it has to rule. It is unrepentant, observing
the world from a clearly fundamentalist view. It cannot help it: it is absolutely, religiously
convinced that it has to give orders to every man and woman, in every corner of the globe.
It is a tick, fanatical. Lately, anyone who travels to Europe or the United States will
testify: what is taking place there is not good, even for the ordinary citizens. Western
governments and corporations are now robbing even their own citizens. The standard of living is
nose-diving.
China, with just a fraction of the wealth, is building a much more egalitarian society,
although you would never guess so, if you exclusively relied on Western statistics.
*
So, "trade war" slogans are an attempt to convince the local and global public that "China
is unfair", that it is "taking advantage" of the West. President Trump is "defending" the
United States against the Chinese 'Commies'. But the more he "defends them", the poorer they
get. Strange, isn't it?
While the Chinese people, Russian people, even Laotian people, are, 'miraculously', getting
richer and richer. They are getting more and more optimistic.
For decades, the West used to preach 'free trade', and competition. That is, when it was in
charge, or let's say, 'the only kid on the block'.
In the name of competition and free trade, dozens of governments got overthrown, and
millions of people killed.
And now?
What is China suppose to do? Frankly, what?
Should it curb its production, or perhaps close scientific labs? Should it consult the US
President or perhaps British Prime Minister, before it makes any essential economic decision?
Should it control the exchange rate of RMB, in accordance with the wishes of the economic tsars
in Washington? That would be thoroughly ridiculous, considering that (socialist/Communist)
China will soon become the biggest economy in the world, or maybe it already is.
There is all that abstract talk, but nothing concrete suggested. Or is it like that on
purpose?
Could it be that the West does not want to improve relations with Beijing?
On September 7, 2019, AP reported:
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow compared trade talks with China on Friday to the
U.S. standoff with Russia during the Cold War
"The stakes are so high, we have to get it right, and if that takes a decade, so be it,"
he said.
Kudlow emphasized that it took the United States decades to get the results it wanted with
Russia. He noted that he worked in the Reagan administration: "I remember President Reagan
waging a similar fight against the Soviet Union."
Precisely! The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of
the United States. It was an ideological battle, which the United States, unfortunately won,
because it utilized both propaganda and economic terror (the arms race and other
means).
Now, China is next on the list, and the White House is not even trying to hide it. But
China is savvy. It is beginning to understand the game. And it is ready, by all means, to
defend the system which has pulled almost all its citizens out of misery, and which could, one
day soon, do the same for the rest of the world.
US is hemorrhaging around $1.7 trillion dollars(according to the bond king) a year with
the “greatest economy ever” and near zero interest rate. Clearly, this is not
sustainable and can’t last much longer. When the jig is up, whoever has the most
guns(not gold) will prevail. .
China has more problems than the United States. Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong, persecuting
Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Indonesia and Malaysia because of Islam, Inner Mongolia separatists,
Kashmir and India, USA trade pressure, Japan and South Korea are competitors.
China has some bright spots with Pakistan, North Korea and a very open hand negotiated
with the African Union to colonize that continent etc. Russia is neutral but if it is to fall
it will probably be towards Europe not the East.
Vietnam is falling away leaving Myanmar and Cambodia. Thailand might already be a Western
proxy.
You've broken down nothing. China can sell somewhere else, since it makes all the stuff.
The US makes very little and will pay far more Chinese equivalent goods. Further, China's GDP
is now 80% domestically generated; of the remaining 20% export income, the US accounts for
only 30% of it, ie 6%. China can stand a loss of 6% easily. While the Americans, led the
Ape-in-Chief have been thumping their chests, the nimble Chinese have taken markets
everywhere, diversified their manufacturing bases and transportation systems. The US is
shouting at the Moon. Enjoy the tan...
'The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of the United
States. It was an ideological battle, which the United States, unfortunately won,'
Really !!! have a read of Gulag Archipelago before you come out with anything this
stupid.
The author apparently has never been to China to know what their perspective is. Instead,
he is superimposing what western ideologs think it is. To Americans, it is political and
ideological struggle. To the Chinese, it's basic economics and the welfare of its people. The
Chinese know better than anyone else, what it was like being down in the gutter for almost
200 years, about the time the British showed up with their opium trade in the 1830's. The
Chinese have made great strides in the last 45 years to get their people out of poverty,
modernize, and build an industrialized economy that rivals any other economy in the world.
The truth is, it's a feat that Americans are tacitly envious of, and will do whatever it
takes to cut the Chinese down.
The problem is, America is not the shining example of success and exceptionalism it thinks
it is. It has fallen behind the power curve and isn't competitive any longer. Free trade is
far and away better in China than what you will find in America. Don't believe it? Go there
and see for yourself. Then ask yourself, why did the greater chunk of American manufacturing
left and went to China in the first place, (besides chasing cheap labor), If it wasn't for
free trade?
Many other countries don't share the same ideology or values with Americans either,
particularly when America can't provide for the welfare of its own people, so why would they
want to copy that model of decay?
attractive properties in shenzhen or any tier 1 chinese cities are in the millions or tens
of millions of dollars. not likely to jump higher anytime soon but whole lot of downside
potential. Vancouver is full up. why not seattle, DC or somewhere with "cheap" prices?
They have two alternatives to SWIFT - CIPS & NSPK. Further, both Russia and China are
using their own and local currencies in trade, bypassing not only SWIFT fees and delays, but
the USD exchange rate rip-off.
Frankly ZH readers are about 10 yrs behind the latest developments, hence the rednecks
ranting about their already lost cause. Do some research.
"So far, China has exercised restraint." ...because they don't want the world to see what
a truly monstrous regime runs that country...much like Israhell tries to silence and stifle
criticism of its monstrous racist and supremacist regime.
Meanwhile the West is on meds as it willingly takes the dagger someone is handing it to
enable it to commit suicide..
I wonder who is pulling strings in the background?
Canada and australia most certainly did NOT plunder the world, at anytime. We have all the
resources we will ever need,and we have never sought an empire. Don't try to drag us down
into your pit for company. It is your pit, along with Britain. Let the British keep you
company.
China "is ready to defend the system which has pulled almost all its citizens out of
misery"
China is very late to the game of "printing debt" It has taken the USA 100 years to
bankrupt itself. China with it's 350% of GDP has managed it in 30 years.
That looks like vast and generally incorrect exaggeration. While China mode substantial progress in catching up with the West, the
technology is still dominated by the West.
But as technological revolution is slowing down and in some areas coming to the end (die size in semiconductors in one example;
it is impossible to shrink it further; smartphones reached saturation level, and hardware wise their capabilities are far above what
a regular user needs or wants) it is easier for other countries to catch up.
In any case, the main reason for trade war with China is to try to slow down its ascendance.
The problem for China is that China converted to neoliberalism, and as such (like Russia) is subject to all the ills the neoliberal
society tend to bring into the country. Including a very high level of inequality.
Notable quotes:
"... Precisely! The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of the United States. It was an ideological battle, which the United States, unfortunately won, because it utilized both propaganda and economic terror (the arms race and other means). ..."
"... Now, China is next on the list, and the White House is not even trying to hide it. But China is savvy. It is beginning to understand the game. And it is ready, by all means, to defend the system which has pulled almost all its citizens out of misery, and which could, one day soon, do the same for the rest of the world. ..."
It is very popular these days to talk and write about the "trade war" between the United States and China. But is there really
one raging? Or is it, what we are witnessing, simply a clash of political and ideological systems : one being extremely successful
and optimistic, the other depressing, full of dark cynicism and nihilism?
In the past, West used to produce almost everything. While colonizing the entire planet (one should just look at the map of the
globe, between the two world wars), Europe and later the United States, Canada and Australia, kept plundering all the continents
of natural resources, holding hundreds of millions of human beings in what could be easily described as 'forced labor', often bordering
on slavery.
Under such conditions, it was very easy to be 'number one', to reign without competition, and to toss around huge amounts of cash,
for the sole purpose of indoctrinating local and overseas 'subjects' on topics such as the 'glory' of capitalism, colonialism (open
and hidden), and Western-style 'democracy'.
It is essential to point out that in the recent past, the global Western dictatorship (and that included the 'economic system)
used to have absolutely no competition. Systems that were created to challenge it, were smashed with the most brutal, sadistic methods.
One only needs recall invasions from the West to the young Soviet Union, with the consequent genocide and famines. Or other genocides
in Indochina, which was fighting its wars for independence, first against France, later against the United States.
*
Times changed. But Western tactics haven't.
There are now many new systems, in numerous corners of the world. These systems, some Communist, others socialist or even populist,
are ready to defend their citizens, and to use the natural resources to feed the people, and to educate, house and cure them.
No matter how popular these systems are at home, the West finds ways to demonize them, using its well-established propaganda machinery.
First, to smear them and then, if they resist, to directly liquidate them.
As before, during the colonial era, no competition has been permitted. Disobedience is punishable by death.
Naturally, the Western system has not been built on excellence, hard work and creativity, only. It was constructed on fear, oppression
and brutal force. For centuries, it has clearly been a monopoly.
*
Only the toughest countries, like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea or Cuba, have managed to survive, defending they own cultures,
and advancing their philosophies.
To the West, China has proved to be an extremely tough adversary.
With its political, economic, and social system, it has managed to construct a forward-looking, optimistic and extraordinarily
productive society. Its scientific research is now second to none. Its culture is thriving. Together with its closest ally, Russia,
China excels in many essential fields.
That is precisely what irks, even horrifies the West.
For decades and centuries, Europe and the United States have not been ready to tolerate any major country, which would set up
its own set of rules and goals.
China refuses to accept the diktat from abroad. It now appears to be self-sufficient, ideologically, politically, economically
and intellectually. Where it is not fully self-sufficient, it can rely on its friends and allies. Those allies are, increasingly,
located outside the Western sphere.
*
Is China really competing with the West? Yes and no. And often not consciously.
It is a giant; still the most populous nation on earth. It is building, determinedly, its socialist motherland (applying "socialism
with the Chinese characteristics" model). It is trying to construct a global system which has roots in the thousands of years of
its history (BRI – Belt and Road Initiative, often nicknamed the "New Silk Road").
Its highly talented and hardworking, as well as increasingly educated population, is producing, at a higher pace and often at
higher quality than the countries in Europe, or the United States. As it produces, it also, naturally, trades.
This is where the 'problem' arises. The West, particularly the United States, is not used to a country that creates things for
the sake and benefit of its people. For centuries, Asian, African and Latin American people were ordered what and how to produce,
where and for how much to sell the produce. Or else!
Of course, the West has never consulted anyone. It has been producing what it (and its corporations) desired. It was forcing countries
all over the world, to buy its products. If they refused, they got invaded, or their fragile governments (often semi-colonies, anyway)
overthrown.
The most 'terrible' thing that China is doing is: it is producing what is good for China, and for its citizens.
That is, in the eyes of the West, unforgiveable!
*
In the process, China 'competes'. But fairly: it produces a lot, cheaply, and increasingly well. The same can be said about Russia.
These two countries are not competing maliciously. If they were to decide to, they could sink the US economy, or perhaps the economy
of the entire West, within a week.
But they don't even think about it.
However, as said above, to just work hard, invent new and better products, advance scientific research, and use the gains to improve
the lives of ordinary people (they will be no extreme poverty in China by the end of 2020) is seen as the arch-crime in London and
Washington.
Why? Because the Chinese and Russian systems appear to be much better, or at least, simply better, than those which are reigning
in the West and its colonies. And because they are working for the people, not for corporations or for the colonial powers.
And the demagogues in the West – in its mass media outlets and academia – are horrified that perhaps, soon, the world will wake
up and see the reality. Which is actually already happening: slowly but surely.
*
To portray China as an evil country, is essential for the hegemony of the West. There is nothing so terrifying to London and Washington
as the combination of these words: "Socialism/ Communism, Asian, success". The West invents new and newer 'opposition movements',
it then supports them and finances them, just in order to then point fingers and bark: "China is fighting back, and it is violating
human rights", when it defends itself and its citizens. This tactic is clear, right now, in both the northwest of the country, and
in Honk Kong.
Not everything that China builds is excellent. Europe is still producing better cars, shoes and fragrances, and the United States,
better airplanes. But the progress that China has registered during the last two decades, is remarkable. Were it to be football,
it is China 2: West 1.
Most likely, unless there is real war, that in ten years, China will catch up in many fields; catch up, and surpass the West.
Side by side with Russia.
It could have been excellent news for the entire world. China is sharing its achievements, even with the poorest of the poor countries
in Africa, or with Laos in Asia.
The only problem is, that the West feels that it has to rule. It is unrepentant, observing the world from a clearly fundamentalist
view. It cannot help it: it is absolutely, religiously convinced that it has to give orders to every man and woman, in every corner
of the globe.
It is a tick, fanatical. Lately, anyone who travels to Europe or the United States will testify: what is taking place there is
not good, even for the ordinary citizens. Western governments and corporations are now robbing even their own citizens. The standard
of living is nose-diving.
China, with just a fraction of the wealth, is building a much more egalitarian society, although you would never guess so, if
you exclusively relied on Western statistics.
*
So, "trade war" slogans are an attempt to convince the local and global public that "China is unfair", that it is "taking advantage"
of the West. President Trump is "defending" the United States against the Chinese 'Commies'. But the more he "defends them", the
poorer they get. Strange, isn't it?
While the Chinese people, Russian people, even Laotian people, are, 'miraculously', getting richer and richer. They are getting
more and more optimistic.
For decades, the West used to preach 'free trade', and competition. That is, when it was in charge, or let's say, 'the only kid
on the block'.
In the name of competition and free trade, dozens of governments got overthrown, and millions of people killed.
And now?
What is China suppose to do? Frankly, what?
Should it curb its production, or perhaps close scientific labs? Should it consult the US President or perhaps British Prime Minister,
before it makes any essential economic decision? Should it control the exchange rate of RMB, in accordance with the wishes of the
economic tsars in Washington? That would be thoroughly ridiculous, considering that (socialist/Communist) China will soon become
the biggest economy in the world, or maybe it already is.
There is all that abstract talk, but nothing concrete suggested. Or is it like that on purpose?
Could it be that the West does not want to improve relations with Beijing?
On September 7, 2019, AP reported:
White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow compared trade talks with China on Friday to the U.S. standoff with Russia during
the Cold War
"The stakes are so high, we have to get it right, and if that takes a decade, so be it," he said.
Kudlow emphasized that it took the United States decades to get the results it wanted with Russia. He noted that he worked
in the Reagan administration: "I remember President Reagan waging a similar fight against the Soviet Union."
Precisely! The war against the Soviet Union was hardly a war for economic survival of the United States. It was an ideological
battle, which the United States, unfortunately won, because it utilized both propaganda and economic terror (the arms race and other
means).
Now, China is next on the list, and the White House is not even trying to hide it. But China is savvy. It is beginning to understand the game. And it is ready, by all means, to defend the system which has pulled
almost all its citizens out of misery, and which could, one day soon, do the same for the rest of the world.
That said, as
Bloomberg
noted, Liu didn't address specifics about the trade talks in his speech. Instead, the
vice premier said China would expand investments in core technologies to ensure the economic
restructuring of the economy was stable, adding that economic activity in the year ahead is "very
bright."
"We're not worried about short-term economic volatility. We have every confidence in our
ability to meet macroeconomic targets for the year," he said.
As reported on Friday, ahead of the latest round of talks, President Trump's top economic
advisors and industry experts warned him of an economic downturn if a further escalation in the
trade war is seen by 2020. As such, it is likely that a lite trade deal could be on the table next
month.
But as our readers have recently learned, the trade war didn't start the synchronized global
downturn, which has been almost entirely a function of China's clogged up credit impulse...
... so any deal - lite or otherwise - won't result in an immediate acceleration of global
growth; indeed, as some speculate, failure to observe a substantial economic rebound following a
"deal" could well mark the point when central banks and governments finally throw in the towel, as
they finally usher in the final lap in the global race to
debase
destroy fiat currencies and
hyperinflate away the debt: MMT and Helicopter Money.
Trump's pathetic Trade war accomplished nothing. US exports down
18% globally. Farmer destroyed. US markets for all goods harmed.
The world is offloading any and all dependence on US products.
Impulsive stupid jerk. 45% of the world population on US
Sanctions, rising black markets, US supply chain disruptions, US
manufacturing in a recession.
Tariffs are tax deductible so they
do not accumulate any tax benefit to the US Treasury. They are
virtually all rolled over into the national debt. So while the
consumer may not notice a rising CPI, they are getting drown in
Trump Debt, the largest spending deficits in US history, largest
debt to GDP of over 110% and rising. Trump has the fastest
acceleration of US debt of any white house occupancy nearly 4
trillion in 2.7 years. It is obvious Trump is clueless in
virtually everything. Has no capacity to comprehend a thing.
Look at this scatterbrained Turkey Kurds fiasco. Impulsive,
thoughtless and accomplished nothing. US troops now guarding
Syrian oil. Astonishing. Everything this guy touches turned into a
burning crap filled dumpster fire.
'I will be so good at the military, your head will spin'
"When those 'gunds' start shooting they tend to do things"
Then there are no deals from the self-proclaimed "art of the
Deal"... nothing. Look at Iran. He has made negative progress
across the board. Thank to the orange stupid nations across the
globe are circumventing US Dollar Reserve. Each day the US
importance and more importantly reliability is diminished.
Look at Trump in high tech... Merck has developed an Ebola
vaccine in EUROPE not the USA. The USA hasn't even approved it
yet. What is Trump doing... ATTACKING BIG PHARMA. Trumptards love
seeing that. Yet it is the Trumptards that keep screaming to buy
Murica products but if they have to pay more for them, then
suddenly they demonize the US companies. Big Pharma will be the
next sector to joint Semiconductor to leave the USA.
Trump blacklist Big tech. Why? Tech products have a very short
shelf life. If the US doesn't sell tech product what do they have
that others want? COAL? Soy Beans? From smart to stupid. Look at
Intel and Microsoft. Trump band Intel Chip sales to China and
threatens Microsoft operating software. In one year China now has
RISC V chips from Alibaba, all open source and the Chinese
Military has switched to Linux and UNIX GNU. So who loses here?
The US tech businesses. Look at Micron dying on the vine, tossed
from China.
Meanwhile China has 5G and has replaced all US components in
its boards with the help of Hitachi and Panasonic who are doing
the same with all their electronics to avoid Trump Blacklist
compliance. Trump is low tech and dumb as dirt. The US Tech sector
is being carpet bombed under Trump... and without tech, what
products does the US have to sell that world markets want? Not a
god damn thing.
Let's remember that Trump didn't want a partial deal... Now he
will take anything to get him out of his self-made wreckage.
Meanwhile impeachment is coming... Mista no deals is going down in
flames.
Last year 300,000 us farmers grew soy
and had 110 mmt. This year there are 100,000 us Soy farmers
left and they grew 34 mmt... not enough to export.
...
Arbitrary and capricious meddling by US politicians in
commodity contracts renders all contracts voidable under
force majeure. I would have thought with your handle you
would have known this. Those markets will never come back.
They will forever be marginalized and smaller. Trump's
damage to US trade is permanent.
In other words, consolidation among large corp farmers,
decimation of the smaller family farmers? I am truly
asking, but seems to remind me of the trend since the
1980s.
Trump and China claimed "substantial progress" this past spring,
and it all fell apart within a couple months. The same thing will
happen on this "deal"....
Former World Leaders: The Trade War Threatens
the World's Economy https://nyti.ms/2MAFOTC
NYT - Kevin Rudd, Helen Clark and Carl Bildt - October 11
Despite an interim deal, global peace and prosperity
remain at risk if the United States and China do not
fully resolve their conflict.
(The authors are former prime ministers
of Australia, New Zealand and Sweden.)
This piece has been updated to reflect news developments.
The 18-month trade war between the United States and China represents the single greatest
threat to global economic growth.
President Trump announced on Friday a preliminary trade détente with China, saying
that the two countries have a verbal agreement for an initial phase of a deal. The agreement
reportedly includes concessions from China to protect American intellectual property, to
accept guidelines on managing its currency and to buy tens of billions worth of American
agricultural products. Washington, for its part, will not go through next month with placing
more tariffs on Chinese products.
This is an encouraging sign, but a verbal agreement is just a first step. A failure to
bring the trade war to a final conclusion significantly increases the risk of recession next
year in the United States, Europe, Japan and other developed and emerging economies. It would
also seriously undermine China's near-term growth prospects.
That's why, as representatives of a group of 10 former prime ministers and presidents from
center-left and center-right governments that have enjoyed close relations with both the
United States and China, we are writing to urge Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping to
reach a substantive trade agreement by year's end. It's time to bring this source of global
economic uncertainty to a close.
America's and China's prosperity have been built on global free trade. America has
profited immensely from access to global markets since its birth. China, since opening up 40
years ago, has lifted millions of its people out of poverty largely through global trade.
Indeed, much of the prosperity enjoyed by people across the world is anchored in our ability
to sell goods and services freely across national boundaries.
Now, however, we see global growth in trade lagging behind general economic growth for the
first time in decades. In part, this is the product of the expanding trade war between
America and China, the world's two largest economies. In part, it is because of a more
general outbreak of protectionism around the world. Both these factors threaten continued
global prosperity.
We recognize, as former leaders of countries with longstanding economic relationships with
China, the real difficulties regarding a number of Beijing's trade and economic practices. We
understand, for example, the challenges that arise from Chinese policies on intellectual
property and technology transfer, its restrictions on access to its markets, and its
subsidization of private and public companies that are active in the global marketplace. We
believe that these practices need to change in whichever countries may use them. But it is
particularly important in China, because it is the world's second-largest economy.
At the same time, as countries long committed to the principles of free trade, we do not
see the ever-widening tariff war, started by the United States, as an effective way to
resolve trade and economic disputes. Tariffs, by definition, are the enemy of free trade.
Their cumulative impact, particularly combined with the current resurgence of protectionism
worldwide, only depresses economic growth, employment and living standards. Tariffs raise the
cost of living for working families as consumer prices are driven up.
Stock markets rose on Friday with the news of the preliminary deal. The tariff war has
been creating economic uncertainty, depressing international investor confidence, compounding
downward pressure on growth and increasing the risk of recession. The disruption of global
supply chains is already profound, and it may continue until a final deal is reached.
We believe that the World Trade Organization, despite its limitations, is best positioned
to address China's trade practices. We also believe that the W.T.O. is the most appropriate
forum in which to resolve trade disputes. So we urge the United States and China to work with
other member states to strengthen the W.T.O.'s institutional capacity.
Our group of former prime ministers and presidents includes François Fillon of
France, Joe Clark of Canada, Enrico Letta of Italy, Jan Peter Balkenende of the Netherlands,
Felipe Calderón and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, and Han Seung-soo of South Korea. Given
our collective experience, we are not naïve about the inherent complexities in
negotiating trade agreements. Many of us have negotiated free-trade pacts with both the
United States and China. We are deeply familiar with the concerns of each country, including
the domestic political constituencies that argue for continued protection.
Many of those domestic concerns have focused on the long-term enforcement of any
agreement. On this point, we argue that it is in China's own long-term economic interest to
ensure the effective implementation of any new trade deal -- whether involving intellectual
property, technology transfer, state subsidies or market access. Such policies would also
need to apply to all of China's trading partners, just as they would need to apply to its
relationship with the United States.
On the question of enforcement, China must be acutely aware that if it fails to comply
with the terms of the agreement, an already damaging trade war is likely to resume. A new
trade agreement should include strong enforcement provisions, along with strengthened W.T.O.
dispute-resolution mechanisms, to give greater confidence to both parties.
For these reasons, and given the gravity of the global economic outlook for 2020, we urge
both countries to exercise every effort to reach a substantive agreement this year. We also
urge the United States to withdraw the punitive tariffs it has imposed -- and that China do
the same with the reciprocal tariffs it has enacted.
Beyond trade, we are anxious about the wider strategic impact of any further decoupling of
the Chinese and the American economies, particularly in technology and finance. Such a
decoupling would present a long-term threat to global peace and security.
It would also effectively constitute the first step in the declaration of a new Cold War.
As with the last Cold War, many nations would be forced to choose between the two powers. And
that is a choice none of us wants to make.
"... Meanwhile, Chinese consumers aren't paying higher prices for U.S. imports. A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics shows that since the beginning of 2018, China has raised the average tariff rate on U.S. imports from 8.0 percent to 21.8 percent and has lowered the average tariff rate on all its other trading partners from 8.0 percent to 6.7 percent. China imposed tariffs only on U.S. commodities that can be replaced with imports from other countries at similar prices. It actually lowered duties for those U.S. products that can't be bought elsewhere more cheaply, such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals. Consequently, China's import prices for the same products have dropped overall, in spite of higher tariffs on U.S. imports. ..."
"... Beijing has proved much more capable than Washington of minimizing the pain to its consumers and economy. ..."
"... The uncomfortable truth for Trump is that U.S. trade deficits don't spring from the practices of U.S. trading partners; they come from the United States' own spending habits. ..."
"... The United States has run a persistent trade deficit since 1975, both overall and with most of its trading partners. Over the past 20 years, U.S. domestic expenditures have always exceeded GDP, resulting in negative net exports, or a trade deficit. ..."
"... Even a total Chinese capitulation in the trade war wouldn't make a dent in the overall U.S. trade deficit. ..."
"... The U.S. economy, on the other hand, has had the longest expansion in history, and the inevitable down cycle is already on the horizon: second-quarter GDP growth this year dropped to 2.0 percent from the first quarter's 3.1 percent. ..."
"... If the trade war continues, it will compromise the international trading system, which relies on a global division of labor based on each country's comparative advantage. Once that system becomes less dependable -- when disrupted, for instance, by the boycotts and hostility of trade wars -- countries will start decoupling from one another. ..."
Everyone Loses in the US-Chinese Clash
-- but Especially Americans
... Economists reckon the dead-weight loss arising from the existing tariffs on $200
billion in Chinese imports to be $620 per household, or about $80 billion, annually. This
represents about 0.4 percent of U.S. GDP. If the United States continues to expand its tariff
regime as scheduled, that loss will more than double.
Meanwhile, Chinese consumers aren't paying higher prices for U.S. imports. A study by the
Peterson Institute for International Economics shows that since the beginning of 2018, China
has raised the average tariff rate on U.S. imports from 8.0 percent to 21.8 percent and has
lowered the average tariff rate on all its other trading partners from 8.0 percent to 6.7
percent. China imposed tariffs only on U.S. commodities that can be replaced with imports
from other countries at similar prices. It actually lowered duties for those U.S. products
that can't be bought elsewhere more cheaply, such as semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.
Consequently, China's import prices for the same products have dropped overall, in spite of
higher tariffs on U.S. imports.
Beijing's nimble calculations are well illustrated by the example of lobsters. China
imposed a 25 percent tariff on U.S. lobsters in July 2018, precipitating a 70 percent drop in
U.S. lobster exports. At the same time, Beijing cut tariffs on Canadian lobsters by three
percent, and as a result, Canadian lobster exports to China doubled. Chinese consumers now
pay less for lobsters imported from essentially the same waters.
THE INESCAPABLE DEFICIT
Beijing has proved much more capable than Washington of minimizing the pain to its
consumers and economy. But the trade war would be more palatable for Washington if its
confrontation with China were accomplishing Trump's goals. The president thinks that China is
"ripping off" the United States. He wants to reduce the United States' overall trade deficit
by changing China's trade practices. But levying tariffs on Chinese imports has had the
paradoxical effect of inflating the United States' overall trade deficit, which, according to
the U.S. Census Bureau, rose by $28 billion in the first seven months of this year compared
with the same period last year.
The uncomfortable truth for Trump is that U.S. trade deficits don't spring from the
practices of U.S. trading partners; they come from the United States' own spending habits.
The United States has run a persistent trade deficit since 1975, both overall and with most
of its trading partners. Over the past 20 years, U.S. domestic expenditures have always
exceeded GDP, resulting in negative net exports, or a trade deficit. The shortfall has
shifted over time but has remained between three and six percent of GDP.
Trump wants to boost
U.S. exports to trim the deficit, but trade wars inevitably invite retaliation that leads to
significant reductions in exports. Moreover, increasing the volume of exports does not
necessarily reduce trade deficits unless it is accompanied by a reduction in the country's
spending in terms of consumption and investment. The right way to reduce a trade deficit is
to grow the economy faster than concurrent domestic expenditures, which can be accomplished
only by encouraging innovation and increasing productivity. A trade war does the opposite,
damaging the economy, impeding growth, and hindering innovation.
Even a total Chinese capitulation in the trade war wouldn't make a dent in the overall
U.S. trade deficit. If China buys more from the United States, it will purchase less from
other countries, which will then sell the difference either to the United States or to its
competitors.
For example, look at aircraft sales by the U.S. firm Boeing and its European
rival, Airbus. At the moment, both companies are operating at full capacity. If China buys
1,000 more aircraft from Boeing and 1,000 fewer from Airbus, the European plane-maker will
still sell those 1,000 aircraft, just to the United States or to other countries that might
have bought instead from Boeing.
China understands this, which is one reason it hasn't put
higher tariffs on U.S.-made aircraft. Whatever the outcome of the trade war, the deficit
won't be greatly changed.
A RESILIENT CHINA
The trade war has not really damaged China so far, largely because Beijing has managed to
keep import prices from rising and because its exports to the United States have been less
affected than anticipated.
This pattern will change as U.S. importers begin to switch from
buying from China to buying from third countries to avoid paying the high tariffs. But
assuming China's GDP continues to grow at around five to six percent every year, the effect
of that change will be quite modest.
Some pundits doubt the accuracy of Chinese figures for
economic growth, but multilateral agencies and independent research institutions set Chinese
GDP growth within a range of five to six percent.
Skeptics also miss the bigger picture that China's economy is slowing down as it shifts to
a consumption-driven model. Some manufacturing will leave China if the high tariffs become
permanent, but the significance of such a development should not be overstated. Independent
of the anxiety bred by Trump's tariffs, China is gradually weaning itself off its dependence
on export-led growth. Exports to the United States as a proportion of China's GDP steadily
declined from a peak of 11 percent in 2005 to less than four percent by 2018. In 2006, total
exports made up 36 percent of China's GDP; by 2018, that figure had been cut by half, to 18
percent, which is much lower than the average of 29 percent for the industrialized countries
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Chinese leaders have long
sought to steer their economy away from export-driven manufacturing to a consumer-driven
model.
To be sure, the trade war has exacted a severe psychological toll on the Chinese economy.
In 2018, when the tariffs were first announced, they caused a near panic in China's market at
a time when growth was slowing thanks to a round of credit tightening. The stock market took
a beating, plummeting some 25 percent. The government initially felt pressured to find a way
out of the trade war quickly. But as the smoke cleared to reveal little real damage,
confidence in the market rebounded: stock indexes had risen by 23 percent and 34 percent on
the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges, respectively, by September 12, 2019. The resilience of
the Chinese economy in the face of the trade war helps explain why Beijing has stiffened its
negotiating position in spite of Trump's escalation.
China hasn't had a recession in the past 40 years and won't have one in the foreseeable
future, because its economy is still at an early stage of development, with per capita GDP
only one-sixth of that of the United States. Due to declining rates of saving and rising
wages, the engine of China's economy is shifting from investments and exports to private
consumption. As a result, the country's growth rate is expected to slow. The International
Monetary Fund projects that China's real GDP growth will fall from 6.6 percent in 2018 to 5.5
percent in 2024; other estimates put the growth rate at an even lower number.
Although the
rate of Chinese growth may dip, there is little risk that the Chinese economy will contract
in the foreseeable future. Private consumption, which has been increasing, representing 35
percent of GDP in 2010 and 39 percent last year, is expected to continue to rise and to drive
economic growth, especially now that China has expanded its social safety net and welfare
provisions, freeing up private savings for consumption.
The U.S. economy, on the other hand, has had the longest expansion in history, and the
inevitable down cycle is already on the horizon: second-quarter GDP growth this year dropped
to 2.0 percent from the first quarter's 3.1 percent. The trade war, without taking into
account the escalations from September, will shave off at least half a percentage point of
U.S. GDP, and that much of a drag on the economy may tip it into the anticipated downturn.
(According to a September Washington Post poll, 60 percent of Americans expect a recession in
2020.) The prospect of a recession could provide Trump with the impetus to call off the trade
war. Here, then, is one plausible way the trade war will come to an end. Americans aren't
uniformly feeling the pain of the tariffs yet. But a turning point is likely to come when the
economy starts to lose steam.
If the trade war continues, it will compromise the international trading system, which
relies on a global division of labor based on each country's comparative advantage. Once that
system becomes less dependable -- when disrupted, for instance, by the boycotts and hostility
of trade wars -- countries will start decoupling from one another.
China and the United States are joined at the hip economically, each being the other's
biggest trading partner. Any attempt to decouple the two economies will bring catastrophic
consequences for both, and for the world at large. Consumer prices will rise, world economic
growth will slow, supply chains will be disrupted and laboriously duplicated on a global
scale, and a digital divide -- in technology, the Internet, and telecommunications -- will
vastly hamper innovation by limiting the horizons and ambitions of technology firms.
...
"... Yes, the U.S. government can hurt Huawei in the short term by limiting their access to technology (and to certain foreign markets). But, absent a viable competitor, this won't have much impact in the long term. Because Huawei is fundamentally not a technology company. Huawei is a human resources company. And is kind of obsessed with survival. ..."
"... Huawei's fundamental purpose has always been about survival. ..."
"... Huawei, like most engineering-based enterprises, has only one real resource, which is the cumulative brainpower of its people. This is the resource that creates the products and sells them to their customers. And as technology changes quickly, they must continually create and recreate the products – and therefore the value of the enterprise. Huawei's main strength is the system they have developed for the creation, assessment and distribution of value by over 190,000 people. It's about HR strategy. ..."
Huawei is going to beat Trump with human resources
By Jeff Towson
President Trump's placement of Huawei on the U.S. entity list was a body blow. The
magnitude of the hit should not be understated. Being cut off from U.S. technology so
suddenly staggered the multinational. But, to their credit, Huawei didn't go down. They took
the hit and stayed on their feet.
I'm not really sure what the U.S. government thought it would achieve with the ban. To
stop Huawei's growth in international markets? To shift 5G market share to Ericsson and
Nokia? To cripple the company? Just an assertion of principle?
I think they really just don't understand Huawei.
Yes, the U.S. government can hurt Huawei in the short term by limiting their access to
technology (and to certain foreign markets). But, absent a viable competitor, this won't have
much impact in the long term. Because Huawei is fundamentally not a technology company.
Huawei is a human resources company. And is kind of obsessed with survival.
Huawei's core strategy has always been about survival.
If you read Ren Zhengfei's talks and papers going back to the early 1990's, what jumps out
at you is how different Huawei is. The goal of the company has never really been about money.
Nor about becoming a tech giant. Nor about innovation. And it has definitely not been about
going public and getting a big payday. Huawei's fundamental purpose has always been about
survival.
"Being big and strong temporarily is not what we want. What we want is the ability and
resilience to survive sustainably," said Ren in 2001.
Actually he has been talking for literally decades about how Huawei can survive long-term
– and about the common causes of corporate decline. My simplistic take is that Ren came
up with a fairly logical plan for long-term survival: Serve your customers no matter what.
Then get big and slowly grind your competitors down with lower costs and greater R&D
spending. And within this, the only resource you really have are your people and their
cumulative brainpower.
Huawei's main resource is its people.
Huawei, like most engineering-based enterprises, has only one real resource, which is the
cumulative brainpower of its people. This is the resource that creates the products and sells
them to their customers. And as technology changes quickly, they must continually create and
recreate the products – and therefore the value of the enterprise. Huawei's main
strength is the system they have developed for the creation, assessment and distribution of
value by over 190,000 people. It's about HR strategy.
Unlike the companies in the U.S. and Europe, where the shareholders are the stakeholders
with ultimate say or multiple stakeholders, such as employees, owners and the community, at
Huawei, the only stakeholders you ever really hear about are the current employees. It's all
about the top contributing, current employees. Shareholders, providers of capital, retired
employees and even the founders are all a distant second in importance.
Note how different this is to other large engineering-focused companies (say GM and
Bosch), where much of the value goes into guaranteed salaries (regardless of contribution)
and into post-retirement benefits (i.e., not current employees). Huawei is not only focused
primarily on this one group, they are also operating much more as a meritocracy with regards
to labor.
Huawei to me looks a lot like what 3G capital has been doing in consumer-facing companies
like Budweiser and Burger King. They have instituted "meritocracy and partnership" on a
massive scale in a knowledge business. There is a lot of ownership. And you rise and fall
based on your performance.
Huawei is awesome at inspiring dedication in their top contributing, current employees.
And that is pretty logical. If brainpower is Huawei's main resource, this is the group that
creates that value. So recruiting and motivating this group is the biggest priority. And they
don't just want them motivated. They want them "all in."
In practice, this is actually pretty complicated. It's a big company. Employees are at
different stages of their lives and careers. How do you get current staff, senior staff and
incoming staff to go "all in" in creating value for customers – and therefore the
enterprise?
My outsider's take is that Huawei is mostly focused on motivating teams and team managers.
High-performance teams with aggressive and dedicated managers are the engine of Huawei. And
these are mostly in sales and marketing and R&D. They make the largest contributions to
the customers and therefore the enterprise. You motivate at the team level and within the
departments that matter most. And then you scale it up.
But how do you assess contributed value?
Staff are rated every 6-12 months across metrics such as sales performance (usually
team-based), talent, dedication, and the potential for advancement. The phrases I keep coming
across in my reading are "dedicated employees" and "high-performance teams." In fact, the
book on their HR book is titled Dedication.
Once assessed, how do you reward performance?
High-performing contributors are given higher bonuses, of course. But they are also
identified and given more opportunities (and responsibilities). They are given more training
and the option to participate in the employee share ownership program (very important). Low
performers, in contrast, are demoted or exited. Meritocracy works in both directions.
And this brings us back to the main point of this article: How does the U.S. tech ban
impact any of this? How does it impact an HR system for motivating the more than 190,000
employees that continually recreate the company and ensure its survival?
In the long term, it doesn't.
Yes, the company took a big hit in the short term in terms of its access to tech
(especially in semiconductors and in the consumer business) and to a few markets. But the
core of the company is still churning along like it has for 30 years. And I think it is very
likely Huawei will overcome these supply chain problems. And, ironically, the current crisis
is probably resulting in increased motivation and dedication across the company.
"... The lawsuit also aggressively contests Boeing's spin that competent pilots could have prevented the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air crashes: ..."
"... When asked why Boeing did not alert pilots to the existence of the MCAS, Boeing responded that the company decided against disclosing more details due to concerns about "inundate[ing] average pilots with too much information -- and significantly more technical data -- than [they] needed or could realistically digest." ..."
"... The filing has a detailed explanation of why the addition of heavier, bigger LEAP1-B engines to the 737 airframe made the plane less stable, changed how it handled, and increased the risk of catastrophic stall. It also describes at length how Boeing ignored warning signs during the design and development process, and misrepresented the 737 Max as essentially the same as older 737s to the FAA, potential buyers, and pilots. It also has juicy bits presented in earlier media accounts but bear repeating, like: ..."
"... Then, on November 7, 2018, the FAA issued an "Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51," warning that an unsafe condition likely could exist or develop on 737 MAX aircraft. ..."
"... Moreover, unlike runaway stabilizer, MCAS disables the control column response that 737 pilots have grown accustomed to and relied upon in earlier generations of 737 aircraft. ..."
"... And making the point that to turn off MCAS all you had to do was flip two switches behind everything else on the center condole. Not exactly true, normally those switches were there to shut off power to electrically assisted trim. Ah, it one thing to shut off MCAS it's a whole other thing to shut off power to the planes trim, especially in high speed ✓ and the plane noise up ✓, and not much altitude ✓. ..."
"... Classic addiction behavior. Boeing has a major behavioral problem, the repetitive need for and irrational insistence on profit above safety all else , that is glaringly obvious to everyone except Boeing. ..."
"... In fact, Boeing 737 Chief Technical Pilot, Mark Forkner asked the FAA to delete any mention of MCAS from the pilot manual so as to further hide its existence from the public and pilots " ..."
"... This "MCAS" was always hidden from pilots? The military implemented checks on MCAS to maintain a level of pilot control. The commercial airlines did not. Commercial airlines were in thrall of every little feature that they felt would eliminate the need for pilots at all. Fell right into the automation crapification of everything. ..."
At first blush, the suit filed in Dallas by the Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SwAPA) against Boeing may seem like a family
feud. SWAPA is seeking an estimated $115 million for lost pilots' pay as a result of the grounding of the 34 Boeing 737 Max planes
that Southwest owns and the additional 20 that Southwest had planned to add to its fleet by year end 2019. Recall that Southwest
was the largest buyer of the 737 Max, followed by American Airlines. However, the damning accusations made by the pilots' union,
meaning, erm, pilots, is likely to cause Boeing not just more public relations headaches, but will also give grist to suits by crash
victims.
However, one reason that the Max is a sore point with the union was that it was a key leverage point in 2016 contract negotiations:
And Boeing's assurances that the 737 Max was for all practical purposes just a newer 737 factored into the pilots' bargaining
stance. Accordingly, one of the causes of action is tortious interference, that Boeing interfered in the contract negotiations to
the benefit of Southwest. The filing describes at length how Boeing and Southwest were highly motivated not to have the contract
dispute drag on and set back the launch of the 737 Max at Southwest, its showcase buyer. The big point that the suit makes is the
plane was unsafe and the pilots never would have agreed to fly it had they known what they know now.
We've embedded the compliant at the end of the post. It's colorful and does a fine job of recapping the sorry history of the development
of the airplane. It has damning passages like:
Boeing concealed the fact that the 737 MAX aircraft was not airworthy because, inter alia, it incorporated a single-point failure
condition -- a software/flight control logic called the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System ("MCAS") -- that,if fed
erroneous data from a single angle-of-attack sensor, would command the aircraft nose-down and into an unrecoverable dive without
pilot input or knowledge.
The lawsuit also aggressively contests Boeing's spin that competent pilots could have prevented the Lion Air and Ethiopian Air
crashes:
Had SWAPA known the truth about the 737 MAX aircraft in 2016, it never would have approved the inclusion of the 737 MAX aircraft
as a term in its CBA [collective bargaining agreement], and agreed to operate the aircraft for Southwest. Worse still, had SWAPA
known the truth about the 737 MAX aircraft, it would have demanded that Boeing rectify the aircraft's fatal flaws before agreeing
to include the aircraft in its CBA, and to provide its pilots, and all pilots, with the necessary information and training needed
to respond to the circumstances that the Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 pilots encountered nearly three
years later.
And (boldface original):
Boeing Set SWAPA Pilots Up to Fail
As SWAPA President Jon Weaks, publicly stated, SWAPA pilots "were kept in the dark" by Boeing.
Boeing did not tell SWAPA pilots that MCAS existed and there was no description or mention of MCAS in the Boeing Flight Crew
Operations Manual.
There was therefore no way for commercial airline pilots, including SWAPA pilots, to know that MCAS would work in the background
to override pilot inputs.
There was no way for them to know that MCAS drew on only one of two angle of attack sensors on the aircraft.
And there was no way for them to know of the terrifying consequences that would follow from a malfunction.
When asked why Boeing did not alert pilots to the existence of the MCAS, Boeing responded that the company decided against
disclosing more details due to concerns about "inundate[ing] average pilots with too much information -- and significantly more
technical data -- than [they] needed or could realistically digest."
SWAPA's pilots, like their counterparts all over the world, were set up for failure
The filing has a detailed explanation of why the addition of heavier, bigger LEAP1-B engines to the 737 airframe made the plane
less stable, changed how it handled, and increased the risk of catastrophic stall. It also describes at length how Boeing ignored
warning signs during the design and development process, and misrepresented the 737 Max as essentially the same as older 737s to
the FAA, potential buyers, and pilots. It also has juicy bits presented in earlier media accounts but bear repeating, like:
By March 2016, Boeing settled on a revision of the MCAS flight control logic.
However, Boeing chose to omit key safeguards that had previously been included in earlier iterations of MCAS used on the Boeing
KC-46A Pegasus, a military tanker derivative of the Boeing 767 aircraft.
The engineers who created MCAS for the military tanker designed the system to rely on inputs from multiple sensors and with
limited power to move the tanker's nose. These deliberate checks sought to ensure that the system could not act erroneously or
cause a pilot to lose control. Those familiar with the tanker's design explained that these checks were incorporated because "[y]ou
don't want the solution to be worse than the initial problem."
The 737 MAX version of MCAS abandoned the safeguards previously relied upon. As discussed below, the 737 MAX MCAS had greater
control authority than its predecessor, activated repeatedly upon activation, and relied on input from just one of the plane's
two sensors that measure the angle of the plane's nose.
In other words, Boeing can't credibly say that it didn't know better.
Here is one of the sections describing Boeing's cover-ups:
Yet Boeing's website, press releases, annual reports, public statements and statements to operators and customers, submissions
to the FAA and other civil aviation authorities, and 737 MAX flight manuals made no mention of the increased stall hazard or MCAS
itself.
In fact, Boeing 737 Chief Technical Pilot, Mark Forkner asked the FAA to delete any mention of MCAS from the pilot manual so
as to further hide its existence from the public and pilots.
We urge you to read the complaint in full, since it contains juicy insider details, like the significance of Southwest being Boeing's
737 Max "launch partner" and what that entailed in practice, plus recounting dates and names of Boeing personnel who met with SWAPA
pilots and made misrepresentations about the aircraft.
Even though Southwest Airlines is negotiating a settlement with Boeing over losses resulting from the grounding of the 737 Max
and the airline has promised to compensate the pilots, the pilots' union at a minimum apparently feels the need to put the heat on
Boeing directly. After all, the union could withdraw the complaint if Southwest were to offer satisfactory compensation for the pilots'
lost income. And pilots have incentives not to raise safety concerns about the planes they fly. Don't want to spook the horses, after
all.
But Southwest pilots are not only the ones most harmed by Boeing's debacle but they are arguably less exposed to the downside
of bad press about the 737 Max. It's business fliers who are most sensitive to the risks of the 737 Max, due to seeing the story
regularly covered in the business press plus due to often being road warriors. Even though corporate customers account for only 12%
of airline customers, they represent an estimated 75% of profits.
Southwest customers don't pay up for front of the bus seats. And many of them presumably value the combination of cheap travel,
point to point routes between cities underserved by the majors, and close-in airports, which cut travel times. In other words, that
combination of features will make it hard for business travelers who use Southwest regularly to give the airline up, even if the
737 Max gives them the willies. By contrast, premium seat passengers on American or United might find it not all that costly, in
terms of convenience and ticket cost (if they are budget sensitive), to fly 737-Max-free Delta until those passengers regain confidence
in the grounded plane.
Note that American Airlines' pilot union, when asked about the Southwest claim, said that it also believes its pilots deserve
to be compensated for lost flying time, but they plan to obtain it through American Airlines.
If Boeing were smart, it would settle this suit quickly, but so far, Boeing has relied on bluster and denial. So your guess is
as good as mine as to how long the legal arm-wrestling goes on.
Update 5:30 AM EDT : One important point that I neglected to include is that the filing also recounts, in gory detail, how Boeing
went into "Blame the pilots" mode after the Lion Air crash, insisting the cause was pilot error and would therefore not happen again.
Boeing made that claim on a call to all operators, including SWAPA, and then three days later in a meeting with SWAPA.
However, Boeing's actions were inconsistent with this claim. From the filing:
Then, on November 7, 2018, the FAA issued an "Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-23-51," warning that an unsafe condition
likely could exist or develop on 737 MAX aircraft.
Relying on Boeing's description of the problem, the AD directed that in the event of un-commanded nose-down stabilizer trim
such as what happened during the Lion Air crash, the flight crew should comply with the Runaway Stabilizer procedure in the Operating
Procedures of the 737 MAX manual.
But the AD did not provide a complete description of MCAS or the problem in 737 MAX aircraft that led to the Lion Air crash,
and would lead to another crash and the 737 MAX's grounding just months later.
An MCAS failure is not like a runaway stabilizer. A runaway stabilizer has continuous un-commanded movement of the tail, whereas
MCAS is not continuous and pilots (theoretically) can counter the nose-down movement, after which MCAS would move the aircraft
tail down again.
Moreover, unlike runaway stabilizer, MCAS disables the control column response that 737 pilots have grown accustomed to and
relied upon in earlier generations of 737 aircraft.
Even after the Lion Air crash, Boeing's description of MCAS was still insufficient to put correct its lack of disclosure as
demonstrated by a second MCAS-caused crash.
We hoisted this detail because insiders were spouting in our comments section, presumably based on Boeing's patter, that the Lion
Air pilots were clearly incompetent, had they only executed the well-known "runaway stabilizer," all would have been fine. Needless
to say, this assertion has been shown to be incorrect.
Excellent, by any standard. Which does remind of of the NYT zine story (William Langewiesche
Published Sept. 18, 2019) making the claim that basically the pilots who crashed their planes weren't real "Airman".
And making
the point that to turn off MCAS all you had to do was flip two switches behind everything else on the center condole. Not exactly
true, normally those switches were there to shut off power to electrically assisted trim. Ah, it one thing to shut off MCAS it's
a whole other thing to shut off power to the planes trim, especially in high speed ✓ and the plane noise up ✓, and not much altitude
✓.
And especially if you as a pilot didn't know MCAS was there in the first place. This sort of engineering by Boeing is criminal.
And the lying. To everyone. Oh, least we all forget the processing power of the in flight computer is that of a intel 286. There
are times I just want to be beamed back to the home planet. Where we care for each other.
One should also point out that Langewiesche said that Boeing made disastrous mistakes with the MCAS and that the very future
of the Max is cloudy. His article was useful both for greater detail about what happened and for offering some pushback to the
idea that the pilots had nothing to do with the accidents.
As for the above, it was obvious from the first Seattle Times stories that these two events and the grounding were going to
be a lawsuit magnet. But some of us think Boeing deserves at least a little bit of a defense because their side has been totally
silent–either for legal reasons or CYA reasons on the part of their board and bad management.
Classic addiction behavior. Boeing has a major behavioral problem, the repetitive need for and irrational insistence on profit
above safety all else , that is glaringly obvious to everyone except Boeing.
"The engineers who created MCAS for the military tanker designed the system to rely on inputs from multiple sensors and with
limited power to move the tanker's nose. These deliberate checks sought to ensure that the system could not act erroneously or
cause a pilot to lose control "
"Yet Boeing's website, press releases, annual reports, public statements and statements to operators and customers, submissions
to the FAA and other civil aviation authorities, and 737 MAX flight manuals made no mention of the increased stall hazard or MCAS
itself.
In fact, Boeing 737 Chief Technical Pilot, Mark Forkner asked the FAA to delete any mention of MCAS from the pilot manual
so as to further hide its existence from the public and pilots "
This "MCAS" was always hidden from pilots? The military implemented checks on MCAS to maintain a level of pilot control. The commercial airlines did not. Commercial
airlines were in thrall of every little feature that they felt would eliminate the need for pilots at all. Fell right into the
automation crapification of everything.
A Secretive Committee of Wall Street Insiders Is the Least of the New York Fed's Concerns.
In July 17, Mary Callahan Erdoes, head of JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s $2.2 trillion asset and wealth management division, walked into
the wood-paneled tenth-floor conference room at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to address some fellow Wall Street luminaries
-- Bridgewater Associates' Ray Dalio, Dawn Fitzpatrick of Soros Fund Management, short-seller Jim Chanos, and LBO kingpin David Rubenstein
among them.
All are members of the Investor Advisory Committee on Financial Markets (IACFM) -- a forum to provide financial insight to the
New York Fed. Chairing the meeting was New York Fed president John C. Williams, vice chair of the powerful, rate-setting Federal
Open Market Committee, who was a year into his tenure.
Erdoes held forth at the meeting, which included a buffet lunch.
---
And so on.
This is us, we have a unexhaustable desire for these secret meetings to meet, so we vote, every year to convene them. If these
secret meeting did not occur then we could never do a deal with the super wealthy and our precious will not be insured. Reply Saturday,
October 05, 2019 at 06:04 PM
White House Weighs Blocking Chinese Companies From U.S. Exchanges
By Alan Rappeport and Ana Swanson
WASHINGTON -- The Trump administration is discussing whether to block Chinese companies
from listing shares on American stock exchanges, the latest push to try to sever economic
ties between the United States and China, according to people familiar with the
deliberations.
The internal discussions are in their early stages and no decision is imminent, these
people cautioned.
The talks come as senior officials from both countries are scheduled to resume trade
negotiations in Washington early next month. President Trump, who has continued to give mixed
signals about the prospect of a trade deal with China, said earlier this week that an
agreement could come "sooner than you think." His decision to delay an increase in tariffs
until mid-October and China's recent purchases of American agricultural products has fueled
optimism that the talks could produce an agreement.
But the prospect of further limiting American investment in China underscores the
challenge that the two sides will continue to face even as they try to de-escalate a trade
war that has shaken the global economy. The administration has already increased scrutiny of
foreign investment with a particular eye toward China, including expanding the types of
investments that can be subject to a national security review.
Last week, the Treasury Department unveiled new regulations detailing how a 2018 law, the
Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act, will work to prevent foreign firms from
using investments like minority stakes to capture sensitive American information. And the
United States has already blacklisted some Chinese companies, including Huawei, effectively
barring them from doing business with American companies.
Stocks dropped on Friday after a report on the deliberations was published by Bloomberg
News. The market continued to slide through most of the day. At close, the S&P 500 was
down 0.5 percent and the Nasdaq composite index was down 1.1 percent.
Losses were particularly steep in the technology sector, and among semiconductor stocks,
two parts of the market that have been sensitive to the latest updates on the economic
tensions between China and the United States.
Details of how the United States would restrict Chinese companies from American stock
markets were still being worked out and the idea remained in its early stages, the people
familiar with the deliberations said.
China hawks within the administration have discussed the possibility of tighter
restrictions on listed Chinese companies for many months. Supporters say the efforts would
close longstanding loopholes that have allowed Chinese companies with links to its government
to take advantage of America's financial rules and solicit funds from American investors
without proper disclosure.
Skeptics caution that the move could be deeply disruptive to markets and the economy and
risk turning American investors and pension funds into another casualty of the trade war.
The effect of limiting Chinese firms from raising capital inside the United States could
be significant. As of the beginning of this year, 156 Chinese companies were listed on
American exchanges and had a total market capitalization of $1.2 trillion, according to the
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
"The underlying concerns have merit, but how to deal with them without creating a lot of
collateral damage is tricky," Patrick Chovanec, managing director at Silvercrest Asset
Management, wrote in a post on Twitter. "Abruptly delisting Chinese firms en masse would
clearly send shock waves through markets."
The idea gained traction on Capitol Hill this summer when Republicans and Democrats in the
Senate and the House introduced legislation that would delist firms that were out of
compliance with American regulators for three years. The lawmakers argued that Chinese
companies have been benefiting from American capital markets while playing by a different set
of rules.
American complaints center on a lack of transparency into the ownership and finances of
Chinese firms. The business community has long criticized China for classifying some auditor
reports on company finances as state secrets and outlawing cross-border transfers of
auditors' documentation.
In 2015, the Chinese affiliates of the Big Four accounting firms -- Deloitte Touch
Tohmatsu, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst & Young -- paid $500,000 each to settle
a dispute about their refusal to provide documentation on Chinese companies to the Securities
and Exchange Commission, which an American judge had ruled was a violation of United States
law.
The White House has grown more interested in blocking Chinese firms in recent weeks, with
some in the administration describing it as a top priority. Officials say the topic is not
yet an issue in bilateral negotiations with the Chinese and inserting it into the talks could
lead negotiations to fall apart again.
"This would be another step in ratcheting up the pressure," said Michael Pillsbury, a
China scholar at the Hudson Institute who said he raised the concept of investment
restrictions with the White House after negotiations with China broke down in the spring.
The White House declined to comment.
The concept has divided Mr. Trump's advisers along their usual fault lines, with Peter
Navarro, Mr. Trump's trade adviser, advocating action and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin
urging caution....
A house bill bans using Huawei and ZTE phones; also adds 1 billion in taxpayer paid for
equipment to be donated to to USA companies so the USA companies can trash the China made
equipment and exchange if for 1 billion in USA and Israel made equipment.
I wonder does this mean the USA and Israel cannot compete with the Chinese?
"... With the inaugural "Huawei AppGallery" emerging with the Mate 30, the company has now positioned itself on an investment trajectory to create a new "Huawei core" to compete with the world of Google-led Android systems outright. ..."
"... Beyond Apple and the iPhone, the Android operating system dominates in the global smartphone market. Describing it as an "operating system" is barely fitting; it might otherwise be described as "an ecosystem" with a wide range of Google orientated services within it. ..."
"... They include the popular browser Chrome, the YouTube video service, Google mail and, most critically, the "Google Playstore," which, owing to its popularity, attracts more developers and investors than any other unofficial App stores. This "ecosystem" creates a "web of comfort" which effectively entrenches the consumer in the Android orbit. ..."
"... p until May 2019, Huawei was a part of this orbit. Its subsequent estrangement from Android owing to the American government's decision has forced some difficult choices. It has made markets keen to observe how the Mate 30 will perform given its lack of Google applications and the need for users to obtain some apps through third-party stores. ..."
"... So, the question is: How are they now adapting and making that transition? Bengt Nordstrom of North Stream research in Sweden notes that "they have a strategy to become completely independent from U.S. technology. And in many areas, they have become independent." ..."
"... Huawei's announced bid to invest over 1 billion U.S. dollars in developing its own application "core" or ecosystem. This, in essence, is an effort to get developers to establish applications for the new "Huawei App store" and thus establish a self-reliant, independent path from the world of Android. ..."
"... To achieve this, the company has pledged a competitive revenue sharing scheme of 15 percent to developers, half of that what Apple and Google demand for participation in their own app-stores. ..."
September 21, 2019
Huawei's pivotal moment
By Tom Fowdy
Huawei launched its Mate 30 series on Friday, the first new device produced by the
Shenzhen telecommunications firm since it has been blacklisted by the United States
government and excluded from American technology markets.
The subsequent result of the listing had led Google to sever ties with the company and
prohibit new devices from using its Play Store services and operating system, something which
ultimately impacts the Mate 30 Series, which is using an open-source version of Android.
The impact of it all has led Western commentators to ask questions about Huawei's future
in Western smartphone markets, particularly what applications can it access.
However, not all is bleak, and what may start off as a hindrance for the company is set to
transform into an opportunity. The United States' assault on the company has forced Huawei to
innovate.
With the inaugural "Huawei AppGallery" emerging with the Mate 30, the company has now
positioned itself on an investment trajectory to create a new "Huawei core" to compete with
the world of Google-led Android systems outright.
In this case, what seems like a detriment is part of a broader pivotal moment for Huawei.
The company's portfolio is about to change forever.
Beyond Apple and the iPhone, the Android operating system dominates in the global
smartphone market. Describing it as an "operating system" is barely fitting; it might
otherwise be described as "an ecosystem" with a wide range of Google orientated services
within it.
They include the popular browser Chrome, the YouTube video service, Google mail and,
most critically, the "Google Playstore," which, owing to its popularity, attracts more
developers and investors than any other unofficial App stores. This "ecosystem" creates a
"web of comfort" which effectively entrenches the consumer in the Android orbit.
U p until May 2019, Huawei was a part of this orbit. Its subsequent estrangement from
Android owing to the American government's decision has forced some difficult choices. It has
made markets keen to observe how the Mate 30 will perform given its lack of Google
applications and the need for users to obtain some apps through third-party stores.
So, the question is: How are they now adapting and making that transition? Bengt
Nordstrom of North Stream research in Sweden notes that "they have a strategy to become
completely independent from U.S. technology. And in many areas, they have become
independent."
First of all, we are well aware that Huawei is developing its own Harmony Operating System
as a contingency measure, although it has not chosen to apply it to the Mate 30 as an olive
branch to Google.
Second, and most excitingly is Huawei's announced bid to invest over 1 billion U.S.
dollars in developing its own application "core" or ecosystem. This, in essence, is an effort
to get developers to establish applications for the new "Huawei App store" and thus establish
a self-reliant, independent path from the world of Android.
To achieve this, the company has pledged a competitive revenue sharing scheme of 15
percent to developers, half of that what Apple and Google demand for participation in their
own app-stores.
This effort is combined with a wider scope in research and development from the company,
which is also designed to forfeit dependence upon American technology chains in terms of
critical components and other parts.
We have already seen massive investment pledges from Huawei to build new research and
development centers in the United Kingdom, Belgium, Italy and Brazil. They are not empty
promises, but a serious and strategic effort.
In this case, what was intended to be a political effort to destroy and contain Huawei is
likely to prove a pivotal turning point in the company's history with huge repercussions for
global smartphone and technology markets.
Instead of having once been reliant on and thus beneficial to American technology markets,
the outcome is that Huawei will re-emerge independent of and competing against it.
Armed with a pending new operating system, a new application development drive and a
broader research effort, what seemed otherwise a detriment is likely to bring a massive
opportunity. Thus, it is very important to examine the long-term prospects for the company's
fortunes ahead of short-term challenges.
"... "The Kirin 990 is not only an SoC and a 5G modem glued together. We put a lot of effort in integrating the two chips. So the new chip uses less power and generates less heat while getting the job done," said Huawei fellow Ai Wei before the launch event. ..."
"... The whole Kirin 990 5G chip is so dense that it contains 10.3 billion semiconductors, the first and largest of its kind. ..."
"... Another example is AI-based video quality improvements, which takes in a low quality video and render a better one. Objects in the rendered video have much sharper edges. Huawei technicians refused to explain how they made it, but the underlying tech seems to be object recognition, content-based pixel generation and noise reduction, since these are the tricks AI does well. ..."
"... Huawei's P30 Pro smartphone, together with the Kirin 980 chip, has taken "smartphone zoom to the next level," according to third-party review site DxOMark. The phone was on top of all smartphones when it comes to photography in DxOMark's ranking. The Kirin 990 is packed with more graphic features to continue Huawei's dominance. ..."
Smartest and fastest: Huawei reveals new smartphone chip Kirin 990 5G
By Gong Zhe
Chinese smartphone giant Huawei, which has been under heavy attack from the U.S.
government during the last few months, just revealed its next-generation smartphone
system-on-a-chip (SoC) product "Kirin 990 5G," signaling the company's business is not
stalled by foreign strangling.
The launch event was held simultaneously at IFA electronic show in Berlin, Germany, and in
Beijing on Friday.
In his keynote speech, Huawei's head of gadgets Richard Yu told the press that the chip is
more advanced than other flagship smartphone SoCs, because it has a built-in 5G modem.
Current rivals of the chip, like Qualcomm's Snapdragon 855, have no 5G modem and have to
rely on an extra chip to support 5G.
"The Kirin 990 is not only an SoC and a 5G modem glued together. We put a lot of
effort in integrating the two chips. So the new chip uses less power and generates less heat
while getting the job done," said Huawei fellow Ai Wei before the launch event.
The whole Kirin 990 5G chip is so dense that it contains 10.3 billion semiconductors,
the first and largest of its kind.
Flexible AI power
The chip also features three AI cores, two larger than the other smaller. This design,
first in smartphones, saves battery power by only using the small core to process simple AI
tasks, while resorting to the larger cores for more complex jobs.
The company named the cores "Ascend Lite" and "Ascend Tiny" to relate the cores to
Huawei's new, self-proclaimed "fastest AI training chip in the world," the Ascend 910.
Huawei built a showcase at the Beijing launch event to demonstrate the chip's AI power.
They showed a FaceID-like face recognition feature in a Kirin 990-powered developer board
that can work when the person is four meters away from the phone, times further than Apple's
current product.
Another example is AI-based video quality improvements, which takes in a low quality
video and render a better one. Objects in the rendered video have much sharper edges. Huawei
technicians refused to explain how they made it, but the underlying tech seems to be object
recognition, content-based pixel generation and noise reduction, since these are the tricks
AI does well.
Even better photos
Huawei's P30 Pro smartphone, together with the Kirin 980 chip, has taken "smartphone
zoom to the next level," according to third-party review site DxOMark. The phone was on top
of all smartphones when it comes to photography in DxOMark's ranking. The Kirin 990 is packed
with more graphic features to continue Huawei's dominance.
A Kirin 990-powered smartphone can shoot 4K videos (3840 x 2160 pixels) at 60 frames per
second, on par with market flagship phones.
The chip can also run DSLR-level noise-reduction algorithm – namely "Block Match 3D"
– to bring professional tech to consumer devices.
"Porting an algorithm from DSLR to smartphone may be easy. But getting the program to run
fast enough can be hard for any phone maker," Ai told CGTN Digital.
Non-U.S. tech
The design of Kirin 990 is still based on technology Huawei bought from British tech
company ARM, used by several mainstream brands.
After the U.S. began imposing restrictions on Huawei, ARM cut ties with the Chinese phone
maker. Despite this, Huawei has been able to use and modify AMRv8 technology thanks to its
permanent ARM license. Hence why chips like Kirin 990 can still be legally built and
sold.
In addition to ARM, there are other major smartphone tech companies cutting ties with
Huawei, forcing the Chinese company to create its own alternatives. After Google announced to
bar Huawei phones from installing their apps, Huawei started porting its IoT system "Harmony"
to smartphones.
But Huawei still wishes to use technologies from all over the world. As Ai Wei explained
at the launch event, "Huawei will not deliberately remove all U.S. tech from its smartphones.
But when the supply from U.S. was cut, Huawei has to find a way to survive."
"That's why Huawei chose to create its own technology," Ai added....
The point in article after article is that China is emphasizing technical advance in building
the economy from rural to urban applications and the emphasis will not be lessened. The rural
applications I am reading about are especially exciting.
I appreciate the interview, but Clayton Dube as director of the University of Southern
California's U.S.-China Institute knows remarkably little about China or American relations
with China. Possibly Dube is being especially cautious, but still:
"The air in Los Angeles," the academic explains by way of an example, "is influenced by
the air coming out of northern China. But of course, that bad air in China is produced by
factories often producing for the American market. And so we have not only outsourced
production, we've outsourced pollution."
This is absurdly wrong. China has been working on cleaning the environment for years now
and the effects as monitored have been dramatic.
The idea that China thinks of 1849 to 1949 as a colonial period that took them 100 years to
get free from, for instance, immediately helps me understand some of where they are coming
from.
The idea that China thinks of 1849 to 1949 as a colonial period that took them 100 years to
get free from, for instance, immediately helps me understand some of where they are coming
from.
[ Surely so, this very day is "International Day of Peace in Nanjing" in memory of the
victims of the terrible Japanese occupation:
Four Years After Declaring War on Pollution, China Is Winning
Research gives estimates on the longer lives that are now possible in the country.
By Michael Greenstone
On March 4, 2014, the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang, told almost 3,000 delegates at the
National People's Congress and many more watching live on state television, "We will
resolutely declare war against pollution as we declared war against poverty."
China has had the benefit of skipping over other advanced nation's Legacy infrastructure.
Leapfrogging ahead in some areas of development is smart and saves money for China as
well, but that doesn't make China superior to other advanced nations.
The U.S. Has a Fleet of 300 Electric Buses. China Has 421,000
The rest of the world will struggle for years to match China's rapid embrace of electric
transit.
By Brian Eckhouse - Bloomberg
Fearing 'Spy Trains,' Congress May Ban a Chinese Maker of Subway Cars
By Ana Swanson
CHICAGO -- America's next fight with China is unfolding at a glistening new factory in
Chicago, which stands empty except for the shells of two subway cars and space for future
business that is unlikely to come.
A Chinese state-owned company called CRRC Corporation, the world's largest train maker,
completed the $100 million facility this year in the hopes of winning contracts to build
subway cars and other passenger trains for American cities like Chicago and Washington.
But growing fears about China's economic ambitions and its potential to track and spy on
Americans are about to quash those plans. Congress is soon expected to approve legislation
that would effectively bar the company from competing for new contracts in the United States,
citing national security and economic concerns. The White House has expressed its support for
the effort....
Terrific discussion on how the West perceives China...
[ Actually a discussion that shows a remarkable misperception of China even by an American
China academic-specialist. As such the discussion is important though discouraging. ]
"... I always thought globalization was about the opportunity for a handful of businesses and corporations to control major industries around the world. ..."
"... There is an anti-China hawks faction based in the Republican party that has made its present felt. People like Robert Lighthizer, Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon. I have seen this sentiment spill over into Australian politics but they have not reached the stage where they are asking: "Are you now, or have you ever been, born Chinese?". ..."
"... We have also seen hawk factions against Russia, Iran and not long ago Venezuela. The ones for Russia and Iran have been long going but the ones against China and Venezuela were sudden and new. It may be that tomorrow that Trump will do the same against Cuba and threaten any country that does trade with them. Who knows what other country may fall within his sights? ..."
"... it seems business people in the government are being pushed aside by hawkish factions who do not care what effect it has on the economy or the country. Great! ..."
"... Those are the same "hawks" that are busy destroying the rest of America as well. ..."
"... As it is now, China literally has the US by the jewels, and if a serious conflict ever arose, could squeeze them hard. Just their dominance in manufacturing a large percentage of the pharmaceuticals consumed by US patients alone creates a serious vulnerability. ..."
"... Situating the manufacturing in countries that are part of the Chinese sphere of influence won't help much in a conflict. China would probably be able to sweep through much of Southeast Asia quickly or interdict shipments if there was war. ..."
"... the world wide presence/threat of the USA military and diplomatic corps allows globalization to be less risky for USA businesses, so, in effect, the patriotic "spreading of democracy" around the world via military actions is a factor in USA job loss. This is yet another cost of the bloated military to the general USA population. ..."
"... Trump, as usual, got his strings pulled by the Deep State when he went for actual implementation of a campaign promise. The DS doesn't care about working Americans, they are simply against China. ..."
"... as Julius Krein, editor of American Affairs, writes: "United States industry is losing ground to foreign competitors on price, quality and technology. In many areas, our manufacturing capacity cannot compete with what exists in Asia." ..."
"... Back in the early 80s I saw a massive warehouse full of machine tools, Bridgeport mills, and such lined up, it seemed forever, the guy there said they were going to China. I asked my Dad about it, and he told me we were selling them to the Chinese for the price of scrap. The whole thing is mindless and pathetic, but the really maddening thing is the slippery way our 'leaders' can keep dodging the blame by simply pointing a finger in whatever direction, and everybody's eyes move in unison. ..."
"... The argument/discussion is not about how and where to outsource our jobs, it's about how stupid it was to do it in the first place ..."
"... Also the Chinese internal market continues to attract MNC's and this attraction will continue to grow far into the future. China's middle class is already larger than the total population of the US and it continues to grow rapidly. While down presently the Chinese internal consumption continues to grow at an annual rate of some 8.5%. ..."
"... Trump's approach to trade is isolating the US, blocking its Co's from the Chinese market, and incentivizing the Chinese to offer better conditions to Co's of the rest of the world. How can that help the US ? ..."
"... The relentless neoliberal race to the bottom, outsourcing, and austerity that marked the death blow to American Labor is over. In that light it makes little difference whether our corporations pull out of China, go to Vietnam, or come home. The exploitation of the poorest is coming to an end. And none too soon. ..."
"... I hope some candidates discuss the imperative to have the US start making it's own medications again. ..."
"... I could not believe the government has allowed the entire supply chain of building blocks of ALL our antibiotics to be sourced almost solely from China. To me THAT'S the national security issue we need to deal with immediately. As well as other vital drugs.. ..."
"... Chinese manufacturers have the wealth and experience to teach production line workers and make things anywhere. Western companies manufacturing in China have belatedly looked for facilities in neighboring countries and found the Chinese are already there. ..."
"... Trump doesn't give a damn about getting manufacturing jobs back into the United States! (Or at least his advisors don't). ..."
"... Low housing costs, lead to lower wages so UK employers were able to compete in a free trade world. William White (BIS, OECD) talks about how economics really changed over one hundred years ago as classical economics was replaced by neoclassical economics. ..."
"... He thinks we have been on the wrong path for one hundred years. Free trade requires a low cost of living and what was known in the 19th century had disappeared by the 20th. The West's high cost of living means high wages and an inability to compete in a free trade world. ..."
By Marshall Auerback, a
market analyst and commentator. Produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media
Institute
"Chimerica" is a term originally coined by the historian Niall Ferguson and economist Moritz
Schularick to describe the growing economic relationship between the U.S. and China since the
latter's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. In the words of Ferguson : "The Chinese did the saving, the
Americans the spending. The Chinese did the exporting, the Americans the importing. The Chinese
did the lending, the Americans the borrowing." Much of the pre-crisis boom in global trade was
driven by this economic symbiosis, which is why successive American presidents tolerated this
marriage of convenience
despite the increasing costs to the U.S. economy . The net benefits calculation, however,
began to change after 2008, and the conflict has intensified further after the 2016
presidential election result. Today, the cumulative stress of Donald Trump's escalating trade
war is leading to if not an irreparable breach between the two countries, then certainly a
significant fraying. The imminent resumption of trade talks notwithstanding, the rising cost of
the tariffs is already inducing some U.S. manufacturers to exit China. But in most instances,
they are not returning to home shores.
It may have taken Trump to point out the pitfalls of the Chimerica link, but coming up with
a coherent strategy to replace it is clearly beyond the president's abilities. America is
likely to remain a relative manufacturing wasteland, as barren as Trump's own ill-conceived
ideas on trade. At the same time, it's not going to be an unmitigated victory for China either,
as Beijing is increasingly suffering from a large confluence of internal and external
pressures.
Chimerica helped to launch China as a global trade power. To the extent that this marriage
helped the U.S. economy, it skewed toward the largely blue state coastal regions. Wall Street
banks located on the East Coast happily collected lucrative commissions and investment banking
fees, as China's export proceeds were recycled into U.S. treasuries, stocks, and high-end real
estate while the capital markets boomed; on the West Coast, "new economy" companies thrived,
their growth and profitability unhindered by the onslaught of Chinese manufactured exports. By
contrast, facilitated by technological advances that permitted large-scale outsourcing by U.S.
manufacturers, Chimerica laid waste to much of what was left of America's Rust Belt, and the
politics of many of the displaced workers mutated to the extent that Donald Trump became an
appealing alternative to the establishment in 2016.
The major legacy of Chimerica, then, is that too many American workers have been
semi-permanently replaced by low-cost offshored labor. Prior to great advances in technology,
along with globalization, displacement of the current labor force could only have occurred
through immigration of workers into the country. Historically, displacement by immigrants
generally began at the menial level of the labor force, and became more restrictive as when it
became correlated with significant unemployment. Given the rise of globalization and the
corresponding liberalization of immigration in the past few decades, however, policy no longer
arrests the displacement of American workers. The policy backlash has consequently manifested
itself more via trade protectionism. Trump has sought to consolidate his Rust Belt base of
supporters by launching a trade war, especially versus Beijing, the ultimate effects of which
he hoped would be to re-domicile supply chains that had earlier migrated to China.
Early on in his presidency, there was some hope that Trump's protectionism was at best a
bluff or, at worst, an aberration, and that the return of a Democrat to the White House in 2020
would eventually reestablish the status quo ante. But the president still can't get a wall, and
his protectionism has become more pronounced almost as if to compensate. The problem today is
that even if Trump is voted out of office in 2020, corporate America is becoming less inclined
to wait out the end of his presidency to return to the pre-Trump status quo of parking the bulk
of their manufacturing in China. There is too much risk in putting all of one's eggs in the
China basket, especially given
growing national security concerns . Hence, U.S. companies are taking action. In spite of
decades of investment in these China-domiciled supply chains, a number of American companies
are pulling out:
toy manufacturer Hasbro , Illinois-based
phone accessories manufacturer Xentris Wireless, and lifestyle clothing company PacSun are
a few of the operators who are exiting the country.
But they are not coming back to the U.S., relocating instead to places like Vietnam,
Bangladesh, Mexico, the Philippines and Taiwan. The chief financial officer of Xentris, Ben
Buttolph, says
that the company will never return to China: "We are trying to have multiple locations
certified for all of our products, so that if all of a sudden there's an issue with one of the
locations, we just flip the switch." Likewise, the CEO of Hasbro, Brian Goldner,
recently spoke of "great opportunities in Vietnam, India and other territories like
Mexico."
All is not lost for the U.S., however, as Goldner did celebrate the success of Hasbro's
facility in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts, which has resumed
production of Play-Doh in the U.S. for the first time since 2004 . It is doubtful, however,
that this represents the recapturing of the high value-added supply chains that Trump envisaged
when he first launched his trade assault on Beijing.
In general, as Julius Krein,
editor of American Affairs , writes: "United States industry is losing ground to foreign
competitors on price, quality and technology. In many areas, our manufacturing capacity cannot
compete with what exists in Asia."
These are not isolated examples.
Defense One also notes the following development:
It came without a breaking news alert or presidential tweet, but the technological
competition with China entered a new phase last month. Several developments quietly heralded
this shift: Cross-border investments between the United States and China plunged to their
lowest levels since 2014, with the tech sector suffering the most precipitous drop. U.S. chip
giants Intel and AMD abruptly ended or declined to extend important partnerships with Chinese
entities. The Department of Commerce halved the number of licenses that let U.S. companies
assign Chinese nationals to sensitive technology and engineering projects.
This development consequently makes it hard to proclaim Beijing a winner in this dispute
either. The country still needs access to U.S. high tech. The government announced yet
another fiscal stimulus to the economy earlier this month in response to a cluster of
weakening economic data, much of which is related to the trade shock. It is also the case that
China is being buffeted politically, both externally and internally: externally, in addition to
the escalating trade war, China's own efforts to counter the effects of rising protectionism by
creating a " reverse
Marshall Plan " via the Belt and Road Initiative is
floundering .
China's "iron brother," Pakistan, is increasingly being victimized by India's aggressive
Hindu-centric nationalism . It is hard to imagine the Modi government opportunistically
taking the step of annexing Kashmir and undermining Pakistan, had it not sensed Beijing's
increasing vulnerability.
Internally, Beijing is finding it increasingly challenging as it seeks to enforce its "One
China" policy in Hong Kong and Taiwan. The
withdrawal of the controversial extradition law that first precipitated widespread
demonstrations in Hong Kong has not alleviated the political pressures in the territory, but
simply allowed an even bigger protest culture to take root and strengthen an independent
political mindset. Similarly, Taiwan has also openly supported the Hong Kong protesters,
pledging help to those seeking asylum . Both regions now constitute both a huge humiliation
and challenge to the primacy of China's ruling Communist Party. And now on top of that, foreign
manufacturers are leaving the country, weakening a totally leveraged manufacturing complex.
The implications of this divorce go well beyond the U.S. and China. They constitute another
step toward regionalization, another step away from a quaint ideological "post-history"
construct that saw Washington, D.C., as the head office and the rest of the world as a bunch of
branch plants for "America, Inc." It's hardly comforting to contemplate that the last time we
reached this historic juncture was the early 1900s, when a similarly globalized economy broke
down, followed by the Great War. As Niall Ferguson points out , "a high level of economic integration does not
necessarily prevent the growth of strategic rivalry and, ultimately, conflict." There's no
doubt that both Washington and Beijing will likely making soothing noises to the markets in
order to create favorable conditions for the trade talks in October, but their actions suggest
that they are both digging in
for a longer struggle . Today's trade wars, therefore, are likely to morph into something
more destructive, which is a lose-lose in an era where human advancement depends on greater
integration between economic powers.
There may be another aspect to this development and that is of geopolitics. You can see
that in Marshall's article when the CFO of Xentris said: "We are trying to have multiple
locations certified for all of our products, so that if all of a sudden there's an issue with
one of the locations, we just flip the switch." There is an anti-China hawks faction based in
the Republican party that has made its present felt. People like Robert Lighthizer, Peter
Navarro and Steve Bannon. I have seen this sentiment spill over into Australian politics but
they have not reached the stage where they are asking: "Are you now, or have you ever been,
born Chinese?".
So we have seen a long string of sanctions and tariffs at play so that China will change its
laws and institutions to suit American interests. Yeah, I can't see that happening anytime
soon but hey, America First, Baby. We have also seen hawk factions against Russia, Iran and
not long ago Venezuela. The ones for Russia and Iran have been long going but the ones
against China and Venezuela were sudden and new. It may be that tomorrow that Trump will do
the same against Cuba and threaten any country that does trade with them. Who knows what
other country may fall within his sights?
That being the case if you were running an international country, you can no longer just have
your manufacturing base or service operations just in one country. If Xentris is an example,
US companies may have to split manufacturing into several countries in case one fine day that
Trump will sanction yet another country that your company depends on.
I would imagine that it
would not be so efficient but it seems business people in the government are being pushed
aside by hawkish factions who do not care what effect it has on the economy or the country.
Great!
Those are the same "hawks" that are busy destroying the rest of America as well. Another
four years of this will, effectively, dismantle what democracy is left. The world trade won't
be the big issue. The departure of millions of Americans will.
If that happens, be sure to thank the Catfood Democrats for it. Because they are the
people who will do their very best and hardest to throw the next election to Trump, one way
or another.
It seems like diversification of supply chains can only be a good thing. As it is now,
China literally has the US by the jewels, and if a serious conflict ever arose, could squeeze
them hard. Just their dominance in manufacturing a large percentage of the pharmaceuticals
consumed by US patients alone creates a serious vulnerability.
I really don't think it matters if manufacturing jobs are repatriated to the US, or just
set up and spread around elsewhere for now – since they'll be obsolete jobs in the near
future anyway, as robotics and AI get increasingly efficient at doing the work that human
workers currently do.
Situating the manufacturing in countries that are part of the Chinese sphere of influence
won't help much in a conflict. China would probably be able to sweep through much of
Southeast Asia quickly or interdict shipments if there was war.
So the status quo was preferable? The tone of the article seems to suggest that America should accept it place as a
third-world manufacturer, as if these Asian nations have some magical sauce that can't be
replicated. Gawd.
The US does have a lot of magic. Like one third of FDI related to tax evasion. Pulling Mac
Book manufacturing out of Austin for the lack of one 'screw', etc. So is the premise of going after China on trade and IP policies good. I would agree. Maybe
not in strategy, but at least someone has opened the box.
I agree with your comment, the article suggests the status quo was preferable. Of note, Trump has shown his supporters that something CAN be done other than follow the
"resistance is futile" path of the Bill Clinton/Bush Jr./Obama administrations.
I also suggest that the world wide presence/threat of the USA military and diplomatic
corps allows globalization to be less risky for USA businesses, so, in effect, the patriotic
"spreading of democracy" around the world via military actions is a factor in USA job
loss. This is yet another cost of the bloated military to the general USA population.
I worked in the electronics industry for 30+ years and watched high margin manufacturing
move to Asia. Now the lower level component manufacturers (PCBs, passives) are firmly established in
Asia as the USA companies have helped train worthy competitors overseas. It took 25+ years to move much of USA manufacturing overseas, indicating to me that it
will take a long time to bring it back significantly, well outside the Trump time frame.
But I suspect Trump voters will appreciate Trump's headline efforts. If the Democrats push for more Free Trade as good for the USA, it will hurt them at the
ballot box.
The second time as farce. How tragicomic that Trump has succeeded in little more than
repatriating the manufacture of Play-Doh. On the other hand, the shipping cost of unbaked brick seems a rational factor in Hasbro's
decision. A GND that shortens supply lines would be more effective in repatriating heavy
industry, but then printed circuit boards aren't all that heavy .
The thing is Trump, as usual, got his strings pulled by the Deep State when he went for
actual implementation of a campaign promise. The DS doesn't care about working Americans,
they are simply against China.
So he goes and puts tariffs on a country, not a product. And surprise, said product
doesn't come back on-shore. Comical (and yeah, cosmically a bit just) that Vietnam is getting
so much of that manufacturing. Wasn't what he was elected for.
In general, as Julius Krein, editor of American Affairs, writes: "United States industry
is losing ground to foreign competitors on price, quality and technology. In many areas, our
manufacturing capacity cannot compete with what exists in Asia."
As a engineer up to my elbows in manufacturing for forty years, this was awfully easy to
predict way back then (I gave up complaining about it about 2000), and then watch happen
– real time. And to once again state the obvious, China did not TAKE American jobs,
American CEOs GAVE them our jobs. We will not fix this problem until we identify and fix the
root cause.
Now the only way to fix it is (once again obviously) massive government investment such as
mandated by the GND. We need the GND, it is not only required to save the world, it will save
our country.
Agree, it was predictable, and it was predicted. What we've been talking about is the "Giant sucking sound" Ross Perot foretold would
happen prior to the passing of NAFTA. It wasn't hard back then to see that he was right, but it took a few decades for the
public to feel the impact, boiling frogs and all that.
Back in the early 80s I saw a massive warehouse full of machine tools, Bridgeport mills,
and such lined up, it seemed forever, the guy there said they were going to China. I asked my Dad about it, and he told me we were selling them to the Chinese for the price
of scrap. The whole thing is mindless and pathetic, but the really maddening thing is the slippery
way our 'leaders' can keep dodging the blame by simply pointing a finger in whatever
direction, and everybody's eyes move in unison.
NAFTA and China are two completely separate things. I have actually supported NAFTA in
principle because we should encourage trade to be focused on our immediate neighbors. A
wealthier and safer Mexico and Central America would create markets for us and virtually
eliminate illegal immigrants as the southern border.
China is on the other side of the world and is not part of NAFTA. While we should have
cordial relations with it, if we are looking for inexpensive labor, south of the border is
the better place to focus on that. So Trump's tariffs on China are not the wrong thing to do
per se. The problem is that they are being done in a vacuum of general trade policy where he
is looking at everything as transaction bilateral relations with every country on the planet,
which requires an immense amount of detailed thought and negotiation, neither of which appear
to be a focus of this administration.
The countries that the companies are talking about moving their operations to are
generally part of the new TPP which the US is not part of. So, we have removed ourselves from
having trade relations with countries US CEOs are setting up operations in, but those
countries are now starting to work together to counter both China (original TPP purpose) and
the US (now that the US has bailed on it). Sounds like a recipe for a replay of China's giant
sucking sound.
The argument/discussion is not about how and where to outsource our jobs, it's about how
stupid it was to do it in the first place. Anyone smart enough to breath knows that Mexico is next door, and China is on the other
side of the world, but they are both part of the same giant sucking sound. The fact that you support both NAFTA ,think it was unwise to back out of the TPP, and
think the issue is the present administration's lack of " detailed thought and negotiation
" indicate a truly unbelievable level of denial.
NAFTA and MFN for China were two different actions towards the same goal . . . the use of
Free Trade to dismantle thingmaking in America and re-mantle thingmaking in foreign
export-aggression platforms to use against America.
Free Trade is the new Slavery. Militant Belligerent Protectionism is the new
Abolition.
I remember when a Midwest Democrat (Stabenow?) tried to get a law passed that would
prohibit a US corporation from deducting, from their federal taxes, the cost of moving
factories overseas. A very minor disincentive, but a disincentive nonetheless. The Repubs beat it down as "anti-business". Concern about American workers is something to express in political speeches around
election time but not in legislation.
Hidden within this narrative is the fact that some countries, and not only China, have for
long been playing beggar-thy-neighbor policies by restraining internal consumption and
redirecting savings to the rest of the world that in turn finance their exporting machines.
IMO, the biggest mistake made by China has been not to force fast enough a transition from a
saving economy to a consumer economy with more balanced external relationships.
These kind of
policies are confrontational. As confrontational as tariffs or even as economic sanctions in
my view. Yet, the prevailing economic narrative is that saving and exporting is the right
economic thing to do. In this sense I think it matters a lot to which countries are being re
directed investments of american companies leaving China. My intuition is that, for instance,
Vietnam migth be willing to play this game while Mexico not. Investing in countries that save
too much migth be counterproductive.
I very much regret this aggressive narrative that has become common place in which
countries are identified simply as competitors, if not enemies, in a global chess game.
Political moves are confrontational and or humiliating. These Game of Thrones dynamics are
played precisely when some international consensus in more important things like figthing
climate change would be more than desirable. We are headed to truly bad times.
Here is
an article by Steve Dickinson from the layers office Harris Bricken McVay Sliwoski that
is based on his Co's China practice. Steve's conclusion goes as follows:
The Chinese system put in place from 1992 to 2005 was a unique system and not likely to
be replaced in S.E./South Asia or in any other region of the world. So for manufacturers,
moving to a new region means doing the analysis from the ground up. Simply taking what they
do in China and moving it to a new location is not likely to be a workable solution.
Also the Chinese internal market continues to attract MNC's and this attraction will
continue to grow far into the future. China's middle class is already larger than the total
population of the US and it continues to grow rapidly. While down presently the Chinese
internal consumption continues to grow at an annual rate of some 8.5%.
Personal savings deposited in bank accounts reach the equivalent of some $US 30 Trillion !
Compare that to consumer debt at some $US 6.5 Trillion. In other words China is growing into
the largest consumer market on earth and the biggest advantage that its internal market
procures is its 'economies of scale' that make Chinese productions hyper-competitive. In
other words China is gaining the kind of advantage that the US had along the 20th century.
The advantage of a super large market size that dwarfs other national markets.
Trump's approach to trade is isolating the US, blocking its Co's from the Chinese market,
and incentivizing the Chinese to offer better conditions to Co's of the rest of the world.
How can that help the US ?
The biggest problem of the West and particularly the US is its ideological approach to
economics. The Chinese adopted a pragmatic approach and it has served them well. Time to
relearn the meaning of political economics (économie politique).
I read Dickinson's PR piece linked by laodan. I used to work for a big law firm that had
an international practice group focusing on moving US businesses to China ( I was not
involved in that practice area, did environmental law and litigation.) The firm's PR
department tasked lawyers with certain expertise to generate these kinds of come-ons as part
of the compensation weighting scheme -- publish, and bring in business, or lose out in the
annual "whining for dollars" partnership division of spoils. Eat what you kill.
Dickinson is talking his book, of course. I have no idea if his read of the history and
the current state of affairs in China and the "Asian Tigers" (does anyone use that term any
more?) is accurate and complete, but what he describes is his firm's readiness to help
supranational (emphasize SUPRAnational) and post-national corporate entities get a leg up in
the race to the bottom. He'll help you find the places where the ruling class will give away
the biggest share of the "national birthright" so the corporate entity can maximize profit by
streamlining production and consumption, and of course growth. All the stuff that is killing
the planet. But his time frame, his personal time frame, presumably, as well as the framing
of the corporate shark entities which he is a remora to, cares nothing for the bigger
economic and ecological effects of more stuff, more shipping, more energy use, and of course
more combustion and consumption.
And I'd note that he carefully omits all the baksheesh and greasing of palms that i read
is such an important part of "doing business" at any kind of scale, to varying degrees
everywhere in the world. I wonder if his custom analyses of the relative merits of, say,
Vietnam vs. China vs. Cambodia vs. Taiwan includes sketching out the bribes that have to be
paid to close on the sale of national birthrights on the way to the bottom that the globalist
business model drives everything toward?
I'm sure he would be happy to have the ear and hourly billings of all the great decision
makers of all the various kinds of businesses, high to low tech, wanting to take full
advantage of the "opportunities" that may be on offer, on how to ride the asymptotically
downward curve of the race to the bottom, for fun and profit
Looks like China has had a pretty effective industrial policy, unlike the US where
corporate vampire capital dominion and corruption have bled the mopery white (not a racial
reference, of course ) Do economists and policy wonks in the US even dare to use the phrase
"industrial policy" any more? Or is it just presumed that "shareholder value" trumps all
else? Especially as the author puts it, again quoting Ferguson, where we are "in an era where
human advancement depends on greater integration between economic powers."
The relentless neoliberal race to the bottom, outsourcing, and austerity that marked the
death blow to American Labor is over. In that light it makes little difference whether our
corporations pull out of China, go to Vietnam, or come home. The exploitation of the poorest
is coming to an end. And none too soon.
For national security reasons at minimum, I hope some candidates discuss the imperative to
have the US start making it's own medications again.
Makes more sense to subsidize our production of medication than to give billions in subsidies
to very profitable oil companies.
I agree. I could not believe the government has allowed the entire supply chain of
building blocks of ALL our antibiotics to be sourced almost solely from China. To me THAT'S
the national security issue we need to deal with immediately. As well as other vital
drugs..
Anecdotally, I have started making this my number one political conversation issue –
replete with references ( because of course not a soul believes it at first).. I have yet to
find a single person Repub or Demo who isn't horrified and against it .
Any nation with this much power over our drug supply they could kill millions of us in short
order
Even getting manufacturing out of China will not bankrupt that country as intended. If USA
is intent on pursuing a nationalistic basis to sanctions, I think its bound to fail. Trade
always finds a way as we can well remember from our own commercial / industrial
development.
Chinese manufacturers have the wealth and experience to teach production line workers and
make things anywhere. Western companies manufacturing in China have belatedly looked for
facilities in neighboring countries and found the Chinese are already there. What's still
available is land far from roads and rivers with little power supply.
Another thing is preserving wealth. US Industrialists will keep their money offshore and
remit only as much as they need in the homeland. A major problem imo is a mental restraint in USA thinking. Life is all about competition
and winning. The actual activity, whatever it is, provides no joy unless you win. That
fearful tag "No-one remembers who came second" is banded about. Thats not a philosophy for
happiness. It forces the population into displacement activities few of which are wholesome.
Here endeth the lesson.
It's not a bug, it's a feature! Trump doesn't give a damn about getting manufacturing jobs back into the United States!
(Or at least his advisors don't).
The trick is to move them out of nationalistic China, which is setting itself up as a
competitor for power, and move the jobs into nice docile low-wage colonies, like Mexico and
Indonesia and Bangladesh.
The only catch: China has all the integrated supply lines and is stable. Moving your
manufacturing into a dozen different uncoordinated unstable third-world banana republics has
its own down side.
The UK repealed the Corn Laws to embark on free trade. This reduced the price of bread, and lowered the cost of living, so UK employers could pay
internationally competitive wages. Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Employees get their money from wages and the employer pays through wages, so the employer
is paying for that bread through wages. Expensive bread leads to higher wages making UK employers unable to compete in a free
trade world. "The interest of the landlords is always opposed to the interest of every other class
in the community" Ricardo 1815 / Classical Economist
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living) Employees get their money from wages and the employer pays via wages. Employees get less disposable income after the landlords rent has gone.
Employers have to cover the landlord's rents in wages reducing profit. Ricardo is just talking about housing costs, employees all rented in those days. The appalling conditions UK workers lived in during the 19th century were well
documented.
