|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
| Home | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 1999 |
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
 |
 |
 |
www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Pepe Escobar, originally posted at SputnikNews.com,Imagine one of the most admired global political leaders in modern history taken from his apartment at 6 am by armed Brazilian Federal Police agents and forced into an unmarked car to the Sao Paulo airport to be interrogated for almost four hours in connection with a billion dollar corruption scandal involving the giant state oil company Petrobras.
This is the stuff Hollywood is made of. And that was exactly the logic behind the elaborate production.
The public prosecutors of the two-year-old Car Wash investigation maintain there are " elements of proof " implicating Lula in receiving funds - at least 1.1 million euros - from the dodgy kickback scheme involving major Brazilian construction companies connected to Petrobras. Lula might - and the operative word is "might" - have personally profited from it mostly in the form of a ranch (which he does not own), a relatively modest seaside apartment, speaking fees in the global lecture circuit, and donations to his charity.Lula is the ultimate political animal - on a Bill Clinton level. He had already telegraphed he was waiting for such a gambit, as the Car Wash machine had already arrested dozens of people suspected of embezzling contracts between their companies and Petrobras - to the tune of over $2 billion - to pay for politicians of the Workers' Party (PT), of which Lula was leader.
Lula's name surfaced via the proverbial rascal turned informer, eager to strike a plea bargain. The working hypothesis - there is no smoking gun - is that Lula, when he led Brazil between 2003 and 2010, personally benefited from the corruption scheme with Petrobras at the center, obtaining favors for himself, the PT and the government. Meanwhile, inefficient President Dilma Rousseff is herself under attack engineered via a plea bargain by the former government leader in the Senate.
Lula was questioned in connection to money laundering, corruption and suspected dissimulation of assets. The Hollywood blitz was cleared by federal judge Sergio Moro - who always insists he's been inspired by the Italian judge Antonio di Pietro and the notorious 1990s Mani Pulite ("Clean Hands") investigation.
And here, inevitably, the plot thickens.
Round up the usual media suspects
Moro and the Car Wash prosecutors justified the Hollywood blitz insisting Lula refused to be interrogated. Lula and the PT vehemently insist otherwise.
And yet Car Wash investigators had consistently leaked to mainstream media words to the effect, "We can't just bite Lula. When we get to him, we will swallow him." This would imply, at a minimum, a politicization of justice, the Federal Police and the Public Ministry. And would also imply that the Hollywood blitz may have been supported by a smoking gun. As perception is reality in the frenetic non-stop news cycle, the "news" - instantly global - was that Lula was arrested because he's corrupt.
Yet it gets curioser and curioser when we learn that judge Moro wrote an article in an obscure magazine way back in 2004 (in Portuguese only, titled Considerations about Mani Pulite , CEJ magazine, issue number 26, July/September 2004), where he clearly extols "authoritarian subversion of juridical order to reach specific targets " and using the media to intoxicate the political atmosphere.
All of this serving a very specific agenda, of course. In Italy, right-wingers saw the whole Mani Pulite saga as a nasty judicial over-reach; the left, on the other hand, was ecstatic. The Italian Communist Party (PCI) emerged with clean hands. In Brazil, the target is the left - while the right, at least for the moment, seems to be composed of hymn-singing angels.
The pampered, cocaine-snorting loser candidate of the 2014 Brazilian presidential election, Aecio Neves, for instance, was singled out for corruption by three different accusers - and it all went nowhere, without further investigation. Same with another dodgy scheme involving former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso - the notoriously vainglorious former developmentalist turned neoliberal enforcer.
What Car Wash has already forcefully imprinted across Brazil is the perception that corruption only pays when the accused is a progressive nationalist. As for Washington consensus vassals, they are always angels - mercifully immune from prosecution.
That's happening because Moro and his team are masterfully playing to the hilt Moro's self-described use of the media to intoxicate the political atmosphere - with public opinion serially manipulated even before someone is formally charged with any crime. And yet Moro and his prosecutors' sources are largely farcical, artful dodgers cum serial liars. Why trust their word? Because there are no smoking guns, something even Moro admits.
And that leads us towards the nasty scenario of a made in Brazil media-judicial-police complex possibly hijacking one of the healthiest democracies in the world. And that is supported by a stark fact: the right-wing Brazilian opposition's entire "project" boils down to ruining the economy of the 7 th largest global economic power to justify the destruction of Lula as a presidential candidate in 2018.
Elite Plundering Rules
None of the above can be understood by a global audience without some acquaintance with classic Braziliana. Local legend rules that Brazil is not for beginners. Indeed; this is an astonishingly complex society - which essentially descended from a Garden of Eden (before the Portuguese "discovered" it in 1500) to slavery (which still permeates all social relations) to a crucial event in 1808: the arrival of Dom John VI of Portugal (and Emperor of Brazil for life), fleeing Napoleon's invasion, and carrying with him 20,000 people who masterminded the "modern" Brazilian state. "Modern" is an euphemism; history shows the descendants of these 20,000 actually have been raping the country blind for the past 208 years. And few have ever been held accountable.
Traditional Brazilian elites compose one of the most noxious arrogant-ignorant-prejudiced mixes on the planet. "Justice" - and police enforcement - are only used as a weapon when the polls do not favor their agenda.
Brazilian mainstream media owners are an intrinsic part of these elites. Much like the US concentration model, only four families control the media landscape, foremost among them the Marinho family's Globo media empire. I have experienced, from the inside, in detail, how they operate.
Brazil is corrupt to the core - from the comprador elites down to a great deal of the crass "new" elites, which include the PT. The greed and incompetence displayed by an array of PT stalwarts is appalling - a reflection of the lack of quality cadres. Corruption and traffic of influence involving Petrobras, construction companies and politicians is undeniable, even if it pales compared to Goldman Sachs shenanigans or Big Oil and/or Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelson-style buying/bribing of US politicians.
If this was a no-holds-barred crusade against corruption - which the Car Wash prosecutors insist it is - the right-wing opposition/vassals of the old elites should have been equally exposed in mainstream media. But then the elite-controlled media would simply ignore the prosecutors. And there would be nothing remotely on the scale of the Hollywood blitz, with Lula - pictured as a lowly delinquent - humiliated in front of the whole planet.
Car Wash prosecutors are right; perception is reality. But what if it backfires?
No consumption, no investment, no credit
Brazil couldn't be in a gloomier situation. GDP was down 3.8% last year; probably will be down 3.5% this year. The industrial sector was down 6.2% last year, and the mining sector down 6.6% in the last quarter. The nation is on the way to its worst recession since…1901.
There was no Plan B by the - incompetent - Rousseff administration for the Chinese slowdown in buying Brazil's mineral/agricultural wealth and the overall global slump in commodity prices.
The Central Bank still keeps its benchmark interest rate at a whopping 14.25%. A disastrous Rousseff neoliberal "fiscal adjustment" actually increased the economic crisis. Today Rousseff "governs" - that's a figure of speech - for the banking cartel and the rentiers of Brazilian public debt. Over $120 billion of the government's budget evaporates to pay interest on the public debt.
Inflation is up - now in double-digit territory. Unemployment is at 7.6% - still not bad as many a player across the EU - but rising.
The usual suspects of course are gloating, spinning non-stop how Brazil has become "toxic" for global investors.
Yes, it's bleak. There's no consumption. No investment. No credit. The only way out would be to unlock the political crisis. Maggots in the opposition racket though have a one-track obsession; the impeachment of President Rousseff. Shades of good ol' regime change; for these Wall Street/Empire of Chaos vassals, an economic crisis, fueled by a political crisis, must by all means bring down the elected government of a key BRICS player.
And then, suddenly, out of left field, surges…Lula. The move against him by the Car Wash investigation may yet backfire - badly. He's already on campaign mode for 2018 - although he's not an official candidate, yet. Never underestimate a political animal of his stature.
Brazil is not on the ropes. If reelected, and assuming he could purge the PT from a legion of crooks, Lula could push for a new dynamic. Before the crisis, Brazilian capital was going global - via Petrobras, Embraer, the BNDES (the bank model that inspired the BRICS bank), the construction companies. At the same time, there might be benefits in breaking, at least partially, this oligarchic cartel that control all infrastructure construction in Brazil; think of Chinese companies building the high-speed rail, dams and ports the country badly lacks.
Judge Moro himself has theorized that corruption festers because the Brazilian economy is too closed to the outside world, as India's was until recently. But there's a stark difference between opening up some sectors of the Brazilian economy and let foreign interests tied to the comprador elites plunder the nation's wealth.
So once again, we must go back to the recurrent theme in all major global conflicts.
It's the oil, stupid
For the Empire of Chaos, Brazil has been a major headache since Lula was first elected, in 2002 (for an appraisal of complex US-Brazil relations, check the indispensable work of Moniz Bandeira).
A top priority of the Empire of Chaos is to prevent the emergence of regional powers fueled by abundant natural resources, from oil to strategic minerals. Brazil amply fits the bill. Washington of course feels entitled to "defend" these resources. Thus the need to quash not only regional integration associations such as Mercosur and Unasur but most of all the global reach of the BRICS.
Petrobras used to be a very efficient state company that then doubled as the single operator of the largest oil reserves discovered in the 21 st century so far; the pre-salt deposits. Before it became the target of a massive speculative, judicial and media attack, Petrobras used to account for 10% of investment and 18% of Brazilian GDP.
Petrobras found the pre-salt deposits based on its own research and technological innovation applied to exploring oil in deep waters - with no foreign input whatsoever. The beauty is there's no risk; if you drill in this pre-salt layer, you're bound to find oil. No company on the planet would hand this over to the competition.
And yet a notorious right-wing opposition maggot promised Chevron in 2014 to hand over the exploitation of pre-salt mostly to Big Oil. The right-wing opposition is busy altering the juridical regime of pre-salt; it's already been approved in the Senate. And Rousseff is meekly going for it. Couple it to the fact that Rousseff's government did absolutely nothing to buy back Petrobras stock - whose vertiginous fall was deftly engineered by the usual suspects.
The meticulous dismantling of Petrobras, Big Oil eventually profiting from the pre-salt deposits, keeping in check Brazil's global power projection, all this plays beautifully to the interests of the Empire of Chaos. Geopolitically, this goes way beyond the Hollywood blitz and the Car Wash investigation.
It's no coincidence that three major BRICS nations are simultaneously under attack - on myriad levels: Russia, China and Brazil. The concerted strategy by the Masters of the Universe who dictate the rules in the Wall Street/Beltway axis is to undermine by all means the BRICS's collective effort to produce a viable alternative to the global economic/financial system, which for the moment is subjected to casino capitalism. It's unlikely Lula, by himself, will be able to stop them.
Alok , Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:04
Pepe precise! Very good analysis...
Kirk2NCC1701, Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:04
I warned you about this last year, when neither Russia nor China had their version of BIS/SWIFT online.
Newsboy, Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:04
The Ides of March approaches. Ceaser's health is good.
Relax!
tarabel, Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:04
I see Pepe the Unrequited Leninist is still banging his drum. These oligarchs,.. GOOD. Those oligarchs.... BAD.
As if Brazil needs ANYBODY else to show it how to play the corruption game.
Kirk2NCC1701, Thu, 03/10/2016 - 21:12
The Oligarchs of the BRICS have been duped and co-opted by TPTB in the US. Their foot-dragging and lack or decisive and timely action means that their Window Of Opportunity is probably gone. The various Trans-Oceanic Trade Deals that the US has cooking is front-running their indecisiveness and lack of action.
They are 'toast', because these Trade Deals have the USD baked into them, and the combined GDPs of each Pact is far bigger than that of the BRICS.
Math + Action beats Hope + Hype every time, kiddies. (Those of you who can't handle the Truth or the Cognitive Dissonance, had best go to their "Safe Space".)
|
|
|
While we would be the first
to admit that Jeffrey Sachs was the godfather of "shock therapy" (aka "the economic rape of Russia"
and several other xUSSR republics), he is right as for the ongoing Syria bloodbath which has come to
define the geopolitical situation for the past 3 years. And how this is an event that would "surely
rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment" if the truth were fully known, we
agree 100 percent. www.huffingtonpost.com
In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire:
But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together.
This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.
In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.
As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria.
This idea is incredibly naïve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact, for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat" Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.
Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.
When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change.
In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government made public its position: "Assad must go."
Since then and until the recent fragile UN Security Council accord, the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless Assad is first deposed. The US policy--under Clinton and until recently--has been: regime change first, ceasefire after. After all, it's only Syrians who are dying. Annan's peace efforts were sunk by the United States' unbending insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least accompany a ceasefire. As the Nation editors put it in August 2012:
The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before negotiations could seriously begin, along with the refusal to include Iran in the process, doomed [Annan's] mission.
Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency.
The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go, and was not defeated. Russia came to his support. Iran came to his support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves radical jihadists with their own agendas. The chaos opened the way for the Islamic State, building on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on the considerable backing by Saudi funds. If the truth were fully known, the multiple scandals involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment.
The hubris of the United States in this approach seems to know no bounds. The tactic of CIA-led regime change is so deeply enmeshed as a "normal" instrument of U.S. foreign policy that it is hardly noticed by the U.S. public or media. Overthrowing another government is against the U.N. charter and international law. But what are such niceties among friends?
This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations.
Removing a leader, even if done "successfully," doesn't solve any underlying geopolitical problems, much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such as Russia's backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What surprise, then, the Clinton acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and guide?
And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection, in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people).
Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today.
It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures. Presidents get along by going along with arms contractors, generals, and CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from political attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S. military might, not restraining it. Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government.
Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria.
Steven Beliveau, Northeastern UniversityThe people of the United States do not want that woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton to have relations with the people of the United States. She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER.Matt HemingwaySimple equation....war=money=power. Perpetual warfare is the post 911 gold rush and every establishment politician in every country is the snake oil salesman pushing this through. The people on the top make money and the rest of us get killed and go broke.Max SouthNot only the root cause, but also to-ols are important: now Western media/StateDep try depict what happens in Syria as sectarian, all while majority of both Syrian army and government are Sunni (even Assad's wife is Sunni) -- secular ones.Ram Samudrala, Professor and Chief, Division of Bioinformatics at SUNY BuffaloSyrian government is only hope for them, as well as for Christians, Kurds and all other ethnic and religious minorities that fight against Wahhabi/Salafist jihadists.
Sanders' platform is expansive and IMO he has provided the most detail on how he will get things done, which anyone can find out with a bit of investigation (http://berniesanders.com/issues/). But all of it doesn't matter since you can't predict how events will unfold. In this regard, I trust Sanders more than anyone else to decide what is best for all people in the the country (and even the world). I personally will do well with anyone but I think Sanders is looking out for the average person more than anyone else.Charles Hill, Works at Seif employedWell said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not.Masha Manning, Houston, TexasPundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless.Eric Smith, Burlington, VermontIt's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency?Bijan Sharifias an iranian-american (and veteran), i appreciate sen sanders bringing this up in the debate.Eric Smith, Burlington, VermontBijan Sharifi Indeed. The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know.Timothy Francis, Project Manager at CHC ConsultingHillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello?Dianne Primmer, Houston, TexasThis is the much vaunted foreign policy that Hillary's supporters think qualify her for the presidency. That's a disaster waiting to happen.Christopher Head, Lighting Designer at Freelance Lighting Designer
More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. As soon as she returns to office expect more of her warfare first and diplomacy 'meh'.Gary PackIgnacio, she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being.Sheia MahoneThis is what Trump has been alluding to in re Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world.Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him.
Ronald Burker, Boonsboro Senior HighJames Elliott cheerleading will not get anything done, I don't think Bernie understands how to get things done in our system, reality is 40 years of bad will not be fixed in even 4 years.The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, vote every election you are alive and you will let your children and their children a better life.
Harvey RiggsThat is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal.Robert ChanMore messes in this world has been started with covert means in order to get what we want and millions upon milllions are suffering and the rest of the world countries 1'%ers who run those countries are scared to stand up aguinst the US and lose that under the table support.
what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie.Kathleen Lowy, MSW: RutgersThey believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers...Additionally, years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world.
Sheila RajanLooking at the various misguided US excursions over the past 2 decades from outside of America, this comes as no surprise. Clinton's deep involvement in these venal adventures comes as no surprise either. Bill Clinton may have been adored in liberal America, but he was NOT, outside of your borders. To us he appeared as just another one in a long line of Presidents under the sway of the arms manufacturers, CIA, banks and financiers. Hillary Clinton is just an offshoot.Charlene Avis Richards, Works at Self-EmployedExcellent article.Leo Myers, Univ. of MinnesotaBut let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department.
Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine:
Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations as an official policy using drones, black ops, spec ops, military "contractors", hired mercenaries, war lord militias and the like; the illegal and immoral acts of war cloaked in the Israeli framed rubric of "national defense".James Aliberti, Wentworth Institute of TechnologyFurther it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes!
Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care.Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here!
|
|
|
peakoilbarrel.com
Watcher , 02/16/2016 at 11:51 am
The US is the dominant force in international banking. It is this position from which sanctions are derived. Iran had to (and often did) find other ways to get paid for shipping oil than money flow through international banking, which US and EU sanctions prohibited.Ron Patterson , 02/16/2016 at 12:13 pmIf you seek to oppose the US, you must not fight in a money arena. It's a disadvantageous battlefield.
The price of oil is determined by what? NYMEX traders? Or agreement between a refinery and an oil exporter?
I would suggest it is the latter, which need not depend on NYMEX numbers at all.
If your goal is to destroy US shale, the last thing you would do is allow your weapon (price) to be defined by your target (the US in general, which is where the NYMEX is). Nor would you allow it to be defined by something as variable as free market forces. If you specify price to your buyer, perhaps lower than his bid, you remove the marketplace from involvement in the battle.
The goal is victory. Not profit. How could you allow yourself to define victory in pieces of paper printed by your enemy?
If your goal is to destroy US shale, the last thing you would do is allow your weapon (price) to be defined by your target (the US in general, which is where the NYMEX is). Nor would you allow it to be defined by something as variable as free market forces.Watcher , 02/16/2016 at 3:01 pmIf your goal is to destroy US shale then the only way you can do that is to produce every barrel of oil you possibly can. It would not be within your power to allow the price to be defined by anyone or anything other than market forces. Of course every exporter negotiates a price with his buyer. But that price must be within a reasonable amount of what the world oil price is at the moment.
The price of oil is determined by supply and demand just like every commodity on the market.
Every day, there are thousands of oil buyers around the world. There are dozens of sellers, many of them exporters. All the buyers are in competition with other buyers to get the lowest possible price. All the sellers are in competition with other sellers to get the highest price possible. And the price moves up and down with each trade, hourly or sometimes minute by minute.
To believe that even one of those dozens of exporters has the power to set the price oil, much higher than everyone else is getting, is just silly. And likewise, to believe that a buyer can get a much lower price than everyone else is getting, is just as silly.
They say that depletion never sleeps. Well, market forces never sleep either.
Dennis Coyne , 02/16/2016 at 3:58 pmBut that price must be within a reasonable amount of what the world oil price is at the moment.Which is why it took the predator 18 mos to get it down to lethal levels. Just repeatedly be willing to sell for a bit less than the bid and down it will go, because others will protect their marketshare by matching your price (sound familiar?). Then you're no longer the only one offering a low price.
All the sellers are in competition with other sellers to get the highest price possible.
Were this so there would exist no wiki for predatory pricing.
You aren't thinking about victory. If you seek victory, you don't fight in an arena where you are disadvantaged. If you're the low cost producer of the lifeblood of civilization, you assert that advantage and kill the enemy.
Hi Watcher,Ron Patterson , 02/16/2016 at 4:08 pmBy your reasoning the price of oil should be close to zero, say $1/b.
Explain why that isn't the case, if "victory" is the sole objective.
Also predatory pricing is not an effective strategy especially in commodity markets where the barriers to entry are low.
OPEC does not set the price of oil on World Markets, they simply influence it by their level of output. In the case of the oil industry attempts at predatory pricing are not rational, it is simply a strategy for losing money.
Which is why it took the predator 18 mos to get it down to lethal levels. Just repeatedly be willing to sell for a bit less than the bid and down it will go, because others will protect their market share by matching your price (sound familiar?). Then you're no longer the only one offering a low price.Watcher , 02/16/2016 at 8:40 pmOh good grief. I give up. You are a hopeless case.
Tell that to the Soviets.likbez , 02/17/2016 at 12:00 am"Tell that to the Soviets."Jimmy , 02/17/2016 at 12:00 amPerfect --
http://www.susmitkumar.net/index.php/reason-for-ussr-collapse-oil-a-german-banks-not-reagan
I don't think Watcher expresses the situation very clearly, especially with words like 'predator'. I don't see it as an apt analogy. I do however feel that the current price war/production war/phantom production war is clearly an act of economic warfare by Saudi Arabia against their competitors. It seems odd to me that a world oil production system that can't very accurately tell me how much oil was produced today until months after the fact is going to start the day tomorrow by saying 'we are over supplied by 1.8 million barrels a day today' and then proceed to talk the price into the gutter.Watcher , 02/17/2016 at 11:59 amThe predator is not KSA.
|
|
|
news.yahoo.com
Recent opinion polls show 70 percent of Ukrainians supporting Yatsenyuk's ouster and only one percent backing his People's Front parliamentary bloc.
IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned last week that it was "hard to see" how the bailout could continue without Ukraine pushing through the economic restructuring and anti-corruption measures it had signed on to when the package was agreed.
Ukraine's economy shrank by about 10 percent last year while annual inflation soared to more than 43 percent even with the Western assistance in place.
|
|
|
Zero Hedge
A Nobel prize winning economist, former chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank, and chairman of the President's council of economic advisers (Joseph Stiglitz) says that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank loan money to third world countries as a way to force them to open up their markets and resources for looting by the West.
Do central banks do something similar?
Economics professor Richard Werner – who created the concept of quantitative easing – has documented that central banks intentionally impoverish their host countries to justify economic and legal changes which allow looting by foreign interests.
He focuses mainly on the Bank of Japan, which induced a huge bubble and then deflated it – crushing Japan's economy in the process – as a way to promote and justify structural "reforms".
The Bank of Japan has used a heavy hand on Japanese economy for many decades, but Japan is stuck in a horrible slump.
But Werner says the same thing about the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB has used loans and liquidity as a weapon to loot European nations.
Indeed, Greece (more), Italy, Ireland (and here) and other European countries have all lost their national sovereignty to the ECB and the other members of the Troika.
ECB head Mario Draghi said in 2012:
The EU should have the power to police and interfere in member states' national budgets.
***
"I am certain, if we want to restore confidence in the eurozone, countries will have to transfer part of their sovereignty to the European level."
***
"Several governments have not yet understood that they lost their national sovereignty long ago. Because they ran up huge debts in the past, they are now dependent on the goodwill of the financial markets."
And yet Europe has been stuck in a depression worse than the Great Depression, largely due to the ECB's actions.
What about America's central bank … the Federal Reserve?
Initially – contrary to what many Americans believe – the Federal Reserve had admitted that it is not really federal (more).
But – even if it's not part of the government – hasn't the Fed acted in America's interest?
Let's have a look …
The Fed:
- Bailed out foreign banks … more than Main Street or the American people. The foreign banks bailed out by the Fed include Gaddafi's Libyan bank, the Arab Banking Corp. of Bahrain, and the Banks of Bavaria and Korea
- Offered to bail out Mexico, if it would agree to join the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
- Threw money at "several billionaires and tens of multi-millionaires", including billionaire businessman H. Wayne Huizenga, billionaire Michael Dell of Dell computer, billionaire hedge fund manager John Paulson, billionaire private equity honcho J. Christopher Flowers, and the wife of Morgan Stanley CEO John Mack
- Bailed out wealthy corporations, including hedge funds, McDonald's and Harley-Davidson
- Artificially "front-loaded an enormous [stock] market rally". Professor G. William Domhoff demonstrated that the richest 10% own 81% of all stocks and mutual funds (the top 1% own 35%). The great majority of Americans – the bottom 90% – own less than 20% of all stocks and mutual funds. So the Fed's effort overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest Americans … and wealthy foreign investors
- Is largely responsible for creating the worst inequality in world history
- Turned its cheek and allowed massive fraud (which is destroying the economy). Fed chair Greenspan took the position that fraud could never happen. Fed chair Bernanke also falsely stated that the big banks receiving Tarp money were healthy when they were not
- Acted as cheerleader in chief for unregulated use of derivatives at least as far back as 1999 (see this and this), and is now backstopping derivatives loss
- And for subprime loans
- Allowed the giant banks to grow into mega-banks, even though most independent economists and financial experts say that the economy will not recover until the giant banks are broken up. For example, Citigroup's former chief executive says that when Citigroup was formed in 1998 out of the merger of banking and insurance giants, Greenspan told him, "I have nothing against size. It doesn't bother me at all"
- Argued that economists had conquered the business cycle, and that modern, technologically advanced financial markets are best left to police themselves
- Preached that a new bubble be blown every time the last one bursts
- Had a hand in Watergate and arming Saddam Hussein, according to an economist with the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for eleven years, assisting with oversight of the Federal Reserve, and subsequently Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. See this and this
- Intentionally discouraged banks from lending to Main Street, which has increased unemployment and stalled out the economy
Moreover, the Fed's main program for dealing with the financial crisis – quantitative easing – benefits the rich and hurts the little guy, as confirmed by former high-level Fed officials, the architect of Japan's quantitative easing program and several academic economists. Indeed, a high-level Federal Reserve official says quantitative easing is "the greatest backdoor Wall Street bailout of all time". And see this.
Some economists called the bank bailouts which the Fed helped engineer the greatest redistribution of wealth in history.
Tim Geithner – as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York – was complicit in Lehman's accounting fraud, (and see this), and pushed to pay AIG's CDS counterparties at full value, and then to keep the deal secret. And as Robert Reich notes, Geithner was "very much in the center of the action" regarding the secret bail out of Bear Stearns without Congressional approval. William Black points out: "Mr. Geithner, as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York since October 2003, was one of those senior regulators who failed to take any effective regulatory action to prevent the crisis, but instead covered up its depth"
Indeed, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office calls the Fed corrupt and riddled with conflicts of interest. Nobel prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz says the World Bank would view any country which had a banking structure like the Fed as being corrupt and untrustworthy. The former vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas said said he worried that the failure of the government to provide more information about its rescue spending could signal corruption. "Nontransparency in government programs is always associated with corruption in other countries, so I don't see why it wouldn't be here," he said.
But aren't the Fed and other central banks crucial to stabilize the economy?
Not necessarily … the Fed caused the Great Depression and the current economic crisis, and many economists – including several Nobel prize winning economists – say that we should end the Fed in its current form.
They also say that the Fed does not help stabilize the economy. For example:
Thomas Sargent, the New York University professor who was announced Monday as a winner of the Nobel in economics … cites Walter Bagehot, who "said that what he called a 'natural' competitive banking system without a 'central' bank would be better…. 'nothing can be more surely established by a larger experience than that a Government which interferes with any trade injures that trade. The best thing undeniably that a Government can do with the Money Market is to let it take care of itself.'"
Earlier U.S. central banks caused mischief, as well. For example, Austrian economist Murray Rothbard wrote:
The panics of 1837 and 1839 … were the consequence of a massive inflationary boom fueled by the Whig-run Second Bank of the United States.
Indeed, the Revolutionary War was largely due to the actions of the world's first central bank, the Bank of England. Specifically, when Benjamin Franklin went to London in 1764, this is what he observed:
When he arrived, he was surprised to find rampant unemployment and poverty among the British working classes… Franklin was then asked how the American colonies managed to collect enough money to support their poor houses. He reportedly replied:
"We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps."
In 1764, the Bank of England used its influence on Parliament to get a Currency Act passed that made it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money. The colonists were forced to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. Anyone lacking in those precious metals had to borrow them at interest from the banks.
Only a year later, Franklin said, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars, just as they were in England. The money supply had suddenly been reduced by half, leaving insufficient funds to pay for the goods and services these workers could have provided. He maintained that it was "the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War." This, he said, was the real reason for the Revolution: "the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."
(for more on the Currency Act, see this.)
And things are getting worse ... rather than better. As Professor Werner tells Washington's Blog:
Central banks have legally become more and more powerful in the past 30 years across the globe, yet they have become de facto less and less accountable. In fact, as I warned in my book New Paradigm in Macroeconomics in 2005, after each of the 'recurring banking crises', central banks are usually handed even more powers. This also happened after the 2008 crisis. [Background here and here.] So it is clear we have a regulatory moral hazard problem: central banks seem to benefit from crises. No wonder the rise of central banks to ever larger legal powers has been accompanied not by fewer and smaller business cycles and crises, but more crises and of larger amplitude.
Georgetown University historian Professor Carroll Quigley argued that the aim of the powers-that-be is "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole." This system is to be controlled "in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements," central banks that "were themselves private corporations."
Given the facts set forth above, this may be yet another conspiracy theory confirmed as conspiracy fact.
|
|
|
peakoilbarrel.com
yiedyie, 02/04/2016 at 5:51 pmCould this have been due to the special place US has in the hierarchy.Stavros H, 02/05/2016 at 12:16 amWhen camels are thirsty they are chewing thistle to relieve their thirst, but the thistle is dry, so in fact their own blood relieve their thirst.
Dogs chew old bones but there is nothing in them, but pieces of splited bone pierce their mouth ceiling and fresh blood makes them think there is food in there.
This is what US has done f.ed the little economic moment it still had because is the forefront of the empire, he is going for the fresh blood of shale.
As I have repeatedly stated on this blog, the global oil market is not a market like those for smartphones, automobiles or ladies purses. The global oil (& gas) market is a STRATEGIC one. Which goes on to say that the core states, such as first of all, North America, then NW Europe get to have the first and final say.Javier, 02/05/2016 at 4:14 amThe problem for the US, Canada, Norway and the UK (the only wealthy countries producing large quantities of oil) is that their oil reserves are extremely marginal and can only be accessed with high oil prices (in the long-run) This problem is compounded by the fact that high oil prices enable geo-strategic rivals such as Russia/Iran/Iraq/Venezuela to be more defiant than they would otherwise be.
The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market.
In my view, this is what preceded the recent oil market collapse:
- NATO-GCC to Russia in 2011/12: "Give up Assad, or we'll fill our media with BS stories about you. We will also 'encourage' our corporations to not invest in your country"
- Russia to NATO-GCC: "You have been doing that for ages, who cares for even more propaganda. Assad stays"
- NATO-GCC to Russia in 2013/14: "Give up Assad, or we will turn Ukraine against you, there will be serious trouble for you, as now we will make our economic warfare against you, official. Moreover, our 'regime-change' efforts will intensify"
- Russia replies to NATO-GCC: "Bring it on, Assad stays"
- NATO-GCC to Russia in 2014: "We will pummel the oil price into oblivion*, we promise that you will feel the strain, just give up on Assad or we will destroy you"
- Russia replies to NATO-GCC: "I have seen worse. Assad stays"
*Notice that NATO-GCC did not use the oil-price weapon until one of two things happened:
a) Time-pressure on regime-changing-Syria became serious.
b) The shale and tar sands infrastructure had been already put in place under high oil prices.
But back to Ron's core (and largely correct) claim that the global oil production gains of recent years have been a North American phenomenon (I would also add Iraq)
North America has been able to ramp-up production spectacularly in recent years because of the following reasons:
a) It's capital rich. Instead of diverting all of that QE-enabled loans to the parasitic "housing market" and lots of inane Silicon Valley start-ups (that fail 99 times of 100) it was wiser to have some dough flow into the "shale oil & gas miracle" as well as Alberta's vast tar sands deposits. Which made both economic as well as strategic sense.
b) As North America was a massive oil importer circa 2009 (Canada cannot be seen in isolation, but as appendix to the US) this increased oil production went a lot way in: a)boosting economic growth (North America has easily outpaced other advanced economies since the Lehman crisis) b) Minimize the US trade deficit and therefore: c) Boosting the value of the US dollar.
As I have noted many times before on this blog, some (maybe several) countries around the world have massive oil reserves that are far more prolific than those currently being exploited in North America. But these countries, do not enjoy neither the political/military clout over the GCC, nor remotely the financial capital to engage in such massive (and risky) investments.
Countries outside of the US, Canada (to a lesser extent UK, Norway ) that are major oil producers, need to accrue massive profits from their oil sales, since they universally divert most of those funds into financing the government, the military and social spending, while they must also keep some for re-investments into their oil sectors. US & Canada are uber-happy if they can more or less break-even.
But the peak-oil-environmental bias of many, does not allow them to see this.
Your strategic analyses are very interesting Stavros, and fit many of the things we all know are true. However I have a problem with the "We will pummel the oil price into oblivion" part.Ron Patterson, 02/05/2016 at 8:51 amThe available evidence is that the price of oil followed very closely the supply/demand ratio. The chart below is from Dr. Ed's blog.
I am always skeptical of interpretations that are not supported by evidence. There are multiple theories about who caused the oil price to go down and why. I rather stick with the data, it is not a PO bias but quite the opposite. A supply/demand mismatch caused it and nobody wanted to cut production unilaterally.
likbez , 02/05/2016 at 10:22 amThe oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market.That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just who is/are "US & Co"? Would that be Obama? Or perhaps the US Congress? Or perhaps the US Oil Companies? Then in the second half of that long sentence, you completely contradict the first half of the sentence. You say: follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves," Now which is it? Are they controlled by US & co, or are do they pay no attention to whomever in the US that is doing the controlling and follow a policy that simply suits themselves?