Low housing costs, lead to lower wages so UK employers were able to compete in a free
trade world. William White (BIS, OECD) talks about how economics really changed over one hundred years
ago as classical economics was replaced by neoclassical economics.
He thinks we have been on the wrong path for one hundred years. Free trade requires a low cost of living and what was known in the 19th century had
disappeared by the 20th. The West's high cost of living means high wages and an inability to
compete in a free trade world.
Never mind our companies can off-shore to where employers can pay lower wages for higher
profits. Look at the US cost of living Donald; this is why those jobs ain't coming back. It's hard to make a good profit in the US, when employers have to cover the US cost of
living in wages, reducing profit. The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs + other debt
repayments + food + other costs of living
A multi-polar world became a uni-polar world with the fall of the Berlin Wall and Francis
Fukuyama said it was the end of history.
It was all going so well, until the neoliberals got to work.
The US created an open, globalised world with the Washington Consensus.
China went from almost nothing to become a global super power.
That wasn't supposed to happen, let's get the rocket scientists onto it.
Maximising profit is all about reducing costs.
China had coal fired power stations to provide cheap energy.
China had lax regulations reducing environmental and health and safety costs.
China had a low cost of living so employers could pay low wages.
China had low taxes and a minimal welfare state.
China had all the advantages in an open globalised world.
It did have, but now China has become too expensive and developed Eastern economies are
off-shoring to places like Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Philippines.
An open, globalised world is a race to the bottom on costs.
"The Washington Consensus was always going to work better for China than the US"
the rocket scientists.
Several years ago Naked Capitalism ran an article about how a young George Ball was one of
the New Immoralists for International Corporate Globalonial Plantationism. And that was
before neoliberalism.
"[A]n era where human advancement depends on greater integration between economic
powers."
Oh, by all the gods, no. And what, pray, defines 'human advancement'? What the hell is Mr Auerback talking
about?
Further integration only propels the speed at which resources are extracted and the planet
dies incrementally more. The future will not be one fully integrated planet guided by
whatever-the-hell oligarchs and their 'meritocratic' servitors deign the best options. The
future will of necessity be vastly more local, vastly more hand-made, vastly less energy- and
resource-intensive, and there will be vastly less intercontinental and intra-continental
trade. World-spanning – even continent-spanning political-economic arrangements have no
long term viability whatsoever. Trying to maintain such is a foolish waste of effort and
resources that could be more usefully be directed at de-growth and de-industrialization.
And with that, The Lord Curmudgeon shook his cane one last time at the kids on his lawn
and returned to the troll's cave from which he came.
The last engine of global growth, China, has now reached the end of the line as they have
seen their Minsky Moment coming. China was the latest victim of neoclassical economics. The biggest danger to capitalism is neoclassical economics; it brought capitalism to its
knees in the 1930s and is having another go now.
1929 and 2008 look so similar because they are; it's the same economics and thinking. Richard Vague has analysed the data for 1929 and 2008 and they were even more similar than
they initially appear. Real estate lending was actually the biggest problem in 1929.
Margin lending was another factor in 2008.
The 1920s US mistake is now global.
Japan, the UK, the US, Euro-zone and now China. The last engine of global growth, China, has now reached the end of the line as they have
seen their Minsky Moment coming. The debt fuelled growth model not only runs out of steam, all the debt in the economy then
acts like a drag anchor holding the economy back. Japan has been like this for thirty years.
Richard Koo explains the processes at work in the Japanese economy since the 1990s, which
are at now at work throughout the global economy.
"... The aim of the panel, called the Joint Authorities Technical Review, was to expedite getting the 737 Max into the air by creating a vehicle for achieve consensus among foreign regulators who had grounded the 737 Max before the FAA had. But these very regulators had also made clear they needed to be satisfied before they'd let it fly in their airspace. ..."
"... The FAA hopes to give the 737 Max the green light in November, while the other regulators all have said they have issues that are unlikely to be resolved by then. The agency is now in the awkward position of having a body it set up to be authoritative turn on the agency's own procedures. ..."
"... the FAA had moved further and further down the path of relying on aircraft manufactures for critical elements of certification. Not all of this was the result of capture; with the evolution of technology, even the sharpest and best intended engineer in government employ would become stale on the state of the art in a few years. ..."
"... Although all stories paint a broadly similar picture, .the most damning is a detailed piece at the Seattle Times, Engineers say Boeing pushed to limit safety testing in race to certify planes, including 737 MAX ..The article gives an incriminating account of how Boeing got the FAA to delegate more and more certification authority to the airline, and then pressured and abused employees who refused to back down on safety issues . ..."
"... In 2004, the FAA changed its system for front-line supervision of airline certification from having the FAA select airline certification employees who reported directly to the FAA to having airline employees responsible for FAA certification report to airline management and have their reports filtered through them (the FAA attempted to maintain that the certification employees could provide their recommendations directly to the agency, but the Seattle Times obtained policy manuals that stated otherwise). ..."
"... On Monday, the Post and Courier reported about the South Carolina plant that produced 787s found with tools rattling inside that Boeing SC lets mechanics inspect their own work, leading to repeated mistakes, workers say. These mechanic certifications would never have been kosher if the FAA were vigilant. Similarly, Reuters described how Boeing weakened another safety check, that of pilot input. ..."
"... As part of roughly a dozen findings, these government and industry officials said, the task force is poised to call out the Federal Aviation Administration for what it describes as a lack of clarity and transparency in the way the FAA delegated authority to the plane maker to assess the safety of certain flight-control features. The upshot, according to some of these people, is that essential design changes didn't receive adequate FAA attention. ..."
"... But the report could influence changes to traditional engineering principles determining the safety of new aircraft models. Certification of software controlling increasingly interconnected and automated onboard systems "is a whole new ballgame requiring new approaches," according to a senior industry safety expert who has discussed the report with regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. ..."
"... For instance, the Journal reports that Canadian authorities expect to require additional simulator training for 737 Max pilots. Recall that Boeing's biggest 737 Max customer, Southwest Airlines, was so resistant to the cost of additional simulator training that it put a penalty clause into its contract if wound up being necessary. ..."
"... Patrick Ky, head of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, told the European Parliament earlier this month, "It's very likely that international authorities will want a second opinion" on any FAA decision to lift the grounding. ..."
"... Most prominently, EASA has proposed to eventually add to the MAX a third fully functional angle-of-attack sensor -- which effectively measures how far the plane's nose is pointed up or down -- underscoring the controversy expected to swirl around the plane for the foreseeable future. ..."
"... It's hard to see how Boeing hasn't gotten itself in the position of being at a major competitive disadvantage by virtue of having compromised the FAA so severely as to have undercut safety. ..."
"... has Boeing developed a plan to correct the trim wheel issue on the 787max? i haven't seen a single statement from them on how they plan to fix this problem. is it possible they think they can get the faa to re-certify without addressing it? ..."
"... Don't forget that the smaller trim wheels are in the NG as well. any change to fix the wheels ripples across more planes than just the Max ..."
"... The self-inflicted wound caused by systematic greed and arrogance – corruption, in other words. Boeing is reaping the wages of taking 100% of their profits to support the stock price through stock buybacks and deliberately under-investing in their business. Their brains have been taken over by a parasitic financial system that profits by wrecking healthy businesses. ..."
"... Shareholder Value is indeed the worst idea in the world. That Boeing's biggest stockholder, Vanguard, is unable to cleanup Boeing's operations makes perfect sense. I mean vanguards expertise is making money, not building anything. Those skills are completely different. ..."
"... One maxim we see illustrated here and elsewhere is this: Trust takes years to earn, but can be lost overnight. ..."
The FAA evidently lacked
perspective on how much trouble it was in after the two international headline-grabbing crashes
of the Boeing 737 Max. It established a "multiagency panel" meaning one that included
representatives from foreign aviation regulators, last April. A new Wall Street Journal article
reports that the findings of this panel, to be released in a few weeks, are expected to
lambaste the FAA 737 Max approval process and urge a major redo of how automated aircraft
systems get certified .
The aim of the panel, called the Joint Authorities Technical Review, was to expedite getting
the 737 Max into the air by creating a vehicle for achieve consensus among foreign regulators
who had grounded the 737 Max before the FAA had. But these very regulators had also made clear
they needed to be satisfied before they'd let it fly in their airspace.
The JATR gave them a venue for reaching a consensus, but it wasn't the consensus the FAA
sought. The foreign regulators, despite being given a forum in which to hash things out with
the FAA, are not following the FAA's timetable. The FAA hopes to give the 737 Max the green
light in November, while the other regulators all have said they have issues that are unlikely
to be resolved by then. The agency is now in the awkward position of having a body it set up to
be authoritative turn on the agency's own procedures.
The Seattle Times, which has broken many important on the Boeing debacle, reported on how
the FAA had moved further and further down the path of relying on aircraft manufactures for
critical elements of certification. Not all of this was the result of capture; with the
evolution of technology, even the sharpest and best intended engineer in government employ
would become stale on the state of the art in a few years.
However, one of the critical decisions the FAA took was to change the reporting lines of the
manufacturer employees who were assigned to FAA certification.
From a May post :
Although all stories paint a broadly similar picture, .the most damning is a detailed
piece at the Seattle Times,
Engineers say Boeing pushed to limit safety testing in race to certify planes, including 737
MAX ..The article gives an incriminating account of how Boeing got the FAA to delegate
more and more certification authority to the airline, and then pressured and abused employees
who refused to back down on safety issues .
As the Seattle Times described, the problems extended beyond the 737 Max MCAS software
shortcomings; indeed, none of the incidents in the story relate to it.
In 2004, the FAA changed its system for front-line supervision of airline certification
from having the FAA select airline certification employees who reported directly to the FAA
to having airline employees responsible for FAA certification report to airline management
and have their reports filtered through them (the FAA attempted to maintain that the
certification employees could provide their recommendations directly to the agency, but the
Seattle Times obtained policy manuals that stated otherwise).
Mind you, the Seattle Times was not alone in depicting the FAA as captured by Boeing. On
Monday, the Post and Courier reported about the South Carolina plant that produced 787s found
with tools rattling inside that
Boeing SC lets mechanics inspect their own work, leading to repeated mistakes, workers say.
These mechanic certifications would never have been kosher if the FAA were vigilant. Similarly,
Reuters described how Boeing weakened another safety check, that of pilot input.
One of the objectives for creating this panel was to restore confidence in Boeing and the
FAA, but that was always going to be a tall order, particularly after more bad news about
various 737 Max systems and Boeing being less than forthcoming with its customers and
regulators emerged.
From the Wall Street Journal :
As part of roughly a dozen findings, these government and industry officials said, the
task force is poised to call out the Federal Aviation Administration for what it describes as
a lack of clarity and transparency in the way the FAA delegated authority to the plane maker
to assess the safety of certain flight-control features. The upshot, according to some of
these people, is that essential design changes didn't receive adequate FAA attention.
The report, these officials said, also is expected to fault the agency for what it
describes as inadequate data sharing with foreign authorities during its original
certification of the MAX two years ago, along with relying on mistaken industrywide
assumptions about how average pilots would react to certain flight-control emergencies .
The FAA has stressed that the advisory group doesn't have veto power over modifications to
MCAS.
But the report could influence changes to traditional engineering principles determining
the safety of new aircraft models. Certification of software controlling increasingly
interconnected and automated onboard systems "is a whole new ballgame requiring new
approaches," according to a senior industry safety expert who has discussed the report with
regulators on both sides of the Atlantic.
If the FAA thinks it can keep this genie the bottle, it is naive. The foreign regulators
represented on the task force, including from China and the EU, have ready access to the
international business press. And there will also be an embarrassing fact on the ground, that
the FAA, which was last to ground the 737 Max, will be the first to let it fly again, and
potentially by not requiring safety protections that other regulators will insist on. For
instance, the Journal reports that Canadian authorities expect to require additional simulator
training for 737 Max pilots. Recall that Boeing's biggest 737 Max customer, Southwest Airlines,
was so resistant to the cost of additional simulator training that it put a penalty clause into
its contract if wound up being necessary.
It's a given that the FAA will be unable to regain its former stature and that all of its
certifications of major aircraft will now be second guessed subject to further
review by major foreign regulators. That in turn will impose costs on Boeing, of changing its
certification process from needing to placate only the FAA to having to appease potentially
multiple parties. For instance, the EU regulator is poised to raise the bar on the 737 Max:
Patrick Ky, head of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, told the European
Parliament earlier this month, "It's very likely that international authorities will want a
second opinion" on any FAA decision to lift the grounding.
Even after EASA gives the green light, agency officials are expected to push for
significant additional safety enhancements to the fleet. Most prominently, EASA has proposed
to eventually add to the MAX a third fully functional angle-of-attack sensor -- which
effectively measures how far the plane's nose is pointed up or down -- underscoring the
controversy expected to swirl around the plane for the foreseeable future.
A monopoly is a precious thing to have. Too bad Boeing failed to appreciate that in its zeal
for profits. If the manufacturer winds up facing different demands in different regulatory
markets, it will have created more complexity for itself. Can it afford not to manufacture to
the highest common denominator, say by making an FAA-only approved bird for Southwest and
trying to talk American into buying FAA-only approved versions for domestic use only? It's hard
to see how Boeing hasn't gotten itself in the position of being at a major competitive
disadvantage by virtue of having compromised the FAA so severely as to have undercut
safety.
Even if Boeing finds solutions that international regulators can finally accept, their
implementation will take additional months. The AoA sensor and trim wheel issues will
likely require hardware changes to the 600 or so existing MAX airplanes. The demand for
simulator training will further delay the ungrounding of the plane. There are only some two
dozen 737 MAX simulators in this world and thousands of pilots who will need to pass
through them.
has Boeing developed a plan to correct the trim wheel issue on the 787max? i haven't seen
a single statement from them on how they plan to fix this problem. is it possible they think
they can get the faa to re-certify without addressing it?
The self-inflicted wound caused by systematic greed and arrogance – corruption, in
other words. Boeing is reaping the wages of taking 100% of their profits to support the stock
price through stock buybacks and deliberately under-investing in their business. Their brains
have been taken over by a parasitic financial system that profits by wrecking healthy
businesses.
It's not only Boeing – the rot is general and it is terrible to see the destruction
of American productive capacity by a parasitic finance sector.
Shareholder Value is indeed the worst idea in the world. That Boeing's biggest
stockholder, Vanguard, is unable to cleanup Boeing's operations makes perfect sense. I mean
vanguards expertise is making money, not building anything. Those skills are
completely different.
Shareholder value does what it intended to do, which is to maximise stock value in the
short term, even if it significantly cuts value in the long term.
By that measure allowing Boeing to take over the FAA and self-certify the 737-MAX was a
big success, because of short term maximization of stock value that resulted. It is now
someone else's problem regarding any long term harm.
Having worked at Boeing and the FAA, this report is very welcome. One thing: federal
hiring practices in a way lock out good people from working there. Very often the fed
managing some project has only a tenuous grasp is what is going on.
But has the job bc they
were hired in young and cheap, which is what agencies do with reduced budgets. That and job
postings very often stating that they are open only to current feds says it all.
So deferring
to the airline to "self-certify" would be a welcome relief to feds in many cases. At this
point, I doubt the number of their "sharpest and best intended" engineers is very high.
If
you want better oversight, then increase the number and quality of feds by making it easier
to hire, and decrease the number of contractors.
I deal with federal and state regulators (not airplane) all the time. Very well meaning
people, but in many cases are utterly unqualified to do the technical work. So it works well
when they stick to the policy issues and stay out of the technical details.
However, we have
Professional Engineers and other licensed professionals signing off on the engineering
documents per state law. You can look at the design documents and the construction
certification and there is a name and stamp of the responsible individual.
The licensing laws clearly state that the purpose of licensing is to hold public health
and safety paramount. This is completely missing in the American industrial sector due to the
industrial exemptions in the professional engineering licensing laws. Ultimately, there is
nobody technically responsible for a plane or a car who has to certify that they are making
the public safe and healthy.
Instead, the FAA and others do that. Federal agencies and the
insurance institute test cars and give safety ratings. Lawyers sue companies for defects
which also helps enforce safety.
One maxim we see illustrated here and elsewhere is this: Trust takes years to earn, but
can be lost overnight.
Boeing management and the FAA, having lost the trust of most people in the world through
their actions lately, seem to nevertheless think it will be a simple matter to return to the
former status quo. It seems as likely, or perhaps more likely, that they will never be
able to return to the former status quo. They have been revealed as poseurs and imposters,
cheerfully risking (and sometimes losing) their customers' lives so they can buy back more
stock.
This image will be (rightfully) hard for them to shake.
So people are going to quit their jobs rather than fly on Boeing planes? Joe and Marge
Six-Pack are going to choose flights not based on what they can afford but based on what make
of plane they are flying on? As if the airlines will even tell them in advance?
There are close to zero consequences to Boeing and FAA management. Click on the link to
the Purdue Sacklers debacle. The biggest inconvenience will be paying the lawyers.
From 1992 to 1999 I worked for the FAA running one of their labs in OKC. My role, among
other things, was to provide data to the Administrator on employee attitudes, business
practice changes, and policy impact on morale and safety. Back then, likely as now, it was a
common complaint heard from FAA execs about the conflict of interest of having to be both an
aviation safety regulatory agency and having to promote aviation. Congress seemed fine with
that – apparently still is. There is FAA pork in nearly every Congressional district
(think airports for example). Boeing is the latest example of how mission conflict is not
serving the aviation industry or public safety. With its headquarters within walking distance
of Capitol Hill, aviation lobbyists do not even get much exercise shuttling.
The 1996 Valuejet crash into the Florida swamps shows how far back the mission conflict
problem has persisted. Valuejet was a startup airline that was touted as more profitable than
all the others. It achieved that notoriety by flying through every FAA maintenance loophole
they could find to cut maintenance costs. When FAA started clamping down, Senate Majority
Leader Daschle scolded FAA for not being on the cutting edge of industry innovation. The
message was clear – leave Valuejet alone. That was a hard message to ignore given that
Daschle's wife Linda was serving as Deputy FAA Administrator (the #2 position) – a
clear conflict of interest with the role of her spouse – a fact not lost on
Administrator Hinson (the #1 position). Rather than use the disaster as an opportunity to
revisit FAA mission conflict, Clinton tossed Administrator Hinson into the volcano of public
outcry and put Daschle in charge. Nothing happened then, and it looks like Boeing might
follow Valuejet into the aviation graveyard.
Nothin' like regulatory capture. Along with financialized manufacturing, the cheap &
profitable will outdo the costly careful every time. Few businesses are run today with the
moral outlook of some early industrialists (not enough of them, but still present) who,
through zany Protestant guilt, cared for their reputations enough to not make murderous
product, knowing how the results would play both here and in Heaven. Today we have PR and
government propaganda to smear the doubters, free the toxic, and let loose toxins.
From food to clothing, drugs to hospitals, self-propelled skateboards to aircraft,
pesticides to pollution, even services as day care & education, it is time to call the
minions of manufactured madness to account. Dare we say "Free government from Murder
Inc."?
This is an excellent summary of the untenable situation that Boeing and the Federal
Government have gotten themselves into. In their rush to get richer the Elite ignored the
fact that monopolies and regulatory capture are always dangerously corrupt. This is not an
isolated case. FDA allows importation of uninspected stock pharmaceutical chemicals from
China. Insulin is unaffordable for the lower classes. Diseases are spreading through homeless
encampments. EPA approved new uses of environmentally toxic nicotinoid insecticide,
sulfoxaflor. DOD sold hundreds of billions of dollars of armaments to Saudi Arabia that were
useless to protect the oil supply.
The Powers-that-be thought that they would be a hegemon forever. But, Joe Biden's green
light for the Ukraine Army's attack against breakaway Donbass region on Russia's border
restarted the Cold War allying Russia with China and Iran. This is a multi-polar world again.
Brexit and Donald Trump's Presidency are the Empire's death throes.
NC readers know what the problem is as two comments above indicate clearly. Isn't the FAA
ashamed to keep conniving with the money and permitting dangerous planes to fly?
Boeing just got a WTO ruling against Airbus. It seems that one rogue produces others. Time
to clean the stable and remove the money addiction from safety regulation
I think that I can see an interesting situation developing next year. So people will be
boarding a plane, say with Southwest Airlines, when they will hear the following announcement
over the speakers-
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. On behalf of myself and the
entire crew, welcome aboard Southwest Airlines flight WN 861, non-stop service from Houston
to New York. Our flight time will be of 4 hours and 30 minutes. We will be flying at an
altitude of 35,000 feet at a ground speed of approximately 590 miles per hour.
We are pleased to announce that you have now boarded the first Boeing 737 MAX that has
been cleared to once again fly by the FAA as being completely safe. For those passengers
flying on to any other country, we regret to announce that you will have to change planes at
New York as no other country in the world has cleared this plane as being safe to fly in
their airspace and insurance companies there are unwilling to issue insurance cover for them
in any case.
So please sit back and enjoy your trip with us. Cabin Crew, please bolt the cabin doors
and prepare for gate departure."
"The Trade War Spurs China's Technology Innovators Into Overdrive" [
Industry Week ]. "In Shenzhen's glitzy financial district, a five-year-old outfit creates a
360-degree sports camera that goes on to win awards and draw comparisons to GoPro Inc.
Elsewhere in the Pearl River Delta, a niche design house is competing with the world's best
headphone makers. And in the capital Beijing, a little-known startup becomes one of the biggest
purveyors of smartwatches on the planet. Insta360, SIVGA and Huami join drone maker DJI
Technology Co. among a wave of startups that are dismantling the decades-old image of China as
a clone factory -- and adding to Washington's concerns about its fast-ascending international
rival.
Within the world's No. 2 economy, Trump's campaign to contain China's rise is in fact
spurring its burgeoning tech sector to accelerate design and invention. The threat they
pose is one of unmatchable geography: by bringing design expertise and innovation to the place
where devices are manufactured, these companies are able to develop products faster and more
cheaply ." •
Gee, didn't we have this advantage once? Thanks, neoliberals!
"... Furthermore, because of the horrific legacy of the one-child policy, China faces a rapidly aging population that will strain resources and reduce the number of working-age people . By 2050, it is estimated that the average Chinese will be 56 years of age. In contrast, the average American will be 44. No amount of spending or legal reform will prevent Beijing's coming demographic crisis. ..."
Part of the Trump administration's
latest round of 15 percent tariffs on Chinese imports went into effect Sunday, with the
rest to follow on December 15. These increases will impact the prices of many consumer goods
that Americans rely on, including clothing, appliances, televisions, smartwatches, textbooks,
diapers, coffee, and even whiskey. And given their timing, they'll likely have an effect on
holiday shopping. This makes all the more welcome President Trump's
recent statement during the G7 summit that China is looking to end the trade war and that
he too is open to making a deal.
Trump is right to negotiate with Chinese President Xi Jinping, as finding an off-ramp from
the trade war should be Washington's priority. America's interest is in out-competing Beijing,
not hurting our own economy in an attempt to damage theirs. The United States has a better hand
here, but we must play it to our advantage.
America's great strength is in our freedom, our market economy, and our democratic system.
The United States has attained a level of prosperity unseen in human history, and that economic
engine is what fuels our military power. Without a strong economy, we cannot have a strong
military. Thus an endless trade war endangers American security in the long term: as both sides
pile on retaliatory tariffs, the risk of recession increases. American consumers will feel each
new trade barrier as it hits their pocketbooks.
Washington must not pursue policies that hurt those it governs. And the suffering inflicted
by a trade war wouldn't just be limited to the pricing of consumer goods. It would also make us
weaker for no good reason. And it would lower tax revenues, requiring America to go further
into debt to maintain our present level of security.
Advertisement
Moreover, long-term trade attacks on China are unnecessary, because China already has more
problems than America. Beijing suffers from high national debt, a lack of clear economic
reform, and a rapidly aging population. It has few, if any, good or timely solutions to these
pressing issues.
According to the Institute of International Finance, China's total national, corporate, and
household debt is now
over 300 percent of its GDP. What makes this especially bad for Beijing is that the debt
was taken on very quickly after the 2008 global recession, without the power of a global
reserve currency to make borrowing easier, as the United States has. Moreover, this debt is
largely corporate and China's state-capitalist system makes it harder for Chinese companies
survive market pressures. Beijing has used cheap credit to fuel its exports and its economic
rise through fully and partially state-controlled national companies.
The Chinese economic system has undergone some reforms in recent years but
still remains too top-down and too focused on exports over consumption as compared to more
developed economies. In other words, China needs to transition to a full market economy like
Taiwan and South Korea did on their paths to prosperity, but it hasn't done so yet.
Furthermore, because of the horrific legacy of the one-child policy, China faces a
rapidly aging population that will strain resources and reduce the number of
working-age people . By 2050, it is estimated that the average Chinese will be 56 years of
age. In contrast, the average American will be 44. No amount of spending or legal reform will
prevent Beijing's coming demographic crisis.
This comparative weakness is why it makes sense to find a trade war off-ramp sooner rather
than later. China needs one badly and will eventually want a deal -- if it doesn't already. As
for the United States, recession may be inevitable, but it would be better if it were not
self-inflicted.
Already the trade war has cost American billions in higher prices for
imported products. American farmers have
been hit hard by China's retaliatory tariffs and, according to
a report by IHS Markit, U.S. manufacturing has shrunk for the first since 2009. Economists
polled by Reuters believe the trade war has increased the risk of a recession, with a
median of those surveyed giving a 45 percent chance of a downturn over the next two years.
Additionally, major
banks have
expressed concerns , as the stock market takes hits with every new tariff increase and
angry statement between Washington and Beijing.
I couldnt disagree more. I want more tariffs against China and Europe. I want closed borders
and zero migration. China has infiltrated our government, our defense agencies, our nuclear
agencies, our major research centers, our college campuses, our media and bribed our
politicians. China is an imminent threat to Hong Kong, Taiwan and its militarization of the
islands in the South China Sea are a threat to all of South Asia. China has been stealing US,
Canadian and European technology for decades to leapfrog the US into technological dominance
globally. China's plan is to force the US our of the Asia Pacific. China has infiltrated
Canada and Australia to a similar degree (if not more) than the US. If you pander to these
free trade globalists then you will be paving the way for a military conflict between Chinese
and American Hegemony in Asia and elsewhere around the world. I dont know about you but I
will take a tariff and trade war over a military war any day. Ramp up those tariffs and shift
those supply chains out of China toward more benevolent allies and the world be be all the
safer for it.
China has been waging a one sided trade war against us for over 30 years, it's about time we
resisted. Becoming more economically intertwined with our dangerous and genocidal rival
doesn't sound like the right answer to me, especially when China will continue protectionist
policies and currency manipulation regardless of what we do. America has allowed its
industrial base to hemorrhage since the 70s, and bending over for our enemy to keep cheap
trash flowing and American factories closed is not the right answer.
Is this a white box article the Chamber of Commerce is using to astroturf?
China is a Monstrous regime that is killing and enslaving its citizens. It will simply
kill everyone over 65, then 60 if it becomes convenient like they did with their one child
policy. Problem solved.
You wish to keep trading with criminals, polluters, and pirates so you can get cheap junk
at WalMart?
You have a job. I wish you would lose yours and that dozens of blue collar had working but
laid off Americans can find one. It isn't how much something costs in dollars (or how much of
your soul it costs), it is how much it costs in your virtuous labor. I'd rather pay double
for stuff but get triple wages rather than pay half but be all but permanently
unemployed.
Well said. Calling off the trade would be good for US consumers and the economy in general.
But while we are on the subject,calling off the war on immigration would also be good for US
consumers and the economy in general.
Wow. This article is off-base on any number of levels.
"These increases will impact the prices of many consumer goods that Americans rely
on,"
No, no they won't. Tariffs are paid for by the importer, not the consumer. If the importer
could randomly increase prices, they would do so without tariffs. The market sets prices.
"America's interest is in out-competing Beijing, not hurting our own economy in an attempt
to damage theirs."
If America could out-compete Beijing, American manufacturing would not have moved to
China. It turns out, the American people simply don't want to live according to 3rd world
standards. We want decent homes and stuff. We don't want to live in a cesspool of pollution.
I'm sure the Chinese people have the same preferences, they just don't get a choice.
"Moreover, long-term trade attacks on China are unnecessary, because China already has
more problems than America."
I agree with the author here, but not for the same reasons. Attacking China doesn't
resolve anything. American companies will just move to a different 3rd world country with
whom we can't complete. Why should I care if my clothes come from China or Vietnam?
I am 100% supportive of the trade war and building the wall and tariffs. I say zero
immigration and make all Chinese Tariffs permanent. Negotiate a trade deal with the tariffs
intact. Id rather have a trade war with China and permanent tariffs than a war with China.
China has been stealing technology and has infiltrated media, government, defense,
education, government officials (usually through bribes) from the US, Canada, Australia and
Europe. China is proving itself to be a threat to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines,
Indonesia, India and South Asia.
Much of this "so called Russia Collusion" is actually a deflection of democratic
politicians China is bribing to take down Trump in order to continue their military and
technological theft, their existing preferential trade and their existing network. China is a
serious danger to the US and the rest of the world. It is preferential to sacrifice a small
amount of prosperity today for long term peace with China.
Propaganda. The aging of Chinese population? Not to worry, China has no real Social Security
system, and so relies on massive surpluses of savings. The 300% consumer debt ratio? That
would cripple any country with no help from trade. Should we let Wells Fargo and Goldman
refinance them?
Farmers hit hard? As I recall we have had the worst corn harvest in decades, and shame on
us for not growing more wheat, oats, and sugar cane. Our beef and poultry prices will be
affected, not to mention our fast food industry, which has been whipsawed by political
correctness. But China will effectively ration its pork, as it faces an even worse African
Swine Flu crisis, and an additional one on grains from the Black Army Worm.
US decline in manufacturing? Look first at our glut of automobiles, and the self vetting
of plant capacity by GM. Don't forget the crisis in car leases, which have made older cars
worth less than their outstanding loans. And note, that the fall in lithium prices indicates
that China's car electrification initiative is falling flat.
One thing left out of the equation is oil. And why should China live high on Iranian oil
(mostly wastefully burned in power plants, mind you, and not cars) while we suffer attacks on
Saudi oil from Iranian proxies (all on ChiRussia's dime)? Puts our trade negotiations in
clear perspective, doesn't it?
Stopping the war will not bring back China as our major trading partner. China is not going
to be in this vulnerable position with America again. She is going to develop other markets
Fearing 'Spy Trains,' Congress May Ban a Chinese Maker of Subway Cars
By Ana Swanson
CHICAGO -- America's next fight with China is unfolding at a glistening new factory in
Chicago, which stands empty except for the shells of two subway cars and space for future
business that is unlikely to come.
A Chinese state-owned company called CRRC Corporation, the world's largest train maker,
completed the $100 million facility this year in the hopes of winning contracts to build subway
cars and other passenger trains for American cities like Chicago and Washington.
But growing fears about China's economic ambitions and its potential to track and spy on
Americans are about to quash those plans. Congress is soon expected to approve legislation that
would effectively bar the company from competing for new contracts in the United States, citing
national security and economic concerns. The White House has expressed its support for the
effort.
Washington's attempt to block a Chinese company from selling train cars inside America is
the latest escalation in a trade war that has quickly expanded from a spat over tariffs and
intellectual property to a broader fight over economic and national security.
President Trump and lawmakers from both parties are increasingly anxious about the economic
and technological ambitions of China, which has built cutting-edge global industries, including
those that produce advanced surveillance technology. Those fears have prompted Washington to
take an expansive view of potential risks, moving beyond simply trying to curtail Chinese
imports.
In addition to slapping tariffs on $360 billion worth of Chinese products, the
administration has banned Chinese companies like Huawei, the telecom giant, from buying
sensitive American technology. It is moving to curb the ability of firms to export technology
like artificial intelligence and quantum computing from the United States to China. And
Congress has given the administration expansive power to block Chinese investment on national
security grounds.
Now lawmakers have added a provision to a military spending bill that would prevent the use
of federal grants to buy subway trains from state-owned or state-controlled companies, a
measure that would effectively block CRRC's business.
The bill has gained bipartisan support from lawmakers who say companies like CRRC pose a
threat to the United States. Part of the concern is economic: Flush with cash from its rapid
growth, China has pumped money into building globally competitive businesses, often creating
overcapacity in markets like steel, solar panels and trains.
That has lowered prices for consumers -- including American taxpayers who pay for subway
cars. While a subway car has not been manufactured solely by an American company in decades,
CRRC's low prices have raised concerns among American freight train companies that the company
could ultimately move into -- and demolish -- their business.
CRRC has consistently underbid its competitors, winning over urban transit agencies that
are saddled with aging infrastructure and tight budgets. For the Chicago L, CRRC's Chicago
subsidiary bid $1.55 million per car, compared with a bid of $1.82 million per car by
Bombardier, the Canadian manufacturer. And CRRC also proposed to build the Chicago facility and
create 170 new jobs.
Legislators argue that Chinese state-owned companies are not pursuing profit, but the policy
aims of the Chinese government to dominate key global industries like electric cars, robotics
and rail.
"When you can subsidize, when you can wholly own an enterprise like China does, you can
create a wholly unlevel playing field," said Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat who is
a co-sponsor of the legislation. "We're used to that unlevel playing field existing between the
U.S. and China, but now it's happening in our own backyard."
Another more nefarious worry is also at play. Lawmakers -- along with CRRC's competitors --
say they are concerned that subway cars made by a Chinese company might make it easier for
Beijing to spy on Americans and could pose a sabotage threat to American infrastructure, though
CRRC says it surrenders control of all technology in the cars to its buyers. Nonetheless,
critics speculate that the Chinese firm could incorporate technology into the cars that would
allow CRRC -- and the Chinese government -- to track the faces, movement, conversations or
phone calls of passengers through the train's cameras or Wi-Fi.
Scott Paul, the president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, which represents
manufacturers and the United Steelworkers, said the risks of giving a Chinese company the
ability to monitor or control American infrastructure could not be understated given recent
laws requiring Chinese companies to turn over data to Beijing upon request.
"I just think it would be irresponsible to assume the Chinese government to which this firm
must answer would be a reliable security partner, given its well documented track record," Mr.
Paul said.
Whether those fears are justified remains uncertain. Proponents of the bill have not made
clear how subway cars manufactured by a Chinese company would pose a greater espionage threat
than everything else that China makes and sells in the United States, including laptops, phones
and home appliances.
Dave Smolensky, a spokesman for CRRC, said the company was being unfairly targeted by
companies that wanted to legislate a competitor out of business under the guise of national
security. He said the firm was a victim to "an aggressive multimillion-dollar media
disinformation campaign," funded mostly by domestic freight train companies, intended to play
on popular fears about China's rise.
Employees at the Chicago factory also dismissed the concerns, saying they had not seen any
evidence that they were working to construct "spy trains."
"I haven't seen any secret wires yet," said Perry Nobles, an electrician for CRRC who was
rigging wires in the interior of the trains. "With the world full of cellphones and computers,
I'd think there's an easier way to get information."
Rising fears of China's ambitions in Washington have prompted officials to adopt an
unsparing view, with policymakers and national security officials warning domestic and foreign
governments not to trust Chinese equipment.
American officials have waged a global offensive against Huawei, telling other countries
that allowing a Chinese company to build the world's next generation of wireless networks would
be akin to handing national secrets to a foreign agent.
Like CRRC, the fear surrounding Huawei is largely based on concerns about technological
dominance by China's authoritarian government. No one has yet disclosed finding a backdoor in
Huawei's products that would allow it to snoop -- but officials say by the time one is
discovered, it may be too late.
"The Chinese are working to put their systems in networks all across the world so they can
steal your information and my information," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in an interview
in May. "This administration is prepared to take this on."
As Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, introduced the provision in March, he said,
"China poses a clear and present danger to our national security and has already infiltrated
our rail and bus manufacturing industries."
Representative Kevin McCarthy, a Republican whose California district is home to a Chinese
bus maker, BYD, had opposed a version of the provision that would apply to buses as well as
trains. House lawmakers dropped the bus provision, but the Senate bill would apply to both.
Congress will take the issue up again in the coming weeks as part of the annual defense
bill.
The legislation would not affect the thousands of American subway cars that CRRC previously
won contracts to build, including an 846-car order for the Chicago L. But it would block the
company from future contracts, such as those under consideration by the Chicago Metra and the
Washington Metro.
The Chicago facility is the company's second in the United States. A factory in
Massachusetts that employs more than 150 people is already building trains for Boston, Los
Angeles and Philadelphia, prompting concerns that the company plans to expand rapidly in the
United States as it has in other foreign markets.
Like many Chinese state enterprises, CRRC is guided by Beijing's Made in China 2025 plan,
which lays out an agenda to dominate key industries.
In its 2018 annual report, Liu Hualong, the company's chairman and party secretary, pledged
to pursue the dual goals of "Party construction as well as developing into a world-leading
company with global competitiveness."
"We conscientiously followed the important instructions of General Secretary Xi Jinping,"
the report said, referring to the Chinese president and Communist Party leader.
The last American firm to make passenger rail cars, the Pullman Company, produced its final
car in 1981. Since then, major American cities have bought subway cars from Bombardier and
Japanese manufacturers like Kawasaki, Hyundai and Hitachi.
But American manufacturers of freight rail cars, including the Greenbrier Companies and
TrinityRail, which is based in Mr. Cornyn's home state of Texas, say CRRC could use its footing
in the United States to steal its business. Together with unions and others, they have mounted
a lobbying campaign against CRRC under an umbrella group known as the Rail Security
Alliance.
The group says American taxpayer dollars should not be spent in China, where the empty rail
cars are made before being shipped to the United States for further work at the company's
facilities in Illinois or Massachusetts.
"We think those dollars should stay here," said Erik Olson, the vice president of the Rail
Security Alliance.
CRRC sends over experts from its giant headquarters in Qingdao, China, to plants in other
countries. In Chicago, the American employees call these Chinese citizens "shifu," a polite
term for a skilled worker meaning "master" or "teacher."
On a sunny day in July, the company break room was split between shifus, wearing white
jumpsuits and eating stuffed buns, and American workers, many of whom had joined the company in
the last few months. The gleaming concrete factory floor was bare, save for a few dozen people
installing wiring, air ducts and other components into the empty shells of two rail cars.
"We are a little concerned because it's our livelihood," said Mr. Nobles, who was hired in
March from a previous factory job making frames for the Ford Explorer.
This summer, CRRC replaced the Chinese flag outside the factory with a Chicago flag. It has
also retained two Washington lobbying firms, Squire Patton Boggs and Crossroads Strategies, to
plead its case in Congress.
It may be too late. Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said he helped sponsor the bill
to prevent the American transit system from being "controlled by a foreign country that is not
particularly friendly to us."
"They spell out in black and white they're going to use foreign investment as a weapon, and
we're taking action to defend ourselves," Mr. Brown said.
Clowns should be increasingly used in redundancy (layoff, firing) meetings until it
becomes the norm and employers start to compete with each other to offer the best clown
redundancy experience and promote it as a benefit.
It would also create clown jobs, which would probably require more clown schools, meaning
that the tuition prices would go through the roof and young people dreaming of becoming
redundancy clowns would either have to come from wealth or take out massive clown loans to
fund their education for clown universities and grad schools. Shareholders can only take so
much top line costs and Wall Street pressure would force corporations to improve return on
investment and reduce redundancy clown labor expenses. Sadly, redundancy clowns would find
themselves training their own replacements – HB1 clowns from "low cost" countries.
Employers would respond to quality criticisms of the HB1 clown experience by publishing
survey results showing very similar almost ex-employee satisfaction with the new clowns.
Eventually, of course, redundancy clowns will be replaced by AI and robots. It's just the
future and we will need to think about how to adapt to it today by putting in place a UBI for
the inevitable redundant redundancy clowns.
According to the great military thinker, Maj. Gen. J.F.C. Fuller, 'the object of war is not
victory. It is to achieve political goals.'
Too bad President Donald Trump does not read books. He has started economic wars against
China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela without any clear strategic objective beyond inflating
his ego as the world's premier warlord and punishing them for disobedience.
Trump's wars are economic. They deploy the huge economic and financial might of the United
States to steamroll other nations that fail to comply with orders from Washington. Washington's
motto is 'obey me or else!' Economic wars are not bloodless. Imperial Germany and the Central
Powers were starved into surrender in 1918 by a crushing British naval blockade.
Trade sanctions are not making America great, as Trump claims. They are making America
detested around the globe as a crude bully. Trump's efforts to undermine the European Union and
intimidate Canada add to this ugly, brutal image.
Worse, Trump's tariff war against China has damaged the economy of both nations, the world's
leading economic powers, and raised tensions in Asia. The world is facing recession in large
part due to Trump's ill-advised wars. All to prove Trump's power and glory.
Trump and his advisors are right about China's often questionable trade practices. I did 15
years of business in China and saw a kaleidoscope of chicanery, double-dealing, and corruption.
A favorite Chinese trick was to leave imports baking in the sun on the docks, or long delaying
them by 'losing' paperwork.
I saw every kind of craziness in the Wild East Chinese market. But remember that it's a
'new' market in which western-style capitalism is only one generation old. Besides, China
learned many of its fishy trade practices from France, that mother of mercantilism.
China indeed steals technical and military information on a mass scale. But so does the US,
whose spy agencies suck up information across the world. America's claims to be a victim are
pretty rich.
What Trump & Co don't understand is that China was allowed into America's Greater Asia
Co-Prosperity Sphere by the clever President Nixon to bring it under US influence – just
as Japan and South Korea were in the 1950's. China's trade surplus with the US is its dividend
for playing by Washington's rules. If China's trade bonus is stripped away, so will China's
half-hearted acceptance of US policies. Military tensions will rise sharply.
In China's view, the US is repeating what Great Britain did in the 19th century by declaring
war to force opium grown in British-ruled Burma onto China's increasingly addicted people.
Today the trade crop is soya beans and wretched pigs.
Trump's ultimate objective, as China clearly knows, is to whip up a world crisis over trade,
then dramatically end it – of course, before next year's elections. Trump has become a
master dictator of US financial markets, rising or lowering them by surprise tweets. No
president should ever have such power, but Trump has seized it.
There is no telling how much money his minions have made in short or long selling on the
stock market thanks to insider information. America's trillion dollar markets have come to
depend on how Trump feels when he wakes up in the morning and watches Fox news, the Mother of
Misinformation.
It staggers the imagination to believe that Trump and his minions actually believe that they
can intimidate China into bending the knee. China withstood mass devastation and at least 14
million deaths in World War II in order to fight off Japanese domination. Does the White House
really think Beijing will cave in over soya beans and semi-conductors in a daft war directed by
a former beauty contest and casino operator? China's new emperor, Xi Jinping, is highly
unlikely to lose face in a trade war with the US. Dictators cannot afford to retreat. Xi can
wait it out until more balanced minds again occupy the White House.
Trade wars rarely produce any benefits for either side. They are the equivalent of sending
tens of thousands of soldiers to be mowed down by machine guns on the blood-soaked Somme
battlefield in WWI. Glory for the stupid generals; death and misery for the common soldiers
This fool's war of big egos will inevitably end in a face-saving compromise between
Washington and Beijing. Get on with it.
"... The old adage that the 'sea is always the sea' holds true for US foreign policy. And Iran repeating the same old routines, whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US Administration will inherit the same genes as the last. ..."
"... And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran. The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'. ..."
"... "[So] decoupling is already in motion. Like the shift of tectonic plates, the move towards a new tech alignment with China increases the potential for sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy and supply chains. To defend America's technology leadership, policymakers must upgrade their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks. ..."
"... "The key driver of this shift has not been the President's tariffs, but a changing consensus among rank-and-file policymakers about what constitutes national security. This expansive new conception of national security is sensitive to a broad array of potential threats, including to the economic livelihood of the United States, the integrity of its citizens personal data, and the country's technological advantage". ..."
"... A Quinnipiac University survey last week found for the first time in Trump's presidency, more voters now say the economy is getting worse rather than better, by a 37-31 percent margin – and by 41-37 percent, voters say the president's policies are hurting the economy. ..."
"... This is hugely significant. If Trump is experiencing a crisis of public confidence in respect to his assertive policies towards China, the last thing that he needs in the run-up to an election is an oil crisis, on top of a tariff/tech war crisis with China. A wrong move with Iran, and global oil supplies easily can go awry. Markets would not be happy. (So Trump's China 'bind' can also be Iran's opportunity ). ..."
There is consensus amongst the Washington foreign policy élite that all factions in
Iran understand that – ultimately – a deal with Washington on the nuclear issue
must ensue. It somehow is inevitable. They view Iran simply as 'playing out the clock', until
the advent of a new Administration makes a 'deal' possible again. And then Iran surely will be
back at the table, they affirm.
Maybe. But maybe that is entirely wrong. Maybe the Iranian leadership no longer believes in
'deals' with Washington. Maybe they simply have had enough of western regime change antics
(from the 1953 coup to the Iraq war waged on Iran at the western behest, to the present attempt
at Iran's economic strangulation). They are
quitting that failed paradigm for something new, something different.
The pages to that chapter have been shut. This does not imply some rabid anti-Americanism,
but simply the experience that that path is pointless. If there is a 'clock being played out',
it is that of the tic-toc of western political and economic hegemony in the Middle East is
running down, and not the 'clock' of US domestic politics. The old adage that the 'sea is
always the sea' holds true for US foreign policy. And Iran repeating the same old routines,
whilst expecting different outcomes is, of course, one definition of madness. A new US
Administration will inherit the same genes as the last.
And in any case, the US is institutionally incapable of making a substantive deal with
Iran. A US President – any President – cannot lift Congressional sanctions on Iran.
The American multitudinous sanctions on Iran have become a decades' long knot of
interpenetrating legislation: a vast rhizome of tangled, root-legislation that not even
Alexander the Great might disentangle: that is why the JCPOA was constructed around a core of
US Presidential 'waivers' needing to be renewed each six months. Whatever might be agreed in
the future, the sanctions – 'waived' or not – are, as it were, 'forever'.
If recent history has taught the Iranians anything, it is that such flimsy 'process' in the
hands of a mercurial US President can simply be blown away like old dead leaves. Yes, the US
has a systemic problem: US sanctions are a one-way valve: so easy to flow out, but once poured
forth, there is no return inlet (beyond uncertain waivers issued at the pleasure of an
incumbent President).
But more than just a long chapter reaching its inevitable end, Iran is seeing another path
opening out. Trump is in a 'China bind': a trade deal with China now looks "tough to
improbable", according to White House officials, in the context of the fast deteriorating
environment of security tensions between Washington and Beijing. Defense One spells it out:
"It came without a breaking news alert or presidential tweet, but the technological
competition with China entered a new phase last month. Several developments quietly heralded
this shift: Cross-border investments between the United States and China plunged to their
lowest levels since 2014, with the tech sector suffering the most precipitous drop. US chip
giants Intel and AMD abruptly ended
or declined to extend important partnerships with Chinese entities. The Department of Commerce
halved the number of
licenses that let US companies assign Chinese nationals to sensitive technology and engineering
projects.
"[So] decoupling is already in motion. Like the shift of tectonic plates, the move
towards a new tech alignment with China increases the potential for sudden, destabilizing
convulsions in the global economy and supply chains. To defend America's technology leadership,
policymakers must upgrade their toolkit to ensure that US technology leadership can withstand
the aftershocks.
"The key driver of this shift has not been the President's tariffs, but a changing
consensus among rank-and-file policymakers about what constitutes national security. This
expansive new conception of national security is sensitive to a broad array of potential
threats, including to the economic livelihood of the United States, the integrity of its
citizens personal data, and the country's technological advantage".
Trump's China 'bind' is this: A trade deal with China has long been viewed by the White
House as a major tool for 'goosing' the US stock market upwards, during the crucial
pre-election period. But as that is now said to be "tough to improbable" – and as US
national security consensus metamorphoses, the consequent de-coupling, combined with tariffs,
is beginning to bite. The effects are eating away at President Trump's prime political asset:
the public confidence in his handling of the economy: A Quinnipiac University
survey last week
found for the first time in Trump's presidency, more voters now say the economy is getting
worse rather than better, by a 37-31 percent margin – and by 41-37 percent, voters say
the president's policies are hurting the economy.
This is hugely significant. If Trump is experiencing a crisis of public confidence in
respect to his assertive policies towards China, the last thing that he needs in the run-up to
an election is an oil crisis, on top of a tariff/tech war crisis with China. A wrong move with
Iran, and global oil supplies easily can go awry. Markets would not be happy. (So Trump's China
'bind' can also be Iran's opportunity ).
No wonder Pompeo acted with such alacrity to put a tourniquet on the brewing 'war' in the
Middle East, sparked by Israel's simultaneous air attacks last month in Iraq, inside Beirut,
and in Syria (killing two Hizbullah soldiers). It is pretty clear that Washington did not want
this 'war', at least not now. America, as Defense One
noted , is becoming acutely sensitive to any risks to the global financial system from
"sudden, destabilizing convulsions in the global economy".
The recent Israeli military operations coincided with Iranian FM Zarif's sudden summons to
Biarritz (during the G7), exacerbating fears
within the Israeli Security Cabinet that Trump might meet with President Rouhani in NY at
the UN General Assembly – thus threatening Netanyahu's anti-Iran,
political 'identity' . The fear was that Trump could begin a 'bromance' with the Iranian
President (on the Kim Jong Un lines). And hence the Israeli provocations intended to stir some
Iranian (over)-reaction (which never came). Subsequently it became clear to Israel that Iran's
leadership had absolutely no intention to meet with Trump – and the whole episode
subsided.
Trump's Iran 'bind' therefore is somehow similar to his China 'bind': With China, he
initially wanted an easy trade achievement, but it has proved to be 'anything but'. With Iran,
Trump wanted a razzmatazz meeting with Rohani – even if that did not lead to a new 'deal'
(much as the Trump – Kim Jung Un TV spectaculars that caught the American imagination so
vividly, he may have hoped for a similar response to a Rohani handshake, or he may have even
aspired to an Oval Office spectacular).
Trump simply cannot understand why the Iranians won't do this, and he is peeved by the snub.
Iran is unfathomable to Team Trump.
Well, maybe the Iranians just don't want to do it. Firstly, they don't need to: the Iranian
Rial has been recovering steadily over the last four months and manufacturing output has
steadied. China's General Administration of Customs (GAC) detailing the country's oil imports
data shows that China has not cut its Iranian supply after the US waiver program ended on 2
May, but rather, it has
steadily increased Iranian crude imports since the official end of the waiver extension, up
from May and June levels. The new GAC data shows China imported over 900,000 barrels per day
(bpd) of crude oil from Iran in July, which is up 4.7% from the month before.
And a new path is opening in front of Iran. After Biarritz, Zarif flew directly to Beijing
where he discussed a huge, multi-hundred
billion (according to
one report ), twenty-five-year oil and gas investment, (and a separate) 'Road and Belt'
transport plan. Though the details are not disclosed, it is plain that China – unlike
America – sees Iran as a key future strategic partner, and China seems perfectly able to
fathom out the Iranians, too.
But here is the really substantive US shift taking place. It is that which is termed
"a new normal" now
taking a hold in Washington:
"To defend America's technology leadership, policymakers [are] upgrading their toolkit to
ensure that US technology leadership can withstand the aftershocks Unlike the President's trade
war, support for this new, expansive definition of national security and technology is largely
bipartisan, and likely here to stay.
with many of the president's top advisers viewing China first and foremost as a national
security threat, rather than as an economic partner – it's poised to affect huge parts of
American life, from the cost of many consumer goods to the nature of this country's
relationship with the government of Taiwan.
"Trump himself still views China primarily through an economic prism. But the angrier he
gets with Beijing, the more receptive he is to his advisers' hawkish stances toward China that
go well beyond trade."
"The angrier he gets with Beijing" Well, here is the key point: Washington seems to have
lost the ability to summon the resources to try to fathom either China, or the Iranian 'closed
book', let alone a 'Byzantine' Russia. It is a colossal attenuation of consciousness in
Washington; a loss of conscious 'vitality' to the grip of some 'irrefutable logic' that allows
no empathy, no outreach, to 'otherness'. Washington (and some European élites) have
retreated into their 'niche' consciousness, their mental enclave, gated and protected, from
having to understand – or engage – with wider human experience.
To compensate for these lacunae, Washington looks rather, to an engineering and
technological solution: If we cannot summon empathy, or understand Xi or the Iranian Supreme
Leader, we can muster artificial intelligence to substitute – a 'toolkit' in which the US
intends to be global leader.
This type of solution – from the US perspective – maybe works for China, but not
so much for Iran; and Trump is not keen on a full war with Iran in the lead up to elections. Is
this why Trump seems to be losing interest in the Middle East? He doesn't understand it; he
hasn't the interest or the means to fathom it; and he doesn't want to bomb it. And the China
'bind' is going to be all absorbing for him, for the meantime.
This is a Marxist critique of neoliberalism. Not necessary right but they his some relevant
points.
Notable quotes:
"... The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. ..."
"... The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world output. ..."
"... While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy? The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in the latter and meet global demand. ..."
"... The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5 ..."
"... This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state, the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse , causing a financial crisis. ..."
"... The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument, as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6 ..."
"... If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment. ..."
"... The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their home market ..."
"... In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people ..."
"... In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop and finds fascism. ..."
"... The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their support. ..."
"... The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions, imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of neoliberalism. ..."
"... And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more. ..."
"... Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11 Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against it. ..."
The ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth.
But with neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this
ideological prop.
Harry Magdoff's The Age of
Imperialism is a classic work that shows how postwar political decolonization does not
negate the phenomenon of imperialism. The book has two distinct aspects. On the one hand, it
follows in V. I. Lenin's footsteps in providing a comprehensive account of how capitalism at
the time operated globally. On the other hand, it raises a question that is less frequently
discussed in Marxist literature -- namely, the need for imperialism. Here, Magdoff not only
highlighted the crucial importance, among other things, of the third world's raw materials for
metropolitan capital, but also refuted the argument that the declining share of raw-material
value in gross manufacturing output somehow reduced this importance, making the simple point
that there can be no manufacturing at all without raw materials. 1
Magdoff's focus was on a period when imperialism was severely resisting economic
decolonization in the third world, with newly independent third world countries taking control
over their own resources. He highlighted the entire armory of weapons used by imperialism. But
he was writing in a period that predated the onset of neoliberalism. Today, we not only have
decades of neoliberalism behind us, but the neoliberal regime itself has reached a dead end.
Contemporary imperialism has to be discussed within this setting.
Globalization and
Economic Crisis
There are two reasons why the regime of neoliberal globalization has run into a dead end.
The first is an ex ante tendency toward global overproduction; the second is that the
only possible counter to this tendency within the regime is the formation of asset-price
bubbles, which cannot be conjured up at will and whose collapse, if they do appear, plunges the
economy back into crisis. In short, to use the words of British economic historian Samuel
Berrick Saul, there are no "markets on tap" for contemporary metropolitan capitalism, such as
had been provided by colonialism prior to the First World War and by state expenditure in the
post-Second World War period of dirigisme . 2
The ex ante tendency toward overproduction arises because the vector of real wages
across countries does not increase noticeably over time in the world economy, while the vector
of labor productivities does, typically resulting in a rise in the share of surplus in world
output. As Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy argued in Monopoly Capital , following the lead of
Michał Kalecki and Josef Steindl, such a rise in the share of economic surplus, or a shift
from wages to surplus, has the effect of reducing aggregate demand since the ratio of
consumption to income is higher on average for wage earners than for those living off the
surplus. 3
Therefore, assuming a given level of investment associated with any period, such a shift would
tend to reduce consumption demand and hence aggregate demand, output, and capacity utilization.
In turn, reduced capacity utilization would lower investment over time, further aggravating the
demand-reducing effect arising from the consumption side.
While the rise in the vector of labor productivities across countries, a ubiquitous
phenomenon under capitalism that also characterizes neoliberal capitalism, scarcely requires an
explanation, why does the vector of real wages remain virtually stagnant in the world economy?
The answer lies in the sui generis character of contemporary globalization that, for the
first time in the history of capitalism, has led to a relocation of activity from the
metropolis to third world countries in order to take advantage of the lower wages prevailing in
the latter and meet global demand.
Historically, while labor has not been, and is still not, free to migrate from the third
world to the metropolis, capital, though juridically free to move from the latter to the
former, did not actually do so , except to sectors like mines and plantations, which
only strengthened, rather than broke, the colonial pattern of the international division of
labor. 4
This segmentation of the world economy meant that wages in the metropolis increased with labor
productivity, unrestrained by the vast labor reserves of the third world, which themselves had
been caused by the displacement of manufactures through the twin processes of
deindustrialization (competition from metropolitan goods) and the drain of surplus (the
siphoning off of a large part of the economic surplus, through taxes on peasants that are no
longer spent on local artisan products but finance gratis primary commodity exports to
the metropolis instead).
The current globalization broke with this. The movement of capital from the metropolis to
the third world, especially to East, South, and Southeast Asia to relocate plants there and
take advantage of their lower wages for meeting global demand, has led to a desegmentation of
the world economy, subjecting metropolitan wages to the restraining effect exercised by the
third world's labor reserves. Not surprisingly, as Joseph Stiglitz has pointed out, the
real-wage rate of an average male U.S. worker in 2011 was no higher -- indeed, it was
marginally lower -- than it had been in 1968. 5
At the same time, such relocation of activities, despite causing impressive growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) in many third world countries, does not lead to the exhaustion of
the third world's labor reserves. This is because of another feature of contemporary
globalization: the unleashing of a process of primitive accumulation of capital against petty
producers, including peasant agriculturists in the third world, who had earlier been protected,
to an extent, from the encroachment of big capital (both domestic and foreign) by the
postcolonial dirigiste regimes in these countries. Under neoliberalism, such protection
is withdrawn, causing an income squeeze on these producers and often their outright
dispossession from their land, which is then used by big capital for its various so-called
development projects. The increase in employment, even in countries with impressive GDP growth
rates in the third world, falls way short of the natural growth of the workforce, let alone
absorbing the additional job seekers coming from the ranks of displaced petty producers. The
labor reserves therefore never get used up. Indeed, on the contrary, they are augmented
further, because real wages continue to remain tied to a subsistence level, even as
metropolitan wages too are restrained. The vector of real wages in the world economy as a whole
therefore remains restrained.
Although contemporary globalization thus gives rise to an ex ante tendency toward
overproduction, state expenditure that could provide a counter to this (and had provided a
counter through military spending in the United States, according to Baran and Sweezy) can no
longer do so under the current regime. Finance is usually opposed to direct state intervention
through larger spending as a way of increasing employment. This opposition expresses itself
through an opposition not just to larger taxes on capitalists, but also to a larger fiscal
deficit for financing such spending. Obviously, if larger state spending is financed by taxes
on workers, then it hardly adds to aggregate demand, for workers spend the bulk of their
incomes anyway, so the state taking this income and spending it instead does not add any extra
demand. Hence, larger state spending can increase employment only if it is financed either
through a fiscal deficit or through taxes on capitalists who keep a part of their income
unspent or saved. But these are precisely the two modes of financing state expenditure that
finance capital opposes.
Its opposing larger taxes on capitalists is understandable, but why is it so opposed to a
larger fiscal deficit? Even within a capitalist economy, there are no sound economic
theoretical reasons that should preclude a fiscal deficit under all circumstances. The root of
the opposition therefore lies in deeper social considerations: if the capitalist economic
system becomes dependent on the state to promote employment directly , then this fact
undermines the social legitimacy of capitalism. The need for the state to boost the animal
spirits of the capitalists disappears and a perspective on the system that is epistemically
exterior to it is provided to the people, making it possible for them to ask: If the state can
do the job of providing employment, then why do we need the capitalists at all? It is an
instinctive appreciation of this potential danger that underlies the opposition of capital,
especially of finance, to any direct effort by the state to generate employment.
This ever-present opposition becomes decisive within a regime of globalization. As long as
finance capital remains national -- that is, nation-based -- and the state is a nation-state,
the latter can override this opposition under certain circumstances, such as in the post-Second
World War period when capitalism was facing an existential crisis. But when finance capital is
globalized, meaning, when it is free to move across country borders while the state remains a
nation-state, its opposition to fiscal deficits becomes decisive. If the state does run large
fiscal deficits against its wishes, then it would simply leave that country en masse ,
causing a financial crisis.
The state therefore capitulates to the demands of globalized finance capital and eschews
direct fiscal intervention for increasing demand. It resorts to monetary policy instead since
that operates through wealth holders' decisions, and hence does not undermine their
social position. But, precisely for this reason, monetary policy is an ineffective instrument,
as was evident in the United States in the aftermath of the 2007–09 crisis when even the
pushing of interest rates down to zero scarcely revived activity. 6
It may be thought that this compulsion on the part of the state to accede to the demand of
finance to eschew fiscal intervention for enlarging employment should not hold for the United
States. Its currency being considered by the world's wealth holders to be "as good as gold"
should make it immune to capital flight. But there is an additional factor operating in the
case of the United States: that the demand generated by a bigger U.S. fiscal deficit would
substantially leak abroad in a neoliberal setting, which would increase its external debt
(since, unlike Britain in its heyday, it does not have access to any unrequited colonial
transfers) for the sake of generating employment elsewhere. This fact deters any fiscal effort
even in the United States to boost demand within a neoliberal setting. 7
Therefore, it follows that state spending cannot provide a counter to the ex ante
tendency toward global overproduction within a regime of neoliberal globalization, which makes
the world economy precariously dependent on occasional asset-price bubbles, primarily in the
U.S. economy, for obtaining, at best, some temporary relief from the crisis. It is this fact
that underlies the dead end that neoliberal capitalism has reached. Indeed, Donald Trump's
resort to protectionism in the United States to alleviate unemployment is a clear recognition
of the system having reached this cul-de-sac. The fact that the mightiest capitalist
economy in the world has to move away from the rules of the neoliberal game in an attempt to
alleviate its crisis of unemployment/underemployment -- while compensating capitalists
adversely affected by this move through tax cuts, as well as carefully ensuring that no
restraints are imposed on free cross-border financial flows -- shows that these rules
are no longer viable in their pristine form.
Some Implications of This Dead End
There are at least four important implications of this dead end of neoliberalism. The first
is that the world economy will now be afflicted by much higher levels of unemployment than it
was in the last decade of the twentieth century and the early years of the twenty-first, when
the dot-com and the housing bubbles in the United States had, sequentially, a pronounced
impact. It is true that the U.S. unemployment rate today appears to be at a historic low, but
this is misleading: the labor-force participation rate in the United States today is lower than
it was in 2008, which reflects the discouraged-worker effect . Adjusting for this lower
participation, the U.S. unemployment rate is considerable -- around 8 percent. Indeed, Trump
would not be imposing protection in the United States if unemployment was actually as low as 4
percent, which is the official figure. Elsewhere in the world, of course, unemployment
post-2008 continues to be evidently higher than before. Indeed, the severity of the current
problem of below-full-employment production in the U.S. economy is best illustrated by capacity
utilization figures in manufacturing. The weakness of the U.S. recovery from the Great
Recession is indicated by the fact that the current extended recovery represents the first
decade in the entire post-Second World War period in which capacity utilization in
manufacturing has never risen as high as 80 percent in a single quarter, with the resulting
stagnation of investment. 8
If Trump's protectionism, which recalls the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1931 and amounts to a
beggar-my-neighbor policy, does lead to a significant export of unemployment from the
United States, then it will invite retaliation and trigger a trade war that will only worsen
the crisis for the world economy as a whole by dampening global investment. Indeed, since the
United States has been targeting China in particular, some retaliatory measures have already
appeared. But if U.S. protectionism does not invite generalized retaliation, it would only be
because the export of unemployment from the United States is insubstantial, keeping
unemployment everywhere, including in the United States, as precarious as it is now. However we
look at it, the world would henceforth face higher levels of unemployment.
There has been some discussion on how global value chains would be affected by Trump's
protectionism. But the fact that global macroeconomics in the early twenty-first century will
look altogether different compared to earlier has not been much discussed.
In light of the preceding discussion, one could say that if, instead of individual
nation-states whose writ cannot possibly run against globalized finance capital, there was a
global state or a set of major nation-states acting in unison to override the objections of
globalized finance and provide a coordinated fiscal stimulus to the world economy, then perhaps
there could be recovery. Such a coordinated fiscal stimulus was suggested by a group of German
trade unionists, as well as by John Maynard Keynes during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
9
While it was turned down then, in the present context it has not even been discussed.
The second implication of this dead end is that the era of export-led growth is by and large
over for third world economies. The slowing down of world economic growth, together with
protectionism in the United States against successful third world exporters, which could even
spread to other metropolitan economies, suggests that the strategy of relying on the world
market to generate domestic growth has run out of steam. Third world economies, including the
ones that have been very successful at exporting, would now have to rely much more on their
home market.
Such a transition will not be easy; it will require promoting domestic peasant agriculture,
defending petty production, moving toward cooperative forms of production, and ensuring greater
equality in income distribution, all of which need major structural shifts. For smaller
economies, it would also require their coming together with other economies to provide a
minimum size to the domestic market. In short, the dead end of neoliberalism also means the
need for a shift away from the so-called neoliberal development strategy that has held sway
until now.
The third implication is the imminent engulfing of a whole range of third world economies in
serious balance-of-payments difficulties. This is because, while their exports will be sluggish
in the new situation, this very fact will also discourage financial inflows into their
economies, whose easy availability had enabled them to maintain current account deficits on
their balance of payments earlier. In such a situation, within the existing neoliberal
paradigm, they would be forced to adopt austerity measures that would impose income deflation
on their people, make the conditions of their people significantly worse, lead to a further
handing over of their national assets and resources to international capital, and prevent
precisely any possible transition to an alternative strategy of home market-based growth.
In other words, we shall now have an intensification of the imperialist stranglehold over
third world economies, especially those pushed into unsustainable balance-of-payments deficits
in the new situation. By imperialism , here we do not mean the imperialism of this or
that major power, but the imperialism of international finance capital, with which even
domestic big bourgeoisies are integrated, directed against their own working people.
The fourth implication is the worldwide upsurge of fascism. Neoliberal capitalism even
before it reached a dead end, even in the period when it achieved reasonable growth and
employment rates, had pushed the world into greater hunger and poverty. For instance, the world
per-capita cereal output was 355 kilograms for 1980 (triennium average for 1979–81
divided by mid–triennium population) and fell to 343 in 2000, leveling at 344.9 in 2016
-- and a substantial amount of this last figure went into ethanol production. Clearly, in a
period of growth of the world economy, per-capita cereal absorption should be expanding,
especially since we are talking here not just of direct absorption but of direct and indirect
absorption, the latter through processed foods and feed grains in animal products. The fact
that there was an absolute decline in per-capita output, which no doubt caused a decline in
per-capita absorption, suggests an absolute worsening in the nutritional level of a substantial
segment of the world's population.
But this growing hunger and nutritional poverty did not immediately arouse any significant
resistance, both because such resistance itself becomes more difficult under neoliberalism
(since the very globalization of capital makes it an elusive target) and also because higher
GDP growth rates provided a hope that distress might be overcome in the course of time.
Peasants in distress, for instance, entertained the hope that their children would live better
in the years to come if given a modicum of education and accepted their fate.
In short, the ideology of neoliberal capitalism was the promise of growth. But with
neoliberal capitalism reaching a dead end, this promise disappears and so does this ideological
prop. To sustain itself, neoliberal capitalism starts looking for some other ideological prop
and finds fascism. This changes the discourse away from the material conditions of people's
lives to the so-called threat to the nation, placing the blame for people's distress not on the
failure of the system, but on ethnic, linguistic, and religious minority groups, the
other that is portrayed as an enemy. It projects a so-called messiah whose sheer
muscularity can somehow magically overcome all problems; it promotes a culture of unreason so
that both the vilification of the other and the magical powers of the supposed leader
can be placed beyond any intellectual questioning; it uses a combination of state repression
and street-level vigilantism by fascist thugs to terrorize opponents; and it forges a close
relationship with big business, or, in Kalecki's words, "a partnership of big business and
fascist upstarts." 10
Fascist groups of one kind or another exist in all modern societies. They move center stage
and even into power only on certain occasions when they get the backing of big business. And
these occasions arise when three conditions are satisfied: when there is an economic crisis so
the system cannot simply go on as before; when the usual liberal establishment is manifestly
incapable of resolving the crisis; and when the left is not strong enough to provide an
alternative to the people in order to move out of the conjuncture.
This last point may appear odd at first, since many see the big bourgeoisie's recourse to
fascism as a counter to the growth of the left's strength in the context of a capitalist
crisis. But when the left poses a serious threat, the response of the big bourgeoisie typically
is to attempt to split it by offering concessions. It uses fascism to prop itself up only when
the left is weakened. Walter Benjamin's remark that "behind every fascism there is a failed
revolution" points in this direction.
Fascism Then and Now
Contemporary fascism, however, differs in crucial respects from its 1930s counterpart, which
is why many are reluctant to call the current phenomenon a fascist upsurge. But historical
parallels, if carefully drawn, can be useful. While in some aforementioned respects
contemporary fascism does resemble the phenomenon of the 1930s, there are serious differences
between the two that must also be noted.
First, we must note that while the current fascist upsurge has put fascist elements in power
in many countries, there are no fascist states of the 1930s kind as of yet. Even if the fascist
elements in power try to push the country toward a fascist state, it is not clear that they
will succeed. There are many reasons for this, but an important one is that fascists in power
today cannot overcome the crisis of neoliberalism, since they accept the regime of
globalization of finance. This includes Trump, despite his protectionism. In the 1930s,
however, this was not the case. The horrors associated with the institution of a fascist state
in the 1930s had been camouflaged to an extent by the ability of the fascists in power to
overcome mass unemployment and end the Depression through larger military spending, financed by
government borrowing. Contemporary fascism, by contrast, lacks the ability to overcome the
opposition of international finance capital to fiscal activism on the part of the government to
generate larger demand, output, and employment, even via military spending.
Such activism, as discussed earlier, required larger government spending financed either
through taxes on capitalists or through a fiscal deficit. Finance capital was opposed to both
of these measures and it being globalized made this opposition decisive . The
decisiveness of this opposition remains even if the government happens to be one composed of
fascist elements. Hence, contemporary fascism, straitjacketed by "fiscal rectitude," cannot
possibly alleviate even temporarily the economic crises facing people and cannot provide any
cover for a transition to a fascist state akin to the ones of the 1930s, which makes such a
transition that much more unlikely.
Another difference is also related to the phenomenon of the globalization of finance. The
1930s were marked by what Lenin had earlier called "interimperialist rivalry." The military
expenditures incurred by fascist governments, even though they pulled countries out of the
Depression and unemployment, inevitably led to wars for "repartitioning an already partitioned
world." Fascism was the progenitor of war and burned itself out through war at, needless to
say, great cost to humankind.
Contemporary fascism, however, operates in a world where interimperialist rivalry is far
more muted. Some have seen in this muting a vindication of Karl Kautsky's vision of an
"ultraimperialism" as against Lenin's emphasis on the permanence of interimperialist rivalry,
but this is wrong. Both Kautsky and Lenin were talking about a world where finance capital and
the financial oligarchy were essentially national -- that is, German, French, or British. And
while Kautsky talked about the possibility of truces among the rival oligarchies, Lenin saw
such truces only as transient phenomena punctuating the ubiquity of rivalry.
In contrast, what we have today is not nation-based finance capitals, but
international finance capital into whose corpus the finance capitals drawn from
particular countries are integrated. This globalized finance capital does not want the world
to be partitioned into economic territories of rival powers ; on the contrary, it wants the
entire globe to be open to its own unrestricted movement. The muting of rivalry between major
powers, therefore, is not because they prefer truce to war, or peaceful partitioning of the
world to forcible repartitioning, but because the material conditions themselves have changed
so that it is no longer a matter of such choices. The world has gone beyond both Lenin and
Kautsky, as well as their debates.
Not only are we not going to have wars between major powers in this era of fascist upsurge
(of course, as will be discussed, we shall have other wars), but, by the same token, this
fascist upsurge will not burn out through any cataclysmic war. What we are likely to see is a
lingering fascism of less murderous intensity , which, when in power, does not
necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically
annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally.
But since its successor government, as long as it remains within the confines of the neoliberal
strategy, will also be incapable of alleviating the crisis, the fascist elements are likely to
return to power as well. And whether the fascist elements are in or out of power, they will
remain a potent force working toward the fascification of the society and the polity, even
while promoting corporate interests within a regime of globalization of finance, and hence
permanently maintaining the "partnership between big business and fascist upstarts."
Put differently, since the contemporary fascist upsurge is not likely to burn itself out as
the earlier one did, it has to be overcome by transcending the very conjuncture that produced
it: neoliberal capitalism at a dead end. A class mobilization of working people around an
alternative set of transitional demands that do not necessarily directly target neoliberal
capitalism, but which are immanently unrealizable within the regime of neoliberal capitalism,
can provide an initial way out of this conjuncture and lead to its eventual transcendence.
Such a class mobilization in the third world context would not mean making no truces with
liberal bourgeois elements against the fascists. On the contrary, since the liberal bourgeois
elements too are getting marginalized through a discourse of jingoistic nationalism typically
manufactured by the fascists, they too would like to shift the discourse toward the material
conditions of people's lives, no doubt claiming that an improvement in these conditions is
possible within the neoliberal economic regime itself. Such a shift in discourse is in
itself a major antifascist act . Experience will teach that the agenda advanced as part of
this changed discourse is unrealizable under neoliberalism, providing the scope for dialectical
intervention by the left to transcend neoliberal capitalism.
Imperialist
Interventions
Even though fascism will have a lingering presence in this conjuncture of "neoliberalism at
a dead end," with the backing of domestic corporate-financial interests that are themselves
integrated into the corpus of international finance capital, the working people in the third
world will increasingly demand better material conditions of life and thereby rupture the
fascist discourse of jingoistic nationalism (that ironically in a third world context is not
anti-imperialist).
In fact, neoliberalism reaching a dead end and having to rely on fascist elements revives
meaningful political activity, which the heyday of neoliberalism had precluded, because most
political formations then had been trapped within an identical neoliberal agenda that appeared
promising. (Latin America had a somewhat different history because neoliberalism arrived in
that continent through military dictatorships, not through its more or less tacit acceptance by
most political formations.)
Such revived political activity will necessarily throw up challenges to neoliberal
capitalism in particular countries. Imperialism, by which we mean the entire economic and
political arrangement sustaining the hegemony of international finance capital, will deal with
these challenges in at least four different ways.
The first is the so-called spontaneous method of capital flight. Any political formation
that seeks to take the country out of the neoliberal regime will witness capital flight even
before it has been elected to office, bringing the country to a financial crisis and thereby
denting its electoral prospects. And if perchance it still gets elected, the outflow will only
increase, even before it assumes office. The inevitable difficulties faced by the people may
well make the government back down at that stage. The sheer difficulty of transition away from
a neoliberal regime could be enough to bring even a government based on the support of workers
and peasants to its knees, precisely to save them short-term distress or to avoid losing their
support.
Even if capital controls are put in place, where there are current account deficits,
financing such deficits would pose a problem, necessitating some trade controls. But this is
where the second instrument of imperialism comes into play: the imposition of trade sanctions
by the metropolitan states, which then cajole other countries to stop buying from the
sanctioned country that is trying to break away from thralldom to globalized finance capital.
Even if the latter would have otherwise succeeded in stabilizing its economy despite its
attempt to break away, the imposition of sanctions becomes an additional blow.
The third weapon consists in carrying out so-called democratic or parliamentary coups of the
sort that Latin America has been experiencing. Coups in the old days were effected through the
local armed forces and necessarily meant the imposition of military dictatorships in lieu of
civilian, democratically elected governments. Now, taking advantage of the disaffection
generated within countries by the hardships caused by capital flight and imposed sanctions,
imperialism promotes coups through fascist or fascist-sympathizing middle-class political
elements in the name of restoring democracy, which is synonymous with the pursuit of
neoliberalism.
And if all these measures fail, there is always the possibility of resorting to economic
warfare (such as destroying Venezuela's electricity supply), and eventually to military
warfare. Venezuela today provides a classic example of what imperialist intervention in a third
world country is going to look like in the era of decline of neoliberal capitalism, when
revolts are going to characterize such countries more and more.
Two aspects of such intervention are striking. One is the virtual unanimity among the
metropolitan states, which only underscores the muting of interimperialist rivalry in the era
of hegemony of global finance capital. The other is the extent of support that such
intervention commands within metropolitan countries, from the right to even the liberal
segments.
Despite this opposition, neoliberal capitalism cannot ward off the challenge it is facing
for long. It has no vision for reinventing itself. Interestingly, in the period after the First
World War, when capitalism was on the verge of sinking into a crisis, the idea of state
intervention as a way of its revival had already been mooted, though its coming into vogue only
occurred at the end of the Second World War. 11
Today, neoliberal capitalism does not even have an idea of how it can recover and revitalize
itself. And weapons like domestic fascism in the third world and direct imperialist
intervention cannot for long save it from the anger of the masses that is building up against
it.
Samuel Berrick Saul, Studies in British Overseas Trade, 1870–1914
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960).
Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, Monopoly Capital (New York:
Monthly Review Press, 1966).
One of the first authors to recognize this fact and its significance was Paul Baran in
The Political Economy of
Growth (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1957).
For the role of such colonial transfers in sustaining the British balance of payments and the
long Victorian and Edwardian boom, see Utsa Patnaik, "Revisiting the 'Drain,' or Transfers
from India to Britain in the Context of Global Diffusion of Capitalism," in Agrarian
and Other Histories: Essays for Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri , ed. Shubhra Chakrabarti and
Utsa Patnaik (Delhi: Tulika, 2017), 277-317.
Federal Reserve Board of Saint Louis Economic Research, FRED, "Capacity Utilization:
Manufacturing," February 2019 (updated March 27, 2019), http://fred.stlouisfed.org .
This issue is discussed by Charles P. Kindleberger in The World in Depression,
1929–1939 , 40th anniversary ed. (Oakland: University of California Press,
2013).
Joseph Schumpeter had seen Keynes's The Economic Consequences of the Peace as
essentially advocating such state intervention in the new situation. See his essay, "John
Maynard Keynes (1883–1946)," in Ten Great Economists (London: George Allen
& Unwin, 1952).
Utsa Patnaik is Professor Emerita at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her books include Peasant Class Differentiation (1987),
The Long Transition (1999), and The Republic of Hunger and Other Essays (2007). Prabhat Patnaik
is Professor Emeritus at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. His books include Accumulation and Stability Under Capitalism (1997),
The Value of Money(2009), and Re-envisioning Socialism(2011).
"... The real unemployment rate is probably somewhere between 10%-12%. ..."
"... The U-6 also includes what the labor dept. calls involuntary part time employed. It should include the voluntary part time as well, but doesn't (See, they're not actively looking for work even if unemployed). ..."
"... But even the involuntary part time is itself under-estimated. I believe the Labor Dept. counts only those involuntarily part time unemployed whose part time job is their primary job. It doesn't count those who have second and third involuntary part time jobs. That would raise the U-6 unemployment rate significantly. The labor Dept's estimate of the 'discouraged' and 'missing labor force' is grossly underestimated. ..."
"... The labor dept. also misses the 1-2 million workers who went on social security disability (SSDI) after 2008 because it provides better pay, for longer, than does unemployment insurance. That number rose dramatically after 2008 and hasn't come down much (although the government and courts are going after them). ..."
"... The way the government calculates unemployment is by means of 60,000 monthly household surveys but that phone survey method misses a lot of workers who are undocumented and others working in the underground economy in the inner cities (about 10-12% of the economy according to most economists and therefore potentially 10-12% of the reported labor force in size as well). ..."
"... The SSDI, undocumented, underground, underestimation of part timers, etc. are what I call the 'hidden unemployed'. And that brings the unemployed well above the 3.7%. ..."
The real unemployment rate is probably somewhere between 10%-12%. Here's why: the 3.7% is
the U-3 rate, per the labor dept. But that's the rate only for full time employed. What the
labor dept. calls the U-6 includes what it calls discouraged workers (those who haven't looked
for work in the past 4 weeks). Then there's what's called the 'missing labor force'–i.e.
those who haven't looked in the past year. They're not calculated in the 3.7% U-3 unemployment
rate number either. Why? Because you have to be 'out of work and actively looking for work' to
be counted as unemployed and therefore part of the 3.7% rate.
The U-6 also includes what the labor dept. calls involuntary part time employed. It
should include the voluntary part time as well, but doesn't (See, they're not actively looking
for work even if unemployed).
But even the involuntary part time is itself under-estimated. I believe the Labor Dept.
counts only those involuntarily part time unemployed whose part time job is their primary job.
It doesn't count those who have second and third involuntary part time jobs. That would raise
the U-6 unemployment rate significantly. The labor Dept's estimate of the 'discouraged' and
'missing labor force' is grossly underestimated.
The labor dept. also misses the 1-2 million workers who went on social security
disability (SSDI) after 2008 because it provides better pay, for longer, than does unemployment
insurance. That number rose dramatically after 2008 and hasn't come down much (although the
government and courts are going after them).
The way the government calculates unemployment is by means of 60,000 monthly household
surveys but that phone survey method misses a lot of workers who are undocumented and others
working in the underground economy in the inner cities (about 10-12% of the economy according
to most economists and therefore potentially 10-12% of the reported labor force in size as
well). The labor dept. just makes assumptions about that number (conservatively, I may
add) and plugs in a number to be added to the unemployment totals. But it has no real idea of
how many undocumented or underground economy workers are actually employed or unemployed since
these workers do not participate in the labor dept. phone surveys, and who can blame them.
The SSDI, undocumented, underground, underestimation of part timers, etc. are what I
call the 'hidden unemployed'. And that brings the unemployed well above the 3.7%.
Finally, there's the corroborating evidence about what's called the labor force
participation rate. It has declined by roughly 5% since 2007. That's 6 to 9 million workers who
should have entered the labor force but haven't. The labor force should be that much larger,
but it isn't. Where have they gone? Did they just not enter the labor force? If not, they're
likely a majority unemployed, or in the underground economy, or belong to the labor dept's
'missing labor force' which should be much greater than reported. The government has no
adequate explanation why the participation rate has declined so dramatically. Or where have the
workers gone. If they had entered the labor force they would have been counted. And their 6 to
9 million would result in an increase in the total labor force number and therefore raise the
unemployment rate.
All these reasons–-i.e. only counting full timers in the official 3.7%;
under-estimating the size of the part time workforce; under-estimating the size of the
discouraged and so-called 'missing labor force'; using methodologies that don't capture the
undocumented and underground unemployed accurately; not counting part of the SSI increase as
unemployed; and reducing the total labor force because of the declining labor force
participation-–together means the true unemployment rate is definitely over 10% and
likely closer to 12%. And even that's a conservative estimate perhaps." Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jack Rasmus
Jack Rasmus is author of the recently published book, 'Central Bankers at the End of
Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression', Clarity Press, August 2017. He blogs
at jackrasmus.com and his twitter handle
is @drjackrasmus. His website is http://kyklosproductions.com .
Your tariffs are 10-25 percent, that means the great workers in the U.S. are paying the
bill.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
"China is eating the Tariffs." Billions pouring into USA. Targeted Patriot Farmers getting
massive Dollars from the incoming Tariffs! Good Jobs Numbers, No Inflation (Fed). China having
worst year in decades. Talks happening, good for all!
When President Donald Trump wants to convey that something is a big deal, he often reaches
for the same big number: 10,000.
He says it's the number of points the Dow Jones Industrial Average would be up had the
Federal Reserve not raised interest rates. It's the number of people attending his rallies --
or the number forced to wait outside because they couldn't get in.
It's also the number of jobs a company plans to create, the headcount of captured Islamic
State fighters, the number of migrants in a caravan headed to the U.S., and the Allied casualty
count on D-Day.
Sometimes the number is accurate. Other times, it's a wild guess -- or wildly wrong.
Trump on Wednesday predicted the Dow would be up -- another 10,000 points -- if he hadn't
embarked on a trade war with China.
"If I wanted to do nothing with China, my stock market -- our stock market -- would be
10,000 points higher than it is right now," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
That would be a dramatic rise. With the Dow closing at 26,728 on Thursday, another 10,000
points would represent a 37% increase.
Memorable Number
From a marketing standpoint, there's a great reason to use 10,000: It's memorable.
"He uses this round number in particular because it seems big," said Jonah Berger, marketing
professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, which Trump often boasts of
attending.
"He wants to convey something is a big problem, or something would be quite different, so he
uses a big round number to try and sway his audience," said Berger, author of "Contagious: Why
Things Catch On."
Trump has used the number since his 2016 campaign -- in speeches, remarks to reporters and
one-on-one interviews -- but it could take on new significance as he seeks to burnish his
record with the approach of the 2020 election.
The president has repeatedly sought to use 10,000 to his political advantage, even when it
doesn't neatly match reality.
'Horrible People'
For instance, he said in January that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers last year
removed 10,000 known or suspected gang members whom he described as "horrible people." (The
agency actually reported arresting that number but removing 5,872 known or suspected gang
members in fiscal year 2018.)
The White House declined to comment on Trump's use of 10,000.
The president has other verbal habits. He has often cited self-imposed two week deadlines
for major announcements.
While Trump is often faulted by fact-checkers for making false statements, his spokeswoman
has said journalists take the president's words too literally.
"I think the president communicates in a way that some people, especially the media, aren't
necessarily comfortable with," White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham told the
Washington Post in a recent interview. "A lot of times they take him so literally. I know
people will roll their eyes if I say he was just kidding or was speaking in hypotheticals, but
sometimes he is."
'Truthful Hyperbole'
Trump defended his use of what he called "truthful hyperbole" in his 1987 book "The Art of
the Deal," calling it an "innocent form of exaggeration."
"People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those
who do," Trump wrote. "People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest
and the most spectacular."
Wittingly or not, Trump has taken to a number that comes up often in history, religion and
culture.
The army of the Ten Thousand marched against Artaxerxes II of Persia. During the conquest of
Mecca, Muhammad was said to have 10,000 soldiers. The King James Bible has dozens of references
to 10,000. Minnesota's nickname is the Land of 10,000 Lakes. A television game show called "The
$10,000 Pyramid" debuted in the U.S. in the early 1970s.
But Trump's references typically are rooted in current affairs.
The president used the number in July to talk about attendance at a North Carolina rally
where his supporters chanted "Send her back!" after he invoked the name of Representative Ilhan
Omar, a Minnesota Democrat.
"We had thousands and thousands of people that wanted to come, and we said, 'Please don't
come,'" Trump said. "It held 10,000 people. It was packed. We could've sold that arena 10
times."
Authorities said 8,000 people got into the arena in Greenville, filling it to capacity,
according to WITN-TV in North Carolina. About 2,000 were denied entry and between 750 and 1,000
were in an overflow area, the station said, citing police estimates.
Booing Ryan
In July, Trump used the number to attack former House Speaker Paul Ryan after the Wisconsin
Republican was quoted in a book saying the president doesn't know how government works.
"I remember a day in Wisconsin -- a state that I won -- where I stood up and made a speech,
and then I introduced him and they booed him off the stage -- 10,000 people," Trump told
reporters at the White House.
The president appeared to be referring to a December 2016 post-election rally in West Allis,
Wisconsin, where he publicly thanked Ryan, who was in the crowd. Audible, but not deafening,
boos were heard as Trump tried to quiet his supporters by telling them that Ryan had improved
"like a fine wine."
Then there's job creation -- a Cameron LNG liquefied natural gas export facility in
Louisiana or an Intel Corp. semiconductor plant in Arizona.
In separate statements, Trump said they'd each create 10,000 jobs.
Bringing Credibility
Whether Trump's use of the number is accurate or not, the specificity can bring credibility
to the president's claims, said Manoj Thomas, a behavioral scientist and marketing professor at
Cornell University's SC Johnson College of Business.
"Using a number to quantify a claim -- even implausible numbers -- makes it more credible
because numbers are concrete," Thomas said. "Claims without any numbers, for example, 'The Dow
would be much higher if not for the trade war,' are more difficult for the human mind to
instinctively process because the information is abstract and lacks specificity."
Trump could add even more credibility to his claim by making the number even more specific,
Thomas said.
For instance, Thomas suggested: "The Dow would be 4,600 points higher if not for the trade
war."
Markets Soar on News of China Talks, but Hopes
for Progress Are Low https://nyti.ms/2LrdVwH
NYT - Ana Swanson and Matt Phillips - September 5
WASHINGTON -- President Trump's decision to renew talks with China in the coming weeks
sent financial markets soaring on Thursday, as investors seized on the development as a sign
that both sides could still find a way out of an economically damaging trade war.
The rally sent the S&P 500 up more than 1 percent, underscoring just how much
financial markets are subsisting on hopes and fears about the trade war. Shares fell through
most of August, as Mr. Trump escalated his fight with China and imposed more tariffs, only to
snap back on Thursday after news of the talks.
But expectations for progress remain low, and many in the United States and China see the
best outcome as a continued stalemate that would prevent a collapse in relations before the
2020 election. Both Mr. Trump and President Xi Jinping of China are under pressure from
domestic audiences to stand tough, and the talks will happen after Mr. Trump's next round of
punishing tariffs take effect on Oct. 1.
"Continuing to talk soothes markets a little bit," said Eswar Prasad, the former head of
the China division at the International Monetary Fund. "But the political cost to making
major concessions is, I think, too high for either side."
The skepticism stems in part from what is emerging as a familiar pattern for Mr. Trump,
for whom China is both a source of leverage and a potential vulnerability heading into an
election year. The president has so far imposed tariffs on more than $350 billion worth of
Chinese goods and routinely shifts from blasting China and threatening additional punishment
to trying to calm the waters in the face of jittery markets and negative economic news.
Over two weeks, Mr. Trump has called Mr. Xi an enemy of America, ordered companies to stop
doing business in China and suggested the United States was in no rush to reach a trade deal.
On Sunday, he moved ahead with his threat to eventually tax every golf club, shoe and
computer China sends into the United States, placing tariffs on another $112 billion of
Chinese goods.
Stock investors have zeroed in on the threat the trade war poses to the economy, buying
and selling in tandem with Mr. Trump's trade whims. Thursday's rally was the fifth positive
performance for the market in the past six sessions. It brought the S&P 500 to within
striking distance -- less than 2 percent -- of its high of 3025.86, reached on July 26.
The coming weeks could result in more of the same, analysts say: tough words when the
president wants to rally his base and a temporary cooling off when it seems to be hurting an
economy that is one of his main arguments for re-election.
Mr. Trump and his advisers are wary of a potential challenge from Democrats who will try
to paint the president as weak on China. Officials are cognizant that striking a deal based
on the kind of limited concessions China is currently offering would most likely be a
political liability in the president's bid for re-election. Democrats, along with some
Republicans, have previously accused Mr. Trump of buckling on China after he reached a deal
that allowed ZTE, the Chinese telecom company, to avoid tough American punishment.
Yet as collateral damage from the trade war increases, Mr. Trump is facing pressure to
relent. The bond market has been flashing warning signs of a potential recession, and both
consumer confidence and the manufacturing sector have slowed.
The trade war is also clearly weighing on the Chinese economy, which is growing at its
slowest pace in more than two decades. But China has responded defiantly, imposing
retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion worth of American goods. The country is preparing to
celebrate the 70th anniversary of its founding on Oct. 1, and analysts say Beijing would be
unlikely to make concessions at such a politically delicate moment.
People familiar with Chinese economic policymaking have said in recent weeks that Chinese
leaders remain interested in reaching a trade deal with the United States, but that they are
wary of what appear to be ever-increasing demands from the United States and what they
describe as frequent shifts in the American negotiating position.
The Chinese government continues to insist that it will not accept any agreement that is
unequal, or that prevents it from pursuing economic policies that it needs for continued
growth.
While both countries have motivation to come to an agreement, each is still insisting the
other will be the first to bend.
"China and the US announced new round of trade talks and will work to make substantial
progress," Hu Xijin, the editor of the state-run Global Times, wrote on Twitter. "Personally
I think the US, worn out by the trade war, may no longer hope for crushing China's will.
There's more possibility of a breakthrough between the two sides." ...
"Few economists worked at the Federal Reserve in the early 1950s. Those who were on the
staff of America's central bank were relegated to the basement, at a safe remove from the
corridors where real decisions were made.
Economists had their uses, allowed William McChesney Martin, then the Fed's chairman. But
they also had 'a far greater sense of confidence in their analyses than I have found to be
warranted'. They were best kept down with the surplus furniture and the rats." •
Indeed!
"... Can China then depend on widening internal demand to maintain its global edge? There are two reasons why not. The present authorities worry that a widening middle stratum could jeopardize their political control and seek to limit it.[a] ..."
"... The second reason, more important, is that much of the internal demand is the result of reckless borrowing by regional banks, which are facing an inability to sustain their investments. If they collapse, even partially, this could end the entire economic edge[b] of China. ..."
A structural crisis is chaotic. This means that instead of the normal standard set of
combinations or alliances that were previously used to maintain the stability of the system,
they constantly shift these alliances in search of short-term gains. This only makes the
situation worse. We notice here a paradox – the certainty of the end of the existing
system and the intrinsic uncertainty of what will eventually replace it and create thereby a
new system (or new systems) to stabilize realities .
Now, let us look at China's role in what is going on. In terms of the present system,
China seems to be gaining much advantage. To argue that this means the continuing functioning
of capitalism as a system is basically to (re)assert the invalid point that systems are
eternal and that China is replacing the United States in the same way as the United States
replaced Great Britain as the hegemonic power. Were this true, in another 20-30 years China
(or perhaps northeast Asia) would be able to set its rules for the capitalist
world-system.
But is this really happening? First of all, China's economic edge, while still greater
than that of the North, has been declining significantly. And this decline may well amplify
soon, as political resistance to China's attempts to control neighboring countries and entice
(that is, buy) the support of faraway countries grows, which seems to be occurring.
Can China then depend on widening internal demand to maintain its global edge? There are
two reasons why not. The present authorities worry that a widening middle stratum could
jeopardize their political control and seek to limit it.[a]
The second reason, more important, is that much of the internal demand is the result of
reckless borrowing by regional banks, which are facing an inability to sustain their
investments. If they collapse, even partially, this could end the entire economic edge[b] of
China.
In addition, there have been, and will continue to be, wild swings in geopolitical
alliances. In a sense, the key zones are not in the North, but in areas such as Russia,
India, Iran, Turkey, and southeastern Europe, all of them pursuing their own roles by a game
of swiftly and repeatedly changing sides. The bottom line is that, though China plays a
very big role in the short run, it is not as big a role as China would wish and that some in
the rest of the world-system fear. It is not possible for China to stop the disintegration of
the capitalist system. It can only try to secure its place in a future
world-system.