I would definitely agree with the second half of your sentence, the GCC states do exactly what they damn well please. And I would definitely disagree with the first half of your sentence. They would pay no attention to any US politician or businessman that might call them up and try to tell them what to do.
But back to Ron's core (and largely correct) claim that the global oil production gains of recent years have been a North American phenomenon (I would also add Iraq).
Well no, that's not what I said. Yes, recent oil production gains have been from US, Canada, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But what I said was:
The recent surge in world production that was brought about by high prices…
The recent gains in Iraq and Saudi Arabia were after the price already started to fall. Those gains were not brought about by high prices. They were despite a steep decline in prices.
Ron,That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just who is/are "US & Co"?
"US and Co" is essentially a codename for NATO. It is ruled by international financial elite (Davos crowd) which BTW consider the USA (and, by extension, NATO) as an enforcer, a tool for getting what they want, much like Bolsheviks considered Soviet Russia to be such a tool.
The last thing they are concerned is the well-being of American people.
|
|
|
January 14, 2016 | Crooked Timber
I came to Ellen Meiksins Wood's work late in life. I had known about her for years; she was a good friend of my friend Karen Orren, the UCLA political scientist, who was constantly urging me to read Wood's work. But I only finally did that two years ago, at the suggestion of, I think it was, Paul Heideman. I read her The Origins of Capitalism . It was one of those Aha! moments. Wood was an extraordinarily rigorous and imaginative thinker, someone who breathed life into Marxist political theory and made it speak-not to just to me but to many others-at multiple levels: historical, theoretical, political. She ranged fearlessly across the canon, from the ancient Greeks to contemporary social theory, undaunted by specialist claims or turf-conscious fussiness. She insisted that we look to all sorts of social and economic contexts, thereby broadening our sense of what a context is. She actually had a theory of capitalism and what distinguished it from other social forms: that it was not merely commercial exchange, that it did not evolve out of a natural penchant for barter and trade, that it was not a creation of urban markets. Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy). She was also a remarkably clear writer: unpretentious, jargon-free, straightforward. Just last week, I had started reading Citizens to Lords , and I'd been slowly accumulating a list of questions that I hoped to ask her one day on the off-chance that we might meet in person. Now she's gone . The work continues. 1
Chris Bertram, 01.14.16 at 7:54 pm 2
I had no idea. I knew Ellen (and at the time also her late husband Neal) as fellow members of of the NLR editorial committee. We resigned together in February 1993 in response to an internal coup. I disagreed quite strongly with Ellen's somewhat Lukacksian brand of Marxism and indeed with her political judgements at the time (re Yugoslavia). But we did agree that people collaborating together on a socialist journal should respect some basic ethical (she'd probably have said "political") constraints in their dealings with one another and that formed the basis of an at least temporary alliance between people of very different theoretical and political views. Later, trying to justify the coup, the people who prevailed sometimes said that they were rescuing NLR from "paleo-Marxism" (by which they meant Ellen) or from "Croatian nationalism" (by which they meant Branka Magas and Quintin Hoare. Neither charge was true and the two charges together were contradictory. The only thing that united us was a distaste for sharp dealing by unprincipled semi-aristocrats. Ellen basically wrote the statement here:http://www.wengewang.org/read.php?tid=17413
I last saw her at an Oxford Political Thought conference a few years back and we had a friendly chat.
Paul 01.14.16 at 9:06 pm 4
" I read her The Origins of Capitalism. It was one of those Aha! moments "Same here, amazing book. Everyone should read it. What a loss…
Gary Othic 01.14.16 at 9:38 pm 5
Christ! It seems like anytime I go anywhere on the internet another person whose work I like dies. Boy is it going to be a long, cold and miserable year…'The Origins of Capitalism' was a great book; really clear, succinct explanations that really made sense. I particularly remember its usefulness in explaining Robert Brenner's work, and the debates around that, in an engaging manner. Her critique of rational choice Marxism was another piece that I really liked.
Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 9:47 pm
@1. There may have been some drama regarding the Monthly Review Editorial Board as well. Wood was ousted as Editor there, I think. Sometimes Paul Krugman reads to me as if he were channeling Monthly Review founder Paul Sweezy when he talks about the political obstacles to Keynesian management, the role of monopoly in boosting profits and thwarting investment, the bailing out of the economy via bubbles, and the limits of monetary economy in a period of stagnation.Of course Krugman does not have Sweezy's Cold War commitments. Sweezy was a student at Harvard in the days of Alvin Hansen (and Schumpeter). At any rate, Monthly Review under John Bellamy Foster's leadership decided to return to Sweezy's economics rather than Robert Brenner's, which Wood had been defending during her time at the helm.
For Wood the key to making sense of capitalism was the nature of the vertical relations of competition, i.e. competition among capitals leading to investment and productivity growth. This applied both to the origins of capitalism in the new competitive system of agricultural leasing and to the present conjuncture, defined above all else by destructive forms of international price competition that have led not to an orderly restructuring of an efficient international division of labor but rather mercantilist attempts to preserve extant industry via competitive devaluations and wage repression.
For both her sense of history and contemporary economics, Wood was heavily indebted to Robert Brenner who is indeed one darn brilliant historian. I do have considerable skepticism about Brenner's theory of the origins of capitalism in light of the historic researches of Robert C. Allen, Kenneth Pomeranz and others. And I tend to understand sharpening international competition more as the consequence than the cause of stagnation, but still the present debate has been incredibly enriched by Brenner's work and Wood's critical defense of it.
Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 10:02 pm 6
Robin: "She actually had a theory of capitalism and what distinguished it from other social forms: that it was not merely commercial exchange, that it did not evolve out of a natural penchant for barter and trade, that it was not a creation of urban markets. Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy)."This is a bit misleading. Wood was quite critical of the role force in the form of slavery and colonialism played in the origins of capitalism; after all, Spain had a colonial empire based in slavery and did not industrialize. This is why, she reasoned, that changes internal to England must have been the most important causes. But I think this led her to exaggerate how productive English agriculture was and how many of those displaced in English agriculture really went to work in the new industries and how important English agriculture was as a market for the new industries. Her work on the origins of capitalism is incompatible with the work of Sven Beckert, Walter Johnson, Edward Baptist and the new historians of slavery (and before them Joseph Inikori); they also try to show how crucial colonial and slave violence was to the development of capitalism. Of course it is incompatible with the work of Amiya Bagchi and Utsa Patnaik.
Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 10:06 pm 7
I do not remember Wood emphasizing force within England as well–the kind of force used against vagabonds or to uphold maximum wage laws…all described by Marx. For Wood, the origins of capitalism were in the forms of economic competition and the new incentives for accumulation created by the new agricultural property system in England. So the force she was interested in was not primarily the force or violent repression used against the newly landless but the "force" of economic competition in encouraging productivity-enhancing investment on the new tenant farmers. This is not force as meant in the OP but force in a metaphoric way.Corey Robin 01.15.16 at 2:17 am 10
Rakesh: As is often the case with your interventions here, I'm not sure I really understand your comments, but to the extent that I do, you're wrong that Wood didn't think force, both political and economic, and not merely in the metaphoric sense, were central to capitalism. Her point about capitalism is not there is no force, political or economic; it's that unlike feudalism, the moment of appropriation of the workers' surplus is separate from the moment of coercion, and the agent of the appropriation is not the agent or source of the coercion. But coercion is central to the entire system. In any event, here's what she has to say about the economic coercion that underlies capitalism: "surplus extraction is purely 'economic', achieved through the medium of commodity exchange as propertyless workers, responding to purely 'economic' COERCIONS, sell their labour power for a wage in order to gain access to the means of production." (Origins of Capitalism, 56)Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 3:43 am 11
Corey, let's define terms so we can understand each other. We have the terms: force, coercion, and economic coercions. You say that for Wood the system depends on "'economic' COERCIONS". Yes, agreed. To be clear, I am saying that this kind of coercion is different from "force", defined as the use of violence to compel labor. Force is different from economic coercion which acts without an agent compelling another agent to act in a determinate way.You then say that Wood thinks capitalism depends on "the appropriation of surplus" being "separate from the moment of coercion."
One would think that you just said that capitalism does not depend on force, though the system depends on "'economic' COERCIONS".
What you seem to have said is that the system depends not on force but on economic coercion though you insist that the system depends on force. If by force you mean the protection of private property rights, then yes capitalism depends on force. But this was not Wood's focus; her differentia specifica of capitalism is exactly the absence of force in the appropriation of surplus labor.
Think of it this way: since labor is, according to this theory, not under direct control but has to be paid for in the open market, the capitalist has to recover those costs and make a profit, and that means the capitalist has to produce competitively which requires productivity-enhancing investment (this implies that American plantation slavery could not have been a truly capitalist enterprise, an implication Wood herself draws).
Now Wood would have to admit that with servants-in-husbandry labor was not actually free in early modern England, so she focused her attention on how the competition to secure leases economically coerced tenant farmers to increase productivity. Still the point is that the landlord appropriates the surplus without violently forcing a tributary payment from the tenant farmer.
So we see here that for Wood capitalism is characterized by an absence of force in the direct appropriation of the surplus. This is what is crucial to Wood, so it is misleading for you to characterize Wood as one who put force at the center of her understanding of capitalism.
Now here is how force works in her understanding of the origins of capitalism. Her theory of force is a Goldilocks one. English landlords had the requisite force to enclose land (unlike France) but not the requisite force to re-enserf the peasantry (unlike what happened East of the Elbe). Her theory of capitalism is an attempt to understand cross-national variation in productivity growth and capital accumulation.
This Goldilocks situation led to economic competition among tenant farmers. This is what sets England apart, and puts it on the course for capitalism.
But this theory has problems: 1. it underestimates how important the surpluses appropriated by force under slavery and colonialism were, and 2. it exaggerates the importance of the English agricultural revolution to the industrial take off (workers released from agriculture were not the main source of industrial workers and the English agricultural market may not have been crucial as a market for the new industries; moreover, improvements in English agriculture may have themselves been more the consequence of urban growth than its cause).
Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 4:01 am 12
Robin writes: "Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy)."
Perhaps you could clarify what you are saying.1. What do you mean by force?
2. How was capitalism created through acts of force?
3. Do these acts of force include mercantilist warfare and slavery? For Wood? For you? For me, yes.
4. Does "force" include for you "'Economic' coercions"? For me, no.
5. If so, what are economic coercions and how are they different from other coercions?
6. How does Wood define capitalism? Do you agree with her? I do not not.
7. Do you agree with Wood's explanation for the rise of capitalism? I do not.Chris Bertram 01.15.16 at 7:45 am 13
@RHB Yes, probably just my private shorthand for how to divide up versions of historical materialism. Her emphasis on the primacy of the class struggle was at variance with the interpretation of Marx on history that we find in Plekhanov, Bukharin, Cohen etc. I think she was wrong about Marx, but that doesn't necessarily make her wrong about history.jake the antisoshul soshulist 01.15.16 at 2:52 pm 16
Perhaps Corey was being sloppy with his terminology, but it seems to me that separating "force" and "coercion" is splitting hairs. Work or starve seems to me to be at least as much "force" as it is "coercion". Or, you may look at them as levels in a hierarchy (request, coerce, force. Plus, if a tenant withheld his production from the landholder, he would recieve some type of retribution. Which would result in either imprisonment or eviction.LFC 01.15.16 at 3:41 pm 17
The basic 'model' or picture of capitalism presented by Marx in Capital vol.1 (if I recall rightly) is one in which workers/proletarians own nothing but their labor power, which they are 'forced' to sell to capitalists for a wage in order to survive. The quote from Wood given by Corey @10 thus follows Marx. Proletarians (displaced from the land or otherwise separated from their own means of production) are 'coerced' in an economic sense to sell their labor power; they are not coerced at this stage by brute, physical force. Physical force mostly comes in earlier, with e.g. the enclosures or (other means of) 'primitive accumulation'. The historical accuracy of this is a separate question; but it's what Marx basically says, I think, and seems to be what Wood says in the quote @10. (n.b. Have not read her books.)Anarcissie 01.15.16 at 4:12 pm 18
Not having read Wood's works before, I subjected myself of course to Google/NSA, and immediately found 'The Politics of Capitalism' (Monthly Review, September, 1999 - http://monthlyreview.org/1999/09/01/the-politics-of-capitalism/ ) which seems to represent her view that the nature of capitalism arises not from class war but competition. While all of you know history better than I, I found it very interesting from the point of view of the utopian activism in which I periodically indulge, since it suggests a more logical turn away from such fixes as Keynesian and Welfare-state capitalism and 'market socialism' than my previously untutored intuition that those are con games. And so on….Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 4:16 pm 19
In fact Wood is not primarily concerned with workers due to their dispossession being "forced" to sell their labor-power; though a famous exponent of class struggle from below, Wood is more concerned about the how English tenant famers' dependence on the market for agricultural leases and inputs (including labor power) "forces" them to recover their costs through the market and thus specialize and make productivity-enhancing investments.Force here is reduced to the same role that God has in the Newtonian world view; it sets the dynamics in motion but then plays no further role. The right level of violence was needed for landlords to enclose the land while not being able to pin down agricultural serfs or slaves; this forces the lords to lease out land, and the tenant farmers having paid the leases must now begin to produce capitalistically which means a degree of specialization that would not have made rational economic sense for past peasantries. Henceforth, the surplus is appropriated without force or extra-economic coercion; the production and appropriation of surplus result from activities coordinated via market activity.
And in fact it is exactly because the surplus can only be appropriated through market activity that we get capitalism: specialization and productivity-increasing investment and the capitalization of profits, that is, the use of the surplus on better capital equipment rather than just the building of Churches and weapons. If the tenant famers had forcible access to an enslaved workforce and forcible access to land they would not have to produce capitalistically to continue to appropriate a surplus.
For Wood, it is the absence of force that is the differentia specifica of capitalism, but [Corey Robin] reads her as if she had been some kind of left-libertarian most interested in showing how capitalism really does depend on force.
In fact what Wood is doing is displacing the role of force as a form of violence from the origins and operation of capitalism, and she is making its origins quite insular.
Here are some problems with the story.
On a per acre basis English agricultural productivity did not soar; the workers it released were not the source of workers for new industries; it was not a singularly important market for the new industries.
It can be shown that while not sufficient for revolutionary capitalist development, mercantilist warfare and slavery played necessary direct and indirect roles (indirect in the sense that the success of empire created higher wages which yielded factor prices favorable to industrialization, and the incredible success of English merchants gave them the power to challenge sovereign power to create capitalist property relations). One can not focus just on developments internal to England as Wood did.
Finally force in the form of severe physical punishments of workers for vagabondage and "exorbitant" wage demands played an important role in early capitalism. So far from emphasizing how central force was to early capitalism, Wood displaced it.
Rakesh Bhandari 01.15.16 at 7:16 pm 23
Here is Robin again: "Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy)."Now the problem with this formulation is that it overplays force, and it is based on a confusing usage of terms. What Robin should have said is that we have "coercion" and then the two forms of coercion: "economic coercion" and "extra-economic coercion" or "force". Coercion that operates through the market or economic coercion is not force as commonly understood, so Robin is twisting terms while accusing me of a confusing use of terms.
To understand Wood you have to see what little role she gave to force in her understanding of early capitalism. It is there, like God for a moment; and then gone. To understand capitalism, Wood insisted that we see it primarily as not based on force, the very opposite of how Robin is summarizing her.
The role of force is minimized to include only its role in the resolution of the class struggle in the English countryside in Wood's account which is basically Brenner's simplified; after that, force is said to be excluded from the process of surplus appropriation, and this is exactly what distinguishes capitalism and gives its revolutionary dynamic, according to Brenner and Wood.
The force involved in slavery and mercantilist warfare is not included in this account of the origins of capitalism; and the role of force in the suppression of the wage demands of the early landless proletariat is basically also ignored.
It's highly misleading to read Wood as a left-libertarian wanting to show that capitalism is based on force.
Plume 01.15.16 at 10:01 pm 27
Very sad news. I read her Origin last year and loved it. Direct, concise, extremely clear, and provoked seemingly hundreds of eureka moments for me. Just a brilliant book.Pair it with Michael Perelman's The Invention of Capitalism , and you've got a highly accurate, deeply researched, far-reaching and layered picture of capitalism - what it does, where it came from - and a needed corrective to the usual mindless cheerleading.
Again, sad news.
phenomenal cat 01.16.16 at 7:31 pm 34
"Key question still tends to be how far classical world can/should be seen as comparable to modern, and how far modern soc sci methods are appropriate. Rome has been largely though not entirely taken over by the modernisers, with very optimistic views about its sophistication and level of development; Greece is much more up for grabs, with significant group of scholars still pushing for class-based and/or cultural-anthropological interpretations." Neville Morley @ 30Fascinating. Care to expand on this debate Neville? What exactly is at stake? What are the axes you're grinding?
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2016 | The Guardian
chovil, 2016-01-16 16:33:47It's great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever now. Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket, oil at $100 a barrel.Afshin Peyman -> MicheNorman , 2016-01-16 16:33:47Israel was on the verge of nuking Iran. Ironically they stand to benefit from this, doing business with Iran. Reports from Iran were mostly that they were very western. They are Persian, not Arab, and if you look at historical maps, that line in the sand has existed for thousands of years. It's a good day. Iran is not North Korea, and it was the US supporting the Shah and his solid gold toilet that caused this problem in the first place. Back in 1978, it was obvious what was going to happen.
Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money that was for frozen by US banks . Your religion says, Thy shall not lie and I believe it is in ten commandment, so why are you doing it ?fatcontrol -> Themediaspoonfedlad, 2016-01-16 16:33:47Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran which has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a failed state.LiviaDrusilla -> okonomiyaki, 2016-01-16 16:33:47
A fatwa cannot be 'lifted' because it is the personal opinion of a cleric, and the cleric involved - Ayatollah Khomeini - has been dead for 25 years. However, 17 years ago the Iranian government said it was no longer pursuing the fatwa and would not reward anyone for killing Rushdie. Which kind of amounts to the same thing.optimist99 -> Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 14:50:59Patrick Ryan, 2016-01-16 14:49:19"There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been the ones having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill, the Third Reich would be ruling the world today."For heaven's sake.... If the UK had remained neutral - how would that have prevented the Red Army from defeating the Nazis? It would have made the process slightly slower - that's all
Stalin had started to turn the tide against the Nazis even before the US was involved in WW2 (Battle for Moscow) - and the Brits did little up to then to help
him. The US did in fact help Stalin before it entered the war - by helping with war materiel (Lend Lease included the Russians).The Brits helped too, with the Murmansk convoys - but these only began in August 1941. British strategic bombing of Germany had also hardy started by then.
No wonder Stalin pressed for "a second front now"...With a neutral Britain, the Russians would have got to Cuxhaven and Bremen. As it was, the Russians got to Wismar (and only stopped due to British artillery being in position to oppose them - Rossokovski's orders were to advance to Lübeck..).
Well when it comes to the Iran v Saudi battle of religious fascist dogma then I'm leaning towards Iran as the lesser of the evils... Iran is about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... let's hope they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on their doorstep, they'll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns from the new American buddies...LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 14:37:08Former British ambassador to Tehran on Sky News. Amazingly enough, he's talking a lot of sense.Afshin Peyman -> mattijoon, 2016-01-16 14:36:42Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to Libya .from emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state of oblivion. I am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical about tricky Americans to uphold their part of bargain.Pete Salmond -> AntonDeque, 2016-01-16 14:35:27Hope for the best but i see Saudi and Israeli are heavily engaged in sabotaging the agreement.
If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more reasonable than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes.SundarIsaacs, 2016-01-16 14:34:21Cuba & Iran. Next Russia please. And then if possible impose sanctions on Israel, Turkey and KSA.pretzelattack -> AntonDeque, 2016-01-16 14:32:51i saw female protestors get beaten at occupy. i see fleeing unarmed guys shot by cops. maybe the west isn't too pure either? in any case, going to war over faked wmds doesn't work out well.Katrin3 -> Iconoclastick, 2016-01-16 14:28:05They can't delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds of US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors). The terms of the nuclear deal are such, that they can't punish other countries for trading with Iran, when the UN and EU lift their sanctions, probably later today.LiviaDrusilla -> copyniated, 2016-01-16 14:26:50Iran can simply refrain from doing any business with the US.
Yes. It was on BBC. Apparently Kerry and Zarif had been locked in a room together - presumably discussing this.Giulio Ongaro -> Phil Atkinson, 2016-01-16 14:21:43BTW Yankee propagandist on BBC right now, getting the soft soap treatment as always.
In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled by conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if I were an Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US supported Saddam Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an eight-year, very bloody Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians dead or wounded (and, incidentally, that's when the US downed an Iranian airliner).robinaldlowrise, 2016-01-16 14:20:18And the years of useless sanctions that only alienated Iranians. Let's not forget that the Soviet Union, for example, did not fall at the peak of the Cold War. It fell when the contacts with the West increased. It won't be that we open the contacts today and tomorrow Iran is a nice Western democracy, but judging from the splendid success of the 50+ years of US embargo of Cuba, I would rather engage Iran than isolate it.
mattijoon -> moreblingplease, 2016-01-16 14:19:23"It proved that we can solve important problems through diplomacy, not threats and pressure, and thus today is definitely an important day," [Zarif] said.
Is this guy Zarif in receipt of a backhander from Seamus Milne?
Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian ones? Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our "friends" in Saudi-Arabia, just second to oil.Katrin3 -> dothemaths, 2016-01-16 14:19:17No it won't. When Iran comes in from the cold, even the conservatives won't want to go back there. They also want a prosperous future for their people.LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 14:18:32BBC reporting that there has been a delay in the announcement of the end of the sanctions - apparently they were expecting a statement 4 hours ago. However, it's just been announced that 4 American-Iranian prisoners held in Iran are to be released. Hopefully, that has resolved the 'hitch' that has been holding up the announcement.Stephen_Sean, 2016-01-16 14:18:17Unfortunately for Iran she is getting her freedom to sell oil on the open markets right at a time when the oil market is in complete free fall. Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for various goods.mattijoon -> Papaplone, 2016-01-16 14:17:10Katrin3 -> copyniated, 2016-01-16 14:17:01There will never be true freedom and prosperity for Iran until they rid themselves from the awful theocracy that has ruined their society and lives for the past 40 years.
So you think isolation, crippling sanctions and threat of war is better for achieving peace in the Middle East? Do you have anything constructive to say at all?
They were already there months ago, together with French politicians and other businessmen, including the owners of a large chain of hotels. This is about their 3rd or 4th visit. All embassies, apart from those of the US and Canada, have reopened (most never closed in spite of sanctions).Stephen_Sean -> subtilesubversion, 2016-01-16 14:15:34The only way we can improve human rights is to first increase our ties between nations. Gone are the days when you can isolate a country and demand they improve human rights and expect it to work.pretzelattack -> Iveneverexisted, 2016-01-16 14:13:49Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA, has some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President Obama say "we tortured some folks" doesn't help.. The dismissive tone is not conducive to addressing the situation.
what appeasement? did they invade somebody?mattijoon, 2016-01-16 14:13:35Iran is a major player in the region, and an unstable Iran means an unstable Middle East. The sanctions relief will stabilize Iran's economy. An Iran that is no longer threatened by war and regime change can start to play a positive role in solving the region's many conflicts. At least that's the theory, I hope Iran and the West seize this unique moment.pretzelattack -> JulianHBurchill, 2016-01-16 14:13:09Germany had a great military, a modern industrialized society, and a history of invading other countries. Iran, not.Katrin3 -> Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 14:10:48Sure, stick with your close ally and Daesh/IS supporter Saudi Arabia, who the IMF think will probably become insolvent within 5-years. When that happens, they'll no longer be able to afford all those advanced weapons and other toys you keep selling them, which they then use to kill civilians in Yemen.TheDepotCat -> AgeingAlbion, 2016-01-16 14:08:05"But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan either" --- Which part about Iran trying to make things difficult in Iraq for the illegal US occupation forces in those countries, because Iran may have been a possible target for a future US invasion don't you understand...?? The idea was to make a US occupation fail in Iraq to save their own country...And it worked.Stephen_Sean, 2016-01-16 14:06:48Fantastic news for the good citizens of Iran. Perhaps the day will come when Iranians, Europeans, and Americans are flying freely back and forth visiting each others countries without the horrendous bureaucracy, no fly lists and such.....Iaorana -> Katrin3, 2016-01-16 14:05:19Yes, I know, not the world we live in. Not yet.
Even if there is one, why to go to Tehran while our MSM will not fail to provide us with a " Best of ", especially if Charlie Hebdo enters the festivalLiviaDrusilla -> AgeingAlbion, 2016-01-16 14:02:23petermhogan -> vinculture, 2016-01-16 13:56:42But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan either.
Actually, they weren't in either country. But in any case, surely you'll agree that Iran, which share borders and has a lot of cultural links with the above mentioned countries, had a hell of a lot mroe right to be there than countries on the other side of the world?Particularly as they could be seen as defensive actions by Iran.
And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own squalor.
That's some hatred for hundreds of millions of people. It was really terrible of them to force the civilsed west to bomb and invade them, and create untenable nation states.
whose problems you blame entirely on the west -
No I don't. But I also don't adopt the idiotic stance of wailing over British occupation soldiers rather than asking what the hell Britain was doing invading a coutnry on the other side of the world.
ether than Gulf states or indeed Iran.
I guess your hatred prevents you from becoming informed. If you had, you'd be aware that Iran has taken in huge numbers of Iraqi and Afghani refugees.
As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle East then?
You really haven't got a clue, have you? Maybe Iran should re-arrange Europe's borders to suit itself? You'd be happy with that, no?
The fact that the Israelis and Republicans are keeping quiet is pretty strong evidence that they have a tiny spark of realization that Obama and Kerry were in the right. Not that they will ever ever admit it. Note to Republicans: Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad thing.timeforchange13 -> TheSageofStockwell, 2016-01-16 13:55:22There are many aspects of the British regime that are even more disturbingpetermhogan -> Papaplone, 2016-01-16 13:53:25Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy. Hopefully other countries can also seek the path of moderation and wisdom. Israel is among those with plenty of room for improvement. The USA has the task of avoiding a lurch in the wrong direction in the next election. It is hard to find much good news around the world these days.AgeingAlbion -> LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 13:53:22But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan either. And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own squalor. Strange isn't it how people from that region - whose problems you blame entirely on the west - still choose to come to the west en mass, rather than Gulf states or indeed Iran.timeforchange13, 2016-01-16 13:51:49As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle East then?
A great day. hopefully Iran's influence will finally break out from under the malign shadow of Saudi Arabia which has held the western world in thrall for so longCTG2016, 2016-01-16 13:40:11Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but they shouldn't let religious fundamentalists use Iran's past history to create hate and pessimistic attitude towards west.LiviaDrusilla -> AgeingAlbion, 2016-01-16 13:36:11As Iranians say: "There is much hope in hopelessness; for at the end of the dark night, there is light."
AlatarielN, 2016-01-16 13:33:06I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, for the simple reason that that region is a failure and a dead loss and should be left to its own devices.
Yeah, but it never is left to its own devices, is it? The 'troops' you weep over were part of an illegal occupation force, and therefore their deaths were legitimate. The west has been bombing, invading and propping up despots in the Middle EAst (often in countries whose borders were drawn in London or Paris) for decades. So maybe think for a minute what Western 'civilisation' looks like to people in the Middle East.
I would observe though that far more Iraqi Muslims were killed by other Iraqi Muslims than by western troops, over the usual ridiculous sectarian nonsense.
And would you also observe that most of these people would likely still be alive today if it weren't for civilized Western nations bombing thier country, disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their country into chaos?
Good! And may I say finally. This can only be a good thing in the long run, regardless of any bumps that await them because there will be bumps, considering certain parties are not too happy about this. But this can only be beneficial to the country, its people and the world. That there're so many educated people there is going to be so helpful in the future. Slowly removing the fear will slowly remove the most important tool in the arsenal used by the theocracy to govern and changes will occur. It won't be quick, a year or two but it will happen while the stability should remain.Javafromjava -> SoxmisUK, 2016-01-16 13:31:02But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ... would you visit there ... oops you live in the UK?LiviaDrusilla -> Iveneverexisted, 2016-01-16 13:31:02DuneMessiah , 2016-01-16 13:10:39Between the PRC and Pakistan, NK has the bomb. It's not clear exactly how to apportion credit.
Not clear, when you just invent 'facts'. China was against the NK bomb, and I doubt Pakistan - which btw also borders Iran - had anything to do with it. Really daft argument.
I can't think why anyone with full grasp of the facts
Says the person who hasn't produced a single fact.
other than those heavily invested in Obama and for his legacy to not be seen as a lame duck president who's accomplished sfa.
Please. I couldn't give a toss about Obama. I'm not a fan of his at all (though likely for very differnet reasons than you) but credit where it's due. Why do Yanks think everyone cares about their infantile politics? In any case, this deal goes well beyond Yankistan. Enjoy it.
There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is all hypocrisy.GregPlatt -> vinculture, 2016-01-16 13:06:32Vinculture: "A disaster in the making thanks to 0bama's incompetence and naivety." A disaster for Israel's aggressive foreign policy, maybe. And a disaster for the House of Saud.Phil Atkinson -> Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 13:03:46If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number of subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will be a reflection of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian clergy. The Supreme Leader gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations and concessions could get acceptable results. The success of the negotiations will give Rouhani's faction greater clout for similar actions until such time as either they stuff it up good and proper, or somone crazy gets elected as US President.
This is more of an example of realpolitik coming from the USA (for a change), despite whatever the nutters in Congress or the military may say about it.ID5955768, 2016-01-16 13:01:15The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from "Assad must go!" to "OK, he can hang around for a while", simply because Syria, with Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness for the USA to negotiate. We rarely hear the words "regime change in Syria" from our politicians any more. So it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast the sanctions regimes and has had to ratchet up its own development of medicines, weaponry etc in anticipation of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of some 80 million people, they wouldn't be a pushover in the military sense. And at what cost? It doesn't bear thinking about.
On the other side of the coin, the US and others are now seeing the Saudi regime for what it is and given a choice between the KSA and Iran, they've now decided to plump with the latter - at least for the time being.
I don't believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much oil online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of barely no maintenance, can't just be reversed in a matter of months. Time will tell. But the mainstream media has been pushing this for a long time to further suppress oil prices.moreblingplease, 2016-01-16 12:57:45Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is a sad bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat than Saudi Arabia which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the likes yet do we care. It seems not.ham zed -> MrHumbug, 2016-01-16 12:53:05That is why Iran never trusts the US.TheSageofStockwell -> vinculture, 2016-01-16 12:50:26I can just imagine the skill, tact and diplomacy with which Trump or Cruz would approach this task...FatuousFeminist -> Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 12:45:49If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? He'd have strongly Decidered his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass the bong.bcnteacher -> Michael House-Party Fleming, 2016-01-16 12:44:02I may have the state wrong but please don't tell me you think the USA is a bastion of tolerance! Gays are beaten up, blacks are shot, muslims are attacked. America is home to some of the world's best fed bigots.Mike_UK -> TheDepotCat, 2016-01-16 12:38:23Go read the IAEA reports over the years, they are the worlds experts that know exactly what is required for civilian nuclear energy and what is used for nuclear weapons = they know. What has been agreed is for Iran to curtail their weapon development and export certain products to Russia and possibly USA as part of the deal. Of course if you do not want to dig into the technical details of years of IEAE reports you can chack out what is said on Facebook and blogsville!LiviaDrusilla -> Iveneverexisted, 2016-01-16 12:35:45Honestly, I'm starting to almost feel sorry for the failed sanctioneers, so pathetic are their arguments.TheSageofStockwell, 2016-01-16 12:33:13If North Korea, the world's most isolated country - which struggles to feed its own people - could build a bomb, do you seriously think Iran couldn't? And if they were determined to do so, why did they join the NPT in the first place? And why didn't they later leave, something they were free to do at any time? Then there's the fact that the world's foremost experts have said that Iran is not pursuing a bomb, and has not done so for many years (if it ever did).
But... what am I doing trying to discuss facts with you? You're obviously way more comfortable with some bizarre scenario straight from Bibi's cartoon. Best we leave you to it, and the rest of the world can get on with business.
Please let's try and be positive about this. Iran has been a pariah state for far too long and I applaud Obama for extending the arm of friendship to them during his presidency.LiviaDrusilla -> Mike_UK, 2016-01-16 12:27:16Obviously there are many aspects of the current Iranian regime that we in the West don't like, but I would rather be taking small steps with them diplomatically to try and improve the situation than have a hostile stand off.
Iveneverexisted, 2016-01-16 12:26:24Also Iran is not more moderate or understanding with respect to some American dingys going near a beach in the middle of the Persian Golf!
That sounds nasty. I hope Rory McIlroy wasn't hurt.