As far as Wallerstein's bottom line: The proof is in the pudding. That said, there seems to
be a tendency to regard Xi as all-powerful. IMNSHO, that's by no means the case, not only
because of China's middle class, but because of whatever China's equivalent of deplorables is.
The "wild swings in geopolitical alliances" might play a role, too; oil, Africa's minerals.
NOTES [a] I haven't seen this point made elsewhere. [b] Crisis, certainly. "Ending the
entire economic edge"? I'm not so sure.
"... As Hudson points out, WW1 was a coup for the USA's financial sector and allowed them to gain control of academia to erase Marx and his Classical Economist allies and replace them with their own toadies along with their newly formed product--Propaganda and the nascent Police State, which the institution of Prohibition greatly facilitated. ..."
The latest by Crooke I found a curious read since he bases his article on his interpretation
of Adam Tooze's books about the world wars, neither of which I've read. Curious because we
know from Hudson that the counterrevolution by the Feudal Lords of banking and land holding
against Classical Economists and their political allies began in earnest well before then in
@1870 and that their Race for Africa was a big part of their efforts to regain their hold on
their home governments.
Within the USA, a similar revolution was being waged although it began several decades
later in response to the Populists.
As Hudson points out, WW1 was a coup for the USA's financial sector and allowed them
to gain control of academia to erase Marx and his Classical Economist allies and replace them
with their own toadies along with their newly formed product--Propaganda and the nascent
Police State, which the institution of Prohibition greatly facilitated.
I wrote the above to provide barflies with a contrasting historical context much of which
was recently reviewed via all the Marxian discussion and where the actual roots of
Neoliberalism are seated.
Deep at the core is the battle by Banksters and their allies to keep their institutions
private versus the Classical and Populist goal of making them public utilities and how the
World Wars helped the former to gain their goals.
Tooze's narrative seems okay on the surface, and it clearly fooled Crooke, but it's
incomplete. What did the European Powers run out first that generated WW1's stalemate? Money
for arms as posited or human bodies to man those arms? In George Seldes's censored interview
with Hindenburg a week after the Armistice, published in You Can't Print That! ,
the defeated Field Marshal admitted it was the entry of American Men--human numbers--that
turned the tide and made it clear to him that the war couldn't be won. Sure, money helped get
the doughboys over there, but before they arrived masses of money were sent in both
directions that didn't change the balance other than to create the unpayable postwar debts
the Americans demanded be paid.
karlofi@103
Hindenburg realised that the manpower resources of the US were crucial, though they hardly
came into play on the battle field. But it was US raw materials, combined with the British
blockade, that were the crucxial factor.
With the US the Alliance was simply, even minus Russia, too big, too powerful. And then
there was the military reality that the Allies were beginning to organise themselves on the
battlefield: including tanks etc.
As for the "Feudal Lords of Banking..." Hudson is a great resource, but his theory sounds
wrong to me.
When I first happened across Seldes's interview and knowing the "stabbed in the back"
claim that Hitler used in his rise to power, I was very curious as to why it was
censored--what possible reason could be claimed to withhold such an important set of
revelations? Clearly as Seldes himself says, if it had been published at the time, the entire
course of subsequent history would likely have taken a different direction. Are you familiar
with Seldes? He was I.F. Stone's idol and model with a penchant for truth-telling regardless
of the subject or people involved. The book I linked to is filled with similar stories that
contradicted the current narrative being sold to the masses, and his subsequent works are
similar. But as you might guess, few people have ever heard of him or his writings.
Given what Hudson reveals about the manipulation of the learning/teaching of
political-economy, it would be very wise to suspect much of what was/is produced via the
"social sciences," (history written by the victors) which is why my collegiate mentor
stressed the learning methodology he devised to try and arrive at the best non-subjective
conclusion as possible whatever the inquiry--to try and duplicate as closely as possible the
scientific method for confirmation of theories. I've discovered quite a lot of metaphysics
within the entire spectrum of social science disciplines that's made me question a vast
catalog of assumptions. As Fischer and other historians have discovered, historical truth
often lies literally in the margins--the annotations--made by decision makers or obscure
signals reports filed away within deep archives or forensic chemical reports detailing what
is or isn't present within the samples. The learning of the revealed truths can be painful,
making the adage Ignorance is Bliss rather powerful and enticing. But that's not for me as I
subscribe to the alternative adage, The Truth will set you Free.
I'm just reading Keen's 2nd Edition of his Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor
Dethroned? where he writes on page 29: "[...], conventional Marxsim is as replete with
logical errors as is neoclassical economics, even though Marx himself provides a far better
foundation for economic analysis than did Walras or Marshall."
To my knowledge, Keen refers to himself as a Post-keynesian economist (not to be confused
with bastardized Keynesian or central banks' Neo-Keynesian economics), highly influenced by
the work of Hyman Minsky who learned under Schumpeter.
a farmer has at least 3 PhD qualifications just to contend in the business
No need for a tongue-in-cheek, you're on track, if manufacturing food is akin to other
manufacturing.
. . .from last year
August 2018, The fall of employment in the manufacturing sector
Today's manufacturing output is at least 5 percent greater than it was in 2000, but it has
become much more capital intensive and much less labor intensive. Accordingly, workers in
the sector are more likely to have at least some college education than their counterparts
of years past. But there are far fewer manufacturing workers overall, with about 7.5
million jobs lost since 1980.
What is most responsible for the manufacturing job losses? Rising trade with China is often
cited as a possible culprit. But competition from China only accounts for about a fourth of
the decline in manufacturing during the 2000s. This theory is further eroded by the fact
that local markets that did not compete with Chinese imports also saw employment
declines.
A skills mismatch -- the gap between the skills workers have and the skills employers need
-- has also contributed to the decline of manufacturing employment.
Prime age men and women with less than a high school degree have been hit particularly hard
by changes to manufacturing employment. As the manufacturing sector has shifted from
low-skilled to high-skilled work, workers who possess higher skill levels (e.g., engineers,
computer programmers, software developers, etc.) have become more sought after than before.
. . here
And the US supply of STEM graduates for any technical profession seems to be wanting.
Meanwhile we must recognize that employment is not directly tied to the economy, given
mechanization.
"... That assumption looks to be incorrect. New Deal Democrat sent us the latest post from China Law Blog, written by lawyers who specialize in Chinese law with an eye to helping businesses get set up and operate in China. The post by Dan Harris is every bit as firm as its headline: Repeat After Me: There Will be No US-China Trade Deal . It also contains a good summary of key developments and detail on the various goods targeted. Key sections: ..."
"... But what should you make of President Trump's ordering US companies to immediately start looking for an alternative to China? He can't really do that, can he? No, but in many respects this is exactly what Trump has been doing since the U.S.-China trade war began. Trump cannot literally require American companies to pull out of China, but he can and has made it so difficult that they all but have to leave China. And this is what most of the international lawyers and international trade lawyers at my firm have come to believe has been Trump's plan all along. ..."
"... Every step of the way, Trump has made it all but impossible for China to make a trade deal with the United States, which is why this blog has been consistently clear that there will be no trade deal between the United States and China . If the US-China trade war/cold war were really about trade imbalances, it would have ended long ago with China buying more soybeans and Boeing airplanes from the United States. But from the very beginning, the U.S. has demanded China stop stealing IP and open its markets for foreign companies, and there is just no way China will agree to either of these things. Lead negotiator Robert Lighthizer is without a doubt smart enough to have known this all along. All this leads us to believe that the U.S. plan has always been to force a slow decoupling of the U.S. and China and then work to convince the rest of the democratic world (the EU, Australia, Canada, Latin America, Japan, etc.) to decouple from China, as well. In June, in Does China WANT a Second Decoupling? The Chinese Texts Say That it Does we wrote of how China wants this decoupling, as well. ..."
"... The fact that Trump issues this "order" amidst rising recession fears only highlights how ending U.S.-China trade is at the top of his to-do list. ..."
"... The critical part of the China Law Blog's reading is that the Trump Administration is deadly serious about its two big asks, intellectual property and market access. It's credible to attribute that to Trump's US Trade Representative, Lighthizer. As Lambert put it, Lighthizer is the closest thing this Administration has to a Jim Baker. Lighthizer started at Covington & Burling, then served in the Regan Administration as Deputy USTR before going to Skadden. Lighthizer is as fierce a China hawk as they come and has a long history of saying that the entry of China into the WTO was at the expense of US jobs (see here , for instance) and even making a full-throated defense of protectionism . ..."
"... In April, China made a concession to the US by designating all fetanyl products as controlled substances, in the hope that that would reduce shipments to the US. The DEA has stated that China is the main source of US fentanyl . Fentanyl accounted 18,000 overdose deaths in 2018, one fourth of the total. If you count all synthetic opioids, the toll rises to 28,000. China nevertheless claimed even then that fentanyl shipments to the US were "extremely limited" . ..."
"... Fentanyl featured in the escalation on Friday, and it could conceivably serve as the basis for a national emergency threat (even though, per the discussion earlier, it would have good odds of being overturned). One of Trump's four tweets urged US carriers to do more to halt shipments arriving from China or other destinations (Mexico is believed to be a route for the entry of Chinese fentanyl to the US). ..."
"... In May I had a conversation with a long-time friend. My friend works for a global manufacturer with a household name. He has helped oversee construction of plants around the world. He helps source components from around the world. He told me that "everybody's moving out" (of China). ..."
"... A few short years ago they had the Trans-Pacific Partnership being negotiated. This was nicknamed the "everybody but China" pact as that was its mission – to cut China out of the Pacific. Add to that the "Pivot to Asia" introduced by Obama which was to militarily threaten China and the writing was on the wall for China. They were to be boxed in and shut down. Trump may be the front man now for this effort but all the China-hawks have come out of the woodwork to be let loose in the government. ..."
"... I suppose that the plan is to force US companies to bail out of China and relocate to places like Vietnam, India, Bangladesh, etc. But the question is whether these countries have the infrastructure to support these new factories? ..."
"... I have mentioned before the idea of a multipolar world and I believe that we re seeing it now in action. The US and its vassals will be one pole and another one is forming around China, Iran and Russia. I doubt that the EU will be another as they are following what Trump orders even if reluctantly. There may be another factor. For centuries we have had an economy predicated on growth but I suspect that by the end of this century will will have one based on contraction due to climate change and depletion of resources. Better strap in. It could be a bumpy ride. ..."
Trump has been up to what he seems to like to do best: whipsawing those who might be affected by his plans. On Friday, he put
Mr. Market and huge swathes of Corporate America in a tizzy by retaliating against China's tariff increases. China announced that
it would impose new tariffs on $75 billion of US goods and the restart of tariffs on autos and auto parts. Trump tweeted that he
would increase tariffs on Chinese goods already subject to tariffs: the $250 billion at 25% would go to 30% on October 1and the $300
billion at 10% would go to 15% in phases, on September 1 and December 1. Trump also "hereby ordered" US companies to pull out of
China, suggesting that he'd rely on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.
Then, as most of you have likely heard, Trump made remarks at the G-7 summit that we widely interpreted as an indicator that he'd
back off again, by admitting to regrets about how the trade spat was going. When the press took up that line, Trump doubled down,
with the White House releasing a statement that Trump's sole regret was not raising tariffs higher.
Needless to say, the all-too-typical Trump to-ing and fro-ing made for an easy target.
From the Washington Post :
Former treasury secretary Lawrence Summers, a veteran of the Clinton and Obama administrations, said the White House's conflicting
statements were just the latest in a string of mixed messages that had made it impossible for people to understand its agenda.
"Deeply misguided policy and strategy has been joined for some time by dubious negotiating tactics, with promises not kept
and threats not carried out on a regular basis," Summers said in an interview. "We are at a new stage now with very erratic presidential
behavior and frequent denials of obvious reality. I know of no U.S. historical precedent."
And despite rousing himself to make a show of his resolve, the Administration did back down on one part of Trump's Friday missives,
that of "ordering" US companies to get out of Dodge, um, China.
From
the Wall Street Journal :
Aides to President Trump said Sunday he has no plans to invoke emergency powers and force companies to relocate operations
from China
"What he is suggesting to American businesses," [economic adviser] Mr. [Larry] Kudlow said, is that "you ought to think about
moving your operations and your supply chains away from China and secondly, we'd like you to come back home."
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also weighed in, telling "Fox News Sunday" that the president didn't have plans to invoke
emergency powers to force U.S. companies out of China.
"I think what he was saying is he's ordering companies to start looking," Mr. Mnuchin said."
The Journal also pointed out that Trump might have trouble forcing companies to exit:
Both Messrs. Mnuchin and Kudlow said that the president could theoretically force U.S. companies to leave China by invoking
a law known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, or IEEPA .
According to the Congressional Research Service, IEEPA can be used to deal with "any unusual and extraordinary threat" outside
the U.S. "to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States, if the president declares a national emergency
with respect to such threat."
The president is required "in every possible instance" to consult with Congress before exercising authorities granted by IEEPA,
and to specify in a report to lawmakers why the circumstances constitute a threat and why the actions are necessary, CRS said
in a briefing paper on the law issued earlier this year. The president must submit follow-up reports every six months .
Rod Hunter, a partner at Baker McKenzie and expert on international trade, said Mr. Trump could declare a state of emergency
and issue the order, but that doesn't mean it will stand.
"Congress could effectively override such a decision, and private parties would certainly challenge the action as an unconstitutional
takings, a violation of due process rights and beyond the statutory authority granted to the president by Congress," Mr. Hunter
said in an email.
Mind you, just like Brexit, there is a way to do what Trump wants to do that would not be so destructive and shambolic. Trump's
China policy appears to be intended to make American more economically self-sufficient so as to improve the prosperity of US workers,
as well as curb a competing imperialist.
But as we've described at some length in earlier posts, restoring America's manufacturing capabilities isn't just a matter of
weaning itself off cheap Chinese imports. The US has ceded a tremendous amount of know-how, from the factory floor on up. Getting
that back is a generation-long undertaking, requiring commitment to a national strategy that would include significant government
investment in fundamental research, renewed emphasis on education, including much cheaper higher education and vocational training
for those that aren't suited or inclined to go to college, and a reorientation of government spending and subsidies to favor productive
sectors over the connected. Not only would it be difficult to get any Administration to embrace open industrial policy, particularly
one that would break a lot of rice bowls (such as in our hugely wasteful arms industry and our bloated financial sector), maintaining
it beyond even a two-term Presidency would be an even taller order.
But where is the Trump tariff cage match likely to wind up? Given how often Trump has backed off when Mr. Market has had a hissy,
most commentator appear to have assumed before Friday's tit for tat that Trump would back down, if nothing else, in the form of allowing
a lot of exceptions, and the US and China would find a way for Trump to get enough concessions from China that he could declare peace
with honor.
That assumption looks to be incorrect. New Deal Democrat sent us the latest post from China Law Blog, written by lawyers who
specialize in Chinese law with an eye to helping businesses get set up and operate in China. The post by Dan Harris is every bit
as firm as its headline:
Repeat After
Me: There Will be No US-China Trade Deal . It also contains a good summary of key developments and detail on the various goods
targeted. Key sections:
The US-China Trade War Is and Will be the New Normal
I hate to say we told you so, but for nearly a year, WE TOLD YOU SO. Since October, 2018 we have been all but screaming at
anyone and everyone who has product made in China and sold into the United States to get out of China fast, if at all possible.
We say this and we set out the below timeline to prove this not so much to show that we have been right all along, but to try
to convince you that we are right when we now say there will be no resolution to the US-China trade war for a very long
time and you need to act accordingly.
The below is our timeline/proof of our having predicted a straight-line decline in US-China trade relations
But what should you make of President Trump's ordering US companies to immediately start looking for an alternative
to China? He can't really do that, can he? No, but in many respects this is exactly what Trump has been doing since the U.S.-China
trade war began. Trump cannot literally require American companies to pull out of China, but he can and has made it so difficult
that they all but have to leave China. And this is what most of the international lawyers and international trade lawyers at my
firm have come to believe has been Trump's plan all along.
Every step of the way, Trump has made it all but impossible for China to make a trade deal with the United States, which
is why this blog has been consistently clear that there will be no trade deal between the United States and China . If the US-China
trade war/cold war were really about trade imbalances, it would have ended long ago with China buying more soybeans and Boeing
airplanes from the United States. But from the very beginning, the U.S. has demanded China stop stealing IP and open its markets
for foreign companies, and there is just no way China will agree to either of these things. Lead negotiator Robert Lighthizer
is without a doubt smart enough to have known this all along. All this leads us to believe that the U.S. plan has always been
to force a slow decoupling of the U.S. and China and then work to convince the rest of the democratic world (the EU, Australia,
Canada, Latin America, Japan, etc.) to decouple from China, as well. In June, in
Does China WANT a Second Decoupling? The Chinese Texts Say That it Does we wrote of how China wants this decoupling, as well.
This latest Trump "order" does not have the force of law, so in that respect it is not an order at all. But in most other respects
it is. This order indicates Trump's passionate desire to rid the United States of what he sees as the China
scourge . More importantly, it is yet another
clear signal that he will continue to escalate this war with China until such time as he considers the United States to be victorious.
The fact that Trump issues this "order" amidst rising recession fears only highlights how ending U.S.-China trade is at the
top of his to-do list.
So in terms of what this means for your business, it means that you must stop believing there will be a solution to the trade
war that will allow you to go back to doing business with China the way you used to do business with China. You need to instead
recognize that this situation is the New Normal as between the United States and China and that, if anything, things are way more
likely to get worse than they are to get better.
I'm persuaded by this point of view because these writers have adopted the perspective that we've found to be very useful in other
geopolitical negotiations, which is to look at the bargaining position of both sides and see if there is any overlap. If there isn't,
there won't be an agreement unless one of both parties makes a significant concession.
One reason that other observers have likely missed what the China Law Blog discern is that there's an Anglo-American tendency
to assume that differences can be settled and a deal can be had. But as Sir Ivan Rogers pointed out with Brexit, and you have similar
dynamics with the US and China, there aren't precedents for trade deals where the two sides want to get further apart rather than
closer. Sir Ivan is of the point of view that the desire to disengage makes it much harder to come to terms.
The critical part of the China Law Blog's reading is that the Trump Administration is deadly serious about its two big asks,
intellectual property and market access. It's credible to attribute that to Trump's US Trade Representative, Lighthizer. As Lambert
put it, Lighthizer is the closest thing this Administration has to a Jim Baker. Lighthizer started at Covington & Burling, then served
in the Regan Administration as Deputy USTR before going to Skadden. Lighthizer is as fierce a China hawk as they come and has a long
history of saying that the entry of China into the WTO was at the expense of US jobs (see
here , for instance)
and even making a full-throated defense of
protectionism .
A part of the trade spat that hasn't gotten the attention it warrants and seems to confirm the China Law Blog's thesis is the
arm-wrestling over China's fetanyl exports to the US. It's not hard to see that this is an inherently important issue, since as I
understand it, fentanyl is so potent that it is very easy to overdose on it, making it markedly more dangerous than other addictive
drugs. In other words, the high death rate of fentanyl may make reducing supply a more effective strategy than it normally is in
"the war on drugs". Substitution with just about any other controlled substance would be less dangerous. And if Trump were to make
a dent in this problem, it would serve as a PR offset to some of the costs of his China strategy, like lost soyabean exports.
Fentanyl featured in the escalation on Friday, and it could conceivably serve as the basis for a national emergency threat
(even though, per the discussion earlier, it would have good odds of being overturned). One of Trump's four tweets urged US carriers
to do more to halt shipments arriving from China or other destinations (Mexico is believed to be a route for the entry of Chinese
fentanyl to the US).
In other words, it's not clear where this row ends, but there doesn't seem to be a path to depressurization, much the less resolution.
President Trump said China called U.S. officials on Sunday evening and said "let's get back to the table," a day after the
White House said the president regretted not escalating tariffs further on Chinese goods.
Speaking to reporters alongside Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, Mr. Trump called the discussions a "very positive
development." .
The Chinese government didn't immediately respond to Mr. Trump's remarks or to requests to corroborate the president's account
of a phone call having taken place. Chinese government officials have repeatedly said that Beijing wants to negotiate differences
on trade. On Monday, Beijing's lead trade negotiator, Vice Premier Liu He, told a conference that China still wants to continue
trade talks with the U.S. following heightened tensions in the past few days.
In May I had a conversation with a long-time friend. My friend works for a global manufacturer with a household name. He
has helped oversee construction of plants around the world. He helps source components from around the world. He told me that
"everybody's moving out" (of China).
The ones who can have not waited for Trump's message of Friday.
A few short years ago they had the Trans-Pacific Partnership being negotiated. This was nicknamed the "everybody but China"
pact as that was its mission – to cut China out of the Pacific. Add to that the "Pivot to Asia" introduced by Obama which was
to militarily threaten China and the writing was on the wall for China. They were to be boxed in and shut down. Trump may be the
front man now for this effort but all the China-hawks have come out of the woodwork to be let loose in the government.
I suppose that the plan is to force US companies to bail out of China and relocate to places like Vietnam, India, Bangladesh,
etc. But the question is whether these countries have the infrastructure to support these new factories? Do they have a trained,
educated workforce to man these factories? Is there a will to move to such places? As far as those countries are concerned, these
new companies could be seen as a two-edged sword. Yes they will bring investment and opportunities in those countries. But how
will they know if a Trump or someone like him later on will not order those factories out if there is a dispute or if the US demands
that those countries change their laws and open themselves up to financial exploitation? Trump is demanding the same of China
right now. And will Trump demand that all the other western countries move out of China?
I have mentioned before the idea of a multipolar world and I believe that we re seeing it now in action. The US and its
vassals will be one pole and another one is forming around China, Iran and Russia. I doubt that the EU will be another as they
are following what Trump orders even if reluctantly. There may be another factor. For centuries we have had an economy predicated
on growth but I suspect that by the end of this century will will have one based on contraction due to climate change and depletion
of resources. Better strap in. It could be a bumpy ride.
This is all pretty interesting. More theater than trade. And the reason is that there is no demand. Demographics has a lot
to do with it as well. It might not make any difference now how much a company can cut costs by moving to SE Asia because nobody
will be very eager to buy more crap anyway. And manufacturing cannot up and move cheaply if they have to reinvent and retool their
processes to make them more environmentally acceptable. It's a sea change. And a tap-dance.
According to this article,"
The DEA has stated that
China is the main source of US fentanyl. " I followed the link, and found "The DEA has said China is a main
source of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids." Which I take as meaning that even if the US could totally shut down Chinese
synthetic opioid production, someone will still be making and supplying it.
So, if the facts as given above are reconfigured, all it would take is for the Chinese producers of synthetic opioids to pay
the US patent holders their due. Problem solved! All kidding aside, the demands to get intellectual property paid for requires
a very pliant judicial system to actually recognize that an idea should be rightfully owned by a person.
Individual agency is a product of 'enlightenment' thinking which opened the pathway for an idea to be the creation of a person
who willed the idea into existence. A few steps later, a corporation becomes a person and then a group of people can somehow own
a single idea and be able to rent that idea out. To think that the Chinese would accept this cockamamie/historically embedded/English
common law idea would be to deny their own culturally based motivated reasoning.
I don't know how this situation will be resolved, but it is quite laughable that the diversion through tariffs of IP revenues
which in US legal logic should be paid to Corporations is actually going to go to the US Treasury.
"All this leads us to believe that the U.S. plan has always been to force a slow decoupling of the U.S. and China and then
work to convince the rest of the democratic world (the EU, Australia, Canada, Latin America, Japan, etc.) to decouple from China,
as well"
That is about right, and I do not doubt that this is the desire of Trump's negotiating team. Nor do I doubt that they can easily
steer talks to fail as described (by asking for concessions on market access favorable to the US side, AND by refusing to back
down on Huawei etc).
However, while effectively forcing a decoupling of China and US is straightforward, controlling its speed is not. Pull the
plug too fast (which China can threaten to accelerate), and some big US companies eat it. While Lighthizer and friends may be
willing to pay that price, it will make a lot of others very nervous.
Then, perhaps more importantly, is forcing the rest of the world to follow suit (or else there is no point). JP, ROK, DE (the
high tech suppliers besides US) all trade at least as much with China as US. The world market buying Chinese made goods is also
bigger than the US. It would take some skillful diplomacy to make it happen. This is not only beyond the level of the Trump admin,
but I would say all US administrations since the year 2000, with the Iran deal maybe the only exception I can think of.
China will end up defending itself by getting the overly aggressive and self-discrediting Team Trump reelected. By openly provoking
a small proxy conflict for example. Trump gets to do his Ronald Reagan act, which is what his audience wants. It will be a weird
political symbiosis. (an oversized personality can't survive without a suitably inflated enemy, and Joe Biden is no Hillary Clinton.
The media will play along – such drama is the only thing keeping them in business now.)
Anyway, if there is a counterbalancing force to prevent this, I would think it is wall street.
Apparently the US federal workers pension plan has started investing in index funds which include some Chinese companies that
have been in Trump & Co's target list. From the FT this morning:
The letter -- a copy of which was seen by the Financial Times -- said an impending investment shift by the FRTIB would mean
that about $50bn in US government pensions becomes exposed to the "severe and undisclosed" risks of being invested in selected
Chinese companies.
The letter, dated August 26, was copied to senior US officials including Mike Pompeo, US secretary of state, and Steven
Mnuchin, Treasury secretary.
"The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board made a short-sighted -- and foolish -- decision to effectively fund the
Chinese government and Communist party's efforts to undermine US economic and national security with the retirement savings
of members of the US Armed Services and other federal employees," Mr Rubio told the Financial Times.
One thing I remember from early on in this dispute was the US wanting more opportunities to invest in the Chinese market beyond
just exports/manufacturing. If pension funds are getting involved I would think that private investors would like to do the same
thing, which would make long-term decoupling more difficult, especially if US businesses also want to sell things to people in
China even if those things are made elsewhere.
As always your post was very informative and helpful and I certainly believe that pulling the US out of China is the goal of
this whole trade dispute. I just wonder if things like this will put a damper on their plans.
China Did Not Trick the US -- Trade Negotiators Served Corporate Interests
By Dean Baker
The New York Times ran an article * last week with a headline saying that the 2020
Democratic presidential contenders faced a serious problem: "how to be tougher on trade than
Trump." Serious readers might have struggled with the idea of getting "tough on trade." After
all, trade is a tool, like a screwdriver. Is it possible to get tough on a screwdriver?
While the Times's headline may be especially egregious, it is characteristic of trade
coverage which takes an almost entirely Trumpian view of the topic. The media portray the
issue of some countries, most obviously China, benefiting at the expense of the United
States. Nothing could be more completely at odds with reality.
China has a huge trade surplus with the United States, about $420 billion (2.1 percent of
GDP) as of 2018. However, this doesn't mean that China is winning at the expense of the
United States and because of "stupid" trade negotiators, as Trump puts it.
The U.S. trade deficit with China was not an accident. Both Republican and Democratic
administrations signed trade deals that made it easy to manufacture goods in China and other
countries, and then export them back to the United States.
In many cases, this meant that large U.S. corporations, like General Electric and Boeing,
outsourced parts of their operations to China to take advantage of low-cost labor there. In
other cases, retailers like Walmart set up low-cost supply chains so that they could undercut
their competitors in the U.S. market.
General Electric, Boeing, Walmart and the rest did not lose from our trade deficit with
China. In fact, the trade deficit was the result of their efforts to increase their profits.
They have little reason to be unhappy with the trade deals negotiated over the last three
decades.
It is a very different story for workers in the United States. As a result of the
exploding trade deficit, we lost 3.4 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2007, 20
percent of the workers in the sector. This is before the collapse of the housing bubble led
to the Great Recession. We lost 40 percent of all unionized jobs in manufacturing.
This job loss not only reduced the pay of manufacturing workers, but as these displaced
workers flooded into other sectors, it put downward pressure on the pay of less-educated
workers generally. This is a pretty awful story, but it is not a story of China tricking our
so-called stupid negotiators; it is a story of smart negotiators who served well the interest
of corporations.
For some reason, the media always accept the Trumpian narrative that the large trade
deficits the U.S. runs with China (and most of the rest of the world) were the result of
other countries outsmarting our negotiators, or at least an accidental result of past trade
deals. The media never say that large trade deficits were a predictable outcome of a trade
policy designed to serve the wealthy.
The fact that trade is a story of winners and losers within countries, rather than between
countries, is especially important now that our trade conflicts are entering a new phase,
especially with China. While not generally endorsing Trump's reality TV show tactics, most
reporting has taken the position that "we" in the U.S. have genuine grounds for complaint
with China.
The complaints don't center on the under-valuation of China's currency, which is a problem
for manufacturing workers. Rather, the issue that takes center stage is the supposed theft by
China of our intellectual property.
While this sort of claim is routinely asserted, the overwhelming majority of people in the
United States have never had any intellectual property stolen by China. It is companies like
Boeing, GE, Pfizer and Merck that are upset about China not respecting their patent and
copyright claims, and they want the rest of us to have a trade war to defend them.
If the goals of trade policies were put to a vote, these companies would be hugely
outnumbered. However, they can count on the strong support of the media in both the opinion
pages, and more importantly, the news pages. The issue is entirely framed in their favor, and
dissenting voices are as likely to be heard as in the People's Republic of China.
There is a lot at stake in preserving the myth that ordinary workers were hurt as just an
accidental byproduct of globalization. The story is that it just happens to be the case that
hundreds of millions of people in the developing world are willing to do the same work as our
manufacturing workers for a lot less money.
Yes, the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs is a sad story, but is just part of the
picture. There are also millions of smart ambitious people in the developing world who are
willing to do the same work as our doctors, dentists, lawyers and other professions for a lot
less money.
But the people who design trade policy have made sure that these people don't have the
opportunity to put the same downward pressure on our most highly paid workers, as did their
counterparts working in families. And, for what it's worth, the trade model works the same
when we're talking about doctors as manufacturing workers. Less pay for U.S. doctors means
lower cost health care, just as lower pay for textile workers means cheaper clothes.
The key point is that winners in the global economy, along with the big corporations, got
their good fortune because they rigged the process, not because of anything inherent in the
nature of globalization. (This is the point of my book Rigged: How the Rules of Globalization
and the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. ** )
On this basic point, the media have no more interest in truth than Donald Trump. Hence, we
can expect further media parroting about being "tough" on trade.
"... Still, even if Trump isn't making sense, will China give in to his demands? The short answer is, "What demands?" Trump mainly seems exercised by China's trade surplus with America, which has multiple causes and isn't really under the Chinese government's control. ..."
"... Others in his administration seem concerned by China's push into high-technology industries, which could indeed threaten U.S. dominance. But China is both an economic superpower and relatively poor compared with the U.S.; it's grossly unrealistic to imagine that such a country can be bullied into scaling back its technological ambitions ..."
"... Which brings us to the question of how much power the U.S. really has in this situation. ..."
"... So while Trump's tariffs certainly hurt the Chinese, Beijing is fairly well placed to counter their effects. China can pump up domestic spending with monetary and fiscal stimulus; it can boost its exports, to the world at large as well as to America, by letting the yuan fall. ..."
"... At the same time, China can inflict pain of its own. It can buy its soybeans elsewhere, hurting U.S. farmers. As we saw this week, even a mostly symbolic weakening of the yuan can send U.S. stocks plunging. ..."
"... And America's ability to counter these moves is hindered by a combination of technical and political factors. The Fed can cut rates, but not very much given how low they are already. We could do a fiscal stimulus, but having rammed through a plutocrat-friendly tax cut in 2017, Trump would have to make real concessions to Democrats to get anything more -- something he probably won't do. ..."
"... So Trump is in a much weaker position than he imagines, and my guess is that China's mini-devaluation of its currency was an attempt to educate him in that reality. But I very much doubt he has learned anything. His administration has been steadily hemorrhaging people who know anything about economics, and reports indicate that Trump isn't even listening to the band of ignoramuses he has left. ..."
China Tries to Teach Trump Economics
But he doesn't seem to be learning.
By Paul Krugman
If you want to understand the developing trade war with China, the first thing you need to
realize is that nothing Donald Trump is doing makes sense. His views on trade are incoherent.
His demands are incomprehensible. And he vastly overrates his ability to inflict damage on
China while underrating the damage China can do in return.
The second thing you need to realize is that China's response so far has been fairly
modest and measured, at least considering the situation. The U.S. has implemented or
announced tariffs on virtually everything China sells here, with average tariff rates not
seen in generations. The Chinese, by contrast, have yet to deploy anything like the full
range of tools at their disposal to offset Trump's actions and hurt his political base.
Why haven't the Chinese gone all out? It looks to me as if they're still trying to teach
Trump some economics. What they've been saying through their actions, in effect, is: "You
think you can bully us. But you can't. We, on the other hand, can ruin your farmers and crash
your stock market. Do you want to reconsider?"
There is, however, no indication that this message is getting through. Instead, every time
the Chinese pause and give Trump a chance to rethink, he takes it as vindication and pushes
even harder. What this suggests, in turn, is that sooner or later the warning shots will turn
into an all-out trade and currency war.
About Trump's views: His incoherence is on view almost every day, but one of his recent
tweets was a perfect illustration. Remember, Trump has been complaining nonstop about the
strength of the dollar, which he claims puts America at a competitive disadvantage. On Monday
he got the Treasury Department to declare China a currency manipulator, which was true seven
or eight years ago but isn't true now. Yet the very next day he wrote triumphantly that
"massive amounts of money from China and other parts of the world is pouring into the United
States," which he declared "a beautiful thing to see."
Um, what happens when "massive amounts of money" pour into your country? Your currency
rises, which is exactly what Trump is complaining about. And if lots of money were flooding
out of China, the yuan would be plunging, not experiencing the trivial (2 percent) decline
that Treasury condemned.
Oh well. I guess arithmetic is just a hoax perpetrated by the deep state.
Still, even if Trump isn't making sense, will China give in to his demands? The short
answer is, "What demands?" Trump mainly seems exercised by China's trade surplus with
America, which has multiple causes and isn't really under the Chinese government's
control.
Others in his administration seem concerned by China's push into high-technology
industries, which could indeed threaten U.S. dominance. But China is both an economic
superpower and relatively poor compared with the U.S.; it's grossly unrealistic to imagine
that such a country can be bullied into scaling back its technological ambitions .
Which brings us to the question of how much power the U.S. really has in this
situation.
America is, of course, a major market for Chinese goods, and China buys relatively little
in return, so the direct adverse effect of a tariff war is larger for the Chinese. But it's
important to have a sense of scale. China isn't like Mexico, which sends 80 percent of its
exports to the United States; the Chinese economy is less dependent on trade than smaller
nations, and less than a fifth of its exports come to America.
So while Trump's tariffs certainly hurt the Chinese, Beijing is fairly well placed to
counter their effects. China can pump up domestic spending with monetary and fiscal stimulus;
it can boost its exports, to the world at large as well as to America, by letting the yuan
fall.
At the same time, China can inflict pain of its own. It can buy its soybeans elsewhere,
hurting U.S. farmers. As we saw this week, even a mostly symbolic weakening of the yuan can
send U.S. stocks plunging.
And America's ability to counter these moves is hindered by a combination of technical and
political factors. The Fed can cut rates, but not very much given how low they are already.
We could do a fiscal stimulus, but having rammed through a plutocrat-friendly tax cut in
2017, Trump would have to make real concessions to Democrats to get anything more --
something he probably won't do.
What about a coordinated international response? That's unlikely, both because it's not
clear what Trump wants from China and because his general belligerence (not to mention his
racism) has left America with almost nobody willing to take its side in global disputes.
So Trump is in a much weaker position than he imagines, and my guess is that China's
mini-devaluation of its currency was an attempt to educate him in that reality. But I very
much doubt he has learned anything. His administration has been steadily hemorrhaging people
who know anything about economics, and reports indicate that Trump isn't even listening to
the band of ignoramuses he has left.
So this trade dispute will probably get much worse before it gets better.
""You think you [Trump] can bully us [Xi]. But you can't. We, on the other hand, can ruin
your farmers and crash your stock market. Do you want to reconsider?""
Krugman is putting his "liberal" thinking in to Xi's mind.
US farmers are the darling of the "liberal"? I suspect not so much unless to oppose
Trump.
To see the mechanism that China could crash the stock market requires some thinking.
How could China do such a thing? Tariffs on $100B (in a $19,000B economy) in US exports is
emotional to the exchanges. Dumping US debt would raise interest rates and make T Bills
attractive over stocks, which is not a bad thing. The "liberals" know a 'deplorable' 36000
Dow is a dream. Then what does China do with all those USD?
The issue is a lot of "liberals" do not want Trump to succeed in efforts to reverse the
MNC expulsion of labor from the US to developing countries.
I look forward to Trump asking the DNC select why he or she "wants Xi to win over labor in
the US?"
The underlying loser in the Trump scheme are the MNC's so will the DNC go all in for MNC's
at the expense of the worker?
Nostalgia for a past that never was; Part 1 review of Paul Collier's "The future of
capitalism"
Paul Collier's new book "The future of capitalism" is a very hard book to review. It is
short (215 pages) but it covers an enormous area, from social and economic interpretation of
the past seventy years in the West, to pleas for "ethical" companies, "ethical" families and
even an "ethical" world, to a set of proposals for reform in advanced economies.
The most uncharitable assessment would be to say that, at times, the book comes close (I
emphasize "close") to nationalism, "social eugenics", "family values" of the moral majority
kind, and conservativism in the literal sense of the word because it posits an idealized past
and exhorts us to return there. But one could also say that its diagnosis of the current ills
is accurate and remarkably clear-sighted. Its recommendations are often compelling,
sophisticated and yet common-sensical.
I have therefore decided to divide my review in two parts. In this part I will explain the
points, mostly methodological and historical, on which I disagree with Collier. In the second
part, I will discuss the diagnoses and recommendations on which I mostly agree.
Pragmatism. Collier positions himself as a "pragmatist" battling both (1) ideologues:
Utilitarians, Rawlsian (who are accused, somewhat strangely, of having introduced identity
politics) and Marxists; and (2) populists who have no ideology at all but simply play on
people's emotions. All three kinds of ideologies are wrong because they follow their script
which is inadequate for current problems while populists do not even care to make things
better but only to rule and have a good time. It is only a pragmatic approach that, according
to Collier, makes sense.
Pragmatism however is an ideology like any other. It is wrong to believe oneself exempt
from ideological traps if one claims to be a "pragmatist". Pragmatism collects whatever are
the ruling ideologies today and rearranges them: it provides an interpretative framework like
any other ideology. Pragmatists are, as Keynes said in a similar context "practical men, who
believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, [but] are usually the
slaves of some defunct economist [or ideologue; my addition]."
Adam Smith. The second building block of Collier book is based on his interpretation of
Adam Smith, which has become more popular recently and tries to "soften" the hard edge of the
Adam Smith of the "Wealth of Nations" (self-interest, profit, and power) by a more congenial
Smith from "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". This is an old debate that goes almost 200 years
back ("Die Adam Smith Frage").
There are, I think, if not two Smiths, then one Smith for two sets of circumstances: in
TMS, it is the Smith for our behavior with family, friends and community; in the WoN, it is
the Smith of economic life, our behavior as "economic agents". I discuss this in "Capitalism,
Alone". David Wootton in "Power, Pleasure and Profit" very persuasively makes the same point.
And even Collier says exactly the same thing towards the end of his book, but in the early
parts he argues that the Adam Smith of TMS applies to economics as well.
Now, for an economist only the Smith from the WoN matters. Economists do not claim (or
should not claim) to have particularly valuable insights regarding how people behave outside
of economics. So it is fully consistent for economists to use a model of Smith's homo
economicus who is pursuing monetary gains only, or more broadly, his own utility only. That
of course does not exclude, as Collier and some other writers (e.g., Peter Turchin) seem to
believe, cooperation with others. It is obvious that many of our monetary objectives are
better achieved through cooperation: I am better off cooperating with people at my university
than setting my own university. But whether I do one or the other, I am pursuing my own
selfish interest. I am not doing things for altruistic reasons -- which perhaps I might do in
my interactions with family or friends.
My point in "Capitalism, Alone" is that under hyper-commercialized globalization Smith's
economic sphere is rapidly expanding and "eating up" the sphere where the Smith of TMS
applies. Commodification "invades" family relations and our leisure time. Both Collier and I
agree on that. But while I think that this is an inherent feature of hyper-commercialized
globalization, Collier believes that the clock can be turned back to an "ethical world" which
existed in the past while somehow keeping globalization as it is now. This is an illusion and
leads me to Collier's nostalgia.
Social-democracy. In Collier's view of the Golden Age (1945-75), social-democracy that
brought it about did this for ethical reasons. In several places he repeats more of less this
breathtaking sentence "[Roosevelt] was elected because people recognized the New Deal was
ethical". He argues that the origin of social-democracy lies in a (nice) co-operative
movement, not that the reforms in capitalism after WW1 and WW2 were the product of a century
of often violent struggle of social democratic parties to improve workers' conditions. It is
not because ethical leaders decided suddenly to make capitalism "nicer" but because the two
world wars, the Bolshevik revolution, the growth of social-democratic and communist parties,
and their links with powerful trade unions, exacted the change of course from bourgeoisie
under the looming threat of social disorder and expropriation. So it is not through the
benevolence of the right that capitalism was transformed, but because the upper classes,
chastised by past experience, decided to follow their own enlightened self-interest: give up
some in order to preserve more. (For similar interpretations, see Samuel Moyn, Avner
Offer,)
This difference in the interpretations of history is important because Collier's view
applied to today basically calls for ethical rulers -- to somehow appear. This is why at the
end of the book he discusses how political leaders should be elected (not by party members or
primaries, but by the elected representatives of their parties). My interpretation implies
that unless there are strong social forces that would push back financial sector excesses,
tax evasion, and high inequality nothing will be changed. What matters is not ethics or
ethical leaders but group/class interest and relative power.
The facts. And finally the Arcadia of the trente glorieuses * when Collier holds that
moral giants strode the Earth, companies cared about workers, families were "full" and
"ethical", never really existed, at least not in the way it is described in the book. Yes,
like many others I have pointed out that the trente glorieuses were very good years for the
West both in terms of growth and surely in terms of narrowing of wealth and income
inequalities. But they were no Arcadia and in many respects they were much worse than the
present.
The period of Collier's "ethical family" in which "the husband was the head" when every
member cared for each other, and several generations lived together, was a hierarchical
patriarchy that even legally forbid any other types of family-formation. (I remember that in
my high school in Belgium, only fathers were allowed to sign off on pupils' grades or school
absences. Not mothers.)
In the USA, the Golden Age was the age of social mimicry and conservatism, widespread
racial discrimination, and gender inequality. When it comes to politics, it is often
forgotten that during the Golden Age, France was basically twice on the edge of a civil war:
during the Algerian war and in 1968. Spain, Portugal, and Greece were ruled by quasi-fascist
regimes. Terrorism of RAF and Brigate Rosse came in the 1970s. Finally, if these years were
so good and "ethical" why did we have the universal 1968 rebellion, from Paris to
Detroit?
That imagined world never was, and we are utterly unlikely to return to it; not only
because it never was but because the current word is entirely different. Collier overlooks
that the world of his youth to which he wants people to return was the world of enormous
income differences between the rich world and the Third World. It is for that reason that the
English working class could (as he writes) feel very proud and superior to the people in the
rest of the world. They cannot feel so proud and superior now because other nations are
catching up. Implicitly, regaining self-respect for the English working class requires a
return to such worldwide stratification of incomes.
The book is thus built on the quicksand of a world that did not exist, will not exist, and
on a methodology that I find wanting. 2020s will not be the imagined 1945, however loudly we
clamor for it. But this does not mean that the analyses of current problems and the
recommendations are wrong. Many of them are very good. So I will turn to them next.
How to create an ethical county, if not the world: Part 2 review of Paul Collier's "The
future of capitalism"
This is the second part of my review of Paul Collier's "The future of capitalism". The
first part is here. *
In this review of Collier's policy recommendations, I will break the discussion into three
parts, following Collier's own approach: how to make companies more ethical, families
stronger, and the world better.
Ethical firm. Collier argues that, in order for companies to be seen as ethical and to
offer their workforce meaningful jobs, companies should include workers in management, give
much more power to the middle-level management, and do profit-sharing. These are all
well-taken recommendations, and I believe, like Collier, that they would increase companies'
profitability in addition to providing "better" jobs. The question however is how many
companies nowadays can afford to provide such meaningful and (relatively) stable jobs because
of fast-evolving changes driven by globalization. Nevertheless the idea is correct.
Collier then moves to what may be the most intriguing recommendation in the book and that
goes beyond the usual "let's have higher and more progressive taxes". He looks at the big
divide between the successful global cities (like New York and London) and their left-behind
hinterlands. The success of metropolises comes from economies of scale, specialization, and
complementarity (gains of agglomeration). People can specialize because the demand for
specialized skills is high (the best tax accountants are located in New York not in small
dilapidated cities). Companies can enjoy economies of scale because the demand is high and
specialized workers benefit from complementarity in skills from other workers with whom they
are in close geographical and intellectual contact.
So who are the main winners from metropolises' success, asks Collier? People who own land
and housing (as housing prices skyrocket) and highly skilled professionals who, after paying
higher rents, still make more in global cities than elsewhere. Collier's suggestion then,
based on his work with Tony Venables, is to tax heavily these two groups of people, i.e., to
introduce supplemental taxes which would be geographical: tax housing and high income
individuals living in London.
How to help hinterland catch up? Use the money collected in London or New York to give
subsidies to large cluster-like companies (like Amazon) if they set they businesses in the
left-behind cities like Sheffield or Detroit. One can quibble with this idea but the logic of
the argument is, I think, quite compelling, and the taxation suggested by Collier has the
advantage of going beyond the indiscriminate increase in taxes for all. We are talking here
of targeted taxation and targeted subsidies. This is the lieu fort of Collier's book.
Ethical family. I am less enthusiastic about the suggestions in this area. Here Collier is
at his most conservative although that social conservatism is masked under the cover of
scientific studies that show that children living in "full" families with two heterosexual
parents are doing much better than children living with one parent only.
Collier almost implies that (say) mothers should stay in unloving or abusive relationships
so that there would be both parents present in the family. Such families should, according to
Collier, be given support and for all children public pre-K and K education should be free
(very reasonable). Collier also very persuasively describes manifold advantages that the
children of the rich receive, not only through inheritance but through intangible capital of
parental knowledge and connections. This type of social capital inheritance is not a
well-researched topic and I hope this changes since its importance in real life is
substantial.
Collier displays clear preference for "standard" families and even some "social eugenics"
as when he criticizes UK policy that provides free housing and since 1999 extra benefits for
single mothers to have encouraged "many women...to bear children who will not be raised
well".
The argument that parents should sacrifice themselves (regardless of the psychic cost) for
children is also dangerous. It leads us to a family formation of the 19th century when women
often lived in terrible marriages because of social pressure not to be seen as abandoning or
not caring for their children. This is neither a desirable nor a likely solution for today.
An ethical family should consider interests of all members equally, not subjugate the
happiness of some (mostly mothers) to that of others.
Ethical world. Collier has surprisingly little to say about the ethical world. His ethical
world is a world largely closed to new migration which Collier rejects based on a not
unreasonable view going back to Assar Lindbeck and George Borjas of cultural incompatibility
between the migrants and the natives. Interestingly, Collier does not quote either of these
two authors nor any others. (The book is directed at the general audience so the mentions of
other authors are extremely rare except when it comes to Collier himself and a few of his
co-authors).
It is slightly disconcerting that Collier who has spent more than three decades working on
Africa has almost nothing to say about how Africa and African migration fits into this
"ethical world". There are only two ways in which he addresses migration.
First, migrants or refugees should stay in countries that are geographically close to the
source countries: Venezuelans in Colombia, Syrians in Lebanon and Turkey, Afghanis in
Pakistan. Why the burden of migrants should be exclusively borne by the limitrophe countries
** that are often quite poor is never explained. Surely, an ethical world would require much
more from the rich.
Second, he argues that the West should help good companies invest in poor countries in
order to increase incomes there and reduce migration. But how is this to be achieved is never
explained. It is mentioned almost as an afterthought and is considered deserving of two
sentences only (in two different parts of the book). This is in contrast with a detailed
explanation, discussed above, of how governments should encourage and subsidize large
companies to relocate to second-tier cities. Could a similar scheme be designed for
investments in Africa? Nothing is said.
Further, where does it leave African migrants crisscrossing the Mediterranean as I write?
There are no geographically close countries where they could go (surely not to Libya) nor can
they wait for years in Mali for the Western companies to bring them jobs. Again, nothing is
said on that. It is not surprising that Collier is very supportive of Emmanuel Macron whose
anti-immigration policy is quite obvious, and of Danish Social Democrats that are in the
process of creating a kind of national social democracy with new laws that practically reduce
immigration to a trickle. Collier favors Fortress Europe although he does not say so
explicitly.
In keeping with his anti-immigration stance, Collier argues that migration is not an
integral part of globalization. Why –in principle– goods, services and one factor
of production (capital) should be allowed to move freely while another factor of production
(labor) is to remain stuck is not clear. Surely, the fact that trade is driven by comparative
advantage and migration by absolute is not the reason to be against migration. On exactly the
same grounds, one could be against movement of capital too.
In conclusion, I think that the recommendations regarding the "ethical firm" and
metropolis-hinterland divergence are spot on; the recommendations on "ethical family" are a
combination of very perceptive and sensible points, and a view of the family that at times
comes from a different age, and almost nothing is said about an "ethical world". This latter
is a big omission in the era of globalization, but perhaps Collier was solely interested in
how to improve nation-states.
** Territories situated on a border or frontier. In a broad sense, it means border
countries -- any group of neighbors of a given nation which border each other thus forming a
rim around that country.
"... This strategy is not popular with US corporations and will earn Trump some more opposition. Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) on Sunday announced he would mount a primary challenge to President Trump ..."
Trump has put US companies on alert that he might force them to withdraw from China, where
they have $256 billion invested. He says he is given this power by the 1977 law called the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
The Republican Party has spent over a century warning against government involvement in
the private sector, but now their leader is doing it big time. Trump ordering companies
around about where they can invest is a form of fascism or rightwing national socialism. Left
socialism is about public sector economic activity for the good of people. National socialism
is the state usurping economic resources on behalf of a small corporate and high-official
elite.
Tara Golshan at Vox explained how Trump unilaterally raised China tariffs in the first
place by 25% (he is threatening to go to 30%):
"Trump's White House cited Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a provision
that gives the secretary of commerce the authority to investigate and determine the impacts
of any import on the national security of the United States -- and the president the power to
adjust tariffs accordingly."
So one thing that is going on is that measures passed by Congress for limited and extreme
situations are being misused by presidents for everyday policy-making. . . here
This strategy is not popular with US corporations and will earn Trump some more
opposition. Former Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) on Sunday announced he would mount a primary
challenge to President Trump . . .
here
"... What has caused the rapid decline in US manufacturing employment in recent decades? This column uses novel data to investigate the role of US multinationals and finds that they were a key driver behind the job losses. Insights from a theoretical framework imply that a reduction in the costs of foreign sourcing led firms to increase offshoring, and to shed labour." [link above] ..."
"... It looks like 'free' trade fundamentalists like Krugman are going to have to revisit their ideology... ..."
"... How pathetic can Democrats get with thier anti-worker policies ..."
"... Late 90's US corporations went whole in to industrializing [extreme low wage] China... FOREX, federal deficits, ignoring the US worker, etc. were in the [sympathetic] mix. There is a chicken, which egg is not important. ..."
"... Personally, I think that Trump is exploiting the distress of the working stiff and not doing anything for him. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership has shown callous indifference toward the working stiff so Trump gets their votes, because at least he will acknowledge that there's a problem unlike kurt and his ilk. ..."
"A new assessment of the role of offshoring in the decline in US manufacturing employment,"
by Christoph Boehm, Aaron Flaaen, Nitya Pandalai-Nayar 15 August 2019 What has caused the rapid decline in US manufacturing employment in recent decades? This
column uses novel data to investigate the role of US multinationals and finds that they were
a key driver behind the job losses. Insights from a theoretical framework imply that a
reduction in the costs of foreign sourcing led firms to increase offshoring, and to shed
labour." [link above]
It looks like 'free' trade fundamentalists like Krugman are going to have to revisit
their ideology...
As for kurt, expect him to continue to deny the fact that 'free' trade has cost a
significant number of jobs and caused enough economic disruption to tilt the election to
Trump in 2016.
Further, expect the Democratic leadership to continue to tout the benefits of 'free' trade
without acknowledging its severe adverse effects, both economically and politically. And of
course, as long as they never acknowledge the adverse effects, they will never have to
address it which will allow Trump to continue to bludgeon them on the issue.
How pathetic can Democrats get with thier anti-worker policies
Late 90's US corporations went whole in to industrializing [extreme low wage] China...
FOREX, federal deficits, ignoring the US worker, etc. were in the [sympathetic] mix. There is
a chicken, which egg is not important.
The US worker lost in the evolutions. Aside from Trump who has tried anything for the US
working stiff?
Personally, I think that Trump is exploiting the distress of the working stiff and not
doing anything for him. Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership has shown callous indifference
toward the working stiff so Trump gets their votes, because at least he will acknowledge that
there's a problem unlike kurt and his ilk.
"... During his meeting with Johnson on Sunday at the G7 in France, the US president raised eyebrows when he responded in the affirmative to questions from reporters on whether he had any second thoughts about the tariff move. ..."
While one may accuse the US president of many things, having second thoughts is hardly one
of them: once Trump has decided on a course of action, he tends to follow through. Which is why
the global press gasped when a rare case of doubt emerged this morning during Trump's breakfast
meeting with the UK's Boris Johnson at the Biarritz G-7, when the US president acknowledged
having second thoughts about the escalating the trade war with China... only for his top
spokeswoman to later retract and say Trump meant he regretted not raising tariffs even
more.
During his meeting with Johnson on Sunday at the G7 in France, the US president raised
eyebrows when he responded in the affirmative to questions from reporters on whether he had any
second thoughts about the tariff move.
Every president of the USA for the past 50 years has cultivated US exports to China. You
want to just throw it away, only two or three years before the purchasing power of China
exceeds that of the USA???
China - 1.5 billion.
USA - 326 million
China growth rate 2018: 6.4%
USA growth rate 2018: 2.8% source
China now produces twice as many graduates a year as the US source
As of 2015, China had already taken global lead in manufacturing output:
source
China - $2,010 billion
USA - $1,867 billion
World market size, based on population:
source
China - 18.7%
USA - 4.3%
Greedy US corporations have been in bed with China robbing the US citizen with all those
job exports to China.
If things were produced in US, the corporations would have made less money, but the US
citizen would have been better off. The trade deficit which has been running for decades
wouldn't have been that much.
Anyone with a lick of commonsense knew Trump's detractors would be gunning for him during
his trip to Europe. Trump has not disappointed these people by continuing his effort to come
across as too clever for his own good. Trump gave these people more ammunition when he said
he has doubts about his actions.
During breakfast with the UK's Boris Johnson at the G-7 meeting in Biarritz, France Trump
acknowledged having second thoughts about the escalating the trade war with China. The
article below explores how this may cause Trump a great deal of grief.
Beijing just might be able to doom the president's chance of reelection. They can tune
tariffs to hurt Trump base.
Notable quotes:
"... China's tariff threats take aim at the heart of Trump's political support -- factories and farms across the Midwest and South at a time when the U.S. economy is showing signs of slowing down. Soybean prices sank to a two-week low ..."
"... The tariffs beginning in September include 10% on pork, beef, and chicken, and various other agricultural goods, while soybeans will have the extra 5% tariff on top of the existing 25%. Starting in December, wheat, sorghum, and cotton will also get a 10% tariff. ..."
Some of the countermeasures will take effect starting Sept. 1, while the rest will come into
effect from Dec. 15, according to the announcement Friday from the Finance
Ministry. This mirrors the timetable the U.S. has laid out for 10% tariffs on nearly $300
billion of Chinese shipments
An extra 5% tariff will be put on American soybeans and crude-oil imports starting next
month. The resumption of a suspended extra 25% duty on U.S. cars will resume Dec. 15, with
another 10% on top for some vehicles. With existing general duties on autos taken into account,
the total tariff charged on U.S. made cars would be as high as 50%.
China's tariff threats take aim at the heart of Trump's political support -- factories and
farms across the Midwest and South at a time when the U.S. economy is showing signs of slowing
down. Soybean prices sank to a two-week low
.... ... ...
The tariffs beginning in September include 10% on pork, beef, and chicken, and various other
agricultural goods, while soybeans will have the extra 5% tariff on top of the existing 25%.
Starting in December, wheat, sorghum, and cotton will also get a 10% tariff.
"... "The 2008 experience demonstrated that the U.S. dollar as the global reserve and main trade currency is dangerous for all who use it. Currently any hickup in the U.S. economy leads to large scale recessions elsewhere." ..."
"... It has also become a primary tool for the US to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over the world to enforce extreme uses of sanctions, as in blowing up the Iran deal. Already the EU has explored ways to get around that to work with Iran. ..."
"... The over use of sanctions, and abuse of the US financial position in order to govern others, reinforces the desire to deal with fears that dependence on the dollar risks vulnerability to economic depression due to US irresponsibility. ..."
"... The US is creating a perfect storm for the dollar, with is exactly what it would take to make others undertake the expense and difficulty of replacing it as the world reserve currency and presumed standard of exchange. ..."
"... I just had a thought. The USSA has been doing it all wrong for all these decades. There are at least two responses the USSA could have applied to the obviously impending debacle of simply allowing the Chinese to thoroughly undermine its industrial system. The most obvious response would have been tariffs, which could be perceived as an aggressive policy, but certainly not as the outright aggression of sanctions. ..."
"... Or probably even much better, a 'negative sales tax' on USSA manufactured products, which could in no way be perceived as aggressive at all. Note that there is (I presume) a vast difference between simply subsidizing companies (since subsidies coud then flow directly into the pockets of the companies' capitalists) and providing the companies' customers with a 'negative tax' on USSA produced products (basically an instant rebate). This could effectively provide price parity for the goods produced for the two countries, and could maintain the viability of the USSA manufacturing system. ..."
"... The US ruling class cannot grow out of its desire to extend its rule to the rest of the planet. But humanity is not as malleable as the American people-with their dreams of sharing in the dividends when America (Great Again) (aka its ruling class) orders the rest of the world around and exploits everyone the way that it exploits the working people in the United States. ..."
"... Are you not aware that the Bank of Japan basically owns 70% of the Japanese stock market in the from of ETFs? ..."
"... While Europe and Japan are failing economically at least America is at war with the second biggest power on the planet, making drastic moves justified in the face of a national emergency. ..."
"... I imagine now that John Maynard Keynes'ghost, if it were observing our current global political and economic affairs, would be having a laugh. It was Keynes who suggested the notion of International trade using a common trading currency created purely for International trade purposes, in a system in which nations would not be allowed to build up continuous balance-of-payments surpluses or deficits over several years, but would be required to spend their surpluses on countries forced to go into deficit because of other countries' desires for annual surpluses, leading to trade policies or currency manipulations to achieve such a dubious goal. ..."
"... The real solution though is a different system with some global exchange medium that can not be manipulated by one country or a block of selfish countries. ..."
The U.S. is decoupling itself from China. The effects of that process hurt all global
economies. To avoid damage other countries have no choice but to decouple themselves from the
U.S.
Today's Washington Post front page leads with a highly misleading headline:
It was China, not Trump, which retaliated. Trump reacted to that with a tweet-storm and by
intensifying
the trade war he started . The piece under the misleading headline
even says that :
President Trump demanded U.S. companies stop doing business with China and announced he
would raise the rate of tariffs on Beijing Friday, capping one of the most extraordinary
days in the long-running U.S.-China trade war. ... The day began with Beijing's announcement that it would impose new tariffs on $75 billion
in goods, including reinstated levies on auto products, starting this fall. It came to a
close Friday afternoon with Trump tweeting that he would raise the rate of existing and
planned tariffs on China by 5 percentage points.
Beijing's tariff retaliation was delivered with strategic timing, hours before an
important address by Powell, and as Trump prepared to depart for the G-7 meeting in
Biarritz.
After Trump's move the stock markets had a sad. Trade wars are, at least in the short
term, bad for commerce. The U.S. and the global economy are still teetering along, but will
soon be in recession.
The Trump administration is fine with that. (As is Dilbert creator
Scott
Adams (vid).)
U.S. grand strategy is to prevent other powers from becoming equals to itself or to
even surpass it. China, with with a population four times larger than the U.S., is the
country ready to do just that. It already built itself into an economic powerhouse and it is
also steadily increasing its military might.
China is thus a U.S. 'enemy' even though Trump avoided, until yesterday, to use that
term.
Over the last 20+ years the U.S. imported more and more goods from China and elsewhere
and diminishes its own manufacturing capabilities. It is difficult to wage war against
another country when one depends on that country's production capacities . The U.S. must
first decouple itself from China before it can launch the real war. Trump's trade war with
China is intended to achieve that. As Peter Lee
wrote
when the trade negotiations with China failed:
The decoupling strategy of the US China hawks is proceeding as planned. And economic pain
is a feature, not a bug. ... Failure of trade negotiations was pretty much baked in, thanks to [Trump's trade
negotiator] Lightizer's maximalist demands.
And that was fine with the China hawks.
Because their ultimate goal was to decouple the US & PRC economies, weaken the PRC,
and make it more vulnerable to domestic destabilization and global rollback.
If decoupling shaved a few points off global GDP, hurt American businesses, or pushed
the world into recession, well that's the price o' freedom.
Or at least the cost of IndoPACOM being able to win the d*ck measuring contest in East
Asia, which is what this is really all about.
Trump does not want a new trade deal with China. He wants to decouple the U.S. economy
from the future enemy. Trade wars tend to hurt all involved economies. While the decoupling
process is ongoing the U.S. will likely suffer a recession.
Trump is afraid that a downturn in the U.S. could lower his re-election chances. That
is why he wants to use the Federal Reserve Bank to douse the economy with more money without
regard for the long term consequences. That is the reason why the first part of his tweet
storm yesterday was
directed at Fed chief Jay Powell:
In his order for U.S. companies to withdraw from China, some close to the administration
saw the president embracing the calls for an economic decoupling made by the hawks inside
his administration.
The evidence of the shift may have been most apparent in a 14-word tweet in which Trump
appeared to call Xi an "enemy."
"My only question is, who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?" he said in a
Tweet posted after Powell gave a speech in Jackson Hole that contained implicit criticism
of Trump's trade policies and their impact on the U.S. and global economies.
Jay Powell does not want to lower the Fed interest rate. He does not want to increase bond
buying, i.e. quantitative easing. Interest rates are already too low and to further decrease
them has its own danger. The last time the Fed ran a too-low interest rate policy it caused
the 2008 crash and a global depression.
Expect Trump to fire Powell should he not be willing to follow his command. The U.S. will
push up its markets no matter what.
From Powell's perspective there is an additional danger in lowering U.S. interest
rates. When the U.S. runs insane economic and monetary policies U.S. allies will also want
decouple themselves - not from China but from the U.S. The 2008 experience demonstrated that
the U.S. dollar as the global reserve and main trade currency is dangerous for all who use
it. Currently any hickup in the U.S. economy leads to large scale recessions
elsewhere.
That is why even long term U.S. ally Britain warns of such danger and
looks for a way
out :
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney took aim at the U.S. dollar's "destabilising" role
in the world economy on Friday and said central banks might need to join together to create
their own replacement reserve currency.
The dollar's dominance of the global financial system increased the risks of a liquidity
trap of ultra-low interest rates and weak growth, Carney told central bankers from around
the world gathered in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in the United States. ... Carney warned that very low equilibrium interest rates had in the past coincided with wars,
financial crises and abrupt changes in the banking system. ... China's yuan represented the most likely candidate to become a reserve currency to match
the dollar, but it still had a long way to go before it was ready.
The best solution would be a diversified multi-polar financial system, something that
could be provided by technology, Carney said.
Carney speaks of a "new Synthetic Hegemonic Currency (SHC)" which, in a purely
electronic form, could be created by a contract between the central banks of most or all
countries. It would replace the dollar as the main trade currency and lower the risk for
other economies to get infected by U.S. sicknesses (and manipulations).
Carney did not elaborate further but is an interesting concept. The devil will be, as
always, in the details. Will one be able to pay ones taxes in that currency? How will the
value of each sovereign currency in relation to SHC be determined?
That the U.S. dollar is used as a global reserve currency under the Bretton Woods
system is, in the words of the former French Minister of Finance Valéry Giscard
d'Estaing, an "exorbitant privilege". It if wants to keep that privilege it will have to go
back to sane economic and monetary policies. Otherwise the global economy will have no choice
but to decouple from it.
Posted by b on August 24, 2019 at 19:22 UTC |
Permalink
"The 2008 experience demonstrated that the U.S. dollar as the global reserve
and main trade currency is dangerous for all who use it. Currently any hickup in the U.S.
economy leads to large scale recessions elsewhere."
It has also become a primary tool for the US to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over
the world to enforce extreme uses of sanctions, as in blowing up the Iran deal. Already the
EU has explored ways to get around that to work with Iran.
The over use of sanctions, and abuse of the US financial position in order to govern
others, reinforces the desire to deal with fears that dependence on the dollar risks
vulnerability to economic depression due to US irresponsibility.
The US is creating a perfect storm for the dollar, with is exactly what it would take to
make others undertake the expense and difficulty of replacing it as the world reserve
currency and presumed standard of exchange.
No one currency is quite as good now, but one could be improved, or a basket approach
could be used. In the ancient world, they used such a nominal currency as a standard by which
to value real currencies. We could again.
Trump does not want a new trade deal with China. He wants to decouple the U.S. economy
from the future enemy.
That may well be what is going on here. Something between total insanity and managed
insanity. The next president will unravel all of this in a year or so of effort. That is what
is so damaging. No business can plan on what is next. No policy is long term.
This is pure Trumpian logic unhinged. Hit them twice as hard as they hit you. I would not
dare to guess who is winding him up and pointing him in this direction. Trump has had one of
his busiest weeks yet.
I see Elisabeth Warren's crowd sizes are getting very large. I will feel better when no
one shows up to a Trump rally. China has time to wait this out and the ability to raise some
chaos on their own to help undermine Trump.
Sorry guys, it was the realization that the Empire had driven Russia into China's arms
that sparked the 'get tough' attitude on China.
The Empire HAD TO isolate China but their horrendous treatment of Russia provided an
opportunity for China to escape the coming 'smack down' by joining with Russia to challenge
Western global domination.
As usual, it is us 'little people that will suffer for the mistakes of our elites. And
elite propaganda means that most will suffer in silence, not realizing what really
happened.
It should be clear by now that elite adventurism is a choice that is not subject to
democratic controls. The sheeple will sleepwalk into WWIII.
Silver lining? Maybe a multi-lateral world saves us from the the more terrible dystopia of
a unilateral world.
I just had a thought. The USSA has been doing it all wrong for all these decades. There are
at least two responses the USSA could have applied to the obviously impending debacle of
simply allowing the Chinese to thoroughly undermine its industrial system. The most obvious
response would have been tariffs, which could be perceived as an aggressive policy, but
certainly not as the outright aggression of sanctions.
Or probably even much better, a 'negative sales tax' on USSA manufactured products, which
could in no way be perceived as aggressive at all. Note that there is (I presume) a vast
difference between simply subsidizing companies (since subsidies coud then flow directly into
the pockets of the companies' capitalists) and providing the companies' customers with a
'negative tax' on USSA produced products (basically an instant rebate). This could
effectively provide price parity for the goods produced for the two countries, and could
maintain the viability of the USSA manufacturing system.
But... no, we didn't do anything like that. Our Harvard trained economics geniuses hatched
the 'far superior' strategy of 'quantitative easing'. They simply eased all the money out of
the system and into the absurdly deep pockets of the oligarchs, supposedly in order to 'save
the system'. What a masterful strategy! So the options are all used up, and theres no sane
way forward. Great job.
So here's my plan. First, of course, we 'take care of' the lawyers. Well... no. First we
we bulldoze Harvard. Then we institute the mother of all class action lawsuits, the 99% as
plaintiffs and the 1% as defendants, and we clean them out (they will surely run off to
China, but good riddance). We will be left with all their fake money, but at least we can try
to start over.
From the article linked above...Just another model of political technology,....and of
civilization....
Titled 'Green is gold: the strategy and actions to China´s ecological civilization',
the plan that was analyzed during the UNEA assembly explains, in its beginning, its
starting point and destination: "Enjoying a beautiful house, a blue sky, a green land and
clean water is the dream of any Chinese citizen and, therefore, the center of the Chinese
dream (...) To achieve this vision, the government has decided to highlight the concept of
eco-civilization and incorporate it into every aspect of the economy, politics, culture and
social development of the country."
Definitely, a different political technology from that of Bannon...
Dianxi Xiaoge's YouTube channel is contemporary political technology at its finest.
Recommended viewing for all future world leaders.
Can one really get rid of one without just getting a new master? Contributor@4
Why not? Progress is not inevitable but it is possible.
The US ruling class cannot grow out of its desire to extend its rule to the rest of the
planet. But humanity is not as malleable as the American people-with their dreams of sharing
in the dividends when America (Great Again) (aka its ruling class) orders the rest of the
world around and exploits everyone the way that it exploits the working people in the United
States.
Somehow the profits of Empire never quite trickle down to the people who do the work
and man the armies.
Elsewhere, however the dream of ruling the planet either never occurred or was grown out of.
And people would be very happy to live good lives and make the earth a better place for
future generations.
Spot on in the first part of article about the inevitable new Cold War between China and
America and the serious fallout from the breakup of close economic ties. But not so good on
the second half wherein America central bankers are acting "insane"
while the rest of the developed world looks on in horror. Are you forgetting most of the
interest rates in Europe are now negative?
Are you not aware that the Bank of Japan basically owns 70% of the Japanese stock market in
the from of ETFs? America is way behind the curve when it comes to complete surrender to
"market forces." Trump wants Powell to play catchup now that it's game on with China. While
Europe and Japan are failing economically at least America is at war with the second biggest
power on the planet, making drastic moves justified in the face of a national emergency.
China is a bigger threat to America than Russia ever was because their economic model has
been so successful compared to the U.S. This is made more so because we no longer have a
government per se, only competing economic forces, while the Chinese have a government that
runs everything. If they lose this war, they still have a system. If we lose this war, we
lose everything.
I imagine now that John Maynard Keynes'ghost, if it were observing our current global
political and economic affairs, would be having a laugh. It was Keynes who suggested the
notion of International trade using a common trading currency created purely for
International trade purposes, in a system in which nations would not be allowed to build up
continuous balance-of-payments surpluses or deficits over several years, but would be
required to spend their surpluses on countries forced to go into deficit because of other
countries' desires for annual surpluses, leading to trade policies or currency manipulations
to achieve such a dubious goal.
The EU would be looking very different as a result, without a southern zone of debtor
nations with unstable economies and high unemployment, and a northern zone of smug nations
with full employment whose social welfare programs depend on an army of unemployed southerner
immigrants willing to work for peanuts.
When an American claims China has been behaving unfairly, what they really mean is that the
Chinese played America's rigged game and ended up outsmarting the dealer.
Why would others want to de-couple from US? What difference it would make to UK or other
EU vassals to serve FED/petro-dollar or to serve CCP/petro-yuan? Can one really get rid of
one without just getting a new master?
Posted by: Contributor | Aug 24 2019 20:02 utc | 4
The US$ is overvalued because there is, as it is the global reserve currency, a higher
demand for it than otherwise justifiable. In consequence U.S. companies buy up companies in
UK and Europe with an overvalued dollar. When the Fed lowers the price for US$ loans it
increases that effect. The Fed also creates bubbles, see the mortgage crisis, and the
currently overvalued stock markets, that have effects on foreign countries.
Said differently: The U.S. abuses is 'exorbitant privilege'. The hope is that China would
be less inclined to do so.
The real solution though is a different system with some global exchange medium that can
not be manipulated by one country or a block of selfish countries.
Here is an
interesting article entitled "The Dialectic of Globalization," that raises several important
questions pertaining to the phenomenon of globalism from the end of colonialism to the height
of "transnationalism" with the end of the cold war.
I can just about agree with its conclusions and provide my own opinion as to the end of
the "dialectic of globalism," that Trump seems to have, whether wittingly or not, ushered
into its next phase.
International neoliberalism needs vast amounts of regulating, but I do not believe that
Supranational governing agencies will be able to do this fairly and in the light of day. The
only other option then is to reassert state-controlled notions of legality which is what vast
proportions of the west seems to be clamoring for as can be seen with the
Trump-phenomenon.
It's just too bad being elected President doesn't come with a 90-day probationary
period that many employers use, because if they did Mike Pence would be considering a 2nd
Term run right now.........
Starting on
October 1st, the
250 BILLION
DOLLARS of goods
and products from
China, currently
being taxed at
25%, will be taxed
at 30%.
Additionally, the
remaining 300
BILLION DOLLARS of
goods and products
from China, that
was being taxed
from September 1st
at 10%, will now
be taxed at 15%.
From the same flaw the western MSM must suffer: did the NYT really expected China would
just treat Trump like a child, wait for him to lose the 2020 election and suddenly make
amends with the USA?
Did it really think this trade war was just a bad taste joke? Did it really think China
would just cave in in order to "defend globalisation"?
Do they really think of America as some kind of transcendental, abstract idea, and not a
concrete entity made of real human beings?
China announces tit for tat tariffs as yuan sinks to new low against the dollar.
Also sinking is Trump's popularity among US voters. AP has him at 36% approval versus 62%
disapproval. Remarkably, Trump's highest mark of 46% approval is for his handling of the
economy.
A no deal Brexit which Trump supports is just the thing to set off a recession in the EU
which spreads to Asia and the US.
What will his approval rating be then?
donkeytale , Aug 23 2019 13:43 utc |
86vk , Aug
23 2019 13:47 utc |
87
Wrong configuration from the last post (#85). I politely ask the administer to delete it.
The plan to retaliate against President Trump's tariffs suggests that neither side in the
trade war is prepared to back down.
I doubted this theory for a very long time, but now I'm beginning to believe it: Americans
really don't think they are responsible for the politicians they elect. They expect the rest
of the world to interpret any wrongdoings of their country as individual flaws of random
politicians. They expect the rest of the world to swallow the abuses by their POTUS under the
idea that they will elect another one the next election cycle. They expect the rest of the
world to be suportive, loyal and patient with their contry forever.
From the same flaw the western MSM must suffer: did the NYT really expected China would
just treat Trump like a child, wait for him to lose the 2020 election and suddenly make
amends with the USA? Did it really think this trade war was just a bad taste joke? Did it
really think China would just cave in in order to "defend globalisation"? Do they really
think of America as some kind of transcendental, abstract idea, and not a concrete entity
made of real human beings? Are they really that dense?
"Government set to inject more than $1 Trillion into US economy this year, but poorly
targeted and still isn't enough to improve the lives of most people".
Spot-on . Whenever I read this nonsense in the NYT or elsewhere I always ask myself the
same question ' Is this deliberate or are they really ignorant ? ' . I suspect the latter,
but I could be wrong.
Excuse me, how can the deficit be increasing [with Trump tax cuts]?
I was told that a simple bell curve graph called the 'Laffer Curve' indicates that cutting
taxes increases growth which increases revenue. Its simply mathematics.
Well, Lawrence H. Summers is right to worry when he says "Can central banking as we know
it be the primary tool of macroeconomic stabilization in the industrial world over the next
decade?"
I remember when Qaddafi was murdered and Libya fell. Within the first day or two a central
bank was set up in Libya. And look how well that is working out for them.
"It sure is weird that the labor market is the only place where the magic of the
marketplace -- price! -- doesn't work."
I also hear weirdness about price considerations when I read investment advice for workers
and their 401ks.
"Don't worry about the price. Invest now as much as you can. You can't predict the market
"
(Looks down at Twitter feed).
Haha so right and we mistakenly claim that economists don't know how the real economy
works. They know, and part of that knowledge is that you need to shill the BS for those with
the money if you wanna get your own piece of said pie.
Bizarre reasons for resignation of Patrick Byrne as CEO of Overstock, an internet retailing
company as per zerohedge today. I can't really understand what he is on about re the Clintons
and Russia, and he was closely connected to to Maria Butina.
What is interesting about Byrne is how he reacted to a vicious attack on his company by
naked short sellers a few years ago. Naked short selling is mass selling of shares that you
do not own. It is officially known as Failure to Deliver and has been in use for decades. It
is illegal but people get away with it and the SEC rarely prosecutes. Byrne was so infuriated
he set up a website called Deep Capture where, joined by some good investigative journalists,
he started exposing the naked short selling scam that came to a head when Lehman CEO Fuld
told Congress that naked short selling played a major role in undermining his company and
setting off the 2008 crisis. It coincided with research I was doing into the naked short
selling of a Spanish company with a subsidiary in the US and Deep Capture helped point in the
direction of probable culprits.
Byrne's stuff went on to became rather hysterical and overly conspiratorial. Pity
that.
"The Democrats could up their game by taking a deeper look into this issue." you mean the CIA democrats like Mark Warner? the
US has nothing to offer the world except war, which is why the people of the US must destroy this country. there is 1000% bipartisan
agreement on the war drive against both china & russia. both parties spend their days yelling at each other about who is the most
commie, like Moscow Mitch or Comrade Nancy, b/c they are unified in their war drive. as they are on anything else that matters.
this country exists to wage war, as the platform for projection of power, against competitors. nothing else. the illusion that
any of the operators w/in the system, any of them at all, are doing anything but crafting a persona in relation to power for self-aggrandizement,
not challenging power in the slightest, is not helpful.
b, what makes you think the Democrats are not in on the scam?
Also, just like the US funds NGOs in other countries, China too spends hugely and has bought many influential lobbyists and
think-tanks as well as media personalities and politicians in the US. Not very different than Israel lobbyists through AIPAC and
the massive Israel First big money. China influence operations in the US is likely significantly larger than US influence operations
in China since China is a closed CCP controlled system.
b wrote
"
The Democrats could up their game by taking a deeper look into this issue.
"
I agree with jb at comment #1
Yes there are "good" Democrats which are very much in the minority. The rest D/R are acolytes for the God of Mammon finance/war
based social order of the West.
Yes, we are in a very strange WWIII with lots of spinning plates and propaganda action and shedding of blood mostly where the
Western public does not "see" it
Excellent work b! Funding what on the surface appears to be a propaganda op aimed at another nation becomes a form of campaign
finance for a president's reelection campaign! I wonder how many such funds went to similar work on previous occasions?
It seems that at some point in time those within the Outlaw US Empire deemed it unimportant that other nations learn the funding
for numerous NGOs seeking to subvert them are overtly financed by the USG and are thus not NGOs at all but CIA appendages; and
that despite the overtness, the USG still claims those organizations to be legitimate NGOs.
I find it worthy in an ironic manner that the USA will soon be eclipsed by the nation it might have become had it not sought
to be a global empire. In fact, it's the very product of those Open Door policy advocates that will soon become the bane of their
descendants who opted for a financialized Free Lunch economy for themselves instead of a massively robust, resilient industrial/commercial
economy for all Americans.
Falun Gong is kinda like Scientology crossed with Amway. Get rich quick while simultaneously healing your goiters. In its best
days it was a terrible scam. Now it is just a blunt instrument that the US State Department uses to try and beat China with.
The Epoch Times' Jeff Carlson has been in the thick of uncovering the broad Democratic Party coup (in league with transnational
intelligence assets) against the Trump Presidency. Thus b's depiction here of the Dems potentially acting in the role of white
knight subverts mountains of evidence. As for Falun Gong's potential affiliations with the CIA and NED that's another quite plausible
storyline altogether.
Funny thing, after watching a Vesti News video on youtube I saw a video ad for the Epoch Times. It had a young white millennial
saying a bunch of propaganda drivel about the evil communist Chinese with regards to the Hong Kong protests.
Without suppression of Wall Street speculators the renaissance on manufacturing is impossible...
Notable quotes:
"... A tooling firm closes, and a complex organism withers. The machinery is sold, sent to the scrapyard, or rusts in place. The manuals are tossed. The managers retire and the workers disperse, taking their skills and knowledge with them. The bowling alley closes. The houses sell at a loss, or won’t see at all. Others, no doubt offshore, get the contracts, the customers, and the knowledge flow that goes with all that. All this causes hysteresis. “The impact of past experience on subsequent performance” cannot be undone simply by helicoptering a new plant in place and offering some tax incentives! To begin with, why would the workers come back? ..."
If I lived in the past, I might assume that re-industrialization would be as easy as building a new plant and plopping it down
in my model town; "build it and they will come." But this America is not that America. Things aren't that frictionless. They are
not, because of a concept that comes with the seventy five-cent word hysteresis attached,
covered here in 2015. Martin Wolf wrote :
"Hysteresis" -- the impact of past experience on subsequent performance -- is very powerful. Possible causes of hysteresis
include: the effect of prolonged joblessness on employability; slowdowns in investment; declines in the capacity of the financial
sector to support innovation; and a pervasive loss of animal spirits.
(To "loss of animal spirits" in the entrepreneurial classes we might add "deaths of despair" in the working class.) And if there
were a lot of people like me, living in the past -- in a world of illusion -- that too would would cause hysteresis, because we would
make good choices, whether for individual careers, at the investment level, or at the policy level, only at random.
Our current discourse on a manufacturing renaissance is marked by a failure to take hysteresis into account. First, I'm select
some representative voices from the discourse. Then, I will present a bracing article from Industry Week, "
Is US Manufacturing Losing Its Toolbox? " I'll conclude by merely alluding to some remedies. (I'm sure there's a post to be written
comparing the policy positions of all the candidate on manufacturing in detail, but this is not that post.)
"We're in the midst of a manufacturing renaissance -- something which nobody thought you'd hear," Trump said. "We're
finally rebuilding our country, and we are doing it with American aluminum, American steel and with our great electrical contractors,"
said Trump, adding that the original NAFTA deal "stole our dignity as a country."
Despite Trump's promises of a manufacturing "renaissance," the country is now in a manufacturing
recession
. The Federal Reserve just reported that the manufacturing sector had a second straight quarter of decline, falling below Wall
Street's expectations. And
for the first
time ever , the average hourly wage for manufacturing workers has dropped below the national average.
Amazingly, under Trump, America has experienced a 2½-year manufacturing jobs boom. More Americans are now employed in well-paying
manufacturing positions than before the Great Recession. The miracle hasn't slowed. The latest jobs report continues to show robust
manufacturing growth, with manufacturing job creation beating economists' expectations, adding the most jobs since January.
Obviously, the rebound in American manufacturing didn't happen magically; it came from Trump following through on his campaign
promises -- paring back job-killing regulations, cutting taxes on businesses and middle-class taxpayers, and implementing trade
policies that protect American workers from foreign trade cheaters.
But nothing has reversed the decline of the county's manufacturing base. From January 2017 to December 2018, it lost nearly
9 percent of its manufacturing jobs, and 17 other counties in Michigan that Mr. Trump carried have experienced similar losses,
according to a newly updated analysis of employment data by the Brookings Institution.
Perhaps the best reality check -- beyond looking at our operational capacity, as we are about to do -- is to check what the people
who will be called upon to do the work might think. From Industry Week, "
Many Parents
Undervalue Manufacturing as a Career for Their Children " (2018):
A mere 20% of parents associate desirable pay with a career in manufacturing, while research shows manufacturing workers actually
earn 13%more than comparable workers in other industries.
If there were a manufacturing renaissance, then parents' expectations salaries would be more in line with reality (in other
words, they exhibit hysteresis).
Another good reality check is what we can actually do (our operational capacity). Here is Tim Cook explaining why Apple ended
up not manufacturing in the United States (
from J-LS's post ).
From Inc. :
[TIM COOK;] "The products we do require really advanced tooling, and the precision that you have to have, the tooling and working
with the materials that we do are state of the art. And the tooling skill is very deep here. In the US you could have a meeting
of tooling engineers and I'm not sure we could fill the room. In China you could fill multiple football fields.
"The vocational expertise is very very deep here, and I give the education system a lot of credit for continuing to push on
that even when others were de-emphasizing vocational. Now I think many countries in the world have woke up and said this is a
key thing and we've got to correct that. China called that right from the beginning."
With Cook's views in mind, let's turn to the slap of cold water administered by Michael Collins in Industry Week, "
Is US Manufacturing Losing
Its Toolbox? ":
So are we really in the long-hoped-for manufacturing renaissance? The agency with the most accurate predictions on the future
of jobs is the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Their projection to 2026
shows that US manufacturing sector will lose 736,000 manufacturing jobs. I spoke with BLS economists James Franklin and Kathleen
Greene, who made the projections, and they were unwavering in their conclusion for a decline of manufacturing jobs.
This prompted me to look deeper into the renaissance idea, so I investigated the changes in employment and establishments in
38 manufacturing North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) industries from 2002 to 2018. I really hoped that the optimists
were right about the manufacturing renaissance, but
the data I collected in Table 1 (see link) shows some inconvenient truths -- that 37 out of the 38 manufacturing industries
are declining in terms of both number of plants and employees.
So, yeah. Mirage.
... ... ...
A tooling firm closes, and a complex organism withers. The machinery is sold, sent to the scrapyard, or rusts in place. The
manuals are tossed. The managers retire and the workers disperse, taking their skills and knowledge with them. The bowling alley
closes. The houses sell at a loss, or won’t see at all. Others, no doubt offshore, get the contracts, the customers, and the knowledge
flow that goes with all that. All this causes hysteresis. “The impact of past experience on subsequent performance” cannot be undone
simply by helicoptering a new plant in place and offering some tax incentives! To begin with, why would the workers come back?
So, when I see no doubt well-meant plans like Warren’s “Economic Patriotism” — and not to pick on Warren — I’m skeptical. I’m
not sure it’s enough.
Here are her
bullet points:
More actively managing our currency value to promote exports and domestic manufacturing.
Leveraging federal R&D to create domestic jobs and sustainable investments in the future.
Production stemming from federally funded research should take place in the United States
Taxpayers should be able to capture the upside of their research investments if they result in profitable enterprises.
R&D investments must be spread across every region of the country, not focused on only a few coastal cities.
Increasing export promotion to match the efforts of our competitors.
Deploying the massive purchasing power of the federal government to create markets for American-made products.
Restructuring worker training programs to deliver real results for American workers and American companies.
Dramatically scale up apprenticeship programs.
Institute new sectoral training programs.
There’s a lot to like here, but will these efforts really solve the hysteresis that’s causing our tooling problem? Just spit-balling
here, but I’d think about doing more. Start with the perspective that our tooling must be, as much as possible, domestic. (“If your
business depends on a platform, you don’t have a business.” Similarly, if your industrial base depends on the tooling of others,
it’s not an industrial base.)
As tooling ramps up, our costs will be higher. Therefore, consider tariff walls, as used by other developing nations when they
industrialized. Apprenticeships and training are good, but why not consider skills-based immigration that brings in the worker we’d
otherwise have to wait to train?
Further, simply “training” workers and then having MBAs run the firms is a recipe for disaster; management needs to be provided,
too.
Finally, something needs to be done to bring the best and brightest into manufacturing, as opposed to having them work on Wall
Street, or devise software that
cheats
customers with dark patterns. It’s simply not clear to me that a market-based solution — again, not to pick on her — like Warren’s
(“sustainable investments,” “research investments,” “R&D investments,” “export promotion,” and “purchasing power”) meets the case.
It is true that Warren also advocates a Department of Economic Development “that will have a single goal: creating and defending
good American jobs.” I’m not sure that’s meaningful absent an actual industrial policy, democratically arrived at, and a mobilized
population (which is what the Green New Deal ought to do).
"... "The sentiment out in farm country is getting grimmer by the day," said John Heisdorffer, the chairman of the American Soybean Association. "Our patience is waning, our finances are suffering and the stress from months of living with the consequences of these tariffs is mounting. ..."
"... The Republican senator Chuck Grassley, who represents Iowa, a state heavily reliant on agriculture, has called for a quick resolution to the dispute. "Americans understand the need to hold China accountable, but they also need to know that the administration understands the economic pain they would feel in a prolonged trade war," Grassley said in a statement. ..."
American farmers are likely to feel the pain first. Soybean exports to China collapsed last year when the trade war began, and
agricultural exports will be hit harder when, or if, the new tariffs are imposed. Farmers are also suffering from extensive flooding
that has delayed planting.
"The sentiment out in farm country is getting grimmer by the day," said John Heisdorffer, the chairman of the American Soybean
Association. "Our patience is waning, our finances are suffering and the stress from months of living with the consequences of these
tariffs is mounting."
The new round of tariffs will hit other parts of the US food industry, with beans, lentils, honey, flour, corn and oats all on
the list of goods that will be taxed.
... ... ...
The Republican senator Chuck Grassley, who represents Iowa, a state heavily reliant on agriculture, has called for a quick
resolution to the dispute. "Americans understand the need to hold China accountable, but they also need to know that the administration
understands the economic pain they would feel in a prolonged trade war," Grassley said in a statement.
Just days after Trump for the first time linked the ongoing Hong Kong protests with his
assessment of the US-China trade war, Beijing has issued an ultimatum to the White House: the
United States should not link trade negotiations with China to the Hong Kong protests,
denouncing such a move as a miscalculation.
In a short commentary published by Communist Party mouthpiece People's Daily late on Monday,
the author said that events in Hong Kong were the internal affairs of China, and linking them
with trade negotiations was a "dirty" aim.
"Making a fuss about Hong Kong will not be helpful to economic and trade negotiations
between China and the US," the commentary said. " They would be naive in thinking China would
make concessions if they played the Hong Kong card " the oped cautioned.
Chinese diplomatic observers also said Beijing considered the worsening situation in Hong
Kong a sovereignty issue and would be highly unlikely to cave to Washington's pressure.
The remarks followed a statement by US Vice-President Mike Pence on Monday which reiterated
President Donald Trump's demand to tie the largely stalled trade talks with Hong Kong's
deepening crisis, a day after hundreds of thousands of people marched peacefully in defiance of
repeated intimidation from Beijing. In an address at the Detroit Economic Club on Monday, Pence
said the Trump administration would continue to urge Beijing to resolve differences with the
protesters peacefully and warned that it would be harder for Washington to make a trade deal
with Beijing if there was violence in the former British territory. Separately, Mike Pompeo
said that China should allow Hong Kong protesters the freedom to express themselves, in what
China saw as clear interference in its own internal matters.
The Chinese article countered by saying that the top priority for Hong Kong was to stop
violence and restore order, adding that US politicians should not send the wrong message to
people creating chaos in the city. "In the face of political intimidation, we not only dare to
say no, but also take countermeasures," it warned.
Global Times, a tabloid controlled by the flagship state-run newspaper People's Daily, also
warned in an editorial on Monday that American political and public opinion elites should not
harbour the illusion they could influence China's decisions on Hong Kong.
"Because of the trade war, the US has lost the ability to impose additional pressure on
China," it said.
"The US should stop its meaningless threat of linking the China-US trade talks with the Hong
Kong problem. Beijing did not expect to quickly reach a trade deal with Washington. More
Chinese people are prepared that China and the US may not reach a deal for a long time."
Chinese analysts noted Trump appeared to have hardened his stance on Hong Kong in the past
week or so, under growing pressure from US lawmakers and extensive media coverage of the
increasingly violent protests. Indeed, it was only a month ago when we reported that "
Trump Abandoned Support For Hong Kong Protests To Revive Trade Talks With Beijing ." Now
that trade war is once again front and center, with Trump using it as leverage for further Fed
rate cuts, the US president is once again refocusing his attention on Hong Kong.
As the
SCMP writes , Trump initially focused on making a deal with China ahead of his 2020
re-election bid and adopted a hands-off approach by characterizing the protests as "riots"
which were a matter for China to handle. Over the past few days, he suggested Chinese President
Xi Jinping should resolve the situation by meeting with protest leaders and warned that any
violence in the handling of the Hong Kong crisis would exacerbate difficulties for attempts to
bring an early end to the trade war.
"Trump's about-face on Hong Kong, from being neutral to piling pressure on Beijing, is
largely due to domestic political pressure ahead of the presidential elections," said Shi
Yinhong, an international relations expert at Renmin University and an adviser to the State
Council which is China's cabinet.
" But the Hong Kong issue concerns China's sovereignty and the government's ability to
maintain stability, which in Beijing's view is of superior priority . China cannot afford to
make much compromise and will do everything to fend off interventions from abroad, in spite of
all the risks and ramifications," he said.
Despite the soured mood between China and the US over their spiralling trade war – as
well as escalating tensions over Huawei, Taiwan and other geopolitical rifts – both sides
were planning further trade talks in the coming 10 days, according to White House chief
economic adviser Larry Kudlow on Sunday.
Any progress would be virtually impossible with analysts cautioning that the US attempt to
"play the Hong Kong card" would further complicate the trade talks.
Meanwhile, in the latest significant escalation in diplomatic tensions, China responded
angrily to Washington's decision on a US$8 billion sale of F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan and
Trump's warning against Huawei citing national security threats.
"When a long list of old problems between the two countries remains unsolved, the US side
is now ramping up the pressure on Hong Kong," said Shen Dingli, a professor of US studies at
Fudan University. "China has so far refused to make concessions in the absence of adequate
mutual respect and trust and I don't think we'll have much room to compromise on Hong Kong or
other issues. We'll have to wait and see what the US would do next," he said.
Shi also said none of the flashpoints in the bilateral ties – from Hong Kong, Taiwan,
to the South China Sea and the denuclearisation of North Korea – had any easy solution in
sight, with both sides showing little willingness to cooperate and accommodate the other's
interests. He said the increasingly hardline, confrontational approach on China by Trump
– who faced mounting pressure in his bid for re-election, especially amid signs of a
looming global economic recession – would only make a trade deal increasingly
unattainable.
"Even if there were no Hong Kong crisis, could the US and China reach a trade deal? Even if
Beijing caved into Washington's pressure on Hong Kong, would it make it easier for them to
bridge their glaring differences in the trade talks and cut a deal?"
Of course not, and since Trump is far more interested in keeping trade war simmering and on
the verge of a substantial escalation if only to keep the Fed on its toes and ready for far
more aggressive rate cuts, and even "some quantitative easing", that's precisely what the US
president wants.
Trump's claim that China is paying for the tariffs is completely false and basically serves
to redirect income from his poor supporters to his wealthy supporters.
Not only that, the policy will have the consequence of further isolating the United States,
says Michael Hudson.
https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F08%2Fa-new-assessment-of-the-role-of-offshoring-in-the-decline-in-us-manufacturing-employment.html
<img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
By Christoph Boehm, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Texas at Austin, Aaron
Flaaen, Senior Economist, Research and Statistics Division, Federal Reserve Board, and Nitya
Pandalai-Nayar, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Texas at Austin. Originally
published at VoxEU
What has caused the rapid decline in US manufacturing employment in recent decades? This
column uses novel data to investigate the role of US multinationals and finds that they were a
key driver behind the job losses. Insights from a theoretical framework imply that a reduction
in the costs of foreign sourcing led firms to increase offshoring, and to shed labour.
One of the most contentious aspects of globalisation is its impact on national labour
markets. This is particularly true for advanced economies facing the emergence and integration
of large, low-wage, and export-driven countries into the global trading system. Contributing to
this controversy, between 1990 and 2011 the US manufacturing sector lost one out of every three
jobs. A body of research, including recent work by Bloom et al. (2019), Fort et al. (2018) and
Autor et al. (2013), has attempted to understand this decline in manufacturing employment. The
focus of this research has been on two broad explanations. First, this period could have
coincided with intensive investments in labour-saving technology by US firms, thereby resulting
in reduced demand for domestic manufacturing labour. Second, the production of manufacturing
goods may have increasingly occurred abroad, also leading to less demand for domestic
labour.
New Facts on Manufacturing Employment, Trade, and Multinational Activity
On the surface, the second explanation appears particularly promising. Manufacturing
employment declined from nearly 16 million workers in 1993 to just over 10 million in 2011,
shown by the black line in Figure 1. This large decline in manufacturing employment coincided
with a surge in outward foreign direct investment (FDI) by US firms (the blue line in Figure
1). Nevertheless, existing theories of trade and multinational production make ambiguous
predictions regarding the link between foreign production and US employment. Further, due to a
lack of suitable firm-level data on US multinationals, there has been limited research on their
role in the manufacturing employment decline (see Kovak et al. 2018 for a recent
exception).
Figure 1 US manufacturing employment and US outward FDI
Source : BEA for FDI; Longitudinal Business Database (LBD) and authors'
calculations for employment.
In a recent paper, we address the question of whether foreign input sourcing of US
multinationals has contributed to a decline in US manufacturing employment (Boehm et al. 2019).
We construct a novel dataset, which we combine with a structural model to show that US
multinationals played a leading role in the decline in US manufacturing employment. Our data
from the US Census Bureau cover the universe of manufacturing establishments linked to
transaction-level trade data for the period 1993-2011. Using two directories of international
corporate structure, we augment the Census data to include, for the first time, longitudinal
information on the direction and extent of firms' multinational operations. To the best of our
knowledge, our dataset is the first to permit a comprehensive analysis of the role of US
multinationals in the aggregate manufacturing decline in the US. With these data, we establish
three new stylised facts.
Fact 1: US-owned multinationals were responsible for a large share of the aggregate
manufacturing employment decline
Our first finding is that US multinational firms, defined as those US-headquartered firms with
foreign-owned plants, contributed disproportionally to the decline in US manufacturing
employment. While 33.3% of 1993 employment was in multinational-owned establishments, this
group directly accounted for 41% of the subsequent decline.
Fact 2: US-owned multinationals had lower employment growth rates than similar
non-multinationals
In Figure 2, we show that multinationals exhibited consistently lower net job creation rates in
the manufacturing sector, relative to other types of firms. Compared to purely domestic firms
and non-multinational exporting firms, multinationals created fewer jobs or shed more jobs in
almost every year in our sample. Of course, these patterns may not be causal, and other
characteristics of multinationals could be driving the low job creation rates. To address this
concern, we control for all observable plant characteristics, and find that multinational
plants experienced lower employment growth than non-multinational owned plants in the same
industry, even when the size and age of the plants are held constant.
Figure 2 Net US manufacturing job creation rates by type of US firm
Source : Authors' calculations based on the LBD, Directory of Corporation
Affiliations (DCA), and Longitudinal Foreign Trade Transactions Dataset (LFTTD)
Fact 3: Newly multinational establishments experienced job losses, while the parent
multinational firm expanded imports of intermediate inputs
An alternative way to assess the role of multinational activity on US employment with our data
is to use an 'event study' framework. We compare the employment growth trajectories of newly
multinational-owned plants to otherwise similar plants in terms of industry, firm age, and
plant size. As can be seen in Figure 3a, prior to the plants becoming part of a multinational,
their growth patterns are not different from the control group. However, in the years following
the multinational expansion, there is a brief positive but then sustained negative trajectory
of employment at these manufacturing plants. Ten years after the transition, these newly
multinational-owned plants have manufacturing employment that is about 20% smaller than an
otherwise similar plant.
Figure 3 US employment and import dynamics at new multinational plants
a) Relative imports
b) Cumulative relative employment (Index)
Source : Authors' calculations based on LBD, DCA, and LFTTD.
Further, these newly multinational firms increase imports following the expansion abroad. As
Figure 3b demonstrates, these firms substantially increase imports both from related parties
and other firms (at arms-length), relative to their control group. Taken together, Figures 3a
and 3b suggest that offshoring might explain the observed negative relationship between trade
and employment.
Structural Analysis: Did the Offshoring of Intermediate Input Production Result in a Net
Employment Decline in the US at the Firm Level?
While the patterns we identify above are suggesting that increased foreign input sourcing by
multinational firms led to a decrease in US manufacturing employment, they are not necessarily
causal. Standard models of importing, such as Halpern et al. (2015), Antras et al. (2017) or
Blaum et al. (2018), make ambiguous predictions as to whether foreign sourcing is associated
with increases or decreases in domestic employment. At the heart of this ambiguity are two
competing forces. First, a reduction in the costs of foreign sourcing leads firms to have
access to cheaper intermediate inputs. As a result, their unit costs fall and their optimal
scale increases. This 'scale effect' raises their US employment. On the other hand, firms
respond by optimally reallocating some intermediate input production towards the location with
lower costs. This 'reallocation effect' reduces US employment. Theoretically, the scale effect
could dominate the reallocation effect and lead to positive employment effects of offshoring,
or vice versa.
We use our microdata to estimate the relative strengths of these two competing forces. We
show that in a conventional class of models and in partial equilibrium, the value of a single
structural constant – the elasticity of firm size with respect to firm production
efficiency – completely determines which of the two forces dominates. Our estimation
approach is to develop a method to structurally estimate an upper bound on this constant using
our data on the universe of US manufacturing firms. While a high value of the upper bound
leaves open the possibility that foreign sourcing and domestic employment are complements, a
low value of the bound unambiguously implies that the two are substitutes.
Our estimates of the bound are small, indicating that during the period 1993-2011, the
reallocation effect was much larger than the scale effect. In other words, during this period
of aggregate manufacturing employment decline, multinationals' foreign input sourcing was
leading to a net decline of manufacturing employment within these firms.
Aggregate Implications for US Manufacturing Employment
It is important to point out that the model we use only speaks to employment changes within
existing firms and does not take into account general equilibrium forces that can also affect
employment. Since such general equilibrium effects are inherently difficult to assess,
estimates of how much of the observed aggregate decline can be attributed to offshoring of
multinational firms are uncertain and often require strong assumptions. We thus proceed under
two alternative sets of assumptions. In the first, we conduct a simple partial equilibrium
aggregation exercise, which uses observed changes in firm cost shares of domestic inputs
together with our estimated parameter bounds to obtain model-implied predictions of the
employment loss due to foreign sourcing. This approach captures both the direct impact of
foreign sourcing by existing firms as well as the first-order impact on domestic suppliers,
holding all else equal. Under the second, we model these indirect, general equilibrium effects,
such as firm entry and exit, explicitly. In both of these scenarios, we find that the
offshoring activities of multinationals explains about one-fifth to one-third of the aggregate
US manufacturing employment decline.
Policy Implications
Our research shows that the global sourcing behaviour of US multinational firms was an
important component of the manufacturing decline observed in the past few decades. These firms
set up production facilities abroad and imported intermediate goods back to the US, with the
consequence of reduced demand for domestic manufacturing workers. While our research suggests
that offshoring had a negative impact on employment, we caution that it does not support the
view that offshoring and trade should be contained with tariffs or other policy interventions.
Previous research has shown that both trade and offshoring are critical for consumers' access
to affordable goods in the US. Instead, our research implies that government assistance for
displaced manufacturing workers could facilitate their transition to new jobs in other
sectors.
Authors' note: Any opinions or conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the view of the US Census Bureau or the Board of Governors or its
research staff.
It's not just big-ticket manufacturing (appliances, etc) .little stuff that a nation uses
on a daily basis has been off-shored as well -- electrical wiring, capacitors, even
foodstuffs like cookies and candy.
I think an overlooked aspect is environmental protection and labor working conditions as
well as wages.
We are offshoring our pollution by moving manufacturing to other countries with much less
stringent environmental regulation. Similarly, labor rules in those countries don't require
as much worker safety, so we are offshoring injuries as well.
As the other countries become wealthier and more educated, they are starting to push for
more of these protections as well as higher wages which is forcing the companies to move
their production again to keep their costs low.
An interesting recent trend is the rejection of our "recycling" from countries that used
to receive it, so the feel-good greenwashing of filling the recycling bins is started to
boomerang back to North America as countries ship back the trash parts of the recycling. This
will likely require a second recycling revolution with more domestic processing of recycling
or an admission that it simply isn't going to happen in which case the righteousness quotient
of many suburbanites is going to plummet.
This is such an easy problem to solve from a policy standpoint- and it has been solved by
countries as small as the Netherlands.
Legally mandate a small list of fully recyclable materials for manufacturers to use in
production and packaging, and enforce it with punitive tariffs on non conforming goods. This
can take many forms, one logical option being that of holding companies responsible for the
costs of recycling their products.
This is as applicable to soda bottles as it is to large and complex products like
automobiles; BMW is a world leader in lifecycle waste reduction and recycling of
vehicles.
As usual, the impediment isn't technology or consumerism, it's corporate profitability and
one time costs of adjusting the supply chain.
So the writer says "that government assistance for displaced manufacturing workers could
facilitate their transition to new jobs in other sectors." I take it to mean that a policy
such as "free college" as advocated by Sanders which would involve government funded
vocational training in other sectors would go a long away toward helping those displaced by
outsourcing?
I remember all that BS back in the 80's and 90's everybody was on the bandwagon about
careers in computers, or any other hi-tech. I was one of those who had *some* training at
least .. right before they offshored all those jobs to India. It was a double kick in the
nuts.So, manufacturing went to China, computing went to India. And people wonder why I'm so
bitter and cranky sometimes.
Napoleon: "Money has no Fatherland. Financiers are without patriotism and without shame.
Their sole object is gain." IMHO US manufacturing is the reason why we're not all speaking
German today. And we gave all that capacity away like a bunch of lemmings over the
cliff
"that government assistance for displaced manufacturing workers could facilitate their
transition to new jobs in other sectors."
This "implies" that there are "jobs in other sectors" that create as much economic value,
expertise and "innovation" as manufacturing jobs do. What are they–"service" jobs?
Taking in each other's laundry? Delivering McDonald's to your door? Netflix?
Manufacturing is not just a job category that can be changed out for something shiny and
new, it's vital infrastructure that represents a nation's ability to provide for itself, and
to create a standard of living that reflects that capability. Those "affordable goods" so
important to american "consumers" are manufactured goods. It's not just the price to
buy them, it's the ability to make them that's important.
Like it or not, the once mighty american economy was built on the mightiest manufacturing
capacity that the world had ever known. Trivializing it as being only about cheap stuff is a
colossal mistake. We used to know that, and we've only begun to pay the price for
forgetting.
We* might very well learn to make lasting things of value again .. on a lesser scale,
after half the population is dead from despair, war, and disease ..
Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs by multi-nationals contributed to job losses ..
Really! LOL!
30 years too late for this info.
Wasn't hard to see even way back in the 1980's how multi-nationals were working very hard to
export jobs and import their "anti-labor" behaviour they were excising outside the laws and
borders of the US.
Tariffs were historically used to protect domestic manufacturers. Both the fees and
increased price were use to boot domestic manufacturing, and hence domestic employment.
Yes, during the wave of industrialization. But they don't work so well once consolidation
starts. 1875-1925(roughly) was the golden age of US manufacturing, even the WWII bounce was
government DoD driven. Private ex-DoD manufacturing peaked in 1924 and was flat since then.
Then we have the 97-05 downwave which then has boosted us about back to 1925's ex-DoD high.
Just like the tech wave, it ended.
I mean, by 1925 Portsmouth Ohio was done by 1925, by 1950 they just bled manufacturing
while it consolidated around bigger cities after WWII.
We need self-efficiency not capitalists growth. It ain't happening people. Its over. We
need 10% contraction of GDP just to get manufacturing growing again from a much lower base.
Tariffs are dead in the water for growth now, and act like the opposite. They are also
creating a bubble in "base" consumption while killing domestic production and yes, eventually
overcapacity will kill base consumption and it crash again like last years 4th quarter
driving down domestic manufacturing further.
Anecdotally, in a field I worked in for a while, middle management in a small privately
owned "needle trades" firm, the "growth" among our competitors was in firms that (we assumed)
did their design work in US but manufactured overseas. Domestic manufacturers either adapted
to this, or closed down.
At least in this field, automation had next to nothing to do with it.
Instead, our research implies that government assistance for displaced manufacturing
workers could facilitate their transition to new jobs in other sectors.
Ah yes, the subsidised retraining for manufacturing jobs that, in fact, do not exist.
Louis Uchitelle covered this policy failure in his 2006 book "The Disposable American:
Layoffs and their consequences". Is the phrase "got the T-shirt" relevant here?
For the government to re-employ workers who have lost their factories would be a form of
industrial policy. Ours is never clearly stated, if there is one. But one thing is clear and
that is the government gave the internationals every opportunity to offshore our national
productivity without any safety net for labor except unemployment insurance. Which runs out.
Michael Pettis has just backed a proposal to tax foreign capital saving and investment here
in this country. Because most of it is just financial "investments". Foreign investment for
long term capital projects would be virtually unaffected. It is claimed that this tax on
money parking would reduce out trade deficit and make it fluctuate within an acceptable
balance. By doing something that sounds like real-time exchange rate adjustments for every
transacted trade, now to include foreign investment and savings. So why didn't the
government, after offshoring all those jobs, re-employ all the laid-off workers as banking
and investment managers? So all this unproductive foreign money is skewing our trade balance.
Making our unemployment deeply structural. It is so bizarre that we are "trading" in money at
all. We are trading in the medium of exchange, which is fiat, which itself is susceptible to
exchange rate adjustments with other money and all of it supposedly backed by the
productivity of that country. That foreign productivity is frequently nothing more than IMF
money, stolen and taken out of the country. The P word. Because the world has reached
manufacturing overcapacity, I assume, all this money is totally skewing the ledgers. It's
laughable except for the fact that the bean counters take it seriously. The mess we are in is
something more fundamental than balanced exchange rates. It's more like hoarding at its most
irrational. Way over my head. And for us to fix unemployment here in the US will take far
more than a tax on all this loose international money.
Yeah it's nice to have it "officially" credentialed etc its not like I haven't been saying
this since they passed NAFTA, but then I wasn't "credentialed" so nobody listened . its like,
"No $#!t sherlock ???" pretty much *everyone* who has spent some time in the industrial
sectors knows this by heart without even needing to be told. Of course maybe now its OK to
say it out loud or something . smh.
===the Role of Offshoring in the Decline in US Manufacturing Employment===
It is not just the role of offshoring in the decline of US manufacturing employment, BUT
the effect the offshoring, and the competing with foreign manufacturers, had on the existing
US manufacturing workforce. The manufacturers and manufacturing workers that remain in the US
have to compete with their cheaper foreign competition for work.
I spent most of the last 25 years working in plastics injection molding. After spending
the first six years of my career in plastics/ polymer research and development, I
transitioned to injection molding. In the mid 90's when I started in injection molding,
globalization had already begun especially in the automotive sector. The car manufacturers
were already setting up global and domestic supply chains. But even then the Chicago area
(and the US in general) was heavy in mold making and injection molding businesses.
Then China became a major player in the world economy, NAFTA started, etc. and in the
early 2000's it was like the last manufacturer who gets stuck in the US gets to turn out the
lights!
There were a lot of small to medium size mold maker shops and plastic injection molders in
the Chicago area that went under because they could not compete with the cheaper foreign
competition. It was very sad as I knew many small mom and pop mold makers and injection
molders in the Chicago area who were in business for 20 – 30+ years that closed.
The fact that many businesses/corporations in the US, due to offshoring and globalization,
are forced to compete with foreign competitors that have cheaper labor, less regulation,
cheaper land costs, etc. etc. is beyond reason.
And to this day you can see the effects of neoliberal globalization in any manufacturing
or other business you visit as they are dealing with consequences of having to compete
directly with cheaper foreign competitors through cost cutting, low wages, and running the
employees into the ground.
The tables were tilted against manufacturers and manufacturing employees in the US. It is
like the US manufacturing (and other sectors) are trying to fight a battle with one hand tied
behind our backs.
There is a good book that relates to this post. The book is called Failure to Adjust: How
Americans Got Left Behind in the Global Economy by Edward Alden.
NAFTA killed a bunch of material extraction jobs, but boosted a bunch of auto production
jobs down the supply chain. You can see that on the data. Granted, auto sales have been flat
for 20 year which has led to a flattening of employment growth since 2005 after the material
extraction driven drop.
That is why the Trump Administration just basically rebooted it.
lol, but it created a bunch of debt finance jobs throughout the economy as well, that
boosted existing manufacturing. Offshoring accounts for .1% of the job loss. Most of it is
consolidation and technology. My great grandfather lost his job in 1925 during the first wave
of consolidation. What about that?
As someone working in manufacturing, while I am glad that there is some acknowledgement
that outsourcing is responsible, I strongly disagree about not implementing tariffs.
Effectively workers are competing for a race to the bottom in wages, working conditions, and
other factors like environmental laws.
Guess what if there are tariffs? Things will cost more, but there will also be more jobs
for the working class. Actually there will also be quite a few white collar jobs too.
Engineering, HR, Finance, Sales, etc, are all needed in any manufacturing industry.
I suspect that net, most workers would be better off even if prices were higher due to the
jobs. The thing is, the top 10 percent would not be and the 1 percent would not be. That's
the main reason for this outsourcing. To distribute income upwards so the rich can
parasitically take it.
While our research suggests that offshoring had a negative impact on employment, we
caution that it does not support the view that offshoring and trade should be contained
with tariffs or other policy interventions. Previous research has shown that both trade and
offshoring are critical for consumers' access to affordable goods in the US. Instead, our
research implies that government assistance for displaced manufacturing workers could
facilitate their transition to new jobs in other sectors.
This is where I strongly disagree. As discussed above, I think that the net effect might
be beneficial for the majority of society.
The other is the old retraining claims, which never pan out. What jobs are there? Visit
the communities in the Midwestern US and Southern Ontario. Retraining for what? For jobs that
are part time, minimum wage, with few or no benefits?!
Manufacturing may not have been perfect, but at least there were benefits, it was often
full time, and the salaries allowed a middle class existence.
When I read things like this, as much as I dislike Trump, I can understand why people
would support him.
For the life of me I don't see how any other outcome could have happened. With the
economic system we have embraced at least in my long lifetime, it was inevitable that
"capital" would seek the lowest level playing field in the long term. Nation's boundaries
kept that flow "fenced" to a certain limit for as long as there have been physical borders
between countries. Once the cat was let out of the bag of competing countries after WW2, for
example the Japanese with computer driven machinery (lathes) that crushed American companies
that in too many cases refused to invest and welcomed the slow destruction of organized labor
here in the US, it was inevitable that that condition would be the future of manufacturing
here. The advent of the Mexican maquiladoras gave a great push to the exporting of jobs.
NAFTA put the nails in the coffin so many more of those good paying jobs. "Labor" was never
invited to those global meetings that proved to be so destructive to so many countries.
But, again. The system we embrace can have no other outcome. "Tariffs" will eventually lead
to wars. So in the words of that famous Russian: "What is to be done?"
Anybody have a solution? You will be saving civilization from itself. We need a complete
rethinking of how we live on this planet. That will take better humans that we have now that
lead nations. In the meantime it's, "kill them all and let God sort them out!" The weak will
succumb; the strong will continue to battle for territory, in this case jobs, jobs, jobs.
"Trump Is Delaying Tariffs on China for Holiday Shopping Season"
by Shira Feder...08.13.19...11:04AM ET
"The Trump administration announced Tuesday that tariffs set to be imposed Sept. 1 on
Chinese consumer products like electronics, sneakers, and video game consoles will not go
into effect until Dec. 15."...
US to Delay Some China Tariffs Until Stores Stock
Up for Holiday Shoppers https://nyti.ms/2H50NMv
NYT - Ana Swanson - August 13
The Trump administration on Tuesday narrowed the list of Chinese products it plans to
impose new tariffs on as of Sept. 1, delaying levies on cellphones, laptop computers, toys
and other consumer goods until after stores stock up for the back-to-school and holiday
shopping seasons. Stocks soared on the news.
The move, which pushed a new 10 percent tariff on some goods until Dec. 15 and spared
others entirely, came as President Trump faces mounting pressure from businesses and consumer
groups over the harm they say the continuing trade war between the United States and China is
doing.
Mr. Trump's earlier tariffs on Chinese imports were carefully crafted to hit businesses in
ways that everyday Americans would mostly not notice. But his announcement this month of the
10 percent tariff on $300 billion of Chinese goods meant consumers would soon feel the trade
war's sting more directly.
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump acknowledged as much.
"We're doing this for the Christmas season," he told reporters around noon. "Just in case
some of the tariffs would have an impact on U.S. customers." ...
... Mr. Trump's comments about the tariffs' impact on consumers followed the United States
trade representative's office announcement that while the new tariffs would take effect as
Mr. Trump had threatened, some notable items would not immediately be subject to them.
Consumer electronics, video game consoles, some toys, computer monitors and some footwear
and clothing items were among the items the trade representative's office said would not be
hit with tariffs until retailers had time to stockpile what they needed for their busiest
time of year.
The administration also said some products were being removed from the tariff list
altogether "based on health, safety, national security and other factors." A spokesman for
the trade representative's office said the products being excluded from the tariffs included
car seats, shipping containers, cranes, certain fish and Bibles and other religious
literature.
The S&P 500 climbed nearly 2 percent after the announcement, lifted partly by stocks
of retailers and computer chip producers that have been sensitive to indications that trade
tensions were getting either better or worse.
Best Buy, which gets a many of the products it sells from China, was among the
best-performing stocks in the S&P 500, up more than 8 percent in morning trading. The
Nasdaq composite index rose more than 2 percent. ...
OK, I'm having a very nerdy moment. Trying to understand why US-China bilateral trade
imbalance is so large. NOT because it's important, but just because it's kind of a puzzle; I
guess it's my inner @Brad_Setser 1/
6:39 AM - 10 Aug 2019
So last year US goods imports from China were $539.5 billion, US goods exports $120.3
billion. That's 4.5 to 1. Why so much asymmetry? I think 4 reasons: Hong Kong,
macroeconomics, value-added, and oil 2/
Hong Kong: effectively part of the Chinese economy, and the US runs a large surplus - $37
b in exports, only $6 b in imports. Basically a lot of US goods appear to enter China via HK
(something similar in Europe, where US exports to Germany go via Belgium/Netherlands) 3/
Adding HK reduces the export imbalance to "only" 3.5 to 1. Now macro: the US runs overall
trade deficit, with imports 1.5 times exports. China runs overall surplus, with imports only
0.8 exports. On some sort of gravity-ish story, this suggests ratio "should" be around 2
4/
Now add China's role as "great assembler", with value-added in exports really coming from
elsewhere; famous case of iPhone. Much less true than it used to be, but still means that
Chinese surplus is partly optical illusion 5/
Lastly, China imports a lot of oil, which means other things equal needs to run a surplus
on everything else. Used to be true of US, but with fracking we're now almost self-sufficient
in hydrocarbons (but not exporting to China) This adds a further reason for bilateral 6/
Someone with more time and patience should try to do the full accounting, but I think the
US-China bilateral can mainly be explained by "natural causes"; doesn't have much to do with
either country's trade policy 7/
I guess that Krugman is just a natural law kind of guy wherein IP protectionism and arbitrage
seeking cross border capital flows in an exorbitantly privileged global reserve currency are
just natural phenomenon like meteor showers and rain.
"... "While there were measures that could have been chosen with larger direct effects on supply chains, the announcements from Beijing represent a direct shot at the White House and seem designed for maximum political impact," Krueger said. " We expect a quick (and possibly intemperate) response from the White House, and consequently expect a more rapid escalation of trade tensions." ..."
"... In a mid-day note, Krueger added that "the next stop on the currency manipulation road is probably off the map." Krueger expects Trump's "drumbeat on currency" will get louder, with the potential for the president to use a "charge of currency manipulation to justify some combination of (more) tariffs, investment restrictions and export controls." ..."
"... Instructing state-owned Chinese firms to halt U.S. crop purchases triggered "the obligatory flight-to-quality," which pushed 10-year yields to 1.74%, with two-year yields keeping pace. That was "an impressive move that suggests August will not experience the traditional summer doldrums. Who needs vacation anyway?" ..."
"... Bank investors' eyes were "glued to the yield curve last week," with Trump's tariff tweet on Thursday, Graseck wrote in a note. They're now asking about Morgan Stanley's net interest margin (NIM), outlook. ..."
Analysts continued to warn about the dangers of an escalating trade war on Monday, as
China moved to strike back at the U.S., hitting U.S. stocks and boosting Treasuries.
Semiconductors, with direct exposure to trade, and banks stocks, which are sensitive to
interest rates, were among the decliners. The biggest U.S. banks slid, with the KBW Bank
Index dropping as much as 4.1% to the lowest since June 4. Bank of America Corp. led index
decliners, with a drop of 5.5%, the most since Dec. 4, while Citigroup Inc. shed more than 4%
and JPMorgan Chase & Co. slipped 3.8%.
Micron Technology Inc. fell 6.2% while Texas Instruments Inc. lost 4.4% and Intel Corp.
was down 4%. Apple Inc. dropped 5.6%, the most since May 13. Shares in Chinese tech giants
Alibaba Group Holding and JD.com Inc. fell near two month lows in U.S. Trading.
Agriculture equipment makers Deere & Co. and AGCO Corp. tumbled as China suspended
imports of U.S. agricultural products. The escalating trade tensions are also a major risk
for the U.S. automotive industry, which has a significant exposure to the country. According
to UBS's Global Wealth Management Chief Investment Officer Mark Haefele, the latest spat
raises the possibility that "tariffs could also be placed on auto imports."
President Donald Trump tweeted about China and the Fed on Monday morning, saying: "China
dropped the price of their currency to an almost a historic low. It's called 'currency
manipulation.' Are you listening Federal Reserve? This is a major violation which will
greatly weaken China over time!"
Here's a sample of some of the latest commentary:
Cowen, Chris Krueger
Krueger called China's retaliation "massive," adding that "on a scale of 1-10, it's an 11."
He cited the Chinese government calling on state buyers to halt U.S. agricultural purchases,
while there's "increased anecdotal evidence that the Chinese government is tightening its
overview of foreign firms."
"While there were measures that could have been chosen with larger direct effects on
supply chains, the announcements from Beijing represent a direct shot at the White House and
seem designed for maximum political impact," Krueger said. " We expect a quick (and possibly
intemperate) response from the White House, and consequently expect a more rapid escalation
of trade tensions."
"There now will be increased expectations that the Fed will cut again in September to
offset the drag caused by this escalation in the trade war," he added. "Such moves will only
be a partial, lagged offset to the recessionary headwinds a cycle of retaliation would
cause."
In a mid-day note, Krueger added that "the next stop on the currency manipulation road is
probably off the map." Krueger expects Trump's "drumbeat on currency" will get louder, with
the potential for the president to use a "charge of currency manipulation to justify some
combination of (more) tariffs, investment restrictions and export controls."
BMO, Ian Lyngen
"The wait is over for those wondering how Beijing would respond to Trump's recent tariff
announcement," BMO said. "The result: the yuan was allowed to depreciate well beyond
7.0."
Instructing state-owned Chinese firms to halt U.S. crop purchases triggered "the
obligatory flight-to-quality," which pushed 10-year yields to 1.74%, with two-year yields
keeping pace. That was "an impressive move that suggests August will not experience the
traditional summer doldrums. Who needs vacation anyway?"
"The most significant unknown at this moment," Lyngen added, "is how much further the yuan
will be allowed to fall given that it's already the weakest since 2008."
Morgan Stanley, Betsy Graseck (bank analyst)
Bank investors' eyes were "glued to the yield curve last week," with Trump's tariff tweet on
Thursday, Graseck wrote in a note. They're now asking about Morgan Stanley's net interest
margin (NIM), outlook.
Graseck didn't change her NIM assumptions -- yet. "We bake one additional cut of 25 basis
points in 2019 in-line with our economist, and bake in the 10-year at 1.75% by mid 2020," she
wrote. She'll update NIM and earnings per share estimates "if it looks like these trade
tariffs are going through as September approaches."
Morgan Stanley, Michael Zezas (policy strategist)
"The dynamics of U.S.-China negotiation and macro conditions mean the next round of tariffs
will likely be enacted, and investors are likely to behave as if further escalation will
follow in 2019 until markets price in impacts," Zezas wrote. "This supports our core view of
weaker growth and skews the Fed dovish."
Zezas sees incentives for the U.S. to escalate quickly. If the administration "understands
the Fed's trade policy reaction function, then it may also perceive that a more rapid
escalation could deliver one or more of three beneficial points ahead of the 2020 election:
1) A quicker, potentially more aggressive Fed stimulus response that could help the economy
heading into the election; 2) More time to re-frame the potential economic downside; and 3) A
major concession by China (not our base case, but it is, of course, a possibility)."
Veda, Henrietta Treyz
"The U.S. and China are moving into one of their most aggressive phases yet in the year-plus
long trade war and we fully expect things to escalate from here," Treyz wrote in a note.
Treyz added that China's ability to quickly adjust their currency is an advantage they
have over the U.S. that "goes to the heart of the issue for the Trump administration." The
administration may view China's communist regime as a "systemic advantage" versus "free
markets and democracy" in the U.S., as the Chinese can "subsidize domestic industry, quickly,
enact lower tax rates and provide stimulus."
Furthermore, her conversations with Republicans point to the belief that "China's economy
is on the brink of collapse," she said, with turmoil in Hong Kong "considered evidence of an
organic domestic uprising that many believe the Chinese government cannot contain."
Republicans may also believe Trump will "galvanize" his base behind him, while attracting
"anti-trade and union Democrats in the Rust Belt as he takes on the mantle of a war time
president going into 2020 by engaging in this trade war." ...
On Monday, China announced new tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. exports, and the United
States threatened new tariffs on up to $300 billion of Chinese goods. These actions were
cited as the principle reason for a decline of more than 600 points in the Dow Jones
industrial average, or about 2.4 percent in broader measures of the stock market. With the
total value of U.S. stocks around $30 trillion, this decline represents more than $700
billion in lost wealth.
This was not an isolated event. Again and again in the past year, markets have gyrated in
response to the state of trade negotiations between the United States and China.
The market sensitivity to threats and counter-threats in the trade war is quite
remarkable. Monday's announcement by the Chinese, for example, would be expected to raise
China's tariffs by about $10 billion. Much of this will show up as higher prices for Chinese
importers, and some of it will be avoided by diverting exports of goods such as liquid
natural gas to other markets, so the impact on U.S. corporate profits will be far less than
$10 billion. Meanwhile, U.S. tariffs are likely to raise corporate profits as higher import
costs push some business to domestic producers.
There is the further consideration that reasonable market participants should not have
entirely discounted the possibility of tariff increases Monday and that there surely remains
some chance a trade deal will be reached. So, in fact, the market should not even have moved
in full proportion to the change in corporate profitability associated with new tariffs.
There is a revealing puzzle here. Events whose direct impact on corporate profits is a few
billion dollars seem to be driving market fluctuations that change the total value of
corporations by hundreds of billions of dollars. To be sure, there would be many ways of
refining my calculation of the profit impact to recognize various feedbacks, and certainly
the imposition of tariffs increases uncertainty, which in general depresses markets. But with
any plausible calculation of the direct impact of tariff changes on profitability or
uncertainty about profitability, it is not possible to justify the kinds of changes in market
value we observed Monday or on many other days when there was news about the status of the
U.S.-China trade negotiations.
Part of the answer to the puzzle, I suspect, lies in markets' tendency to sometimes
overreact to news, especially in areas where they do not have long experience. This idea is
supported by the tendency illustrated by the market's Tuesday rally, which took place without
any particularly encouraging U.S.-China developments.
A larger part of the answer probably lies in the idea that the current trade conflict is a
possible prelude to a far larger conflict between the two nations with the largest economies
and greatest power for as far as can be foreseen. When it appears less likely that a conflict
over well-defined and ultimately not-that-difficult commercial issues can be resolved,
rational observers conclude that it is also less likely the United States and China can
manage issues ranging from 5G wireless technology to North Korea, from the future of Taiwan
to global climate change, and from the management of globalization to the security
architecture of the Pacific region.
A world where relations between the United States and China are largely conflictual could
involve a breakdown of global supply chains, a splinternet (as separate, noninteroperable
internets compete around the world), greatly increased defense expenditures and conceivably
even military conflict. All of this would be catastrophic for living standards and would also
have huge adverse effects on the value of global companies.
It is, I suspect, the greater risk of catastrophic medium-run outcomes, rather than the
proximate impact of trade conflicts, that is driving the outsize market reactions to trade
negotiation news.
This carries with it an important lesson for both sides: It is risky to turn the pursuit
of even vital national objectives into an existential crusade. Rather, even when nations have
objectives that are in conflict, it is important to seek compromise, to avoid inflammatory
rhetoric and to confine rather than enlarge the areas where demands are being made.
Establishing credibility that promises will be kept and surprises will be avoided is as or
more important with adversaries as with friends.
As the Trump administration carries on the trade negotiations, and as the presidential
campaign heats up, Americans will do well to remember that there is no greater threat to the
success of our national enterprise over the next quarter-century than mismanagement of the
relationship with China. It is not just possible but essential to be strong and resolute
without being imprudent and provocative.
As has long been expected, the White House is preparing to release a new rule on Wednesday barring
government agencies from buying equipment or doing any kind of business with Chinese telecoms giant
Huawei - ratcheting up tensions between the world's two largest economies at an already precarious
time for the global economy.
The Trump administration is expected to release a rule Wednesday afternoon that bans agencies
from directly purchasing telecom, video surveillance equipment or services from Huawei.
The prohibition was mandated by Congress as part of a broader defense bill signed into law last
year.
"The administration has a strong commitment to defending our nation from foreign
adversaries, and will fully comply with Congress on the implementation of the prohibition of
Chinese telecom and video surveillance equipment, including Huawei equipment,"
said
Jacob Wood, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.
Per CNBC, the new rule is expected to take effect a week from Wednesday, and it applies not only
to Huawei, but also to a list of other telecom companies that have drawn security concerns, such as
ZTE and Hikvision.
The official said contractors will be able to seek waivers from individual federal agencies if
they believe their business with any of the targeted companies should be exempt from the rule.
Moreover, the new rule will also set a deadline of August 2020 for a broader ban
on
federal contractors doing business with Huawei and other firms.
The law passed by Congress is separate from the Trump Administration's own efforts to keep
Huawei in check.
The Commerce Department instigated the tensions between the US and China after it placed Huawei
on a blacklist that effectively bans the company from buying goods or doing any kind of business
with Huawei. A 90-day grace period that kept Huawei off the blacklist temporarily is now almost
over. And President Trump has apparently walked back his promised, made at the G-20 Summit in
Osaka, to ease the pressure on Huawei.
However, US chipmakers and tech firms can request waivers, and the CEOs of Google, Qualcomm,
Micron, Intel and others met with President Donald Trump at the White House last month and urged
the administration to issue those decisions quickly.
In an interview on CNBC, Huawei CSO Andy Purdy defended the company's track record, arguing that
European leaders in the UK and Germany had told their counterparts in the US that they had found no
evidence that Huawei was a security threat.
"We have tested the products of all vendors to international standards so that there's
trust through verification,"
Purdy said.
All Chinese government agencies
will be prohibited from buying CISCO and other American
telecommunications products. Furthermore, contractors dealing with
Chinese government agencies will also be so prohibited from buying
American telecom products.
America - population 329 million. Economic growth rate: 2.8%
China - population 1.4 billion. Economic growth rate: 6.5%
source:
Wikipedia
China is rapidly industrializing, and has the largest
manufacturing base in the world. The USA is already a mature
industrial economy, and since NAFTA has offshored most of its
manufacturing base. The USA leads the world in the design,
manufacture and export of weapons, but relies on coercive
political relationships (such as NATO) rather than the "free
market" to sell its overpriced and line of products to captive
satellite countries. China is rapidly expanding in the weapons
manufacturing sphere, as is Russia, and offer increasingly
competitive products at lower prices, and with fewer political
strings attached.
Something to think about before breastbeating and cheering
ourselves on.
Trump is getting the **** kicked out of him on CNBC and every
Financial media on the internet. When China dug in, that was the
end of the Trump bluff. For the first time, the absurd articles
about China losing are gone and now the new reality is that China
is going to squeeze the life out of Trump.
Huawei is just
another of Trump's wayward policies of getting Canadian poodles to
kidnap Huawei's founder's daughter. Nice dirty **** Trump. Women
already hate Trump this ices that cake.
Last week Huawei overtook Apple as the second largest smart
phone maker. Huawei announced it no longer had any dependence on
US manufacturers for 5G, another body blow to the blowhard.
Dozens of certifying agencies have no studied Huawei products
and have found zero instances of spyware or any instance of this
hardware being used for spying. In short, Trump and the NSA and
CIA look like a bunch of assholes. This will only accelerate
Huawei's 5G rollout.
Trump is being **** canned in every direction. The great part
of Trump von hitler's personality is that he knows his 10% Sept
Tariffs were essentially the end of his presidency, but is too
arrogant to reverse course. Instead, he is screaming at the Fed
for more loose money to support his bad policies. And he wants
more Farmer WELFARE. That dog don't hunt!
China is not going to roll over over for Trump. The financial
media is now tearing Trump a new ******* every hour. Markets are
not responding to Trump plunge team efforts. They continue to sell
off.
Where's the endgame they ask? This is the same deal as Trump
closing down the gov for nothing. Trumptards cheered as the orange
idiot painted himself in the corner and accomplished nothing. Not
one inch of wall has been constructed since Trump took office.
Trump floats on a raft of ********. Meanwhile Trump has a 20 year
history of hiring Illegals for Trump Organization. Total Fraud and
self dealer.
The GOP is now climbing the walls. Today Trump Screamed at the
Fed to reduce rates emergently and then said it had nothing to do
with China. Astonishing.
When China put an end to US Ag purchases effective immediately
they were basically saying they were tired of Trump's ********.
The farmer associations are turning on Trump round the clock.
Where is Trump? He's hiding out. But of course this has NOTHING to
do with China.
But here is Trump once again playing the phony national
Security card with Huawei when a dozen independent organizations
have published reports and cleared Huawei of the Trump
Administration's phony security claims.
Huawei Honor smartphones and tablets are really good. The top
models are even better than iPhones.
There were some Chinese
smartphones at Best Buy the last time I checked.
But I just bought the 128Gb Lenovo Zuk for $280 from Banggoog a
couple years ago when it was on sale. It's a little problematic to
update Android, but it works perfectly anyway. There is a forum
for Lenovo phones, though, with all answers.
Poland's state security agency arrested Huawei sales
director Wang Weijing and a Polish national over spying.
Dongfan Chung The 74-year-old former Boeing Co. engineer was
convicted in July of six counts of economic espionage and
other federal charges for keeping 300,000 pages of sensitive
papers in his home
Chi Mak He copied and sent sensitive documents on U.S.
Navy ships, submarines and weapons to China by courier.
Don't waste my time. A 20 second google search shows you
have no point, but the one on the top of your head.
Thus, Given the Chinese government's record on espionage,
"a good-faith assertion from Andy is not enough."
"In Huawei's
carrier business
, H1 sales revenue
reached CNY146.5 billion, with steady growth in production and
shipment of equipment for wireless networks, optical
transmission, data communications, IT, and related product
domains. To date, Huawei has secured 50 commercial 5G contracts
and has shipped more than 150,000 base stations to markets
around the world.
In Huawei's
enterprise business
, H1 sales revenue was
CNY31.6 billion. Huawei continues to enhance its ICT portfolio
across multiple domains, including cloud, artificial
intelligence, campus networks, data centers, Internet of
Things, and intelligent computing. It remains a trusted
supplier for government and utility customers, as well as
customers in commercial sectors like finance, transportation,
energy, and automobile.
In Huawei's
consumer business
, H1 sales revenue hit
CNY220.8 billion. Huawei's smartphone shipments (including
Honor phones) reached 118 million units, up
24% YoY
. The
company also saw rapid growth in its shipments of tablets, PCs,
and wearables. Huawei is beginning to scale its device
ecosystem to deliver a more seamless intelligent experience
across all major user scenarios. To date, the Huawei Mobile
Services ecosystem has more than 800,000 registered developers,
and 500 million users worldwide.
"Revenue grew fast up through May," said Liang. "Given the
foundation we laid in the first half of the year, we continue
to see growth even after we were added to the entity list.
That's not to say we don't have difficulties ahead. We do, and
they may affect the pace of our growth in the short term."
He added, "But we will stay the course. We are fully
confident in what the future holds, and we will continue
investing as planned – including a total of CNY120 billion in
R&D this year. We'll get through these challenges, and we're
confident that Huawei will enter a new stage of growth after
the worst of this is behind us."
WHAT A DUMB ****!: Thanks!!! That makes me 3 times
smarter than you because Huawei subcontractors do sell
Huawei products in the USA. You are an ignorant Asian
that should go back to his village and the one room
dirt floor hut... LOL
I'd be the first to say that I don't know everything about this
telecom but I will say this seems like a reasonable decision on
it's face for the US government not to put in Chinese
telecommunications equipment. Of course China is going to not like
it because with Hillary she just gave them direct access to damn
near anything through her email server.
First, Trump coerced the Fed into lowering interest rates which made US Dollars cheaper to
buy then he increased domestic taxation 10% though increasing the tariff on selected Chinese
goods. China then blocks the importation of all US foodstuffs and lowers the price of the
Yuan an amount equal to the tariff increase--and the US treasury and Trump have the gall to
call China the currency manipulator! NO, as usual with the Outlaw US Empire, it's accusations
are psychological projection of what itself does. Hudson discusses it
here . US financial markets have finally awakened to Trump's moves and have fallen 5%
over the last three trading days, with more likely to follow. Hudson on Trump:
"It's all a diversion so that people won't look at what's really happening, only at what
Trump is saying. But as people find that they have to pay higher prices, I don't think
they'll believe Trump. I think he's lost all credibility. That's why the stock market's
collapsing. They're aghast. They think that even Trump can't get away with this big a lie
when it's so obviously false."
As I commented last Friday on the AP article my local paper ran about the tariff hike, it
finally told the truth about who'll pay--US Consumers or China: US Consumers! AP, All
Propaganda, tore a gapping hole into Trump's narrative--but will people believe a media
outlet that's lied so often?
Trump can't win his global trade war. China won't capitulate; it's economy and society are
100x healthier than the Outlaw US Empire's and are resilient where the USA can only claim to
have been once upon a time. Why that is has been explained before. The transcript of this
interview's poor, but the topic covers the
answer by showing how Canada's economy became a victim of the same predators as the
USA's.
We know what happened, how and why. What we don't know how to do is reverse the situation
politically. Hudson compares the dire situation to that of Rome:
"So they obviously, the left-wingers such as Bernie Sanders, want to run for president as
a kind of educational campaign to make their policy clear to the people, but they know that
there's no way in which the ruling class will let them win.
"It's been very clear, if they did win, they would be assassinated very quickly. I've been
told that by presidential candidates. The threat is, you'll never be president, we have ways
of keeping you out, and should you succeed, we will do to you what the Romans did to every
advocate of democracy century after century, assassination."
It seems the best those of us residing within the Outlaw US Empire can hope for is that
Trump's policies will decimate US financial institutions worse than what occurred in 2008.
Hudson's perspective:
"I don't see any popular movement yet. You can very easily see why collapse is
inevitable....
"There's no way of knowing when there will be a break in the chain of payment. Usually
it's a bankruptcy of a big company, very often by fraud, as the 2008 crisis was bank mortgage
fraud. You don't know when people will fight back. Often, surprisingly, they only fight back
when things are getting better. But things still have a way to go to get much worse in
Canada, much worse in the United States, so I don't see any possibility of reform within the
next 4 to 8 years."
However, all that is about to change, because as Bank of America team of economists writes,
Trump's latest tariff announcement from last Thursday, when the president shockingly unveiled
10% tariffs on $300BN in Chinese imports starting September 1, "is a major escalation." The
reason for this is that past measures had mostly avoided consumer goods. By contrast, the
threatened tariffs would cover $120bn of consumer goods, out of $300bn in total, and since BofA
expects the tariffs to be implemented, either on schedule or later this year, the period of
dormant trade war inflation is about to end with a bang, not a whimper.
... ... ...
Was Trump's announcement a negotiating tactic?
For the past year, one of the points of
biggest contention among economists and traders is that despite what is now a 1+ year trade war
with China, inflation due to higher tariffs has been strangely missing, with some claiming that
the goods targeted in previous tariff rounds were either not "consumer" enough, or simply had
more affordable substitutes from other, non-Chinese supply chains, allowing US consumer to
avoid having higher prices passed upon them.
However, all that is about to change, because as Bank of America team of economists writes,
Trump's latest tariff announcement from last Thursday, when the president shockingly unveiled
10% tariffs on $300BN in Chinese imports starting September 1, "is a major escalation." The
reason for this is that past measures had mostly avoided consumer goods. By contrast, the
threatened tariffs would cover $120bn of consumer goods, out of $300bn in total, and since BofA
expects the tariffs to be implemented, either on schedule or later this year, the period of
dormant trade war inflation is about to end with a bang, not a whimper.
"... As the U.S. administration is ready to impose a 10 percent tariff on the remaining 300 billion U.S. dollars of Chinese imports, its sincerity in reaching a mutually beneficial trade deal with Beijing that can accommodate each other's major concerns has gone bust. It seems that in the eyes of Washington's China hawks, trade talks are no more than a formality with which to rip China off. ..."
"... While the White House is boasting about taxing China until a trade deal is reached, it should keep in mind that China will only accept a win-win agreement on the basis of mutual respect and equal treatment. ..."
"... Beijing's position has been consistent and clear: China does not want a trade war, but it is not afraid of one and will fight one if necessary. ..."
"... It is therefore hoped that Washington should drop its fantasy to bring Beijing down to its knees with its same and old tricks of maximun pressure. If it truly wants a deal, then they will need to show some real sincerity first. ..."
Despite calling the just-concluded China-U.S. trade talks in
Shanghai "constructive" and hoping for more "positive dialogue," the White House on Thursday
announced plans to impose extra tariffs on Chinese imports from Sept. 1.
Washington's unilateral escalation of trade disputes is a serious breach of trust after the
two sides reached in June consensus to restart trade talks on the basis of equality and mutual
respect.
Apart from undermining the momentum of the newly resumed China-U.S. trade talks, the U.S.
flip-flopping again exemplifies Washington's untrustworthiness in striking a deal and its
disturbing propensity for bullying.
The U.S. administration should bear in mind that its bullying and tariff threat, which has
not worked in the past, will not work this time.
For over a year, the U.S.-initiated trade disputes with China have bogged down not just
economic growth of the two countries but that of the whole world. Meanwhile, an increasingly
capricious Washington is harming the current world order with more uncertainties.
As the U.S. administration is ready to impose a 10 percent tariff on the remaining 300
billion U.S. dollars of Chinese imports, its sincerity in reaching a mutually beneficial trade
deal with Beijing that can accommodate each other's major concerns has gone bust. It seems that
in the eyes of Washington's China hawks, trade talks are no more than a formality with which to
rip China off.
Also, the new twist in China-U.S. trade talks shows that some Washington politicians are
trying to play tough against China on trade matters and gain cheap political points as the new
cycle of U.S. presidential election is looming.
Unlike previous rounds of taxing Chinese imports, the U.S. administration this time is
targeting a wide swath of consumer goods, and therefore, is "using American families as a
hostage" in its trade negotiations, according to Matt Priest, president of the Footwear
Distributors and Retailers of America.
While the White House is boasting about taxing China until a trade deal is reached, it
should keep in mind that China will only accept a win-win agreement on the basis of mutual
respect and equal treatment.
Beijing's position has been consistent and clear: China does not want a trade war, but it is
not afraid of one and will fight one if necessary.
In response to Washington's tariff assaults since March 2018, China has had to take forceful
counter measures. This instance will be no exception.
Still, Beijing remains committed to handling its trade problems with Washington as long as
the settlement is based on mutual respect and equality, and conform to China's core interests.
China, which still sees a steady economic growth and boasts enormous potential for further
development, will always find a way to withstand any pressure if there no deal is reached.
It is therefore hoped that Washington should drop its fantasy to bring Beijing down to its
knees with its same and old tricks of maximun pressure. If it truly wants a deal, then they
will need to show some real sincerity first.
"... US President Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US hegemony because of so called isolationism, as some may think. Trump does that in order to save US hegemony, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised by the US military/intelligence/science community. They now want to hamper globalisation and create fortress US, in order to bring back manufacturing and save as much as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of cooperation in the world benefit the US. They now realise globalisation no longer serves the US as it leads to the rise of developing nations. Thus they no longer support it and even sabotage it." ..."
"... Trump and his trade negotiators continue to insist on China agreeing to an unequal trade treaty. ..."
"... IMO, China can continue to refuse and stand up for its principles, while the world looks on and nods its head in agreement with China as revealed by the increasing desire of nations to become a BRI partner. ..."
"... It should be noted that Trump's approach while differing from the one pushed by Obama/Kerry/Clinton the goal is the same since the Empire needs the infusion of loot from China to keep its financial dollarized Ponzi Scheme functioning. ..."
"... Russia's a target too, but most of its available loot was already grabbed during the 1990s. ..."
"... I keep going back to believing that multilateralism is a code word for no longer allowing empire global private finance hegemony and fiat money. ..."
"... The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire and its associated corporations and vassal nations checkmates what you think Trump's trying to accomplish. Hudson has explained it all very well in a series of recent papers and interviews: Neoliberalism is all about growing Financial Capitalism and using it to exert control/hegemony on all aspects of political-economy. ..."
"... Trump hasn't proposed any new policy to accomplish his MAGA pledge other than engaging in economic warfare with most other nations. His is a Unilateral Pirate Ship out to plunder all and sundry, including those that elected him. ..."
I will mention this again, to see what people here think, as they are intelligent people. I sent mails to Russian and Chinese
authorities about this.
"I will provide you with possible reasons behind the current trade wars and rejection of globalisation by the US. In short,
they think that they will save their hegemony, to a certain degree, that way.
There are long term GDP Growth and Socioeconomic Scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the
OECD, and the world scientific community. They are generally used to measure the impact of Climate change on the World. In order
to measure it, Socioeconomic Scenarios were developed, as the level of economic growth in the world is very important for determining
the impact of Climate Change in the future. High growth levels will obviously affect Climate Change, so these GDP estimates are
important. The scenarios are with time horizon 2100.
For more on this you can check these studies here, some of the many dealing with this topic. They describe the scenarios for
the world.
There are 5 main scenarios, or "Shared Socioeconomic Pathways". All of them describe different worlds.
SSP 1 - Green World, economic cooperation, reduced inequality, good education systems. High level of economic growth, fast
catch up of the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
SSP 2 - More of the same/ Muddling through - continuation of the current trends. Relatively high level of economic growth,
relatively fast catch up of the developing world with the developed world. Good level of multipolarity.
SSP 3 - Regional Rivalry - nationalisms, trade wars, lack of global cooperation, fragmentation of the word, environmental
degradation. Low levels of economic growth everywhere, the developing world remains poor and undeveloped. Low level of multipolarity,
West retains many positions.
SSP 4 Inequality - depicts a world where high-income countries use technological advances to stimulate economic growth;
leading to a high capacity to mitigate. In contrast, developments in low income countries are hampered by very low education
levels and international barriers to trade. Growth is medium, the catch up process between the developing world and the developed
world is not fast. Medium level of multipolarity.
SSP 5 Economic growth and fossil fuels take priority over green world - High levels of economic growth, fast catch up of
the developing world with the developed world. High level of multipolarity.
See SSP 3. A world of rivalry, trade wars, trade barriers, lack of global cooperation, and fragmentation, will lead to lower
level of growth in the developing world, and thus a slow catch up process. Multipolarity in such a world is weak as the developing
world is hampered.
In other words, a world of cooperation between countries will lead to higher economic growth in the developing world, faster
catch up process, and thus stronger multipolarity.
Low cooperation, fragmented world, high conflict scenarios consistently lead to low growth in the developing world and thus
to the US and the West retaining some of its positions - a world with overall bad economy and low level of multipolarity.
Basically, globalisation is key. The developing world (ex West) was growing slowly before globalisation (before 1990). Globalisation
means sharing of technology and knowledge, and companies investing in poorer countries. Outsourcing of western manufacturing.
Etc. After globalisation started in 1990, the developing world is growing very well. It is globalisation that is weakening the
relative power of the West and empowering the developing world. The US now needs to kill globalisation if it is to stop its relative
decline.
So what do we see: exactly attempts to create the SSP 3 scenario. Trade wars, sanctions, attacks on multilateral institutions
- the WTO, on international law, on the Paris Climate Change Agreement (which if accepted would put constraints on the US economy),
on the UN, bullying of Europe, lack of care for european energy needs, support for Brexit (which weakens Europe), crack down on
chinese students and scientists in the US, crack down on chinese access to western science data, demands to remove the perks for
poor countries in the WTO, etc. This is hitting economic growth in the whole world and the global economy currently is not well.
By destroying the world economy, the US benefits as it hampers the rise of the developing nations.
US President Trump does not do that in order to dismantle the dollar or US hegemony because of so called isolationism,
as some may think. Trump does that in order to save US hegemony, implementing policies, in my opinion, devised by the US military/intelligence/science
community. They now want to hamper globalisation and create fortress US, in order to bring back manufacturing and save as much
as possible of the US Empire. Chaos and lack of cooperation in the world benefit the US. They now realise globalisation no longer
serves the US as it leads to the rise of developing nations. Thus they no longer support it and even sabotage it."
You ask, "The concept of multilateralism is not completely clear to me in relation to the global public/private finance issue
and I am not of faith but of questions...."
"In international relations, multilateralism refers to an alliance of multiple countries pursuing a common goal."
The key point for the Chinese during negotiations as I understand them via their published White Paper on the subject is
development and the international rules put in place at WTO for nations placed into the Developing category, which
get some preferential treatment to help their economies mature. As China often reminds the global public--and officials of the
Outlaw US Empire--both the BRI and EAEU projects are about developing the economies of developing economies, that the process
is designed to be a Win-Win for all the developing economies involved. This of course differs vastly from what's known as the
Washington Consensus, where all developing economies kowtow to the Outlaw US Empire's diktat via the World Bank and IMF and thus
become enslaved by dollar dependency/debt. Much is written about the true nature of the Washington Consensus, Perkins Confessions
of an Economic Hit Man and Klein's Disaster Capitalism being two of the more recent and devastating, and many nations
are able to attest to the Zero-sum results. The result is very few nations are willing to subject their economies to the pillaging
via Washington Consensus institutions, which Hudson just recently reviewed.
The Empire is desperate and is looking for ways to keep its Super Imperialism intact and thus continue its policy aimed at
Full Spectrum Dominance. But the Empire's abuse of the dollar-centric institutions of international commerce has only served to
alienate its users who are openly and actively seeking to form parallel institutions under genuine multilateral control.
However as Hudson illustrates, Trump doesn't know what he's doing regarding his trade and international monetary policies. Today's
AP above the fold headline in Eugene's The Register Guard screamed "Trump threatens 10% tariffs;" but unusually for such
stories, it explains that the 10% is essentially a tax on US consumers, not on Chinese companies, which provides a message opposite
of the one Trump wants to impart--that he's being tough on the Chinese when the opposite's true. China will continue to resist
the attempts to allow the international financial sharks to swim in Chinese waters as China is well aware of what they'll attempt
to accomplish--and it's far easier to keep them out than to get them out once allowed in, although China's anti-corruption laws
ought to scare the hell out of the CEOs of those corps.
The Empire wants to continue its longstanding Open Door policy in the realm of target nations opening their economies to the
full force of Imperial-based corps so they can use their financial might to wrestle the market from domestic players and institute
their Oligopoly. China already experienced the initial Open Door (which was aimed at getting Uncle Sam's share of China during
the Unequal Treaties period 115 years ago) and will not allow that to recur. China invokes its right under WTO rules for developing
economies to protect their financial services sector from predation; the Empire argues China is beyond a developing economy and
must drop its shields. We've read what Hudson advised the Chinese to do--resist and develop a publicly-based yuan-centered financial
system that highly taxes privatized rent-seekers while keeping and enhancing state-provided insurance--health, home, auto, life,
etc--while keeping restrictions on foreign land ownership since it's jot allowed to purchase similar assets within the domestic
US market.
The Outlaw US Empire insists that China give so it can take. Understandably, China says no; what we allow you to do, you should
allow us to do. Trump and his trade negotiators continue to insist on China agreeing to an unequal trade treaty. Obviously,
the latest proposal was merely a repetition of what came before and was rejected as soon as the meeting got underway, so it ended
as quickly as it started. IMO, China can continue to refuse and stand up for its principles, while the world looks on and
nods its head in agreement with China as revealed by the increasing desire of nations to become a BRI partner.
It should be noted that Trump's approach while differing from the one pushed by Obama/Kerry/Clinton the goal is the same
since the Empire needs the infusion of loot from China to keep its financial dollarized Ponzi Scheme functioning.
Russia's a target too, but most of its available loot was already grabbed during the 1990s. D-Party Establishment
candidates have yet to let it be known they'll try to do what Trump's failing to do, which of course has nothing to do with aiding
the US consumer and everything to do with bolstering Wall Street's Ponzi Scheme.
Good comment, karlof1 , i think that the attack against China is attack against the heart of multipolarity. It will be good
if b could post about the escalation of the trade war. This is important. The US clearly intends to resist multipoarity, and tries
to stop it.
If I would have had my act together last night I would have posted another link fro Xinhuanet (can't find now) about how
China wants to retain developing nation status and provides as data that the (I think) per capita GDP had gone down....gotten
worse in relation to the US per capita GDP.
I keep going back to believing that multilateralism is a code word for no longer allowing empire global private finance
hegemony and fiat money.
Passer by @30--
The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire and its associated corporations and vassal nations checkmates
what you think Trump's trying to accomplish. Hudson has explained it
all very well in a series of recent papers and interviews: Neoliberalism is all about growing Financial Capitalism and using it
to exert control/hegemony on all aspects of political-economy.
Thus, there's no need to sponsor the reindustrialization that would lead to MAGA. Indeed, Trump hasn't proposed any new
policy to accomplish his MAGA pledge other than engaging in economic warfare with most other nations. His is a Unilateral Pirate
Ship out to plunder all and sundry, including those that elected him.
In your outline, it's very easy to see why BRI is so attractive to other nations as it forwards SSP1. Awhile ago during a discussion
of China's development goals, I posted links to its program that's very ambitious and doing very well with its implementation,
the main introduction portal
being here .
psychohistorian @11 asked: "The concept of multilateralism is not completely clear to me in relation to the global public/private
finance issue and I am not of faith but of questions...."
karlof1 @31 covered it pretty well I think, but I want to try to answer in just a couple sentences (unusual for me).
Global private finance is driven by one thing and one thing only: making maximum profits for the owners quarter by financial
quarter. Global public finance is driven by the agendas of the nations with the public finance, with profits being a secondary
or lesser issue.
This boils down to private finance being forever slave to the mindless whims of "The Market™" (hallowed be Its name),
while public finance is, by its nature, something that is planned and deliberated. Nobody can guess where "The Market™"
(hallowed be Its name) will lead society, though people with the resources like placing bets in stock markets on the direction
It is taking us. On the other hand, if people have an idea which direction society should be heading in, public control
over finance is a precondition to making it so.
"The continuing practice of Neoliberalism by the Outlaw US Empire"
I'm not sure this will be the case anymore -
Former heads of DHS and NSA explain how the U.S. can keep Huawei at bay
"Perhaps more importantly, this proposal demonstrates one way the U.S. can reinforce elements of what the government calls
the “national technology and industrial base” (NTIB), the collection of companies who design, build and supply the U.S. with vital
national-security related technologies."
he war of words between the world's top superpowers is getting more heated by the hour.
China's new ambassador to the United Nations, Zhang Jun, said on Friday that if the United
States wanted to fight China on trade, "then we will fight" and warned that Beijing was
prepared to take countermeasures over new U.S. tariffs, Reuters reports.
"China's position is very clear that if U.S. wishes to talk, then we will talk, if they want
to fight, then we will fight," he told reporters. Calling Trump latest tariff announcement an
"irrational, irresponsible act", Jun said that China "definitely will take whatever necessary
countermeasures to protect our fundamental right, and we also urge the United States to come
back to the right track in finding the right solution through the right way." The ambassador
also took a stab at the disintegration of good relations between the US and North Korea (with
Beijing's blessing no doubt), saying that "you cannot simply ask DPRK to do as much as possible
while you maintain the sanctions against DPRK, that definitely is not helpful" Yun said siding
the the Kim regime. It was more than obvious who the "you" he referred to was.
Pouring more salt on the sound, the Chinese diplomat said North Korea should be encourage,
and "we think at an appropriate time there should be action taken to ease the sanctions",
explicitly taking Pyongyang's side in the ongoing diplomatic saga between Kim and Trump.
When asked if China's trade relations with the United States could harm cooperation between
the countries on dealing with North Korea, Zhang said it would be difficult to predict. He
added: "It will be hard to imagine that on the one hand you are seeking the cooperation from
your partner, and on the other hand you are hurting the interests of your partner."
As North Korea's ally and neighbor, China's role in agreeing to and enforcing international
sanctions on the country over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs has been crucial.
However, it is what he said last that was most notable, as it touched on what will likely be
the next big geopolitical swan, namely Hong Kong. To wit, Jun said that while Beijing is
willing to cooperate with UN member states, it will never allow interference in "internal
affairs" such as the controversial regions of Xinjiang and Tibet, and - last but not least -
Hong Kong.
And in the latest warning to the defiant financial capital of the Pacific Rim, Jun virtually
warned that a Chinese incursion is now just a matter of time, he said that Hong Kong protests
are "really turning out to be chaotic and violent and we should no longer allow them to
continue this reprehensible behavior."
President Donald Trump's threat Thursday to put 10% tariffs on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese imports that aren't subject
to his existing levies
sent markets tumbling from Asia to Europe and in the U.S. on Friday. The new tax would hit American consumers, and businesses
are going to face even more
supply disruptions . China has already vowed to retaliate if Trump follows through.
Bloomberg Economics ' initial estimate of the
additional costs of U.S. tariffs and Chinese retaliation sees both economies taking a 0.2% hit to GDP by 2021.
Meanwhile, a simmering trade fight between Japan and South Korea
is boiling over , putting the health of two Asian export powers at stake. In Europe, concerns are mounting for a
hard U.K. exit from the European Union.
The week ended with fresh numbers out of Washington that show
U.S. trade actually declined during the first
six months of the year as exports flattened out.
I think that 10 years from now the biggest impact from Trump will be from his cancellation
of the Iran nuclear accord and unilateral imposition of strict sanctions which the Europeans
were not able to bypass in any meaningful way due the prevalence of the US dollar in global
transactions.
There is now significant motivation in Europe and even China in creating a real
alternative to the US dollar for international transactions which bypasses US banks. If this
happens to any significant degree, it would undercut the US dollar as the world's reserve
currency, resulting in a permanent drop in its value.
Without international support, US Government deficits and trade deficits will become
unsustainable, and there will be a significant drop in the American median standard of
living.
Hongkong is no longer of great importance for bejing as a financial and trading locus. up and
down the south china sea coast are many cities of far greater importance than Hongkong.
perhaps when the PLA finish in hongkong they can come over here and deal with antifa since
our government at any level does not appear to have the sense or spine to do it
themselves
Some of the other stuff we've encouraged, such as The EU, ETFs, Hi-Frequency Trading, Neil
Woodford and Deutsche Bank look likely to be highly effective vectors of short-term economic
destruction and destabilization
(Edited version of the speech given by the TJ Wormwood, Chief Demonic Officer –
Finance, Lord of 3rd Ring of the 7th Circle, to invited audience at Davos.)
Dear Colleagues,
As you all know, I've been wrecking finance for millennia. [Pause for effect]
Nearly every major big idea, evolutionary leap forward, invention and discovery has improved
the miserable lot of mankind only through their ability to monetise it. Forget the theft of
fire – being able to monetise fire by attracting pretty and willing mates around a warm
campfire, or cooking the food others have hunted, is what mattered. Strip out the noise, and
the rise of mankind is largely due to improvements in the efficiency and ease of means of
exchange.
From the realisation hunters could barter their furs for other goods, to the rise of complex
products to finance global growth – the innovation of financial markets has been a major
driver of success for the Other Side in raising the wellbeing and prosperity of mankind. Pretty
much anything that holds back or disrupts trade, increases costs and holds back services is
naturally positive for our goal of global destabilisation.
So, here is the big plan:
Since 2007 we've been turning the Other Side's successful innovation of financial markets
against them. Global Financial Markets are incredibly rich in opportunities to distort truth,
hide lies, and undermine mankind – generating immediate greed, envy, suspicion and anger.
We've uncovered previously unimaginable ways in which to financially screw the World with
consequences that impact everyone.
We've overlaid the programme with our mastery and understanding of temptation, human greed,
avarice and pride, while adding subtlety and cunning. We merely suggest and advise. We are
facilitating the train-wreck of the global economy by destroying asset values while confounding
their understanding of money and wealth – the pillars of their society.
At its simplest form we are manipulating and driving constant market instability to keep
mankind distracted. Uncertainty clouds their future expectations – so we keep it raining.
A Mortgage crisis one year, followed by a Sovereign Debt crisis the next, spiced with a couple
of bank failures, and threats of global trade war. Overlay with confusion and distraction such
as social media, fake news, Bitcoin and populism, and it all works rather well.
Keep their leaders arguing. Keep the blame game going.
Our success can be seen in current financial asset prices. These are now hopelessly inflated
and distorted by foolish post financial crisis policy decisions. They are bubbles set to pop.
Empower the regulators and bureaucrats to compromise finance through zealous over-regulation,
making banking safer by destroying it. Usher in a new era of trade protectionism, the end of
Free Trade and increase the suspicion some countries are manipulating their currencies for
economic advantage. Sprinkle some dust of political catastrophe, the collapse of law, undo the
fair, just and caring society, while adding some eye of newt and complex environmental threats.
Make the rich so rich they don't notice, and the poor so poor they become invisible. If the
markets remain uncertain, then it distracts mankind from addressing these issues, making
society less stable!
There as some things we're really proud of, including the Euro, Social Media, Investment
Banks, the Tech Boom, and especially Quantitative Easing (which is still delivering confusion
and pain). New Monetary Theory could prove even better – it shows tremendous potential to
thoroughly unsettle confidence in money. Cybercurrencies are particularly fun – despite
coming up with the idea, neither we, nor even the distinguished members of our panel of eternal
guests, understand the why of them. They are libertarian nonsense – so, naturally we
continue to encourage them as get-rich-quick schemes, but they also further undermine
confidence in money and government. We made something up in a bar one night and called it a
Distributed Ledger - the humans ran with it and invented Blockchain, whatever that might
be..
Some of the other stuff we've encouraged, such as The EU, ETFs, Hi-Frequency Trading, Neil
Woodford and Deutsche Bank look likely to be highly effective vectors of short-term economic
destruction and destabilisation, triggering systemic market events and regulatory backlashes
across markets. We are only now exploring the full potential of market illiquidity to rob
billions of pensioners of their savings.
We've persuaded investors to overturn proven tried and tested investment strategies and
wisdoms, nurturing a whole range of overpriced unprofitable US Tech "Unicorn" companies which
we are confident will prove utterly over-hyped and largely worthless. The success of social
media, data mining and new tech has increased levels of dissatisfaction and envy –
especially in our target younger demography.
The way we successfully pinned the blame on banks for the Global Financial Crisis –
despite the fact it was people who wanted mortgages to buy houses and fast cars - ensured
global regulators would over-react. We've allowed regulators to focus on banks while we target
the next financial crisis in other parts of the financial ecosystem.
Regulators forced the banks to de-risk. But risk does not disappear - it just goes somewhere
else. While banks understood risk and had massive staffs to manage risk, risk is now
concentrated in the hands of "investment managers" who are singularly ill-equipped to withstand
the next credit crunch and global recession, (which we've planned for next October – Save
the Date cards have been sent).
We are particularly pleased that many banks now exceed the 2.3 compliance officers for every
profitable banker ratio. Compliance and regulatory costs now exceed 10% of income at some
European banks – a stunning success and substantially decreasing the efficiency of
banking and exchanges.
We've some great new financial ideas we are still experimenting with, some of which show
great promise for further weakening society. Facebook Money is going to be a cracker, and I
particularly like the Spaceship to Mars project if only they knew what awaits them
By hiding inflation in the stock market, we assisted the accumulation of massive wealth by a
tiny percentage of the population to ferment income inequality dissatisfaction. When capital is
concentrated and the workers under the cosh, it creates all the right conditions for weak
disjointed government to aid and abet the rise of destabilising populism.
It's highly satisfying to watch the instability we've created in financial markets drive
fear and distrust across society. The debt crisis we engineered led to global financial
austerity, job insecurity, and rising inequality. We were surprised how easily we pushed the
Gig economy concept to further exploit and cow workers through regulators and authorities
– they barely noticed. Over this we've layered whole new levels of anxiety such as the
unknowns of data theft, the rise in envy coefficients through social media, fake news while
fuelling social distrust through resentment.
We've managed to persuade Governments to follow damaging and contradictory policies. As
society reeled in the wake of the financial crisis, we persuaded policy makers to cut back
spending through "austerity" spending programmes, simultaneously bailing out bankers while
flooding the financial economy with free money through Quantitative Easing.
Effectively we've split the world into two economies. A real economy which is sad, miserable
and deflating, and a financial economy that's insanely optimistic, massively inflated and ripe
to pop on the back of free money.
The resentment, instability, fear and general sense of decay has paid dividends in our drive
to break society by undermining the credibility of the political classes. Our approach to
politics has been simple – deskill the political classes, reduce their effectiveness as
leaders, while engineering economic, social and financial instability to drive rampaging
populist politics – just like in 1932! Populism may ultimately prove short-lived, but
it's difficult to see how the political classes will recover their power in time to reverse the
damages being done to the global environment.
While markets have burned, society become increasingly riven, and politics has failed, we've
distracted the humans from the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which
threatens to create global warming and rising sea levels, while plastics poison the oceans and
soil erosion threatens agriculture.
Now I love the ravenous hunger and sharp pointy teeth of polar bears as much as the next
demon, but needs must... needs must. I was also rather fond of the dinosaurs...
Our approach to ensuring destructive climate change has proved very effective. We've
supported, financed and advised the loudest green lobbies to ensure their message looks
ill-considered, wrong and economic suicide. We also paid big bucks to fund the loudest climate
change deniers. Our innovation of fake news to discredit and mitigate anything positive means
climate change remains a crank topic – even as our polar bears drown.
Meanwhile, through our dominance of global boardrooms and investment firms, we've made sure
that large corporates have bought-out and stifled new technologies that could solve the
environmental crisis.
Our future looks great – because their future is bleak!
The global smartphone bust is currently underway
(has been for some time) - but
there's a new, surprising trend that could highlight one reason why the Trump administration has
waged economic war against China.
First, let's start with the global smartphone shipment data
from the
International Data
Corporation
(IDC) Worldwide Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker.
This new data details how worldwide smartphone shipments fell 2.3% in 2Q19 YoY. It also states
that smartphone manufacturers shipped 333.2 million phones in 2Q19, which was up 6.5% QoQ.
An escalating trade war between the US and China contributed to sharp declines in shipments in
both countries over the last year. However, the declines weren't nearly as severe as expected in
China over 1H19 versus 1H18, suggesting that three years of a smartphone bust in Asia could be
nearing a recovery phase. Asia/Pacific (excluding Japan and China) maintained solid momentum in 2Q
YoY, with shipments up 3% in the quarter fueled by Southeast Asia markets.
The surprising trend IDC detected is that Huawei surpassed Apple in 2Q19, making it the
first time in seven years that Samsung and Apple weren't the top smartphones manufactures in the
world.
Now it seems that a South Korea company [Samsung] and a Chinese company [Huawei] are the world
leaders in smartphone shipments, something that has irritated the Trump administration.
Samsung ranked No.1 with 75.5 million shipments in 2Q19, a 5.5% YoY increase. Huawei was No.2
with 58.7 million shipments in 2Q19, a 8.3% YoY jump. Apple was No.3 with 33.8 million shipments in
2Q19, a -18.2% YoY plunge.
1) Huawei announces a .6%
decline in shipments worldwide over the Q1 numbers.
2) Huawei announces an all-time high in domestic
operations that now take up 62% of its sales.
What do these two numbers hide?
That Huawei's shipments to the international market must have
suffered a considerable decline.
That the rise in sales in low-value Chinese phones doesn't
begin to offset the large drop in high-value developed world sales
except on a purely nominal numerical basis of numbers of phones
sold. The money isn't in the phones. It's in the plans. In fact,
China pioneered the idea of giving the phones away for free and
then making it all back on the gated connection plans.
But there's no way that one Chinese plan equals one western
plan in profitability back to the company, so buffing up the
domestic numbers at the expense of the cash cow numbers overseas
is ultimately not a good business strategy.
Plus of course Huawei can report any number it wants inside
China and nobody has any way of testing its veracity. They could
have shipped 20,000,000 phones to distributors on consignment and
then marked it up as sales.
It's still high-end, per se. But the price premium is no
longer justified because other companies have commoditized the
high-end features.
Frankly, the company was doomed the moment
Jobs died and the reins were turned over to Cook - an
accountant by training, who clearly has no futurist vision or
marketing skill whatsoever.
Jobs might have been a puffed up peacock, but he was a
master of creating the Reality Distortion Field.
There is one big problem that no one is talking about. The cell
phone market is over saturated! Practically everyone has got a
cell phone these days. It's like the auto industry. There has
been an over production 10 billion automobiles in the world for
7.2 billion people, of which half really can't afford to buy, much
less drive, or even have a place to park it. I have seen people
with 3 and 4 cell phones, but you only have 2 ears. How are more
cell phones going to help you? Even women don't multitask that
well.
The only thing that would make sales better on cell
phones is if you could combine the computing power of a Cray
computer into a roll-up tablet. Or, maybe a brain implant would
be even better.
Tim Cook: "When you step back and consider
Wearables and Services together two areas where we have
strategically invested in last several years, they now approach
the size of a Fortune 50 company."
Acknowledging and pricing macroeconomic uncertainties - Hansen and Sargent
False pretences of knowledge about complicated economic situations have become all too
common in public policy debates. This column argues that policymakers should take into
account what they don't know in their decision making. It describes a tractable approach for
acknowledging, characterising, and responding to different forms of uncertainty, by using
theories and statistical methods available at any particular moment.
---------
Yes, starting about 10,000 years ago.
After our current MMT, we will get the same false pretence, we will have a bunch of AOC
geeks on this blog explaining things have been fixed,'We won't do it again' to quote Ben,
among the many thousands of false pretencers. We will hear from the 'Uncle can fix it later'
crowd. "This time is different' chants another tribe. Someone will put up a blog, and we will
recite talking points absent any evidence.
The delusionals and their preachers do not go away, and neither do their followers. It is
like a religion, we know it is BS, but it keeps our hysteria in check.
Just as investors thought it was safe to buy-the f**king-dip after Powell's plunge,
President Trump steals the jam out of their donut by announcing new China tariffs...
"... on September 1st, putting a small additional Tariff of 10% on the remaining 300
Billion Dollars of goods and products coming from China into our Country "
In a series of tweets, Trump laid out the state of the China trade deal... in a word -
terrible...
Our representatives have just returned from China where they had constructive talks having
to do with a future Trade Deal. We thought we had a deal with China three months ago, but
sadly, China decided to re-negotiate the deal prior to signing. More recently, China agreed
to...
...buy agricultural product from the U.S. in large quantities, but did not do so.
Additionally, my friend President Xi said that he would stop the sale of Fentanyl to the
United States – this never happened, and many Americans continue to die! Trade talks
are continuing, and...
...during the talks the U.S. will start, on September 1st, putting a small additional
Tariff of 10% on the remaining 300 Billion Dollars of goods and products coming from China
into our Country. This does not include the 250 Billion Dollars already Tariffed at
25%...
...We look forward to continuing our positive dialogue with China on a comprehensive Trade
Deal, and feel that the future between our two countries will be a very bright one!
"... Mr. Trump's anger was fueled, in part, by the fact that China has not begun buying large amounts of American farm products, which the president promised farmers would happen after a June meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. ..."
"... Mr. Trump took credit for China's weakening economy, saying the tariffs he's placed on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods have put enormous pressure on the country, costing it jobs and prompting companies to leave. ..."
"... American and Chinese negotiators finished talks on Wednesday with little progress toward ending a trade war that has shaken the world's economic confidence and rattled markets. ..."
"... Instead, both sides appear to be settling in for a lengthy economic conflict. ..."
"... Senior Chinese officials who gathered at an economic meeting on Tuesday run by China's top leader, Xi Jinping, stressed that the country had to rely on domestic demand to manage "new risks and challenges" and ward off what they described as "downward pressure on the economy," according to the Chinese state news media. China could turn "a crisis into an opportunity," the report added. ..."
"... A lengthy trade war presents China's leaders with some difficult options. China is enduring an economic slowdown that has been made worse by the trade tensions. Beijing has responded by ratcheting up spending on infrastructure and other big-ticket projects, a reliable growth strategy that nevertheless could worsen the country's debt problems and do little to solve economic imbalances that could hinder its long-term prospects. ..."
"... At a daily news briefing on Wednesday, Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said that "only if the U.S. shows sufficient integrity and sincerity, and conducts trade talks with the spirit of equality, mutual respect, mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, can the trade talks make progress." ... ..."
"... the trade pressure by the United States on China has from the beginning been about undermining Chinese development. The US point has always been to stop Chinese scientific and technological advance but the Chinese have always understood and that is just not ever going to happen. ..."
"... Accept United States restrictions on Chinese investments in sensitive technologies without retaliating. ..."
"... Open up its services and agricultural sectors to full American competition. ..."
President Trump took credit for weakening
China's economy and downplayed the likelihood
of a trade deal before the 2020 election.
His comments came as his top negotiators were sitting
down to dinner with their counterparts in Shanghai.
Trump Goads China as Trade Talks
Resume https://nyti.ms/32X4vBj
NYT - Ana Swanson and Jeanna Smialek - July 30
WASHINGTON -- President Trump lashed out at China on Tuesday morning as trade talks
between the two nations resumed, taking credit for weakening China's economy and downplaying
the likelihood of a deal before the 2020 election.
The president's comments, in posts on Twitter and remarks to the press, came just as his
top negotiators were sitting down to dinner with their counterparts at the Fairmont Peace
Hotel in Shanghai. While both sides are trying to get trade talks back on track, Mr. Trump's
angry words underscored the diminishing prospects for a transformative trade deal anytime
soon and the extent to which the bilateral relationship has not unfolded in the way that Mr.
Trump expected.
"I think the biggest problem to a trade deal is China would love to wait and just hope,"
the president said. "They hope -- it's not going to happen, I hope, but they would just love
if I got defeated so they could deal with somebody like Elizabeth Warren or Sleepy Joe Biden
or any of these people, because then they'd be allowed and able to continue to rip off our
country like they've been doing for the last 30 years."
Mr. Trump's anger was fueled, in part, by the fact that China has not begun buying
large amounts of American farm products, which the president promised farmers would happen
after a June meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Mr. Trump emerged from that
meeting in Osaka, Japan, saying he had agreed to postpone tariffs on an additional $300
billion of Chinese products and allow American firms to resume sales of nonsensitive goods to
the Chinese telecom firm Huawei. In return, Mr. Trump said China would immediately start
buying American agricultural goods, touting it as a big win for farmers.
But no such purchases have happened, and, in the weeks since, Chinese officials disputed
that they had agreed to buy more farm products as a condition of the talks. On Sunday,
Chinese state media reported that "millions of tons" of American soybeans had been shipped to
China. But Mr. Trump on Tuesday said no such purchases had materialized.
China "was supposed to start buying our agricultural product now -- no signs that they are
doing so," Mr. Trump tweeted. "That is the problem with China, they just don't come
through."
His comments on Tuesday appeared to be an effort to give his negotiators more leverage and
to pressure China into making concessions in talks this week. Mr. Trump took credit for
China's weakening economy, saying the tariffs he's placed on $250 billion worth of Chinese
goods have put enormous pressure on the country, costing it jobs and prompting companies to
leave.
But he seemed to veer between goading China to quickly accede to America's demands and
suggesting the country could get a better deal if it waits and a Democrat wins the 2020
presidential election. ...
US-China Trade Talks End With No Deal
in Sight https://nyti.ms/2GE3LHt
NYT - Alexandra Stevenson - July 31
American and Chinese negotiators finished talks on Wednesday with little progress toward ending a trade war that has
shaken the world's economic confidence and rattled markets.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Robert E. Lighthizer, the Trump administration's top
trade negotiator, were seen leaving trade talks on Wednesday, the Chinese state news media
said.
Both sides "conducted frank, efficient and constructive in-depth exchanges on major issues
of common interest in the economic and trade field," said a statement late in the day that
was released by CCTV, China's state broadcaster.
Another round of high-level talks will take place in the United States in September, CCTV
reported.
The Trump administration had not yet released its own statement.
The meeting marked the first formal resumption of talks after negotiations fell apart
almost three months ago, with each side pointing fingers at the other for derailing a deal.
They agreed to try again after meeting last month on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit
meeting in Osaka, Japan.
Instead, both sides appear to be settling in for a lengthy economic conflict.
Senior Chinese officials who gathered at an economic meeting on Tuesday run by China's top
leader, Xi Jinping, stressed that the country had to rely on domestic demand to manage "new
risks and challenges" and ward off what they described as "downward pressure on the economy,"
according to the Chinese state news media. China could turn "a crisis into an opportunity,"
the report added.
A lengthy trade war presents China's leaders with some difficult options. China is
enduring an economic slowdown that has been made worse by the trade tensions. Beijing has
responded by ratcheting up spending on infrastructure and other big-ticket projects, a
reliable growth strategy that nevertheless could worsen the country's debt problems and do
little to solve economic imbalances that could hinder its long-term prospects.
Should China reach a quick deal, on the other hand, the country's leaders risk looking
weak in the face of foreign powers, undermining the Communist Party's historical claim to
rule.
At a daily news briefing on Wednesday, Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign
Ministry, said that "only if the U.S. shows sufficient integrity and sincerity, and conducts
trade talks with the spirit of equality, mutual respect, mutual understanding and mutual
accommodation, can the trade talks make progress." ...
As I have repeatedly documented on Economist's View, the trade pressure by the United States
on China has from the beginning been about undermining Chinese development. The US point has
always been to stop Chinese scientific and technological advance but the Chinese have always
understood and that is just not ever going to happen.
Trump is asking China to redo just about everything with its economy
By Heather Long - Washington Post
The Trump administration has finally presented the Chinese government with a clear list of
trade demands. It's long and intense (there are eight sections), and President Trump isn't
just asking Chinese President Xi Jinping for a few modifications. He's asking Xi to
completely change his plans to turn the Chinese economy into a tech powerhouse.
The demands include the following:
• China will cut the $336 billion U.S.-China trade deficit by at least $200 billion
by 2020, a 60 percent reduction.
• China will stop subsidizing tech companies.
• China will cease stealing U.S. intellectual property.
• China will cut its tariffs on U.S. goods by 2020.
• China will not retaliate against the United States (including against U.S.
farmers).
• The Chinese government will open China to more U.S. investment.
U.S.-China Trade Talks End With Strong Demands, but Few Signs of a Deal
By Keith Bradsher
BEIJING -- The extensive list of United States trade demands was unexpectedly sweeping,
and showed that the Trump administration has no intention of backing down despite Beijing's
assertive stance in the last few days. "The list reads like the terms for a surrender rather
than a basis for negotiation," said Eswar Prasad, an economics professor at Cornell
University.
Here are the highlights of the demands:
China must
■ Cut its trade surplus by $100 billion in the 12 months starting in June, and by
another $100 billion in the following 12 months.
■ Halt all subsidies to advanced manufacturing industries in its so-called Made In
China 2025 program. The program covers 10 sectors, including aircraft manufacturing, electric
cars, robotics, computer microchips and artificial intelligence.
■ Accept that the United States may restrict imports from the industries under Made
in China 2025.
■ Take "immediate, verifiable steps" to halt cyberespionage into commercial networks
in the United States.
■ Strengthen intellectual property protections.
■ Accept United States restrictions on Chinese investments in sensitive technologies
without retaliating.
■ Cut its tariffs, which currently average 10 percent, to the same level as in the
United States, where they average 3.5 percent for all "noncritical sectors."
■ Open up its services and agricultural sectors to full American competition.
The United States also stipulated that the two sides should meet every quarter to review
progress.
Trump definitely contributes a lot to the collapse of classic neoliberalism. He rejected neoliberal globalization in favor of using
the USA dominant position for cutting favorable to the USA bilateral deals. That undermined the role of dollar of the world reserve
currency and several mechanisms emerged which allow completely bypass dollar system for trade.
Notable quotes:
"... US President Donald Trump's ruthless use of the centrality of his country's financial system and the dollar to force economic partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic interdependence. ..."
"... A new world is emerging, in which it will be much harder to separate economics from geopolitics. ..."
US President Donald Trump's ruthless use of the centrality of his country's financial system and the dollar to force economic
partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic
interdependence.
In response, China (and perhaps Europe) will fight to establish their own networks and secure control of their nodes. Again, multilateralism
could be the victim of this battle.
A new world is emerging, in which it will be much harder to separate economics from geopolitics. It's not the world according
to Myrdal, Frank, and Perroux, and it's not Tom Friedman's flat world, either. It's the world according to Game of Thrones
.
It made me do a face palm. Somebody thought they had separated economics from geopolitics or power…or at least they wanted
people to believe that and the jig is up.
“One reason for this is that in an increasingly digitalised economy, where a growing part of services are provided at zero
marginal cost, value creation and value appropriation concentrate in the innovation centers and where intangible investments are
made. This leaves less and less for the production facilities where tangible goods are made.”
It depends on what you mean by value.
If value is dollars in someone’s Cayman Islands tax-free account, then value is concentrated in NYC and SF.
But if we follow Natural Law (Marx or Mohammed) and define value as labor, then this is exactly wrong. A Natural Law economy
tries to maximize paid and useful work, because people are made to be useful.
The digital world steadily eliminates useful work, and steadily crams down the wages for the little work that remains. Real
value is avalanching toward zero, while Cayman value is zooming to infinity.
He’s talking more about the whims of the stock market and of our intellectual property laws. For example the marginal cost
for Microsoft to issue another copy of “Windows” is zero. Even their revised iterations of the OS were largely a rehash of the
previous software. Selling this at high prices worked out well for a long time but now the software can practically be had for
free because competitors like Linux and Android are themselves free. So digital services with their low marginal cost depend on
a shaky government edifice (patent enforcement, lack of antitrust) to prop up their value. Making real stuff still requires real
labor and even many proposed robot jobs–driving cars, drone deliveries, automated factories and warehouses–are looking dubious.
Dean Baker has said that the actual investment in automation during the last decades has slowed–perhaps because expensive and
complicated robots may have trouble competing with clever if poorly paid humans. And poorly paid is the current reality due to
population increases and political trends and perhaps, yes, automation.
And even if the masters of the universe could eliminate labor they would then have nobody to buy their products. The super
yacht market is rather small.
>the distribution of gains from openness and participation in the global economy is increasingly skewed. …. True, protectionism
remains a dangerous lunacy.
Well “openness and participation” is looking like lunacy to the Deplorables for exactly the reason given, so what is actually
on offer here?
With useful physical labor being off-shored, first world citizens should all be made shareholders in the new scheme. We shall
all then become dividend collecting layabouts buying stuff made by people we do not know, see, or care about. If they object we
simply have the military mount a punitive expedition until they get whipped back into shape. Sort of like now but with a somewhat
larger, more inclusive shareholder base. It will be wonderful!
Are you sayin’ the lefty Social Wealth Fund concept is really just another way of replicating the same old bougie program of
domination and suppression?
I’m saying that it can be and historically, and that there are and have been multi-national systems of super exploitation of
peripheral, primarily resource exporting populations, relative to a more broadly distributed prosperity for “higher” skilled populations
of the center. This has been a common perspective within anti-imperialist movements.
The argument is not without merit. Is this a “contradiction among the people” where various sectors of a larger labor movement
can renegotiate terms, or is it some more intransigent, deeply antagonistic relationship is a crucial question. The exportation
of manufacturing to the periphery is disrupting the political status-quo as represented by the center’s centrism, political sentiments
are breaking away to the left and right and where they’ll land nobody knows.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
I was just reading this John Helmer below, like Pepe Escobar I’m not sure who’s buttering his bread but it’s all food for thought
and fresh cooked blinis are tastier than the Twinkies from the western msm, and this thought came to mind: Iran is the perfect
test ground for the US to determine Russian weapons and tactical capabilities in a major war context in 2019. That alone might
make it worth it to the Pentagon, why they seem so enthusiastic to take the empire of chaos to unforseen heights (depts?). Somewhat
like the Spanish Civil War was a testing ground for the weapons of WW2.
1. Because it has a lot of non US controlled Oil.
2. Because it is Central on the eastern end of the silk road.
3. Because it does not kiss the US Ring bearers hand at every opportunity, and the US is determined to make it an example not
to be followed.
But consider Saudi us relations… who is kissing who’s ring?
Or consider Israeli us relations… ditto.
We’re a thuggish whore whose favors are easily bought; bring dollars or votes. Or kiss the ring.
An environmental insight here. The world stands devastated. It has reached its carrying capacity for thoughtless humans. From
here on in we have to take the consequences of our actions into account. So when it is said, as above, that the dollar exchange
rate is more important than the other bilateral exchange rates, I think that is no longer the reality. There is only a small amount
of global economic synergy that operates without subsidy. The vast majority is subsidized. And the dollar is just one currency.
And, unfortunately, the United States does not control the sun and the wind (well we’ve got Trump), or the ice and snow. Let alone
the oceans. The big question going forward is, Can the US maintain its artificial economy? Based on what?
That is a factor that seems ignored by the philosophers who are the subjects of the headline posting. It is a great oversight,
a shoe which has been released and is now impacting the floor. “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men”
Looks like the world order established after WWIII crumbed with the USSR and now it is again the law if jungles with the US as the
biggest predator.
Notable quotes:
"... The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet. ..."
"... Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure, dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence, not democracy ..."
"... A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism" (meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest. ..."
"... For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.) to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness. ..."
"... Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II. ..."
"... Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards. ..."
"... Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations' International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity." ..."
"... This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago, and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer. ..."
"... England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank." ..."
"... But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium. ..."
"... On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas, this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions attack on Europe ..."
"... The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above. In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945. ..."
"... By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands. ..."
"... It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either. ..."
"... But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3 billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid. ..."
"... It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. ..."
"... Anticipating just such a double-cross, President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe. ..."
"... It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence. ..."
"... Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs, but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and settle for being a dominant minority. ..."
"... Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change. ..."
"... Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms". Interesting times. ..."
"... Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. ..."
"... To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles. ..."
"... Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet again. Nothing to see here, actually. ..."
"... So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change. ..."
"... Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. ..."
"... I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. ..."
"... If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be" to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing. ..."
"... In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3. ..."
"... Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble." ..."
"... He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas. ..."
"... The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run. ..."
"... Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics" on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners. ..."
"... Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence. There will be fierce competition to fill the gap. ..."
"... On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top. I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect. ..."
"... Former US ambassador, Chas Freeman, gets to the nub of the problem. "The US preference for governance by elected and appointed officials, uncontaminated by experience in statecraft and diplomacy, or knowledge of geography, history and foreign affairs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_882041135&feature=iv&src_vid=Ge1ozuXN7iI&v=gkf2MQdqz-o ..."
"... Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT. ..."
"... The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy. ..."
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected, thanks to the very same Neocons
who gave the world the Iraq, Syria and the dirty wars in Latin America. Just as the Vietnam War drove the United States off gold
by 1971, its sponsorship and funding of violent regime change wars against Venezuela and Syria – and threatening other countries
with sanctions if they do not join this crusade – is now driving European and other nations to create their alternative financial
institutions.
This break has been building for quite some time, and was bound to occur. But who would have thought that Donald Trump would become
the catalytic agent? No left-wing party, no socialist, anarchist or foreign nationalist leader anywhere in the world could have achieved
what he is doing to break up the American Empire. The Deep State is reacting with shock at how this right-wing real estate grifter
has been able to drive other countries to defend themselves by dismantling the U.S.-centered world order. To rub it in, he is using
Bush and Reagan-era Neocon arsonists, John Bolton and now Elliott Abrams, to fan the flames in Venezuela. It is almost like a black
political comedy. The world of international diplomacy is being turned inside-out. A world where there is no longer even a pretense
that we might adhere to international norms, let alone laws or treaties.
The Neocons who Trump has appointed are accomplishing what seemed unthinkable not long ago: Driving China and Russia together
– the great nightmare of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They also are driving Germany and other European countries into
the Eurasian orbit, the "Heartland" nightmare of Halford Mackinder a century ago.
The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution
of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported
even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States
is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet.
Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign
policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure,
dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank
to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence,
not democracy.
In the Devil's Dictionary that U.S. diplomats are taught to use as their "Elements of Style" guidelines for Doublethink, a "democratic"
country is one that follows U.S. leadership and opens its economy to U.S. investment, and IMF- and World Bank-sponsored privatization.