Joking aside, it's been established that the Americans did indeed enter Iranian waters, probably intentionally. And what you cutely describe as a 'beach' was actually home to an important Iranian military facility. And the 'dinghys' were well-equipped military vessels (shame the GPS was faulty though.....) How do you think the Yanks would have reacted had Iranian vessels 'drifted' just off the shore of a US military facility? By treating them well and releasing them, complete with 'dingys', the next day? I doubt it, but we'll never know, as unlike the US, Iran doesn't tend to send its 'dingys' 11,500km away from their own territory.
But you seem to have missed the wider point here. Which is that Iran is not on trial. There are considerable grievances on both sides (objectively, the Iranian case against the US and 'west' is much more substantial than the reverse), but these matters were deliberately left off the table in these negotiations, which were aimed at solving the (non) issue of Iran's nuclear programme. The other grievances can hopefully be worked out at a later stage.
For now, however, let's celebrate what is without doubt the greatest triumph of diplomacy in recent years.
A red letter day for Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and their mission to achieve a nuclear weapons capacity, where what's holding them back most is lack of access to Western technology, currently blocked under sanctions. They have already demonstrated to their own satisfaction, and everyone else's, they can withdraw from the NPT, and run down to a fissile mass of U235 in a matter of months. What they're missing is a bomb design.Mervyn Sullivan, 2016-01-16 12:25:03There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been the ones having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill, the Third Reich would be ruling the world today.Vizzeh -> LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 12:20:43The day will come when people will look back and ask what on earth were people like Obama and John kerry thinking when they did this terrible deal with Iran.
If only people were "informed" on the inner workings off it all politically/economically. I am 100% For the American constitution and see the political corruption, the US is being used, like many other nations, against each other.Vizzeh -> MrHumbug, 2016-01-16 12:18:14The Saudi's are being played too... (although they are corrupt as hell so who cares) Likely against each other.LiviaDrusilla -> AgeingAlbion, 2016-01-16 12:16:16"Your" troops were an illegal occupation force, and therefore legitimate targets.MGBrit -> hobot, 2016-01-16 12:11:53Besides, given that the thinking at the time was along the lines of ''Real men go to Tehran'' and that coupled with Shrub's idiotic 'axis' speech, then who could blame the Iranians for wanting to slow down the 'progress' of an invading army who might well have had them in their sights too?
Oh, and what do you have to say on the West's support for Iraq in a war which killed hundreds of thoussands of Iranians, many of them civilians? Or the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet, killing all 280 passengers on board?
USA. They've been there for years with drones and bombings, I know.Babak Taurus ૐ, 2016-01-16 12:11:37Good news indeed. For along time western trust in Saudis oil and money cost the Middle East a massive fortune. I hope the world see how peaceful Iranians are an those extremist in Iran are literally the minority. Today I feel proud because diplomacy solved a very complicated issue which I wouldn't see it coming. Thank you mr Zarif...LiviaDrusilla -> andytyrrell, 2016-01-16 12:10:39
Win-WinOh, OK, I getcha!Vizzeh -> Themediaspoonfedlad, 2016-01-16 12:03:49I just wanted to explore this idea of why any argument against Iran, or anyone for that matter, having such weapons, irrespective of whether they plan to or not, isn't applied to the debate about whether or not we should get rid of our (UK) own.
If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners, the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who can't be trusted with a bomb. In reality, though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one, they have shown themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past 2 decades at least. Which isn't to say the regime is benign, by any means, just that their foreign policy is based on rational self-interest (or their perception thereof) - just like any other country.
Another reason given is Iran's supposed 'support for terror organisaitons'. Putting aside the fact that defining what is a 'terror organisaiton' is largely a matter of one's political views, it's hard to see what this has to do with the nuclear issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight from a 5th rate James Bond knock-off - that Iran could 'give' its (non-existent) nukes to a 'terrorist', as though a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47.
So, having disposed of those 'arguments', I think we're back to hypocrisy as the motivator.
If these coups continue, there will be no-one left to overthrow politically/economically, once the political safety-net is gone and there is no more political buffer zones, potentially those on the outskirts left opposing this, would backed into a war.AgeingAlbion -> nearfieldpro, 2016-01-16 12:03:26I don't back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off power, if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for the rest off us. It would be "safer" for Israel too disarm, followed by Pakistan, North Korea then East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously.
All under the helm off a Strong-Moral UN. A Free, Regional agreement.
Iran spent years supplying IEDs to kill our troops in Iraq and AfghanistanOldSnort, 2016-01-16 11:58:51Better to jaw, jaw than to war, war.spotthelemon -> Zod Buster, 2016-01-16 11:56:51Iran isn't Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its closer to Franco's Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with them for 39 years without having a war with themThemediaspoonfedlad -> Andrew Nichols, 2016-01-16 11:55:48Can anyone take the risk of allowing Iran to even play around with this stuff in anyway shape or form ? The west started this fight years ago and hasMrHumbug, 2016-01-16 11:54:47
1. Up to 1953 robbed Iran of its oil.
2. After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British Petroleum out of the country suffered a coup d'état instigated with US aid in 1953.
3. 1953 to 1979 Suffered a tyrannical US/UK regime under the Shah of Iran which led to the Islamic Revolution , ie we radicalized them.
4. After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed millions of Iranians.
5. Sanctions for the last 10 years.What on earth do we do now?
If I were Iranian I'd be double wary now of US's intentions. It seems that the working method of the "West" nowadays is to feign a warming of relations to draw yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And I recall Syria having a nice "warm up period" before the gates of hell opened. Take care, Iran.Iconoclastick, 2016-01-16 11:54:144th or 5th largest proven/unproven reserves on the planet. I'm delighted sanctions are freeing up in Iran, but I can't be alone in thinking that the USA were going to find some devil in the detail for it not to go ahead, to be delayed. Still highly suspicious of USA motives here, but for now rejoice Iranian people. :-)Vizzeh -> Andrew Nichols, 2016-01-16 11:52:21Themediaspoonfedlad -> Philip Bissonnette, 2016-01-16 11:42:45The annula reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this fact consitently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media
I have always wondered on the conflicts off interest in this, doesn't the Security services support the political agenda for the most part? Have seen it over the last 100 years, on reading about it, maybe not entirely but compartmentalized they seemingly do.
I know in Syria, the Pentagon is apparently completely split, some feeding information around to Assad, while another faction supports the overthrow. Difficult to discern what is true/false but much of it does play-out/check-out logically.
However, what is with the conflict of interest in this case? I guess one is suppressing religion on 1 side, yet supporting the end of times theme on the other. Perhaps that is where the Military end this support on a Nuclear scale.
I agree but China and Russia are a thorn in its side. The Russians are doing arms deals with Iran. Also a CIA led coup 1953 style is unlikely to work against a non liberal progressive govt. Iraq is in no position to be used to attack it.Andrew Nichols, 2016-01-16 11:39:05Before the deal all the sabre rattling was hollow. No amount of bombing was going to stop an underground nuclear programme. Sanctions weren't working, Iran diversified its economy.
It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take Iran out or start to build bridges.
I don't think it is capable of succeeding now with either policy. This is very bad news for the future security of Israel. All thought it should be safe for 50 or so more years.
Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research. The annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this fact consistently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media that maintained the charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon programme.MrHumbug -> marovich11, 2016-01-16 11:33:27Maybe it is that the US cold warriors are finally dying out. When the wall came down USSR dismantled its cold war power structure because they were the losers. US cold war professionals were the winners and saw no reason to fade themselves out - hence the often baffling aggressive and enemy-seeking US foreign policy in the post cold war period.Streatham -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 11:26:28The problem is that times have changed now and the US has managed to rile others far enough to start their own mini-cold wars against US, particularly Russia which does have its valid reasons to feel it's been cheated and played for patsy.
kevinusma -> Ernekid, 2016-01-16 11:21:14President Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address when he started bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military was and how much tax payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed me off when he said those things. It was the last thing I expected to hear coming out of his mouth.
So you weren't watching what he was actually doing over the past seven years?
According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the George W. Bush administration ordered 50 drone attacks while the government of current US President Barack Obama has already launched around 500 such strikes. Obama primarily ordered assassination strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan.
The United States says the CIA-run drone strikes essentially kill militants, although casualty figures show that civilians are often the victims of the non-UN-sanctioned attacks.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-ordered-ten-times-more-drone-strikes-than-bush/5475415
I'm an American who just got back from a 10 day visit to Iran. Iranians are among the nicest people on Earth. It is safe to visit. I had no issues when I was there. The only thing you should be worried about is safely crossing the busy streets, not terrorism or kidnapping. Don't believe the media fear machine.Streatham -> kaper39, 2016-01-16 11:19:38LiviaDrusilla -> John Smith, 2016-01-16 11:17:55Israel are a clever country to arm, the entire middle east hates them yet Israel clearly dominate their neighbours in any conflict. An ally we Europeans need with how the middle east is going
Ah, the West's colony in the Middle East.
Well, a low price is better than no price.BigJim1, 2016-01-16 11:16:50And Iran, unlike the Gulf sheikhdoms, is a real country with educated people. With sufficient investment and freedom to trade, Iran should easily be able to develop an economy which is not entirely dependent on oil - or gas, of which Iran has some of the largest deposits in the world. I'm not sure the same could be said for the petrostates on the other side of the Gulf.
" there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US." - as ever you never know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does not know given it dysfunctional political system. Any system that could even contemplate the likes of Donald Trump for the office of President cannot be fit for purpose.Alice38, 2016-01-16 11:15:41Except that Iran will secretly make a nuclear bomb anyway.John Smith, 2016-01-16 11:14:12
USA and the rest of the world have been duped.
In the end ordinary Iranians who just wanted peace will not get it . Will not get it while they live under a mediaeval dictatorship that is"Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world'"Vizzeh, 2016-01-16 11:12:48Unless you are Venezuela, Russia, etc and dependent on oil prices.
In many ways, not much has improved for Iran either, they can sell oil but at a very low price.This is a good day as it allows freedom off the Market... Next moves shows the world-stage who is motivated by Orwellian-double-speak (crying wolf) or those who indeed are the aggressors....Themediaspoonfedlad, 2016-01-16 11:07:52It would be interesting if it wasn't morally evil and destructive. It is a chess board.
Ho ho ho. This is a ceasefire. The whole project for the Middle East revolves around it's Palestiniasation , ie leave it in tatters with no state or economic infrastructure, eg Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq , Syria , Libya . All have suffered through foreign intervention largely US sanctioned. For the last 40 years since the west financed and armed Saddam Hussein to fight and destroy the state of Iran after it deposed the Shah this has been policy. This ideal I s like an unfinished course of anti-biotics , ultimately if you leave Iran standing it will always be a power base which can fill the vacuum in all these failed states.
There is no going back from the damage done...Iran has to be the West's next horizon if there is never going to be a nuclear Islamic state this century.May a dead man say a few words to you, general, for your enlightenment? You will never rule the world... because you are doomed. All of you who demoralized and corrupted a nation are doomed. Tonight you will take the first step along a dark road from which there is no turning back. You will have to go on and on, from one madness to another, leaving behind you a wilderness of misery and hatred. And still, you will have to go on... because you will find no horizon... see no dawn... until at last you are lost and destroyed. You are doomed, captain of murderers. And one day, sooner or later, you will remember my words...
budigunawan -> MediaWatchDog, 2016-01-16 11:06:48
The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing Israel have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push it's agenda of Wahhabism that secures it's brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter fruits of Saudi, as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor of the West in the region. Sadly, the political intervention of the US has been based around protecting and supporting this symbiotic relationship with money, troops and bombs.Vizzeh -> JohannesL, 2016-01-16 10:50:53Depends on the use off the word terrorist, if you mean fabricated terrorism for aggression, to forward political goals/Land/Economic reasons, or if you mean terrorism in defence of a Nation or a civilisation being oppressed....copyniated, 2016-01-16 10:49:43It is based on perception, or rather delibrate ignorance. It is terrorism if it is at the expense off another mans freedom.
It boils down to morality aswell, but since the various factions, possibly even media are doing a good job too blur those lines, it makes it easier for people who do not think for themselves, to be either delibrately obtuse/Ignorant.
- GhandiOne man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist
Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing & Airbus are in intense competition as Iran plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions of dollars.PigeonBomb -> LeftOrRightSameShite, 2016-01-16 10:48:35LiviaDrusilla -> mj50, 2016-01-16 10:48:27I'll take it with a pinch of salt given the lack of corroboration. There are many confirmed stories of injustice from inside Iran but I can see why you picked this one. True or not, it certainly makes a sensational headline.
errr ... OK ... how about these them apples:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/07/19/vigil-marks-10th-anniversary-of-iran-hanging-two-gay-teens/
sensational and sour enough for you?
I suspect they were hoping that once Iran had 'complied', sanctions would be dropped and everyone could get back to business.usini, 2016-01-16 10:47:41They then, rather belatedly realised that for the Yanks, Bibi and the Gulf sheikhdoms, sanctions weren't a means to an end. They were the end. Happily, only one of the above three players really counts, and they finally saw sense.
Th key point is that it is not only about the US and the EU. India, China and Russia will also see both great opportunities both to export and in general to develop trade. India has already talked about building a pipeline to Chah Bahar.LiviaDrusilla -> wilding45, 2016-01-16 10:45:59JohannesL -> kaper39, 2016-01-16 10:42:42100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its way into London property making prices even more ridiculous.
Almost none, I expect. Iran is a country of about 80 million people, with an economy which has been severely held back through years - even decades - of sanctions. In that context, 100 billion isn't actually that much, and I expect the Iranians will find no shortage of ways to use it at home. And given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the Brits (for very good reason) I very much doubt they'll want to spend this much-needed cash on overpriced pads in Blighty.
London's a kip anyway.
George W Bush said he got his orders from God, and they were amazingly similar to the ones he got from Big Oil. We know the results.andyoldlabour -> fanazipan, 2016-01-16 10:41:33They have killed Iranian scientists in Iran. They have killed thousands of Palestinian civilians.JohannesL -> Vizzeh, 2016-01-16 10:41:03Surely Iran is much less a terrorist supporter than the US and the UK?chalkandcheese -> Ben Latimore, 2016-01-16 10:36:53Apologies, I thought you were talking about Iran's extra income financing its armed forces, or its fuller influence now sanctions will be soon lifted. The 'now' in your comment lead me to believe you were commenting on the recent events discussed in the article, how mistaken I surely am to think you were being relevant.1ClearSense, 2016-01-16 10:36:08It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report the talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus in the soviet era, they don't need minders and censors, those are just built in or plugged in by interviews.wilding45, 2016-01-16 10:34:20100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its way into London property making prices even more ridiculous.Panda Bear -> andyoldlabour, 2016-01-16 10:33:56Unless we look at channel islands type restrictions for property market in se england our youth will only own property with inheritance and even then when the IHT threshold is well over a million if you project forward six years. (price doubles every six years).
Yes, there are a string of US presidents claiming God told them to do... or God wants them to be...mj50 -> LiviaDrusilla, 2016-01-16 10:33:24Good point, EU countries UK aside, very never comfortable with the position the west took with regard to Iran. How as the big boss in Washington decided what the policy was they had little choice.Panda Bear -> andyoldlabour, 2016-01-16 10:31:21Ha, ha, ha! US allies are never sanctioned, no matter how many International Laws they break, they ignore UN resolutions against them no matter how cruel and inhuman their actions. Where are the sanctions against US? Oh, can't be sanctioned can it...frankoman -> bcnteacher, 2016-01-16 10:30:57He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, 'hidden' nuclear weapons, all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected to endless scrutiny. While this continues the Middle East will never be at peace. Palestinians are humans too.Vizzeh -> Blenheim, 2016-01-16 10:30:09Or those that funded the creation of Israel? in 1917 - Balflour declaration, and what is currently going on today in Israel, still by dictionary definition, genocide.copyniated, 2016-01-16 10:30:01The hardliners in Iran "Delvapassan", most of whom work for hostile foreign intelligence services, are also in trouble. In fact the arch spy, Naghdi of Basij whose members stormed the Saudi embassy in return for petrodollars, now says it was the monarchists who stormed the Saudi embassy. A ridiculous claim as most people in Iran know that monarchists could not even organize a birthday party.stevenfieldfare , 2016-01-16 10:28:39....only a good day if Iran holds to its side of the deal... if not, downstream confrontation will move from possible to probable...LiviaDrusilla -> bcnteacher, 2016-01-16 10:28:32I think Bibi's play-acting just blew up in his face.ConventionPrevention -> Powerspike, 2016-01-16 10:28:28It's scary to say the least and one wonders if it can even be brought back from the brink if someone like Bernie Sanders was to be elected. President Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address when he started bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military was and how much tax payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed me off when he said those things. It was the last thing I expected to hear coming out of his mouth. He sounded like a republican braggart. It really annoyed me. I do believe, to his discredit, that he was trying to appease the Repulicans.LordWotWot, 2016-01-16 10:25:53"Whoever though it was a good idea to become closely allied to the barbaric sheikhs of Arabia whose petrodollars are fueling wahhabi barbarism, is a complete idiot."......President RooseveltLiviaDrusilla -> Powerspike, 2016-01-16 10:25:35Really interesting article. Thanks for linking - I love Glenn Greenwald's site.Vizzeh, 2016-01-16 10:20:25I also loved this quote:
"A sailor may have punched the wrong coordinates into the GPS and they wound up off course."
So what could be interpreted as an act of war is down to some dunderhead 'punching the wrong coordinates'? 4realz? And of course the fact that the Yanks basically lied and did indeed intentionally violate Iranian territory will not be covered by the media. And like I said before, where are all those posters who accused several of us of being 'bots' because GPS imagery would of course show the Yanks were in international waters and the Iranians were fibbing, as always?
Surely this is the end of Saudi Arabia if they continue to keep the oil prices low, bringing the rest of the market down with it, at the expense of their own economy (& Nation) & ours. With this Iran will likely be able to sustain an economical war with less reliance on oil as the Saudis.Hottentot, 2016-01-16 10:10:37No sympathy for them or their terrorist support. Still waiting on economic/weapon sanctions and condemnation off them (and anyone else involved) by the UN etc
This is good news, and it has to be hoped that the Iranian economy can now start to grow. No doubt, the Saudi and Israel won't like it, but that's though, if either of these two countries had professional leaders, then their childish, spiteful and lying screams against Iran, would never exist.Blenheim, 2016-01-16 10:04:47Forrest also said ongoing human rights and terrorism related sanctions in the US would have an effect. "Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear, as it has already published relevant legislation amending existing sanctions measures to pave the way for early EU termination, there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US."
Arr .... the reason possibly is that the US knows it has already pissed off Saudi and Israel, so won't push the boat out to far, thereby exasperating an unnecessary situation further.
Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world' Yet these gangsters who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions at will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so choose with impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid, too compliant to see it?Dennis Pachernegg -> dolly63, 2016-01-16 09:55:22If the US, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Japan, and the EU say this agreement is watertight, you can safely believe that it is. Except of course, if you are smarter and better informed than all their diplomats and technical experts. Are you?acornstooaks -> supercool, 2016-01-16 09:55:12Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view. For me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians are well educated and still have a historical connection with our country.LiviaDrusilla -> 12inchPianist, 2016-01-16 09:54:12I am a manufacturer of made in UK retail product and will see this as a great opportunity to help build relationships and support the growth of our sustainable employment in the UK.
If this technology is so promising, why didn't any the other nuclear nations offer themselves "a testing bed for the much safer Thorium reactor solution"? Iran isn't the world's guinea pig.karabasbarabas , 2016-01-16 09:47:26The sanctions are another kind of war. The tradesmen will win at the endLiviaDrusilla -> Dennis Pachernegg, 2016-01-16 09:47:16When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries - as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely strict sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. Though Kerry gets a lot of the credit for the deal going through, according to some reports, his European allies told him that they were going to stop abiding by the sanctions whether he and Bibi liked it or not. So he could either accept that reality or keep fighting the cartoon fight. Thankfully, he and his boss chose the sensible option.12inchPianist, 2016-01-16 09:45:59All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help Iran with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise and funding to develop Thorium reactors. That would put the kibosh on Iran's nuclear weapons program and work as a testing bed for the much safer Thorium reactor solution .Katrin3 -> marovich11, 2016-01-16 09:45:58Unfortunately, those cooler heads, will be leaving the administration at the end of this year, when there are elections in the US. After that anything can happen.Dennis Pachernegg -> oddbubble, 2016-01-16 09:43:43It's been a rare pleasure to have diplomatic adults, not warmongers, in both the White House and the State Department, for the past 8 years.
Europeans already had business interests at the time the sanctions started, ten years ago. And yet they supported the sanctions. I don't see why it should be different now.chalkandcheese -> Ben Latimore, 2016-01-16 09:41:10You're joking, aren't you? Iran's output before the embargo was 2.6 mbpd, it has since been 1.4 mbpd.jimbobsmells -> aberinkula, 2016-01-16 09:37:45LiviaDrusilla -> Ernekid, 2016-01-16 09:37:07The quotes from Hammond today certainly prove that.British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital joke.
Actually, it's never been that difficult for most European tourists to visit Iran. Getting the visa can be a bit of a pain, but most people who apply succeed in getting it quickly enough. And once you're in the country, you can travel pretty much whereever you like. There has been a requirement for British travellers to travel with an official guide, but I expect that will be dropped very quickly.Katrin3 -> hoboh2o, 2016-01-16 09:31:03Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well come back to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must.damienbridges, 2016-01-16 09:29:42Amazed this has gone through. The world's biggest and most dangerous children, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind so much of the world's problems, far moreso than their parent the USA.DeadDingo -> dolly63, 2016-01-16 09:28:00where are Israels nukes pointing, out of interest?andytyrrell -> laguerre, 2016-01-16 09:23:15Yes I get that Laguerre, I don't think that's what they are doing either, but that's not really the point I was trying to make. Considering that, there are plenty of people around the world that think Iran does want nuclear weapons, in spite of Iran's protestations to the contrary, I'm guessing that there must be a ready argument for them not having such weapons. I'd be interested to know what that argument is and why it doesn't apply to us.supercool, 2016-01-16 09:18:59Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which is. No point demonizing people & nations, it does more harm than good.Powerspike -> hobot, 2016-01-16 09:08:17They have said their Nuclear use for Civilian purposes and so it has proved. Now how about those nations with Nuclear weapons and armed to the teeth with getting rid some of them. Hypocrisy of nuclear issue like most things around the world is stunning.
The Saudis are having to use Columbian mercenaries to supplement their usual Pakistani rank and file "soldiers" in Yemen. No Saudis are ready to sacrifice their lives to further their own royal families ambitions. This is an incredible weakness but typical of a petrodollar state where all loyalties are based on money. If Saudi Arabia were attacked by even a small but determined force (such as ISIS) it would collapse like a house of cards.Powerspike -> Zepp, 2016-01-16 09:03:33The US has the largest prison population in the world. It also practices torture at home and abroad. It carries out executions at home and extra judicial (terror) killings abroad often using drones to do so. Compared to any of this, Iran is just a beginner.Powerspike -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 08:56:19https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
America is the best defended slum in the western world. A few facts: Huge disparities of wealth and poverty, a rigid class system, massive unsustainable military spending around the world, a weak education system that depends on educated migrants to take skilled jobs, a declining manufacturing sector due to dumb free trade deals that built up Chinese economic power. I could go on indefinitely......but if America falls it will collapse from within through its own internal contradictions - probably in typical American style involving hubris, narcissism, blame shifting and of course lots of violence.HowSicklySeemAll, 2016-01-16 08:51:48Real change must come from below and not from the Americans or Europeans or Israeli lobby or sheikhdoms, or MEK or any other Iranian exile group, but the Iranian masses themselves. History has shown this to be true time and time again. Reforms were introduced in Germany, England, France, the United States, etc. only because of pressure from below, from the organized sections of the working classes and their trade union representatives and not from 'enlightened governments' or 'generous employers'. The road to reform is paved with struggle and defeats and victories.ConventionPrevention -> xredsx, 2016-01-16 08:47:16
- German Chancellor Bismarck, the first statesman to introduce reforms as a way to put down socialist agitation and mass disgruntlement, wrote in 1889: "we must vigorously intervene for the betterment of the low of the workmen. "
- German Emperor William II cautioned in 1890: "For the maintenance of peace between employers and workers…Such an institution will facilitate the free and peaceful expression of their wishes and their grievances, and furnish officials a regular means for keeping informed of the labor situation and of continuing in contact with the workers"
- In 1906, a French cabinet member cautioned: "we believe that it is time to study seriously the means of preventing the return of conflicts between capital and labor"
If you want to support the Iranians in their struggle, support the labour movement there. Everything that is good about North America and Europe, or rather, the things that make life tolerable there including a decent standard of living, paid holidays, adequate working conditions, unemployment insurance, pensions, etc. was struggled for and won by workers and trade unions.
It's all true. The U.S. Military program is over bloated and needs a severe diet. Billions of dollars wasted. Criticize the U.S. military all you like. I do all the time. ;)William Livingstone -> hobot, 2016-01-16 08:39:34Did you know that the U.S. military is second in federal expenditures only to social security? It is the second most expensive program in the United States! This is wrong.
So when some apologist says "well the military only makes up 17 percent of the budget," (which has been said to me on many occasions) tell them they are full of it.
Remind me, which country is currently levelling Yemen one building at a time? Oh yes, a Sunni nation Saudi Arabia.Blenheim -> Nivedita, 2016-01-16 08:39:07When will the civilized world see sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?Saltyandthepretz -> marovich11, 2016-01-16 08:38:44After the UK(Cameron) gifted a seat on the Human rights council to the Saudis?..
Anyone would think it was a thoroughly corrupt rigged game .. wouldn't they.
The west makes it up as they go along .. and you argue the toss at your peril.It could also be the case that conservative voices have been muted, taking away the paranoid suspicion that has hobbled both Iran and the US.Blenheim -> andytyrrell, 2016-01-16 08:27:02Ha, ha, ha. Priceless. Yes, no one has ever(as far as I'm aware) put forward a reason why anyone would want to invade the UK. Why would they .. it certainly wouldn't be for the benefits many here would have us believe.Nivedita, 2016-01-16 08:20:06Iran however?. yes, what a tasty treat, they have significantly more to nick in terms of raw materials and other good stuff than we do .. Iran would make a far better(and now easier) target. Oh.. Bibi, despite his protestations to the contrary, must be rubbing his hands with glee, and now with the revelation that US and UK personnel are ensconced(secretly) with the Saudi's .. If I were an Iranian, I'd see myself surrounded by enemies. Would I give up the potential to make a bomb?..
Hmm. Whatever the inducements were, they're certainly not enough to see off a willful new US president with a finger on the trigger, especially as almost all have voiced the desire to bomb.xredsx -> ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 08:08:09But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be lifted, other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism will remain in place
Sanctions on Iran were illegal and the people of Iran were punished for the nukes they never wanted to build. When will the civilized world see sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?
I hear you on this. I heard that the American cost of the new F35 fighter jet program is enough to buy every homeless American a $600,000 house. I'm not criticizing the USA military program or anything just highlighting the simple cost for America to help it's own poor. Especially in today world were money created out of thin air. Even now that i have wrote this how much QE did the Fed do but couldn't house the homeless.quorkquork, 2016-01-16 07:59:22ConventionPrevention, 2016-01-16 07:56:20But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be lifted, other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism will remain in place, most notably in the US, meaning that companies would still have to comply with those restrictions.
Meanwhile the Telegraph is calling for an alliance with al Qaeda in Syria, saying:
The reality that comes with the prolonging war might now mean that it is time to think of widening who we support – and by working with groups who would fight IS first over Assad, or indeed al-Qaida's Syrian branch Al Nusra, but who might not necessarily have the moderate qualities we would ideally like to support militarily in Syria, lest they too enact the depravity of beheadings, torture and rape which the conflict has seen too much of already.
That's before we get to Yemen, where the areas the UK has helped 'liberate' from AQ's fiercest foe, has been taken over by ISIS.
Stunning hypocrisy and outright criminality.
What's that Netanyahu? I can't hear you. I still can't hear you. Yeah, maybe you should set your dumb ass down and take a break for the rest of your miserable life from your anti-Obama/anti-Iran rhetoric. You are already soaking the American taxpayer for 3 billion a year, and now you are asking for 4.2 to 4.5 billion a year for the next ten years. It disgusts me how American tax payer money gets thrown around the world while people here at home are in the streets starving. How does that work, Netanyahu? You tell me, how does that work, you miserable fool.Blenheim -> VoodyAlen, 2016-01-16 07:41:26Yes, but as we've seen previously under Bush Jnr, how long does it take to start an illegal war and who will stop the US in an illegal war? .. it certainly won't be us in the UK .. inexplicably we seem to love whatever the US does be it legal or absolutely illegal.ConventionPrevention -> Powerspike, 2016-01-16 07:30:19I'm pleased sanctions are being lifted, but until we discuss as adults the Palestinian/Israeli issue plus Israels nuclear arsenal - which quite ludicrously seems immune even from being acknowledged, then tensions will remain. We can't keep ignoring this issue and the injustices in Palestine in the blaise fashion with which we apply sanctions to others. The west's current hypocrisy stinks.
This is what I heard on the news earlier in the night. I heard that the two navy boats did indeed purposely take a short cut through Iranian waters. Then the Iranian guard took pursuit. Then, the Harry Truman aircraft carrier group launched search helicopters into the area which did not help things at all and only escalated things. Finally, the Iranians took the crew.VoodyAlen, 2016-01-16 07:25:05The U.S. lies all the time. They constantly lie and then the U.S. politicians come calling for nothing short of a nuclear strike! They are insane. I can say this much. Any country has the right to board and take a vessel if it enters their waters, and that includes the stupid, arrogant U.S. This country really needs to back their shit down and take a look at what they are doing in the world. They have become very full of themselves and it stinks to high heaven. It smells like shit.
A great privilege to witness such a rare occasion when common sense and rationality prevail! Well done all the parties involved! Thanks for "giving peace a chance"hoboh2o, 2016-01-16 07:24:58PS. Wondering how Republicans (especially Tom Cotton), Bibi, king Salman, n the rest of premium members of warmonger club are feeling now! .
Anything that stops the Saudi's playing the big I am is fine by me. They've already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking and their economy is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesn't suit Saudi Arabia.André De Koning , 2016-01-16 07:22:31The one worry is ISIS getting a foothold if the Saudi government goes tits up and getting their hands on some real shiny weapons.
"Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear, as it has already published relevant legislation amending existing sanctions measures to pave the way for early EU termination, there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US."Blenheim -> aberinkula, 2016-01-16 07:21:45Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for a while what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not last long if companies realize they are still not allowed to do business because of their own extortion over the many years while the EU does commence trading.
That British troops are involved in Saudi's dirty war - and it seems very dirty indeed, is nothing short of scandalous. Questions should be being asked surely?..Blenheim, 2016-01-16 07:19:20But it's somewhat academic isn't it?.. Whichever sweetheart with the exception of Bernie Sanders, who happens to con their way into the US hot seat, they've all taken against Tehran in a big way haven't they. Almost all of them have promised at some stage in their self-serving careers to bomb Iran back to the stone age, even the occasionally economical with the truth Hilary Clinton who tries so very hard to convince she's actually a human being has an issue in that regard.aberinkula, 2016-01-16 07:01:42I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldn't trust these liars as far as .. and I'd advise using some of what's rightly coming your way to insulate against future western blackmail.
I'd buy a bloody big bomb .. but keep it quiet, you never know who's listening .. Ha, yes we do!
Sanctions should never have been imposed. They are a form of collective punishment that has stopped medicines coming into Iran and punished small businesses. I know from experience. I had salmonella in Iran when I was two, and medicines that would have been free under the NHS were so expensive in Iran due to sanctions that my father had to sell his Mercedes Benz (not sure he's ever quite forgiven me for that). Meanwhile, Israel's nuclear arsenal goes unmentioned and unpunished, and we have British troops sitting in the Saudi war rooms. British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital joke.Powerspike, 2016-01-16 06:58:40Well played to all those on both sides responsible for the recent progress, though I am more than slightly concerned that the next US president will see things rather differently. Let me also say that Louise Mensch's recent tweets have been nothing short of disgusting and wholly inflammatory, exactly the kind of rhetoric that the world community should be shunning.
I'm pleased that whoever it was in the US military command who tried to use the sailors to provoke a clash with Iran and scupper the end of sanctions did not succeed. There should be a full enquiry and the traitor exposed and charged. Let's hope Seymour Hersh gets on the case as soon as possible!Zepp, 2016-01-16 06:51:45The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical failure and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events has become non-operative, and now the US is saying that the boats were fully operational, but one of the sailors accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates in. And then, of course, they failed to notice that they were getting awfully close to that island where Iran maintained a base.MediaWatchDog, 2016-01-16 06:43:23Fortunately, we didn't have Cruz in the White House, threatening to nuke Iran for detaining American sailors for trespassing, even though it's clear they were question, fed, fueled up and sent on their way. The Iranians, at least, were civilized, albeit involuntary hosts.
Excellent news, progression towards a peaceful resolution. Heart breaking news for Israel and Saudi Arabia!
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2012 | www.theguardian.com
The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months between January and June 2011 was China, totaling 22% of Iran's crude oil exports. Japan and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14% and 13% respectively of the total exports of Iran. The European Union imports 18% of Iran's total exports with Italy and Spain taking the largest amounts.