The Ukraine is deemed democratic, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries that act as U.S. financial and military protectorates
and are willing to treat America's enemies are theirs too.
A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public
relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism"
(meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest.
This trajectory could be seen 50 years ago (I described it in Super Imperialism [1972] and Global Fracture [1978].) It had to
happen. But nobody thought that the end would come in quite the way that is happening. History has turned into comedy, or at least
irony as its dialectical path unfolds.
For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that
opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties
that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.)
to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners
and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness.
The reality is that right-wing parties want to get elected, and a populist nationalism is today's road to election victory in
Europe and other countries just as it was for Donald Trump in 2016.
Trump's agenda may really be to break up the American Empire, using the old Uncle Sucker isolationist rhetoric of half a century
ago. He certainly is going for the Empire's most vital organs. But it he a witting anti-American agent? He might as well be – but
it would be a false mental leap to use "quo bono" to assume that he is a witting agent.
After all, if no U.S. contractor, supplier, labor union or bank will deal with him, would Vladimir Putin, China or Iran be any
more naïve? Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible
to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal
to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II.
Dismantling International Law and Its Courts
Any international system of control requires the rule of law. It may be a morally lawless exercise of ruthless power imposing
predatory exploitation, but it is still The Law. And it needs courts to apply it (backed by police power to enforce it and punish
violators).
Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country
have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy
years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which
let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards.
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their equity
share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy. Without such power, the United States would not join
any international organization. Yet at the same time, it depicted its nationalism as protecting globalization and internationalism.
It was all a euphemism for what really was unilateral U.S. decision-making.
Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international
court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations'
International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture
policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable
basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity."
[1]
Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton erupted in fury, warning in September that: "The United States will use any
means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," adding that
the UN International Court must not be so bold as to investigate "Israel or other U.S. allies."
That prompted a senior judge, Christoph Flügge from Germany, to resign in protest. Indeed, Bolton told the court to keep out of
any affairs involving the United States, promising to ban the Court's "judges and prosecutors from entering the United States." As
Bolton spelled out the U.S. threat: "We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and we will prosecute them in the
U.S. criminal system. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We
will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us."
What this meant, the German judge spelled out was that: "If these judges ever interfere in the domestic concerns of the U.S. or
investigate an American citizen, [Bolton] said the American government would do all it could to ensure that these judges would no
longer be allowed to travel to the United States – and that they would perhaps even be criminally prosecuted."
The original inspiration of the Court – to use the Nuremburg laws that were applied against German Nazis to bring similar prosecution
against any country or officials found guilty of committing war crimes – had already fallen into disuse with the failure to indict
the authors of the Chilean coup, Iran-Contra or the U.S. invasion of Iraq for war crimes.
Dismantling Dollar Hegemony from the IMF to SWIFT
Of all areas of global power politics today, international finance and foreign investment have become the key flashpoint. International
monetary reserves were supposed to be the most sacrosanct, and international debt enforcement closely associated.
Central banks have long held their gold and other monetary reserves in the United States and London. Back in 1945 this seemed
reasonable, because the New York Federal Reserve Bank (in whose basement foreign central bank gold was kept) was militarily safe,
and because the London Gold Pool was the vehicle by which the U.S. Treasury kept the dollar "as good as gold" at $35 an ounce. Foreign
reserves over and above gold were kept in the form of U.S. Treasury securities, to be bought and sold on the New York and London
foreign-exchange markets to stabilize exchange rates. Most foreign loans to governments were denominated in U.S. dollars, so Wall
Street banks were normally name as paying agents.
That was the case with Iran under the Shah, whom the United States had installed after sponsoring the 1953 coup against Mohammed
Mosaddegh when he sought to nationalize Anglo-Iranian Oil (now British Petroleum) or at least tax it. After the Shah was overthrown,
the Khomeini regime asked its paying agent, the Chase Manhattan bank, to use its deposits to pay its bondholders. At the direction
of the U.S. Government Chase refused to do so. U.S. courts then declared Iran to be in default, and froze all its assets in the United
States and anywhere else they were able.
This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago,
and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might
be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally
got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult
that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer.
But then came Venezuela. Desperate to spend its gold reserves to provide imports for its economy devastated by U.S. sanctions
– a crisis that U.S. diplomats blame on "socialism," not on U.S. political attempts to "make the economy scream" (as Nixon officials
said of Chile under Salvador Allende) – Venezuela directed the Bank of England to transfer some of its $11 billion in gold held in
its vaults and those of other central banks in December 2018. This was just like a bank depositor would expect a bank to pay a check
that the depositor had written.
England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo.
As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster
his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign
reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank."
Turkey seemed to be a likely destination, prompting Bolton and Pompeo to warn it to desist from helping Venezuela, threatening
sanctions against it or any other country helping Venezuela cope with its economic crisis. As for the Bank of England and other European
countries, the Bloomberg report concluded: "Central bank officials in Caracas have been ordered to no longer try contacting the Bank
of England. These central bankers have been told that Bank of England staffers will not respond to them."
This led to rumors that Venezuela was selling 20 tons of gold via a Russian Boeing 777 – some $840 million. The money probably
would have ended up paying Russian and Chinese bondholders as well as buying food to relieve the local famine.
[4] Russia denied this report, but Reuters has confirmed is that Venezuela has sold 3 tons of a planned 29 tones of gold to the
United Arab Emirates, with another 15 tones are to be shipped on Friday, February 1.
[5] The U.S. Senate's Batista-Cuban hardliner Rubio accused this of being "theft," as if feeding the people to alleviate the
U.S.-sponsored crisis was a crime against U.S. diplomatic leverage.
If there is any country that U.S. diplomats hate more than a recalcitrant Latin American country, it is Iran. President Trump's
breaking of the 2015 nuclear agreements negotiated by European and Obama Administration diplomats has escalated to the point of threatening
Germany and other European countries with punitive sanctions if they do not also break the agreements they have signed. Coming on
top of U.S. opposition to German and other European importing of Russian gas, the U.S. threat finally prompted Europe to find a way
to defend itself.
Imperial threats are no longer military. No country (including Russia or China) can mount a military invasion of another major
country. Since the Vietnam Era, the only kind of war a democratically elected country can wage is atomic, or at least heavy bombing
such as the United States has inflicted on Iraq, Libya and Syria. But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the
connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium.
Russia and China have already moved to create a shadow bank-transfer system in case the United States unplugs them from SWIFT.
But now, European countries have come to realize that threats by Bolton and Pompeo may lead to heavy fines and asset grabs if they
seek to continue trading with Iran as called for in the treaties they have negotiated.
On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran
and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument
in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored
Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas,
this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions
attack on Europe.
I have just returned from Germany and seen a remarkable split between that nation's industrialists and their political leadership.
For years, major companies have seen Russia as a natural market, a complementary economy needing to modernize its manufacturing and
able to supply Europe with natural gas and other raw materials. America's New Cold War stance is trying to block this commercial
complementarity. Warning Europe against "dependence" on low-price Russian gas, it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from the United
States (via port facilities that do not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required). President Trump also is insisting that NATO
members spend a full 2 percent of their GDP on arms – preferably bought from the United States, not from German or French merchants
of death.
The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above.
In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to
bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945.
The World Bank, for instance, traditionally has been headed by a U.S. Secretary of Defense. Its steady policy since its inception
is to provide loans for countries to devote their land to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves. That is
why its loans are only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive. By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food
blackmail – sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands.
It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to
become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically
to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports
from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably – witness the caravans and refugees
across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either.
Likewise, the IMF has been forced to admit that its basic guidelines were fictitious from the beginning. A central core has been
to enforce payment of official inter-government debt by withholding IMF credit from countries under default. This rule was instituted
at a time when most official inter-government debt was owed to the United States. But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3
billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country
deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption
to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid.
It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. Europe has taken
notice that its own international monetary trade and financial linkages are in danger of attracting U.S. anger. This became clear
last autumn at the funeral for George H. W. Bush, when the EU's diplomat found himself downgraded to the end of the list to be called
to his seat. He was told that the U.S. no longer considers the EU an entity in good standing. In December, "Mike Pompeo gave a speech
on Europe in Brussels -- his first, and eagerly awaited -- in which he extolled the virtues of nationalism, criticised multilateralism
and the EU, and said that "international bodies" which constrain national sovereignty "must be reformed or eliminated."
[5]
Most of the above events have made the news in just one day, January 31, 2019. The conjunction of U.S. moves on so many fronts,
against Venezuela, Iran and Europe (not to mention China and the trade threats and moves against Huawei also erupting today) looks
like this will be a year of global fracture.
It is not all President Trump's doing, of course. We see the Democratic Party showing the same colors. Instead of applauding democracy
when foreign countries do not elect a leader approved by U.S. diplomats (whether it is Allende or Maduro), they've let the mask fall
and shown themselves to be the leading New Cold War imperialists. It's now out in the open. They would make Venezuela the new Pinochet-era
Chile. Trump is not alone in supporting Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi terrorists acting, as Lyndon Johnson put it, "Bastards, but they're
our bastards."
Where is the left in all this? That is the question with which I opened this article. How remarkable it is that it is only right-wing
parties, Alternative for Deutschland (AFD), or Marine le Pen's French nationalists and those of other countries that are opposing
NATO militarization and seeking to revive trade and economic links with the rest of Eurasia.
The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed observer like
me. It took a colossal level of arrogance, short-sightedness and lawlessness to hasten its decline -- something that only crazed
Neocons like John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Mike Pompeo could deliver for Donald Trump.
[2] Patricia Laya, Ethan Bronner and Tim Ross,
"Maduro Stymied in Bid to Pull $1.2 Billion of Gold From U.K.," Bloomberg, January 25, 2019. Anticipating just such a double-cross,
President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe.
Well, if the StormTrumpers can tear down all the levers and institutions of international US dollar strength, perhaps they
can also tear down all the institutions of Corporate Globalonial Forced Free Trade. That itself may BE our escape . . . if there
are enough millions of Americans who have turned their regionalocal zones of habitation into economically and politically armor-plated
Transition Towns, Power-Down Zones, etc. People and places like that may be able to crawl up out of the rubble and grow and defend
little zones of semi-subsistence survival-economics.
If enough millions of Americans have created enough such zones, they might be able to link up with eachother to offer hope
of a movement to make America in general a semi-autarchik, semi-secluded and isolated National Survival Economy . . . . much smaller
than today, perhaps likelier to survive the various coming ecosystemic crash-cramdowns, and no longer interested in leading or
dominating a world that we would no longer have the power to lead or dominate.
We could put an end to American Exceptionalism. We could lay this burden down. We could become American Okayness Ordinarians.
Make America an okay place for ordinary Americans to live in.
If Populists, I assume that's what you mean by "Storm Troopers", offer me M4A and revitalized local economies, and deliver
them, they have my support and more power to them.
That's why Trump was elected, his promises, not yet delivered, were closer to that then the Democrats' promises. If the Democrats
promised those things and delivered, then they would have my support.
If the Democrats run a candidate, who has a no track record of delivering such things, we stay home on election day. Trump
can have it, because it won't be any worse.
I don't give a damn about "social issues." Economics, health care and avoiding WWIII are what motivates my votes, and I think
more and more people are going to vote the same way.
Good point about Populist versus StormTrumper. ( And by the way, I said StormTRUMper, not StormTROOper). I wasn't thinking
of the Populists. I was thinking of the neo-etc. vandals and arsonists who want us to invade Venezuela, leave the JCPOA with Iran,
etc. Those are the people who will finally drive the other-country governments into creating their own parallel payment systems,
etc.
And the midpoint of those efforts will leave wreckage and rubble for us to crawl up out of. But we will have a chance to crawl
up out of it.
My reason for voting for Trump was mainly to stop the Evil Clinton from getting elected and to reduce the chance of near immediate
thermonuclear war with Russia and to save the Assad regime in Syria from Clintonian overthrow and replacement with an Islamic
Emirate of Jihadistan.
Much of what will be attempted " in Trump's name" will be de-regulationism of all kinds delivered by the sorts of basic Republicans
selected for the various agencies and departments by Pence and Moore and the Koch Brothers. I doubt the Populist Voters wanted
the Koch-Pence agenda. But that was a risky tradeoff in return for keeping Clinton out of office.
The only Dems who would seek what you want are Sanders or maybe Gabbard or just barely Warren. The others would all be Clinton
or Obama all over again.
I couldn't really find any details about the new INSTEX system – have you got any good links to brush up on? I know they made
an announcement yesterday but how long until the new payment system is operational?
arguably wouldn't it be better if for USD hegemony to be dismantled? A strong USD hurts US exports, subsidizes American consumption
(by making commodities cheaper in relative terms), makes international trade (aka a 8,000-mile+ supply chain) easier.
For the sake of the environment, you want less of all three. Though obviously I don't like the idea of expensive gasoline,
natural gas or tube socks either.
It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive
Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence.
Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs,
but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and
settle for being a dominant minority.
Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast
their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change.
What this change would consist of, and how it would manifest, remained an open question. Would he pursue rapprochement with
Russia and pull troops out of the Middle East as he claimed to want to do during his 2016 campaign, would he doggedly pursue corruption
charges against Clinton and attempt to reform the FBI and CIA, or would he do both, neither, or something else entirely?
Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international
order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment
desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms".
Interesting times.
Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery
going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. Whether or not he ever had or has a coherent plan for the havoc he has
wrought, he has certainly been the agent for change many of us hoped he would be, in stark contrast to the criminal duopoly parties
who continue to oppose him, where the daily no news is always bad news all the same. To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you
don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the
best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles.
Look on some bright sides. Here is just one bright side to look on. President Trump has delayed and denied the Clinton Plan
to topple Assad just long enough that Russia has been able to help Assad preserve legitimate government in most of Syria and defeat
the Clinton's-choice jihadis.
That is a positive good. Unless you are pro-jihadi.
Clinton wasn't going to "benefit the greater good" either, and a very strong argument, based on her past behavior, can be made
that she represented the greater threat. Given that the choice was between her and Trump, I think voters made the right decision.
Hudson's done us a service in pulling these threads together. I'd missed the threats against the ICC judges. One question:
is it possible for INSTEX-like arrangements to function secretly? What is to be gained by announcing them publicly and drawing
the expected attacks? Does that help sharpen conflicts, and to what end?
Maybe they're done in secret already – who knows? The point of doing it publicly is to make a foreign-policy impact, in this
case withdrawing power from the US. It's a Declaration of Independence.
It certainly seems as though the 90 percent (plus) are an afterthought in this journey to who knows where? Like George C.Scott
said while playing Patton, "The whole world at economic war and I'm not part of it. God will not let this happen." Looks like
we're on the Brexit track (without the vote). The elite argue with themselves and we just sit and watch. It appears to me that
the elite just do not have the ability to contemplate things beyond their own narrow self interest. We are all deplorables now.
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected
Is not supported by this (or really the rest of the article). The past tense here, for example, is unwarranted:
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their
equity share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy.
And this
So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. Germany agreed
to slow down the transfer.
Doesn't show Germany as breaking free at all, and worse it is followed by the pregnant
But then came Venezuela.
Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet
again. Nothing to see here, actually.
So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change.
"So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change."
I'm surprised more people aren't recognizing this. I read the article waiting in vain for some evidence of "the end of our
monetary imperialism" besides some 'grumbling and foot dragging' as you aptly put it. There was some glimmer of a buried lede
with INTEX, created to get around U.S. sanctions against Iran ─ hardly a 'dam-breaking'. Washington is on record as being annoyed.
Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD
as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. World bond market flows are 10X the size
of world stock market flows even though the price of the Dow and Facebook shares etc get all of the headlines.
And foreign exchange flows are 10-50X the flows of bond markets, they're currently on the order of $5 *trillion* per day. And
since forex is almost completely unregulated it's quite difficult to get the data and spot reserve currency trends. Oh, and buy
gold. It's the only currency that requires no counterparty and is no one's debt obligation.
That's not what Hudson claims in his swaggering final sentence:
"The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed
observer like me."
Which is risible as not only did he fail to show anything of the kind, his opening sentence stated a completely different reality:
"The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected" So if we hold him to his first
declaration, his evidence is feeble, as I mentioned. As a scholar, his hyperbole is untrustworthy.
No, gold is pretty enough lying on the bosom of a lady-friend but that's about its only usefulness in the real world.
Always bemusing that gold bugs never talk about gold being in a bubble . yet when it goes south of its purchase price speak
in tongues about ev'bal forces.
thanks Mr. Hudson. One has to wonder what has happened when the government (for decades) has been shown to be morally and otherwise
corrupt and self serving. It doesn't seem to bother anyone but the people, and precious few of them. Was it our financial and
legal bankruptcy that sent us over the cliff?
Indeed! It is to say the least encouraging to see Dr. Hudson return so forcefully to the theme of 'monetary imperialism'.
I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you
haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. You can
find any number of articles on his web site that return periodically to the theme of monetary imperialism. I remember one in particular
that described how the rest of the world was brought on board to help pay for its good old-fashioned military imperialism.
If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt
status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long
as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington
neocons – as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be"
to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing.
Until the US returns to the path of genuine wealth creation, it is past time for the rest of the world to go its own way with
its banking and financial institutions.
In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same
pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3.
UK withholding Gold may start another Brexit? IE: funds/gold held by BOE for other countries in Africa, Asian, South America,
and the "stans" with start to depart, slowly at first, perhaps for Switzerland?
Where is the left in all this? Pretty much the same place as Michael Hudson, I'd say. Where is the US Democratic Party in all
this? Quite a different question, and quite a different answer. So far as I can see, the Democrats for years have bombed, invaded
and plundered other countries 'for their own good'. Republicans do it 'for the good of America', by which the ignoramuses mean
the USA. If you're on the receiving end, it doesn't make much difference.
Agreed! South America intervention and regime change, Syria ( Trump is pulling out), Iraq, Middle East meddling, all predate
Trump. Bush, Clinton and Obama have nothing to do with any of this.
" So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. "
What proof is there that the gold is still there? Chances are it's notional. All Germany, Venezuela, or the others have is
an IOU – and gold cannot be printed. Incidentally, this whole discussion means that gold is still money and the gold standard
still exists.
What makes you think that the gold in Fort Knox is still there? If I remember right, there was a Potemkin visit back in the
70s to assure everyone that the gold was still there but not since then. Wait, I tell a lie. There was another visit about two
years ago but look who was involved in that visit-
And I should mention that it was in the 90s that between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were manufactured in the
US under Clinton. Since then gold-coated tungsten bars have turned up in places like Germany, China, Ethiopia, the UK, etc so
who is to say if those gold bars in Fort Knox are gold all the way through either. More on this at --
http://viewzone2.com/fakegoldx.html
It wasn't last year that Germany brought back its Gold. It has been ongoing since 2013, after some political and popular pressure
build up. They finished the transaction in 2017. According to an article in Handelblatt (but it was widely reported back then)
they brought back pretty much everything they had in Paris (347t), left what they had in London (perhaps they should have done
it in reverse) and took home another 300t from the NY Fed. That still leaves 1236t in NY. But half of their Gold (1710t) is now
in Frankfurt. That is 50% of the Bundesbanks holdings.
They made a point in saying that every bar was checked and weighed and presented some bars in Frankfurt. I guess they didn't
melt them for assaying, but I'd expect them to be smart enough to check the density.
Their reason to keep Gold in NY and London is to quickly buy USD in case of a crisis. That's pretty much a cold war plan, but
that's what they do right now.
Regarding Michal Hudsons piece, I enjoyed reading through this one. He tends to write ridiculously long articles and in the
last few years with less time and motivation at hand I've skipped most of his texts on NC as they just drag on.
When I'm truly fascinated I like well written, long articles but somehow he lost me at some point. But I noticed that some
long original articles in US magazines, probably research for a long time by the journalist, can just drag on for ever as well
I just tune out.
This is making sense. I would guess that tearing up the old system is totally deliberate. It wasn't working so well for us
because we had to practice too much social austerity, which we have tried to impose on the EU as well, just to stabilize "king
dollar" – otherwise spread so thin it was a pending catastrophe.
Now we can get out from under being the reserve currency – the currency that maintains its value by financial manipulation
and military bullying domestic deprivation. To replace this old power trip we are now going to mainline oil. The dollar will become
a true petro dollar because we are going to commandeer every oil resource not already nailed down.
When we partnered with SA in Aramco and the then petro dollar the dollar was only backed by our military. If we start monopolizing
oil, the actual commodity, the dollar will be an apex competitor currency without all the foreign military obligations which will
allow greater competitive advantages.
No? I'm looking at PdVSA, PEMEX and the new "Energy Hub for the Eastern Mediterranean" and other places not yet made public.
It looks like a power play to me, not a hapless goofball president at all.
So sand people with sociological attachment to the OT is a compelling argument based on antiquarian preferences with authoritarian
patriarchal tendencies for their non renewable resource . after I might add it was deemed a strategic concern after WWII .
Considering the broader geopolitical realities I would drain all the gold reserves to zero if it was on offer . here natives
have some shiny beads for allowing us to resource extract we call this a good trade you maximize your utility as I do mine .
Hay its like not having to run C-corp compounds with western 60s – 70s esthetics and letting the locals play serf, blow back
pay back, and now the installed local chiefs can own the risk and refocus the attention away from the real antagonists.
Indeed. Thanks so much for this. Maybe the RICS will get serious now – can no longer include Brazil with Bolsonaro. There needs
to be an alternate system or systems in place, and to see US Imperialism so so blatantly and bluntly by Trump admin –
"US
gives Juan Guaido control over some Venezuelan assets" – should sound sirens on every continent and especially in the developing
world. I too hope there will be fracture to the point of breakage. Countries of the world outside the US/EU/UK/Canada/Australia
confraternity must now unite to provide a permanent framework outside the control of imperial interests. The be clear, this must
not default to alternative forms of imperialism germinating by the likes of China.
" such criticism can't begin to take in the full scope of the damage the Trump White House is inflicting on the system of global
power Washington built and carefully maintained over those 70 years. Indeed, American leaders have been on top of the world for
so long that they no longer remember how they got there.
Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it
now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's
inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of
a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble."
I read something like this and I am like, some of these statements need to be qualified. Like: "Driving China and Russia together".
Like where's the proof? Is Xi playing telephone games more often now with Putin? I look at those two and all I see are two egocentric
people who might sometimes say the right things but in general do not like the share the spotlight. Let's say they get together
to face America and for some reason the later gets "defeated", it's not as if they'll kumbaya together into the night.
This website often points out the difficulties in implementing new banking IT initiatives. Ok, so Europe has a new "payment
system". Has it been tested thoroughly? I would expect a couple of weeks or even months of chaos if it's not been tested, and
if it's thorough that probably just means that it's in use right i.e. all the kinks have been worked out. In that case the transition
is already happening anyway. But then the next crisis arrives and then everyone would need their dollar swap lines again which
probably needs to cleared through SWIFT or something.
Anyway, does this all mean that one day we'll wake up and a slice of bacon is 50 bucks as opposed to the usual 1 dollar?
Driving Russia and China together is correct. I recall them signing a variety of economic and military agreement a few years
ago. It was covered in the media. You should at least google an issue before making silly comments. You might start with the report
of Russia and China signing 30 cooperation agreements three years ago. See
https://www.rbth.com/international/2016/06/27/russia-china-sign-30-cooperation-agreements_606505
. There are lots and lots of others.
He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and
WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas.
The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical
foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed
the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run.
Whilst the far right factions fight over the rudder the only new game in town is AOC, Sanders, Warren, et al which Trumps supporters
hate with Ideological purity.
Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On
US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics"
on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners.
On a household level it fits, but there no "loser" household that in infinity can print money that the "winners" can accumulate
in exchange for their resources and fruits of labor.
One wonder what are Trumps idea of US being a winner in trade (surplus)? I.e. sending away their resources and fruits of labor
overseas in exchange for what? A pile of USD? That US in the first place created out of thin air. Or Chinese Yuan, Euros, Turkish
liras? Also fiat-money. Or does he think US trade surplus should be paid in gold?
When the US political and economic hegemony will unravel it will come "unexpected". Trump for sure are undermining it with
his megalomaniac ignorance. But not sure it's imminent.
Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash
will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence.
There will be fierce competition to fill the gap.
On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and
austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top.
I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect.
Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the
rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT.
The trade deficit required a large Government deficit to cover it and the US government could just create the money to cover
it.
Then ideological neoliberals came in wanting balanced budgets and not realising the Government deficit covered the trade deficit.
The US has been destabilising its own economy by reducing the Government deficit. Bill Clinton didn't realize a Government surplus is an indicator a financial crisis is about to hit. The last US Government surplus occurred in 1927 – 1930, they go hand-in-hand with financial crises.
Richard Koo shows the graph central bankers use and it's the flow of funds within the economy, which sums to zero (32-34 mins.).
The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy.
It should be remembered Bill Clinton's early meeting with Rubin, where in he was informed that wages and productivity had diverged –
Rubin did not blink an eye.
That bill alone makes Warren a viable candidate again, despite all her previous blunders. She is a courageous woman, that
Warren. And she might wipe the floor with the completely subservant to Israel lobby Trump. Who betrayed his electorate
in all major promises.
Notable quotes:
"... Not only would Warren's legislation prohibit some of the most destructive private equity activities, but it would end their ability to act as traditional asset managers, taking fees and incurring close to no risk if their investments go belly up. The bill takes the explicit and radical view that: ..."
"... Private funds should have a stake in the outcome of their investments, enjoying returns if those investments are successful but ab-1sorbing losses if those investments fail. ..."
"... Critics will say that Warren's bill has no chance of passing, which is currently true but misses the point. ..."
"... firms would share responsibility for the liabilities of companies under their control, including debt, legal judgments, and pension obligations to "better align the incentives of private equity firms and the companies they own." The bill, if enacted, would end the tax subsidy for excessive leverage and closes the carried interest loophole. ..."
"... The bill also seeks to ban dividends to investors for two years after a firm is acquired. Worker pay would be prioritized in the bankruptcy process, with guidelines intended to ensure affected employees are more likely to receive severance pay and pensions. It would also clarify gift cards are consumer deposits, ensuring their priority in bankruptcy proceedings. If enacted, private equity managers will be required to disclose fees, returns, and political expenditures. ..."
"... This is a bold set of proposals that targets abuses that hurt workers and investors. Most readers may not appreciate the significance of the two-year restriction on dividends. One return-goosing strategy that often leaves companies crippled or bankrupt in its wake is the "dividend recap" in which the acquired company takes on yet more debt for the purpose of paying a special dividend to its investors. Another strategy that Appelbaum and Batt have discussed at length is the "op co/prop co." Here the new owners take real estate owned by the company, sell it to a new entity with the former owner leasing it. The leases are typically set high so as to allow for the "prop co" to be sold at a richer price. This strategy is often a direct contributor to the death of businesses, since ones that own their real estate usually do so because they are in cyclical industries, and not having lease payments enables the to ride out bad times. The proceeds of sale of the real estate is usually dividended out to the investors, hence the dividend restriction would also pour cold water on this approach. ..."
"... However, there is precedent in private equity for recognizing joint and several liability of an investment fund for the obligations of its portfolio companies. In a case that winded its way through the federal courts until last year ( Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund ), the federal court held that Sun Capital Partners III was liable under ERISA, the federal pension law, for the unfunded pension obligations of Scott Brass, a portfolio company of that fund. The court's key finding was that Sun Capital played an active management role in Scott Brass and that its claim of passive investor status therefore should not be respected. ..."
"... Needless to say, private equity firms have worked hard to minimize their exposure to the Sun Capital decision, for example by avoiding purchasing companies with defined benefit pension plans. The Warren bill, however, is so broad in the sweep of liability it imposes that PE firms would be unlikely to be able to structure around it. It is hard to imagine the investors in private equity funds accepting liability for what could be enormous sums of unfunded pension liabilities ultimately flowing onto them. Either they would have to set up shell companies to fund their PE investments that could absorb the potential liability, or they would have to give up on the asset class. Either way, it would mean big changes to the industry and potentially a major contraction of it. ..."
"... I am surprised that Warren sought to make private equity funds responsible for the portfolio company debts by "joint and several liability". You can get to economically pretty much the same end by requiring the general partner and potentially also key employees to guarantee the debt and by preventing them from assigning or buying insurance to protect the guarantor from being liable. There is ample precedent for that for entrepreneurs. Small business corporate credit cards and nearly all small business loans require a personal guarantee. ..."
"... Warren's bill also has strong pro-investor provisions. It takes on the biggest feature of the ongoing investor scamming, which is the failure of PE managers to disclose to the investors all of the fees they receive from portfolio companies. The solution proposed by the bill to this problem is exceedingly straightforward, basically proclaiming, "Oh yeah, now you will have to disclose that." The bill also abolishes the ability of private equity managers to claim long term capital gains treatment on the 20 percent of fund profits that they receive, which is unrelated to the return on any capital that the private equity managers may happen to invest in a fund. ..."
"... We need a reparations movement for all those workers harmed by private equity. Seriously. ..."
"... It's so nice to see someone taking steps to protect the rights and compensation of the people actually doing the work at the companies and putting their interests first in case of bankruptcy. That those who worked hardest to make the company succeed were somehow the ones who took it in the shorts the worst has always struck me as a glaring inequity bordering on cruelty. ..."
Elizabeth Warren's
Stop Wall Street Looting Act , which is co-sponsored by Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, Mark Pocan and Pramila Jayapal, seeks to
fundamentally alter the way private equity firms operate. While the likely impetus for Warren's bill was the spate of private-equity-induced
retail bankruptcies, with Toys 'R' Us particularly prominent, the bill addresses all the areas targeted by critics of private equity:
how it hurts workers and investors and short-changes the tax man, thus burdening taxpayers generally.
"When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the
music is playing, you've got to get up and dance. We're still dancing,"
"A baited banker thus desponds,
From his own hand foresees his fall,
They have his soul, who have his bonds;
'Tis like the writing on the wall.
How will the caitiff wretch be scared,
When first he finds himself awake
At the last trumpet, unprepared,
And all his grand account to make!
For in that universal call,
Few bankers will to heaven be mounters;
They'll cry, 'Ye shops, upon us fall!
Conceal and cover us, ye counters!'
When other hands the scales shall hold,
And they, in men's and angels' sight
Produced with all their bills and gold,
'Weigh'd in the balance and found light!'
"... If you believe the US media if they just removed Putin, Russia would go back to being a good little puppet state just like under Yeltins. Which is a shockingly naïve way to look at international relations. ..."
"... It is not just Chinese but Asian in general. Watch several seasons of the Japanese cartoon "Gundam" and get back to me about who the good guys are and who the bad guys are in it. ..."
"... People always suffer when they allow corrupt sociopaths to gain power. That is as true today as it was in Germany in 1930's and 40's. ..."
"... According to news reports since the moron in charge announced that he had signed an executive order 'blacklisting' Huawei, those lovely humans at Google are denying Huawei phones access to gmail and playstore. The android operating system is open source and still available to Huawei. ..."
"... Doubtless FB and M$ will follow suit. Getting rid of all the nasty stuff that spies on users 24/7/365 now means that Huawei phones have all the advantages with none of the disadvantages. ..."
"... In Games of Thrones, the good characters are regularly disembowled, choked and drowned to death. Or turn evil. The evil characters grow in power and menace and rarely perish. The overwhelming message is that all people and all power are evil. There is no good in the world or what good there is will be quickly stomped out. Resistance is useless. ..."
"... The main message is really that resistance is futile . If the powers that be can condition the contemporary (and naturally idealistic) Western youth to accept that hypothesis, any threat to their depredations and financial tyranny is rendered impotent. If resistance is futile, said youth will simply have to accept how things are and try to stay out of the way of tyrannical kings, rapacious queens, brutal captains of the guards and wanton dragons. I.e. sit down and shut up while HRC, John Bolton, John Brennan and James Clapper ruin the planet. ..."
"... In the US 33% supported unilateral action, 70% of congress voted for the unilateral military action ..."
"... Thomas Jefferson said: "I tremble for my countrymen because I know God is just..." ..."
"... "The powerful do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." ..."
"... The movies Hollywood produced are often telling psychological conflicts as the central story. Each character has a certain fixed attitude and the interacting of the characters create the story. It does not matter if the setting is in antic times or in the far future. In the end there are always the bad and the good guy slamming it out in a fistfight. ..."
"... The historic Chinese drama which I currently favor are based on sociological storytelling. As they develop the stories form their characters. Their attitudes change over time because the developing exterior circumstances push them into certain directions. Good becomes bad and again good. The persons change because they must, not because the are genetically defined. I find these kind of movies more interesting. ..."
"... The take away quote "Wang also reiterated the principled stand against the "long-arm jurisdiction" imposed by the United States." Empire is having its hand slapped back in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, ??? ..."
"... I see empire as a war junkie and they are starting to twitch in withdrawals which is dangerous but a necessary stage. Trumps latest tweets show that level of energy. The spinning plates of empire are not wowing the crowds like before.....what is plan Z? ..."
"... My own view is that, as with everything the US has done lately, it already lost the war before it even stepped into battle in the theater. ..."
"... Strangest thing of all that the US itself would do the forcing out of itself from the world's trust. ..."
"... As I've written previously, the political philosophers of the nascent USA thought they would have a Natural Aristocracy ( here and here ) somewhat based on a meritocratic system instead of the Old World's Inherited Aristocracy based on blood relations and closed to anyone not within a very small circle. Yet it was still an Aristocracy with all it inherent evils, and it is that vast assortment of evils the US citizenry has yet to overcome in its supposed--idealized--quest for self-government. ..."
"... If you are interested in watching a film with a sociological approach to telling a story and you are close to a cinema, Mike Leigh's "Peterloo" just started screening last Thursday in Australia. The film is an exploration of British society during the Regency period (in the early 19th century), the class attitudes and opinions prevalent then, and the conditions and events that led to 60,000 - 100,000 labouring class people gathering at St Peter's Field in Manchester in August 1819, and how it was viciously broken up by cavalry and foot soldiers acting on orders of the aristocracy. ..."
"... The culture I am immersed in (USA) is heavily weighted toward the dramatic and two dimensional. Simply put, mass perspective engineering is geared to over simplify and reinforce these views with media imprinting via hollywood, madison ave. etc. The lenses through which impressions from the "outside world" pass through engineered to give the desired results rather than expand consciousness or engender critical thinking. In short, we are breeding for weakness and gullibility. ..."
"... If it is Hollywood, then you can be certain the intention is to manipulate the younger generation to supporting and idolising their permanent wars. On the face of it, that indeed appears to be the case. ..."
" Why The Takedown Of Heinz-Christian Strache Will Strengthen The Right | Main May 19, 2019 The story in the
American Conservative is very weak: that "the Americans" have already won the war is just
due to the built-in superiority: the "land of the free" against "communist dictatorship"
(so everybody knows who has to win). Or, a variation, "free market" against "state-owned".
A typical statement of that article: "China views commercial relations with other
countries as an extension of the political conflict between Western democracies and itself
-- that is, an extension of war." -- a very defining element of the "American" character,
to project the own aggression onto others.
There was another opinion-piece somewhere, can't find it anymore, where the author
argued that hopefully that "trade-war" will do really good for the Chinese economy --
forget about the US, and develop the home market.
As I believe that the sanctions are a great gift to Russia, I also believe that this
"trade-war" is a (potential) great gift to China.
That was an interesting article on psychological vs sociological storytelling and it makes
a good companion piece when thinking about how the US media personalizes US geo-political
conflicts with the heads of rival state (Putin, Xi, Castro, Kim Jong-un, Khomeini,
Gaddafi).
If you believe the US media if they just removed Putin, Russia would go back to
being a good little puppet state just like under Yeltins. Which is a shockingly naïve
way to look at international relations. States have permanent interests and any competent
head of State will always represent those interests to the best of their ability. True, you
could overthrow the government and replace every senior government figure with a compliant
puppet (which the US always tries to do), but the permanent interests that arise from the
inhabitants of the State will always rise up and (re)assert themselves. When the State
leadership is bribed or threatened into ignoring or acting against these needs it
ultimately creates a failed State.
Even the US media seems to subconsciously understand this, when they talk of "overly
ambitious US goals of remaking societies", however, they never make the logical next step
of investigating why these States do not wish to be remade as per the US imagined ideal,
what the interests of these actually are and how diplomacy can resolve conflicts.
According
to the US media everything boils down to the US = good, anyone who disagrees with our
policies = bad and diplomacy is just a measure of how vulgar our threats are during talks.
I'm specifically thinking of the US Ambassador to Russia, John Huntsman's boast of a US
aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean as being 100,000 tons of diplomacy to Russia - of all
the ridiculous and stupid things to says to Russia when supposedly trying to "ease"
tensions (I still can't believe Huntsmen, former Ambassador to China under Obama, is
regarded a "serious" professional ambassador within the State departments when compared to
all the celebrity ambassadorships the US President for fundraiser).
It is not just Chinese but Asian in general. Watch several seasons of the Japanese
cartoon "Gundam" and get back to me about who the good guys are and who the bad guys
are in it.
The whole notion that the "good guys" and the "bad guys" are set in stone
is antithetical to any worldview founded in Buddhism/Confucianism, or influenced by the
same. Can you imagine western children's programming teaching ambiguity between good and
evil? That which is which depends upon the observer's perspective? This is the sort of
concept that few western people get exposed to until graduate level ethics and philosophy
courses.
Or maybe not. I have never seen a single episode of "Game of Thrones" and maybe
that delves into ethical complexities that typical western mass media avoids. I wouldn't
know. What I do know is that this moral and ethical complexity is something that most Asian
children are introduced to before they hit their teens.
Trump just tweeted "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never
threaten the United States again!". Needless to say, more ridiculousness, Trump is pretty
close to plagiarizing himself with his prior comments regarding North Korean "North Korean
Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the "Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times." Will
someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a
Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button
works!". I think Trump is getting desperate now waiting by the phone for the Iranians to
call him. Trump is certainly still smarting after the failed Venezuela coup and wants to
avoid a second embarrassing defeat, however I doubt the Iranians will care that much about
his latest threat by tweet.
GOT was jarring this season. In the penultimate episode, a dragon wreaks havoc on a western
capital city, brutally murdering most of its inhabitants.
It is impossible not to make the correlation of the dragon as China and kings landing
(The city) as Washington d.c.
From this one can glean that they were attempting to show the ascendancy of China and
the utter destruction of the U.S. With shades of gray thrown about as to if the people of
the city deserved to be burned alive and as to whether the dragon and its rider, China,
have become what they originally set out to vanquish. The old Nietzsche maxim...those who
fight with monsters...
It was indeed unsettling because there are no moral winners. It is well realised for
this reason but poorly written and produced in other aspects as noted above by other
posters.
"First published From Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14: US Army War College: "There will
be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple
conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the
headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more
decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our
economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of
killing."
"Excerpts From Pentagon's Plan: 'Prevent the Re-Emergence of a New Rival':
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the
territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of
that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.
This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and
requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose
resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.
These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet
Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the
leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of
convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a
more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.
Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the
advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking
to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the
mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or
global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies
that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military
position in the world."
... access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil"
GOT is an allegory that explores the nature of power. If you see China's destruction of
Washington it says more about you than the show. Firebombing of Dresden might be a more apt
analogy.
People always suffer when they allow corrupt sociopaths to gain power. That is as true
today as it was in Germany in 1930's and 40's.
The complaints about poor writing are just fan sadness at unexpected horrors that
actually make sense for the show. Loose ends created by these horrors will likely be
resolved in the last episode tonight.
WJ @13 thanks for the link, I am eternally hopeful that this particular thread gets pulled
on until it unravels.
One of my distinct memories of the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (I lived in NYC at the
time), was the trumpeting of the Post and other tabloids about 'the Dancing Arabs,' which
obviously fanned the flames of hatred towards the designated villains. Once it was revealed
that they were actually Israelis, then crickets until the whole thing was shoved down the
memory hole.
I'm going out today to buy a couple of Huawei 'phones'.
According to news reports since the moron in charge announced that he had signed an
executive order 'blacklisting' Huawei, those lovely humans at Google are denying Huawei
phones access to gmail and playstore. The android operating system is open source and still
available to Huawei.
Doubtless FB and M$ will follow suit. Getting rid of all the nasty stuff that spies on
users 24/7/365 now means that Huawei phones have all the advantages with none of the
disadvantages.
They put their own chips in newer models and I have no doubt will find enough bright
sparks to take over apps integration meaning that this divergence point will become a boon
not a hurdle. Even better a Huawei costs 60% of a comparable korean model and half the
price of the fbi backdoored american shit.
I really like thinking expressed by an un-named english politician in a Henry Jackson
Society report: ""Huawei has long been accused of espionage" – a claim repeatedly
denied by the firm – and notes that "while there are no definitely proven cases", a
precautionary principle should be adopted."
All politicians are crooks and liars, everybody says so, lets lock em all up right now,
no need for evidence or trial or any of that due process nonsense, the precautionary
principle should apply.
I have never seen a single episode of "Game of Thrones" and maybe that delves into
ethical complexities that typical western mass media avoids. I wouldn't know.
Having suffered through four seasons of Game of Thrones, after a degree in philology and
literature, I'd be happy to share my impressions with you. In Games of Thrones, the good
characters are regularly disembowled, choked and drowned to death. Or turn evil. The evil
characters grow in power and menace and rarely perish. The overwhelming message is that all
people and all power are evil. There is no good in the world or what good there is will be
quickly stomped out. Resistance is useless.
The main message is really that resistance is futile . If the powers that be can
condition the contemporary (and naturally idealistic) Western youth to accept that
hypothesis, any threat to their depredations and financial tyranny is rendered impotent. If
resistance is futile, said youth will simply have to accept how things are and try to stay
out of the way of tyrannical kings, rapacious queens, brutal captains of the guards and
wanton dragons. I.e. sit down and shut up while HRC, John Bolton, John Brennan and James
Clapper ruin the planet.
Despite impressive production values, excellent acting (for the most part) and majestic
locations, Game of Thrones is truly the most evil large scale creative work I've ever seen.
On a philosophical level, Game of Thrones has no redeeming features. At best an
impressionable mind might come away with a hedonist mindset, i.e. the traditional salve of
weak spirits, carpe diem .
PS. There's some very good comments at the tail end of the
Takedown of Heinz-Christian Strache including one of my own covering in some depth the
Austrian political background to this event. Worth revisiting if you only saw the early
comments.
Using populations per country from '03 we get the following conclusions:
of the 36 countries outside the US we get 33% of the world population where
less than 8% supported unilateral military action by American and her allies
and 57% supported under no circumstances
this list excludes 42 additional countries with another 40% of world population who have
had their governments overthrown or attempted to be overthrown by the US since WWII
In the US 33% supported unilateral action, 70% of congress voted for the unilateral
military action
Being that the invasion was illegal and unpopular, the Bush admin invented a 'coalition
of the willing to give the appearance of support.
The Trump admin needed to create a similar type of facade for the Venezuelan coup. Such
things are needed specifically because the move is so unpopular and illegal.
I suppose that is a valid theory. But as the viewer we know the motivations of Dany and
why in some small regard the people in King's Landing deserve a little roughing up.
Thomas Jefferson said: "I tremble for my countrymen because I know God is just..."
The difference here is that we judge Assad even though we don't see what he is truly
doing.
Here we see what Dany has done, mass slaughter, and think to ourselves...we kinda had it
coming.
Concerning your take on GoT: Isn't this really the thesis of Thucydides through and
through reflected in GoT almost to a T?
"The powerful do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." GoT is not disturbing to be nihilistic and shocking. It is holding up a mirror to
history. But the quality of the show has declined since they have come to the end of the road in
adapting the source material. The show has overtaken the books.
The take away quote
"
As of the end of March, overseas investors bought a net of 1.77 trillion yuan (about 260.3
billion U.S. dollars) of bonds at the country's interbank bond market, up 31 percent from a
year earlier, and held 5.4 trillion yuan of yuan-denominated financial assets, up 19
percent year on year, according to the central bank.
"
What us peasants don't know is the extent to which China will let foreign investment
influence their socialistic ways. That said, China is the new empire, private or public is
yet to be determined but guess where all the "smart" money in the world is going? The money
movements are a giant sucking sound that will leave America under the global economic
bus.
Or not and China maintains its socialistic ways including projecting them around the
world.
The movies Hollywood produced are often telling psychological conflicts as the central
story. Each character has a certain fixed attitude and the interacting of the characters
create the story. It does not matter if the setting is in antic times or in the far
future. In the end there are always the bad and the good guy slamming it out in a
fistfight.
The historic Chinese drama which I currently favor are based on sociological
storytelling. As they develop the stories form their characters. Their attitudes change
over time because the developing exterior circumstances push them into certain
directions. Good becomes bad and again good. The persons change because they must, not
because the are genetically defined. I find these kind of movies more interesting.
That's the difference between materialism (marxism) and idealism (kantism, hegelianism
and noekantism). Besides, an idealist tv series helps selling more merch and doing more
sequels, hence the capitalist preference for idealism.
The take away quote
"Wang also reiterated the principled stand against the "long-arm jurisdiction" imposed by
the United States."
Empire is having its hand slapped back in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, ???
Where are they going to get their war on?
I see empire as a war junkie and they are starting to twitch in withdrawals which is
dangerous but a necessary stage. Trumps latest tweets show that level of energy. The
spinning plates of empire are not wowing the crowds like before.....what is plan Z?
Hot tip, GOT is just a movie. Please, no more psychological insights.
What fans really need, is some REAL WORLD justice, something that's noticeably missing
in today's world.
I agree that the American Conservative article was weak - as b obviously thought. It has
the US trade war against China completely wrong. I side with b in his hunch that China will
win. My own view is that, as with everything the US has done lately, it already lost the
war before it even stepped into battle in the theater.
And let's counter the author's point, in the weak article, that China needs the US trade
surplus more than the US needs the imports from China. The author says that China has no
way to substitute for exports to the US. There's abundant recent analysis on this, showing
the relatively small part of China's economy that hinges on this trade, but here's a good
Sputnik interview that illustrates how easily China can simply absorb goods into its own
domestic market:
"...we have our colossal domestic market, which has no competitors throughout the world.
Our consumer and innovation markets provide us with a large number of advantages and
room, giving China an opportunity to make a manoeuvre. Therefore, their blockage gives
China a chance to become even stronger. We must express our appreciation to our mentor,
Trump, for this, for this lesson and for forcing China to figure out how to withstand the
threats on its own."
The US used to be an important nation to do business with - commercial, diplomatic,
military. But as it has become "agreement incapable", nations are forced to replace it.
This takes a little time and readjustment, but then the change is permanent.
Strangest thing of all that the US itself would do the forcing out of itself from the
world's trust.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman discussed regional developments, including efforts to
strengthen security and stability, in a phone call with U.S. Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, the Saudi Media Ministry tweeted on Sunday.
"We want peace and stability in the region but we will not sit on our hands in light
of the continuing Iranian attack," Jubeir said. "The ball is in Iran's court and it is up
to Iran to determine what its fate will be."
He said the crew of an Iranian oil tanker that had been towed to Saudi Arabia early
this month after a request for help due to engine trouble were still in the kingdom
receiving the "necessary care". The crew are 24 Iranians and two Bangladeshis .
Is this a veiled threat on the lives of these crew members?
Re@ 51 James, well Sputniknews is reporting that the Saudi's claim that the Houthis are
planning to attack 300 critical infrastructure facilities in Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates in the coming weeks so that might be the instigating event your concerned
about
Thanks for your kudos! As I've written previously, the political philosophers of the
nascent USA thought they would have a Natural Aristocracy ( here and
here ) somewhat based on a meritocratic system instead of the Old World's Inherited
Aristocracy based on blood relations and closed to anyone not within a very small circle.
Yet it was still an Aristocracy with all it inherent evils, and it is that vast assortment
of evils the US citizenry has yet to overcome in its supposed--idealized--quest for
self-government.
Recall that George Washington was deemed safe to become the first
president because he could be trusted not to proclaim himself king --something often
forgotten by students of US History.
I've often lamented on the nature of the 1787 Constitution because it allows any POTUS
to become a king with almost zero hindrances on the power wielded. Sure, compared with
other systems of government at the time, the USA's was revolutionary, but only down to the
waist to borrow a phrase from Gilbert & Sullivan. Madison's theory, IMO, was--other
than being Aristocratic--okay until his most important check/balance was removed--that of
the "dueling oval office" where the losing POTUS candidate was awarded the
Vice-Presidency--imagine Hillary Clinton as Veep with Trump in the driver seat! IMO,
the
12th Amendment fatally wounded Madison's construction of a government that arrived at
great decisions based on a consensus of genuine national interests instead of partisanship.
Arguing that action is the great fault that must be corrected doesn't get much play
nowadays. Indeed, it's very difficult to debate Constitutional Reform given the engineered
political climate since the current situation suits the Ruling Oligarchy just fine.
I hope everyone had an opportunity to click the link I provided to the series of
paintings known as The Course of Empire . ICYMI, here it is again .
Please note which Empire's being copied and compare that with the predominant architectural
theme in the Outlaw US Empire's Imperium. Creditors ruled and eventually destroyed that
Empire. That's one historical lesson that's totally omitted from the historiography of the
USA.
By and large, we know what and where the problems are. The fundamental question is, will
we ever get the opportunity to fix them?
Their disadvantage is that they have to import energy. So they need export if they do
not wish to run a trade deficit.
They do not necessarily need the US for this though if they can trade in Yuan.
b, it is generally fund raising time during this time for some publishers (i.e.
counterpunch etc) and I would like to send you something as well. Can you please post the
payment information. Thanks.
If you are interested in watching a film with a sociological approach to telling a story
and you are close to a cinema, Mike Leigh's "Peterloo" just started screening last Thursday
in Australia. The film is an exploration of British society during the Regency period (in
the early 19th century), the class attitudes and opinions prevalent then, and the
conditions and events that led to 60,000 - 100,000 labouring class people gathering at St
Peter's Field in Manchester in August 1819, and how it was viciously broken up by cavalry
and foot soldiers acting on orders of the aristocracy.
The film is at least 150 minutes long and is a highly immersive experience. There is not
much plot in the Hollywood sense of the term. I believe reviews have been mixed with most
film critics complaining about the film being too long and boring. But if you are prepared
to watch a film that uses a sociological approach to telling a narrative, then you'll agree
with me that the film actually isn't long enough.
Very interesting studies and the ideas that they might spawn. The near parallels of the
micro and macro as well as the flow patterns.
The culture I am immersed in (USA) is heavily weighted toward the dramatic and two
dimensional. Simply put, mass perspective engineering is geared to over simplify and
reinforce these views with media imprinting via hollywood, madison ave. etc. The lenses
through which impressions from the "outside world" pass through engineered to give the
desired results rather than expand consciousness or engender critical thinking. In short,
we are breeding for weakness and gullibility.
In regard to large scale dynamics resembling the physics of things like the laws of
thermodynamics, I am wondering if phenomena like those alluded to above might be engulfed
and influenced by these kinds of natural patterns. So for example: Looking past the drama
of sanctions, trade wars, and good guys vs. bad guys, wont the large scale movements caused
by these things begin to move according to a kind of physics?
I keep wondering what the result of this latest round of economic warfare will lead to.
If the USA continues to sanction, embargo and blockade (at the behest of banking cartels?)
will this not cause a mass exodus from dollar reserves, SWIFT, BIS and the like? I hear all
sorts of opinions, bushels of dis-info and I'm mostly at a loss as to what to think. We are
clearly nearing the end of the Bretton-Woods era so a reset is in order. The USA is a mere
6% of the world population and some would say at the end of it's due date as far an being
an "international influencer".
So if they and their EU poodles go ahead and sanction every nation who refuses to bend
the knee what's stopping these nations from simply bypassing these decrees and going about
their business? I get the sense that this is already happening quietly. Russia, China and
various partner nations are creating alternatives in many forms, be they interweb servers,
financial networks, OBOR, SCO and more I have never heard of.
Perhaps the ratcheting up of tensions could also be swept up in the turbulence of
thermodynamics? If sanctions become embargoes and then blockades, what happens to the
"compressions ratios in the Straits of Hormuz?
Well, I've come across a few advertisements, but I always thought it was some kind of
children's video game. I cannot imagine why anyone other than a socially stunted and
mis-developed American or Americanised adolescent could want to watch such infantile
deranged garbage.
If it is Hollywood, then you can be certain the intention is to manipulate the younger
generation to supporting and idolising their permanent wars. On the face of it, that indeed
appears to be the case.
Assuming the decoupling would take place, that could be easily perceived as "strategic
blackmail" imposed by the Trump administration. Yet what the Trump administration wants is not
exactly what the US establishment wants – as shown by an
open letter to Trump signed by scores of academics, foreign policy experts and business
leaders who are worried that "decoupling" China from the global economy – as if
Washington could actually pull off such an impossibility – would generate massive
blowback.
What may actually happen in terms of a US-China "decoupling" is what Beijing is already,
actively working on: extending trade partnerships with the EU and across the Global South.
And that will lead, according to Li, to the Chinese leadership offering deeper and wider
market access to its partners. This will soon be the case with the EU, as discussed in Brussels
in the spring.
Sun Jie, a researcher at the Institute of World Economics and Politics at the Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences, said that deepening partnerships with the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (Asean) will be essential in case a decoupling is in the cards.
For his part Liu Qing, an economics professor at Renmin University, stressed the need for
top international relations management, dealing with everyone from Europe to the Global South,
to prevent their companies from replacing Chinese companies in selected global supply
chains.
And Wang Xiaosong, an economics professor at Renmin University, emphasized that a concerted
Chinese strategic approach in dealing with Washington is absolutely paramount.
All about
Belt and Road
A few optimists among Western
intellectuals would rather characterize what is going on as a vibrant debate between proponents
of "restraint" and "offshore balancing" and proponents of "liberal hegemony". In fact, it's
actually a firefight.
Among the Western intellectuals singled out by the puzzled Frankenstein guy, it is virtually
impossible to find another voice of reason to match Martin Jacques , now a senior fellow
at Cambridge University. When China Rules the World , his hefty tome published 10 years ago,
still leaps out of an editorial wasteland of almost uniformly dull publications by so-called
Western "experts" on China.
Jacques has understood that now it's all about the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road
Initiative:
"BRI has the potential to offer another kind of world, another set of values, another set
of imperatives, another way of organizing, another set of institutions, another set of
relationships."
Belt and Road, adds Jacques, "offers an alternative to the existing international order. The
present international order was designed by and still essentially privileges the rich world,
which represents only 15% of the world's population. BRI, on the other hand, is addressing at
least two-thirds of the world's population. This is extraordinarily important for this moment
in history."
Dmitry Orlov offers a highly-pertinent review of a current report to the US Congress about
the severe degradation of the US's capacity to produce ANY heavy industrial goods - including
advanced weapons such as replacement aircraft carriers, cruisers, tanks and all the rest -
within its own borders, independent of (exceedingly vulnerable) global supply networks:
Also, the US only has 'plenty' of fossil-hydrocarbon fuel on cloud-cuckoo-land paper. In
reality, it has quite a lot of such stuff which it will never access, and will never be able
to access, because of the non-negotiable, iron logic of EROEI and EROCI (the second acronym
relating to energy returned on financial capital invested; currently a long way red-ink
negative across the whole US fracking ponzi). EROEI refers to the even more intractable,
terminally-insoluble problem of energy returned on ENERGY invested. When this gets down to
around 4 to 1 or thereabouts, it's game over for actually being able to maintain an
industrial hitech society that can hope - credibly - to do fossil-hydrocarbon mining in any
seriously challenging conditions - which most of the world's remaining pools of such fuels
now exhibit.
These predicaments are qualitatively different from problems; problems, by definition, can
hope to be solved; predicaments, inherently, can't be, and can only be endured. The world is
now close to the edge of a decisive non-availability of sufficient fossil-hydrocarbon fuels
to keep even a skeleton semblance of modern hitech industrial society operating - at all.
That's the predicament that is already staring us in the face, and that will soon be
trampling us into the ground. Doesn't mean that hopeless political inadequates such as
PompousHippo and The Insane Geriatric Walrus won't attempt to trigger such insanity as an
aggression against Iran, though, they being too stupid, too delusional, and too
morally-degenarate, to know any better.
This is the overall situation which insists that the US has literally zero chance of
attacking Iran, and actually getting anything remotely resembling a 'win' out of it. Read
Dmitry's piece to get a more detailed outline of why this is so.
PS: The above considerations apply just as decisively to the US's nuclear weapon capacity
as they do to all the other hitech industrial toys which USAmerica is now barely able to
produce on its own - at all.
"... Of course, correlation is not causation, and there is no shortage of alternative explanations for the decline in U.S. manufacturing. Globalization, offshoring, and skills gaps are just three frequently cited causes. Moreover, some researchers, like MIT's David Autor, have argued that workers are benefiting from working alongside robots. ..."
"... Yet the evidence suggests there is essentially no relationship between the change in manufacturing employment and robot use. Despite the installation of far more robots between 1993 and 2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33 percent drop in the United States. (We introduce a three-year time lag to allow for robots to influence the labor market and continued with the most recent data, 2012). ..."
"... Korea, France, and Italy also lost fewer manufacturing jobs than the United States even as they introduced more industrial robots. On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and Australia invested less in robots but saw faster declines in their manufacturing sectors. ..."
Don't blame the robots for lost manufacturing jobs
Scott Andes and Mark Muro
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
a recent blog we described new research by George Graetz
and Guy Michaels that shows the impact of automation
technology in productivity statistics. So now there is good
evidence that robots are a driver of economic growth.
However, this new evidence poses a question: Has
productivity growth from robots come at the cost of
manufacturing jobs?
Between 1993 and 2007 (the timeframe studied by Graetz and
Micheals) the United States increased the number of robots
per hour worked by 237 percent. During the same period the
U.S. economy shed 2.2 million manufacturing jobs. Assuming
the two trends are linked doesn't seem farfetched.
Of course, correlation is not causation, and there is no
shortage of alternative explanations for the decline in U.S.
manufacturing. Globalization, offshoring, and skills gaps are
just three frequently cited causes. Moreover, some
researchers, like MIT's David Autor, have argued that workers
are benefiting from working alongside robots.
So is there a relationship between job loss and the use of
industrial robots?
The substantial variation of the degree to which countries
deploy robots should provide clues. If robots are a
substitute for human workers, then one would expect the
countries with much higher investment rates in automation
technology to have experienced greater employment loss in
their manufacturing sectors. Germany deploys over three times
as many robots per hour worked than the United States,
largely due to Germany's robust automotive industry, which is
by far the most robot-intensive industry (with over 10 times
more robots per worker than the average industry). Sweden has
60 percent more robots per hour worked than the United States
thanks to its highly technical metal and chemical industries.
Yet the evidence suggests there is essentially no
relationship between the change in manufacturing employment
and robot use. Despite the installation of far more robots
between 1993 and 2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its
manufacturing jobs between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33
percent drop in the United States. (We introduce a three-year
time lag to allow for robots to influence the labor market
and continued with the most recent data, 2012).
Korea,
France, and Italy also lost fewer manufacturing jobs than the
United States even as they introduced more industrial robots.
On the other hand, countries like the United Kingdom and
Australia invested less in robots but saw faster declines in
their manufacturing sectors.
"Despite the installation of far more robots between 1993 and
2007, Germany lost just 19 percent of its manufacturing jobs
between 1996 and 2012 compared to a 33 percent drop in the
United States. "
Yes the U.S. and Germany have a similar
pattern. So what.
Why Factory Jobs Are Shrinking Everywhere
by Charles Kenny
April 28, 2014, 1:16 PM EDT
A report from the Boston Consulting Group last week
suggested the U.S. had become the second-most-competitive
manufacturing location among the 25 largest manufacturing
exporters worldwide. While that news is welcome, most of the
lost U.S. manufacturing jobs in recent decades aren't coming
back. In 1970, more than a quarter of U.S. employees worked
in manufacturing. By 2010, only one in 10 did.
The growth in imports from China had a role in that
decline–contributing, perhaps, to as much as one-quarter of
the employment drop-off from 1991 to 2007, according to an
analysis by David Autor and colleagues at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. But the U.S. jobs slide began well
before China's rise as a manufacturing power. And
manufacturing employment is falling almost everywhere,
including in China. The phenomenon is driven by technology,
and there's reason to think developing countries are going to
follow a different path to wealth than the U.S. did-one that
involves a lot more jobs in the services sector.
Pretty much every economy around the world has a low or
declining share of manufacturing jobs. According to OECD
data, the U.K. and Australia have seen their share of
manufacturing drop by around two-thirds since 1971. Germany's
share halved, and manufacturing's contribution to gross
domestic product there fell from 30 percent in 1980 to 22
percent today. In South Korea, a late industrializer and
exemplar of miracle growth, the manufacturing share of
employment rose from 13 percent in 1970 to 28 percent in
1991; it's fallen to 17 percent today.
"... When tariffs went up from 0 to 10% on some product categories last year, many suppliers agreed to absorb half that amount (5%) in exchange for larger orders. The logic was as follows: higher orders lead to better deals with component suppliers and to higher production efficiencies, which means lower costs. ..."
"... Do you ship American wood for processing in China and re-exporting to the US? You might have issues getting that material into China as smoothly as before. And then, the US Customs office might give you a hard time when you bring the goods in, too! ..."
"... Who knows what non-monetary barriers the Chinese will erect. One can count on their creativity ..."
"... Several US companies asked our company to look for assembly plants in Vietnam and, in those cases where we found some options, they were much more expensive than China. There is a reason why China's share of hard goods production in Asia has kept growing in recent years -- competition is often non-existent. ..."
"... Now, with China's products suddenly much more expensive, what are these competing countries going to do? Won't they take advantage of it and push wages further up, at least for the export manufacturing sector? ..."
"... Mexico should be the clear winner of this trade war. They are next to the US, their labor cost is comparable to that of China, and many American companies have long had extensive operations there. ..."
Based on
allthe
articles I have read about the current geopolitical situation, I am not optimistic about
the affect of the US-China trade war on American importers. Dan Harris, who wrote "
the US-China Cold War start now, " announced that a "mega-storm" might be coming, and he
may be right.
Now, if things turn out as bad as predicted, and if tariffs apply on more goods imported
from China to the US -- and at higher rates -- what does it mean for US importers?
What
will the damage from the US-China trade war look like?
These are my thoughts about who or what is going to be hit hard by the ongoing 'trade
war:'
1. Small importers will be hit much harder than larger ones
If you work with very large Chinese manufacturers, many of them have already started to set
up operations outside of mainland China, for the simple reason that most of their customers
have been pushing for that.
They are in Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. And this is true in most industries -- from apparel to
electronics.
Do they still have to import most of their components from China? It depends on their
footprints. As I wrote before :
You set up a mammoth plant and you don't want your high-value component suppliers to be
more than 1 hour away from you, for just-in-time inventory replenishment? They can be
requested to set up a new manufacturing facility next to you.
2. A higher total cost of goods purchased from China
This one is obvious. If you have orders already in production, they will cost you more than
expected.
The RMB might slide quite a bit, and that might alleviate the total cost. I hope you have
followed my advice and started paying your suppliers in RMB , to benefit
from it automatically.
Beijing might also give other forms of subsidies to their exporters. They might be quite
visible (e.g. a higher VAT rebate) or totally 'under the table'.
3. Difficult
negotiations with Chinese suppliers
Can you say the tariffs are Beijing's fault, and so your suppliers should absorb the
tariffs? That's not going to work.
When tariffs went up from 0 to 10% on some product categories last year, many suppliers
agreed to absorb half that amount (5%) in exchange for larger orders. The logic was as follows:
higher orders lead to better deals with component suppliers and to higher production
efficiencies, which means lower costs.
When tariffs go from 10% to 35%, what else can US buyers give their counter-parties?
Payments in advance? Lower quality standards? I don't believe that.
4. Difficulties at
several levels in the supply chain
Do you ship American wood for processing in China and re-exporting to the US? You might have
issues getting that material into China as smoothly as before. And then, the US Customs office
might give you a hard time when you bring the goods in, too!
Who knows what non-monetary barriers the Chinese will erect. One can count on their
creativity
5. Short-term non-elasticity of alternative sources
There are a finite number of Vietnamese export-ready manufacturers that can make your
orders. And, chances are, their capacity is already full. If you haven't prepared this move for
months (or years), other US companies have. The early bird gets the worm
Same thing with Thailand, Indonesia, India, and so on, with the exception of apparel and
(maybe) footwear.
Several US companies asked our company
to look for assembly plants in Vietnam and, in those cases where we found some options, they
were much more expensive than China. There is a reason why China's share of
hard goods production in Asia has kept growing in recent years -- competition is often
non-existent.
6. Faster cost increases in other low-cost Asian countries
Now, with China's products suddenly much more expensive, what are these competing countries
going to do? Won't they take advantage of it and push wages further up, at least for the export
manufacturing sector?
There could be some 'silver linings' due to the trade war
It is not all bad news though. We may see these benefits caused by China and the USA
slugging it out too:
7. Many opportunities for Mexico
Mexico should be the clear winner of this trade war. They are next to the US, their labor
cost is comparable to that of China, and many American companies have long had extensive
operations there.
8. Rapid consolidation in the Chinese manufacturing sector
The fittest will survive. Many uncompetitive manufacturers and traders will fold. Consolidation
will accelerate. I often look at what happened in Japan and South Korea . Each of these countries
developed very fast and, when the going got tough, the export manufacturing sector got
devastated. Only the most competitive survived.
9. Relaxed enforcement of anti-pollution
regulations in China?
I'd bet that, if the tariffs hit hard, far fewer operations will get closed for
environmental reasons. Preserving employment and social peace will prevail.
Over the last two years, a different, in some ways unrecognizable Larry Summers has been appearing in newspaper editorial pages.
More circumspect in tone, this humbler Summers has been arguing that economic opportunities in the developing world are slowing,
and that the already rich economies are finding it hard to get out of the crisis. Barring some kind of breakthrough, Summers says,
an era of slow growth is here to stay.
In Summers's recent writings, this sombre conclusion has often been paired with a surprising political goal: advocating for a
"responsible nationalism". Now he argues that politicians must recognise that "the basic responsibility of government is to maximise
the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global good".
One curious thing about the pro-globalisation consensus of the 1990s and 2000s, and its collapse in recent years, is how closely
the cycle resembles a previous era. Pursuing free trade has always produced displacement and inequality – and political chaos, populism
and retrenchment to go with it. Every time the social consequences of free trade are overlooked, political backlash follows. But
free trade is only one of many forms that economic integration can take. History seems to suggest, however, that it might be the
most destabilising one.
... ... ...
The international systems that chastened figures such as Keynes helped produce in the next few years – especially the Bretton
Woods agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) – set the terms under which the new wave of globalisation
would take place.
The key to the system's viability, in Rodrik's view, was its flexibility – something absent from contemporary globalisation,
with its one-size-fits-all model of capitalism. Bretton Woods stabilised exchange rates by pegging the dollar loosely to gold, and
other currencies to the dollar. Gatt consisted of rules governing free trade – negotiated by participating countries in a series
of multinational "rounds" – that left many areas of the world economy, such as agriculture, untouched or unaddressed. "Gatt's purpose
was never to maximise free trade," Rodrik writes. "It was to achieve the maximum amount of trade compatible with different nations
doing their own thing. In that respect, the institution proved spectacularly successful."
Partly because Gatt was not always dogmatic about free trade, it allowed most countries to figure out their own economic objectives,
within a somewhat international ambit. When nations contravened the agreement's terms on specific areas of national interest, they
found that it "contained loopholes wide enough for an elephant to pass", in Rodrik's words. If a nation wanted to protect its steel
industry, for example, it could claim "injury" under the rules of Gatt and raise tariffs to discourage steel imports: "an abomination
from the standpoint of free trade". These were useful for countries that were recovering from the war and needed to build up their
own industries via tariffs – duties imposed on particular imports. Meanwhile, from 1948 to 1990, world trade grew at an annual average
of nearly 7% – faster than the post-communist years, which we think of as the high point of globalisation. "If there was a golden
era of globalisation," Rodrik has written, "this was it."
Gatt, however, failed to cover many of the countries in the developing world. These countries eventually created their own system,
the United Nations conference on trade and development (UNCTAD). Under this rubric, many countries – especially in Latin America,
the Middle East, Africa and Asia – adopted a policy of protecting homegrown industries by replacing imports with domestically produced
goods. It worked poorly in some places – India and Argentina, for example, where the trade barriers were too high, resulting in
factories that cost more to set up than the value of the goods they produced – but remarkably well in others, such as east Asia,
much of Latin America and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where homegrown industries did spring up. Though many later economists and
commentators would dismiss the achievements of this model, it theoretically fit Larry Summers's recent rubric on globalisation:
"the basic responsibility of government is to maximise the welfare of citizens, not to pursue some abstract concept of the global
good."
The critical turning point – away from this system of trade balanced against national protections – came in the 1980s. Flagging
growth and high inflation in the west, along with growing competition from Japan, opened the way for a political transformation.
The elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were seminal, putting free-market radicals in charge of two of the world's
five biggest economies and ushering in an era of "hyperglobalisation". In the new political climate, economies with large public
sectors and strong governments within the global capitalist system were no longer seen as aids to the system's functioning, but
impediments to it.
Not only did these ideologies take hold in the US and the UK; they seized international institutions as well. Gatt renamed itself
as the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the new rules the body negotiated began to cut more deeply into national policies. Its
international trade rules sometimes undermined national legislation. The WTO's appellate court intervened relentlessly in member
nations' tax, environmental and regulatory policies, including those of the United States: the US's fuel emissions standards were
judged to discriminate against imported gasoline, and its
ban on imported shrimp caught without turtle-excluding
devices was overturned. If national health and safety regulations were stricter than WTO rules necessitated, they could only
remain in place if they were shown to have "scientific justification".
The purest version of hyperglobalisation was tried out in Latin America in the 1980s. Known as the "Washington consensus", this
model usually involved loans from the IMF that were contingent on those countries lowering trade barriers and privatising many of
their nationally held industries. Well into the 1990s, economists were proclaiming the indisputable benefits of openness. In an
influential 1995 paper, Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner wrote: "We find no cases to support the frequent worry that a country might
open and yet fail to grow."
But the Washington consensus was bad for business: most countries did worse than before. Growth faltered, and citizens across
Latin America revolted against attempted privatisations of water and gas. In Argentina, which followed the Washington consensus
to the letter, a grave crisis resulted in
2002 , precipitating an economic collapse and massive street protests that forced out the government that had pursued privatising
reforms. Argentina's revolt presaged a left-populist upsurge across the continent: from 1999 to 2007, leftwing leaders and parties
took power in Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, all of them campaigning against the Washington consensus on globalisation.
These revolts were a preview of the backlash of today.
Rodrik – perhaps the contemporary economist whose views have been most amply vindicated by recent events – was himself a beneficiary
of protectionism in Turkey. His father's ballpoint pen company was sheltered under tariffs, and achieved enough success to allow
Rodrik to attend Harvard in the 1970s as an undergraduate. This personal understanding of the mixed nature of economic success may
be one of the reasons why his work runs against the broad consensus of mainstream economics writing on globalisation.
"I never felt that my ideas were out of the mainstream," Rodrik told me recently. Instead, it was that the mainstream had lost
touch with the diversity of opinions and methods that already existed within economics. "The economics profession is strange in
that the more you move away from the seminar room to the public domain, the more the nuances get lost, especially on issues of trade."
He lamented the fact that while, in the classroom, the models of trade discuss losers and winners, and, as a result, the necessity
of policies of redistribution, in practice, an "arrogance and hubris" had led many economists to ignore these implications. "Rather
than speaking truth to power, so to speak, many economists became cheerleaders for globalisation."
In his 2011 book The Globalization Paradox
, Rodrik concluded that "we cannot simultaneously pursue democracy, national determination, and economic globalisation." The
results of the 2016 elections and referendums provide ample testimony of the justness of the thesis, with millions voting to push
back, for better or for worse, against the campaigns and institutions that promised more globalisation. "I'm not at all surprised
by the backlash," Rodrik told me. "Really, nobody should have been surprised."
But what, in any case, would "more globalisation" look like? For the same economists and writers who have started to rethink
their commitments to greater integration, it doesn't mean quite what it did in the early 2000s. It's not only the discourse that's
changed: globalisation itself has changed, developing into a more chaotic and unequal system than many economists predicted. The
benefits of globalisation have been largely concentrated in a handful of Asian countries. And even in those countries, the good
times may be running out.
Statistics from Global Inequality
, a 2016 book by the development economist Branko Milanović, indicate that in relative terms the greatest benefits of globalisation
have accrued to a rising "emerging middle class", based preponderantly in China. But the cons are there, too: in absolute terms,
the largest gains have gone to what is commonly called "the 1%" – half of whom are based in the US. Economist Richard Baldwin has
shown in his recent book, The Great Convergence, that nearly all of the gains from globalisation have been concentrated in six countries.
Barring some political catastrophe, in which rightwing populism continued to gain, and in which globalisation would be the least
of our problems – Wolf admitted that he was "not at all sure" that this could be ruled out – globalisation was always going to slow;
in fact, it already has. One reason, says Wolf, was that "a very, very large proportion of the gains from globalisation – by no
means all – have been exploited. We have a more open world economy to trade than we've ever had before." Citing The Great Convergence,
Wolf noted that supply chains have already expanded, and that future developments, such as automation and the use of robots, looked
to undermine the promise of a growing industrial workforce. Today, the political priorities were less about trade and more about
the challenge of retraining workers , as technology renders old jobs obsolete and transforms the world of work.
Rodrik, too, believes that globalisation, whether reduced or increased, is unlikely to produce the kind of economic effects it
once did. For him, this slowdown has something to do with what he calls "premature deindustrialisation". In the past, the simplest
model of globalisation suggested that rich countries would gradually become "service economies", while emerging economies picked
up the industrial burden. Yet recent statistics show the world as a whole is deindustrialising. Countries that one would have expected
to have more industrial potential are going through the stages of automation more quickly than previously developed countries did,
and thereby failing to develop the broad industrial workforce seen as a key to shared prosperity.
For both Rodrik and Wolf, the political reaction to globalisation bore possibilities of deep uncertainty. "I really have found
it very difficult to decide whether what we're living through is a blip, or a fundamental and profound transformation of the world
– at least as significant as the one that brought about the first world war and the Russian revolution," Wolf told me. He cited
his agreement with economists such as Summers that shifting away from the earlier emphasis on globalisation had now become a political
priority; that to pursue still greater liberalisation was like showing "a red rag to a bull" in terms of what it might do to the
already compromised political stability of the western world.
Rodrik pointed to a belated emphasis, both among political figures and economists, on the necessity of compensating those displaced
by globalisation with retraining and more robust welfare states. But pro-free-traders had a history of cutting compensation: Bill
Clinton passed Nafta, but failed to expand safety nets. "The issue is that the people are rightly not trusting the centrists who
are now promising compensation," Rodrik said. "One reason that Hillary Clinton didn't get any traction with those people is that
she didn't have any credibility."
Rodrik felt that economics commentary failed to register the gravity of the situation: that there were increasingly few avenues
for global growth, and that much of the damage done by globalisation – economic and political – is irreversible. "There is a sense
that we're at a turning point," he said. "There's a lot more thinking about what can be done. There's a renewed emphasis on compensation
– which, you know, I think has come rather late."
As Noam Chomsky
says, the term globalisation has been appropriated by a narrow sector of power and privilege to
refer to their version of international integration and it makes sense for them to own the term
because anyone who is opposed to their version becomes anti-globalisation -- someone who is
primitive and wants to go back to the stone age and that everyone likes international integration
but not the investor rights version of it.
In reality globalization was a politically correct term for neocolonialism
Notable quotes:
"... In finance, the change was marked by a fundamental shift in governments' attitudes away from managing capital flows and toward liberalization ..."
Globalization is in trouble. A populist backlash, personified by U.S. President Donald
Trump, is in full swing. A simmering trade war
between China and the United States could easily boil over. Countries across Europe are
shutting their borders to immigrants. Even globalization's biggest boosters now concede that it
has produced lopsided benefits and that something
will have to change .
Today's woes have their roots in the 1990s, when policymakers set the world on its current,
hyperglobalist path, requiring domestic economies to be put in the service of the world economy
instead of the other way around. In trade, the transformation was signaled by the creation of
the World Trade Organization, in 1995. The WTO not only made it harder for countries to shield
themselves from international competition but also reached into policy areas that international
trade rules had not previously touched: agriculture, services, intellectual property,
industrial policy, and health and sanitary regulations. Even more ambitious regional trade
deals, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, took off around the same time.
In finance, the change was marked by a fundamental shift in governments' attitudes away from
managing capital flows and toward liberalization. Pushed by the United States and global
organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, countries freed up vast quantities of short-term finance to slosh
across borders in search of higher returns.
At the time, these changes seemed to be based on sound economics. Openness to trade would
lead economies to allocate their resources to where they would be the most productive. Capital
would flow from the countries where it was plentiful to the countries where it was needed. More
trade and freer finance would unleash private investment and fuel global economic growth.
But
these new arrangements came with risks that the hyperglobalists did not foresee, although
economic theory could have predicted the downside to globalization just as well as it did the
upside.
Globalization is simply a neoliberal economic substitute for colonialism.
Neoliberals contrary to popular opinion do not believe in self-regulating markets as
autonomous entities. They do not see democracy as necessary for capitalism.
The neoliberal globalist world is not a borderless market without nations but a doubled
world (economic -global and social- national) . The global economic world is kept safe from
democratic national demands for social justice and equality, and in return each nation enjoys
cultural freedom.
Neoliberals see democracy as a real problem. Democracy means the unwashed masses can
threaten the so called market economy (in fact manipulated and protected markets) with worker
demands for living wages and equality and consumer demands for competitive pricing and safe
products. Controlling both parties with money prevents that.
In fact, neoliberal thinking is comparable to that of John Maynard Keynes in one respect :
"the market does not and cannot take care of itself".
The neoliberal project did not liberate markets so much as protect them by protecting
capitalism against the threat of democracy and to reorder the world where borders provide a
captive market
Neoliberals insulate the markets by providing safe harbor for capital, free from fear of
infringement by policies of progressive taxation or redistribution. They do this by
redesigning government, laws, and other institutions to protect the market.
For example the stock market is propped up by the Feds purchases of futures, replacing the
plunge protection teams intervention at an even more extreme level. Manipulation of economic
statistics by the BLS also serve a similar purpose.
Another example is getting government to accept monopoly capitalism over competitive
capitalism and have appointed judges who believe illegal collusion is nothing more than
understandable and legal "conscious parallelism"
Now it seems to me the Koch-Soros think tank is an attempt to unify the neoliberal
globalist forces which represent factions from international greenies to nationalist
protectionists . In other words to repackage and rename neoliberal globalism while keeping
its essence. Be interesting to see what they come up with.
As for China opening to private international finance. They already did that but this
takes it to a new level. Like I said. Fake wrestling. This was one of the demands in the
trade negotiations by Trump. Why take one of your chips off the table if the game is for
real?
China was Made in USA (includes the City of London) like the EU and Putins neoliberal
Russia.
One day they will get around telling us they are all buddies, or maybe not. I suspect they
have a lot of laughs playing us like they do.
I could be wrong but this is more interesting than the official and semi official
narratives.
"... if the US ever held unipolar control in reality it was briefly during the period after the downfall of the USSR and up until the conquest of Iraq. ..."
"... An economic system, of which the financial system is a part of, is one of the fundamental structures of any society. Societies in today's world are defined at the sovereign state level, and the economic systems are defined by the governments of these states ..."
"... 'Globalism' as discussed in these blogs, in opposition to 'multi-polarity' is not about global commerce, but rather about an effort by a certain group of wealthy elites, primarily centered in London and New York, and commonly referred to as 'Globalists' to transfer the authority for the definition and control of economic systems from sovereign states to a set of international institutions under their control. ..."
"... In doing so they strip the sovereignty from sovereign states, as as already happened with the EU, and create a global dictatorship, under the control of the 'Globalists' and completely isolated from any democratic oversight. A fascist project in the purest sense of fascism. ..."
"... The 'Multi-polar' group of nations are those nations who oppose this fascist project and who are working to maintain and restore the sovereignty of nations. ..."
Stating "globalism" is antithetical to "multipolarity" is a non-sequitor.
Globalism is the financial structure (or "system" if you will) through which capitalist
enterprises function. This is complex of course and includes capital markets, corporations,
multinational corporations, currency markets, commodities markets, trading agreements.
Politicians intervene in the functioning of globalism so there is seldom if ever anything
like a globalism free of political influence.
OTOH, "multipolarity" has no structure that I can see. It is an empty vessel, purely a
political, statist-inspired idea (whereas globalism is a "thing" which contains
political and economic ideas of course but those ideas may or may not be statist in concept
depending on the context) which can mean anything to anyone at any point in time.
I guess I would say the term is purely Orwellian. Thus, without reading anything other
than James's comment I would guess the author's idea is either nonsensical or propagandistic
in nature.
For me, the world became "multipolar" the minute the US invaded Iraq in 2003. The idea
that the US wishes to maintain its "unipolar" leadership of the world may be true in the
wishful sense of some neocons, however if the US ever held unipolar control in reality it
was briefly during the period after the downfall of the USSR and up until the conquest of
Iraq.
Today, I view the world as both multipolar and globalist. While many of the political and
economic tensions we see result from the disconnects between national political and global
economic conditions, I think we must admit if we are honest that many of the more recent
tensions are simply the result of Trump's presidency, which has the intended affect of being
"a bull in the china shop" of the globalist system.
This is not necessarily a bad thing in theory. Sadly, however, Trump is a geopolitical and
foreign policy moron who doesn't know what he is doing beyond enriching himself and creating
daily fake news headlines in hopes of being re-elected on behalf of the same global elites he
playacts at combatting for his worshipful audience of true believers.
'Globalism is the financial structure (or "system" if you will) through which capitalist
enterprises function.'
What B.S.!!
An economic system, of which the financial system is a part of, is one of the
fundamental structures of any society. Societies in today's world are defined at the
sovereign state level, and the economic systems are defined by the governments of these
states , which are supposed to function on behalf of the population of each state, and
in democratic states, are also supposed to be under the control of the overall population
through their democratic institutions. International institutions are there to coordinate
commerce between the different economic systems of sovereign states.
'Globalism' as discussed in these blogs, in opposition to 'multi-polarity' is not
about global commerce, but rather about an effort by a certain group of wealthy elites,
primarily centered in London and New York, and commonly referred to as 'Globalists' to
transfer the authority for the definition and control of economic systems from sovereign
states to a set of international institutions under their control.
In doing so they strip the sovereignty from sovereign states, as as already happened
with the EU, and create a global dictatorship, under the control of the 'Globalists' and
completely isolated from any democratic oversight. A fascist project in the purest sense of
fascism.
The 'Multi-polar' group of nations are those nations who oppose this fascist project
and who are working to maintain and restore the sovereignty of nations.
@ donkeytale 15
I think the world has always been multipolar, the differences that give the definition
coming to (being presented to) the forefront, or being dissimilated, according to choice and
circumstance. The globalist direction aims to interweave or merge these differences (cultural
and historic, religion, philosophy and so on), or at least bring them under a common control.
So the idea that multipolarity represents anything more than increased recognition of various
regional power as opposed to recognition of one regional power (say western) as more visible,
is not much more than an indication of how global policy will be conducted, i.e. with an
emphasis on regional responsibility.
Recent US policy is not aimed at destroying the globalist order, it is a result of the
failure of one format of the globalist order, where the global financial order no longer
fitted into national or regional economic sense. This was the gfc, and there is simply no way
to continue the flow of trade and finance as it existed for the previous decades. The easing
of rates across the globe is paliative, it is no solution, you only have to look at national
debt levels to understand this, or in Eurozone try target2 differences. The world is now
partly funded by negative yielding debt. All of this works contrary to capitalist (in its
basic honest philosophy) understanding. In short "something" is going to happen to readjust
this circumstance, planned or otherwise. I have watched how in EU the single currency has
been used to takeover the traditional national hierarchies (banking, political and to a
degree social), but we don't have that sort of framework accepted at global level, only
various currency pegs, bilateral arrangements and so on. The IMF and sdr is not much liked.
What I have noted is virtual central bank currency is being promoted in several ways, be it
the bis just announcing it may become a necessity face to cryptocurrency or similar (with a
caveat of harmonising monetary policy) , EU organising a parallel payment system that avoids
commercial banks, even Instex is along these lines. Where the US and some others truly stand
with regard to this is a different question, as for now it (et al) still enjoy a financial
hegemony that is both organised and profitable. Interesting times, I just hope that a major
event is not the catalyst for reform, that the various parties can agree to withdraw to more
localised structure and agreement if any grand plans meet the resistance or failure that is
already partly visible. I doubt that will be allowed though, by the time people really want
to take part, there won't be much option left and circumstance will already be already
confused and conflictive.
@31 donkeytale.. well, if the usa didn't commit as much paper money as it does to the
military complex it runs, i suppose the financial complex where the us$ can be printed ad
nauseam might come into question.. the sooner oil isn't pegged to the us$ and etc. etc.
happens, the better off the world will be... and, i don't blame the usa people for this..
they are just being used as i see it - much the same here in canada with our politicians
thinking the prudent thing to do is to support the status quo.. the problem is the status quo
can only go on for so long, before a change inevitably happens...
as for swift - they went along with usa sanctions back in 2011 on iran, but then it was
brought to court in europe and overturned... but again - they are back in the same place
bowing down to usa exceptionalism... call it what you want.. another system needs to get made
if this one that exists is beholden to a special interest group - usa-uk-europe, where others
are 2nd rate citizens of the world... same deal imf... these world financial institutions
need to be changed to reflect the changes that are taking place... the voting rights of the
developed countries are skewed to favour the ones who have been raping and pillaging africa,
and etc. etc.. you may not think it matters, but i personally do.. and i don't blame the usa
for it..but they are being used as a conduit to further an agenda which is very unbalanced
and unfriendly to the world as i see it..
I am afraid that I cannot agree with much of what you said.
Dictatorship, as a governance system, has always failed, and will always fail. The
'Globalists' who grabbed power, and imposed an effective oligarchic dictatorship, in the U.S.
in 1980 and the EU since 1990, have clearly demonstrated this fact through the destruction of
the economies of the U.S. and much of Europe and the impoverishment of their populations. And
since 2001, they have used the U.S. and British military and intelligence services and NATO
as their personal bludgeon in order to force the submission of any state that did not
voluntarily submit to their project of a 'Global' dictatorship.
Resistance to this 'Globalist' project is at the root of almost all conflicts in the world
today. The 'Multi-Polar' nations resisting the 'Globalists', in Ukraine, Syria, North Korea,
Venezuela, etc. is one front in this resistance. The other front is the resistance of
'Nationalists' (such as Trump, the Brexiteers, the Yellow Vests, and populists across Europe)
to the 'Globalists.
The Trump Presidency is not the cause of tensions in the world today, as you suggest, but
rather the symptom. Trump understands that without an industrial base, the U.S. is condemned
to becoming the 'India' of the Americas'. The central theme of his actions is to restore the
U.S. industrial base and U.S. sovereignty, which have largely been destroyed by the
'Globalists' and their 'Deep State' machine over the past 40 years. The 'Globalists' need
only the U.S. military and intelligence services, and care nothing for its population and
less for its sovereignty, and thus are fighting Trump every step of the way.
Trump may be coarse and a buffoon, and he may be completely wrong in carrying Israel's
water with respect to Iran, but he is just about the only American politician that I see that
is working on behalf of the U.S. population rather than on behalf of the 'Globalists'.
Reversing the 'Globalization' that has savaged the U.S. and Europe over the past several
decades will not come easily, nor without pain and tensions, and winners and losers. However
failure to do so guarantees the likely rapid and long term decline and impoverishment of all
populations under 'Globalist' control.
dh-mtl @29 explained it well, I thought, but some still don't seem to get it.
It is the difference between the UN, which has a law-based charter which upholds the national
sovereignty of each nation and forbids aggression against any sovereign country, and
the WTO, which is a rules-based agreement which forbids any national government to pass laws
which interfere in the profits of corporations.
Globalism is the project in which capital has complete freedom to do as it will, while humans
and national governments are forbidden such freedom.
Putin and Lavrov frequently point to the difference between international law, which they
support, and the "rules-based order" which the US and its partners-in-crime support, in which
the rules are used to destroy sovereign countries and enrich the multi-national corporations
which strip the planet at will, and go to the cheapest labor countries, with no environmental
laws, for their global production lines.
A multi-polar world is one with many sovereign countries, ruled by international law,
respected by all, with peaceful relations between all countries.
Globalism is when corporations rule the world, and we continue on the path of destruction of
all the natural wealth of the world in the turning of nature into commodities and then
trash.
@ wagelaborer who wrote
"
Globalism is the project in which capital has complete freedom to do as it will, while humans
and national governments are forbidden such freedom.
"
Perfectly stated!
I appreciate you, dh-mtl, bevin and others responding to donkeytale. I have not read the
comment because donkeytale is on bypass for me but it is nice to read other commenters taking
on donkeytale BS for others to see....thanks
Sorry if I need to pick your resopnse to donkeytale apart but there are a lot of
inconsistencies in your argument.
The 'Globalists' who grabbed power, and imposed an effective oligarchic dictatorship, in
the U.S. in 1980 and the EU since 1990, have clearly demonstrated this fact through the
destruction of the economies of the U.S. and much of Europe and the impoverishment of their
populations.
You seem to imply that the 'globalists' (illuminati, Zionist bankers etc., etc.) did not
exist or had power before the 1980s, which could not be further from the truth. There are
several reasons why neo-liberalism took hold in the 1980s, creating the economic narrative
and agenda of today, none of which, are related to some kind of power grab by people that did
not hold any power beforehand. The threat of the cold war was waning in the 1980s and elites
felt less pressured by local populations potentially becoming 'too' sympathetic to communism
anymore. So they began rolling back social policies implemented in the post-war years to
counter communism's appeal. Computer technology going mainstream, creating all sorts of
economic spillovers to be harnessed by increased open and international trade was another
reason, there were many more. But the people you call 'globalists' controlled matters much,
much earlier than the 1980s.
The other front is the resistance of 'Nationalists' (such as Trump, the Brexiteers, the
Yellow Vests, and populists across Europe) to the 'Globalists.
If there truly were such politicians as 'nationalists' who somehow only hold the best
interest of their native people at heart, then why is that most European populists cosy up to
Israel? None of them have tried to reclaim control over their Central Banks and in the case
of i.e. Italy, do they try to break free from the Euro? Why are Polish nationalists rabidly
supporting the build up of US arms on their territory? I think it is about time to see beyond
this silly dichotomy of 'Globalist' vs 'Nationalist', at least while these Nationalists do
nothing substantial to actually help their lot and further squeeze the lower classes of their
countries in good neo-liberal fashion, same as their Globalist political 'opponents' they
claim to oppose.
Trump may be coarse and a buffoon, and he may be completely wrong in carrying Israel's
water with respect to Iran, but he is just about the only American politician that I see
that is working on behalf of the U.S. population rather than on behalf of the 'Globalists'.
So you admit that Trump is essentially a controlled zionist buffoon but at the same time
he is working towards restoring US sovereignty on behalf of the people? You mean he worked
for the US people when he lowered taxes for the rich even further, creating an ever larger US
public debt, and throwing Americans further into debt servitude of private finance? Or do you
mean his still open promise to invest large sums in the US crumbling infrastructure? Oh
right, he has instead opted to increase defence spending to combat the US many imaginary
enemies around the globe.
Look, I agree with you that global neo-liberalism is bad for the vast majority of people
on this planet but don't go looking for help from false prophets, such as Trump or other
'nationalists', you will only find yourself completely disappointed before long.
donkeytale , Jun 30, 2019 6:48:21 PM |
58dh-mtl , Jun 30, 2019 6:50:23 PM |
59
@50 Alexander P
Response to a few of your criticisms.
1. You say 'You seem to imply that the 'globalists' (illuminati, Zionist bankers etc.,
etc.) did not exist or had power before the 1980s'.
Not at all. They lost power from the mid-1930s to 1980. They regained power with Reagan,
followed by Clinton, W, and Obama. You only need to look at any graph that shows when income
inequality in the U.S. began to ramp up. The date is clear - 1980.
2. You say. 'If there truly were such politicians as 'nationalists' who somehow only hold
the best interest of their native people at heart'.
I didn't say that these 'Nationalists' or 'Populists' hold the best interests of their
native peoples at heart. Usually they are only interested in what they see as best for
themselves. But there is no doubt that they are resisting the 'Globalists' push to strip
their countries of their sovereignty, to transfer their wealth to the 'Globalist' elites, to
transfer their industries to wherever labor is the cheapest. I said that this was a 'second
front' against the 'Globalists'. And there is no doubt, from the fight that the 'Globalists'
are waging against Trump, 'Brexit' and populists and nationalists across Europe, that the
'Globalists' take this 'front' seriously.
3. You say. 'don't go looking for help from false prophets, such as Trump'.
You are right. It is unlikely that Trump will be able to 'Make America Great Again'. At
best he may be able to break the 'Globalists' hold on power in the U.S. However, this is a
necessary first step if the U.S. is ever to recover wealth and power that it had during the
middle of the last century, but which today is rapidly evaporating.
I agree with Alexander P that nationalist and populist presentation is often either
controlled opposition or a method of splintering and isolating influence. That is not to say
there are a lot of public in many countries who are sincere in their sentiment.
Sorry no link, recent :
"As he arrived at the Kempinski hotel lobby last December, journalists scuffled with
bodyguards as they tried to get their microphones and cameras close. Despite being jostled,
Zanganeh remained calm and waited to deliver a simple message: Iran can’t participate
in OPEC’s production cuts as long as it remains under U.S. sanctions and won’t
allow other members to steal its rightful market share."
I.E. approval for continued reduced opec oil supply to support prices depends on Iran (?),
lower prices otherwise affecting all other producers, and/or Iran is making the case that
sanctions are a theft of market share by other producers. The latter has been a part of the
cause of hostility in the gulf.
In Germany
"The 2018 report by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Germany
(Bundesmat fur Verfassungsschutz, BfV), which was released on June 27, 2019 by the Federal
Minister of the Interior, Horst Seehofer and Thomas Haldenwang, head of the organization,
examines the activities of the intelligence services of the Iranian regime in Germany....
The BfV annual report states: "The central task of the Iranian intelligence services is to
spy against opposition movements and confront these movements. In this regard, evidences of
state-sponsored terrorism in Europe, which originates in Iran, have intensified during 2018."
" etc
is being used by ncr (the article source) to the effect of calling for closure of the
Iranian embassy. That aside, the report does show Germany is moving towards, or is willing
to, apply pressure on Iran now. France has also given indication that it is not fully behind
Iran (reprimand and warning on not respecting jcpoa etc.)
You are correct to say inequality began rising again in 1980; however, the rise must be
attributed to Carter and Volker--Reagan just continued the process. It seemed odd the GHW
Bush initially opposed it as "Voodoo Economics" but readily championed it all as VEEP, making
it just a political posture in the nomination race.
Thanks for the excellent response. One thing I failed to take into account is the
difference between the EU and the US financial systems so thanks for that corrective
explanation.
The Euro represents the biggest failure of the EU from where I sit. Centralised control of
the currency and banking systems is a grave error in that construct and the "European
Parliament" just seems too silly for me to even contemplate, although I'm sure there is some
logical explanation for its existence that I'm missing.
And you bet, I'm also sure the day of reckoning for the global debt overload is fast
approaching. What I don't understand is how one form of capitalism (neoliberal) versus
another (state managed) makes any difference in how this debt overload developed. China, for
instance, has used similar stimulus methods more frequently even than the US since 2008 to
keep its economic growth chugging along and certainly way more than the EU, which under
stimulated its own economy in response to the recession.
IMHO, Brexit is a forced over the top politicised reaction to this conservative German-led
response in light of the fact the UK kept its own currency and banking systems separate and
had the means to provide stimulus but didn't under the Tory buffoons in charge.
Grexit made much more sense to me than Brexit for many reasons. I was dismayed when the
Greek people failed in their courage after voting in Syriza follow through and tell the
Germans to take the Euro and their debt and put it where the sun don't shine.
What I believe people are tending to forget or overlook, such as wagelabourer @ 48 and
dh-mtl elsewhere, that while these postwar international re-orderings such as NATO, the UN
and the EU are nowhere near perfect, they are also not purely NWO conspiratorial constructs.
Rather they were created for a very specific purpose stemming from a lesson of history which
seems to have been rather easily tossed aside because of the relative success of these same
institutions: that is, clashing nationalisms inevitably lead to major conflict and
devastating wars, especially among the major imperialist states.
A while ago we discussed the obfuscation of classical economics in order to elevate the Junk
Economics of Randian Neoliberalism. And with Trump's Trade War and the 2020 election cycle's
start, I think it wise to revisit what's proven to be a timeless Michael Hudson essay from
2010, "America's
China Bashing: A Compendium of Junk Economics" , which provided the ground work for the
subsequent book he published on the topic.
The following excerpt remains the underlying issue prompting Trump's Trade War with
China:
"The cover story is that foreign exchange controls and purchases of U.S. securities keep
the renminbi's exchange rate low, artificially spurring its exports. The reality, of
course, is that these controls protect China from U.S. banks creating free 'keyboard
credit' to buy out Chinese companies to buy out Chinese companies or load down its economy
with loans to be paid off in renminbi whose value will rise against the deficit-ridden
dollar. It's the Wall Street arbitrage opportunity of the century that banks are
pressing for, not the welfare of American workers ."
As the years between have shown, the Chinese aren't fools and probably know more about
economics than their politicized US counterparts, Trump especially included.
@ William Gruff with the dh-mtl update about "control" during the early part of last
century....I agree and thanks
@ karlof1 with the Michael Hudson link.....I put a comment up last night with a quote from
Xinhuanet
"
BEIJING, June 30 (Xinhua) -- China on Sunday rolled out revised negative lists for foreign
investment market access, introducing greater opening-up and allowing foreign investors to
run majority-share-controlling or wholly-owned businesses in more sectors.
"
It makes me worry about how much of "China" will be allowed to be bought/controlled by the
private finance folk. I have been wondering about this since 2008 when the US started running
the "printing presses" bigly enough to double the deficit in less than 10 years.....I didn't
get any of those trillions, did you? At some point I expect there to be a meeting of global
"big wigs" who say they own this or that and wonder how that meeting will turn out relative
to Bretton Woods.
I still see China throwing out a faux lifeline to the private finance folk that will be
reeled in after the transition to a China led world.....want to make it look like the Koch
brothers and Soros with their new peace tank are leading the parade.....
"... Mr. Lidow is among the semiconductor executives in the United States who have become concerned that the trade war with China -- particularly the Trump administration's ban on selling chips to some prominent Chinese customers -- won't just squeeze current revenue. He fears that recent events have convinced Chinese companies that American component makers can no longer be seen as dependable partners and are permanently shifting away from them. ..."
"... In May, President Trump ordered American companies on national-security grounds to stop selling components to companies like Huawei , China's big maker of mobile phones and networking equipment. And the administration placed five other Chinese entities on the same blacklist this month, including the computer maker Sugon and three subsidiaries. ..."
"... China has responded by saying it would put together its own "unreliable entities list," including many American tech companies. ..."
"... "The U.S. is in danger of becoming the vendor of last resort for China," said Walden Rhines, chief executive emeritus of Mentor, a unit of Siemens that sells software for designing chips ..."
SAN FRANCISCO -- Alex Lidow has sold semiconductors in China for decades, starting at a
company, called International Rectifier, that his father and grandfather founded in the Los
Angeles area in 1947.
Now Mr. Lidow runs Efficient Power Conversion, which makes chips that manage electrical
power in cars and other products. Efficient Power has a strong foothold in China, but has
lately run into resistance from customers there that he traces to moves in Washington.
Mr. Lidow is among the semiconductor executives in the United States who have become
concerned that the trade war with China -- particularly the Trump administration's ban on
selling chips to some prominent Chinese customers -- won't just squeeze current revenue. He
fears that recent events have convinced Chinese companies that American component makers can no
longer be seen as dependable partners and are permanently shifting away from them.
"In my 40 years in this business, I've had friends in China that viewed me as a trusted
supplier," Mr. Lidow said. "They can't now." His experience is part of the fallout affecting the American chip industry, one of the tech
sectors hardest hit by the tit-for-tat between the United States and China over trade and
national security.
In May, President Trump ordered American companies on national-security grounds to
stop selling
components to companies like Huawei , China's big maker of mobile phones and networking
equipment. And the administration placed
five other Chinese entities on the same blacklist this month, including the computer maker
Sugon and three subsidiaries.
Even if a new trade deal eases tensions -- Mr. Trump is set to meet with President Xi
Jinping of China in Osaka, Japan, on Saturday -- American chip executives and others said
lasting damage had already been done. They said Chinese officials and companies would step up
efforts to design and make more chips domestically. And Chinese customers seem likely to turn
to vendors from countries like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan if no homegrown chips are
available.
"The U.S. is in danger of becoming the vendor of last resort for China," said Walden
Rhines, chief executive emeritus of Mentor, a unit of Siemens that sells software for designing
chips
Already, big American chip makers have taken a financial hit from the China bans. Micron Technology, which sells two of the
most widely used varieties of memory chips, disclosed Tuesday that the Huawei ban had lowered sales in its most recent quarter
by nearly $200 million. Huawei is Micron’s largest customer, accounting for around 13 percent of its revenue.
"... "The problem, is that China knows time is short for the President and subsequently there is 'no rush' to conclude a 'trade deal' for several reasons: ..."
"... The pressure is on the Trump Administration to conclude a "deal," not on China. Trump needs a deal done before the 2020 election cycle AND he needs the markets and economy to be strong. ..."
"... corporate profits continued to come under pressure. As noted previously, corporate profits have declined over the last two quarters and are at the same level as in 2014 with the stock market higher by almost 60%. ..."
"... But, if you think China is going to acquiesce any time soon to Trump's demands, you haven't been paying attention. China has launched a national call in their press to unify support behind China's refusal to give into Trump's demands. To wit: ..."
"... "Lying behind the trade feud is America's intention to stifle China's development. The U.S. wants to be a permanent leader in the world, and there is no way for China to avoid the 'storm' through compromise. ..."
By agreeing to continue talks without imposing more tariffs on China, China gains ample
running room to continue to adjust for current tariffs to lessen their impact. More
importantly, Trump gave up a major bargaining chip – Huawei.
"One of the things I will allow, however, is -- a lot of people are surprised we send and
we sell to Huawei a tremendous amount of product that goes into a lot of the various things
that they make -- and I said that that's OK, that we will keep selling that product."
No, a lot of people weren't surprised, just Trump as there has been pressure applied by U.S.
technology firms to lift the ban on Huawei. While he may have appeased his corporate campaign
donors for now, Trump gave up one of the more important "pain points" on China's economy.
This gives China much needed room to run.
Let's review what
we said a couple of months ago as to why their will ultimately be no deal.
"The problem, is that China knows time is short for the President and subsequently there
is 'no rush' to conclude a 'trade deal' for several reasons:
China is playing a very long game. Short-term economic pain can be met with
ever-increasing levels of government stimulus. The U.S. has no such mechanism currently,
but explains why both Trump and Vice-President Pence have been suggesting the Fed restarts
QE and cuts rates by 1%. (Update: Trump
says the U.S. should have Mario Draghi at the helm of U.S. monetary policy.)
The pressure is on the Trump Administration to conclude a "deal," not on China. Trump
needs a deal done before the 2020 election cycle AND he needs the markets and economy to be
strong. If the markets and economy weaken because of tariffs, which are a tax on domestic
consumers and corporate profits, as they did in 2018, the risk off electoral losses rise.
China knows this and are willing to 'wait it out' to get a better deal.
As I have stated before, China is not going to jeopardize its 50 to 100-year economic
growth plan on a current President who will be out of office within the next 5-years at
most. It is unlikely, the next President will take the same hard line approach on China
that President Trump has, so agreeing to something that is unlikely to be supported in the
future is unlikely. It is also why many parts of the trade deal already negotiated don't
take effect until after Trump is out of office when those agreements are unlikely to be
enforced.
In the meantime, as noted in #3 above, corporate profits continued to come under pressure.
As noted previously, corporate profits have declined over the last two quarters and are at the
same level as in 2014 with the stock market higher by almost 60%.
... ... ...
But, if you think China is going to acquiesce any time soon to Trump's demands, you haven't
been paying attention. China has launched a national call in their press to
unify support behind China's refusal to give into Trump's demands. To wit:
"Lying behind the trade feud is America's intention to stifle China's development. The
U.S. wants to be a permanent leader in the world, and there is no way for China to avoid the
'storm' through compromise.
History proves that compromise only leads to further dilemmas. During previous trade
tensions between the U.S. and Japan, Japan made concessions. As a result, its political
stability and economic development were adversely affected, with structural reform being
suspended and hi-tech companies being severely damaged.
China, with a population of 1.4 billion, is the world's largest manufacturing base.
Industrial upgrading and hi-tech innovation are crucial to China's economic development.
China needs to leave more resources to its descendants by protecting the environment, and
reaping the dividends of further opening-up. These are the core interests of China, and it
will never give them up.
The only way for a country to win a war is through development, not compromise. To achieve
development, China will open its door wider to the world and fight to the end."
These are Xi Jinping's mandates, dictated directly from his party, for the meeting with the
United States president in Osaka.
The only possible outcome for Trump was exactly what happened. Nothing. Just an agreement to
talk more.
"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior
strength, evade him. I f your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be
weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces
are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them.
Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected. "
China has been attacking the "rust-belt" states, which are crucial to Trump's 2020
re-election, states with specifically targeted tariffs. As noted by
MarketWatch:
"China has lashed back with tariffs on $110 billion in American goods, focusing on
agricultural products in a direct and painful shot at Trump supporters in the U.S. farm
belt."
While Trump is operating from a view that was a ghost-written, former best-seller, in the
U.S. popular press, Xi is operating from a centuries-old blueprint for victory in battle.
China clearly won this round, and the pressure is now squarely on Trump to get a deal done
before the 2020 election.
"... " China by contrast has historically conducted statecraft based on the concept of a civilization state – under which its strength is not measured by the weakness and subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. " ..."
"... In my view the Usa had an excellent opportunity to enact in a positive way after WW2 but blew it. The main reason was the failure to live up to the above quoted characterisation of the Chinese. To encourage potential achievers in the best sense of the word. ..."
"... Instead the Us oligarchy held back independent and creative thinking and brainwashed the population, in a way that weakened them. Jfk tried to encourage his countrymen but other forces prevailed. ..."
A.B. Abrams: In the introduction to this work I highlight that a fundamental shift in world
order was facilitated by the modernization and industrialization of two Eastern nations –
Japan under the Meiji Restoration and the USSR under the Stalinist industrialization program.
Before these two events the West had retained an effective monopoly on the modern industrial
economy and on modern military force. Russia's image is still affected by the legacy of the
Soviet Union – in particular the way Soviet proliferation of both modern industries and
modern weapons across much of the region was key to containing Western ambitions in the Cold
War. Post-Soviet Russia has a somewhat unique position – with a cultural heritage
influenced by Mongolia and Central Asia as well as by Europe. Politically Russia remains
distinct from the Western Bloc, and perceptions of the country in East Asia have been heavily
influenced by this. Perhaps today one the greatest distinctions is Russia's eschewing of the
principle of sovereignty under international law and its adherence to a non-interventionist
foreign policy. Where for example the U.S., Europe and Canada will attempt to intervene in the
internal affairs of other parties – whether by cutting off parts for
armaments ,
imposing economic sanctions or even launching military interventions under humanitarian
pretexts – Russia lacks a history of such behavior which has made it a welcome presence
even for traditionally Western aligned nations such as the Philippines, Indonesia and South
Korea.
While the Western Bloc attempted to isolate the USSR from East and Southeast Asia by
supporting the spread of anticommunist thought, this pretext for shunning Russia collapsed in
1991. Today the West has had to resort to other means to attempt to contain and demonize the
country – whether labelling it a human rights abuser or threatening its economic and
defense partners with sanctions and other repercussions. The success of these measures in the
Asia-Pacific has varied – but as regional economies have come to rely less on the West
for trade and grown increasingly interdependent Western leverage over them and their foreign
policies has diminished.
Even when considered as a Western nation, the type of conservative Western civilization
which Russia may be seen to represent today differs starkly from that of Western Europe and
North America. Regarding a Russia Pivot to Asia, support for such a plan appears to have
increased from 2014 when relations with the Western Bloc effectively broke down. Indeed, the
Russia's future as a pacific power could be a very bright one – and as part of the up and
coming northeast Asian region it borders many of the economies which appear set to dominate in
the 21 st century – namely China, Japan and the Koreas. Peter the Great is
known to have issued in a new era of Russian prosperity by recognizing the importance of
Europe's rise and redefining Russia as a European power – moving the capital to St
Petersburg. Today a similar though perhaps less extreme pivot Eastwards towards friendlier and
more prosperous nations may be key to Russia's future.
The Saker: We hear many observers speak of an informal but very profound and even
game-changing partnership between Putin's Russia and Xi's China. The Chinese even speak of a "
strategic comprehensive partnership of coordination for the new era ". How would you
characterize the current relationship between these two countries and what prospects do you see
for a future Russian-Chinese partnership?
A.B. Abrams: A Sino-Russian alliance has long been seen in both the U.S. and in Europe as
one of the greatest threats to the West's global primacy and to Western-led world order. As
early as 1951 U.S. negotiators meeting with Chinese delegations to end the Korean War were
instructed to focus on the differences in the positions of Moscow and Beijing in an attempt to
form a rift between the two. Close Sino-Soviet cooperation seriously stifled Western designs
for the Korean Peninsula and the wider region during that period, and it was repeatedly
emphasized that the key to a Western victory was to bring about a Sino-Soviet split. Achieving
this goal by the early 1960s and bringing the two powers very near to a total conflict
significantly increased prospects for a Western victory in the Cold War, with the end of the
previously united front seriously undermining nationalist and leftist movements opposing
Western designs from Africa and the Middle East to Vietnam and Korea. Both states learned the
true consequences of this in the late 1980s and early 1990s when there was a real risk of total
collapse under Western pressure. Attempts to bring an end to China's national revolution
through destabilization failed in 1989, although the USSR was less fortunate and the results
for the Russian population in the following decade were grave indeed.
Today the Sino-Russian partnership has become truly comprehensive, and while Western experts
from Henry Kissinger to the late Zbigniew Brzezinski among others have emphasized the
importance of bringing about a new split in this partnership this strategy remains unlikely to
work a second time. Both Beijing and Moscow learned from the dark period of the post-Cold War
years that the closer they are together the safer they will be, and that any rift between them
will only provide their adversaries with the key to bringing about their downfall. It is
difficult to comprehend the importance of the Sino-Russian partnership for the security of both
states without understanding the enormity of the Western threat – with maximum pressure
being exerted on multiple fronts from finance and information to military and cyberspace. Where
in the early 1950s it was only the Soviet nuclear deterrent which kept both states safe from
very real Western plans for massive nuclear attacks, so too today is the synergy in the
respective strengths of China and Russia key to protecting the sovereignty and security of the
two nations from a very real and imminent threat. A few examples of the nature of this threat
include growing investments in social engineering through social media – the results of
have been seen in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Ukraine, a lowering threshold for nuclear weapons use
by the United States – which it currently trains Western allies outside the NPT to
deploy, and even reports from Russian and Korean sources of investments in biological warfare
– reportedly being tested in
Georgia, Eastern Europe and South Korea .
The partnership between Russia and China has become truly comprehensive, and is perhaps best
exemplified by their military relations. From 2016 joint military exercises have involved the
sharing of extremely
sensitive information on missile and early warning systems – one of the most well
kept defense secrets of any nuclear power which even NATO powers do not share with one another.
Russia's defense sector has played a key role in the modernization of the Chinese People's
Liberation Army, while Chinese investment has been essential to allowing Russia to continue
research and development on next generation systems needed to retain parity with the United
States. There is reportedly cooperation between the two in developing next generation weapons
technologies for systems such as hypersonic cruise and anti aircraft missiles and new strategic
bombers and fighter jets which both states plan to field by the mid-2020s. With the combined
defense spending of both states a small fraction of that of the Western powers, which
themselves cooperate closely in next generation defense projects, it is logical that the two
should pool their resources and research and development efforts to most efficiently advance
their own security.
Cooperation in political affairs has also been considerable, and the two parties have
effectively presented a united front against the designs of the Western Bloc. In 2017 both
issued strong warnings to the United States and its allies that they would not tolerate an
invasion of North Korea – which was followed by the
deployment of advanced air defense systems by both states near the Korean border with
coverage of much of the peninsula's airspace. Following Pyongyang's testing of its
first nuclear delivery system capable of reaching the United States , and renewed American
threats against the East Asian country, China and Russia staged near simultaneous
exercises near the peninsula using naval and marine units in a clear warning to the U.S.
against military intervention. China's Navy has on several occasions deployed to the
Mediterranean for joint drills with Russian forces – each time following a period of high
tension with the Western Bloc over Syria.
In April 2018, a period of particularly high tensions between Russia and the Western Bloc
over Western threats both to take military action against the Syrian government and to
retaliate for an alleged but unproven Russian chemical weapons attack on British soil, the
Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe traveled to Russia and more explicitly stated that the
Sino-Russian partnership was aimed at countering Western designs. Referring to the Sino-Russian
defense partnership as "as stable as Mount Tai" he
stated : "the Chinese side has come to show Americans the close ties between the Armed
Forces of China and Russia, especially in this situation. We have come to support you." A week
later China announced
large-scale live fire naval drills in the Taiwan Strait – which according to several
analysts were scheduled to coincide with a buildup of Western forces near Syria. Presenting a
potential second front was key to deterring the Western powers from taking further action
against Russia or its ally Syria. These are but a few examples Sino-Russian cooperation, which
is set to grow only closer with time.
The Saker: The US remains the most formidable military power in Asia, but this military
power is being eroded as a result of severe miscalculations of the US political leadership. How
serious a crisis do you think the US is now facing in Asia and how do you assess the risks of a
military confrontation between the US and the various Asian powers (China, the Philippines, the
DPRK, etc,).
A.B. Abrams: Firstly I would dispute that the United States is the most formidable military
power in the region, as while it does retain a massive arsenal there are several indicators
that it lost this position to China during the 2010s. Looking at combat readiness levels, the
average age of weapons in their inventories, morale both publicly and in the armed forces, and
most importantly the correlation of their forces, China appears to have an advantage should war
break out in the Asia-Pacific. It is important to remember that the for the Untied States and
its European allies in particular wars aren't fought on a chessboard. Only a small fraction of
their military might can be deployed to the Asia-Pacific within a month of a conflict breaking
out, while over 95% of Chinese forces are already on the region and are trained and armed
almost exclusively for war in the conditions of the Asia-Pacific. In real terms the balance of
military power regionally is in China's favor, and although the U.S. has tried to counter this
with a military 'Pivot to Asia' initiative from 2011 this has ultimately failed due to both the
drag from defense commitments elsewhere and the unexpected and pace at which China has
expanded and
modernized its armed forces.
For the time being the risk of direct military confrontation remains low, and while there
was a risk in 2017 of American and allied action against the DPRK Pyongyang has effectively
taken this option off the table with the development of a viable and growing arsenal of
thermonuclear weapons and associated delivery systems alongside the modernization of its
conventional capabilities. While the U.S. may have attempted to call a Chinese and Russian
bluff by launching a limited strike – which seriously risked spiraling into something
much larger – it is for the benefit of all regional parties including South Korea that
the DPRK now has the ability to deter the United States without relying on external support.
This was a historically unprecedented event, and as military technology has evolved it has
allowed a small power for the first time to deter a superpower without relying on allied
intervention. Changes in military technology such as the proliferation of the nuclear tipped
ICBM make a shooting war less likely, but also alters the nature of warfare to place greater
emphasis on information war, economic war and other new fields which will increasingly decide
the global balance of power. Where America's answer to the resistance of China and North Korea
in the 1950s to douse them with napalm, today winning over their populations through soft
power, promoting internal dissent, placing pressure on their living standards and ensuring
continued Western dominance of key technologies has become the new means of fighting.
That being said, there is a major threat of conflict in the Asia-Pacific of a different
nature. Several organizations including the United Nations and the defense ministries of
Russia, Singapore and Indonesia among others have warned of the dangers posed by Islamic
terrorism to stability in the region. Radical Islamism, as most recently attested to by Saudi Arabia's crown prince , played a key
role in allowing the Western Bloc to cement its dominance over the Middle East and North Africa
– undermining Russian and Soviet aligned governments including Algeria, Libya, Egypt and
Syria – in most cases with direct Western support. CIA Deputy Director Graham Fuller in
this respect referred to the agency's "policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping
them against our adversaries." Several officials, from the higher brass of the Russian, Syrian
and Iranian militaries to the former President of
Afghanistan and the President
of Turkey , have all alleged Western support for radical terror groups including the
Islamic State for the sake of destabilizing their adversaries. As the Asia-Pacific has
increasingly slipped out of the Western sphere of influence, it is likely that this asset will
increasingly be put into play. The consequences of the spread of jihadism from the Middle East
have been relatively limited until now, but growing signs of danger can be seen in Xinjiang,
Myanmar, the Philippines and Indonesia. It is this less direct means of waging war which
arguably poses the greatest threat.
The Saker: Do you think that we will see the day when US forces will have to leave South
Korean, Japan or Taiwan?
A.B. Abrams: Other than a limited contingent of Marines recently deployed to guard
the American Institute , U.S. forces are not currently stationed in Taiwan. The massive
force deployed there in the 1950s was scaled down and American nuclear weapons removed in 1974
in response to China's acceptance of an alliance with the United States against the Soviet
Union. Taiwan's military situation is highly precarious and the disparity in its strength
relative to the Chinese mainland grows considerably by the year. Even a large American military
presence is unlikely to change this – and just 130km from the Chinese mainland they would
be extremely vulnerable and could be quickly isolated from external support in the event of a
cross straits war. We could, however, see a small American contingent deployed as a 'trigger
wire' – which will effectively send a signal to Beijing that the territory is under
American protection and that an attempt to recapture Taiwan will involve the United States.
Given trends in public opinion in Taiwan, and the very considerable pro-Western sentiments
among the younger generations in particular, it is likely that Taipei will look to a greater
rather than a lesser Western military presence on its soil in future.
Japan and particularly South Korea see more nuanced public opinion towards the U.S., and
negative perceptions of an American military presence may well grow in future – though
for different reasons in each country. Elected officials alone, however, are insufficient to
move the American presence – as best demonstrated by the short tenure of Prime Minister
Hatoyama in Japan and the frustration of President Moon's efforts to restrict American
deployments of THAAD missile
systems in his first year. It would take a massive mobilization of public opinion –
backed by business interests and perhaps the military – to force such a change. This
remains possible however, particularly as both economies grow increasingly reliant on China for
trade and as the U.S. is seen to have acted increasingly erratically in response to challenges
from Beijing and Pyongyang which has undermined its credibility. As to a voluntary withdrawal
by the United States, this remains extremely unlikely. President Donald Trump ran as one of the
most non-interventionist candidates in recent history, but even under him and with considerable
public support prospects for a significant reduction in the American presence, much less a
complete withdrawal, have remained slim.
The Saker: Some circles in Russia are trying very hard to frighten the Russian public
opinion against China alleging things like "China want to loot (or even conquer!) Siberia",
"China will built up its military and attack Russia" or "China with its huge economy will
simply absorb small Russia". In your opinion are any of these fears founded and, if yes, which
ones and why?
A.B. Abrams: A growth in Sinophobic sentiment in Russia only serves to weaken the nation and
empower its adversaries by potentially threatening its relations with its most critical
strategic partner. The same is applicable vice-versa regarding Russophobia in China. Given the
somewhat Europhilic nature of the Russian state in a number of periods, including in the 1990s,
and the considerable European soft influences in modern Russia, there are grounds for building
up of such sentiment. Indeed Radio Free Europe, a U.S. government funded nonprofit broadcasting
corporation with the stated purpose of "advancing the goals of U.S. foreign policy," notably
published sinophobic content aimed at depicting the Russian people as
victims of Chinese business interests to coincide with the Putin-XI summit in June 2019.
However, an understanding of the modern Chinese state and its interests indicates that it does
not pose a threat to Russia – and to the contrary is vital to Russia's national security
interests. While Russia historically has cultural ties to the Western nations, the West has
shown Russian considerable hostility throughout its recent history – as perhaps is most
evident in the 1990s when Russia briefly submitted itself and sought to become part of the
Western led order with terrible consequences. China by contrast has historically conducted
statecraft based on the concept of a civilization state – under which its strength is not
measured by the weakness and subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. A powerful
and independent Russia capable of protecting a genuine rules based world order and holding
lawless actors in check is strongly in the Chinese interest. It is clear that in Russia such an
understanding exists on a state level, although there is no doubt that there will be efforts by
external parties to turn public opinion against China to the detriment of the interests of both
states.
The idea that China would seek to economically subjugate Russia, much less invade it, is
ludicrous. It was from Europe were the major invasions of Russian territory came – vast
European coalitions led by France and Germany respectively with a third American led attack
planned and prepared for but stalled by the Soviet acquisition of a nuclear deterrent. More
recently from the West came sanctions, the austerity program of the 1990s, the militarization
of Eastern Europe, and the demonization of the Russian nation – all intended to subjugate
and if possible shatter it. Even at the height of its power, China did not colonize the
Koreans, Vietnamese or Japanese nor did it seek to conquer Central Asia. Assuming China will
have the same goals and interests as a Western state would if they were in a similar position
of strength is to ignore the lessons of history, and the nature of the Chinese national
character and national interest.
The Saker: The Russian military is currently vastly more capable (even if numerically much
smaller) than the Chinese. Does anybody in China see a military threat from Russia?
A.B. Abrams: There may be marginalized extreme nationalists in China who see a national
security from almost everybody, but in mainstream discourse there are no such perceptions. To
the contrary, Russia's immense contribution to Chinese security is widely recognized –
not only in terms of technological transfers but also in terms of the value of the joint front
the two powers have formed. Russia not only lacks a history of annexing East Asian countries or
projecting force against them, but it is also heavily reliant on China in particular both to
keep its defense sector active and to undermine Western attempts to isolate it. Russian
aggression against China is unthinkable for Moscow – even if China did not possess its
current military strength and nuclear deterrence capabilities. This is something widely
understood in China and elsewhere.
I would dispute that Russia's military is vastly more capable than China's own, as other
than nuclear weapons there is a similar level of capabilities in most sectors in both
countries. While Russia has a lead in many key technologies such as hypersonic missiles, air
defenses and submarines to name a few prominent examples, China has been able to purchase and
integrate many of these into its own armed forces alongside the products of its own defense
sector. Russia's most prominent fighter jet for example, the Flanker (in all derivatives from
Su-27 to J-11D), is in fact fielded in larger numbers by China than by Russia itself –
and those in Chinese service have access to both indigenous as well as Russian munitions and
subsystems. Furthermore, there are some less critical but still significant sectors where China
does appear to retain a lead – for example it deployed combat jets equipped with a new
generation of active electronically scanned array radars and air to air missiles from 2017
(J-20 and in
2018 J-10C ) – while Russia has only done so this in July 2019 with the
induction of the MiG-35. Whether this is due to a Chinese technological advantage, or to a
greater availability of funds to deploy its new technologies faster, remains uncertain.
Russia's ability to provide China with its most vital technologies, and China's willingness to
rely so heavily on Russian technology to comprise so much of its inventory, demonstrates the
level of trust between the two countries
The Saker: Do you think that China could become a military threat to other countries in the
region (especially Taiwan, India, Vietnam, the Philippines, etc.)?
A.B. Abrams: I would direct you to a quote by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Mohamed
from March this year. He stated: "we always say, we have had China as a neighbor for 2,000
years, we were never conquered by them. But the Europeans came in 1509, in two years, they
conquered Malaysia." This coming from a nationalist leader considered one of the most
sinophobic in Southeast Asia, whose country has an ongoing territorial dispute with China in
the South China Sea, bears testament to the nature of claims of a Chinese threat. It is
critical not to make the mistake of imposing Western norms when trying to understand Chinese
statecraft. Unlike the European states, China is not and has never been dependent on conquering
others to enrich itself – but rather was a civilization state which measured its wealth
by what it could its own people could produce. A harmonious relationship with India, Vietnam,
the Philippines and others in which all states' sovereign and territorial integrity is
respected is in the Chinese interest.
A second aspect which must be considered, and which bears testament to China's intentions,
is the orientation of the country's armed forces. While the militaries of the United States and
European powers such as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and France among others are heavily
skewed to prioritize power projection overseas, China's military has made disproportionately
small investments in power projection and is overwhelmingly tailored to territorial defense.
While the United States has over 300 tanker aircraft deigned to refuel its combat jets midair
and attack faraway lands, China has just three purpose-built tankers – less than
Malaysia, Chile or Pakistan. The ratio of
logistical to combat units further indicates that China's armed forces, in stark contrast
to the Western powers, are heavily oriented towards defense and fighting near their
borders.
This all being said, China does pose an imminent threat to the government in Taipei –
although I would disagree with your categorization of Taiwan as a country. Officially the
Republic of China (ROC- as opposed to the Beijing based People's Republic of China), Taipei has
not declared itself a separate country but rather the rightful government of the entire Chinese
nation. Taipei remains technically at war with the mainland, a conflict would have ended in
1950 if the U.S. had not placed the ROC under its protection. The fast growing strength of the
mainland has shifted the balance of power dramatically should the conflict again break out into
open hostilities. China has only to gain from playing the long game with Taiwan however –
providing scholarships and jobs for its people to live on the mainland and thus undermining the
demonization of the country and hostility towards a peaceful reunification. Taiwan's economic
reliance on the mainland has also grown considerably, and these softer methods of bridging the
gaps between the ROC and the mainland are key to facilitating unification. Meanwhile the
military balance in the Taiwan Strait only grows more favorable for Beijing by the year –
meaning there is no urgency to take military action. While China will insist on unification, it
will seek to avoid doing so violently unless provoked.
The Saker: In conclusion: where in Asia do you see the next major conflict take place and
why?
A.B. Abrams: The conflict in the Asia-Pacific is ongoing, but the nature of conflict has
changed. We see an ongoing and so far highly successful de-radicalization effort in Xinjiang
– which was taken in direct response to Western attempts to turn the province into 'China's Syria or
China's Libya,' in the words of Chinese state media, using similar means. We see a harsh
Western response to
the Made in China 2025 initiative under which the country has sought to compete in key
technological fields formerly monopolized by the Western Bloc and Japan – and the result
of this will have a considerable impact on the balance of economic power in the coming years.
We see direct economic warfare and technological competition between China and the United
States – although the latter has so far refrained from escalating too far due to the
potentially devastating impact reprisals could have. We further see an information war in full
swing, with Sinophobic stories often citing 'anonymous sources' being propagated by Western
media to target not only their own populations – but also to influence public opinion in
Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Influence over third parties remains vital to isolating China and
cementing the Western sphere of influence. Use of social media and social engineering, as the
events of the past decade have demonstrated from the Middle East in 2011 to Hong Kong today,
remains key and will only grow in its potency in the coming years. We also see a major arms
race, with the Western Bloc investing heavily in an all new generation of weapons designed to
leave existing Chinese and allied defenses obsolete – from laser air defenses to
neutralize China's nuclear deterrent to sixth generation stealth fighters, new heavy bombers,
new applications of artificial intelligence technologies and new hypersonic missiles.
All these are fronts of the major conflict currently underway, and the Obama and Trump
administrations have stepped up their offensives to bring about a new 'end of history' much
like that of the 1990s – only this time it is likely to be permanent. To prevail, China
and Russia will need to cooperate at least as closely if not more so as the Western powers do
among themselves.
The Saker: thank you very much for your time and answers!
That being said, there is a major threat of conflict in the Asia-Pacific of a different
nature. Several organizations including the United Nations and the defense ministries of
Russia, Singapore and Indonesia among others have warned of the dangers posed by Islamic
terrorism to stability in the region. Radical Islamism, as most recently attested to by
Saudi Arabia's crown prince, played a key role in allowing the Western Bloc to cement its
dominance over the Middle East and North Africa – undermining Russian and Soviet
aligned governments including Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria – in most cases with
direct Western support. CIA Deputy Director Graham Fuller in this respect referred to the
agency's "policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our
adversaries." Several officials, from the higher brass of the Russian, Syrian and Iranian
militaries to the former President of Afghanistan and the President of Turkey, have all
alleged Western support for radical terror groups including the Islamic State for the sake
of destabilizing their adversaries. As the Asia-Pacific has increasingly slipped out of the
Western sphere of influence, it is likely that this asset will increasingly be put into
play. The consequences of the spread of jihadism from the Middle East have been relatively
limited until now, but growing signs of danger can be seen in Xinjiang, Myanmar, the
Philippines and Indonesia. It is this less direct means of waging war which arguably poses
the greatest threat.
There is hardly such a thing called "Islamic Terrorism." In most egregious cases, such as
IS, etc., it can be shown that those lowlifes have been the mercenaries of the evil West and
their accursed implant in the ME (and nowadays the hindutvars too), collectively the avowed
enemies of true monotheism, Islam. I am including the recent Colombo attacks here.
How can any so-called "muslim" who is a tool-of-evil of the enemies of Islam, be a true
muslim? How then can it be termed "Islamic Terror"? Perhaps "Islamic Apostate Terror" would
be more suitable.
Of course, there are many other non-IS muslims who are called "terrorists." The
Palestinians, the Kashmiris, etc. For us muslims, they are simply freedom fighters.
Finally, there are a few muslims who do kill in the name Islam the Charlie Hebdo killers,
Bombay\Dhaka attackers, etc. Some of them are justified (due to intense provocations) and
others not at all. I will leave it for others to judge which falls under which category.
Perhaps the listed order will help decipher that.
It must be conceded, when it comes to setting the narrative of pure deceit, the West (and
its minions, the Jooscum and their lickspittle, the hindutvars), like in all things bad, can
be satanically good. We muslims are being decimated in the propaganda war.
We still got our True Monotheism though. The pagan/godless enemies of the Almighty One are
doomed to fail against it. God willing.
The American system ran on immigration that kept discontent about massive inequality under
control because a substantial proportion of the lowest SES were immigrants just glad to be in
the US. The tAmerican ruling class decided they could make more money by offshoring
everything that could be offshored and mass immigration to keep wags from going up in the non
offshorable parts of the economy.
China and America's venal globalising elite had converging agendas, but could not fool the
common people of America and their tribune . Even the military had began to get alarmed about
the economic growth and technological progress of China, which had been benefiting from
officially sanctioned preferential treatment by the US since Carter.
Free ride is over for China, we will see China's economic and military strength
progressively tested. What America built it can break.
China was made an economic superpower by the US elites. Not because they felt sorry for China
and wanted to speed up conversion to democracy by switching them to capitalist way of doing
business first.
They made them an economic superpower, because the US elites have lost their marbles. They
simply didn't see it coming. They wanted to turn China into one giant cheap sweatshop in
order to exploit their population with a low paying manufacturing jobs, which were never
supposed to make China reach.
But they did, because no matter how much the lost generation of the western elites were
foaming at their mouths about knowledge based economy, value added economy, high tech jobs
and the other crap, it is obvious that manufacturing remains a basis for any strong economy.
That doesn't look like it's going to change even when you add robots to the mixture.
I think that Napoleon was right when he warned the world about waking up the sleeping
dragon. First they made them an economic superpower, and now they want to contain them
militarily. Good luck with that.
There is a reason why China wants to build the silk road. Silk road implies land. The US
military has never been any good at land warfare. Neither where their predecessors –
the British. China, on the other hand, showed in Korea that even then, with a backward army,
equipped with handouts from the Soviet Union, they can pretty much trash the US army.
With the silk road initiative, China will seize the control of the entire Euro-Asian land
mass – the most populous and economically productive region of the world and will be
more than happy to let the US play pirates on the seas.
Abrams is giving the West too much credit for the Sino-Soviet rift of the late 5os and 60s.
That was NOT the doing of the CIA or Western Europe. It was 90% the fault of Mao who tried
to shove Khrushchev aside as the head of world communism. Because Stalin had treated Mao
badly, Krushchev wanted to make amends and treated Mao with respect. But Mao turned out to be
a total a-hole. There are two kinds of people: Those who appreciate friendly gestures and
those who seek kindness as 'weakness'.
It's like Hitler saw Chamberlain's offer as weakness
and pushed ahead. Being kind is nice, but one should never be kind to psychopaths, and
Khrushchev was nice to the wrong person.
Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as
'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be the new Stalin. He also made international statements
that made the US-USSR relations much worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence
with the West and pressed on for more World Revolution.
He also ignored Soviet advice not to
attempt radical economic policies (that were soon to bring China to economic ruin -- at least
Stalin's collectivization led to rise of industry; in contrast, Mao managed to destroy both
agriculture and heavy industry).
When Stalin was alive, he didn't treat Mao with any respect,
and Mao disliked Stalin but still respected him because Mao understood Power. With Stalin
gone, Khrushchev showed Mao some respect, but Mao felt no respect for Khrushchev who was
regarded as a weakling and sucker.
It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's
impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his
mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a
hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could
lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising.
Anyway, Putin and Xi, perhaps having grown up in less turbulent times, are more stable and
mature in character and temperament than Mao and Khrushchev. They don't see the Russo-China
relations as a zero sum game of ego but a way for which both sides can come to the table
halfway, which is all one can hope for.
@Priss Factor You are probably right about Hitler seeing (Neville) Chamberlain as weak.
But Hitler was a dupe for Britains much smarter and devious elites, who successfully played
him to do their bidding. Hitler, along with the major members of the nazis, had been
significantly influenced by Neville's elder cousin who spurred the nazis towards 'the
ultimate solution'.
Instead of being weak in the manner Hitler may have thought, Neville saved Hitler from his
own generals.
In historical turns , when Britain has appeared weak, it mostly is a deliberate faint.
Be it in Gallipoli, St Petersburg in 1919, Norway or Singapore in WW2.
Commendable contribution by Mr Abrams to enlighten the confused western establishment.
" China by contrast has historically conducted statecraft based on the concept of a
civilization state – under which its strength is not measured by the weakness and
subjugation of others but by its internal achievements. "
In my view the Usa had an excellent opportunity to enact in a positive way after WW2 but
blew it. The main reason was the failure to live up to the above quoted characterisation of
the Chinese. To encourage potential achievers in the best sense of the word.
Instead the Us oligarchy held back independent and creative thinking and brainwashed the
population, in a way that weakened them.
Jfk tried to encourage his countrymen but other forces prevailed.
Americans cannot understand our relations with China by looking at events just the past 75
years. During the century before, European imperial powers and the United States treated
China as a open borders business opportunity backed by foreign military force. China was
infested by mini-colonies to profit from China's riches. The "Opium Wars" shock decent
Americans.
"... The result has been a disaster for consumers, the environment and the condition of the infrastructure which was sold off as a result of the privatization. Wikipedia provides a helpful list of the past history of awful, depressing headlines the company has generated: ..."
Of all the inhabitants of the Little Shop of Horrors that is neoliberalism, surely the most
gruesome cohort must be privatization of monopoly public services. And then within this
best-worst category, privatization of potable water and wastewater treatment utilities can't be
anything other than an outright winner of this ugly competition.
Where I live in southern England, the Thatcher administration – who else? –
privatized the previously state-owned company which has a monopoly, as all water supply and
sewage treatment inevitably requires, on providing potable water and treating wastewater which
flows into the sewer system and eventually, via treatment plants, back into the
watercourses.
The result has been a disaster for consumers, the environment and the condition of the
infrastructure which was sold off as a result of the privatization. Wikipedia provides a helpful
list of the past history of awful, depressing headlines the company has generated:
In 2007 Southern Water was fined £20.3 million for 'deliberate misreporting' and
failing to meet guaranteed standards of service to customers. Southern Water Chief Executive
Les Dawson said: "Today's announcement draws a line under a shameful period in the company's
history".
In 2011 Southern Water Ltd was fined £25,000 when sewage flooded into Southampton
water.
The company was ordered to pay £10,000 in fines and costs after sewage seeped into a
stream at Beltinge in Kent.
A leak of sewage from Southern Water's plant at Hurstpierpoint pumping station, West
Sussex, lead to fines and costs of £7,200 in 2011.
Southern Water was fined £50,000 in April 2011 for two offences relating to
unscreened discharges into Langstone Harbour, Hampshire, between November 2009 and April
2010.
In June 2010 Southern Water was fined £3,000 after it admitted polluting 2 km of a
Sussex stream with raw sewage, killing up to a hundred brown trout and devastating the fish
population for the second time in five years. Crawley Magistrates' Court heard that the
Environment Agency received calls from members of the public after dead fish were seen in the
Sunnyside Stream in East Grinstead on 30 August 2009.
In November 2014 Southern Water were fined £500,000 and agreed to pay costs of
£19,224 at Canterbury Crown Court after an Environment Agency investigation found that
untreated sewage was discharged into the Swalecliffe Brook, polluting a 1.2 kilometre stretch
of the watercourse and killing local wildlife. (www.gov.uk/government/news)
In December 2016 Southern Water was fined a record £2,000,000 for flooding beaches
in Kent with raw sewage, leaving them closed to the public for nine days. The Environment
Agency called the event "catastrophic", while the judge at Maidstone crown court said that
Southern Water's repeat offending was "wholly unacceptable " . The company apologised
unreservedly, as it did when fined £200,000 in 2013 for similar offences. Due to health
concerns, Thanet district council was forced to close beaches for nine consecutive days,
including the Queen's diamond jubilee bank holiday weekend. (The Guardian, 19 December
2016)
You would have thought, perhaps in hope rather than realism, that after this deluge of crap
(literally), Southern Water (and their investors) might have, if you'll forgive the pun,
wondered if it wasn't time to clean up their act. If so, you'd be, uncharacteristically for
Naked Capitalism readers, rather naive. Southern Water has made their previous civil
violations look like a spot of mustard on a necktie.
Southern Water was fined by the regulators here £126M on June 25th, which sounds a lot
but is in reality in slap on the wrists territory in view of their latest misconduct.
Before delving into the details of that, to provide some context, the utility is the usual
PE-orchestrated financial-engineering asset-sweating systematical reduction of a former public
service to a hollowed out husk.
Southern Water is owned by a consortium, which came together
Clive again, momentarily interrupting the flow, like a blocked sewer. The use of language
there is almost an art form. "came together". Did they all hook up on Tinder or something? Not
a bit of it. The "consortium" was a Private Equity instigated lash up of yield-hungry investors
chasing, like everyone else these days, above-average rates of return. Why didn't they simply
buy chunks of the publicly-traded equity tranches of the company to give themselves exposure to
this particular asset class (public utilities)? Because this wouldn't have given them
sufficient leverage and control over the institution to do their financial raping and
pillaging. Back, reluctantly, to Southern Water
in 2007 solely for this purpose.
The consortium members are shareholders in Greensands Holdings Limited, the top holding
company. [ ]
The Greensands consortium members comprise a mixture of infrastructure investment
funds, pension funds and private equity. The infrastructure funds are managed by JP Morgan
Asset Management, UBS Asset Management and Hermes Investment Management.
The pension funds are represented by JP Morgan Asset Management, UBS Asset Management,
Hermes Investment Management and Whitehelm Capital or are self-managed. Cheung Kong
Infrastructure and The Li Ka Shing Foundation are direct investors.
What have these fine upstanding custodians of our water supply been up to, then? Lying,
cheating, bullying and polluting. Ofwat, the UK water industry regulator, started peering more
closely at Southern Water in 2018. They
didn't like the look of what they saw .
A board which was asleep at the wheel:
Water resources management plan and market information
What we found
Overall, we had serious concerns in key areas of this assessment such as options
costing, Board involvement, assurance and leakage reduction presentation. The draft water
resources management plan option costs were not presented clearly and a limited description
of assurance was provided for both the plan and market information table. The late provision
of the market information and the time taken to update option cost information did not
provide confidence in the company's management of this data. The leakage reduction target, a
key plan metric, was not consistently presented in the plan and there was no evidence of
Board involvement or sign off.
Our assessment: serious concerns
A company that deliberately obfuscated the regulators:
What we found
[ ] We currently have four open cases – an enforcement case, a sewer requisition
case and two requests to appoint an arbitrator.
[ ]
In terms of the enforcement case, we do not consider that the company has met our
expectations and we have serious concerns. This is based on Southern Water not responding
fully to our requests for information (for example, by providing documents with missing pages
and/or text), not responding in a timely manner and providing relevant information that was
unclear. This has affected our ability to rely on the information provided and has required
us to take steps to seek further clarifications and grant extensions to previous deadlines
for responses, impacting our ability to progress the investigation as quickly and efficiently
as we would have liked.
Our assessment: serious concerns
These failings led the regulator to conduct a much wider-reaching inquiry. The full
regulatory report has to be read in its entirety to convey the awfulness that went on. But
edited highlights, or maybe that should be low-lights, were:
・Falsification of regulatory reporting for effluent discharge quality to avoid
fines:
In summary, as a consequence of now restating past WwTW performance data, we have
calculated that Southern Water has avoided price review penalties in past years amounting to
a total of £75 million (in 2017-18 prices). This has arisen as a direct consequence of
the practices in place within the company to implement ANFs at its WwTW (Clive:
Waste-water Treatment Works) over 2010 to 2017. The total amount of avoided price review
penalties reflects the restated figures that Southern Water has now provided about the
numbers of WwTW that were potentially non-compliant with permit conditions relating to final
effluent quality.
・Deliberate attempts at evasion -- government agencies monitor water treatment plants
but the operator predicted when the inspections and sampling was due and intentionally halted
to flow from treatment plants ("Artificial No Flow or ANF" events) so there was no output to
sample:
The Sampling Compliance Report provides evidence (mostly in the form of email extracts
between employees of Southern Water between 2010 and 2017), of staff anticipating the timing
of planned OSM (Clive: On Site Monitoring) samples across numerous WwTW, in order to ensure
that no effluent was available for sampling purposes. This deliberate practice (which took
place through a number of different methods) of creating an artificial "no flow" event
(described as an "Artificial No Flow or ANF") meant that a sample under the OSM regime could
not be taken thus ensuring that the sample (and as a consequence the relevant WwTW) would be
deemed as being compliant with permit conditions. As a result of this manipulation, a false
picture of Southern Water's WwTW performance (and how this was being achieved) was provided
internally within the company, to the Environment Agency (Clive: the UK's equivalent of
the EPA, similarly gutted, but that's another story for another time ) and to
Ofwat
・They even took waste water discharges away by tanker so nothing could be measured at
the outfall pipes.
Staff then used the knowledge about sample dates to put in place ANFs. This included,
for example, through the improper use of tankering (i.e. by tankering wastewater from one
WwTW to another to cause an ANF). Another method included 'recirculating' effluent within a
WwTW again to ensure there was no final effluent available for sampling.
・Senior management hassled and pressured employees to obfuscate performance
measures.
The report also highlighted occasions where employees felt pressured by senior managers
to create ANFs.
・The whistleblowing policy for employees actually started with a big red frightener
threatening dismissal for using the wrongdoing reporting mechanisms:
Southern Water has acknowledged in its Action Plan that there were deficiencies in its
organisational culture which prevented employees from being comfortable with speaking out
about inappropriate or non-compliant behaviours. This included having in place ineffective
whistleblowing processes which resulted in no staff coming forward to report their concerns
despite certain staff being obviously uncomfortable about the implementation of ANFs and
feeling pressured to act in an improper manner (as evidenced by emails we have seen that are
referenced in the Sampling Compliance Report).
The whistleblower policy Southern Water had in place at the time included on its first
page and highlighted in bold the following text: "Should any investigation conclude that the
disclosure was designed to discredit another individual or group, prove to be malicious or
misleading then that worker concerned would become the subject of the Disciplinary Procedure
or even action from the aggrieved individual."
By pretending that waste water being discharged into watercourses was of a higher quality
than it was, the investors pocketed profits that should have gone on infrastructure
improvements and staffing to enable treatment plants to be safely operated and checked
effectively.
Criminal investigations are pending .
But we've seen this movie many times before. Protected by the best corporate lawyers money
(public consumers' money, that is) can buy, a defence shield of auditors, layers of management
on whom the blame can be pinned and a complex legal argument which has to be constructed to a
high evidence threshold allowing jurors to be thrown off the scent to a degree that a
reasonable doubt emerges, we shouldn't hold our breaths.
So we're left with the penalties imposed. Unfortunately there's less here than meets the eye
initially from the headline figure. From the regulatory report:
This is a notice of Ofwat's intention to issue Southern Water with a financial penalty
amounting to £37.7 million reduced exceptionally to £3 million for significant
breaches of its licence conditions and its statutory duties. This is on the basis that
Southern Water has undertaken to pay customers about £123 million over the next five
years, some of which is a payment of price review underperformance penalties the company
avoided paying in the period 2010 to 2017 and some of which is a payment to customers for the
failures set out in this notice, paid in lieu of a penalty.
This means the regulator reduced the up-front cost (which would have come out of the profits
for fiscal 2019-20 in one hit) for an arrangement which allows Southern Water eee-zee payment
terms and to spread the cost over five years through a customer rebate initiative. And some of
the rebate is itself merely penalties which would have been levied if the wrongdoing --
environmental pollution and missed targets for waste processing quality -- had been identified
at the time. They are trying to bribe me with my own money.
The whole sorry saga shows how the entire publicly-overseen but privately-owned regulated
utility model is completely broken. The system is a sitting-duck for gaming and, at best, the
issues are uncovered well after the fact. If ever.
There is, however, a final failsafe currently still in place. Water quality standards in the
EU are mandated by EU Directive with redress available through the Court of Justice of the
European Union (CJEU). A Member State government can be fined and ordered to implement better
oversight and governance of the utilities. Thus, any temptation which the U.K. government might
succumb to, to "fix" problems like those entrenched in Southern Water by slackening off the
potable and wastewater standards, are prohibited by the threat of EU / CJEU referral.
The U.K. government has promised that, post-Brexit, environmental protections will be
"equivalent or better than" those specified in the EU Directive. I -- and similarly cynical
readers -- might well harbour a few doubts about that.
Mmm. I can't help but think that non-government ownership is not (necessariliy) the
problem, but PE (an industry that has made a lot of people rich in the last 20y by pricing
the same asset off ever-lower discount rates) certainly is.
Government ownership often results in unaccountable, faceless monopolies (I'm old enough to
remember British Rail, which felt that it was an entirely acceptable plan to raise fares to
push travellers off rail and onto the roads when the trains got too full) and the "taking
private" of steady-state utility businesses, with cashflows that were "ripe" for
securitisation and other smoke and mirrors moves, pushed accountability back into the dark
ages.
There have been a number of cases of assets like this bought by JVs of PE and public pension
plans. I wonder, were the latter just solicited to make the actions of the former look more
respectable ?
The government certainly doesn't always do a bang up job with everything it controls, but
when the government runs things, citizens at least theoretically have some recourse.
When a private corporation runs it, citizens can, literally in the case above, eat
s**t.
There is, however, a final failsafe currently still in place. Water quality standards in
the EU are mandated by EU Directive with redress available through the Court of Justice of
the European Union (CJEU). A Member State government can be fined and ordered to implement
better oversight and governance of the utilities. Thus, any temptation which the U.K.
government might succumb to, to "fix" problems like those entrenched in Southern Water by
slackening off the potable and wastewater standards, are prohibited by the threat of EU /
CJEU referral.
I do believe that the combination of Water Quality Framework
Directives , along with the Habitats
and Birds
Directives , are a major 'hidden' driver behind the people behind Brexit. These
Directives are written in such a way as to provide almost no wiggle room for national
regulators to escape hitting hard quantitative targets for water and habitat improvements.
The Fracking industry is a very significant example – the Water Frame Work Directive
also sets standards for groundwater, and its exceptionally difficult for the industry to meet
the standards of proof that they will not degrade the quality of these water bodies. The ECJ
is dominated by judges from northern European jurisdictions, which tend to take a far more
'literal' approach to Directives and their associated national laws and regulations. They
provide zero room to massage failures to hit targets.
Escaping those Directives will be worth billions to those two industries at the very
least. Well worth shoving a bit of money to the various campaigns. There are plenty of other
industries that likewise feel they will benefit from what will be an upcoming bonfire of the
Regulations.
I think too that the wriggle-room on water quality -- wastewater especially, potable is
generally not something that anyone would risk meddling with; well, unless you live in Flint,
Michigan, anyway -- has not escaped the notice of or despicable elites here.
The temptation by government to play along, grant "temporary" "exemptions" in response to
industry whining, sorry, lobbying, will prove difficult to resist, more than ever when the
U.K. government will be in a position to know that its word is final (it can simply make new
laws if it decides it doesn't like the old ones).
Will the U.K. as a society end up doing the right thing, or simply backsliding and
acquiescence because it's just easier? At least in the short term. I wish I had a definitive
answer to that one. Ask me again when we know for sure, although I suspect you'll have to dig
me up and open the coffin first.
International racketeering. First they hide the real "persons of interest" within a
consortium of consortiums of funds of funds – much like some special purpose "vehicle"
for wealthy investors – and then they lobby governments bye gaslighting them, saying
'We can do this economically and efficiently' and you are clearly running our of money, so
sell this water district to us and we'll get it back on track.' Right. Makes me wonder if
Bojo and his cronies are heavy into waste management. Pun intended.
I can only see a change when laws are adjusted so that executives can face actual jail
time. Spending a few months, if not a few years, in HMP Berwyn or HMP Bronzefield would
definitely not look good on either a resume or on LinkedIn so would concentrate their minds
wonderfully about the hazards of breaking laws. Till then, any penalties are merely
costs-of-doing -business and so are not a great risk.
Prison time for top executives and board members. Real cash on the nail fines, to be paid
in lump sums. Right to recover bonuses and distributions made to shareholders. Forfeiture of
company ownership to the Crown. For starters.
Limited liability is a privilege not a right and if the terms for limited liability isn't
fulfilled then the limited liability can, in some countries under certain conditions, become
unlimited liability. An example, trading while insolvent in Sweden (in Swedish, as the laws
are in Swedish and only concerns Sweden then it is unlikely to be found in many other
languages):
How do you put people who sat around a conference table in a corporation committee meeting
in jail? The entire process is designed and perfected to evade responsibility. Anytime I see something like this I class it as a complete fluke:
While I was reading this I was feeling increasingly obfuscated by the similarities I find
in the publicly-owned privately-managed sewage and waste plants in Madrid. I can easily
understand the frustration of the regulator with managers opacity. Imagine how bored must I
be sometimes, that I annually take a look at the reports that the managers of those plants
produce. These are rubbish reports. You have to spend a lot of time, first trying to
understand the real meaning of some concepts, second to gather the truly relevant variables
in order to assess the real performance of the plants.
I have to say that the situation in Spain must be worse than in the UK because regulators,
if they exist, never come up with auditing results, not to mention noticing misconducts. We
are miles away from being able to even fine those misconducts of which only a few have been
brougth to the public by NGOs.
Interestingly the former progressive Major of Madrid Carmena, now replaced with
conservatives in alliance with xenophobe populists, ordered the first audit (i believe it is
the first) of the waste treatment plant, a huge facility called Valdemingómez. I guess
that the current Major, whose name I don't want to recall, will hide audit results to the
public given that his party set years ago the current model for waste management.
Good waste management/recycling is going to be the industry of the future. Instead of
being publicly contrite about their excessive wealth, the Billionaires should all focus their
resources on fixing what will otherwise be an overwhelming mess. We will all be, as the
military says, "Overtaken by events" someday soon unless we get on top of this. Pollution,
garbage and sewage are the byproducts of our irresponsibility. Coupled with overpopulation.
Not good. Andrew Carnegie donated his money away on good things. Every little town in America
was a beneficiary, with a "Carnegie Library" among other things. But it made us all laugh out
loud when San Francisco named its new water treatment facility the "George W. Bush Sewage and
Water Treatment Facility" (or stg. like that). Unfortunately, the joke is really on us unless
we start demanding improvements and responsibility. The problem is already almost too big to
fix, Houston.
I knew an English guy circa 1999 who was then 35 years old and a hard Thatcherite in his
opinions (didn't do any actual political activism, of course) because the previous Labour
governments had ruined everything to the point that the country had to go to the IMF. He was
no fan of the NHS, either. NHS-reimbursed dentists had done a ton of unnecessary fillings on
him and his young friends as children. Worse, NHS doctors had misdiagnosed a life-threatening
illness for years until American emergency room doctors did a bunch of expensive tests and
cured him.
I wonder what he would have to say 20 years later now that the faults of privatization on
both sides of the Atlantic have been laid bare?
I don't think there is any alternative to constant watchdogging and activism by the
general public.
Sewage treatment is part of health care. Places without adequate sewage treatment suffer rampant diseases in potable water, fish,
animals and people exposed to it. Sewage treatment facilities are the only example of publicly run health care in the
U.S.
Each homeowner, and renter, pays a certain amount for it and it is handled to scientific
standards without a profit motive.
"... This story of lost American leadership and production is not unique. In fact, the destruction of America's once vibrant military and commercial industrial capacity in many sectors has become the single biggest unacknowledged threat to our national security. Because of public policies focused on finance instead of production, the United States increasingly cannot produce or maintain vital systems upon which our economy, our military, and our allies rely. Huawei is just a particularly prominent example. ..."
"... Higher budgets would seem to make sense. According to the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the United States is shifting away from armed conflicts in the Middle East to "great power" competition with China and Russia, which have technological parity in many areas with the United States. As part of his case for higher budgets, Mattis told Congress that "our military remains capable, but our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare -- air, land, sea, space, and cyber." ..."
"... And yet, the U.S. military budget, even at stalled levels, is still larger than the next nine countries' budgets combined. So there's a second natural follow-up question: is the defense budget the primary reason our military advantage is slipping away, or is it something deeper? ..."
"... The loss of manufacturing capacity has been devastating for American research capacity. "Innovation doesn't just hover above the Great Plains," Mottl said. "It is built on steady incremental changes and knowledge learned out of basic manufacturing." Telecommunications equipment is dual use, meaning it can be used for both commercial and military purposes. The loss of an industrial base in telecom equipment meant that the American national security apparatus lost military capacity. ..."
"... "The middle-class Americans who did the manufacturing work, all that capability, machine tools, knowledge, it just became worthless, driven by the stock price," he said. "The national ability to produce is a national treasure. If you can't produce you won't consume, and you can't defend yourself." ..."
"... In the commercial sector, rebuilding the industrial base will require an aggressive national mobilization strategy. This means aggressive investment by government to rebuild manufacturing capacity, selective tariffs to protect against Chinese or foreign predation, regulation to stop financial predation by Wall Street, and anti-monopoly enforcement to block the exploitation of market power. ..."
Wall Street's short-term incentives have decimated our defense industrial base and
undermined our national security.
Early this year, U.S. authorities filed criminal
charges -- including bank fraud, obstruction of justice, and theft of technology -- against the
largest maker of telecommunications equipment in the world, a Chinese giant named Huawei.
Chinese dominance in telecom equipment has created a crisis among Western espionage agencies,
who, fearful of Chinese spying, are attempting to prevent the spread of Huawei equipment
worldwide, especially
in the critical 5G next-generation mobile networking space.
In response to the campaign to block the purchase of Huawei equipment, the company has
engaged in a public relations offensive. The company's CEO, Ren Zhengfei, portrayed Western
fears as an advertisement for its products, which are, he said, "so good that the U.S.
government is scared." There's little question the Chinese government is interested in using
equipment to spy. What is surprising is Zhengfei is right about the products. Huawei, a
relatively new company in the telecom equipment space, has amassed top market share because its
equipment -- espionage vulnerabilities aside -- is the best value on the market.
In historical terms, this is a shocking turnaround. Americans invented the telephone
business and until recently dominated production and research. But in the last 20 years, every
single American producer of key telecommunication equipment sectors is gone. Today, only two
European makers -- Ericsson and Nokia -- are left to compete with Huawei and another Chinese
competitor, ZTE.
This story of lost American leadership and production is not unique. In fact, the
destruction of America's once vibrant military and commercial industrial capacity in many
sectors has become the single biggest unacknowledged threat to our national security. Because
of public policies focused on finance instead of production, the United States increasingly
cannot produce or maintain vital systems upon which our economy, our military, and our allies
rely. Huawei is just a particularly prominent example.
When national security specialists consider preparedness, they usually think in terms of the
amount of money spent on the Pentagon. One of President Donald Trump's key campaign promises
was to aggressively raise the military budget, which he, along with Congress, started doing in
2017. The reaction was instant. "I'm heartened that Congress recognizes the sobering effect of
budgetary uncertainty on America's military and on the men and women who provide for our
nation's defense," then-defense secretary Jim Mattis said. Budgets have gone up every year
since.
Higher budgets would seem to make sense. According to the 2018 National Defense
Strategy, the United States is shifting away from armed conflicts in the Middle East to "great
power" competition with China and Russia, which have technological parity in many areas with
the United States. As part of his case for higher budgets, Mattis told Congress that "our
military remains capable, but our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare --
air, land, sea, space, and cyber."
In some cases, our competitive edge has not just been eroded, but is at risk of being -- or
already is -- surpassed. The Chinese surge in 5G telecom equipment, which has dual civilian and
military uses, is one example. China is making key investments in artificial
intelligence, another area of competition. They even seem to be able to mount a rail gun on a naval ship ,
an important next generation weapons technology that the U.S. Navy has yet to incorporate.
And yet, the U.S. military budget, even at stalled levels, is still larger than the next
nine countries' budgets combined. So there's a second natural follow-up question: is the
defense budget the primary reason our military advantage is slipping away, or is it something
deeper?
The story of Huawei, and many others, suggests the latter.
♦♦♦
For over a century, America led the world in producing telecommunications equipment. The
American telecom industry, according to Zach Mottl of Atlas Tool Works, a subcontractor in the
industry, used to be a "crown jewel of American manufacturing." Mottl's company had been a
manufacturing supplier to AT&T and its Bell Labs from the early 1900s until the early
2000s. "The radar system was invented here. The transistor came out of Bell Labs. The laser. I
mean all of these high-tech inventions that have both commercial and military applications were
funded out of the research," Mottl told TAC . More than just the sexy inventions, there
was a domestic industrial sector which could make the equipment. Now, in a strategic coup for
our adversaries, that capability is gone.
Yet it wasn't one of those adversaries that killed our telecommunications capacity, but one
of our own institutions, Wall Street, and its pressure on executives to make decisions designed
to impress financial markets, rather than for the long-term health of their companies. In 1996,
AT&T spun off Bell Labs into a telecom equipment company, Lucent Technologies, to take
advantage of investors' appetite for an independent player selling high-tech telecom gear after
Congress deregulated the telecommuncations space. At the time, it was the biggest initial
public offering in history, and became the foundation of a relationship with financial markets
that led to its eventual collapse.
The focus on stock price at Lucent was systematic. The stock price was posted daily to
encourage everyone to focus on the company's relationship with short-term oriented financial
markets. All employees got a small number of "Founder's Grant Share Options," with executives
offered much larger slugs of stock to solidify the connection. When Richard McGinn became CEO
in 1997, he focused on financial markets.
Lucent began to buy up companies. According to two scholars , "The perceived
need to compete for acquisitions became a 'strategic' justification for keeping stock prices
high. This in turn demanded meeting or exceeding quarterly revenue and earnings targets,
objectives with which Lucent top executives, led by the hard-driving McGinn, became
obsessed."
Lucent got even more aggressive. McGinn's subordinate, an executive named Carly Fiorina,
juiced returns with a strategy based on lending money to risky startups who would then turn
around and buy Lucent equipment. Fiorina collected $65
million in compensation as the stock soared. And then, when the dot-com boom turned to
bust, the company, beset by accounting scandals designed to impress shareholders and the
financial markets, embarked on massive layoffs. CEO McGinn was among those laid off, but with a
$12.5 million severance package -- royal compensation for taking one of America's strategic
industrial assets down the road toward total destruction.
In the early 2000s, the telecom equipment market began to recover from the recession.
Lucent's new strategy, as Mottl put it, was to seek "margin" by offshoring production to China,
continuing layoffs of American workers and hiring abroad. At first, it was the simpler parts of
the telecom equipment, the boxes and assembly, but soon contract manufacturers in China were
making virtually all of it. American telecom capacity would never return.
Lucent didn't recover its former position. Chinese entrants, subsidized heavily by the
Chinese state and using Western technology, underpriced
Western companies. American policymakers, unconcerned with industrial capacity, allowed Chinese
companies to capture market share despite the predatory subsidies and stolen technology. In
2006, French telecom equipment maker Alcatel bought Lucent, signifying the end of American
control of Bell Labs. Today, Huawei, with state backing, dominates the market.
The erosion of much of the American industrial and defense industrial base proceeded like
Lucent. First, in the 1980s and 1990s, Wall Street financiers focused on short-term profits,
market power, and executive pay-outs over core competencies like research and production, often
rolling an industry up into a monopoly producer. Then, in the 2000s, they offshored production
to the lowest cost producer. This finance-centric approach opened the door to the Chinese
government's ability to strategically pick off industrial capacity by subsidizing its
producers. Hand over cash to Wall Street, and China could get the American crown jewels.
The loss of manufacturing capacity has been devastating for American research capacity.
"Innovation doesn't just hover above the Great Plains," Mottl said. "It is built on steady
incremental changes and knowledge learned out of basic manufacturing." Telecommunications
equipment is dual use, meaning it can be used for both commercial and military purposes. The
loss of an industrial base in telecom equipment meant that the American national security
apparatus lost military capacity.
This loss goes well beyond telecom equipment. Talking to small manufacturers and
distributors who operate in the guts of our industrial systems offers a perspective on the
danger of this process of financial predation and offshoring. Bill Hickey, who headed his
family's metal distributor, processor, and fabricator, has been watching the collapse for
decades. Hickey sells to "everyone who uses steel," from truck, car, and agricultural equipment
manufacturers to stadiums and the military.
Hickey, like many manufacturers, has watched the rise of China with alarm for decades.
"Everyone's upset about the China 2025 plan," he told TAC , referencing the current
Chinese plan causing alarm among national security thinkers in Washington. "Well there was a
China 2020 plan, 2016 plan, 2012 plan." The United States has, for instance, lost much of its
fasteners and casting industries, which are key inputs to virtually every industrial product.
It has lost much of its capacity in grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel, a specialized
metal required for highly efficient electrical motors. Aluminum that goes into American
aircraft carriers now often comes from China.
Hickey told a story of how the United States is even losing its submarine fleet. He had a
conversation with an admiral in charge of the U.S. sub fleet at the commissioning of the USS
Illinois , a Virginia-class attack submarine, who complained that the United States was
retiring three worn-out boats a year, but could only build one and a half in that time. The
Trump military budget has boosted funding to build two a year, but the United States no longer
has the capacity to do high quality castings to build any more than that. The supply chain that
could support such surge production should be in the commercial world, but it has been
offshored to China. "You can't run a really high-end casting business on making three
submarines a year," Hickey said. "You just can't do it." This shift happened because Wall
Street, or "the LBO (leveraged buy-out) guys" as Hickey put it, bought up manufacturing
facilities in the 1990s and moved them to China.
"The middle-class Americans who did the manufacturing work, all that capability, machine
tools, knowledge, it just became worthless, driven by the stock price," he said. "The national
ability to produce is a national treasure. If you can't produce you won't consume, and you
can't defend yourself."
The Loss of the Defense Industrial Base
But it's not just the dual-use commercial manufacturing base that is collapsing. Our policy
empowering Wall Street and offshoring has also damaged the more specialized defense base, which
directly produces weaponry and equipment for the military.
How pervasive is the loss of such capacity? In September 2018, the Department of Defense
released findings of its analysis into its supply chain. The results highlighted how fragile
our ability to supply our own military has become.
The report listed dozens of militarily significant items and inputs with only one or two
domestic producers, or even none at all. Many production facilities are owned by companies that
are financially vulnerable and at high risk of being shut down. Some of the risk comes from
limited production capability. Mortar tubes, for example, are made on just one production line,
and some Marine aircraft parts are made by just one company -- one which recently filed for
bankruptcy.
At risk is everything from chaff to flares to high voltage cable, fittings for ships,
valves, key inputs for satellites and missiles, and even material for tents. As Americans no
longer work in key industrial fields, the engineering and production skills evaporate as the
legacy workforce retires.
Even more unsettling is the reliance on foreign, and often adversarial, manufacturing and
supplies. The report found that "China is the single or sole supplier for a number of specialty
chemicals used in munitions and missiles . A sudden and catastrophic loss of supply would
disrupt DoD missile, satellite, space launch, and other defense manufacturing programs. In many
cases, there are no substitutes readily available." Other examples of foreign reliance included
circuit boards, night vision systems, batteries, and space sensors.
The story here is similar. When Wall Street targeted the commercial industrial base in the
1990s, the same financial trends shifted the defense industry. Well before any of the more
recent conflicts, financial pressure led to a change in focus for many in the defense industry
-- from technological engineering to balance sheet engineering. The result is that some of the
biggest names in the industry have never created any defense product. Instead of innovating new
technology to support our national security, they innovate new ways of creating monopolies to
take advantage of it.
A good example is a company called TransDigm. While TransDigm presents itself as a designer
and producer of aerospace products, it can more accurately be described as a designer of
monopolies. TransDigm began as a private equity firm, a type of investment business, in 1993.
Its mission, per
its earnings call , is to give "private equity-like returns" to shareholders, returns that
are much higher than the stock market or other standard investment vehicles.
It achieves these returns for its shareholders by buying up companies that are sole or
single-source suppliers of obscure airplane parts that the government needs, and then
increasing prices by as
much as eight times the original amount . If the government balks at paying, TransDigm has
no qualms daring the military to risk its mission and its crew by not buying the parts. The
military, held hostage, often pays the ransom. TransDigm's gross profit margins using this
model to gouge the U.S. government are a robust 54.5 percent. To put that into perspective,
Boeing and Lockheed's profit margins are listed at 13.6 percent and 10.91 percent. In many
ways, TransDigm is like the pharmaceutical company run by Martin Shkreli, which bought rare
treatments and then price gouged those who could not do without the product. Earlier this year,
TransDigm
recently bought the remaining supplier of chaff and one of two suppliers of flares,
products identified in the Defense Department's supply chain fragility report.
Yet, Trandigm's stock price thrives because Wall Street loves monopolies, regardless of who
they are taking advantage of. Take this
analysis from TheStreet from March 2019, published after the latest Inspector General
report and directly citing many of the concerning facts from the report as pure positives for
the investor:
The company is now the sole supplier for 80% of the end markets it serves. And 90% of the
items in the supply chain are proprietary to TransDigm. In other words, the company is
operating a monopoly for parts needed to operate aircraft that will typically be in service for
30 years . Managers are uniquely motivated to increase shareholder value and they have an
enviable record, with shares up 2,503% since 2009.
Fleecing the Defense Department is big business. Its executive chairman W. Nicholas Howley,
skewered by Democrats and Republicans alike in a May 2019 House Oversight hearing for making up
to 4,000 percent excess profit on some parts and stealing from the American taxpayer, received
total compensation of over $64
million in 2013 , the fifth most among all CEOs, and
over $13 million in 2018 , making him one
of the most highly compensated CEOs no one has ever heard of . Shortly after May's hearing,
the company agreed to voluntarily return $16 million in overcharges to the Pentagon, but the
share price is at near record highs.
L3 Technologies, created in 1997, has taken a different, but also damaging, approach to
monopolizing Defense Department contracts. Originally, it sought to become "the Home Depot of
the defense industry" by going on an acquisition binge, according
to its former CEO Frank Lanza. Today, L3 uses its size, its connections within the government,
and its willingness to offer federal employees good-paying jobs at L3, to muscle out
competitors and win contracts, even if the competitor has
more innovative and better priced products . This practice attracted the ire of two
Republican congressmen from North Carolina, Ted Budd and the late Walter Jones, who found
in 2017 that L3 succeeds, in part, due to "blatant corruption and obvious disregard of American
foreign interest in the name of personal economic profit."
Like TransDigm, this isn't L3's first brush with trouble. It was
temporarily suspended from U.S. government contracting for using "extremely sensitive and
classified information" from a government system to help its international business interests.
It was the subject of a scathing Senate Armed Services Committee investigation
for
failing to notify the Defense Department that it supplied faulty Chinese counterfeit parts
for some of its aircraft displays. And it agreed to pay a
$25.6 million settlement to the U.S. government for knowingly providing defective weapon
sights for years to soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet, also like TransDigm, L3 has thrived despite its troubles. When the company was granted
an open-ended contract to update the Air Force's electronics jamming airplane in 2017,
Lieutenant General Arnold Bunch
outlined the Air Force's logic at a House Armed Services Subcommittee meeting. L3, he said,
is the only company that can do the job. "They have all the tooling, they have all the existing
knowledge, and they have the modeling and all the information to do that work," he said.
In other words, because L3 has a monopoly, there was no one else to pick. The system -- a
system designed by the financial industry that rewards monopoly and consolidation at the
expense of innovation and national security -- essentially made the pick for him. It is no
wonder our military capacities are ebbing, despite the large budget outlays -- the money isn't
going to defense.
♦♦♦
In fact, in some ways, our own defense budgets are being used against us when potential
adversaries use Wall Street to take control of our own Pentagon-developed technologies.
There's no better example than China's takeover of the rare earth metal industry, which is
key to both defense and electronics. The issue has frequently made the front page during the
recent trade war, but the seldom-discussed background to our dependence on China for rare
earths is that, just like with telecom equipment, the United States used to be the world leader
in the industry until the financial sector shipped the whole thing to China.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Defense Department invested in the development of a
technology to use what are known as rare-earth magnets. The investment was so successful that
General Motors engineers, using Pentagon grants, succeeded in creating a
rare earth magnet that is now essential for nearly every high-tech piece of military equipment
in the U.S. inventory, from smart bombs and fighter jets to lasers and communications devices.
The benefit of DARPA's investment wasn't restricted to the military. The magnets make cell
phones and modern commercial electronics possible.
China recognized the value of these magnets early on. Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping
famously said in 1992 that "The Middle East has oil, China has rare earth," to underscore
the importance of a rare earth strategy he adopted for China. Part of that strategy was to take
control of the industry by manipulating the motivations of Wall Street.
Wall Street's outsized control over defense contracting and industry means that every place
a foreign adversary can insert itself into American financial institutions, it can insert
itself into our defense industry.
At an Armed Services Committee hearing in 2018, Representative Carol Shea-Porter talked
about how constant the conflict between financial concentration and patriotism had been in her
six years on the committee. She recounted a CEO once telling her, in response to her concern
about the outsourcing of defense industry parts, that he "[has] to answer to stockholders."
Who are these stockholders that CEOs are so compelled to answer to? Oftentimes, China.
Jennifer M.
Harris , an expert in global markets with experience at the U.S. State Department and the
U.S. National Intelligence Council, researched a recent
explosion of Chinese strategic investment in American technology companies. She found that
China has systematically targeted U.S. greenfield investments, "technology goods (especially
semiconductors), R&D networks, and advanced manufacturing."
The trend accelerated, until the recent flare-up of tensions between the United States and
China. "China's foreign direct investment (FDI) stock in the U.S.
increased some 800% between 2009 and 2015," she wrote. Then, from 2015 to 2017, "Chinese
FDI in the U.S. climbed nearly four-fold, reaching roughly $45.6 billion in 2016 , up from just
$12.8 billion in 2014."
This investment runs right through Wall Street, the key lobbying group trying to ratchet
down Trump's tough negotiating posture with the Chinese. Rather than showing concern about the
increasing influence of a foreign power in our commerce and industry, Wall Street banks have
repeatedly followed Archie Cox down the path of easy returns.
In 2016, J.P. Morgan Chase agreed to pay a
$264 million bribery settlement to the U.S. government for creating a program, called "Sons
and Daughters," to gain access to Chinese money by selectively hiring the unqualified offspring
of high-ranking Communist Party officials and other Chinese elites. Several other banks are
under investigation for similar practices, including Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, who, not
coincidentally,
hired the son of China's commerce minister. It appears to have worked out for them. In
2017, Goldman Sachs
partnered with the Chinese government's sovereign wealth fund to invest $5 billion Chinese
government dollars in American industry.
In short, China is becoming a significant shareholder in U.S. industries, and is selectively
targeting those with strategic implications. Congresswoman Shea-Porter's discovery that defense
industry CEOs aren't able to worry about national security because they "[have] to answer to
shareholders" was disturbing enough. But the fact that it potentially translates as CEOs not
being able to worry about national security because they have to answer to the Chinese should
elevate the issue to the top of our national security discussion. This nexus of China, Wall
Street, and our defense industrial base may be the answer to why our military advantage is
ebbing. Even when American ingenuity can thrive, too often the fruits go to the Chinese.
In short, the financial industry, with its emphasis on short-term profit and
monopoly , and its willingness to ignore national security for profit, has warped our very
ability to defend ourselves.
How Did We Get Here?
Believe it or not, America has been here before. In the 1920s and 1930s, the American
defense industrial base was being similarly manipulated by domestic financiers for their own
purposes, retarding innovation and damaging the nation's ability to defend itself. And American
military readiness was ebbing in the midst of an increasingly dangerous world full of rising
autocracies.
Today it might be artificial intelligence or drones, but in the 1930s the key military
technology was the airplane. And as with much digital technology today, while Americans
invented the airplane, many of the fruits went elsewhere. The reason was similar to the problem
of Wall Street today. The American aerospace industry in the 1930s was undermined by fights
among bankers over who got to profit from associated patent rights.
In 1935, Brigadier General William Mitchell told Congress that the United States didn't have
a single plane that could go against a "first-class power." "It is a disgraceful situation and
is due," he said, "for one thing, to this pool of patents." The lack of aerospace capacity
reflected a broader industrial problem. Monopolists refused to invest in factories to produce
enough steel, aluminum, and magnesium for adequate military readiness, for fear of losing
control over prices.
New Dealers investigated, and by the time war broke out, the Roosevelt administration was in
the midst of a sustained anti-monopoly campaign. The Nazi war machine, like China today, gave
added impetus to the problem of monopoly in key technology-heavy industries. In 1941, an
assistant attorney general for the antitrust division, Norman Littell, gave a speech to the
Indiana State Bar Association about what he called "The German Invasion of American
Business."
The Nazis, he argued, used legal techniques, like patent laws, stock ownership, dummy
corporations, and cartel arrangements, to extend their power into the United States. "The
distinction between bombing a vital plant out of existence from an airplane and preventing that
plant from coming into existence in the first place [through cartel arrangements]," he said,
"is largely a difference in the amount of noise involved."
Nazis used their American subsidiary corporations to spy on U.S. industrial capacity and
steal technology, such as walkie-talkies, intertank and ground-air radio communication systems,
and shortwave sets developed by the U.S. Army and Navy. They used patents or cartel
arrangements to restrict the production of stainless steel, tungsten-carbide, and fuel
injection equipment. According to the U.S. military after the war, I.G. Farben, the Nazi
chemical monopoly, had influence over American production of "synthetic gas and oils,
dyestuffs, explosives, synthetic rubber ('Buna'), menthol, cellophane, and other products," and
sought to keep the United States "entirely dependent" on Germany for certain types of
electrical equipment.
The Nazis took advantage of an industrial system that was, like the current one, organized
along short-term objectives. But seeing the danger, New Dealers attacked the power of
financiers through direct financing of factories, excess profits taxes, and the breaking of the
power of the Rockefeller, Dupont, and Mellon empires through bank regulation and antitrust
suits. They separated the makers of airplanes from airlines, a sort of Glass Steagall for
aerospace. During the war itself, antitrust chief Thurman Arnold, and those he influenced,
sought to end international cartels and loosen patent rules in part because they allowed
control over American industry by the Nazis.
After the war, the link between global cartels and national security vulnerabilities was a
key driver of American trade and military strategy. America pursued globalization, but with two
differences from the form we have today. First, strategists sought to prevent the recurrence of
global cartels and monopolies. Second, they sought to become industrially intertwined with
allies, not rivals. While multinational corporations stretched across the West, they did not
locate production or technology development in Moscow or among strategic rivals, as we do today
in China.
Domestically, anti-profiteering institutions and rules protected against corruption,
especially important when the defense budget comprised a large chunk of overall American
research and development. The Defense Department's procurement agency -- the Defense Logistics
Agency -- was enormously powerful and oversaw procurement and supply challenges. The Pentagon
had the power to force suppliers of sole source products -- contractors that had monopolies --
to reveal cost information to the government. The financial health of defense contractors
mattered, but so did value to the taxpayer, a skilled defense industrial workforce, and the
ability to deliver quality products to aid in national defense.
A fragmented base of contractors and subcontractors ensured redundancy and competition, and
a powerful federal apparatus with thousands of employees with expertise in pricing and
negotiation kept prices reasonable. The Defense Department could even take ownership of
specialized tooling rights to create competition in monopolistic markets with specialized spare
part needs -- which is precisely where TransDigm specializes. This authority and expertise had
been carefully cultivated over decades to provide the material necessary to equip American
soldiers for World War II, the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the first Gulf war.
In the 1980s, while Ronald Reagan allowed Wall Street free rein elsewhere in the economy, he
mostly kept Wall Street from going after the defense base. But scholars began debating whether
it made sense to have such a large and expensive negotiating apparatus to deal with
contractors, or if a more "cooperative" approach should be taken. Business consultants
argued that the Pentagon could save money if it would simply be "a better customer, by
being less adversarial and more trusting" of defense contractors.
With the end of the Cold War, these arguments found new resonance. Bill Clinton took the
philosophical change that Reagan had pushed on the civilian economy, and moved it into the
defense base. In 1993, Defense Department official William Perry gathered CEOs of top defense
contractors and told them that they would have to merge into larger entities because of reduced
Cold War spending. "Consolidate or evaporate," he said at what became known as "The Last
Supper" in military lore. Former secretary of the Navy John Lehman noted, "industry leaders
took the warning to heart." They reduced the number of prime contractors from 16 to six;
subcontractor mergers quadrupled from 1990 to 1998. They also loosened rules on sole source --
i.e. monopoly -- contracts, and slashed the Defense Logistics Agency, resulting in thousands of
employees with deep knowledge of defense contracting leaving the public sector.
Contractors increasingly dictated procurement rules. The Clinton administration approved
laws changing procurement, which, as the Los Angeles Times put it, got rid of the
government's traditional goals of ensuring "fair competition and low prices." They reversed
what the New Dealers had done to insulate American military power from financiers.
The administration also pushed Congress to allow foreign imports into
American weapons through waivers of the Buy America Act, and demanded procurement officers stop
asking for cost data. Mass offshoring took place, and businesses could increase prices
radically.
This environment attracted private-equity shops, and swaths of the defense industry shifted
their focus from aerospace engineering to balance sheet engineering. From 1993 to 2000, despite
dramatic declines in Cold War military spending and declines in the number of workers in the
defense industrial base and within the military, defense stocks outperformed the S&P.
Today, the American defense establishment quietly finds itself in the same predicament it
did in the 1930s. Despite spending large amounts of money on weapons systems, it often gets
substandard equipment. It is dependent for key sources of supply on business arrangements with
potentially hostile powers. The problem is so big, so toxic, and so difficult that few
lawmakers even want to take it on. But the increasingly obvious danger of Chinese power means
we can no longer ignore it.
The Fix
Fortunately, this is fixable. Huawei's predatory pricing success has shown policymakers all
over the world what happens when we don't protect our vital industrial capacity. Last year,
Congress strengthened the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the committee
that reviews foreign investment and mergers. The Trump tariffs have begun forcing a
long-overdue conversation across the globe about Chinese steel and aluminum overcapacity, and
Democrats like Representative Dan Lipinski are focused on reconstituting domestic manufacturing
ability.
Within the defense base itself, every example -- from TransDigm to L3 to Chinese
infiltration of American business -- has drawn the attention of members of Congress.
Representatives Ted Budd and Paul Cook are Republicans and Representatives Jackie Speier and Ro
Khanna are Democrats. They are not alone. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren and
Representative Tim Ryan have joined Khanna's demand for a TransDigm investigation.
Moreover, focus on production is bipartisan. One of the most ardent opponents of
consolidation in the 1990s is current presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who in 1996
passed an amendment to block Pentagon subsidies for defense mergers, or what he called "Payoffs
for Layoffs." On the other end of the spectrum, Trump has refocused national security and trade
officials on the importance of domestic manufacturing.
Defense officials have also become acutely aware of the problem. In a 2015 briefing at the
Pentagon, in response to questions about Lockheed's acquisition of Sikorsky, then secretary of
defense Ash Carter
emphasized the importance of not having "excessive consolidation," including so-called
vertical integration, in the defense industry because it is "[not] good for the defense
marketplace, and therefore, for the taxpayer and warfighter in the long run." Carter's
acquisition chief, Frank Kendall,
also noted the "significant policy concerns" posed by the "continuing march toward greater
consolidation in the defense industry at the prime contractor level" and the effect it has on
innovation.
American policymakers in the 1990s lost the ability to recognize the value of production
capacity. Today, many of the problems highlighted here are still seen in isolation, perhaps as
instances of corruption or reduced capacity. But the problems -- diminished innovation,
marginal quality, higher prices, less redundancy, dependence on overseas supply chains, a lack
of defense industry competition, and reduced investment in research and development -- are not
independent. They are the result of the financialization of industry and of monopoly. It's time
for a new strategic posture, one that puts a premium not just on spending the right amount on
military budgets, but also on ensuring that financial actors don't capture what we do spend. We
must begin once again to recognize that private industrial capacity is a vital national
security asset that we can no longer allow Wall Street to pillage. By seeing the problem in its
totality, we can attack the power of finance within the commercial and defense base and restore
our national security capacity once again.
There are many levers we can use to reorder our national priorities. The Defense Department,
along with its new higher budgets, should have more authority to promote competition, break up
defense conglomerates, restrict excess defense contractor profits, empower contracting officers
to get cost information, and block private equity takeovers of suppliers. Congress could
reinstate the authority of the Defense Department to simply take ownership of specialized
tooling rights to create competition in monopolistic markets with specialized spare part needs,
a power it once had.
In the commercial sector, rebuilding the industrial base will require an aggressive
national mobilization strategy. This means aggressive investment by government to rebuild
manufacturing capacity, selective tariffs to protect against Chinese or foreign predation,
regulation to stop financial predation by Wall Street, and anti-monopoly enforcement to block
the exploitation of market power.
Policymakers must recognize that industrial capacity is a public good and short-term actors
on Wall Street have become a serious national security vulnerability. While private businesses
are essential to our common defense, the public sector must once again structure how we
organize our national defense and protect our defense industrial base from predatory finance.
For several decades, Wall Street has been organizing not just the financing of defense
contractors, but the capabilities of our very defense posture. That experiment has been a
failure. It is time to wake up, before it's too late.
Matt Stoller is a fellow at the Open Markets Institute. His book, Goliath: The
100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy, is due out this fall from Simon &
Schuster. Lucas Kunce spent 12 years in the United States Marine Corps, and is a veteran of the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The views presented are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of the Department of Defense or its components. This article was supported
by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. The contents of this publication are solely the
responsibility of the authors.
Sobering read. However, it is likely that only a major war will spur legislators and
administrators into action. Until then Wall Street will reign and the US administrations will
keep threatening countries with sanctions if they buy equipment that prevents the US to
conduct an easy bombing campaign on them.
I've heard similar stories about the imminent collapse of the Russian Defense sector, they
can't make their own parts, they lack diversity of suppliers, there is a huge brain drain, no
customers (somewhat true since we practice extortion).
I'm not dismissing the author, actually quite the opposite and I am agreeing with you. The
secret ingredient is an actual sense of danger. The Russians are terrified, we pretend to be
terrified but know it's all threat inflation. If we had honest people in Congress proposing
targeted budgets for real needs rather than 'freedom of navigation' when we know it's power
projection then the fear of God might return to our habits. The author brought up the 20/30's
I bet WW2 gave us that fear again.
Dude, your government stopped being able to do anything this complicated somewhere around
1995. Your infrastructure is in shambles and diabetics are dying because of an insulin
monopoly that forces them to ration medication. The rope remark resembles you.
This is the longest litany about demise of American prowess in technology that I've ever read
in TAC so far. The story of destruction of Bell Labs, described in details by Matt Stoller is
very accurate: I have been eyewitness to it from 1983 and up to its gruesome end. Carly
Fiorina, one of the runners for President in 2016, delivered American icon coup-the-grace.
She even justified her claim on presidency on business experience: destruction of another
icon of American high-tech – Hewlett-Packard. Alas, there is the most fundamental
reason for the current situation in the 21-st century USA, was formulated 100+ years ago by
Vladimir Lenin: "For profit capitalists will be eager to sell us rope, with which we'll
hung them" .
Would anybody protest today that profit IS the Nature of capitalism ? And
more: those who substitute Reality with their wet dreams might be cured by watching
Democratic 2020 debates.
Great piece. There are lots of good articles here but not that many that tell something I
really didn't already know. Great perspective on the whole China issue. Amazing how sick our
financialized economy really is when you look under the hood.
This is excellent information. Hope folks on the Hill are reading this.
The Wall Street and finance industry depend on US military, long-term this is a disaster, but
they care only for short-term profits. Whoever thought that principles of free market apply
internationally, where other goverments are free to influence "free trade" in any way they
wish, while US goverment will do nothing is an idiot.
Large part of it is probably diversification and it does not affect the US exporters as they
also can diversify.
Notable quotes:
"... The bottom line is Trump and his misfit Cabinet didn't thoroughly think through all of the likely negative ramifications of "Making America Great Again" !! He impulsively makes decisions and when then fail - as they do often do - he blames others or creates diversionary chaos to change the subject. Trump's a fxxxxing overweight, repulsive imbecile, and the farmers are going to let him have it in 2020.....along with millions who rolled the dice him in 2016 but he crapped out on all of them..... ..."
"... What is happening to US cars in China? I know the market has taken a dump there, but are US cars losing market share as well? Are Chinese consumers shunning goods from US manufacturers? ..."
published new data Monday that shows
agricultural imports from the US have fallen, as Chinese buyers shift supply chains out of the
US to other countries because of the deepening trade war.
In the first five months of 2019, imports of agricultural products from the US crashed 55.3%
YoY . Much of decline was due to a 70.6% YoY decline of soybeans in the same period.
Chinese importers went to Brazil, Argentina, and ASEN countries (Thailand, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Myanmar (Burma), Cambodia, and Laos). Data
showed imports from the EU, Australia, and Canada also jumped in the first five months as
Chinese buyers ditched American products.
The bottom line is Trump and his misfit Cabinet didn't thoroughly think through all of
the likely negative ramifications of "Making America Great Again" !! He impulsively makes
decisions and when then fail - as they do often do - he blames others or creates diversionary
chaos to change the subject. Trump's a fxxxxing overweight, repulsive imbecile, and the
farmers are going to let him have it in 2020.....along with millions who rolled the dice him
in 2016 but he crapped out on all of them.....
C'mon man, it's not a Trump thing, it's been the whole American policy since Ronald
Reagan. Trump didn't start the fire, he's just half-assing things the best he can.
We cannot withstand another year in which our most important foreign market continues to
slip away and soybean prices are 20 to 25%, or even more, below pre-tariff levels," said
John Heisdorffer, chairman of the American Soybean Association, in a statement published on
May 13.
Or.........what? You should've voted for Clinton and you'll vote for Bernie/Biden/Warren?
Come on man, spit it out. Or what?
What is happening to US cars in China? I know the market has taken a dump there, but are
US cars losing market share as well? Are Chinese consumers shunning goods from US
manufacturers?
From a report: Ren's downbeat assessment that the ban will hit revenue
by $30 billion , the first time Huawei has quantified the impact of the U.S. action, comes
as a surprise after weeks of defiant comments from company executives who maintained Huawei was
technologically self-sufficient. [...]
Huawei had not expected that U.S. determination to "crack" the company would be "so
strong and so pervasive," Ren said, speaking at the company's Shenzhen headquarters on
Monday.
Two U.S. tech experts, George Gilder and Nicholas Negroponte, also joined the session.
"We did not expect they would attack us on so many aspects," Ren said, adding he expects a
revival in business in 2021.
Only the greedy, selfish, well off, egotistical and share holders believe that Public
Services should, could and would benefit from privatisation and deregulation.
Education and Health for example are (in theory) a universal right in the UK. As numbers
in the population rise and demographics change so do costs ie delivery of the service becomes
more expensive.As market force logic is introduced it also becomes less responsive - hence
people not able to get the right drugs and treatment and challenging and challenged young
people being denied an education that is vital for them in increasing numbers.
Meanwhile - as Public Services are devalued and denuded in this system the private sector
becomes increasingly wealthy at the top while its workers become poorer and less powerful at
the bottom.
With the introduction of Tory austerity which punishes the latter to the benefit of the
former there is no surprise that this system does not work and has provided a platform for
the unscrupulous greedy and corrupt to exploit Brexit and produce conditions which will take
'Neoliberalism' to where logic suggests it would always go - with the powerful rich protected
minority exerting their power over an increasingly poor and powerless majority.
The competitive tender approach ensures the cheapest bids get the contracts and the cheapest
bids are those most likely to employ exploited labour and cheap materials as well as cutting
corners. Result? a job of sorts gets done, but the quality is rubbish, with no investment or
pride in the product. Look at Hong Kong where this is longstanding practice: new tunnel, half
the extractor fans do not work correctly because they were poorly installed. I once spoke to
the Chief Engineer of the Tsing Ma bridge, he was stressed out of his socks for the whole
construction period trying to monitor all the subcontractors who had bid so low they had to
cheat to make a profit with the result that they would try to cut corners and avoid doing
things if they thought they could get away with it. Good job that engineer was diligent.
Others may be less able or willing.
BTW: I seldom find comparisons in UK-media to other countries when those countries are
better.
I think that's because most of the UK media is propaganda for the established system,
which they rely on for advertising revenue and access to information. If an outlet's
journalists start seriously questioning the existing system, a few things happen: 1.
the journo doesn't get promoted within the system; 2. their access to information is
curtailed (they are not invited to briefings etc., and; 3. advertising revenue drops. As the
business model of most mainstream media is to present consumer audiences to advertisers, this
is not going to sit well with the owners, see 1 and 2 above leading to poor evaluations. Any
journo with half a brain quickly learns this and fits in. Only so far and no further.
As a Tory for most of my longish life, I have to agree that whilst some things have
flourished once privatised, certain services must remain in public ownership and control to
enable governments to improve or reduce, depending on national taxation and expenditure - if
people want better services then they must be prepared to pay for them, and of course the
long-term pensions of the workforce. Managers should be subject matter experts before running
departments, not just accountants or management consultants, so they can improve delivery not
just constantly re-structure or carp on about 'efficiency savings'.
Having worked in shipping, that industry has oscillated several times but rail is an
interesting example - a disaster in the dying days of national ownership, the private world
started well improving safety, reliability and capacity but has gone downhill in recent
years, not helped by the track management system. Again, the airlines started well but now
several have gone into administration and BA has 'down-qualitied' itself to become one of the
worst.
Some parts of the NHS can be provided by private industry but limited to service provision
and collective buying only - certainly NOT cancer screening.
Then, when you look at private providers who go bust and completely fail to provide any
acceptable capability - jails, probation, social care etc. one wonders when, if ever,
politicians will realise that it costs them, the civil service and commercial management an
incredible amount of time, effort and cost just to fail!
Outsourcing government work is the most inefficient way of getting it done for the benefit of
taxpayers. When the profits private companies make from it are added to what economies must
invest to pay the taxes for it it's astonishing how popular it has become throughout the
world, something only explicable if those authorising it are amongst the most stupid of
financial administrators or the most corrupt.
Outsourcing for example £1m worth of work requires that amount to be paid in taxes,
which needs about £5m to be earned in wages and profits to pay £1m in taxes,
which in turn needs an investment of perhaps ten times that amount, when the £1m is
borrowed by debt laden governments to be repaid by over-borrowed and overtaxed economies.
If the outsourced company is not profit-making it will borrow the capital to be able to
deliver what's required and that in turn will raise the amount it will want for future work,
which is what I think accounts for Carillion and the other outsource giants going to the
wall.
The process is generally the fault of governments failing to adhere strictly to the necessity
of only paying its workforce on average the same as the private sector pays its workers,
which in democracies is not an unfair requirement demanded by equality legislation. Many
would claim that such was why Margaret Thatcher decided on privatising so many public
utilities especially after the miners' strike in Ted Heath's government and why it gained so
much support and popularity when wages and benefits for similar skill levels seemed so much
better and jobs more secure for many public sector workers involved than they were in the
private sector. Now of course, the high costs of private necessary public services are making
life unbearable for the majority of workers and welfare recipients while profits are going
abroad to those who own them and the EU in getting the flak – courtesy of the media -
for the resultant poverty and austerity, allowed the false £350m a week to win the
referendum. The £4 billion a week worth of exports to the EU paid most of that and the
way companies are relocating to hedge against Brexit means a lot of lost jobs will go with
them – some earlier estimates but it at more than 100,000 - which doesn't seem to deter
those determinedly wanting out of the EU one little bit.
This is a blessing for the low labour cost Member States, who being in the populous markets
the multinationals need, can attract the UK industries looking to further cut costs and
freight charges so those that go will never come back because higher costs in the Brexit UK
will not be compensated for easily with uncompetitive price hikes for EU customers, unlike
CAP payments that have been promised to farmers by the government proBrexit Minister.
The doom and gloom felt by many I think is well justified when sovereign debt and bank credit
is considered relative to taxes. While sovereign debt is regarded as an asset and future
taxes are acceptable for bank credit and both can be securitized by banking systems to borrow
even more capital that will be acceptable to central banks as QE, it's not surprising that
sovereigns don't need to worry about economies being unable to provide the taxes their
governments unlawfully spend even when leaving it for future generations is also unlawful
i.e. is a crime, since if they don't, their central banks and bond holders covered by them
will. When the cost in trillions since 2016 already spent by government in preparing for
Brexit is included one can't help but think that the financial economy has made a proverbial
killing from UK incorporated and now owns most if not all of it. If most of the finance for
Brexit came from its financiers and investors is it possible that after Brexit they'll pour
trillions back into the economy to make it capable of not only surviving but also competing
favourably with the EU, Japan, China, and the US?
I have to disagree. Hardly anything has flourished after privatisation. The big failures,
which get all the publicity, were generally basket case private businesses which had to be
nationalised to save them from collapse.
Sometimes they are stuffed with public money and
sold at a loss to the public, like the Tory nationalisation of Rolls Royce, or deprived of
funds like British Rail to provide an excuse to liberate thousands of square miles of real
estate
This latter is the scheme for the NHS with hospitals and other property provided at
great public expense sold off to any shark who says he has the money, and once it's private
load the enterprise with debt and walk away.
Unlike the privatisations of the 80s and 90s there's barely any pretence these days
that new sell-offs are anything more than simply part of a quest to find new avenues for
profit-making in an economy with tons of liquid capital but not enough places to profitability
put it.
Back in the Thatcher/Reagan years there were at people around who genuinely believed in the
superiority of the market, or at least, made the effort to set out an intellectual case for
it.
Now we're in a different era. After 2008, hardly anyone really believes in neoliberal
ideas anymore, not to the point that they'd openly make the case for them anyway. But while
different visions have appeared to some extent on both left and right, most of those in
positions of power and influence have so internalised Thatcher's 'there is no alternative'
that it's beyond their political horizons to treat any alternatives which do emerge as
serious propositions, let alone come up with their own.
So neoliberalism stumbles on almost as a reflex action. Ben Fine calls it a 'zombie' but I
think the better analogy is cannibalism. Unlike the privatisations of the 80s and 90s there's
barely any pretence these days that new sell-offs are anything more than simply part of a
quest to find new avenues for profit-making in an economy with tons of liquid capital but not
enough places to profitability put it. Because structurally speaking most of the economy is
tapped out.
Privatising public services at this point is just a way to asset strip and/or funnel
public revenue streams to a private sector which has been stuck in neoliberal short-term, low
skill, low productivity, low wage, high debt mode for so long that it has lost the ability to
grow. So now it is eating itself, or at least eating the structures which hold it up and
allow it to survive.
The central premise used by Governments for privatising public servcies seems to have been
that publicly run services are inefficient compared to private companies; that the need to
turn a profit means wasteful systems and behaviours are minimised. Therefore, money can be
saved by outsourcing as private companies can provide the same or better service more
cheaply.
I think this is very disrespectful to all those who work in public service, many of whom
are dedicated to their jobs to provide care or a good service to members of the public. The
idea that making money is the only motivating force that can make someone do their job well
seems flawed. Further, if efficiency gains alone are not enough to make a profit, then the
only recourse for companies is to provide a poorer service or be more exploitative of their
employees, which is regularly played out.
This central premise is not widely challenged by politicians. It seems accepted as fact. I
wonder if there have been any studies to either support or challenge this idea.
The hard reality remains that the financial markets are, in the long term, forward-looking.
But in the short-term, they are dominated by high-speed electronic trading.
Anyone who felt
Monday's (December's, Q4's) meltdown, or watched Tuesday night's reopening of equity index
futures, watched in entertained astonishment, if not anguish.
Clearly, sentient, reasoned
thought has now been sacrificed at the altar of short-term profit. The task is to come up with
a thesis moving forward, and the challenge is to stick to that conclusion at times when the
evils of algorithmic, high-frequency and passive trading styles turn against those core
beliefs. Risk Management. Before one might profit with sustained regularity, one must learn to
effectively preserve one's capital.
just so 5 hours ago
You can
have whatever opinion you want about Yahoo's reporting of the daily ups and downs of the
markets, and keep in mind, the exchanges are betting parlors. That said, these types of wild
swings over the last 6 weeks or so, are very similar to what took place before housing bubble
burst in the late mid-ots, keep an eye on the amount of private uncollateralized debt that
mid-cap companies are carrying, if they start defaulting and these private equity houses
start running for cover, it create the same type of liquidity situation that Lehman's
caused.
It was neoliberalism that moved production to China and created condition for the Chinese own companies to compete. Now Trump
goes against neoliberal dogma. So it is not accidental that he was under attack and Russiagate was launched to ensure his resignation.
Notable quotes:
"... in an editorial in the state-run People's Daily, Beijing has warned that China has "the strength and patience to withstand the trade war, and will fight to the end if the U.S. administration persists." ..."
"... China's controversial telecom giant, Huawei, filed a civil lawsuit against the US Commerce Department over the mishandling of telecommunications equipment seized by American officials, demanding its release. ..."
"... However, the equipment was not shipped back to China. It was "purportedly" seized en route and is currently sitting in Alaska, as US officials wanted to investigate whether the shipment required a special license . Such requests are usually processed within 45 days, but nearly two years have already passed since then. ..."
"... "The equipment, to the best of HT USA's knowledge, remains in a bureaucratic limbo in an Alaskan warehouse," Huawei said in its lawsuit, which was filed on Friday in federal court in Washington. ..."
"... Huawei contends that the equipment did not require a license because it did not fall into a controlled category and because it was made outside the United States and was being returned to the same country from which it came. ..."
"... The lawsuit comes amid a bitter row between two world's largest economies, and Washington's crackdown on Huawei. In May, the Trump administration added Huawei to the entity list, barring it from buying needed U.S. parts and components without U.S. government approval. The US alleges that Huawei could be spying for the Chinese government, a claim which the company has repeatedly denied. ..."
"... Of course, Huawei is not the only Chinese tech company that the White House decided to put on its trade blacklist. On Friday, five Chinese organizations – supercomputer maker Sugon, three its affiliates, and the Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computing Technology – were added to entity list on the grounds that their activities are allegedly contrary to US national security and foreign policy interests. ..."
"... don't expect a breakthrough: as Goldman's trade deal odds index found last week... the probability of a breakthrough between the two nations is roughly one in five. ..."
It's the weekend, which means the trade war between the US and China moved to the front page of the local propaganda media (in both
the US and China). And while Trump has yet to slam Beijing, focusing this morning on the all time high in the market instead, China
has been busy and in an editorial in the state-run People's Daily, Beijing has warned that China has "the strength and patience
to withstand the trade war, and will fight to the end if the U.S. administration persists."
Echoing what China's notorious twitter mouthpiece Hu Xijin said yesterday, the editorial said that just days ahead of the much
anticipated G-20 summit in Osaka where Trump and Xi are set to meet, " the U.S. must drop all tariffs imposed on China if it wants
to negotiate on trade, and only an equal dialogue can resolve the issue and lead to a win-win", according to Bloomberg.
The communist party's official paper also said the US had failed to take into account the interests of its own people, and they
are paying higher costs due to the trade dispute. "Wielding a big stick of tariffs" also disregards the condition of the U.S. economy
and the international economic order, according to the editorial.
Beijing's official warning to the US ended as follows: if the U.S. chooses to talk, "then it must show some good faith, take account
of key concerns from both sides and cancel all tariffs."
And just to prove that China isn't a paper tiger whose threats will be confined to the local newspapers,
Reuters reported that overnight China's controversial telecom giant, Huawei, filed a civil lawsuit against the US Commerce
Department over the mishandling of telecommunications equipment seized by American officials, demanding its release.
In an almost absurd reversal, the company whose entire existence can be traced to stealing and reverse-engineering foreign technology
and
trampling over corporate ethics , the complaint alleges that the US government took possession of hardware, including an ethernet
switch and computer server, which was transported from China to an independent laboratory in California for testing and certification
back in 2017.
However, the equipment was not shipped back to China. It was "purportedly" seized en route and is currently sitting in Alaska,
as US officials wanted to investigate whether the shipment required a special license . Such requests are usually processed within
45 days, but nearly two years have already passed since then.
"The equipment, to the best of HT USA's knowledge, remains in a bureaucratic limbo in an Alaskan warehouse," Huawei said in
its lawsuit, which was filed on Friday in federal court in Washington.
Huawei contends that the equipment did not require a license because it did not fall into a controlled category and because
it was made outside the United States and was being returned to the same country from which it came.
The company is not seeking any financial compensation and is not challenging the seizure itself, but is sending a message to Washington,
saying "post-seizure failures to act are unlawful", in effect charging the Trump admin with doing precisely what it, itself has been
accused of. Huawei wants to force the Commerce Department to decide whether an export license is really necessary and, if not, release
the withheld equipment.
The lawsuit comes amid a bitter row between two world's largest economies, and Washington's crackdown on Huawei. In May, the Trump
administration added Huawei to the entity list, barring it from buying needed U.S. parts and components without U.S. government approval.
The US alleges that Huawei could be spying for the Chinese government, a claim which the company has repeatedly denied.
Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, daughter of the company's founder, has been detained in Canada since December on a U.S. warrant. She
is fighting extradition on charges that she misled global banks about Huawei's relationship with a company operating in Iran.
Of course, Huawei is not the only Chinese tech company that the White House decided to put on its trade blacklist. On Friday,
five Chinese organizations – supercomputer maker Sugon, three its affiliates, and the Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computing Technology
– were added to entity list on the grounds that their activities are allegedly contrary to US national security and foreign policy
interests.
The fresh US blacklisting comes ahead of crucial talks between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Osaka,
Japan, which are intended to ease tensions between the two sides. Still, don't expect a breakthrough: as
Goldman's
trade deal odds index found last week... the probability of a breakthrough between the two nations is roughly one in five.
A letter from over 600 US companies businesses in support of President Trump's tariffs on
approximately $300 billion of Chinese imports was scheduled to be submitted on Friday before
the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), according to the Daily
Caller , which reviewed the document.
It is the intention of Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), Chief Economist, Jeff
Ferry to present the letter Friday morning during his testimony to the USTR. This letter
pushes back on the letter last week that asks Trump to stop the tariffs on China. Those
signers were mostly big-box retailers who manufacture their products in China.
This all comes as President Donald Trump said that he is considering slapping China with
more tariffs if Chinese President Xi Jinping does not meet with him during the G-20 summit in
late June. Since, the warning, the two have agreed to meet. However, Trump said if Xi does
not attend the event, he will immediately impose new
tariffs on $300 billion in
Chinese imports ,
including a number of consumer products. - Daily
Caller
In May, Trump raised tariffs on around $200 billion of Chinese goods from 10% to
25%. Three days later, China slapped around $60 billion in US goods with reciprocal tariffs.
"The global integration project with China, through liberalized trade, has failed. The
Communist Party of China has used its access to U.S. consumer and capital markets for a
predatory economic strategy to grow its state-owned enterprises, finance its military build up,
imprison its citizens in modern day concentration camps and challenge America's geopolitical
power," according to Coalition for a Prosperous America CEO Michael Stumo.
"Our American companies and workers have been weakened by this failed experiment. We want it
to stop," he added.
The Automotive Parts Remanufacturing Association (APRA) president, Joe Kripli. said, "for
years now the Chinese 'knock-off' of starters and alternators that have been entering the
country at ridiculously low cost and have been hurting the small [U.S.] remanufacturer that
is located in every state and has been in our communities since WWII. - Daily
Caller
"Fitzgerald USA is one of the few Made in America truck conglomerates. We recently started a
U.S. truck parts business as the trucking industry increasingly moves its operations to China.
America needs a strong manufacturing economy for jobs and national security. We support
President Trump and his use of tariffs on China," said Fitzgerald USA Director of Government
Relations, Jon Toomey.
Guess who didn't sign the letter? Apple - which is desperately trying to lobby the Trump
administration to ease the tariffs - arguing this week in front of the USTR that "U.S. tariffs
on Apple's products would result in a reduction of Apple's U.S. economic contribution," and
"weigh on Apple's global competitiveness
Cheap easy credit in USA has made us all debtors. The cheap money has been used to
purchase lots of cheap chinese **** from the large global publicly traded companies. The big
box stores partnered with American brands to move operations overseas and make **** real
cheap and sell those well known household brand names back to unsuspecting consumers.....to
the very people they have put out of a job. THIS is the largest redistribution of wealth in
the history of the planet. Free money, low paying jobs and cheap ****. As far as I am
concerned, if china steals a company's technology, cry me a ******* river. They deserve
it.
The super-capitalists as usual screw everybody else - the honest manufacturers, labour -
while destroying the fabric of society in their insane pursuit of profits for themselves and
their confreres.
Did Amazon also sign the petition? What about Facebook ,Google? I want to see the big
MNC's signing the letter. Let me see the country before profit there.
The key dynamic is low energy costs, cheap land, low corporate taxes and low shipping
costs to the market.
All four of those are in the US.
Factories will be built where the demand is located and there is and will be no longer any
advantage to produce products overseas.
Plants that used to take 1000 workers to run now take just 50 or less.
Automation would have impacted the work force in the US in 10 years but thanks to minimum
wage hikes it is happening right now and will grow exponentially in 2 years.
Why is it that folks put the blame on China? Our corporations are the ones that looked for
manufacturers that could make their product for less than American workers could.
Watch older episodes of Shark Tank and they all said time and time again that they have
contacts in China and could have the product made for peanuts....... That's how our
corporations make money.
Why don't we boycott Apple? We can't because it's in everyone's retirement portfolio one
way or another.
If the US was such a "free market" powerhouse, why not heed your own values instead of
doing protectionism? Answer: another myth destroyed that America is all about "free markets".
Add that to the mythology about being pro-dumbocracy, freedumb and all for international
"law".
(nytimes.com)
70
restricting China's access to American technology and stoking already high tensions as
President Trump and President Xi Jinping of China prepare to meet in Japan next week. From a
report: The Commerce Department announced that it would add four Chinese companies and one
Chinese institute to an "entity list," saying they posed risks to
American national security or foreign policy interests [Editor's note: the link may be
paywalled;
alternative source ] . The move essentially bars the entities, which include one of China's
leading supercomputer makers, Sugon, and a number of its subsidiaries set up to design
microchips, from buying American technology and components without a waiver from the United
States government.
The move could all but cripple these Chinese businesses, which rely on American chips and
other technology to manufacture advanced electronics. Those added to the entity list also
include Higon, Chengdu Haiguang Integrated Circuit, Chengdu Haiguang Microelectronics
Technology, and Wuxi Jiangnan Institute of Computing Technology, which lead China's development
of high performance computing, some of which is used in military applications like simulating
nuclear explosions, the Commerce Department said. Each of the aforementioned companies does
businesses under a variety of other names.
Blocking Chinese access to any particular technology just gives them an incentive to pour
massive resources into developing their own versions. They've learned that US companies are
not reliable suppliers. Same as many former allies have learned that being an ally of the US
is a double edged sword.
Cuts in sales to China by US companies means less money for US companies to invest in
developing advanced products. Don't be surprised if by 2030 China will be the sole supplier
of the worlds best, most advanced technology. Just look at what happened to the robotics
industry. Or better yet, go back to the previous century, when the US decided to unload their
steel mills to China at a huge discount to China to invest in financial instruments, then
whined like crazy that China was able to make steel cheaper because their new-to-them steel
mills had less debt to fund per to. Of steel produced.
If China had had to buy new steel mills, the cost of production per ton would have been
higher. But no, trading pieces of paper or bits in bank accounts was easier.
The Chinese hi-tech companies should thank the US for clearing out American products from
the
biggest market [datenna.com], so they can eventually enter the lucrative cycles of being
able to sell primitive products and re-invest the proceeds to create more advanced products,
without having to compete with the most advanced American products upfront, and in a few
short year they will produce more advanced ones.
Oh, don't the US know that Chinese supercomputers already cleared out of American chips
[wikipedia.org] and achieve top performance long time ago?
The App Store also instituted the idea of tech products being part of a
vertically-integrated, closed platform. Apple and Google (with its Google Play store) became
the dominant platform owners for mobile, because their scale and network effects made them the
gatekeepers for companies that wanted to enter the mobile market and access the app
marketplace. Even a company with as much power as Microsoft could do nothing to break the mobile
duopoly .
So whatever your
opinion of Google's Huawei snub, it certainly demonstrates just how much power Google has,
and how that power is centralized. For phone makers, Google is the only option -- Apple being
its own walled garden -- and for app makers and consumers alike, the App Store and Google Play
are the only existing choices.
This is hardly a secret or conspiratorial. Huawei has
long been attempting to develop its own operating system , precisely to prevent such
situations as this. Similarly, despite being the largest Android vendor by far, Samsung still
has its own Tizen operating system. Building your business on someone else's platform leaves
you at their mercy. There's also the question of user experience: Consumers can't actually buy
books on the Kindle app on an iPhone or iPad, because Amazon understandably wants to avoid the
30 percent cut that Apple takes on its operating system.
Perhaps a closed app store linked to a platform has outlived its early usefulness. Not only
does it cement power among entrenched companies, it also puts up barriers to competition. This
idea isn't so radical. Recently,
the Supreme Court ruled that Apple's customers can sue the company under antitrust law for
monopolistic behavior for the way in which it takes that 30 percent of everything on the app
store. There are technical avenues forward: Progressive Web Apps, or PWAs, operate in a more
open, more platform-neutral manner, and have significantly improved in functionality recently;
they could offer a more neutral way for companies to offer apps outside the constraints of an
app store.
Dell Technologies Inc
., HP Inc. , Intel Corp. and Microsoft Corp. are joining forces to oppose
President Donald Trump's proposed tariffs on laptop computers and tablets among $300 billion in
Chinese goods targeted for duties.
The companies submitted joint comments opposing the tariff escalation, saying it would hurt
consumer products and industry, while failing to address China's trade practices. The tariffs
are poised to hit during the peak holiday and back-to-school sales period, they said.
"The tariffs will harm U.S. technology leaders, hindering their ability to innovate and
compete in a global marketplace," the companies said in comments posted online.
Dell, HP, and Microsoft said they account for about half of the notebooks and detachable
tablets sold in the U.S. Prices for laptops and tablets will increase by at least 19% -- about
$120 for the average retail price of a laptop -- if the proposed tariffs are implemented,
according to a
study released this week by the Consumer Technology Association .
The companies said they spent a collective $35 billion on research and development in 2018
alone, and tariff costs would divert resources from innovation while providing "a windfall" to
manufacturers based outside the U.S. that are less dependent on American sales.
The Trump administration is considering public comments on the proposed duties and
hearing testimony from more than 300 U.S. companies and trade groups through June 25. The
tariffs could be imposed after a rebuttal period ends July 2.
The U.S. and China said their presidents
will meet in Japan next week to relaunch trade talks after a month-long stalemate.
"... The facts of the US economy and politics show clearly the correctness of the analysis in China that any expectation of 'mercy' from the Trump administration will in reality lead to heightened attacks by the US. ..."
"... The medium-term trajectory of the US economy [is] to slow down during 2019 and 2020 – which is necessarily a negative factor for President Trump's chances of re-election in 2020 and which interacts with the adverse effects of US tariff policy on US consumers such as price rises and falls in prices to farmers. ..."
"... Trump administration already acknowledges in practice that its policies will be a US 'lose', that is they will inflict pain on the US economy, and it is merely attempting to ensure that the 'lose' for China is bigger than the 'lose' for the US. ..."
"... Bloomberg and others calculate that the losses in a full year of the trade war would be $600 billion. ..."
"... In addition to these tariff effects the Trump administration US is equally concerned about the consequences of consumer boycotts, or restrictions, on US companies which would be equivalent to those it has carried out against Huawei. ..."
"... 'Beijing has scope for retaliation. Levers at its disposal include blocking access to its market -- a move that Goldman Sachs analysts estimate could reduce Apple's earnings per share by nearly 30 per cent.' ..."
"... These specific examples clearly illustrate that in practice, despite its claims to the contrary, the Trump administration starts from the framework that its policies will inflict pain on the US economy, but that it will be able to limit this loss. China's route to success is therefore to inflict pain on the US economy to a point that is unacceptable for Trump in seeking re-election. ..."
"... 'If Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be an effective way to do it. If the harm to the US is modest and the costs for China are severe and lasting, Trump might conclude that the former are acceptable losses.' On this logic: 'Geopolitical primacy, not maximum prosperity for Americans' was 'the president's true objective.' ..."
"... Forces in China claiming that the Trump administrations attacks will be stopped by 'appeasement', or by appeals for mercy, are presenting the reverse of the truth – such policies will lead to the Trump administration becoming more aggressive. This flows inevitably from the fact that the Trump administration's policy is not to seek a 'win-win' for the US but to create a 'lose-lose' with the aim that the 'lose' in terms of economic pain for the US should be 'modest'. This logic of the Trump administration's position means that any weakening of China's position, any alleviation of the pain inflicted on the US, will lead to the Trump administration becoming more aggressive, not less. ..."
"... it is also clear that Trump's measure of what is bearable is not the interests of the US people, but whether it affects the President's chances of re-election. In summary, only if the economic pain suffered by the US is sufficiently severe that it endangers Trump's re-election chances will the Trump administration desist from its attacks on China. ..."
"... When the 'lose' or 'pain' in US financial markets is not great the Trump administration proceeds to attack China. When, on the contrary, China's reaction increases pain in US financial markets Trump acts more reasonably. That is, whenever the Trump administration feels in a stronger position it increases its attacks on China, whenever the Trump administration feels weaker due to the pain in US financial markets it acts more reasonably to China. ..."
"... But once the Trump administration embarked on the course of a lose-lose confrontation then such a struggle can only be won by China relying on its own strength. Sufficient pain must be inflicted on the Trump administration that it decides it is better to abandon the lose-lose. And the criteria by which it will judge whether the pain in the 'lose-lose' is bearable is the effect on its chances of re-election. ..."
'At least two other organizations have more power over [US financial] markets
than the White House. They are the US Federal Reserve and the Chinese Communist
Party. Trump does not directly control either of them.'
This brutal analysis is particularly significant as it is by one of the most
senior and accurate Western specialists on financial markets –
John Authers
, Senior Bloomberg Editor for Markets and former Chief Markets
Commentator for the
Financial Times
. It encapsulates the interaction of
economic and political problems facing President Trump. As will be seen it also
summarises the relative strengths of China and the US in the 'trade war',
dictates the US administration's tactics in attacking China, and determines the
policies which will prevent the Trump administration carrying out its attempt to
block China achieving its development goals.
Analysis of these real facts of US financial markets and policy strongly
confirms the assessment emphasised by China's President Xi Jinping in his recent
speech
in
Yudu County, the place being highly symbolic as it was the starting point for
China's famous Long March, that China has to rely on its own strength in
resisting this attempt by the US administration to prevent China achieving
prosperity and national rejuvenation.
While the situation of China itself in the trade/economic war is naturally the
most important issue there are of course two sides involved in this conflict –
the other aspect of the situation is within the US. Analysis of this, which forms
the subject of this article, shows clearly why the Trump administration refuses
to accept 'win-win' relations with China and what is the inevitable outcome of
this administration's 'lose-lose' logic. Such analysis in turn shows that
frequent comparisons made in China to the Long March of 1934-35, or to Mao
Zedong's famous
essay
'On Protracted War', are not simply rhetorical metaphors, or references
to the historical traditions of the Communist Party of China (CPC), but provide
an accurate framework to understand the situation.
The Trump administration made a very serious miscalculation in launching the
'trade war' with China. It believed that either, or both, the leadership of China
would submit to the Trump administrations threats or the Chinese population would
not be prepared for a serious struggle with the US. Both calculations have proved
entirely wrong. China's leadership did not surrender to but hit back against the
US attacks. Furthermore anyone who follows China's domestic discussion, on what
is now by far the world's largest internet community, knows that this line was
strongly supported by the Chinese population.
The difference to the historical comparisons now frequently used in China, of
course, is that this is an economic war and not a military one. Therefore, the
weapons are different, and it is necessary to analyse what are the pressure
points on the US, and what armaments are most powerful for China. In turn this
examination of the situation in the US economy fully confirms the analyses made
of the situation in China and the reaction of different social layers to the
present conflict with the US.
Trends in China and the US
Examining the Chinese side of the 'trade war' Wang Wen has presented an
excellent
analysis
of the reaction of different social strata in China to the Trump
administration's economic aggression. Its analysis can be noted:
'
The vast
majority of ordinary people are highly supportive of the state's policy of
counter-bullying in the United States, and the current fear of the US exists
mainly in some social elites.'
But it is particularly striking that this analysis of trends within China,
made by a Chinese citizen, is fully confirmed from another 'external' angle –
that of the situation in the US and the forces operating on the Trump
administration. The facts of the US economy and politics show clearly the
correctness of the analysis in China that any expectation of 'mercy' from the
Trump administration will in reality lead to heightened attacks by the US.
Trump's economic policy is determined by the coming US Presidential electio. The starting point of any analysis of the situation in the US is that
President Trump is already entirely aware of the most important date he faces – 3
November 2020, the next US Presidential election. Securing re-election is his
paramount goal and this therefore determines the shaping of the Trump
administration's policies. Three time frames are crucial for this.
The impact of events in financial markets, which can occur in a very short
time frame – in some cases minutes/hours and almost invariably having a strong
impact over a period of days to months.
The medium-term trajectory of the US economy [is] to slow down during 2019 and
2020 – which is necessarily a negative factor for President Trump's chances of
re-election in 2020 and which interacts with the adverse effects of US tariff
policy on US consumers such as price rises and falls in prices to farmers.
Attempts to slow China's economy in the medium/longer term, through forcing
or persuading it to abandon its socialist path of development.
All three time frames however confirm a fundamental reality – that while
China's relations with most countries, and indeed with some previous US
presidents, can be most successful based on 'win-win' this will not occur with
the Trump administration.
This is due to the fact that the Trump administration
already acknowledges in practice that its policies will be a US 'lose', that is
they will inflict pain on the US economy, and it is merely attempting to ensure
that the 'lose' for China is bigger than the 'lose' for the US.
The Trump administration's 'lose-lose' analysis
An illustration on a small scale of the Trump administration's understanding
of the need to attempt to limit the extent of economic pain on the US is its
recent announcement of $16 billion of subsidies to US farmers – the bill for
which will be financed by other US taxpayers as is increasingly understood in the
United States. As
CNN
noted: 'Just as Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall, but isn't, now
China is supposed to pay for President Donald Trump's plan to bail out US
farmers. Neither statement is true, of course.'
Affecting wider sections of the US population, calculations by the Western
economics company Oxford Economics, which has no connection with China, found:
'Chinese manufacturing lowered prices in the United States for consumer goods,
dampening inflation and putting more money in American wallets trade with China
saved these families up to $850 that year.' Regarding the overall impact on the
global economy, including the adverse effect on US allies,
Bloomberg
and others calculate that the losses in a full year of the trade
war would be $600 billion.
In addition to these tariff effects the Trump administration US is equally
concerned about the consequences of consumer boycotts, or restrictions, on US
companies which would be equivalent to those it has carried out against Huawei.
The
Financial Times
noted for example that the immediate goal of the US sanctions
against Huawei are not simply or primarily to stop the supply of chips and
software but to destroy the consumer market for Huawei's products in the West –
where customers want guaranteed access to Google dependent products: 'Google's
decision this week to stop selling its Android operating system to Huawei for new
handsets makes little difference in China, where Huawei should be able to
convince buyers to switch to its operating system, now under development.
But
customers are more wedded to Android in international markets. Independent
analyst Richard Windsor estimates it will lose all those sales.' But the
Financial Times simultaneously noted that consumer retaliation against China
would have a devastating financial effect on Apple, one of the US's core and most
valuable companies: 'Beijing has scope for retaliation. Levers at its disposal
include blocking access to its market -- a move that Goldman Sachs analysts
estimate could reduce Apple's earnings per share by nearly 30 per cent.'
These specific examples clearly illustrate that in practice, despite its
claims to the contrary, the Trump administration starts from the framework that
its policies will inflict pain on the US economy, but that it will be able to
limit this loss. China's route to success is therefore to inflict pain on the US
economy to a point that is unacceptable for Trump in seeking re-election.
US financial markets
A decisive reason that such pain for the US is possible is that while the sums
noted in relation to US consumers, farmers, and allies above sound large the
Trump administration can in fact deal with amounts such as $16 billion to
farmers. But even such sums as the $600 billion loss for the global economy are
small compared to potential impacts on the size of US financial markets. The loss
of $600 billion in a year for the global economy is less than the amount that can
be lost in US financial markets in a single day, while a loss of $16 billion can
occur in seconds.
Due to the sheer scale of US financial markets the Trump
administration does not remotely have the resources to control the more than
$30,000 billion US share market or the $16,000 billion US Treasury bond market.
Pain inflicted on the US in such financial markets is therefore on a scale which
is destabilising to the Trump administration.
Examination of all three time frames operating on the Trump administration
considered above would require three separate analyses or an inordinately long
article. Therefore, due to their sheer scale, this article examines only the
first, most short term, but extremely powerful of these issues – the impact of
the trade war on US financial markets.
The real situation facing US presidents
John Authers' blunt comment cited at the beginning of this article, reveals
accurately the real domestic economic situation of a US President – which is very
different to the frequent perception in China. Unlike China, under the US
governmental system the President has little direct control over the most
powerful levers of the economy – there is no large state owned economic sector
which can be instructed by the President to increase its activity, the Federal
budget is decided by the Congress not by the President, and interest rates are
controlled by the Federal Reserve which under US law cannot be instructed by the
President.
The new factor in the trade war which Authers drew attention to, which is also
outside the US President's control, is China itself. The facts amply confirm that
the impact of China's statements and actions on US financial markets is now very
large – as will be demonstrated.
Larry Summers, former US Treasury Secretary,
clearly spelt out this numerically in a
commentary
for the Washington Post: 'On Monday [13 May], China announced new
tariffs on $60 billion of US exports, and the United States threatened new
tariffs on up to $300 billion of Chinese goods. These actions were cited as the
principal reason for a decline of more than 600 points in the Dow Jones
industrial average, or about 2.4 percent in broader measures of the stock market.
With the total value of US stocks around $30 trillion, this decline represents
more than $700 billion in lost wealth.'
This $700 billion loss to US shareholders directly resulted from China's
response to President Trump's announcement he was raising US tariffs against
China from 10% to 25%. To illustrate this direct impact Authers' accurately noted
the difference on US share markets between the week following Trump's
announcement of raising tariffs against China, during which there was no
announcement of a precise Chinese response, and the US financial markets'
reaction when China announced its counter tariffs: 'It's fair to say that Wall
Street did not anticipate China's retaliation to US tariffs. Last week, the
negative reaction to President Donald Trump's announcement of new tariffs on
China was oddly muted. On Monday, after China's response was announced just
before the market opened, the S&P 500 fell by more than it had done in the entire
previous week.'
Authers similarly noted the increasing skill of China's response and its
impact on US markets: 'The problem is that China knows how to respond. China
knows it can attack the presidential weak spot by acting in a way that damages
the Dow. Hence, it not only retaliated with tariffs of its own, but announced
them just as the New York market was about to open, at night in China, for
maximum effect.'
As already noted, the $700 billion loss in a single day on US share markets
was larger than the projected loss to the world economy for an entire year due to
the trade war – and over 40 times the $16 billion bill for Trump's subsidies to
US farmers. But even this sum is small compared to losses on US financial markets
that can occur due to others of China's economic actions. As
Authers
noted: 'In the last five years, the event that scared the US market
the most, by a wide margin, was the surprise Chinese yuan devaluation in 2015.'
The impact of this RMB devaluation was clear. Between 10 August and 24 August
2015, only 14 days, the RMB's exchange rate fell by 3.0%. The US S&P500 tracked
the RMB down falling by 11.2% by 25 August. In terms of current valuations of US
share markets this was equivalent to a loss of $3.8 trillion – more than six
times the total projected loss to the global economy of the trade war in a year,
or over 200 times Trump's subsidies to farmers.
The real aim of Trump's policy
This identification of the degree of pain which can be inflicted by China on
US financial markets, and on the US economy, is crucial because Trump's tariff
policies cannot, indeed are not intended to, improve the situation of the US
itself. Bloomberg columnist
Noah Smith
summarised the Trump administration's real aim very accurately
under the self-explanatory headline 'The Grim Logic of Trump's Trade War With
China – Maximizing American prosperity probably isn't the goal.' Apart from
comprador apologists for the US within China, noted by Wang Wen, this logic of
Trump's policy is by now well understood in China. But, nevertheless, it is worth
quoting this Bloomberg analysis at length as it summarises very accurately from a
US perspective the logic of the Trump administration:
'The trade war has cost to the US. Economists have shown that the actual burden
of tariffs has fallen mostly on American consumers -- in other words, the prices
consumers pay for imported goods has risen And higher prices on capital goods
and intermediate goods is raising expenses for US manufacturers, making them less
competitive. Meanwhile, Chinese retaliation has hurt US farmers
'So with losses mounting, it looked like there was little reason to continue
the trade war. Yet Trump is doubling down. Why?
'If Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be
an effective way to do it. If the harm to the US is modest and the costs for
China are severe and lasting, Trump might conclude that the former are acceptable
losses.' On this logic: 'Geopolitical primacy, not maximum prosperity for
Americans' was 'the president's true objective.'
In other words, as was already shown in the case of farm subsidies, the Trump
administration quite accurately does not believe that tariffs and other forms of
economic aggression against China aid US economic prosperity – on the contrary
they cause economic pain. But it decides to inflict this pain on US citizens and
companies in order to pursue neo-con policies trying to block China's prosperity
and national rejuvenation. But this policy requires that 'the harm to the US is
modest.' The problem is that the more tariffs are imposed , and above all if
China retaliates, the greater the pain not only for US financial markets but for
US consumers – that is US voters. As Authers noted: 'Meanwhile, the US can still
impose more tariffs, but the goods it has chosen to attack have been largely
invisible to consumers. Any further tariffs will take it into consumer products
where price rises will be visible and painful, and might even, again, act as a
spur to raise [interest] rates.' The effect on US financial markets, as already
noted, can be far more severe than the direct effect of the tariffs.
Why win-win will not work with the Trump administration
Understanding the Trump's administrations real aim shows not only why its goal
is not to improve the economic position of the US economy or US citizens but
simultaneously makes clear why its policies will not be stopped by appeals to
reason or 'win-win'. Forces in China claiming that the Trump administrations
attacks will be stopped by 'appeasement', or by appeals for mercy, are presenting
the reverse of the truth – such policies will lead to the Trump administration
becoming more aggressive. This flows inevitably from the fact that the Trump
administration's policy is not to seek a 'win-win' for the US but to create a
'lose-lose' with the aim that the 'lose' in terms of economic pain for the US
should be 'modest'. This logic of the Trump administration's position means that
any weakening of China's position, any alleviation of the pain inflicted on the
US, will lead to the Trump administration becoming more aggressive, not less.
This makes clear while most countries seek a 'win-win' with China, and can
therefore rightly be approached on this basis, and indeed this forms the basis of
China's foreign policy, this will not work with the Trump administration because
it is not seeking a 'win' – it is merely seeking that the 'lose' for the US it
knows will occur should not be sufficiently large to threaten Trump's
re-election.
It follows from this situation that the only thing that will deter the Trump
administration, and force it off its path of attacks on China, is if the 'lose'
for the US is bigger than it had anticipated – that is if the economic pain is
too large to be bearable from the point of view of the interests of the Trump
administration. From what has already been analysed, it is also clear that
Trump's measure of what is bearable is not the interests of the US people, but
whether it affects the President's chances of re-election. In summary, only if
the economic pain suffered by the US is sufficiently severe that it endangers
Trump's re-election chances will the Trump administration desist from its attacks
on China.
The only 'win' which the Trump administration takes into account is,
therefore, if the 'lose/pain' of the confrontation with China is seen as
endangering Trump's re-election chances and the 'win' is then simply the
lessening of that pain to a point where it is no longer seen as endangering
Trump's election campaign.
Confirmation of the forces acting on the Trump administration
This situation of the Trump administration which flows from its 'lose-lose'
logic is fully confirmed even in the extremely short term by the chronology of
President Trump's own personal responses to events in US financial markets in
announcing the increase in tariffs against China from 10% to 25%.
On 5 May Trump announced on
twitter
the raising of tariffs against China from 10% to 25%, there was no
immediate announced countermeasure by China, and the S&P 500 US share index
fell by only 0.5% on the following day.
In contrast on 13 May China announced counter tariffs and the S&P 500 fell
by 2.4% in a single day – costing US shareholders $700 billion as Larry
Summers noted.
For the rest of the following week the Trump administration attempted to
claim that trade talks would be resuming, and that Treasury Secretary Mnuchin
would probably be visiting Beijing in the near future – the S&P500 recovered
by 1.7%.
Having achieved this recovery in US financial markets President Trump then
initiated a new attack on China by requiring US companies to have permission
from the US government to sell components and software to Huawei.
China then responded to this strongly on 23 May. As the
Wall Street Journal
noted: ' The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 286
points Thursday after a Chinese official said the US should "adjust its wrong
actions" if it would like to continue negotiations. The losses pulled the Dow
industrials into the red for the week, continuing a dismal stretch as it
hurtled toward its fifth straight weekly loss -- which would be its longest such
losing streak since 2011. '
In response to this fall on US financial markets President Trump then
immediately softened his rhetoric by
announcing
at a press conference that there was a 'good possibility' that
trade negotiations with China would get back on track and that issues with
Huawei might be settled in that deal.
The short term pattern was therefore extremely clear. When there was no
reaction from China, US financial markets did not fall, and Trump continued his
aggression against China. When, on the contrary, China responded strongly, US
financial markets fell and Trump attempted to present a picture he was lessening
his attack on China.
In addition to these short-term movements analysed above the same process over
a longer term also explains the dynamic of the 'hardening' and 'softening' of the
Trump administration's positions in the course of its negotiations with China.
During 2018, when the US economy was experiencing economic strengthening,
during a normal upswing of a business cycle, and with a strong share market,
Trump acted aggressively to China – launching the first set of anti-China
tariffs and threatening to expand them to a wider range of goods and increase
their rate to 25%.
Then in late 2018 the US economy began to slow, the Federal Reserve was
raising interest rates, and the US share market fell. In response to this, at
the beginning of 2019, Trump 'softened' his position – postponing the raising
of US tariffs against China from 10% to 25%.
When the US economy appeared to recover in the first quarter of 2019, with
the Federal Reserve suspending increases in interest rates, and the share
market rose, Trump then announced new aggressive actions against China by
raising tariffs from 10% to 25%.
This therefore clearly reflects the 'lose-lose' framework in which the Trump
administration operates. When the 'lose' or 'pain' in US financial markets is not
great the Trump administration proceeds to attack China. When, on the contrary,
China's reaction increases pain in US financial markets Trump acts more
reasonably. That is, whenever the Trump administration feels in a stronger
position it increases its attacks on China, whenever the Trump administration
feels weaker due to the pain in US financial markets it acts more reasonably to
China.
What is the Trump administration's bottom line?
While the above clearly shows why the Trump administration will not respond to
a 'win-win' framework, but only to economic pain, to avoid any misunderstanding
it should be made clear that it does not lead to the conclusion that the US and
China are locked in a 'war to the death'. All the evidence is that President
Trump is less interested in the long-term interests of the US than most
Presidents. The precise economic pain which is unacceptable to his administration
is that which would lead to endangering his re-election in 2020.
A relevant comparison which helps understand this dynamic is that is to a real
war, not just a trade one, which the US lost – the Vietnam war. Vietnam's tactics
in this were skilful in that political impacts guided military goals. The two
largest Vietnamese offensives of the war, the Tet Offensive in 1968 and the
Easter Offensive in 1972, were launched in US presidential election years.
Neither resulted in US military defeat but the political damage done to US
presidents ensured Vietnam's victory – Johnson was forced to abandon as hopeless
any attempt to run for re-election as president after Tet, and Nixon was so
convinced that his position as president would be threatened by the war that he
started a progressive US military withdrawal after 1968 and decided on a total US
withdrawal of US forces after the 1972 Easter Offensive.
In short, the 'bottom
line' for Vietnam's victory against the US was not total military defeat of the
US, which was never achieved, but inflicting such pain on US presidents that to
safeguard their own position they were forced to withdraw. The military struggle
in Vietnam was the means by which the decisive political victory in the US was
achieved.
But the precondition for that US political defeat was the military struggle in
Vietnam. If Vietnam had ceased inflicting pain on the US, both economic in terms
of the gigantic cost of the war and in terms of losses of American forces, then
the US instead of withdrawing would have increased its attacks on Vietnam. This
can be clearly seen in the opposite case in which the US achieved a great victory
– the destruction of the USSR. Gorbachev attempted to appease the US and beg for
mercy. The US did not lessen but increased its attacks as a result – culminating
in the catastrophic disintegration of the USSR itself, characterised by Putin as
'the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century'.
After this
tremendous defeat of Russia this again did not lead to a lessening but to further
intensification of attacks on Russia by the US – incorporating almost all of
Eastern Europe and large parts of the former USSR into NATO and launching of
attacks on Russia's position in its strategically decisive neighbour of Ukraine.
The strategic conclusion of the present US attacks on China fully confirms the
speech by Xi Jinping
emphasising
that the most important thing is to rely on ourselves. China has not been seeking
a confrontation with the US, a lose-lose. On the contrary China has been seeking
a win-win. But once the Trump administration embarked on the course of a
lose-lose confrontation then such a struggle can only be won by China relying on
its own strength. Sufficient pain must be inflicted on the Trump administration
that it decides it is better to abandon the lose-lose. And the criteria by which
it will judge whether the pain in the 'lose-lose' is bearable is the effect on
its chances of re-election.
Fortunately, the present struggle is an economic war and not a real war. The
'small arms' in that economic war are not rifles and revolvers but tariffs
against farmers and the subsidies these require, its medium weapons are consumer
boycotts, its heavy artillery are such issues as the impact on US financial
markets analysed above. It is a measure of the gigantic historical progress made
by China since 1949 under the People's Republic that it now only has to deal with
economic attacks by the Trump administration – for a century before that China
had to deal with actual military invasions.
The sacrifices made by the heroes of the Long March were far greater than
anything the people of China face today in the economic attacks by the Trump
administration. But the comparisons made by Xi Jinping to the Long March are
entirely apposite and not at all merely references to the CPC's historical
tradition.
The Kuomintang's Fifth Encirclement Campaign, the origin of Long March, was
designed by the KMT to destroy and annihilate the forces opposing it – why it is
also called the 'Fifth Extermination Campaign'. It was purposeless to have
attempted to appease or beg for mercy from the KMT, which was determined to
destroy the forces which later created the New China. Any appeasement, or appeal
for mercy, would have been met by the KMT crushing and massacring the forces they
opposed. Only resistance to the KMT created the possibility to later create the
People's Republic of China and lay the basis for China's national rejuvenation.
Similarly, the Trump administration is determined to block China's national
rejuvenation. As already shown, there is no point to attempt to appease it or beg
for mercy from it, this will merely lead to it becoming more aggressive. The
ultimate aim of the neo-cons at present directing the Trump administration's
policies is to block China's national rejuvenation and the final way to ensure
that is to ensure that that China should suffer the same historical catastrophe
as the USSR under Gorbachev.
Who is the 'elite' of Chinese society?
Analysis in China shows it is ordinary people who have understood the
aggressive actions of the Trump regime and supported the firm positions against
this taken by President Xi Jinping and other CPC leaders.
It is some parts of the 'social elite' which have entirely misunderstood the
situation and believed that appeasement and appeals for mercy would lead to the
Trump administration lessening its attack on China. The latter forces are the
exact opposite of an 'intellectual elite' – because to be an intellectual elite
means to see the situation accurately and, as seen, they are entirely in error.
It is the ordinary people of China who have shown they are the 'intellectual
elite' in accurately understanding the Trump administration and supporting the
positions taken by the CPC leadership. Those who wrongly analysed the situation
may or may not be a social elite but they are an intellectual 'non-elite' – those
who fail to see the situation accurately and have naïve illusions.
Conclusion
The analysis of the situation of the US economy and financial markets
therefore fully confirms the analysis made by others of the situation in China.
It shows why the Trump administration cannot be dealt with on the basis of
'win-win' but only on the basis of China's strength and through ensuring that the
Trump administration suffers severely in the 'lose-lose' path it has
unfortunately chosen. Only after the US administration has found that it suffers
pain from its present path will it be possible to return to a 'win-win' framework
between China and the US.
* * * The Chinese version of this article appeared at
Guancha.cn
.
President Donald Trump has announced that he will decide whether or not to add another $300
billion in tariffs on imports from China, in addition to the $200 billion he has already
imposed, and that he will do so in the two weeks following the G20 summit in Osaka. Trump's
"Art of the Deal" pressure tactics are familiar. He wants to try to make China give even
greater concessions, perhaps following a frosty meeting between the two leaders on the
sidelines of the G20, or perhaps no meeting at all.
China, however, is in no mood to make concessions.
Behind Trump's impulsiveness can be glimpsed a profound shift in U.S. trade policy, and in
US diplomacy, which has transformed the nature of international relations, with particularly
disturbing implications in the case of U.S.-China ties.
Donald Trump, acting on the advice of U.S. trade representative Robert Lighthizer and
Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin, is making demands of China -- or for that matter
Mexico, Germany, or France -- in a unilateral manner. He has attempted to immediately implement
tariffs and other forms of punishment (such as bans for reasons of national security in the
case of Huawei phones) without any institutional consultative process.
The U.S. constitution has a "commerce clause" that clearly assigns to Congress the power "to regulate
commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes." Since 2002, the trade
promotion authority (an upgraded version of the fast-track authority established in 1974) gives
the president the right to negotiate trade agreements that Congress can vote for or against,
but cannot amend.
Over the last 20 years, fast-tracking has become the center of trade policy to a degree that
undermines the balance of powers and the constitution.
Although the executive's usurpation of trade authority has a long history, only now is the
president making such a transparent move to exclude the legislature -- not to mention economic
experts, let alone citizens -- from the formulation of trade policy. That means that a handful
of people can make decisions that impact every aspect of the U.S. economy.
Newspapers rarely mention the role of Congress in trade negotiations with China. It's almost
as if the various congressional committees involved in formulating trade policy have no role in
this process.
Equally striking is the absence from the policy debate of multilateral institutions that
address trade issues according to common practices and international law. For instance, the
World Trade Organization was established in 1993 with an explicit mandate to address trade and
tariff issues. The WTO and its trade experts once played a central role in U.S. trade
discussions -- when U.S. policy ostensibly conformed to established global norms, and
Washington even set new models for the world to follow.
Trump's unilateral demands of China make it crystal clear that Trump, and Trump alone, is
empowered to decide trade policy. What institutions and mechanisms remain to assure that the
president's authority in trade negotiations will not be abused and that trade is conducted with
the long-term interests of the country in mind?
But it goes further than that. Now Trump is demanding "detailed and enforceable commitments"
from China as a condition for a trade deal, suggesting that the United States alone determines
whether or not China is conforming with the agreement. Such an approach makes sense in
Washington these days. After all, the U.S. Commerce Department
imposed an export ban on the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE last year because it
did not pay fines for violating U.S. sanctions against sales to North Korea and Iran. In other
words, the United States thinks it can unilaterally set sanctions and punish violators without
any consultation with multilateral institutions.
This step goes beyond what the Chinese can tolerate.
"China is not a criminal. Nor is it making any mistakes. Why does the US want to supervise
us?" remarked Professor Wang Yiwei of Renmin University of China in a
recent interview , "If there's a supervision team to oversee the implementation, just like
what happened to ZTE, it is definitely directed at sovereignty and can't be accepted."
These "enforceable commitments" are offensive to China for a reason. This approach to trade
seems little different from the sanctions regimes that the United States put in place against
Iraq before its military invasion, or against Iran as part of an increasing military buildup
that could end in a military conflict. Moreover, the increased U.S. military drills off the
Chinese coast has given the trade negotiations process a negative spin.
The recent comments about the political protests in Hong Kong by secretary of state Mike
Pompeo suggest that those tariffs could quickly become sanctions -- which require even less
adherence to international norms.
And then, in the midst of all that tension, the U.S. military released an
Indo-Pacific Stategy Paper that refers to Taiwan as a "country," the first time the United
States has done so officially in 40 years. The agreement between the United States and the
People's Republic of China, after the normalization of diplomatic relations, required that the
United States not recognize Taiwan as a country, and the People's Republic of China has stated
explicitly that military action was an option in the case of U.S. interference in the Taiwan
question.
The combination of these actions threatens to erase all established norms between the two
nations.
The United States is now considering ending agricultural exports to China, and China is
considering cutting off the sales of rare earth elements to the United States. The latter are
essential for the guidance systems and for sensors in missiles and advance fighter planes. A
F-35 Fighter, for instance, requires 920 pounds of rare earth elements like neodymium iron
boron magnets and samarium cobalt magnets,
according to the Asia Times .
The risk of a rapid acceleration in tensions is no longer theoretical. Remember: the U.S.
decision to end the sale of scrap metal and copper to Japan in 1940, followed by the oil
embargo on August 1, 1941, transformed a trade war into a real war.
Trade should remain separate from security concerns. Moreover, it should not be the
plaything of a small number of men in the White House. The United States and China need to open
a broad dialogue on common concerns, from climate change and rapid technological evolution to
the growing concentration of wealth globally. That dialogue should rely more on citizen-led
dialogues and scholar-led conferences in order to move beyond the narrow negotiation process
that has brought the two countries to the brink of war.
le"> Tariffs raise the cost of goods. Higher generate the opportunities for alternative
sources as well as incentivize domestic production. Never forget that the higher price of
domestic production is offset by the reduction in the costs associated with domestic
unemployment. The reduction of wealth leaving the nation is a primary goal and responsibility
of the federal government. As is maintaining a secure border and civil and economic well
being of it's citizens.
Enjoyed that report. It's refreshing to see a seemingly non-biased examination of Chinese
Economic and Geopolitical relationships. Enjoying the improved air in quality Beijing.
For Donald Trump, tariffs are a substitute for diplomacy, just as harassment in his
personal life is a substitute for normal human interaction
Trump has two tools at his disposal as president. The first is his mouth: the
insults and threats that he issues verbally or by Twitter.
The second is the tariff. Trump has imposed trade restrictions left and right,
on allies and adversaries, for economic and political reasons, as part of a long-term offensive and out of
short-term pique.
If Trump could use tariffs even more indiscriminately, no doubt he would. He
would delight in slapping trade penalties on the Democratic Party, on Robert Mueller, on the mainstream media, on
all the women who have accused him of harassment, even on the First Lady for
slapping away his hand
at the airport in
Tel Aviv.
Trump the man
favored the legal suit
as his attack of
first resort; Trump the president has discovered the tariff.
With his penchant for naming names, Trump
calls himself
"Tariff Man," as if
boasting of a new superhero power. It's all-too-reminiscent of the cult film
Mystery Men
where the superpowers
are either invisible or risible (Ben Stiller's character, Mr. Furious, for instance, gets really
really
angry).
Trump uses tariffs like a bad cook uses salt. It covers up his lack of
preparation, the poor quality of his ingredients, the blandness of his imagination. It's the only spice in his
spice rack.
The latest over-salted dish to come out of the White House kitchen is the
president's threat to impose a 5 percent tariff on all Mexican goods on June 10. The threat has nothing to do with
what Mexico has done economically (that's a different set of threatened tariffs). Rather, it's all about
immigration. This time, Trump
will keep inflating
the cost of Mexican
goods "until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP." The tariffs will,
supposedly, rise 5 percent every month until they reach 25 percent in October.
Trump promised as a candidate that Mexico would pay for the wall he wanted to
construct along the southern border. Now, it seems, Mexico will pay for the lack of a wall as well.
The escalation is quite clear. What Mexico has to do to avoid these tariffs is
not.
"So, there's no specific target, there's no specific percent, but things have to
get better," Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney
told Fox News Sunday
. "They have to get
dramatically better and they have to get better quickly."
Such is the usual Sunday morning quarterbacking that happens with White House
officials as they scramble to explain the inexplicable to a baffled news media.
Although they remain in the dark about what's expected of them, Mexican leaders
have warned
that they will apply
counter-tariffs if necessary and that the United States will suffer economically from such a tariff war.
These are not idle threats. Mexico is the third largest U.S. trading partner.
Even congressional Republicans, desperate to avoid this spat, are talking about trying to block the tariffs. Trump
has called them
"foolish" to do so. He
plans to move forward anyway.
Full Spectrum Offensive
Mexico is only the latest country to feel the wrath of Tariff Man.
In 2018, Trump
used Section 201
of the Trade Act to
impose tariffs on solar cells and washing machines, targeting primarily East Asian countries. Shortly thereafter,
he upped his game by assessing a 25 percent tariff on all steel imports, with Canada, Mexico, and the EU getting
hit the hardest.
China, however, has borne the brunt of Trump's animosity. In early May, the
Trump administration announced a surge in tariffs from 10 percent to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese
goods. He has also threatened to apply tariffs to the remaining $325 billion worth of Chinese goods entering the
country.
The escalation tactics don't seem to have done much to improve the prospects of
a trade deal between the two countries. China has naturally countered with its own tariffs.
When Trump lashed out against countries competing against the U.S. steel
industry, one of the major exceptions was Australia. That probably won't last long. Just before his Mexico
decision, the president was planning on imposing a tariff on Australian aluminum as well. His advisors
managed to dissuade him
, at least
temporarily.
Canada and Mexico, meanwhile, continue to get a pass on the steel tariffs as
long as the two countries sign a replacement deal for NAFTA. But Trump's latest move against Mexico may
throw that pending agreement
into
jeopardy.
Push Back
The threat and even the reality of retaliatory tariffs seem to have little
effect on Trump. He likes such geopolitical games of chicken. Congressional opposition only whets his appetite for
more confrontation, for he holds even his Republican allies in contempt.
He disregards the more level-headed advice of economic mandarins -- as well as
seven former ambassadors
to Mexico --
because he relishes flouting conventional wisdom in favor of his own unconventional stupidity. If farmers in swing
states protest that the markets for their soybeans have dried up, Trump will just authorize
another massive government purchase
of
their product -- and suddenly prisoners all over America will be surprised by tofu and edamame on their cafeteria
menus.
Republican voters
overwhelmingly support
Trump's trade
policies -- and the president really doesn't care a fig about anyone else.
The only pushback that might have some influence with Trump might be the
business community. The auto sector
is forecasting
billions of dollars in
costs associated with the Mexico tariffs. The Chamber of Commerce, which has come up with a more precise
annual price tag
for U.S. consumers of
$17.3 billion for a tariff level of 5 percent, is
considering
a legal challenge.
If the stock market goes into bearish hibernation, then the president is out of
luck.
Tweeted
Ian Shepherdson, the chief
economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, "he's going to have to blink on tariffs, because the market can't live with
this level of crazy."
Shepherdson is wrong. The market has lived with this kind of crazy for more than
two years. And there are plenty of people who see profit in precisely the kind of volatility that Trump has
brought to financial markets.
When Trump went on a fundraising tour of New York recently, some big-name
financiers leapt at the opportunity to fete the president. Howard Lutnick, the head of Cantor Fitzgerald,
predicted
in 2017 that Trump would
provide a big bump for the world of finance (and, therefore, his own bottom line). Last month, as a reward for
that bump, Lutnick
invited
Trump to his triplex penthouse in
Manhattan and raised over $5 million toward his reelection.
That's the kind of crazy that the market is entirely comfortable with.
Misunderstanding Trade
Tariffs make sense for certain countries.
For instance, East Asian countries used tariffs very successfully to protect
their infant industries -- steel, shipbuilding, information technology -- against the overwhelming market advantages
of more advanced economies. Those tariffs raised the price of imports and encouraged consumers to buy domestic.
Tariffs can be part of a smart industrial policy of picking potential economic winners.
Tariffs can also protect a way of life -- Japanese rice culture, Mexican tortilla
makers, Vermont dairy farmers. Without some kind of trade protection, cheaper goods from outside will completely
overwhelm domestic producers and destroy long-standing traditions. Of course, there are other methods of
preserving such traditions, from government price supports to geographical designations (think: champagne).
Trump's tariffs have nothing to do with either of these aims. U.S. steel is not
an infant industry in need of protection. Trump doesn't care about protecting traditional lifestyles. He has
neither a progressive industrial policy of picking winners and losers in the economy nor a conservative approach
to ensuring the integrity of communities.
For Donald Trump, tariffs are a substitute for diplomacy, just as harassment
in his personal life is a substitute for normal human interaction. Tariff Man can think of only one way of dealing
with other countries: grabbing them by their trade policies until they squeal.
He believes, mistakenly, that trade is zero-sum (if they lose, American
wins). He also labors under the misconception that the U.S. Treasury somehow grows fat with the proceeds of
tariffs (it doesn't). He is as ignorant of the relations among nations as he is of the relations among people.
Tariff Man's superpower is even more ridiculous than that of Mr. Furious. It's
worse than impotent. It's self-defeating. Let's hope that principle applies ultimately to the 2020 elections as
well.
Share this:
"... Trump's declaration of economic war against China is like everything he does - impulsive, ill-considered, ill-prepared, and without any coherent strategy or series of tactics to achieve that strategy. ..."
"... NOTE - I am not pro-China, but anti-stupid, anti-disorganized, and anti-clueless, which is how everything gets done in the Trump WH, especially since his "economic advisors" really do not know anything about economics. ..."
Last month, "Avengers: Endgame" became the highest-grossing American film in the history of
China. It was a seminal moment, suggesting the partnership between China and Hollywood, which over the years has
moved in fits and starts, was finally firing on all cylinders. But the $614 million that Disney-Marvel booked may
turn out to be an outlier.
As the United States ups the stakes in a trade war, there are growing signs that China is quietly
retaliating against the U.S. entertainment business.
Beijing is now constricting Hollywood's ability to peddle its product in the country, say four
people who conduct business in China or closely monitor its relations with Hollywood.
"I don't want to use the words 'total freeze,' but it's real," said John Penotti, the producer of
"Crazy Rich Asians" and head of SK Global who specializes in Asian productions. "They're not saying it officially,
but the industry is operating as if it's close to a total shutdown."
In contrast to many countries, distribution in China requires government approval, and according
to these sources, the Chinese government is unlikely to offer distribution slots to more than a small handful of
movies. The latest Spider-Man, Secret Life of Pets and Toy Story movies appear likely to get the nod, but most other
summer and even fall hopefuls face being locked out of the world's second-largest film market.
Hollywood relies on China to power its foreign box office, which in turn powers its film revenue,
and the standoff reflects how much of a conundrum China represents for Hollywood.
The availability of so many overseas ticket-buyers at a time of intense entertainment competition
at home has been a boon for U.S. studios. But at the same time, the mercurial ways of Chinese regulators and the ways
that market penetration is subject to geopolitical crosswinds also make the nation a vexing place for studios to do
business.
If the trade war wears on and the market remains cut off, it could result in a reduction of the
budgets of studio movies, since it's Chinese yuan that make them possible.
"I think this poses a dire situation for Hollywood," said Aynne Kokas, a professor at the
University of Virginia and author of "Hollywood Made In China," about the complicated relationship between the two
entities. "There definitely will be a trickle-back effect. It's a very dangerous financial position to be reliant on
Chinese box office to recoup profits."
The Chinese market has become a place of increasing importance to the American movie business.
As the country has rapidly built theaters -- it now has more than 65,000 screens, a dozenfold increase compared to a
decade ago -- it has become a cash cow for American studios.
Three of Hollywood's top five movies at the worldwide
box office last year -- "Avengers: Infinity War," "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" and "Aquaman" -- each collected more
than a quarter of their overseas dollars in China.
Other movies owe the country even more of their success. The underwater adventure "The Meg"
notched 40 percent of its foreign total in China, while Steven Spielberg's gamer-themed hit "Ready Player One"
approached 50 percent. China could become the biggest film market as soon as 2020,
according to
PricewaterhouseCoopers.
But to keep the dollars flowing, studios need those distribution slots. And that's where matters
get dicey.
China officially has a quota allowing in several dozen Hollywood movies per year -- 38 in
2019, 35 the year before. Those numbers are up by more than 20 percent in the past five years.
The Film Bureau and its China Film Group division determine what movies are given a distribution
slot. But with blackout periods, 11th-hour allowances and other unpredictable factors, even those who study the
market say it can be impossible to parse what makes the cut. And lately, with the trade war raging, few movies are.
Vanamali, 6 hours ago
As they say, "Everything is fair in love and war" - the Chinese are using whatever means they have at their disposal
Trump is using Tariffs to hurt the Chinese economy and business and the Chinese of course are going to retaliate with
whatever weapon they have
But gotta love the Trumptards "logic" - "They need our exports, without them they will starve, there will be rioting in
the streets" and "We are doing them a big favor by importing their products, if we shut off our market, their companies
will collapse, massive unemployment, there will be rioting in the streets" Bizarre "logic"
jayster, 12 hours ago (Edited)
Trump's declaration of economic war against China is like everything he does - impulsive, ill-considered, ill-prepared,
and without any coherent strategy or series of tactics to achieve that strategy.
China will defend its interests and retaliate as necessary, especially as they know Trump is an absolute moron.
NOTE - I am not pro-China, but anti-stupid, anti-disorganized, and anti-clueless, which is how everything gets done in the
Trump WH, especially since his "economic advisors" really do not know anything about economics.
ES175GC 12 hours ago
Trump is such a vengeful, hating person that it wouldn't surprise me at all that he deliberately wants to hurt all those
Hollywood liberals who despise him so much. "When I get hit, I hit back 10 times harder" is a famous Trump saying.
He operates on a juvenile level, as we all know, like a spoiled whining brat who has to get even with anyone who slights him.
It makes perfect sense that Trump will do everything he can to destroy Hollywood's business with China.
buhaobob, 12 hours ago
I agree except your premise that Trump would do this deliberately would require that Trump have a plan, and he has
demonstrated that his attention span is about the same as that of the average goldfish.
Zop1066, 15 hours ago (Edited)
We certainly do not need Chinese government influence in Hollywood or in any US media, period. Several films recently have
shied away from any even marginally critical reference to China for fear of losing Chinese box office receipts or Chinese
investment.
And the Chinese investors have not even tried to hide that they do indeed influence film scripts to suit the Chinese
government. Enough of that. Best they keep their money and invest perhaps in even harsher great wall internet controls,
internment camps, and super creepy internal population controls.
That'll sure keep the cinema in China boring and nonthreatening. Certainly wouldn't want anyone there to think for themselves
and question their government, no siree.
"... Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time if his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. His diplomatic threat is really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing sanctions on its own importers and investors if China does not acquiesce. ..."
"... China has a great sweetener that I think President Xi Jinping should offer: It can nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. We know that he wants what his predecessor Barack Obama got. And doesn't he deserve it more? After all, he is helping to bring Eurasia together, driving China and Russia into an alliance with neighboring counties, reaching out to Europe. ..."
President Trump has threatened China's President Xi that if they don't meet and talk at the
upcoming G20 meetings in Japan, June 29-30, the United States will not soften its tariff war
and economic sanctions against Chinese exports and technology.
Some meeting between Chinese and U.S. leaders will indeed take place, but it cannot be
anything like a real negotiation. Such meetings normally are planned in advance, by specialized
officials working together to prepare an agreement to be announced by their heads of state. No
such preparation has taken place, or can take place. Mr. Trump doesn't delegate authority.
He opens negotiations with a threat. That costs nothing, and you never know (or at least, he
never knows) whether he can get a freebee. His threat is that the U.S. can hurt its adversary
unless that country agrees to abide by America's wish-list. But in this case the list is so
unrealistic that the media are embarrassed to talk about it. The US is making impossible
demands for economic surrender – that no country could accept. What appears on the
surface to be only a trade war is really a full-fledged Cold War 2.0.
America's wish list: other countries' neoliberal subservience
At stake is whether China will agree to do what Russia did in the 1990s: put a Yeltsin-like
puppet of neoliberal planners in place to shift control of its economy from its government to
the U.S. financial sector and its planners. So the fight really is over what kind of planning
China and the rest of the world should have: by governments to raise prosperity, or by the
financial sector to extract revenue and impose austerity.
U.S. diplomacy aims to make other countries dependent on its agricultural exports, its oil
(or oil in countries that U.S. majors and allies control), information and military technology.
This trade dependency will enable U.S. strategists to impose sanctions that would deprive
economies of basic food, energy, communications and replacement parts if they resist U.S.
demands.
The objective is to gain financial control of global resources and make trade "partners" pay
interest, licensing fees and high prices for products in which the United States enjoys
monopoly pricing "rights" for intellectual property. A trade war thus aims to make other
countries dependent on U.S.-controlled food, oil, banking and finance, or high-technology goods
whose disruption will cause austerity and suffering until the trade "partner" surrenders.
China's willingness to give Trump a "win"
Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall
Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time if
his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. His diplomatic threat is
really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing sanctions on its own importers
and investors if China does not acquiesce.
It is easy to see what China's answer will be. It will stand aside and let the US
self-destruct. Its negotiators are quite happy to "offer" whatever China has planned to do
anyway, and let Trump brag that this is a "concession" he has won.
China has a great sweetener that I think President Xi Jinping should offer: It can nominate
Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. We know that he wants what his predecessor Barack Obama
got. And doesn't he deserve it more? After all, he is helping to bring Eurasia together,
driving China and Russia into an alliance with neighboring counties, reaching out to
Europe.
Trump may be too narcissistic to realize the irony here. Catalyzing Asian and European trade
independence, financial independence, food independence and IT independence from the threat of
U.S. sanctions will leave the U.S. isolated in the emerging multilateralism.
America's wish for a neoliberal Chinese Yeltsin (and another Russian Yeltsin for that
matter)
A good diplomat does not make demands to which the only answer can be "No." There is no way
that China will dismantle its mixed economy and turn it over to U.S. and other global
investors. It is no secret that the United States achieved world industrial supremacy in the
late 19 th and early 20 th century by heavy public-sector subsidy of
education, roads, communication and other basic infrastructure. Today's privatized,
financialized and "Thatcherized" economies are high-cost and inefficient.
Yet U.S. officials persist in their dream of promoting some neoliberal Chinese leader or
"free market" party to wreak the damage that Yeltsin and his American advisors wrought on
Russia. The U.S. idea of a "win-win" agreement is one in which China will be "permitted" to
grow as long as it agrees to become a U.S. financial and trade satellite, not an independent
competitor.
Trump's trade tantrum is that other countries are simply following the same economic
strategy that once made America great, but which neoliberals have destroyed here and in much of
Europe. U.S. negotiators are unwilling to acknowledge that the United States has lost its
competitive industrial advantage and become a high-cost rentier economy. Its GDP is
"empty," consisting mainly of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) rents, profits and
capital gains while the nation's infrastructure decays and its labor is reduced to a prat-time
"gig" economy. Under these conditions the effect of trade threats can only be to speed up the
drive by other countries to become economically self-reliant.
The crux of the "trade" dispute is never discussed: the Chinese refusal to allow the
international financial services sector to penetrate the Chinese economy and operate freely.
Get it? The Chinese won't let the Jews in to loot the place and the Jews are pissed.
Trumpstein, the cryto Jew, has promised his sponsors to rectify the situation. The Chinese
witnessed what happened when Yeltsin allowed the IMF to parachute Jeffrey Sachs and his Jew
Boys into Russia in 1991 Jews looted the place mercilessly, calling it democracy and
capitalism, and Russia is still recovering. The Chinese have a bright future, as long as they
keep the Jews out.
I agree.
I am afraid spokes person Trump and those he is speaking for have it wrong. They believe
external trade is interfering with the La-Zi-Faire fat cat monopoly powered corporations the
CPI (congress, president and Israeli governance represent.
Few western companies can compete because only monopoly endowed Global corporations are
allowed or licensed to compete. Individual ability, the creative mind of the lone rangers
with highly disruptive inventions and ideas, are not allowed access to the knowledge or money
to play. Making people pay for sleazy operating systems when better ones are free, allowing
big corporations to hack the data of everyone, and on and on.
Even when a person finds a way to play and actually produces a product or concept, the
financial condition of the inventor is so weak or the barriers to promote his product is so
strong that as soon as the idea or product is patented or copyrighted it somehow absorbed
into one of the monopoly powered giants; in other words, competition is only allowed if the
competitor gives the profits to one of the monopoly powered giants. China should be
complaining, at least their competitors can produce, in the USA governed America unlicensed
competition is denied.
Copyright, patents, standardized testing and licensing every breath have terminated
competition in America.
America still competes with Americans as long as the business does not compete with the
global corporations.
The problem Trump thinks he can solve, is not sourced in India, China, Iran, Russia, or
any other nation. The problem is at home, in government policy, laws that turn capitalistic
competition into monopolistic fat-cat wealth storing private domain havens. Education by
degree and license by examination and standardization of performance are used to restrict
competition. Education, is a bureaucracy and no matter its efficiency; a degree cannot
provide competitive performance. The USA governance over America has served only the interest
of monopoly endowed corporations and their oligarch owners and investors. Trump is trying to
overcome foreign competition, by threat and blocking maneuvers, to deny foreigners the fruits
of their competitive successes I do not believe he can be successful. Already the Russian and
Chinese have developed a new currency and banking system to circumvent the Trump block. Work
around-s are in progress everywhere.. Soon even the USA will not be allowed to compete I
fear.
It is not a matter of where the competition comes from, its that the monopoly powers have
used the behavior enforcing rule making capacity of the USA to deny native American
creativity; creativity that America needs to be competitive. USA policy continues to be to
enrich a few by channeling and encapsulating all effort within the confines of the monopoly
holders instead of encouraging every back yard to be a new competitor. It will be many years
before Americans will be able to compete..
What Trump is now demanding reminds me of the brutally efficient system that Trump grew up
in: New York City business. (Author Tom Wolfe has a great line in his book The Bonfire Of The
Vanities that the strange, unrelenting background droning sound one hears in NYC is that of
"people constantly braying for money").
New York City real estate in particular is an area of business that is so brutally
competitive, unscrupulous , and backstabbing that it is best described as war under another
name. It is a business arena where a close friend one day can turn into a staunch enemy the
next. Trust is rare.
New York real estate, in fact, brings to mind the old saying about sausage making: You
would never eat it if you saw it being made. Yet deals are made. In fact, a lot of them. This
is the milieu Trump comes from.
Trump isn't one of those more genteel, old-time American negotiators of prior years the
author of this article speaks fondly of. These are the very same people who so readily agreed
to disasters like NAFTA or allowed, for instance, Or allowed Japan to levy two hundred
percent duties on things like American made Harley Davidson motorcycles while the USA was
pressured (or bribed) to apply few if any comparable duties on Japanese motorcycles or
automobiles (or virtually anything else Japan sold in the USA). These toothless. genteel
types also stood back for decades and allowed Japan to use red tape (like obscure safety
regulations for instance) to make it almost impossibly difficult to sell American products
like automobiles in Japan.
These very same US negotiators, politicians, and bureaucrats have more recently stood back
and allowed China to absolutely devastate American manufacturing.
Screw China, It's now payback time. The Chinese are shaking in their boots because the
previously hoodwinked and comatose Americans are finally waking up. No more wimpy Obama or
Bush looking out for our interests. It is now Truly Scary Trump instead.
Wait until the negotiations are concluded to see if they are successful. The sausage that
comes out of them might be very appealing for the first time in many, many decades.
" His diplomatic threat is really that the US will cut its own economic throat, imposing
sanctions on its own importers and investors if China does not acquiesce "
I get that the US financial system is up to no good with their positions on China but the
criticisms Trump made of China are correct. They have lots of tariffs on finished goods from
the US. They require technology transfer to do business there. Their government and industry
are tied at the hip and they are manipulating their currency. All these things are true and
if we keep trading with them with the same terms we have been we would lose ALL our
industrial infrastructure. Now we hear over and over how we can't build anything but the
Chinese went from being dirt farmers to the largest industrial power in a fairly short period
of time. Could we not do the same at least for our own countries market? Certainly global
trade destruction between countries is not a good thing but we'd be fools to keep on as we
are now. At some point when you dig a hole you have to stop to get yourself out.
I don't think we have a choice if we wish to continue to be an industrialized country. All
those that say China will do fine without us are not taking into account how all the other
countries who are being handled the exact same way as we are, are going to handle China's
trade with them. Will they keep allowing China to have large tariffs on their products while
they Chinese ship whatever they wish into theirs? I'm not so sure they will. If the US starts
refusing the Chinese free entry without reciprocal trade then I can easily see others
following our lead.
We should have stopped this many years ago but as bad as the situation is now it will only
get worse if we don't act.
Let them remove their tariffs. We should take every single anti-trade act and tariff they
have on us, weigh them on China and "then" negotiate. If they don't wish to it's their
country they can do what they please and so can we.
"The crux of the "trade" dispute is never discussed: the Chinese refusal to allow the
international financial services sector to penetrate the Chinese economy and operate freely.
Get it? "
Absolutely. Like inviting a handful of worms into your apple -- economy hollowed out in an
eye blink.
However, there is another side to this "trade dispute" coin.
FIRE want to economicly destroy China. The neocon', MIC, security sector wants to destroy
China's 2025 plan to become high-tech world leaders. 5G, AI, semi conductors etc are some of
the areas that China's public/private sectors are voraciously pushing. Hence, the
(wonderfully "free market") US attacks on Heiwai.
These short term US gambles are more than likely to pay off by the medium-long term
undermining of US hegemony via Eurasian integration led by China & Russia.
And all the time we are left wondering whether the US will choose the "Samson Option" rather
than accept reduced status. (Insane with power lust, the US can't even accept "first among
equals")
The US is making impossible demands for economic surrender – that no country could
accept. What appears on the surface to be only a trade war is really a full-fledged Cold
War 2.0
.
Typical mobster protection racket threats. Now the US has moved from waging military wars
on behalf of their Jewish owners to aggressively push their neoliberal economic warfare for
them. The facade for promoting democracy and human rights is no longer required.
And to call attempts at starving the population and murdering children by denying them
essential medicines as has happened in Iraq and now is going on in Iran and Venezuela, a Cold
War 2.0 is a gross understatement. It is a flagrant act of war. America is launching a war of
attrition on the world and who better to spearhead that war than an idiot manipulated by
Zionist Jews? The fact that many countries remain silent is testament to their surrender. But
China may prove to be a different proposition.
"the United States achieved world industrial supremacy in the late 19th and early 20th
century" That is a myth. The US may have had the highest GDP because it was the leader in
manufacturing, as China is now, but Europe and in particular Germany was far ahead of the US
in technology and science. If you compare China to the US today the situation is very similar
to comparing the US to Germany before 1939. Germany was far ahead of the US in the number of
Nobel Prizes received thru 1945 and very few of the Americans that did receive the Nobel
Prize were native born. The US received a few Nobel Prizes starting in the 1940's because
some recent European immigrants that became US citizens received it for work they had done in
Europe. The three biggest technological breakthroughs of WW II were the jet, the rocket and
the atomic bomb. Germany invented the jet, built the first modern rockets and the German
scientist Otto Hahn split the atom in 1939 (for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1944)
kicking off the USA's atomic bomb project and Germany's limited attempt. The people that
eventually achieved success in the US were almost all recent European immigrants (Bethe,
Teller, etc.), many being Jewish.
I basically agree with the rest of the article. I believe Trump's tactics make sense. The
problem is it's too late. The US economy can't be fixed by anyone. The US has 22 trillion
dollars in debt and will never be able to pay it back. The dollar is going to take a deep
dive within the next few years and it will lose its status as the reserve currency. I believe
this based upon what people like Peter Schiff, Paul Craig Roberts, David Stockman and Ron
Paul say.
I think the two biggest events of the last 75 years were WW II, completely changing the
countries that run the world and the emergence of a backwards and dirt poor China to become
an economic powerhouse and I think they will get stronger.
The US is making impossible demands for economic surrender – that no country could
accept.
Yes country. If the world was one big free trade area, it there were no bloks or even no
countries in the sense we understand them then the population of the would be wealthier, on
average. But countries are not primarily economic units, even if one can look at them as
such.
Nation states exist and have the emergent quality that they to survive against other
nation states and the best way to do that is to gain extra power relative to other states, or
at least maintain their position. Why would America agree to terms of trade that do not
maintain its position relative to China.
U.S. negotiators are unwilling to acknowledge that the United States has lost its
competitive industrial advantage
There is no absolute standards by which such an advantage could be judged. The terms of
trade that are finally settled on will be a compromise and reflect the interests of both, and
the total balance of forces between the two.
The combination of both nations will make it extremely difficult for Washington to impose
its hegemonic agenda without serious repercussions as two of the world's leading military
forces seek to increase the level of co-operation between their nations.
Trump's Trade Tariff Theatre 2018 results:
Country/Trade Balance/2018 vs. 2017
Mexico: trade DEFICIT -$81.5 billion; up 14.9% from 2017;
Canada: trade DEFICIT -$19.8 billion; up 15.8% from 2017;
China: trade DEFICIT -$375.6 billion; up 11.6% from 2017;
South Korea: trade DEFICIT -$17.9 billion; down 22.4% from 2017;
Japan: trade DEFICIT -$67.7 billion; down 1.8% from 2017
Germany: trade DEFICIT -$68.3 billion; up 7.2% from 2017;
France: trade DEFICIT -$16.2 billion; up 5.8% from 2017;
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: trade DEFICIT -$10.5 billion; up 313.3% from 2017;
Russia: trade DEFICIT -$14.1 billion; up 40.9% from 2017;
Asia: trade DEFICIT -$622.2 billion; up 8.8% from 2017;
Europe: trade DEFICIT -$202.4 billion; up 16.6% from 2017;
World: trade DEFICIT -$795.7 billion; up 10.4% from 2017
To all of the "free traders", the media ,and academia ,i have this simple question:
why i cant purchase a Toyota work van(the best and must popular of the world),neither here in
the USA nor abroad and bring it in?
how come that even in Cuba there are more of those Toyota work van than here in all
continental USA.
In 25 year i has to purchase more than 6 work vans,and like Penelope i have been waiting for
the Toyota ,and still waiting.
They ,the free traders,did not has allowed not even one.
The problem with the zio/US is the control of the US by the zionists and this control is
derived via the zionist privately owned FED and IRS that they got installed in 1913 and then
came the debt and wars and the hijacking of the foreign policy by the satanic zionists and
the US gov was started on a down hill slide pushed started by the zionists!
The trade policy of the zio/US has turned Russia into the largest grain exporter in the
world and turned Russia into an agriculture miracle , this can be shown by watch videos of
Russian agriculture on youtube. Germany is also in Russia building cars and other industrial
products for Russia thus bypassing the zio/US trade sanctions and last but not least Russia
is trading in non dollars in trade with more and more countries such as China thus
effectively rendering the dollar non and void in international trade.
So the people of the zio/US can thank their zionist masters for the demise of America and
true to form the zionist parasites are killing their American host
Join Mike Maloney as he examines the latest moves in the US/China trade war, and visits
some compelling arguments from the Foundation for Economic Education.
The "Chinese dragon" of the last two decades may be faltering but it is still hailed by
many as an economic miracle. Far from a great advance for Chinese workers, however, it is the
direct result of a consolidation of power in the hands of a small clique of powerful
families, families that have actively collaborated with Western financial oligarchs.
"Threats are cheap, but Mr. Trump can't really follow through without turning farmers, Wall
Street and the stock market, Walmart and much of the IT sector against him at election time
if his tariffs on China increase the cost of living and doing business. "
Tariffs are taxes and both governments like collecting taxes.
Farmers. Farmers sell a commodity so if they cannot sell to China one result is they will
sell to other customers while China buys more from other producers.
Cost of living. DC does not care. There is a solid inflation lobby in the fed that
supports increasing the cost of living.
"Walmart and much of the IT sector against him." I am not buying it.
Well, more accurate to say that Germany and Britain invented the jet engine independently
of each other. Just as they both invented radar independently of each other as well.
As it is, the post-war jet engine was based primarily on the British design of Frank
Whittle, though some of the German ideas were also later incorporated.
Huawei Technologies Co Ltd has told Verizon Communications Inc that
the U.S. carrier should pay licensing fees for more than 230 of the Chinese telecoms equipment
maker's patents and in aggregate is seeking more than $1 billion, a person briefed on the
matter said on Wednesday.
Verizon should pay to "solve the patent licensing issue," a Huawei intellectual property
licensing executive wrote in February, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier. The patents
cover network equipment for more than 20 of the company's vendors including major U.S. tech
firms but those vendors would indemnify Verizon, the person said. Some of those firms have been
approached directly by Huawei, the person said.
The patents in question range from core network equipment, wireline infrastructure to
internet-of-things technology, the Journal reported. The licensing fees for the more than 230
patents sought is more than $1 billion, the person said.
Huawei has been battling the U.S. government for more than a year. National security experts
worry that "back doors" in routers, switches and other Huawei equipment could allow China to
spy on U.S. communications. Huawei has denied that it would help China spy.
Companies involved, including Verizon have notified the U.S. government and the dispute
comes amid a growing feud between China and the United States. The licensing fee demand may be
more about the geopolitical battle between China and the United States rather than a demand for
patent fees.
Huawei and Verizon representatives met in New York last week to discuss some of the patents
at issue and whether Verizon is using equipment from other companies that could infringe on
Huawei patents.
Verizon spokesman Rich Young declined to comment "regarding this specific issue because it's
a potential legal matter."
However, Young said, "These issues are larger than just Verizon. Given the broader
geopolitical context, any issue involving Huawei has implications for our entire industry and
also raise national and international concerns."
Huawei and U.S. wireless carriers T-Mobile US Inc and AT&T Inc did not respond to
Reuters' requests for comment. Sprint Corp declined to comment.
The United States last month put Huawei on a blacklist that barred it from doing business
with U.S. companies on security grounds without government approval, prompting some global tech
firms to cut ties with the world's largest telecoms equipment maker.
Washington is also seeking the extradition of Huawei Chief Financial Executive Meng Wanzhou
from Canada after her arrest in Vancouver last December on a U.S. warrant.
China has since upped the pressure on Canada, halting Canadian canola imports and in May
suspended the permits of two major pork producers.
(Reporting by Arjun Panchadar in Bengaluru and David Shepardson in Washington; Editing by
Anil D'Silva, Sriraj Kalluvila and Sandra Maler)
" -- seems to me a very complicated explanation for: If a country doesn't produce what it
consumes Such a country is entirely F ed!"
This is totally NOT what I said, so I'll restate my point differently.
IF people (localists, sovereignists etc.) really wanted less globalisation, without global
supply chains, etc., then it would be possible, at a price (in terms of productivity).
BUT in reality localists, sovereignists etc. don't really want de-globalisation for the sake
of it, they mostly want to increase exports and decrease imports, and in fact these localists
desires are stronger in countries (USA, UK) that are big net importers, and therefore think
they are losing in the globalisation race.
The reason localists want to increase exports and decrease imports is that it is a form of
mercantilism: if exports increase and imports decrease, there are more jobs and
contemporaneously there are also more profits for businesses, so it's natural that countries
want to import less and export more.
BUT exports are a zero sum game, so while this or that country can have some advantages by
being a net exporter, this automatically means that some other country becomes a net importer,
so onne can't solve the problem of unemployment by having everyone being net exporters (as
Krugman once joked by having everyone export to Mars).
So the big plan of localists cannot work in aggregate, if it works for one country it
creates a problem for another country. This is a really big problem that will cause increasing
international tensions.
We are seeing this dinamic, IMHO, in the Brexit negotiations, where in my opinion many
brexiters had mercantilist hopes, but of course the EU will not accept an accord that makes it
easy for the UK to play mercantilist.
I'll add that I think that Brexiters don't really realise that they are mercantilists,
but if you look at the demands and hopes of many Brexiters this is their "revealed
preference".
This is also a problem because apparently many people (not only the Brexiters, see also
EU's policies towards Greece) don't really realise what's the endgame for the policies they are
rooting for, it seems more like a socially unconscious tendency, so it is difficult to have a
rational argument with someone that doesn't really understand what he wants and what he is in
practice trying to do.
The reason that every country is trying to play mercantilist is that in most countries
inequality rose in the last decades, which creates a tendency towards underconsumption, that
must be countered through one of these 3 channels: (1) Government deficits; (2) Easy money
finance and increased levels of financial leverage; (3) net exports.
The first two channels lead to higher debt levels, the third apparently doesn't but, as
on the other side of net exports there has to be a net importer, in reality it still relies on
an increase in debt levels, only it is an increase in debt levels by someone else (sometimes
known as the net exporter -- "vendor-financing" the net importer)
The increase in leverage goes hand in hand with an increase of the value of capital assets
VS GDP, that is an increase of the wealth to income ratio.
So ultimately the increased level of inequality inside countries (as opposed to economic
inequality between countries, that is falling) leads to a world where both debt levels and
asset prices grow more than proportionally to GDP, hence speculative behaviour, and an economy
that is addicted to the increase of debt levels, either at home or abroad (in the case of net
exporting countries).
The countries that seriously want to become net exporters have to depress internal
consumption, which makes the problem worse at a world level. The countries like the USA, where
internal consumption is too much a big share of the pie relative to what the USA could gain by
exports, are forced to the internal debt route, and so are more likely to become net
importers.
However, in this situation where everyone acts mercantilist, by necessity someone will end
up a net importer because import/export is a zero sum game, so it doesn't really make sense to
blame this or that attitude of, for example, Americans for they being net importers: they are
forced into it because otherwise they would be in perma-depression.
“But it is unquestionably and unarguably true that American conflict (which may or may
not be of a military nature) with a rising China is literally inevitable”
As long as the US Casino -(”the stock market”) will react unfavourable to a
(real) American-Chinese conflict – there will be no (real) American-Chinese conflict
–
(just the games which are going on currently) – and just never forget – all of my
Chinese friends are really ”tough gamblers”.
“As long as the US Casino -(”the stock market”) will react unfavourable
to a (real) American-Chinese conflict – there will be no (real) American-Chinese
conflict “
Crash, then conflict?
One possibility is a US market crash entirely due to domestic shenanigans, followed by
demagogue blaming it all on “Chiner.”
"... The FAA has a clearly established pro-Boeing bias and will likely allow Boeing to unground the 737 MAX. We must demand that the two top FAA officials resign or recuse themselves from taking any more steps that might endanger the flying public. The two Boeing-indentured men are Acting FAA Administrator Daniel Elwell and Associate FAA Administrator for Aviation Safety Ali Bahrami. ..."
"... The FAA has long been known for its non-regulatory, waiver-driven, de-regulatory traditions. It has a hard time saying NO to the aircraft manufacturers and the airlines. After the aircraft hijackings directing flights to Cuba in the 1960s and 1970s, the FAA let the airlines say NO to installing hardened cockpit doors and stronger latches in their planes. These security measures would have prevented the hijackers from invading the cockpits of the aircrafts on September 11, 2001. The airlines did not want to spend the $3000 per plane. Absent the 9/11 hijackings, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney might not have gone to war in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Boeing has about 5,000 orders for the 737 MAX. It has delivered less than 400 to the world's airlines. From its CEO, Dennis Muilenburg to its swarms of Washington lobbyists, law firms, and public relations outfits, Boeing is used to getting its way. ..."
"... Right now, the Boeing/FAA strategy is to make sure Elwell and his FAA quickly decide that the MAX is safe for takeoff by delaying or stonewalling Congressional and other investigations. ..."
"... Time is not on the side of the 737 MAX 8. A comprehensive review of the 737 MAX's problems is a non-starter for Boeing. Boeing's flawed software and instructions that have kept pilots and airlines in the dark have already been exposed. New whistleblowers and more revelations will emerge. More time may also result in the Justice Department's operating grand jury issuing some indictments. More time would let the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, led by Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) dig into the failure of accountability and serial criminal negligence of Boeing and its FAA accomplices. Chairman DeFazio knows the history of the FAA's regulatory capture. ..."
"... The FAA and its Boeing pals are using the "trade secret" claims to censor records sought by the House Committee. When it comes to investigating life or death airline hazards and crashes, Congress is capable of handling so-called trade secrets. This is all the more reason why the terminally prejudiced Elwell and Bahrami should step aside and let their successors take a fresh look at the Boeing investigations. That effort would include opening up the certification process for the entire Boeing MAX as a "new plane." ..."
The Boeing-driven FAA is rushing to unground the notorious prone-to-stall Boeing 737
MAX (that killed 346 innocents in two crashes) before several official investigations are
completed. Troubling revelations might keep these planes grounded worldwide.
The FAA has a clearly established pro-Boeing bias and will likely allow Boeing to unground
the 737 MAX. We must demand that the two top FAA officials resign or recuse themselves from
taking any more steps that might endanger the flying public. The two Boeing-indentured men are
Acting FAA Administrator Daniel Elwell and Associate FAA Administrator for Aviation Safety Ali
Bahrami.
Immediately after the crashes, Elwell resisted grounding and echoed Boeing claims that the
Boeing 737 MAX was a safe plane despite the deadly crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
Ali Bahrami is known for aggressively pushing the FAA through 2018 to further abdicate its
regulatory duties by delegating more safety inspections to Boeing. Bahrami's actions benefit
Boeing and are supported by the company's toadies in the Congress. Elwell and Bahrami have both
acquired much experience by going through the well-known revolving door between the industry
and the FAA. They are likely to leave the FAA once again for lucrative positions in the
aerospace lobbying or business world. With such prospects, they do not have much 'skin in the
game' for their pending decision.
The FAA has long been known for its non-regulatory, waiver-driven, de-regulatory traditions.
It has a hard time saying NO to the aircraft manufacturers and the airlines. After the aircraft
hijackings directing flights to Cuba in the 1960s and 1970s, the FAA let the airlines say NO to
installing hardened cockpit doors and stronger latches in their planes. These security measures
would have prevented the hijackers from invading the cockpits of the aircrafts on September 11,
2001. The airlines did not want to spend the $3000 per plane. Absent the 9/11 hijackings,
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney might not have gone to war in Afghanistan.
The FAA's historic "tombstone" mentality (slowly reacting after the crashes) is well known.
For example, in the 1990s the FAA had a delayed reaction to numerous fatal crashes caused by
antiquated de-icing rules. The FAA was also slow to act on ground-proximity warning
requirements for commuter airlines and flammability reduction rules for aircraft cabin
materials.
That's the tradition that Elwell and Bahrami inherited and have worsened. They did not even
wait for Boeing to deliver its reworked software before announcing in April that simulator
training would not be necessary for the pilots. This judgment was contrary to the experience of
seasoned pilots such as Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger. Simulator training would delay
ungrounding and cost the profitable airlines money.
Boeing has about 5,000 orders for the 737 MAX. It has delivered less than 400 to the world's
airlines. From its CEO, Dennis Muilenburg to its swarms of Washington lobbyists, law firms, and
public relations outfits, Boeing is used to getting its way. Its grip on Congress – where
300 members take campaign cash from Boeing – is legendary. Boeing pays little in federal
and Washington state taxes. It fumbles contracts with NASA and the Department of Defense but
remains the federal government's big vendor for lack of competitive alternatives in a highly
concentrated industry.
Right now, the Boeing/FAA strategy is to make sure Elwell and his FAA quickly decide that
the MAX is safe for takeoff by delaying or stonewalling Congressional and other
investigations.
The compliant Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, under Senator Roger
Wicker (R-MS), strangely has not scheduled anymore hearings. The Senate confirmation of Stephen
Dickson to replace acting chief Elwell is also on a slow track. A new boss at the FAA might
wish to take some time to review the whole process.
Time is not on the side of the 737 MAX 8. A comprehensive review of the 737 MAX's problems
is a non-starter for Boeing. Boeing's flawed software and instructions that have kept pilots
and airlines in the dark have already been exposed. New whistleblowers and more revelations
will emerge. More time may also result in the Justice Department's operating grand jury issuing
some indictments. More time would let the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
led by Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) dig into the failure of accountability and serial criminal
negligence of Boeing and its FAA accomplices. Chairman DeFazio knows the history of the FAA's
regulatory capture.
Not surprising on June 4, 2019, DeFazio sent a stinging letter to FAA's Elwell and his
corporatist superior, Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao, about the FAA's intolerable
delays in sending requested documents to the Committee. DeFazio's letter says: "To say we are
disappointed and a bit bewildered at the ongoing delays to appropriately respond to our records
requests would be an understatement."
The FAA and its Boeing pals are using the "trade secret" claims to censor records sought by
the House Committee. When it comes to investigating life or death airline hazards and crashes,
Congress is capable of handling so-called trade secrets. This is all the more reason why the
terminally prejudiced Elwell and Bahrami should step aside and let their successors take a
fresh look at the Boeing investigations. That effort would include opening up the certification
process for the entire Boeing MAX as a "new plane."
The Boeing-biased Elwell and Bahrami have refused to even raise in public proceedings the
question: "After eight or more Boeing 737 iterations, at what point does the Boeing MAX 8
become a new plane?" Many, including Cong. David Price (D-NC), chair of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees the FAA's budget, have already questioned the
limited certification process.
Heavier engines on the old 737 fuselage changed the MAX's aerodynamics and made it
prone-to-stall. It is time for the FAA's leadership to change before the 737 MAX flies with
vulnerable, glitch-prone software "fixes".
Notwithstanding the previous Boeing 737 series' record of safety in the U.S. during the past
decade – (one fatality), Boeing's bosses, have now disregarded warnings by its own
engineers. Boeing executives do not get one, two, three or anymore crashes attributed to their
ignoring long-known aerodynamic engineering practices.
The Boeing 737 MAX must never be allowed to fly again, given the structural design defects
built deeply into its system.
"... He would be given a lavish reception in Riyadh, where he would deliver a speech thanking our Saudi allies for leading the brave fight against "Iranian homophobia." ..."
On the bright side, if ever there were a candidate who might be inclined to rethink our
relationship with the Saudis, it's Buttigieg.
Oh, who am I kidding? He would be given a lavish reception in Riyadh, where he would
deliver a speech thanking our Saudi allies for leading the brave fight against "Iranian
homophobia."
The first explicit reaction against globalization to gain
popular attention was the Battle of Seattle in 1999
Why not the Zapatista uprising in 1994? It was explicitly against Nafta and neoliberalism.
The 1997 Asian financial crisis also triggered a very strong reaction against the US centered
globalized financial system, its hedge funds, and the IMF.
the neoliberal ideology on which it rested, didn't face any serious challenge until the
Global Financial Crisis of 2008
In 2003, the unified challenge of the poorer countries was so serious that it the collapsed
the WTO talks to the point that it has never recovered. 2008 was simply catastrophic.
More than globalization being challenged, I think it is US hegemony. Trump is definitely
uniting its challengers with his media circus in Venezuela, disruptive tariff threats against
Mexico, and the blacklisting of Huawei.
Likbez 06.09.19 at 11:38 pm (no link)
Trump election in 2016 was in essence a rejection of neoliberal globalization by the
American electorate which showed the USA neoliberal establishment the middle finger. That's
probably why Russiagate hysteria was launched to create a smoke screen and patch the
cracks.
The same is probably true about Brexit. That's also explains Great Britain prominent role
in pushing anti-Russia hysteria.
I think the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 (along with the collapse of financial
markets) mortally wounded "classic" neoliberal globalization. That's why we see the
conversion of classic neoliberalism into Trump's "national neoliberalism" which rejects
"classic" neoliberal globalization based on multinational treaties like WTO.
As the result of crisis of neoliberal ideology we see re-emergence of far-right on the
political scene. We might also see the emergence of hostile to each other trading blocks
(China Russia Turkey Iran; possibly plus Brazil and India ) vs G7. History repeats
I suspect that the USA neoliberal elite (financial oligarchy and MIC) views the current
trade war with China as the key chance to revitalize Cold War schemes and strategically
organize US economic, foreign and security policies around them. It looks like this strategic
arrangement is very similar to the suppression of the USSR economic development during the
Cold War.
The tragedy is that Trump administration is launching the conflict with China, while
simultaneously antagonizing Russia, attacking EU and undermining elements of the postwar
world order which propelled the USA to its current hegemonic position.
On June 4th the Chinese government issued a travel alert for Chinese tourists thinking of
visiting the United States, a day after it issued a similar advisory to Chinese students
thinking of studying in the US over concerns for their safety and security.
Chinese in the US are reporting harassment and interrogations by US immigration authorities
and many now have the impression they are not welcome in the US.
The Global Times , speaking on behalf of the government stated:
The Chinese people find it difficult to accept the fact that they are being taken as
thieves. The US boasts too much superiority and has been indulged by the world. Due to its
short history, it lacks understanding of and respect for the rules of countries and laws of
the market.
The Americans of the early generations accumulated prosperity and prestige for the US,
while the current US administration behaves like a wastrel generation by ruining the world's
respect for the US."
... ... ...
The situation has become so tense that the Global Times on June 6,th in an op ed by Wei
Jianguo, said:
China is able to withstand US maximum pressure, due to the country's economic resilience,
and Chinese people's resolute determination. Suffering from a century of humiliation, the
Chinese nation has been accustomed to such pressure, as shown in the War of Resistance
against Japanese Aggression, as well as the Korean War or the War to Resist US Aggression and
Aid Korea. The unity of Chinese people is a vital reason for the country's fundamental
victory in history."
The Peoples' Daily stated, "America is the enemy of the world."
Trump is not a thinker, and never was. He is an impulsive narcissist. So the question is
whether the USA committed a blunder by unleashing open trade war with China, the war which now
extent the Cold War 2 to another nation (cementing emerging alliance between Russia and China
which is a death sentence to the USA global hegemony) and where the USA faces very resilient and
inventive opponent. And they will lose even if they win.
I actually am amazed by the level of reclines and arrogance the USA democratic is such topic.
I do not see multiyear preparation, mobilization of engineering talent and resources that is
needed for successfully procuring such a war. It looks like completely impulsive decision
partially based on the attempt to get some additional concessions from China. That attempt which
spectacularly failed and fueled very dangerous for the USA a wave of Chinese nationalists within
mainland china.
The key issue here is that is current stage of neoliberal decine the USA can't rely on
loyalty of its own key players and citizets ("greed is good" is the motto of neoliberalism; plus
Chinese have probably a very good access to Taiwan high technology industry, the access which is
impossible to cut). Such a low level loyalty previously existed just before the USA collapse,
when the CIA was able to tranfere to the West a mid level cipher officer from KGB headquarters (
Sheymov defected to
the United States in May 1980) and recruit at least one general (Kalugin). Actually KGB was at
the center and the main driving force of neoliberal counterrevolution in Russia (Trojan Horse so
to speak), as under Andropov they switch sides. So they were naturally allied with CIA at this
point
the point is that it does not take too much efforts for foreign intelligence agency now to
recruit the US citizens as the collapse of neoliberal ideology creates fertile ground for such an
efforts, much like the collapse of Bolsheviks ideology did for the USA. Some can just volunteer
appalled by the actions of neoliberal empire. In this sense cases of Manning and Snowen should
serve the US administration a stern warning sign that it is a very dangerous to rock the boat if
the country experience a collapse of imperial ideology (Neoliberalism). In this case the trade
war might be more difficult then they think.
China has more people and produce per year more engineers in STEM. So the USA does not hoild
allthe cards. it it has some advantages over the USA in the long term. Also the current
technologies are pretty established and "innovation" is often is limited to shriking the silicon
die and adding more core for CPUs.
Actually Intel CPUs have a horrible really outdated CISC instruction set and there might be
chance to use different instruction set with better overall chanracteristics. Only the billions
that Intel get from sales allow it to outpace the rivals. Failed stqrtup Transmeta, for exampel,
in late 1990th tried to emulate it via RISK. If throwing out emulation layer speeds up things
twice or more, why not to use this path giving enough man power, money and level of animosity
toward the USA?
The mechanism would "prevent and resolve national security risks", Xinhua said. Details
would be released soon, it added.
The announcement comes amid a souring of relations with the US after the most recent round
of trade negotiations ended without a deal in May.
Since then, the Trump administration has blacklisted Chinese telecommunications equipment
maker Huawei, while China has threatened to punish foreign companies that cut off ties with
Huawei by listing them as "unreliable".
The new Chinese regulations could prove similar to US export controls on strategic
technologies. Those controls -- covering military equipment, some encryption technologies, and
some dual-use products -- have long irked China. Chinese negotiators have often claimed that
their trade surplus could be trimmed if the US would relax controls on high-tech goods.
The mechanism will be developed by the National Reform and Development Commission under the
guidelines of China's national security law ,
passed in 2015, Xinhua said.
"This is a major step to improve [China's system] and also a move to counter the US
crackdown," tweeted Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of the Global Times, a nationalist tabloid that
is sometimes used to float ideas that are not official policy. "Once taking effect, some
technology exports to the US will be subject to the control." Last month, the NDRC implied it
would block exports of rare earths , a material
with many strategic applications. After the trade talks broke down in May, Chinese president Xi
Jinping visited a manufacturer of rare earths magnets, used in electric vehicles and other new
technology applications, as a reminder that China holds some trump cards of its own.
READ Massages and free fish help east Europe tackle labour shortages
Rare earth are used in smartphones, lasers, instrument panels, wind turbines and MRI
machines and more than 90 per cent of hybrid and electric cars.
"... Now, each of the two superpowers appears to be crafting new economic weapons to aim at the other. What was once a fraught, but deeply enmeshed, trade relationship is threatening to break apart almost entirely, raising the specter of a new geopolitical reality in which the world's two superpowers would compete for economic influence and try to freeze each other out of key technologies and resources. - New York Times ..."
"... "This is now extremely delicate [time] because the Trump administration, through its brinkmanship tactics, has destabilized the entire relationship, commercial and otherwise," according to China expert Scott Kennedy - senior adviser at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies who studies Chinese economic policy. ..."
Beijing put big tech on notice last week, threatening 'dire
consequences' if companies such as Microsoft, Dell and Samsung comply with the Trump
administration's ban on sales of key American technology to Chinese companies, according to the
New York
Times . Any companies which cooperate with the new policy ' could face permanent
consequences ,' according to the Times. Chinese authorities also suggested using DC lobbyists
to resist the government's moves.
China - which is already
ditching Microsoft Windows for military applications - held a flurry of meetings on Tuesday
and Wednesday after tech firms for discussions amid the backdrop of Beijing's planned blacklist
of blacklisting
of US firms on an "unreliable entities list."
Also participating in meetings were semiconductor companies Arm of Britain and SK Hynix of
South Korea, according to the report, which cites a KPMG estimate that around 60% of all
semiconductors sold are connected to China's supply chain, so maybe by that new computer sooner
than later.
The breakneck unraveling of the world's most important trade relationship has left
companies and governments around the world scrambling . While the dispute had already been
nettlesome for Chinese-U.S. relations, the sudden ban on Huawei last month caught many by
surprise , raising the stakes by striking at the heart of China's long-term technological
ambitions.
Now, each of the two superpowers appears to be crafting new economic
weapons to aim at the other. What was once a fraught, but deeply enmeshed, trade relationship
is threatening to break apart almost entirely, raising the specter of a new geopolitical
reality in which the world's two superpowers would compete for economic influence and try to
freeze each other out of key technologies and resources. - New York
Times
"This is now extremely delicate [time] because the Trump administration,
through its brinkmanship tactics, has destabilized the entire relationship, commercial and
otherwise," according to China expert Scott Kennedy - senior adviser at the Washington-based
Center for Strategic and International Studies who studies Chinese economic policy.
More broadly, the warnings also seemed to be an attempt to forestall a fast breakup of the
sophisticated supply chains that connect China's economy to the rest of the world .
Production of a vast array of electronic components and chemicals, along with the assembly of
electronic products , makes the country a cornerstone of the operations of many of the
world's largest multinational companies. - New York
Times
"The Chinese government has regularly resorted to jawboning multinationals to try to keep
them in line when there are disputes between China and others that could lead these companies
to reduce their business in China."
For example, in 2015 Xi dropped by Seattle before heading to meet with President Obama.
While there, he had a chat with Amazon executives and Chinese tech executive in order to woo
them on the prospect of future business, while the Obama administration was reportedly trying
to push back against China's anticompetitive trade practices .
That said, China is far less likely to succeed this time around , according to Kennedy, who
says that " American companies aren't going to violate American laws, especially in such a
high-profile context where their actions are scrutinized."
"The companies are between a rock and a hard place, but that hard place will win out."
Three Chinese government bodies are involved in the recent discussions; the National
Development and Reform Commission (China's central economic planning agency), the Ministry of
Commerce and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. The Times posits that the
fact that the three are all involved suggests the meetings came from the top-down in an attempt
to rally support for Huawei - which was not specifically named.
" There is a strong perception in Beijing that the U.S. government is intent on blunting
China's technology rise , and that if this process is not slowed or stopped, the future of
China's entire digital economy is at risk," said Eurasia Group head of geotechnology, Paul
Triolo, adding "Mr. Xi and the party will be seen as unable to defend China's economic future"
it Huawei's 5G rollout is derailed by the Trump administration.
As the trade relationship between the United States and China has broken down, fears have
risen in China that major companies will seek to move production elsewhere to avoid
longer-term risks . In the meetings this week, Chinese officials explicitly warned companies
that any move to pull production from China that seemed to go beyond standard diversification
for security purposes could lead to punishment , according to the two people. - New York
Times
"China Threatens 'Dire Consequences' If Tech Giants Comply With Trump Ban"
"And US Threatens Jail If They Don't"
Love it love it love it. Reminds me of the great line from Pride & Prejudice, "You're
mother will never speak to you again if you marry him, and I (your father) will never speak
to you again if you don't."
In R&D spending, China ranks 2nd place after US. China has over 8M new grads each
year. Do you really believe stealing can make a country great. The trade war is about
suppressing a new rising power of technology and economy.
There's a whole lot more to what China is up to than buying and selling. They've been
working on how to rule the whole earth for 5000 years and the CCP thinks maybe now is the
time. Here's a brief history of Chinese power games. They play for keeps. https://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=189701&sec_id=189701
China's fightback strategy is simple: Force non-us corporations to abandon us-sourced
technologies, and, hence, non-us corporations will not be bound by US laws, and, hence, won't
subject to us blackmail laws.
The strategy already worked. ARM's founder said it will have to abandon US-sourced
technology ( eventually abandon US-located headquarters) to keep the Chinese market, and, so
other non-us corporations, such as Europe, Japanese, or Korean based corporations will have
to follow. They have no other feasible choices.
In short, the world is divided into two groups: US group and non-us group. Congratulations
to Trump: He has succeeded in isolating US from the world.
First step is to encourage, urge and force non-us corporations to make the choice using
the gigantic china market.
Second step is to drive out us corporations at the time when there is alternative for
US-made parts. Whenever US corporation is not the sole supplier, then China will declare that
any product containing that part will be forbidden in the Chinese market. And, to make the
situation even worse for US-sourced technology, any parts produced by non-us corporations
using US-sourced technology will not be allowed in the Chinese market.
This is the reverse of the entity list.
In this game, one that has a bigger market prevails. China just happened to have 1.4
billion consumers while US has less than 0.4 billion. China wins. By poisoning American
sourced technology, China will succeed in isolating US corporations.
You seem to be confused. ARM created a separate joint venture in China called ARM mini
China that will license existing tech to China as a way to circumvent US rules. However, this
creates a Chinese ARM license separate from the rest of the world. So it is China that is
actually separated from further innovation outside of China.
The Roman Emperor Caligula is best known for appointing his horse to one of the vacant
consulships. Given the current quality of professional politicians on offer in the western
world, he does not seem as crazy as he once was thought to be.
But he is also known for something else-- the phrase "Oderint dum Metuant" -- which is
Latin for "Let them hate (us), so long as they fear (us)."
Not my favorite motto but I'll take it over "Here's my wallet. Don't you like me now?"
"... The US has decided that China can't be allowed to become a technological power any more than it is now. It's fine if all they do is make T-shirts, and low-tech crap, but anything more advanced then a digital alarm clock can not be allowed. ..."
"... Anytime you weaponize something (the dollar), countermeasures will be invented to neutralize that weapon........only a matter of time. ..."
"... We're so balls deep in debt la la land now that having a conversation about wealth creation via production feels a lot like making balloon animals while wearing a clown suit. ..."
"... Much More Than a Trade War ..."
"... it signals the implosion of America's tinsel, derivative-based economy ..."
"... the high dive of the middle class into serfdom ..."
"... Politicians here in the US are desperate for me to believe it is all China's fault. Not the lying, stealing politicians and MBAs that have stolen my future but China. I am not buying it. Even if China has stolen America's wealth, who let them? Who helped and got rich? That's right, US politicians and MBAs. ..."
"... The only reason why this is a trade war in the first place, is because we're attempting to undo the shitty deals signed by Bill Clinton. Let this be a lesson: Don't sign shitty deals. No matter how much they donate to your campaign. ..."
"... Asking this of a politician is like asking a leech to stop living off blood. ..."
I watch Fox News Sunday and today all of the usual suspects were blaming Trump for
everything under the sun--including committing crimes and needing to be put in jail. It bears
repeating that they said the same things about Reagan and his trade wars--which benefited
Americans immensely.
Trump will win unless the Dems can get rid of him. China is a paper tiger and always has
been.
They are a totalitarian communist state and as such are a sworn enemy of the US and its
historic peoples. They must be taken down and that is not hyperbole--they never should have
been allowed to trade with the civilized world in the first place without first shutting down
the Kims in Norkland and dismantling their communist state.
Russia would have been more in
order in 1992 than China. ******* Clintons.
(Those companies and organizations which have contributed to and/or financed the creation
of the Chinese Communist Party's ultra-Orwellian system for command and control: Social
Credit System.)
Microsoft, Cisco, Apple, Yahoo, Narus
Rockefeller Foundation, MIT, Princeton University, University of Texas System,
Northwestern University, Oregon State Treasury, et al.
Recommended Reading:
The People's Republic of the Disappeared --- by Michael Caster
Bullets and Opium --- by Liao Yiwu
The People's Republic of Amnesia --- by Louisa Lim
Recommended Viewing:
In the Name of Confucius --- DVD (Jia Kongzi, Zhi Ming)
Free China - Free China --- DVD (Zi You Zhongguo)
The Sun Behind the Clouds [Tibet's Struggle for Freedom] --- DVD
Is it so hard to understand that the chinks KNOW that the yuan is trash and that's why
both the CB and the public are stacking gold. They're preparing for what comes next.
According to Jim Willie, that will be an Asian gold trade note as proposed by the PM of
Malaysia.
"China and its citizens would greatly benefit from eliminating barriers."
It's too bad they never did this, but now it no longer matters. The US has decided that
China can't be allowed to become a technological power any more than it is now. It's fine if
all they do is make T-shirts, and low-tech crap, but anything more advanced then a digital
alarm clock can not be allowed.
China would do best to forget about the US and hope that it can make due with it's
domestic market. With 1.3 billion people this seems like it should be possible.
They need dollars to buy US goods and services. They also need them to buy oil from
Saudis. They have dollar based loans that require payment in dollars.
"The United States has discovered the Achilles heel of China. The same one Japan had in
the 80s when it seemed that it was going to invade the world. Its dependence on the US dollar
to maintain its large domestic imbalances, a very fragile house of cards of excess capacity,
real estate bubble and unproductive spending."
Oh, yeah. .......we just "figured" that one out. It's not like we haven't used that scheme
on.......well, EVERYONE. Even our own citizens are slaves to a debt dollar system. It is all
we got left......well that and the A-bomb. But at the same time, it is our biggest weakness
because if we can't get the world to expand dollar debt, 5 hen we will have to do it
ourselves. Hence the, "China is not the largest holder of US bonds in the world, not even
close. It's the
US . In fact, China has already reduced part of its holdings in US bonds and yields fell
."
We are the largest holder of our own debt.....and can print up what we need to buy what is
necessary to drive yields down. But at some point it will be like playing monopoly with
yourself......a zero sum game. Anytime you weaponize something (the dollar), countermeasures
will be invented to neutralize that weapon........only a matter of time.
Indeed. Anyone pushing that narrative is part of the totalitarian regime or is dumb as a
bag of hammers. Either way, they lose all credibility in my opinion.
The author has never been to China to know anything about it, much less write about it,
and he knows even less about the trade relationships of the two countries.
For instance, He says: " China has a trade deficit with most of its other partners"....
WRONG!!!! It is the U.S. who has the deficits with other countries, not China! China
has a manufacturing economy, not a consumer economy, so the trade balance is in its favor, as
manufacturing economies are in demand and have very little deficit.
And the author also reveals his biases about China by saying: "China's Achilles heel has
been to try to be a reserve currency whilst maintaining capital controls and increasing state
intervention...." What do you think the U.S. Federal Reserve does, if it is not the very same
thing? Weren't they the ones who sets interest rates, control the rates of inflation,
dictating the supply of money, and doing economic bailouts to the banks in 2008 and 2009 with
our money?
Secondly, he is just regurgitating the same old propaganda already put out about China,
and really doesn't provide anything new. Why can't ZH find better writers to publish than
this?
You are correct. China usually runs surpluses. But not with everyone.
In 2018, China posted a trade surplus of USD 351.76 billion, the lowest since 2013, as
exports increased 9.9 percent, its strongest performance in seven years, while imports were
up 15.8 percent. The biggest trade surpluses were recorded with Hong Kong, the US, the
Netherlands, India, the UK, Vietnam, Singapore and Indonesia. China recorded trade deficits
with Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, Germany, Brazil and South Africa.
"China's Achilles heel has been to try to be a reserve currency whilst maintaining
capital controls and increasing state intervention...."
This is impossible. One cannot institute strong capital controls and have a reserve
currency at the same time. China knows this and has never tried to become the reserve
currency.
yeah, they said they'd work on "migration" into their country, and try to do something
about those staged caravans..but what they didn't do is say they'd stop their citizens from
invading the US like they have been doing for decades, and they didn't say they'd secure
their side of the border between the US and Mexico. So, how is the border more secure
exactly? Oh, and they didn't say they'd pay for a wall.
These same games go on, round and round, between both parties, with people twisting
everything, including nothing burgers and actual defeats into some kind of bizarre "winning"
********, to avoid legitimate criticism of their idol in the White House. Trumpets and
Obamabots are peas in a pod in more ways than they realize, but watch out, you'll get an eye
jab if you walk between them, with all the fingers pointing.
Winning, like alcohol, is addictive. Sometimes you find yourself all out of booze, so you
find yourself taking swigs of Aqua Velva. Lots of Aqua Velva heads around here.
Same old script: China bad. China steals. China need to shape up or else. USA good. USA too soft on China. USA will be great again when China surrenders to US
slavery. Think that about sums up these articles.
I agree. The "investor" class. And by that i do not mean all investors, just the non
productive LEECHES at the top playing games with fake "financial instruments"
They are non producers. They are lampreys. Same as on the bottom. I have absolutely no
problem with rich people. I am blessed to hang with many self made millionaires who are all
about designing / manufacturing unique products sold all over the world. They produce wealth
and a product, not by skimming.
We're so balls deep in debt la la land now that having a conversation about wealth
creation via production feels a lot like making balloon animals while wearing a clown
suit.
But.... it actually works. There will ALWAYS be a market for well engineered quality
products . ALWAYS.
Don't chase that race to the bottom. That is what was sold to the Us
Consooooooooooooooooooooooooooomer (**** I hate that name, I am not a consumer) for the last
thirty year. They bought the ****, they own it. **** em, let 'em choke on the icrapple and
other swarf.
Ha.
I am not balls deep in debt. My total life debt so far is $800. USA incorporated... THEY
have debt. That is not my debt.
Politicians here in the US are desperate for me to believe it is all China's fault. Not
the lying, stealing politicians and MBAs that have stolen my future but China. I am not buying it. Even if China has stolen America's wealth, who let them? Who helped and got rich? That's
right, US politicians and MBAs.
Yes, we have Democrat and Republican pols at the federal level spending this country into
decline by trillions, and financing it all with inflation, which is why we're paying higher
prices for virtually everything now, than we've ever paid.
The only reason why this is a trade war in the first place, is because we're attempting to
undo the shitty deals signed by Bill Clinton. Let this be a lesson: Don't sign shitty deals.
No matter how much they donate to your campaign.
BEIJING, June 9 (Xinhua) -- For years, non-U.S. transnational firms, vying to carve a niche
in the global market with cutting-edge technologies or products, often find themselves fronting
an opponent far more powerful and brutal than any commercial rival they have ever contested
with -- the U.S. government.
Many foreign entities, whose business may seem irrelevant to the United States, have been
forced by Washington with threats of sanctions to comply with U.S. domestic laws and
regulations.
"After so many years fancying itself as the champion of the Rule of Law, the U.S. seems to
be making headway in forging a world under the rule of law," said Zhou Qing'an, an analyst of
international relations at China's Tsinghua University. "Only it's the American law of the
jungle."
WEAPONIZED JURISDICTIONAL SYSTEM
In recent years, the U.S. government has slapped sanctions on and posed threats to an
increasing array of foreign entities under the pretext of infringements of its tailor-made
rules and regulations concerning anticorruption, taxation, investment and arms exports,
crafting a long-range weapon with its jurisdictional system, the very foundations undergirding
a country's authority.
Citing Cuba as an example of the U.S. jurisdictional overreach, Mauricio Santoro, head of
the Department of International Relations at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, said that
for many times, the United States has enacted new laws and regulations to justify its
punishments on foreign companies having commercial contacts with Cuba, a country that has long
been taken as a thorn in the flesh by Washington.
In the latest round of sanctions against the Caribbean country, Washington activated Title
III of the Helms-Burton Act, which put companies operating on properties confiscated by the
Cuban government at risk of being sued in U.S. courts.
It's not just the entities from countries deemed by the United States as rivals or
competitors that were exposed to the arbitrary abuse of Washington's jurisdictional power.
Firms of its allied countries which refuse to yield to the U.S. supremacy can also find
themselves under fire of such an overstretched jurisdictional "weapon."
In 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice fined Alstom, a French power and transportation
conglomerate, 772 million U.S. dollars, alleging the French company has broken America's
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which eventually led to the partial acquisition of Alstom by
General Electric, its arch rival in the United States.
Last month, the U.S. Commerce Department put Huawei, a Chinese company that has taken the
lead in 5G technology, and its affiliates on a blacklist that requires the federal government
approval for any sale and transfer of U.S. technologies to the Chinese firm.
Up to now, the United States is still lobbying other countries to exclude Huawei from 5G
networks construction over groundless accusations of spying.
"What is the most effective way to win a losing race? You change the rules and draw a foul
on your competitors, rude but effective," Zhou explained with a metaphor. "That is exactly what
the United States is doing to its competitors, even allies."
UNABASHED INTERNATIONAL DARWINIST
For decades, the United States has been touting itself as the flag-bearer of "freedom,
equality, justice and humanity," but in recent words and deeds, the Washington government is
exposing itself as an international Darwinist who sees the world as a jungle where the powerful
preys on the vulnerable.
By overstretching its jurisdiction and applying unilateral sanctions, the United States is
challenging the sovereignty of other countries, said Philippe Bonnecarrere, a French senator,
denouncing the U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction as power logic.
Echoing the senator's words, Swaran Singh, professor at School of International Studies in
Jawaharlal Nehru University, noted that extending jurisdiction of U.S. domestic laws beyond its
border "has no legal standing whatsoever."
"It's only its position of power in international system that has allowed the United States
to arbitrarily impose its domestic laws abroad while rejecting several other universally
recognized international laws and norms," said the professor.
However, it is also the "universally recognized international laws and norms," which the
United States once paid, even sacrificed so much to build several decades ago and now is
turning its back on, that helped the country build its advantages over other countries.
Thanks to economic globalization, large European firms all have capital from different
countries, including the United States, and due to Washington's threat of sanctions, they have
to comply with American rules, said Bonnecarrere.
Even though an international Darwinist's obsession with the jungle law can not be changed
overnight, if the past is any prologue, "the obsession with power relations," as the French
senator put it, "is mortifying."
BACKLASHES FROM ALL AROUND
In a world where multilateralism and win-win cooperation are still the mainstream of the
times, an international Darwinist with zero-sum mentalities like the United States is bound to
face backlashes from within and outside the country.
David S. Cohen, a former deputy director of the CIA and former undersecretary of U.S.
Treasury Department, warned in an article published in April that the U.S. sanctions will not
only weaken countries being punished, but "breed resentment and alienate would-be international
partners."
"In the long run, it works against U.S. foreign policy interests and threatens the American
economy," said the article.
As the world's biggest economy, the United States enjoys "an outsize role in business
transactions around the world." The U.S. extraterrestrial jurisdiction, a typical prelude to
economic sanctions, would certainly cast a bigger shadow over the whole world.
Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Christine Lagarde said earlier
this week that the existing and potential tariff hikes resulted from the U.S.-initiated trade
tensions with China could reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.5 percent in
2020.
Earlier this year, The Economist sounded a warning in an article for Washington. "Far from
expressing geopolitical might, America's legal overreach would then end up diminishing American
power," it said.
(Xinhua reporters Tang Ji and Ying Qiang in Paris, Hu Xiaoming in New Delhi, Zhou Xingzhu in
Brasilia contributed to the story.)
"... Across-the-board rivalry with China is becoming an organising principle of US economic, foreign and security policies. ..."
"... An effort to halt China's economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives might still win out. But that is far less likely if China's natural rise is threatened. ..."
"... The tragedy in what is now happening is that the administration is simultaneously launching a conflict between the two powers, attacking its allies and destroying the institutions of the postwar US-led order. ..."
The disappearance of the Soviet Union left a big hole. The "war on terror" was an inadequate replacement. But China ticks all boxes.
For the US, it can be the ideological, military and economic enemy many need. Here at last is a worthwhile opponent. That was the
main conclusion I drew from this year's Bilderberg meetings.
Across-the-board
rivalry with China is becoming
an organising principle of US economic, foreign and security policies.
Whether it is Donald Trump's organizing principle is less important. The US president has the gut instincts of a nationalist and
protectionist. Others provide both framework and details. The aim is US domination. The means is control over China, or separation
from China.
Anybody who believes a rules-based multilateral order, our globalised economy, or even harmonious international relations, are
likely to survive this conflict is deluded. The astonishing
white paper on the
trade conflict
, published on Sunday by China, is proof. The -- to me, depressing -- fact is that on many points Chinese positions are right.
The US focus on
bilateral imbalances is economically illiterate. The view that theft of intellectual property has caused huge damage to the US
is
questionable . The proposition that China has grossly violated its commitments under its 2001 accession agreement to the World
Trade Organization is hugely exaggerated.
Accusing China of cheating is hypocritical when almost all trade policy actions taken by the Trump administration are in breach
of WTO rules, a fact implicitly conceded by its determination
to destroy the
dispute settlement system .
A dispute over the terms of market opening or protection of intellectual property might be settled with careful negotiation. Such
a settlement might even help China, since it would lighten the heavy hand of the state and promote market-oriented reform.
But the issues are now too vexed for such a resolution. This is partly because of the bitter breakdown in negotiation. It is still
more because the US debate is increasingly over whether integration with China's state-led economy is desirable. The fear over Huawei
focuses on national security and technological autonomy.
[Neo]liberal commerce is increasingly seen as "trading with the enemy".
A framing of relations with China as one of zero-sum conflict is emerging. Recent remarks by Kiron Skinner, the US state department's
policy planning director (a job once held by cold war strategist George Kennan) are revealing. Rivalry with Beijing,
she suggested at a
forum organised
by New America , is "a fight with a really different civilisation and a different ideology, and the United States hasn't had
that before".
She added that this would be "the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian". The war with Japan
is forgotten.
But the big point is her framing of this as a civilizational and racial war and so as an insoluble conflict. This cannot be accidental.
She is also still in her job. Others present the conflict as one over ideology and power.
Those emphasising the former point to President Xi Jinping's Marxist rhetoric and the reinforced role of the
Communist party . Those emphasising the latter point to China's rising economic might. Both perspectives suggest perpetual conflict.
This is the most important geopolitical development of our era. Not least, it will increasingly force everybody else to take sides
or fight hard for neutrality. But it is not only important. It is dangerous. It risks turning a manageable, albeit vexed, relationship
into all-embracing conflict, for no good reason. China's ideology is not a threat to liberal democracy in the way the Soviet Union's
was. Rightwing demagogues are far more dangerous.
An effort to halt China's economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the
Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives
might still win out. But that is far less likely if China's natural rise is threatened.
Moreover, the rise of China is not an important cause of western malaise. That reflects far more the indifference and incompetence
of domestic elites. What is seen as theft of intellectual property reflects, in large part, the inevitable attempt of a rising economy
to master the technologies of the day. Above all, an attempt to preserve the domination of 4 per cent of humanity over the rest is
illegitimate.
This certainly does not mean accepting everything China does or says. On the contrary, the best way for the west to deal with
China is to insist on the abiding values of freedom, democracy, rules-based multilateralism and global co-operation. These ideas
made many around the globe supporters of the US in the past.
They still captivate many Chinese people today. It is quite possible to uphold these ideas, indeed insist upon them far more strongly,
while co-operating with a rising China where that is essential, as over protecting the natural environment, commerce and peace.
A blend of competition with co-operation is the right way forward. Such an approach to managing China's rise must include co-operating
closely with like-minded allies and treating China with respect.
The tragedy in what is now happening is that the administration is simultaneously launching a conflict between the two powers,
attacking its allies and destroying the institutions of the postwar US-led order.
Today's attack on China is the wrong war, fought in the wrong way, on the wrong terrain. Alas, this is where we now are.
This is end of the classic neoliberal globalization and the start of isolation of the USA
from China and forming an alternative, led by China trading block, unless the deal is reached.
WTO rules were the door openers, which allowed Google and Facebook pollute millions of
smartphones outside the USA. By rejecting them the USA start the process of self-isolation. Now
local government who were afraid to act might want to get even and you can get a stronger
backlash then anticipated.
The only factor here is that while the USA citizens are afraid of their own government
snooping more then snooping by Chinese's government, the same is true to many foreign countries
too. Citizens of those countries move to Gmail because they care less about the USA snooping then
the snooping of their local government by the local webmail providers. This is a widespread
illusion. They should use foreign based ISP for that.
Removal of Facebook is actually a big plus which increases attractiveness of Huawei phones.
But truth be told the value of smartphone is exaggerated. Combination of a tablet and basic flip
flop phone works even better. The same but to lesser extent is true with Google spying
applications, especially Gmail. Only complete idiot uses Gmail as Web client, as Gmail is the
central point of collection of data for both Google and the US government (actually all "Five
eyes" goverments). It is like giving keys for you home or apartment to them. Not the Microsoft is
much better. Using your own Internet Service Provider (ISO) is the best option in the current
environment. It also allows more effectively to combat spam. Unless you want to be a bug under
microscope -- no Google on you your phone is a good, sound policy
Notable quotes:
"... These actions add to the potential fallout for American companies to reckon with. US tech enterprises will lose out on sales to Huawei ..."
"... Restrictions could boomerang back on Google and Facebook, which count on their apps being widely installed around the world to collect data and sell advertising against. And then there's the potential for damaging retaliation by China, which could blacklist important US companies like Apple that do business there. ..."
"... And if the crackdown lasts (an important if -- some expect the Huawei restrictions to be lifted should a trade deal be reached) and the Chinese telecom comes out intact, it could emerge even stronger, having been forced to develop new technology in-house. If the American blacklist fails to strangle Huawei, it could come out stronger and more innovative than it was before. ..."
The US crackdown on Huawei was bound to have unintended consequences. Some of them are
starting to come to the surface.
The Trump administration is looking to shut out the Chinese telecom company from selling its
technology in the US, as well as banning American firms from selling products to the company.
Now Google, which banned Huawei from updates of its ubiquitous Android operating system, is
warning that the restriction could become a national security issue, according to the
Financial Times
(paywall). That's because Huawei, the world's No. 2 handset maker, will likely move quickly to
develop its own parallel version of Android, which could have more software bugs and be more
susceptible to hacking.
That's just one of many potential consequences as the US clampdown ripples through
everything from semiconductor supplies to ambitions for self-driving cars. The American
government blacklisted Huawei for long-simmering
espionage concerns after trade talks between the world's two largest economies broke down.
The Trump administration has since given companies a 90-day window to adjust to the new
restrictions.
In the meantime, chipmakers including Qualcomm, Intel, and Xilinx are reportedly
halting sales of technology (paywall) to Huawei. The embattled Chinese company has
responded by stockpiling chips and components and ramping up its development of
alternatives.
Facebook, which has more than 2 billion users around the world, will no longer allow its app
to come preinstalled on Huawei phones,
according to Reuters . Huawei phone buyers can still download the app from the Google Play
store for now, but that option will go away if Google's relationship with the Chinese company
is severed.
These actions add to the potential fallout for American companies to reckon with. US tech
enterprises will lose out on sales to Huawei, and the ban could also slow the implementation of
new technologies around the world. The rollout of self-driving cars, for instance, may get a
boost from 5G gear, and Huawei appears to be the only supplier that can provide reliable 5G kit
widely and at low cost. Restrictions could boomerang back on Google and Facebook, which
count on their apps being widely
installed around the world to collect data and sell advertising against. And then there's
the potential for
damaging retaliation by China, which could blacklist important US companies like Apple that
do business there.
And if the crackdown lasts (an important if -- some expect the Huawei restrictions to be
lifted should a trade deal be reached) and the Chinese telecom comes out intact, it could
emerge even stronger, having been forced to develop new technology in-house. If the American
blacklist fails to strangle Huawei, it could come out stronger and more innovative than it was
before.
In a series of provocative actions, the United States is making clear it is prepared to
fight a war to block Beijing's rise as an economic and geostrategic competitor.
The "cold war" between the United States and China took a major step toward becoming a "hot"
war over the weekend at the annual Shangri-La defense summit in Singapore. The Financial
Times, not known for hyperbole, wrote that "The growing dispute between the US and China on
trade and technology is increasing the risk of military conflict or outright war."
At the summit, representatives of the Pacific nations that would be caught in the crossfire
of such a conflict warned of the imminent possibility of a new Pacific war.
"Our greatest fear, therefore, is the possibility of sleepwalking into another international
conflict like World War One," said Philippines Defense Minister Delfin Lorenzana. "With the
untethering of our networks of economic interdependence comes growing risk of confrontation
that could lead to war."
US officials used the summit to continue their efforts to encircle China militarily and
strangle it economically, with acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan declaring China to
be "the greatest long-term threat to the vital interests of states across this region."
Just days earlier, Vice President Mike Pence, addressing the graduating class at West Point,
predicted war in the Pacific, in Europe and in the Americas within the graduates'
lifetimes.
"It is a virtual certainty that you will fight on a battlefield for America at some point in
your life Some of you will join the fight on the Korean Peninsula and in the Indo-Pacific,
where North Korea continues to threaten the peace, and an increasingly militarized China
challenges our presence in the region. Some of you will join the fight in Europe, where an
aggressive Russia seeks to redraw international boundaries by force. And some of you may even
be called upon to serve in this hemisphere.
"And when that day comes, I know you will move to the sound of the guns and do your duty,
and you will fight, and you will win."
The United States' actions are extraordinarily reckless and provocative. Seeing a challenge
to its dominance, it is seeking to use every tool at its disposal, including military force, to
compel China's submission to its will. The United States is simultaneously escalating conflicts
around the world -- including its regime change operation in Venezuela and its dispatch of
additional troops to the Middle East to "counter" Iran -- to shore up its flagging global
hegemony through military means.
Chinese Defense Secretary Wei Fenghe responded to the US threats with militarist bluster of
his own, saying, "Should anybody risk crossing the bottom line, the [People's Liberation Army]
will resolutely take action and defeat all enemies." He warned the United States against
encouraging Taiwanese separatism, declaring, "If anyone dares to split Taiwan from China, the
Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs."
The divisions between the United States and China are centered on the Chinese state
initiative called "Made in China 2025." The plan envisions a substantial expansion of Chinese
industry into high-value-added and high-technology manufacturing, areas traditionally dominated
by the United States and its allies.
In recent decades, Chinese companies have made substantial developments in the
high-technology sector, including robotics, mobile phones and IT infrastructure. This
development was expressed most directly in the growth of Huawei, the Chinese mobile phone and
telecommunications firm, which was on track to become the world's leading smartphone maker by
the end of the year.
Last month, the United States moved to effectively destroy Huawei as a global competitor to
Apple and Samsung by banning US companies from selling it software and components. Google
locked the company out of the Android operating system and associated services, while Broadcom
and Qualcomm announced they would no longer sell the company chips it needs to continue
production.
The move enjoys broad bipartisan support beyond the Trump White House. There is an emerging
consensus within the American ruling class that China must be prevented from becoming a global
technological, and thus military, peer of the United States.
The growth of US-China tensions has overshadowed the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen
Square massacre. At the summit, Wei defended the bloody crackdown against the 1989 protests by
workers and students, declaring the protests were "political turmoil that the central
government needed to quell, which was the correct policy."
He continued, "Due to this, China has enjoyed stability, and if you visit China you can
understand that part of history."
But three decades of "stability" -- the effective transformation of China into a gigantic
sweatshop for American and world capitalism -- have come at a tremendous cost. China is not an
imperialist country. It remains dependent on foreign corporate investment and finance. Now, it
is once again in the crosshairs of a nuclear-armed United States determined to go to any
lengths to secure its global hegemony.
In the immediate aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre, the International Committee of
the Fourth International wrote, "The repression in China is being carried out in the direct
interests of the imperialists. In attacking the Chinese workers, the bureaucracy is acting as
their agent, seeking to restore 'labor discipline' and to repress the mass opposition of the
working class to the policies of capitalist restoration and the rampant exploitation and social
inequality which it has engendered."
While publicly condemning the massacre, the first Bush administration secretly made clear to
the Chinese government that the event was an "internal affair" and affirmed the value of the
Sino-American relationship "to the vital interests of both countries."
The ICFI statement continued, "Imperialism gloats over the broken bodies of the Chinese
workers, seeking to exploit them for the purpose of crude anticommunist propaganda, while at
the same time calculating that the brutal state repression will translate into higher rates of
exploitation and even greater profits from the tens of billions of dollars worth of direct
investment and joint ventures already operating on Chinese soil."
This is precisely what happened. Following Deng Xiaoping's Southern Tour of 1992, in which
he encouraged Chinese entrepreneurs to "get rich," US investment in China ballooned, leading to
a profit bonanza for American corporations, along with the fantastic enrichment of the upper
echelons of the Chinese Communist Party, through the exploitation of the Chinese working
class.
The arguments by leading Chinese figures that an accommodation and partnership with US
imperialism would offer a peaceful road toward China's national development have proven to be a
pipe dream.
If Chinese officials accept US demands, it will be a massive blow to the Chinese economy,
causing mass unemployment and engendering protests and political turmoil. But to stand up to
the United States means, sooner or later, to fight a war between nuclear powers, in which
millions dead on both sides would be an optimistic scenario.
Thirty years after the Tiananmen Square massacre, all the arguments that the laws of
imperialism identified by Lenin after the outbreak of World War I had been superseded by
globalization and technological development have proven false. The capitalist system, riven by
a new scramble for a re-division of the world, is hurtling toward a new world war.
The only thing standing between humanity and this catastrophe is the international working
class. It is urgently necessary for the workers of China, the United States and the whole world
to unify their struggles in a common fight against the capitalist system, which is the root
cause of imperialist war. This means building sections of the International Committee of the
Fourth International in China and all over the world as the vanguard of a working class
movement against imperialist war.
The US trade war against China, which started just over a year ago, has now escalated to a
full-scale economic confrontation backed by the military might of American imperialism.
The rapid acceleration of the US drive against China and its increasingly bellicose
character was underscored in a major speech delivered by the acting US Defense Secretary
Patrick Shanahan on the weekend.
Over the past month, the US has hiked tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of
Chinese goods, threatened the imposition of new imposts on all Chinese imports and virtually
black banned the telecoms giant Huawei from the supply of US-made components in an attempt to
cripple its global operations.
Speaking at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, organised by the International
Institute for Strategic Studies, which included participants from China, Shanahan delivered a
40-minute blast against Beijing in which he emphasised US readiness to use military power to
secure its interests.
The speech coincided with the release of an Indo-Pacific Strategy Report by the US Defense
Department accusing China of seeking "Indo-Pacific hegemony in the near-term and, ultimately
global pre-eminence in the long-term."
The report called China a "revisionist" power that sought to undermine the international
system from within, attempting to exploit its benefits while eroding the values and principles
of the "rules-based order" -- the standard reference to US dominance.
While claiming that the US "does not seek conflict," Shanahan said "we know that having the
capability to win wars is the best way to deter them." The US had already committed $125
billion for "operational readiness and sustainment" for the next financial year and is
preparing to allocate an additional $104 billion for research and development of emerging
technologies.
"This finding will boost the depth and capacity of our armed forces, and also help expand
our training -- including with allies and partners -- to improve mission readiness critical to
meeting this region's challenges" he said.
The read out of his remarks provided by the Defense Department said the Indo-Pacific was
"our priority theatre." The US Pacific Command had four times more assigned forces than in any
other area, with more than 370,000 service members devoted to the region.
The US had "more than 2000 aircraft, providing the ability to project power across the vast
distances of this region" together with "more than 200 ships and submarines to ensure freedom
of navigation."
The integrated character of the US offensive -- on the economic, diplomatic, political and
military fronts -- was emphasised in remarks clearly directed against China.
"[Some] actors undermine the system by using indirect, incremental actions and rhetorical
devices to exploit others economically and diplomatically, and coerce them militarily. They
destabilise the region, seeking to reorder its vibrant and diverse communities towards their
exclusive advantage."
This characterisation most closely fits the actions of the United States, extending over
decades -- from the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan in the dying days of World War Two,
the launching of the Korean War in 1950 in which an estimated 2.5 million people lost and the
Vietnam War in which killed more than three million.
US intervention has not been confined to military action. In the wake of the Asian financial
crisis of 1997-98, the International Monetary Fund, at the direction of Washington, imposed an
economic "restructuring" program across the region which plunged it into a crisis, equivalent
in scope and depth to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The enduring image of that intervention is the photograph of IMF managing director Michel
Camdessus standing over seated Indonesian president Suharto as he signed a so-called IMF
bailout program to impose what was known as the "Washington consensus."
Economic devastation resulted in Indonesia and across the region as "structural adjustment"
was imposed. Indonesian real wages feel by 30 percent, the incidence of poverty doubled and
more than 20 million workers were made jobless. Unemployment rates in South Korea and Malaysia
tripled.
In the years since then, the IMF policies -- directed by the US Treasury Department -- have
been branded as a "mistake." They were anything but. The economic firestorm was a consciously
directed operation.
At that point the US feared its economic supremacy in the region was being threatened by
Japan. When the crisis broke in July 1997, with the devaluation of the Thai baht, setting off
currency devaluations and a financial crisis across Southeast Asia, Tokyo intervened with a
proposal to set up a $100 billion Asian Monetary Fund in order to safeguard its economic
interests in the region.
This was forcefully rejected at a September 1997 meeting of the IMF and G7 in Hong Kong.
Faced with the prospect of a conflict with the US, Japan withdrew its proposal, opening the way
for the imposition of Washington's "restructuring" demands, based on the breaking up of the
economic and financial ties between the countries of the region and Japan.
However, the Asian crisis was to bring about a major economic shift in which China was to
become the major global manufacturing centre. Following Deng Xiaoping's southern tour in 1992,
foreign capital flowed into the country, secure in the knowledge that, as the Tiananmen Square
Massacre of June 1989 and the far broader suppression of the working class in all the major
industrial centres had demonstrated, the regime would act as the guarantor of its profit
interests.
By the end of the 1990s, China had become integrated into the global circuit of capital and
on that basis its entry into the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was backed by the Clinton
administration. After China's admission into the WTO in 2001, the flow of global capital
increased as the regime committed itself to further market opening.
The policy of the US was grounded on the premise that collaboration with China would be
encouraged so long as it remained a producer and assembler of consumer goods, boosting the
profits of US and other corporations that used it as a base for their manufacturing operations.
A new term was coined to describe this collaboration "Chimerica."
However, the eruption of the global financial crisis in 2008, centred in the US financial
system, marked another major turning point, with far-reaching consequences in China as more
than 23 million workers lost their jobs. Fearful of an eruption in the working class, the
Chinse regime undertook a massive stimulus program, spending more than $500 billion and opening
up credit for the provision of vast infrastructure projects.
This policy, based on a rapid expansion of credit, could not continue indefinitely and under
President Xi Jinping a new turn was initiated. In order to maintain economic growth and prevent
a crisis that would call into question the legitimacy of the regime, a new policy had to be
initiated.
This was the origin of the "Made in China 2025" plan in which China would move up the value
chain, not only producing cheap consumer goods and relying on infrastructure spending but also
moving into the development of high-tech manufacturing in areas such as telecommunications,
health and pharmaceutical products and artificial intelligence.
This, however, is regarded by the US as an existential threat to its global economic and
military dominance, which, as the latest strategic report by the Defense Department and the
speech by Shanahan has underscored, it is determined to crush by all means necessary including
war.
"... The short-term impact on China could be smaller than previously expected. Factories that sold only to the United States have developed new markets over the past year. Even if those factories stop exporting to the U.S., they will not go bankrupt immediately. It helps that the service sector is experiencing a labor shortage and could absorb some slack. For example, in China a delivery man sometimes makes more than an average office worker. ..."
"... Shipments to the United States and shipping prices have dropped since the new tariffs were announced. ..."
"... Researchers at the New York Fed have determined that the new round of tariffs on Chinese products will cost the typical American household an additional $831 per year. ..."
"... "China has been slaughtering USA" It is American corporations not China. ..."
"... “The Communist Party didn’t fight Japan,” said the sprightly 97-year-old, who once served as a translator with the storied Flying Tigers aviation brigade. “They made up a whole bunch of stories afterward, but it was all fabricated.” ..."
...The main takeaway from our notes below: The Chinese are buckling up for a long ride.
Beijing is preparing for a protracted standoff. The leadership has concluded that the
intention of U.S. negotiators is not just to resolve trade imbalances but also prevent China
from moving up the value chain, a key long-term objective for the Chinese.
Tariffs on the remaining $300 billion of Chinese products would hurt China, but the
United States would also feel the pain. Profit margins for consumer goods manufacturers
average less than 5 percent. U.S. importers would either have to pay the tariffs, charge
their customers more, or find suppliers elsewhere.
The short-term impact on China could be smaller than previously expected. Factories
that sold only to the United States have developed new markets over the past year. Even if
those factories stop exporting to the U.S., they will not go bankrupt immediately. It helps
that the service sector is experiencing a labor shortage and could absorb some slack. For
example, in China a delivery man sometimes makes more than an average office
worker.
Huawei will not be a part of any negotiations. Beijing thinks that Huawei is more of a
political issue and would be targeted whether or not they make concessions on trade.
... ... ...
There has been a significant shift in the way that Beijing manages nationalist sentiment
inside China. Until May the government had been trying to contain hawkish views on the
U.S.-China relationship, but now they are just letting it grow. (See
Now China's Got Its Own Anti-U.S. Trade War Song .) Not only does this demonstrate that
Beijing does not expect any short-term solution, because the negative sentiment will make it
difficult for President Xi to make concessions, it also allows China to harden its diplomatic
position given popular domestic sentiment.
As for whether the Chinese are front-loading shipments to the United States to avoid
pending tariffs, port data and local analysts indicate this has not yet happened.
Shipments to the United States and shipping prices have dropped since the new tariffs
were announced. The pending tariffs could cause some front loading, but it would be hard
to beat the latest round of tariffs because they were imposed a few days after the
announcement. Only products shipped before the new tariffs' effective date are exempt.
The consequences of a protracted trade war are manifold. The economic impact includes a drag
on economic growth, import price inflation which will allow U.S. domestic and other foreign
policy makers to raise prices, and the knock-on effects to other trading partners as the
shuffle begins to find new sources and markets for different products. Researchers at the
New York Fed have determined that the new round of tariffs on Chinese products will cost the
typical American household an additional $831 per year. Trade barriers between the world's
economic superpowers will slow global growth and put political pressure on all affected
governments, stoking increasing nationalism and protectionism overseas while increasing
inflation and reducing living standards at home.
The investment implications of a protracted trade war are still playing out. We have seen
how sensitive markets have been to the trade news, with a strong risk-off bias resulting from
adverse developments in the fourth quarter. While volatility will continue, there is no
indication that the Chinese will attempt to liquidate their large holdings of U.S. Treasury
securities. To do so would only drive down the value of the dollar, which would run counter to
Beijing's desire for a weaker yuan. There is also no imminent change to monetary policy from
the Federal Reserve as a result of trade saber-rattling, but if the financial markets begin to
spiral out of control because of tariffs, then we could see a repeat of 1998, when the Fed
eased as a result of the Asian financial crisis. With neither side apparently willing to step
back from the brink, investors should be discounting a higher probability for a drawn-out
fight.
... ... ...
The conclusions are obvious. Unless the current trajectory is quickly changed, the Chinese
are digging in for a long fight. The cost to the United States will be high; the cost to the
Chinese will be higher. The only question is who will endure and be the most innovative in this
battle of wills. As I have written before in "No One Wins a Trade War," the short-term costs
are likely to outweigh the long-term benefits regardless of who "wins."
Comments
Sign in to comment filter_list Viewing Options arrow_drop_down
1. Guggenheim Partners is based in Chicago and represent Obama's point of view
2. Apr 4, 2018 Scott Minerd predicted at 50% plunge in the stock market
3. Once again Scott predicting a 50% drop in the market in 2020
4. April 29, 2019 Scott predicted a rate hike by the Fed
The Long march is a propaganda piece hoping people will invest more in their bond mutual
funds. Scott should spend a lot less time on TV and more time in the office.
The longer this trade war goes on the more and more unstable the Chinese economy will
become. Because the current tariffs on China are small peanuts to the remaining $200+ billion
which will shut down their electronics industry.
Agreed with the second point, that they are finding new markets and shifting production
line to new place. A new leather goods factory just opened in Cambodia, majority owner is a
Chinese friend, rest is a Cambodian business group. His products are in every major markets,
and third party label for our brand names. Business as usual for him, he can’t close
his China shops because he lives there.
You don’t get the point. We are printing worthless paper to exchange the actual
products, such as computers, furniture and machines. We don’t “eat” money,
we consume products. To an extent that we can maintain dominance is to innovate and turn into
“affordable” products domestically and overseas.
Now all the foreigners including
not white anglo saxon protestant waking up and will circumvent dollars/sterlings,
that’s bad trend. Germany and Russian would be pleased.
Umm.. If you want to gauge the effect of the Chino - Mericah Trade Tariff Circus, then it
doesn't get real until Trump goes after the mid-point trans shipment points....all those
mutually accessible ports of call that have equal access to both party's...Geeezzze, is
everyone working for CNN, Clown News Network......Trump and Friends are just going to set up
different ways to ship goods into and out of the Merikah.... it's that simple!!!!!
The LAST man brave enough to publish anything critical of Chicoms throws in the towel. Not
worth the prison terms, the violence, the relentless state attacks on journalists and their
families. Totalitarian cuks with their asshat trolls. Glad Trump will starve them out with
tariffs. Be happy never to trade with China until their people throw out the commie murderous
imperialists - let them do business with their like-minded asshat buddies in Moscow -
Staged arrest with planted drugs, beaten upon arrest, protesters immediately arrested
(even though they protested one at a time to avoid the law making group protests illegal -
the mark of every totalitarian regime). THIS is your brave PUTIN. Cannot allow any TRUTH
about his corrupt kleptostate, lest Russians finally have ENOUGH of the rape and thievery
that pillages their national assets and resources for the oligarchs' gain, with their lips on
Putin's sphincter as he gives them a reach around.
Tell me again how GREAT China and Russia are, and how the USA sucks. We don't arrest and
kill our journalists. In fact, they are allowed to stage absurd, fact-free assaults on the
ruling party without end.
I'll take freedom over tyranny every time.
Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 hour ago
link
Laugher NYC: Best post of the afternoon! This is the type of post that makes Zero Hedge
comments worth reading.
Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 hour ago
link
"As I have written before in “
No One Wins a Trade War ,” the short-term costs are likely to outweigh the
long-term benefits regardless of who “wins.""
Translation: The US should give up fighting the trade war and go back to losing the
trade war. Americans don't want to withstand short term pain , so just give up and surrender
to the Chinese communist government.
Reality Check: If the US stays the course then the following will happen:
New factories will open up to replace the Chinese suppliers.
More US workers will be employed with rising wages.
The US will reopen critical industries like rare earths making the US much more
militarily secure.
Existential menaces like Fentanyl exported from China will be drastically
reduced.
"New Long March" Cross Rubicon─Save/Lose. The CCP Didn’t Fight Imperial Japan; the KMT Did. While the KMT military defended China against Japan during WWII, the CCP built up strength
for the civil war.
This was not by accident but by design. The CCP had a choice: it could have prioritized
defending the country against Japan during the war, or it could have prioritized seizing
control of China from those who did fight the Japanese. It chose the latter. Meanwhile, by
choosing to actually try to defend China against Japan during the war, the Nationalists
handed the country to the CCP afterwards.
Which is why Xi and the CCP’s decision to create a national observance day to honor
its defense of China during the second Sino-Japanese War represents the height of hypocrisy.
It’s one thing to try to suppress all information exposing the Party’s failings,
which killed millions of Chinese, while demanding Japan take a correct view of history (which
Tokyo should do). It’s another thing altogether to falsely claim credit for one of the
defining moments of your country’s modern history. And it’s really something
unprecedented to create a national holiday to honor your Party for doing something it
consciously avoided; namely, putting China’s defense over the CCP itself.
Classy.
✅ China gives little credit — and less help — to Kuomintang vets who
fought in WWII
“The Communist Party didn’t fight Japan,” said the sprightly
97-year-old, who once served as a translator with the storied Flying Tigers aviation brigade.
“They made up a whole bunch of stories afterward, but it was all
fabricated.”
Most independent historians agree that it was the forces of the Kuomintang, led by
Mao’s archrival, Chiang Kai-shek, that led the anti-Japanese struggle and suffered the
vast majority of casualties.
Following the war’s end, the exhausted and divided Kuomintang were defeated by
the communist s in a renewed civil war and fled to Taiwan, cementing Mao’s claim to
having defeated imperialism, unified the country and overthrown the old feudal order.
“This joint victory over the external enemy and the internal one, including the
landlord class, is a fundamental component of (the party’s) founding myth,” said
Harvard University China scholar Anthony Saich.
Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 hour ago
link
B-Bond: Interesting history background. The commies have always been the cowards waiting
to pounce on an exhausted opponent. Same formula in Russia 1917. The Czar exhausted his
soldiers in WWI which opened the door for Lenin to cowardly sneak in on a sealed train
courtesy the German government. That treachery only got the Germans a very temporary victory
in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk for a few months. Post war, the commies came close to
overthrowing the new Weimar republic. That's what happens when you make deals with a Godless
murderous cult based on hate and envy called communism.
So, if I understand this correctly one globalist stooge contacted a bunch of other
globalist stooges and asked them to confirm his pre-conceived talking points.
Big surprise, they were happy to do so. As usual, they blather about no winners in a trade
war-- then launch into an explanation of how badly the US consumer will lose and how
beneficial this will ultimately be to China. That sure sounds like an apportionment of trade
war winners and losers if you ask me.
What emerges is a picture of cynical beneficiaries of the current global order trying to
frighten the Americans into giving up by harping upon the costs, yet trying to assuage their
national pride by suggesting that giving up will actually be scored as a draw, which is the
best result they can ever hope for due to the fact that there are no winners and losers in a
trade war.
Yet it is China who is comparing this event to the Long March -- not a time of glory but
of acknowledgement of crushing defeat and gigantic sacrifice to set the table for a future
triumph. They seem to understand that they could lose this war if they are not fanatically
dedicated to victory. They sure as **** aren't telling their people that nobody wins a trade
war. Wonder why this dichotomy exists?
Well, Scott Guggenheim can tell you. It's because HE LOSES if Trump wins. Him and his
profitable Chinese pals. They'd all have to go out and find a new gig rather than keep
sucking off their current comfy one.
Creative destruction starts with knocking **** down and it is high time and beyond that we
knocked this **** down. Even if it puts Scott and his buddies on the unemployment line.
Proud-Christian-White-American-Man , 1 hour ago
link
Cheap Chinese Crap:" So, if I understand this correctly one globalist stooge contacted a
bunch of other globalist stooges and asked them to confirm his pre-conceived talking
points." Good cogent analysis of Scott Guggenheim's real motivation. it's the old WIFFM mentality.
What's In It For Me. If Scott is such a cheerleader for the Chinese, then it might be time for him to move to
China and 'enjoy' his social credit score.
It's not about who wins but about who looses. Chinese are used to hardship, not the Americans. Even if the pain is greater
for Chinese, it will be political suicide in the USA for their administration to pursue this policy....
A centrally planned, in huge debt, social credit focused country like China, will NOT
survive the long term damage. They have one billion plebes to feed and keep happy. Think T Square.
The business of China is business. The business of the US is war. China is better situated to endure a long fight. They've made themselves self sufficient,
have ambitious economic plans with the Belt and Road initiative, and are sitting on a
mountain of gold. The US depends on an economic hegemony that is dwindling and doesn't think long term. The US empire is in a managed decline
The Chinese can manufacture anything. The US can't say that. Their agricultural technology is second to none and their energy sector is advancing by
leaps and bounds. They are innovative, the US has lost it's innovative curiosity. Too many
public education mouth breathers staring at their TVs and phones to be bothered with
thinking. Just the way the state like it.
Chinese investment in Africa is solving their raw materials and energy issues, hence the
Belt and Road initiative. People think that building roads and ghost cities in the African
desert is a bad idea, but they know the desert is greening and are thinking long term. The
US, on the other hand, sends troops.
"Their agricultural technology is second to none..." Stop reading there.
China can not come close to feeding itself, and its agritech is decades behind the US. TFP
ranking, growth..by any measure, China's ag sector, while it has improved, is far behind the
US.
Population growth and the "growing middle class" has also reversed the growth in ag
acreage, while fewer young Chinese are going in to farming. Even with the most optimistic
growth projections from CHINA itself, it won't reach even 75% of its needs domestically by
2030, far less if growth continues to slow.
If China pisses off enough of the world, it will once again starve. That's one way to
control population growth.
Why are all these Democrats and RINOs siding with China instead of Americas?
Simple. It's because like China -- Joe Biden, Sen. Mitch McConnell, Rep. Justin Amash, the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc., etc., they have all been bought off with Chinese money.
The dumb American Political Sellouts have been bought with U.S. dollars. Now how dumb is that, when the Thief that is buying your favor, plucks it out of your
right pocket to hand you the loot.
"Why are all these Democrats and RINOs siding with China instead of Americas?"
It's simple. They are not Nationalistic. They are complete Globalist sell outs . In their
book, USA comes LAST. Anything that weakens mom and pop USA makes them stronger.
Click bait investment firm with Chinese investments that are not going well, so he wants
your support. This should be an add off the the side not a FEATURE Tylers.
This is a GOOD thing. We have lost our manufacturing to China (and Asia) to benefit Wall
street and the globalist and the Rich. There is no solution except to have these tariffs.
With our government taxes and structure there is no way we can have 1 or 2 dollar wages. It
might take an adjustment, but we MUST stop this cheap stuff from coming in. Sad but
True>
Good luck pinning your hopes on Trump for bringing jobs back lol. Why would you want those
jobs back anyway, I thought you had a ton more job openings than needed?
Please, this is not a trade war, this is a trade reset, it is needed to make MAGA. China is dependent on foreign trade to be successful. Well over 40% of their economy is dependent on exporting.
Trump knows the central bank economy is on a path to total destruction. He knows that soon
we will have a global reset. Anything he can do to weaken China now will ensure they continue
to be weak at the time of the reset. By diverting the USA supply chain away from China by
bringing it back to the USA or getting new suppliers from other nations he is helping to
ensure a better position for the USA at the time of the reset.
Yes, this is no trade war, it is a trade reset...people are being filled with propaganda
like the wording "trade war" even though the truth is right there in front of them...it is a
big puzzle, just need to find the pieces and they then fit like a glove (not OJ'S glove) and
you have the real truth...
Only 18% of Chinese GDP is export. Of this, only 18% goes to the U.S. So less than 4% of
Chinese GDP is export to the U.S. The fact that you could not set such records straight makes
the rest of your post pointless.
Researchers at the New York Fed have determined that the new round of tariffs on Chinese
products will cost the typical American household an additional $831 per year.
Why is it these so called experts never say what doing nothing HAS cost the American
household...like lost jobs?
Correct, NOT doing this has cost Americans billions in lost earnings / revenue over the
last 30 years. They certainly don't want to factor THAT wet mess into the equation.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo doubled down on vilification of Сhinese telecoms giant Huawei as "an
instrument of government" suggesting that the company was a national security threat by acting as an
agent for Beijing.
Like his boss, President Trump, and many others in Washington, Pompeo seems blind to an alternative
glaring reality. The US government is the consummate instrument of American corporations. Its
congenital service to corporate profit-making is the real national security risk to American citizens
and a global security threat for all people of the world due to the wars that Washington unswervingly
pursues on behalf of US corporate interests.
The irony could not be richer. President Trump has
banned Huawei from US markets by executive order on the grounds that the company's smartphones could
be spying devices for the Chinese government. This move by a nation whose government espionage
agencies were
exposed
using every US telecom, tech and social media company as a conduit for their global
harvesting of private citizens' data as well as that of foreign heads of state.
Moreover, the White House claim that Huawei is an instrument of Beijing state authorities is a
risible form of guilt projection. The Trump administration's ban on Huawei is nothing more than US
government abusing its state power to hamper a Chinese competitor from outperforming American tech
corporations. Huawei's products are reputedly cheaper and smarter than US rivals. Some observers also
point out that the Chinese technology is invulnerable to hacking by the American spy agency, the NSA,
further adding to its consumer appeal. Outperformed on market principles, the US government takes a
legalistic, propagandistic sledge hammer to smash Huawei from the marketplace in order to bestow an
unfair advantage to inferior American corporations.
So, just who exactly is being an instrument for whom?
Governments in all nations of course use their legislative, fiscal and policy resources to try to
build up key companies for their national economic development. It's standard practice throughout
history and the world over. Governments can use subsidies and grants to boost companies, or tariffs to
shield them from foreign competition.
The US, however, is a stellar example of how government intervenes strenuously at every stage in
the market to benefit private corporations. Without massive injections of public money for grants, tax
deductions, subsidies, and so on, American corporations would not have risen to the scale they have,
as Michael Parenti documents in 'Democracy for the Few'. This relationship, of course, negates the
myth of US "
free market capitalism
." In reality, American corporations are publicly supported
entities whose profits go to private shareholders. The overarching agent for this process of
centrally-planned corporate capitalism is the American government.
From its earliest days as a European colony, it was the newfound federal authorities who rolled
back frontiers with the native Americans through genocidal wars in order to benefit cattle and cereal
companies, mining magnates, transport and telecoms, oil firms, and firearms manufacturers.
In its young years as an imperial power, it was Washington that organized and dispatched federal
troops to wage wars in the Caribbean and Latin America – all for the sole benefit of Wall Street and
the expanding agro-industry. Retired Marine Major General Smedley Butler, in his 1930s book 'War is a
Racket', described the American military as a henchman for US corporate profits. But without the
government acting as recruiter, financier and commander-in-chief, the US Army could not function as a
henchman for the corporations.
Let's take a few specific examples in history to illustrate the instrumental role of the US
government in advancing or defending corporate interests. In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized the
coup in Iran organized by the CIA and Britain's MI6. A main objective of that intervention was to
seize Iranian oil. Five US corporations subsequently exploited the Iranian feast, until the revolution
in 1979 kicked them out along with the American puppet dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It's a
fair bet that current military threats from the Trump administration against Iran are prompted by a
strategic desire to reclaim American corporate interests.
In 1954, Guatemala's elected leader Jacobo Arbenz set out to nationalize underused agricultural
land to benefit the rural poor. His land reforms involved expropriating properties belonging to the
American-owned United Fruit Company, as William Blum details in 'Killing Hope.' Acting on United's
interests, Washington intervened with a CIA-backed coup against Arbenz, which subsequently led to
decades of mass murder of indigenous Guatemalans under US-backed military dictatorships.
Following the Cuban revolution in 1959, one of the main protagonists for US military invasion of
the island and for covert sabotage operations was the American soft drinks industry, headed up by
Coca-Cola and Pepsi. They feared the nationalization of sugar plantations by the Castro government
would hit their profits.
There are also
suggestions
that President John F Kennedy may have been assassinated by powerful US state forces,
working in cahoots with American corporate interests, because he didn't adopt a sufficiently
aggressive policy towards Cuba after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961. Related to JFK's assassination
was his reluctance to go to war in Vietnam in the early 1960s, which big oil companies and weapons
manufacturers were all avidly pushing. His successor, the Texan Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, who was
close to both industries, duly obliged by paving the way for all-out war in Indochina after 1964. Up
to two million Vietnamese were killed, as were some 58,000 US troops. Millions more maimed. The
corporations made huge profits from the decade-long slaughter. But the US economy began a long descent
that continues today from incurring fiscal debts over Vietnam, which prompted Washington to abandon
the gold standard, and heralded the age of funny money with the dollar acting as an overrated
international reserve currency.
Many more examples could be cited to illustrate how US government – both the White House and
Congress – are agents for corporate profits, often to the horrendous detriment of international peace
and the common good of ordinary Americans.
The 2003 war on Iraq – killing over one million civilians and maiming tens of thousands of
Americans – was widely seen as a pretext for grabbing Iraqi oil for US corporations like Halliburton,
for whom then vice president Dick Cheney was previously an executive board member.
The present warmongering towards Venezuela by Washington is openly touted by White House National
Security Advisor John Bolton as being about US corporate lust for the country's oil reserves – which
are reckoned to be the biggest on the planet.
Out of the top 12 corporate financial
donors
to politicians in Washington, three of them are weapons companies: Boeing, Lockheed Martin,
and Northrop Grumman; a fourth is oil titan Exxon-Mobil. There is an obvious correlation between
corporate bidding and foreign policies embarked on by US governments which leads to conflict and wars,
which in turn repays these corporations with soaring profits.
The American government is the best instrument that corporate money can buy.
Thus, when Trump, Pompeo and other Washington political (and media) prostitutes pontificate and
rail against Huawei, just remember: these talking heads are bought and paid for – lock, stock and
barrel.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
We should object to the neoliberal complete "instumentalization" of education: education became just a mean to get nicely paid job.
And even this hope is mostly an illusion for all but the top 5% of students...
And while students share their own part of responsibility for accumulating the debt the predatory behaviour of neoliberal universities
is an important factor that should not be discounted and perpetrators should be held responsible. Especially dirty tricks of ballooning
its size and pushing students into "hopeless" specialties, which would be fine, if they were sons or daughters of well to do and parent
still support then financially.
Actually neoliberalism justifies predatory behaviour and as such is a doomed social system as without solidarity some members of
financial oligarchy that rules the country sooner or later might hand from the lampposts.
Notable quotes:
"... It also never ceases to amaze me the number of anti-educational opinions which flare up when the discussion of student loan default arises. There are always those who will prophesize there is no need to attain a higher level of education as anyone could be something else and be successful and not require a higher level of education. Or they come forth with the explanation on how young 18 year-olds and those already struggling should be able to ascertain the risk of higher debt when the cards are already stacked against them legally. ..."
"... There does not appear to be much movement on the part of Congress to reconcile the issues in favor of students as opposed to the non-profit and for profit institutes. ..."
"... It's easy to explain, really. According to the Department of Education ( https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/understand/plans ) you're going to be paying off that loan at minimum payments for 25 years. Assuming your average bachelor's degree is about $30k if you go all-loans ( http://collegecost.ed.gov/catc/ ) and the average student loan interest rate is a generous 5% ( http://www.direct.ed.gov/calc.html ), you're going to be paying $175 a month for a sizable chunk of your adult life. ..."
"... Majoring in IT or Computer Science would have a been a great move in the late 1990's; however, if you graduated around 2000, you likely would have found yourself facing a tough job market.. Likewise, majoring in petroleum engineering or petroleum geology would have seemed like a good move a couple of years ago; however, now that oil prices are crashing, it's presumably a much tougher job market. ..."
"... To confuse going to college with vocational education is to commit a major category error. I think bright, ambitious high school graduates– who are looking for upward social mobility– would be far better served by a plumbing or carpentry apprenticeship program. A good plumber can earn enough money to send his or her children to Yale to study Dante, Boccaccio, and Chaucer. ..."
"... A bright working class kid who goes off to New Haven, to study medieval lit, will need tremendous luck to overcome the enormous class prejudice she will face in trying to establish herself as a tenure-track academic. If she really loves medieval literature for its own sake, then to study it deeply will be "worth it" even if she finds herself working as a barista or store-clerk. ..."
"... As a middle-aged doctoral student in the humanities you should not even be thinking much about your loans. Write the most brilliant thesis that you can, get a book or some decent articles published from it– and swim carefully in the shark-infested waters of academia until you reach the beautiful island of tenured full-professorship. If that island turns out to be an ever-receding mirage, sell your soul to our corporate overlords and pay back your loans! Alternatively, tune in, drop out, and use your finely tuned research and rhetorical skills to help us overthrow the kleptocratic regime that oppresses us all!! ..."
"... Genuine education should provide one with profound contentment, grateful for the journey taken, and a deep appreciation of life. ..."
"... Instead many of us are left confused – confusing career training (redundant and excessive, as it turned out, unfortunate for the student, though not necessarily bad for those on the supply side, one must begrudgingly admit – oops, there goes one's serenity) with enlightenment. ..."
"... We all should be against Big Educational-Complex and its certificates-producing factory education that does not put the student's health and happiness up there with co-existing peacefully with Nature. ..."
"... Remember DINKs? Dual Income No Kids. Dual Debt Bad Job No House No Kids doesn't work well for acronyms. Better for an abbreviated hash tag? ..."
"... I graduated law school with $100k+ in debt inclusive of undergrad. I've never missed a loan payment and my credit score is 830. my income has never reached $100k. my payments started out at over $1000 a month and through aggressive payment and refinancing, I've managed to reduce the payments to $500 a month. I come from a lower middle class background and my parents offered what I call 'negative help' throughout college. ..."
"... my unfortunate situation is unique and I wouldn't wish my debt on anyone. it's basically indentured servitude. it's awful, it's affects my life and health in ways no one should have to live, I have all sorts of stress related illnesses. I'm basically 2 months away from default of everything. my savings is negligible and my net worth is still negative 10 years after graduating. ..."
"... My story is very similar to yours, although I haven't had as much success whittling down my loan balances. But yes, it's made me a socialist as well; makes me wonder how many of us, i.e. ppl radicalized by student loans, are out there. Perhaps the elites' grand plan to make us all debt slaves will eventually backfire in more ways than via the obvious economic issues? ..."
It also never ceases to amaze me the number of anti-educational opinions which flare up when the discussion of student loan
default arises. There are always those who will prophesize there is no need to attain a higher level of education as anyone could
be something else and be successful and not require a higher level of education. Or they come forth with the explanation on how young
18 year-olds and those already struggling should be able to ascertain the risk of higher debt when the cards are already stacked
against them legally. In any case during a poor economy, those with more education appear to be employed at a higher rate than
those with less education. The issue for those pursuing an education is the ever increasing burden and danger of student loans and
associated interest rates which prevent younger people from moving into the economy successfully after graduation, the failure of
the government to support higher education and protect students from for-profit fraud, the increased risk of default and becoming
indentured to the government, and the increased cost of an education which has surpassed healthcare in rising costs.
There does not appear to be much movement on the part of Congress to reconcile the issues in favor of students as opposed
to the non-profit and for profit institutes.
Ranger Rick, November 9, 2015 at 11:34 am
It's easy to explain, really. According to the Department of Education (
https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/understand/plans
) you're going to be paying off that loan at minimum payments for 25 years. Assuming your average bachelor's degree is about $30k
if you go all-loans ( http://collegecost.ed.gov/catc/ ) and the
average student loan interest rate is a generous 5% ( http://www.direct.ed.gov/calc.html
), you're going to be paying $175 a month for a sizable chunk of your adult life.
If you're merely hitting the median income of a bachelor's degree after graduation, $55k (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77
), and good luck with that in this economy, you're still paying ~31.5% of that in taxes (http://www.oecd.org/ctp/tax-policy/taxing-wages-20725124.htm
) you're left with $35.5k before any other costs. Out of that, you're going to have to come up with the down payment to buy a
house and a car after spending more money than you have left (http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann13.pdf).
Louis, November 9, 2015 at 12:33 pm
The last paragraph sums it up perfectly, especially the predictable counterarguments. Accurately assessing what job in demand
several years down the road is very difficult, if not impossible.
Majoring in IT or Computer Science would have a been a great move in the late 1990's; however, if you graduated around
2000, you likely would have found yourself facing a tough job market.. Likewise, majoring in petroleum engineering or petroleum
geology would have seemed like a good move a couple of years ago; however, now that oil prices are crashing, it's presumably a
much tougher job market.
Do we blame the computer science majors graduating in 2000 or the graduates struggling to break into the energy industry, now
that oil prices have dropped, for majoring in "useless" degrees? It's much easier to create a strawman about useless degrees that
accept the fact that there is a element of chance in terms of what the job market will look like upon graduation.
The cost of higher education is absurd and there simply aren't enough good jobs to go around-there are people out there who
majored in the "right" fields and have found themselves underemployed or unemployed-so I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of
many people in my generation.
At the same time, I do believe in personal responsibility-I'm wary of creating a moral hazard if people can discharge loans
in bankruptcy. I've been paying off my student loans (grad school) for a couple of years-I kept the level debt below any realistic
starting salary-and will eventually have the loans paid off, though it may be a few more years.
I am really conflicted between believing in personal responsibility but also seeing how this generation has gotten screwed.
I really don't know what the right answer is.
Ulysses, November 9, 2015 at 1:47 pm
"The cost of higher education is absurd and there simply aren't enough good jobs to go around-there are people out there who
majored in the "right" fields and have found themselves underemployed or unemployed-so I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of
many people in my generation."
To confuse going to college with vocational education is to commit a major category error. I think bright, ambitious high
school graduates– who are looking for upward social mobility– would be far better served by a plumbing or carpentry apprenticeship
program. A good plumber can earn enough money to send his or her children to Yale to study Dante, Boccaccio, and Chaucer.
A bright working class kid who goes off to New Haven, to study medieval lit, will need tremendous luck to overcome the
enormous class prejudice she will face in trying to establish herself as a tenure-track academic. If she really loves medieval
literature for its own sake, then to study it deeply will be "worth it" even if she finds herself working as a barista or store-clerk.
None of this, of course, excuses the outrageously high tuition charges, administrative salaries, etc. at the "top schools."
They are indeed institutions that reinforce class boundaries. My point is that strictly career education is best begun at a less
expensive community college. After working in the IT field, for example, a talented associate's degree-holder might well find
that her employer will subsidize study at an elite school with an excellent computer science program.
My utopian dream would be a society where all sorts of studies are open to everyone– for free. Everyone would have a basic
Job or Income guarantee and could study as little, or as much, as they like!
Ulysses, November 9, 2015 at 2:05 pm
As a middle-aged doctoral student in the humanities you should not even be thinking much about your loans. Write the most
brilliant thesis that you can, get a book or some decent articles published from it– and swim carefully in the shark-infested
waters of academia until you reach the beautiful island of tenured full-professorship.
If that island turns out to be an ever-receding mirage, sell your soul to our corporate overlords and pay back your loans!
Alternatively, tune in, drop out, and use your finely tuned research and rhetorical skills to help us overthrow the kleptocratic
regime that oppresses us all!!
subgenius, November 9, 2015 at 3:07 pm
except (in my experience) the corporate overlords want young meat.
I have 2 masters degrees 2 undergraduate degrees and a host of random diplomas – but at 45, I am variously too old, too qualified,
or lacking sufficient recent corporate experience in the field to get hired
Trying to get enough cash to get a contractor license seems my best chance at anything other than random day work.
MyLessThanPrimeBeef, November 9, 2015 at 3:41 pm
Genuine education should provide one with profound contentment, grateful for the journey taken, and a deep appreciation
of life.
Instead many of us are left confused – confusing career training (redundant and excessive, as it turned out, unfortunate
for the student, though not necessarily bad for those on the supply side, one must begrudgingly admit – oops, there goes one's
serenity) with enlightenment.
"I would spend another 12 soul-nourishing years pursuing those non-profit degrees' vs 'I can't feed my family with those paper
certificates.'
jrs, November 9, 2015 at 2:55 pm
I am anti-education as the solution to our economic woes. We need jobs or a guaranteed income. And we need to stop outsourcing
the jobs that exist. And we need a much higher minimum wage. And maybe we need work sharing. I am also against using screwdrivers
to pound in a nail. But why are you so anti screwdriver anyway?
And I see calls for more and more education used to make it seem ok to pay people without much education less than a living
wage. Because they deserve it for being whatever drop outs. And it's not ok.
I don't actually have anything against the professors (except their overall political cowardice in times demanding radicalism!).
Now the administrators, yea I can see the bloat and the waste there. But mostly, I have issues with more and more education being
preached as the answer to a jobs and wages crisis.
MyLessThanPrimeBeef -> jrs, November 9, 2015 at 3:50 pm
We all should be against Big Educational-Complex and its certificates-producing factory education that does not put the
student's health and happiness up there with co-existing peacefully with Nature.
"You must be lazy – you're not educated."
"Sorry, you are too stupid for our elite university to admit, just as your brother was too poor for our rich club to let
in."
"I am going to kill you intellectually. I will annihilate you intellectually. My idea will destroy you and I don't have
to feel sorry at all."
Kris Alman, November 9, 2015 at 11:11 am
Remember DINKs? Dual Income No Kids. Dual Debt Bad Job No House No Kids doesn't work well for acronyms. Better for an abbreviated
hash tag?
debitor serf, November 9, 2015 at 7:17 pm
I graduated law school with $100k+ in debt inclusive of undergrad. I've never missed a loan payment and my credit score
is 830. my income has never reached $100k. my payments started out at over $1000 a month and through aggressive payment and refinancing,
I've managed to reduce the payments to $500 a month. I come from a lower middle class background and my parents offered what I
call 'negative help' throughout college.
my unfortunate situation is unique and I wouldn't wish my debt on anyone. it's basically indentured servitude. it's awful,
it's affects my life and health in ways no one should have to live, I have all sorts of stress related illnesses. I'm basically
2 months away from default of everything. my savings is negligible and my net worth is still negative 10 years after graduating.
student loans, combined with a rigged system, turned me into a closeted socialist. I am smart, hard working and resourceful.
if I can't make it in this world, heck, then who can? few, because the system is rigged!
I have no problems at all taking all the wealth of the oligarchs and redistributing it. people look at me like I'm crazy. confiscate
it all I say, and reset the system from scratch. let them try to make their billions in a system where things are fair and not
rigged...
Ramoth, November 9, 2015 at 9:23 pm
My story is very similar to yours, although I haven't had as much success whittling down my loan balances. But yes, it's
made me a socialist as well; makes me wonder how many of us, i.e. ppl radicalized by student loans, are out there. Perhaps the
elites' grand plan to make us all debt slaves will eventually backfire in more ways than via the obvious economic issues?
Technoimperialism is effective, but what it Huawei can switch to some derivative CPU and
chipsets?
Notable quotes:
"... Authored by Fan Yu via The Epoch Times, ..."
"... A wide-ranging ban similar to the one imposed on Huawei and its affiliates would effectively bar other foreign companies whose products contain at least 25 percent U.S.-sourced technology from supplying the Chinese. ..."
"... What does this mean in practice? More companies may begin to adopt localized R&D and manufacturing practices. Instead of Chinese factories supplying the world when labor costs were low, localized operations to directly supply the China market may be set up. ..."
"... Around 33.2 percent of American companies operating in China are delaying or cancelling investments in China altogether, according to the most recent American Chamber of Commerce in China survey released on May 22. If the tariffs are more permanent in nature, U.S. companies will likely move production outside of China, which is increasingly seen as a prudent choice given rising political instability within China and growing labor costs. ..."
"... If Bibi ask Chump to drop the tariffs on China for the security of Israel, What do you think will be Chump's answer? ..."
During the Cold War ,
around half of the world ran on the technologies, machinery, and political ideologies developed
by the Soviet Union. The other half - the free world - adopted those of the United States and
its allies.
As trade war
tensions between the United States and China escalate, could we be on the cusp of a new
version of the cold war, one which is driven by technology and finance?
Since U.S. President Donald Trump has deemed Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei Technologies as a national
security threat and barred it from purchasing key U.S. equipment, Beijing has engaged in an
escalating tit-for-tat that could have lasting ramifications on the technology industry going
forward.
And Huawei may just be the beginning. Several other Chinese companies are being considered
to join the blacklist with Huawei.
If a technology cold war does come to pass, it would significantly alter the existing
technology landscape, dismantle global supply chains, and cleave off the global trade network that has underpinned
China's rise as a global economic power .
Decoupling of the Global Supply Chain
Global consumers are used to seeing this familiar description donning Apple products'
packaging for years: "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China."
That's the model followed by most technology companies during the past few decades. American
companies develop new technologies and products in the United States, which are assembled by
comparatively cheap labor in China, and then shipped for sale globally.
Going forward, purchase orders would likely need to be rerouted.
A wide-ranging ban similar to the one imposed on Huawei and its affiliates would
effectively bar other foreign companies whose products contain at least 25 percent U.S.-sourced
technology from supplying the Chinese.
What does this mean in practice? More companies may begin to adopt localized R&D and
manufacturing practices. Instead of Chinese factories supplying the world when labor costs were
low, localized operations to directly supply the China market may be set up.
Around 33.2 percent of American companies operating in China are delaying or cancelling
investments in China altogether, according to the most recent American Chamber of Commerce in
China survey released on May 22. If the tariffs are more permanent in nature, U.S. companies
will likely move production outside of China, which is increasingly seen as a prudent choice
given rising political instability within China and growing labor costs.
Another 35.5 percent of respondents are adopting an "In China, for China" approach to
mitigate the impact of tariffs , according to the AmCham survey. That refers to manufacturing
products to be sold in China, within China. That strategy may be broadened in a full-on
technology cold war, as research and innovation may also need to be localized and companies may
need to erect internal information barriers.
Losers, Big and Small
Chinese companies will be the main losers -- there are no existing domestic replacements for
many U.S.-sourced components. For example, Huawei's chip-making arm HiSilicon currently derives
its Kirin chip architecture on license from UK-based semiconductor firm ARM Holdings. But in
May, ARM notified Huawei that it would stop licensing its chip designs to HiSilicon due to
having certain U.S.-sourced origins.
Huawei also lost access to Google's Android software platform, which is the main operating
system running on all Huawei smartphones. As of the end of May, the U.S. Commerce Department
gave Huawei a temporary, 90-day license to provide security patches to existing phones.
In addition, Huawei has been suspended from the Wi-Fi Alliance, an industry standard-setting
body for technology protocols.
These events don't just hobble Huawei -- they effectively ground its ambitions to a halt.
Without access to these technologies, there's simply no way for Huawei to reach its goal of
overtaking Samsung as the world's No. 1 smartphone supplier. And on the networking front,
Japan's SoftBank became the latest potential customer to reject Huawei for 5G networking
equipment, announcing on May 31 that it would be turning to European telecom giants Nokia and
Ericsson instead.
Should similar bans extend to other Chinese companies -- many of which have far smaller
operational support and balance sheets than Huawei -- many of them could cease operations
altogether.
Comments
Sign in to comment filter_list Viewing Options arrow_drop_down
China's empire is growing and the US empire s shrinking. Unfortunately many can't grasp
that and will deny it till the end instead of accepting it and working with the next world
power. All empires come to an end.
Our economy is a consumer based economy not a manufacturing based economy like it once
was. Can we return to a manufacturing based economy? Not sure if Americans are ready to push
their kids into getting a job at the factory making boots, footballs, washing machines......
instead of swaying them into going to college. Don't forget, someone has to work in the
factories if we are going to make stuff.
If you study high wage manufacturing driven economies like Germany, you will notice that
the productivity of their workers is sky high (as it has to be in order to remain
competitive). The plants are highly automated. Workers are very well trained and have expert
skills in keeping the production line running at peek pace and quality.
Frankly, I just don't think American workers have what it takes to adopt that kind of
model.
Not with the education system we have now....the Fed has killed off the industrial trades,
and everyone thinks they will can spend $100,000 a year for an education to sit behind a desk
and play solitaire......or become a politician.
Someone has to fix the machines and get their hands dirty. Not all our kids are IT
'coders'. Now we want the gooberment to give them 'free' college for a 'diversity degree' and
they graduate with NO SKILLS and no knowledge. So we drug up our youth with drugs imported by
China and open the flood doors for worker bees. Sounds like a plan.
The free world flourished during the cold war. it was great for the West. Technology
advanced by leaps and bounds and the middle class grew. Nothing bad about this at all.
So you believe Epoch Times, a Falun Gong publication? What's missing in the article is the
most obvious: the trade war will force China to climb the value chain a lot quicker. The most
like scenario is that China will become a high-tech manufacturing powerhouse before much, if
anything, is moved back to U.S.
What would make any sane person believe that stopping the ARM license would stop them
being made in China? Has that ever worked for anything else, ever?
their tech will fall behind as the US advances. Same thing happened with the Soviet Union
once they ran out of Germans and US tech. By '91, they were woefully behind the West--like 35
years.
There was never anything wrong with Research in the USSR, Development was their problem, now as Russia again they remain at the leading edge of Research, and seem to have finally gotten a handle on Development. They have never been behind in Research, any serious scientist in the West can and will read Russian just to keep up.
Its been that way all my life, the US seems to have
forgotten it though, because they believe they're exceptional and only they can do
research.Hubris will kill you.
The Russians are pulling way ahead because of that Ubermensch stupidity, laughing the whole time at it. That smirk of Putins, its there for a reason.
What would make any sane person believe that stopping the ARM license would stop them
being made in China?
No kidding. For instance, take this statement:
Chinese companies will be the main losers -- there are no existing domestic replacements
for many U.S.-sourced components.
Propaganda via lies of omission. This could easily be turned around to say:
American companies will be the main losers -- there are no existing domestic
replacements for many Chinese-manufactured "U.S.-sourced" components.
But hey, the Epoch Times is a propaganda mill for the Falun Gong cult which the Chinese
government banned 20 years ago, so it's kind of the anti-China equivalent of The
Gatestoned Institution .
the chinese domestic market is the new big dog on the block. it is big enough to dictate
what the rest of the world will use. the hubris of the usa is arrogance squared. the
consequences are potentially damning to usa tech. this is the dumbest move in business and
geopolitical history.
The West is in for a big surprise. China has technologically advanced neighbors (Russia,
India) and a host of countries who want to do business who are also technologically advanced.
The Silk Road is well advanced to supplant trade with North America. Germany is already in
place in Russia and China and will not lose sleep with the loss of North America. It is the
US that has the most to lose.
They cannot see past their own jingo. The Chinese just thanked Trump at the Moscow summit, for forcing them to do what inertia
stopped them doing years ago. Seems like its already backfiring, and now full dedollarization is now the official
agenda. Yuan futures in most everything, convertible to gold, were just announced at one press conference. The ruble looks around -95% undervalued right now.
umm--you do know that it wasn't so long ago that Russia defaulted on all of its loans,
right? and that no one with a brain is going back into that market again, right?
No worries, the PTB in our fed government (both sides) and the globalists want cheap labor
from the illiterates that are allowed to flood our country and Europe. We will look much like
the cheap labor in China. I find it funny that 'open border' morons like the D's demand
$15/hour min wage laws for flipping a hamburger. They are nuts. Can't have it both ways.
By Jeffrey D Sachs November 8, 2019
Trump's backing of Saudi war in Yemen is 'business decision'
Print