Sri Lanka and Turkey are the most dependent on Iran's crude exports with it accounting for 100% and 51% of total crude imported, respectively. South Africa also takes 25% of its total crude from Iran.
borderboy , 22 Feb 2012 2:50It's all about keeping Israel top dog in the area. Wipe out the competition one by one.
FatBobby -> firstnamejames , 21 Feb 2012 10:16'The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months between January and June 2011 was China, totalling 22% of Iran's crude oil exports. Japan and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14% and 13% respectively'- I think even any common or garden moron can see the game plan here.. Time to plant the seeds of democracy...again
firstnamejames - The world should give thanks that you aren't in a position of power!harrylaw , 21 Feb 2012 6:03Diplomacy and sanctions are time consuming? Not half as time consuming as 'kicking ass' George Bush style. The Wikipedia entry for the War in Afghanistan is dated (2001-Present)….. that's what you call quick, decisive action!
What was required post-911 was for the US to have a long, hard think about its foreign policy, but instead they lived gloriously to stereotype and played right into Bin Laden's hands.
Bali 02... Madrid 04... London 05... that's the price you pay for 'quick, resolute' action.
We nuke Iran and the consequences will be life altering - not just for the Iranian people either.
This report is wrong, like most of the scaremongering on this issue, Iran did not threaten to close the strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the oil embargo, they threatened it in retaliation for a strike on their entirely legal nuclear facilities, the Western medias attempt to gin up a war with Iran are both foolish and pathetic...RedRush , 20 Feb 2012 17:11malcom, 20 Feb 2012 13:28Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need to keep out of other people's affairs.
The hypocrisy of the West is breath taking - attack Iraq over war crimes vs the Iranians, non-existent WMD in Iraq just as in Iran now, swap sides in Libya by funding militias led by so-called Al Qaeda men and the bleat on about UN resolutions when the elephant in the room (Israel) continues to abuse Palestine people and then continue to sell arms to other dictators around the world.
Well I suppose anyday now there will be a nuclear test in Iran and that will be that. Iran will be welcomed to the nuclear club with India and Pakistan and North Korea.icurahuman2, 20 Feb 2012 8:37I guess Russia or China would probably lend Iran a small nuke for the undergrond test.....
That will be adios to the Israeli aggression in the region.
I might note that proven reserves are NOT the same as recoverable reserves, the distinction is a quite huge difference. Also Saudi Arabian numbers are only guesses as the true numbers are a closely guarded state secret. It should also be noted that the north of Iran is on the Caspian Sea and any regional conflict would impact those nations and their gas and oil development too. Of course the Kurdish oil in Northern Iraq would also be at risk and I doubt the Iraq government would care one jot if it came under fire. The Strait of Hormuz isn't the only oil that would be effected should this all blow up.
|
|
|
www.counterpunch.org
After 9-11, the United States focused its most aggressive foreign policy on the Middle East – from Afghanistan to North Africa. But the deal recently worked out with Iran, the current back-door negotiations over Syria between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and the decision to subsidize, and now export, U.S. shale oil and gas production in a direct reversal of U.S. past policy toward Saudi Arabia – together signal a relative shift of U.S. policy away from the Middle East.
With a Middle East consolidation phase underway, U.S. policy has been shifting since 2013-14 to the more traditional focus that it had for decades: first, to check and contain China; second, to prevent Russia from economically integrating more deeply with Europe; and, third, to reassert more direct U.S. influence once again, as in previous decades, over the economies and governments in Latin America.
... ... ...
Argentina & Brazil: Harbinger of Neoliberal Things to ComeShould the new pro-U.S., pro-Business Venezuela National Assembly ever prevail over the Maduro government, the outcome economically would something like that now unfolding with the Mauricio Macri government in Argentina. Argentina's Macri has already, within days of assuming the presidency, slashed taxes for big farmers and manufacturers, lifted currency controls and devalued the peso by 30 percent, allowed inflation to rise overnight by 25 percent, provided US$2 billion in dollar denominated bonds for Argentine exporters and speculators, re-opened discussions with U.S. hedge funds as a prelude to paying them excess interest the de Kirchner government previously denied, put thousands of government workers on notice of imminent layoffs, declared the new government's intent to stack the supreme court in order to rubber stamp its new Neoliberal programs, and took steps to reverse Argentine's recent media law. And that's just the beginning.
Politically, the neoliberal vision will mean an overturning and restructuring of the current Supreme Court, possible changes to the existing Constitution, and attempts to remove the duly-elected president from office before his term by various means. Apart from plans to stack the judiciary, as in Argentina, Venezuela's new business controlled National Assembly will likely follow their reactionary class compatriots in Brazil, and move to impeach Venezuela president, Maduro, and dismantle his popular government – just as they are attempting the same in Brazil with that country's also recently re-elected president, Rousseff.
What happens in Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil in the weeks ahead, in 2016, is a harbinger of the intense economic and political class war in South America that is about to escalate to a higher stage in 2016.
jfl | Jan 8, 2016 6:08:12 PM | 10
The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... Jack Rasmus has an excellent survey at Neoliberalism Raises Its Ugly Head in South America: Washington Targets Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina .The war on the homefront seems won as far as Neolibraconia is concerned, at least the lock-up, see A Minimal Demand: Roll Back Incarceration to 1970 Levels , and here are pictures: animated and still .
That report from FARS seems worrisome indeed.
Our man b called Merkel's move for what it was before it was : After Creating Migration Flood Merkel Throws Up Emergency Dikes .
I'm still unconvinced that 1,000 rapists ran rampant in Cologne on New Years Eve. Where's Penelope and her fraud analysis when it seems most needed?
2016 will be the year when all this comes to a head. Perhaps Russia and the BRICS should preemptively repudiate their dollar denominated debts? It all seems to be going south at this particular point in time anyway.
jfl | Jan 8, 2016 6:45:14 PM | 11
Trying to follow nmb's link @1 without actually being shortened and sold myself led me to Pepe Escobar of 29 DecThe lame duck Obama administration – whatever rhetorical and/or legalistic contortions – still sticks to the Cold War 2.0 script on Russia, duly prescribed by Obama mentor Dr. Zbigniew "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski.
That follows a "tradition" Bill Blum , for instance, has extensively documented, as since the end of WWII Washington attempted to overthrow more than 50 governments – the absolute majority full democracies; dropped bombs on the civilian population of over 30 nations ; attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders ; attempted to suppress nationalist movements in 20 nations ; interfered on countless democratic elections; taught torture through manuals and "advisers"; and the list goes on.
The key front though is the Russian economy; sooner or later there's got to be a purge of the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry, but Putin will only act when he has surefire internal support, and that's far from given.
The fight to the death in Moscow's inner circles is really between the Eurasianists and the so-called Atlantic integrationists, a.k.a. the Western fifth column. The crux of the battle is arguably the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry – where some key liberalcon monetarist players are remote-controlled by the usual suspects, the Masters of the Universe.
The same mechanism applies, geopolitically, to any side, in any latitude, which has linked its own fiat money to Western central banks. The Masters of the Universe always seek to exercise hegemony by manipulating usury and fiat money control.
So why President Putin does not fire the head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiulina, and a great deal of his financial team - as they keep buying U.S. bonds and propping up the U.S. dollar instead of the ruble? What's really being aggressed here if not Russian interests?
|
|
|
www.unz.com
And make no doubt about it – a collapse is exactly what it is, and it afflicts way more of the country than just the war-wracked Donbass. Ukraine now vies with Moldova for the country with the lowest average wages in Europe.Gabon with snow ? Saakashvili is hopelessly optimistic. That would actually be a big improvement!
GDP is at 60% of its 1990 Level
As of this year, the country with the most pro-Western revolutions is also the poorest performing post-Soviet economy bar none. This is a not unimpressive achievement considering outcomes here have tended to disappoint rather than elate. Russia itself, current GDP at about 110% of its 1990 level, has nothing to write home about (though "statist" Belarus, defying neoliberal conventional wisdom, at a very respectable 200% does have something to boast about).
Back in 2010 , although by far the worst performing heavily industrialized Soviet economy, Ukraine was still performing better relative to its position in 1990 than Moldova, Tajikistan, and Georgia. In the intervening 5 years – with a 7% GDP decline in 2014 which has widened to a projected 9% in 2015 – Ukraine has managed to slip to rock bottom .
How does this look like on a more human level?
Housing Construction is Similar to That of 5 Million Population Russian Provinces
With a quarter of its population, Belarus is constructing as much new accomodation as is Ukraine. 16 million strong Kazakhstan is building more. Russia – more than ten times as much, even though it has less than four times as many people.
The seaside Russian province of Krasnodar Krai, which hosted the Sochi Winter Olympics, with its 5 million inhabitants, is still constructing more than half as much housing as all of Ukraine. No wonder the Crimeans were so eager to leave.
New Vehicle Sales Collapse to 1960s Levels
The USSR might have famously concentrated on guns over butter, yet even so, even in terms of an item as infamously difficult to acquire as cars under socialism, Ukrainian consumers were better off during the 1970-1990 period than today. Now Ukrainians are buying as few new cars as they were doing in the catastrophic 1990s, and fewer even than during the depth of the 2009 recession.
And even so many Maidanists continue to giggle at "sovoks" and "vatniks." Well, at least they now make up for having even less butter than before with the Azovets "innovative tank." Armatas are quaking in fear looking at that thing.
Debt to GDP Ratio at Critical Levels
And this figure would have risen further to around 100% this year.
Note that 60% is usually considered to be the critical danger zone for emerging market economies. This is the approximate level at which both Russia and Argentina fell into their respective sovereign debt crises.
To be fair, the IMF has indicated it will be partial to flouting its own rules to keep Ukraine afloat, which is not too surprising since it is ultimately a tool of Western geopolitical influence. And if as projected the Ukrainian economy begins to recover this year, then there is a fair chance that crisis will ultimately be averted.
But it will be a close shave, and so long as the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" oligarchs who rule Ukraine continue siphoning off money by the billions to their offshore accounts with impunity, nothing can be ruled out.
Resumption of Demographic Collapse
Much like the rest of the post-Soviet Slavic world, Russia had a disastrous 1990s in demographic terms, when mortality rates soared and birth rates plummeted. But like Russia – if to a lesser extent – it has since staged a modest recovery, incidentally with the help of a Russian-style "maternal capital" program. In 2008, it reached a plateau in birth rates, which was not significantly uninterrupted by the 2009 recession.
Since then, however, they have plummeted – exactly nine months after the February 2014 coup. The discreteness with which this happened together with the fact that the revolt in the Donbass took a further couple of months to get going after the coup proper implies that this fertility decline was likely a direct reaction to the Maidan and what it portended for the future.
This collapse is very noticeable even after you completely remove all traces of Crimea, Donetsk, and Lugansk oblasts which might otherwise muddy the waters (naturally, the demographic crisis in all its aspects has been much worse in the region that bore the brunt of Maidanist chiliastic fervor). Here are the Ukrstat figures for births and deaths in the first ten months of 2013, 2014, and 2015:
Births Deaths 2013 350658 441331 2014 354622 445236 2015 329308 450763 Furthermore, this period has seen a huge wave of emigration. Figures can only be guesstimated, but it is safe to say they are well over a million to both Russia and the EU.
The effects of this will continue to be felt long after any semblance of normalcy returns to Ukraine.
|
|
|
peakoilbarrel.com
Fernando Leanme , 01/01/2016 at 4:15 pmThing is, the Supreme Court Justices who made the decision were sworn in illegally one week ago. Furthermore, the deputies were already certified as properly elected by an Chavista controlled commission, the CNE, a separate power under the Venezuelan constitution. In addition, the constitution states the National Assembly is the one which decides whether its certified members should be unseated. Thus the move by Maduro, which he took one day after visiting his boss in Cuba, is illegal. It amounts to a coup against the National Assembly.Ablokeimet , 01/02/2016 at 6:11 amAs I wrote before, the National Assembly response is simply to ignore the Supreme Court. This is heading towards a serious clash on and after January 5th. Lesson learned: communists are indeed a serious threat to democracy. They use the system to get power, and will do anything to hold it once they are at the top. They are also corrupt, venal evil doers. And this is why I despise them.
Fernando Leanme: "Lesson learned: communists are indeed a serious threat to democracy. They use the system to get power, and will do anything to hold it once they are at the top. They are also corrupt, venal evil doers. And this is why I despise them."Duncan Idaho , 01/02/2016 at 9:59 am1. Maduro is not a communist. He isn't even a socialist. He's a Left populist with authoritarian tendencies, albeit a lot less authoritarian than most Latin American caudillos of the last century. If the Chavistas were really socialists, they would have nationalised at least the commanding heights of the economy. They didn't. They even allowed the private sector media to keep operating, with full freedom of the press!
2. Far from "do anything to hold [power] once they are at the top", the Chavistas held democratic elections on schedule, and under credible conditions, for over a decade. Even when they knew they were going to lose this year, they didn't call them off or falsify them. Their attempts to stack the Supreme Court are reprehensible, but don't go anywhere near justifying Fernando Leanme's characterisation. For that, you'd have to look at Chile under General Pinochet, at Argentina's Dirty War, or at the Death Squad Democracies of Central America in the 80s & 90s.
3. In evaluating the situation in Venezuela, the context must be remembered. Not only have the Right wing opposition staged several attempts at overthrowing the government by means of popular movements combined with economic action, but at one stage even mounted an actual military coup. All their attempts failed, due to the fact that the Chavistas had strong support from the population. PSUV support fell because of a range of reasons (primarily the consequences of the low price of oil and the growing corruption of the bolibourgeoisie), but that didn't change the nature of the Right wing opposition, which has never accepted the legitimacy of any of the Chavista governments since 1998. My guess is that Maduro's attempt to stack the Supreme Court is a panic reaction due to fear that, with its super-majority in the Parliament, the new government will change the rules to ensure that the PSUV can never again be elected. And I'm far from convinced that those fears are unjustified.
While dangerous and corrupt (I have friends recently back from Venezuela), I would say a observation with much equanimity.
Venezuela will not return to it's US Client State status of the past, and learned the lesson of the lockout during the coup attempt.For much of the period (not the case now), 80% of the citizens benefited from the reforms, economically and politically.
Let them have their revolution– it may take a while to get it right. South America is the political bright spot on the planet (IMHO) at the moment, with only Colombia still under the thumb of US interests on a major level.
We shall see what the mess in Venezuela turns into-
|
|
|
Jan 01, 2016 | naked capitalism
RBHoughton , January 1, 2016 at 6:49 pm
I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him.
Larry Coffield , January 2, 2016 at 6:53 am
In spirit I've been voting Michael Hudson Nobels for decades. He's too great for a Nobel. I consider Michael to be our Thorstein Veblen, and such free-thinking radicals are not welcome in a club that allows criticism but not repudiation of neoliberalism.
Lambert Strether January 2, 2016 at 10:48 pm
Killing the Host is very good; I wish I could have reviewed it before the holiday shopping season…
different clue , January 2, 2016 at 5:26 pm
The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon.
|
|
|
www.amazon.com
S. J. S. Esq on November 9, 2002Superb analysis of U.S. Foreign PolicyThe author provides a persuasive argument that America is indeed an empire, albeit not of the traditional colonial type. Bacevich demontrates rather convincingly that the U.S., since roughly the Spanish-American War, has pursued a grand strategy of reshaping the world in its image, through free trade, military dominance, and globalization.
Particularly remarkable is the extent to which succeeding U.S. administrations have maintained continuity of purpose in achieving these goals. If you think Bill Clinton and GW Bush are radically different in their approaches to U.S. foreign policy, this book will open your eyes. In fact, Bacevich amply demonstrates that even presidents subscribing to the realist school of international relations have been greatly influenced by the idealism espoused by Woodrow Wilson before the First World War. In sum, if you are a student of U.S. foreign policy, political science, modern history, or just a concerned citizen of the "global community," this book can only serve to increase your understanding of how the United States achieved its current status of world dominance and what the implications of that are.
N. Tsafos on January 21, 2004
Open doors and the militarization of American foreign policy
To many cynics, a book like the "American Empire" might seem like an exercise in futility. Who could have trouble believing, after all, that America's primary strategic objective is to create a global marketplace without barriers to the movement of goods, capital, ideas and people? But what starts as an exposition of this argument soon branches into various themes of diverse interest yet equal importance.
Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, takes on conventional wisdom. For those who are baffled by the complexity of the post Cold War world and are dismayed by America's lack of a coherent strategy, Mr. Bacevich is reassuring: America's objective, now and in the past, has been to promote global openness; "this books finds continuity where others see discontinuity," he writes, parting ways with those who believe that globalization fundamentally reshaped American foreign policy priorities.While this theme is ever-present, Mr. Bacevich covers a lot more ground. Perhaps his most telling contribution is the resurrection of Charles Beard and William Appleman Williams as trenchant observers of American foreign policy. Both Beard and Williams offer their own hypotheses about why America is driven to this ever increasing need for markets abroad. And, after this voyage into intellectual history comes Mr. Bacevich's own argument about why America is compelled to this strategy of openness.
All three reach the same conclusion: America's imperial quest is meant to overcome problems at home. Although Beard and Williams are polemic in their view that America's foreign adventures prologue the inevitable reckoning with domestic troubles, Mr. Bacevich adopts a more dispassionate view and offers merely a possible explanation: With America's national cohesiveness eroding, Mr. Bacevich writes, "an ever-expanding pie satisfying ever more expansive appetites was the only `crusade' likely to command widespread and durable popular enthusiasm."
With this in place, Mr. Bacevich moves on to a different point: American military assets, he contends, are increasingly used to promote global openness. This heightened willingness to use coercion has elevated the role of the military in American politics, perhaps even more so than ever before. And, this increased militarization of American politics is playing a central, if underappreciated, role in formulating as well as executing foreign policy.
For sure, all this is food for thought. Surprisingly enough, Mr. Bacevich has refrained as much as possible from judgments; in fact, writing a book on such a topic whilst remaining neutral is a feat in itself. All the same, Mr. Bacevich's military mind is evident throughout. A book whose aim is to show that America's chief purpose is promoting globalization would have done well to pay heed to dollar diplomacy as much as it has to gunboat diplomacy. Yet this minor objection could not abate the appeal of an otherwise outstanding book.
bjcefola on April 21, 2007
This work started out strong, beginning with an excellent chapter on 20th century American intellectual history covering Beard, Williams, and the myth of the Accidental Empire. Beard and Williams questioned the meaning and motive behind the open door policy, proclaiming it sheep's clothing over an imperialist agenda. Both historians were stigmatized and largely ignored by later historians for their trouble.Bacevich then connects the open door to the post cold war world, showing how globalization as conceived in American foreign policy was 'new bottles for old wine'.
The majority of the book is an extended review of the Clinton years, looking at how Bosnia, Iraq, and Kosovo reflect continuities with the Open Door.
Some bits I didn't know: The use of private military contractors started back in Bosnia because Americans wouldn't support a boots on the ground strategy and we weren't supposed to take sides.
Also, the weak State Departments under Bush reflect a structural problem. The theater CINC's have much greater budgetary power and discretion of action, to a foreign power their words matter more then any ambassador (or Secretary of State?)
I would avoid the last chapter on George W. Bush, it appears to have been written prior to the invasion of Iraq and is therefore useless as analysis.
I think Bacevich is too quick to look for continuity between administrations and spends too little time on constraints. Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all had adversarial relationships with Congress, and their policies were tailored around what congress would allow. As Bush II demonstrates, removing that constraint allowed wildly discontinuous policies. If it was so easy for Bush to push an overtly imperial agenda why can't the next President push an overtly anti-imperial agenda with equally revolutionary changes?
A Customer on November 17, 2003
An Excellent Analysis of American Foreign Policylikbez , 01/03/2016 at 8:14 pmIn American Empire, Andrew Bacevich provides a fine and historically cogent analysis of American foreign policy. Bacevich writes with clarity, skill, and historical understanding as he argues that a new Pax American - an American Empire - is at hand. While the definition of empire and whether United States is in fact an imperial power is debatable, the real value of Bacevich's analysis is its identification of continuity in American foreign policy and grand strategy throughout the Twentieth-Century.
American Empire does this by identifying U.S. attempts to promote and preserve "openness" around the world. While this sometimes leads Bacevich to overemphasize continuity (such as ignoring George W. Bush's willingness to ignore and alienate allies not just through policy but through diplomatic tone), it nevertheless reveals a coherent grand strategy organizing U.S. foreign policy.
Bacevich is also sometimes too inclined to describe "globalization" as tantamount to "Americanization," but these minor flaws do not mar his overall analysis, which is excellent. Some have argued that this book is anti-American, but any serious reader will find that it is hardly that. It is, however, a subtle yet hard nosed analysis of the underlying assumptions and strategy of American foreign policy.
Comparing even with the British coverage the statement "Bloomberg, (like most US MSM), just wants to report the f**king news." is very weak.In foreign events coverage they want to propagate a certain agenda and are very disciplined in pursuing this goal. That does not exclude that sometimes they report important news with minor distortions. But to assume that they "just wants to report the f**king news" is extremely naïve if we are taking about foreign events.
Remember all those fancy dances pretending to be news about Iran sanctions. Truth is the first victim of war. Unfortunately this war for world dominance now became a permanent business for the USA. And Iran is considered by US establishment as an enemy.
I would recommend to read AMERICAN EMPIRE by Andrew J. BACEVICH
Harvard University Press, 2002 – 302 pages
In a challenging, provocative book, Andrew Bacevich reconsiders the assumptions and purposes governing the exercise of American global power. Examining the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton–as well as George W. Bush's first year in office–he demolishes the view that the United States has failed to devise a replacement for containment as a basis for foreign policy. He finds instead that successive post-Cold War administrations have adhered to a well-defined "strategy of openness." Motivated by the imperative of economic expansionism, that strategy aims to foster an open and integrated international order, thereby perpetuating the undisputed primacy of the world's sole remaining superpower. Moreover, openness is not a new strategy, but has been an abiding preoccupation of policymakers as far back as Woodrow Wilson.
Although based on expectations that eliminating barriers to the movement of trade, capital, and ideas nurtures not only affluence but also democracy, the aggressive pursuit of openness has met considerable resistance. To overcome that resistance, U.S. policymakers have with increasing frequency resorted to force, and military power has emerged as never before as the preferred instrument of American statecraft, resulting in the progressive militarization of U.S. foreign policy.
Neither indictment nor celebration, American Empire sees the drive for openness for what it is–a breathtakingly ambitious project aimed at erecting a global imperium. Large questions remain about that project's feasibility and about the human, financial, and moral costs that it will entail. By penetrating the illusions obscuring the reality of U.S. policy, this book marks an essential first step toward finding the answers.
|
|
|
Jan 01, 2016 | naked capitalism
kokuanani , January 1, 2016 at 7:24 amI'm surprised that Hudson didn't identify as a "big story" the fact that no MSM are reporting that the economy has not recovered. I'm appalled every time I read that the Great Recession "ended" in 2009, or whatever date they choose. The MSM seem to motor along quoting from the press releases of whomever about how everything's on the upswing.
Jef , January 1, 2016 at 11:23 am
koku – In all fairness they sorta do in essence by consistently reporting on a weekly basis that we are about to enter a new recession. What kind of economy is perpetually entering a recession?
Yves Smith Post author January 1, 2016 at 11:44 am
One where the Fed is doing everything it can to prevent it entering a recession :-). But that isn't enough to produce a recovery. As Hudson pointed out, all it does is help the capital-owing classes and those who are beneficiaries (as in they working in parts of finance and other sectors that benefit from super-low rates or provide services to the capital-owing classes) with spotty trickle-down to the rest.
MaroonBulldog , January 1, 2016 at 11:41 pm
Who are the "capital-owing classes"?
Sounds like an apt description of the residual owners of claims against the assets of highly-leveraged business associations–like the shareholders of big banks.
Tyler , January 1, 2016 at 8:47 am
"And there is no sign of recovery, or even any sign that the presidential candidates running in next year's election are trying to do anything."
Creating Jobs Rebuilding America via Bernie Sanders.
JTMcPhee , January 1, 2016 at 9:37 am
At what point are voters going to see through all this?
In the existent political economy, who is "we," as in "we must do this or that policy thingie," and of what import are "voters"?
Almost all the agency (and "agencies" too) belong to "them…"
To have even a Hope of Change, what should "we" be thinking, and more important, doing?
Tyler , January 1, 2016 at 12:06 pm
It's time for mass civil disobedience of the sort that happened in the 60s. I think we, the people, should do something like this .
Mark Anderlik , January 1, 2016 at 11:46 pm
Thanks for this post. The article you shared the link for, emphasizes the transformative power of principled action that risks arrest, changing first and foremost the participants. In my long experience as an organizer I have seen the same. This kind of action helps free the person for further action. And it can inspire others to action. Whether in resistance to a particular evil or in constructing an alternative to the existing institutions. This is how the revolutionary project looks today, in my view.
David , January 2, 2016 at 8:01 pm
The young people, who have the energy to go out in the streets…. most of them are so thoroughly brainwashed that they regard unions as their enemies.
They are pacified, and do not have the courage to face the police terror. Today everyone knows that the police shoot to kill. It was a little different in the 60's. Now the police have military weaponry from the federal government and are organized in military SWAT teams. It would take real courage to go against that. But above all, it would take the belief that taking from the rich is okay. And no "true American" believes that. Most of us believe that getting rich is a god-given right, and those who cannot do it are losers.
susan the other , January 1, 2016 at 9:51 am
I think the IMF backtracked a tiny bit on Ukraine by saying that they (IMF) expect Ukraine to pay its debt to Russia but it is not a requirement for the new bailout. To which Ukraine replied that they were never paying Russia a dime because they consider it to be an odious debt. They are going to have a hard time making the case that all that heating oil they burned was an odious act by Russia and their own former government hacks… we know they can't repay it and we are determined to bail them out anyway. It's nice that Hudson is going off to the U. of Beijing; we'll get some interesting stories.
Jim Haygood , January 1, 2016 at 12:58 pm
It's nice that Hudson is going off to the U. of Beijing; we'll get some interesting stories.'
Michael Hudson and Michael Pettis, hangin' out in the Beijing U. rathskeller, spinning economic tall tales.
I'd buy them a beer.
susan the other , January 1, 2016 at 3:49 pm
Yes, me too. I hope he can give us straight talk from China/Chinese viewpoint. And no censorship here or there.
craazyboy , January 1, 2016 at 9:51 am
I wish the USG would tell American citizens where the economic bomb shelters are when it declares these wars on our former friends. Tim Geithner repeatedly told us China is not a currency manipulator and as far as I know, Jack Lew still agrees with the assessment. So I guess we decided to fight fair by taking a cheap nock off of a samurai sword in the chest while waving our arms around with our heavy artillery, IMF loans and running a destroyer past fake Chinese Islands on the other side of the world.
Then we are still friends with Europe. Friends don't let Europeans buy oil and gas from Russians. Qatar is one option for gas, presently by LNG tanker, but the big volume is coming someday when we get Syria all straightened out. Furthermore, we've lifted export bans on US energy product, so more help for Europe on the way. Tho to get our fracking gas to Europe we need the LNG terminal in Nawlings operational and it's majority funded by China. So we may need another destroyer escort there to get the product pointed properly at Europe… but Europe must have their 11 dimensional chess players who can figure out the brilliance in all this. But no Canadian Keystone oil for Europe, anyway, unless Warren Buffet figures out a way to get it there.
No good news to report on citizen investment opportunities in Ukraine. My formerly favorite international bond fund *, Templeton Global, thought it wise to accumulate half the Ukraine debt. They just took a 20% haircut, and it may not be the last haircut. So if anyone was trying to be an amateur bond vulture and bet that the IMF will bail out your investment, you lost that bet.
* Disclosure – I haven't owned any since the GFC.
edmondo , January 1, 2016 at 10:28 am
Which party do you want to actually administer this move to the right? A friendly Democratic face, or a sort of frowning Republican face,
See! Ralph Nader was wrong.There is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans.
Jim Haygood , January 1, 2016 at 11:51 am
That's "friendly" with ironic quotes around it. Check out her crocodile smile (jpg image):
cnchal , January 1, 2016 at 10:29 am
. . . There is a trade war and a financial war against Russia, China. . .
What trade war against China? Last I looked, every TV, stereo, and phone or any electronic device in any store in the US was made in China. It isn't even possible to buy a new car without Chinese made components in it.
Yves' comment
I would also add growing deflation risk as a big story. The collapse in commodities prices is a symptom of the fact that China has started to "export" deflation.
China has been exporting deflation for decades. The collapse in commodities prices, now, is the result of massive speculation and huge increases in prices due to ZIRP.
fajensen , January 1, 2016 at 1:22 pm
We haven't seen anything yet. I just bought a big pile of "vanilla" HV-transistors for some audio amplifiers I want to make directly from AliExpress – about $3 for 200 off, including shipping. "Here", I would pay 50 times that at the official distributor – unless I buy 5000 and up, then it's the same price.
China is beginning to cut out the middle-man and going straight for making 3'rd world prices available in the 1'st world. The Chinese shops even have customer service too, I have always managed to get refunds / replacements when something went wrong with an order.
craazyboy , January 1, 2016 at 1:55 pm
E-Bay and Ali is definitely the way to go for electronics parts, if they got what you want. It's your Karmic reward for ever shopping at Radio Shack. China Post is subsidizing shipments under 2 lbs as well. It comes all the way to your mailbox for $3 max. I have bought stuff for a buck, freight included, tho I'm really not sure who ate it there.
Now for my Radio Shack karma experience. I needed 4 common ceramic caps for a project. They probably sell for 3 cents each in volume. Radio Shack price, $1.25 EACH. Ebay price, 20 for $1.50, shipping included. It felt so good.
optimader , January 1, 2016 at 2:11 pm
And they have only two of the three cap values you need… ;o/
That is my perpetual experience w/ RS as well in general, Home Despot w/ any hardware related widgets –before I swore off that joint entirely.
I refuse to shop HD anymore for ANYTHING. A perpetually unfulfilled experience that takes your life away in 1 hour increments, actually more because I would then go on scavenger hunts to find missing bits.
RBHoughton , January 1, 2016 at 6:40 pm
There is a street in Shenzhen called Wak Keung North Road with high-rise buildings end to end. One is for computer parts, another for telephone stuff, another generaL electronics, video, audio, etc., etc.
Inside each building the floor space is divided into 60 square foot booths, each rented by a factory. They display their wares, you agree prices and delivery goes to wherever you want to go.
I'd say that's cutting out the middleman.
cnchal , January 2, 2016 at 12:21 pm
This is an interesting series of responses.
@ fajensen
China is beginning to cut out the middle-man and going straight for making 3'rd world prices available in the 1'st world. . .@ craazyboy
China Post is subsidizing shipments under 2 lbs as well. It comes all the way to your mailbox for $3 max. I have bought stuff for a buck, freight included, tho I'm really not sure who ate it there.@ optimander
I refuse to shop HD anymore for ANYTHING. A perpetually unfulfilled experience that takes your life away in 1 hour increments . . .@ RB Houghton
They display their wares, you agree prices and delivery goes to wherever you want to go.
I'd say that's cutting out the middleman.Please consider what the middleman does. They import and warehouse the items, and display those items on a retail shelf. The counting and inventory control cost multiples of what these electronic parts cost.
Retail and warehouse businesses are mercilessly taxed by the municipality they reside in, whether they have a good or bad year, and they employ some of our neighbors.
As one business after another is wiped out, what profitable enterprise will be left?
craazyboy , January 2, 2016 at 1:39 pm
Hopefully some that don't involve charging me $1.25 for a 3 cent part that's smaller than your little pinky's fingernail and can sit on a shelf indefinitely without spoiling or going bad..
different clue , January 2, 2016 at 5:16 pm
In the absence of Mutual Protectionism for Everybody, this approach offers the only hope of short term survival to those who are the first to take it. Because if you don't do it, someone else will. Of course in the long run, every middleman will be cut out, will go out of bussiness and/or jobless, and will be unable to buy anything much anywhere. That will help bankrupt even more domestic bussinesses and de-job even more domestic workers. (And of course every American electronic-parts-maker and everyone they employed is already out of bussiness and/or unemployed and subsisting at the WalMart level or the Dollar Tree level below that now already.) In the longest run, it will make the American 99% as poor as the Chinese 99%, which is the long range goal of the Global OverClass.
The only way any of us can get off this hamsterwheel-race to the bottom is if everybody gets off it together. And the only way for us to do that is for those of us who WANT to do that to be able to force those of us who DON'T want to do that . . . to do that anyway. And the only way to apply that force is with the impermeable economic borders we could give ourself by abolishing Free Trade and restoring Militant Belligerent Protectionism.
Valerie , January 3, 2016 at 1:43 am
I agree that "free" trade is a big problem. If we are to have an economy that will sustain us all, we have to be willing to pay more and have less. I actually don't think this will be all that terrible. I am in my mid fifties and all my friends and I talk about is getting rid of all the crap we have managed to acquire over the last twenty years. Most of it is not of a good quality, bought cheap thanks to exploited labor in factories in the Undeveloped World. Everyone wants first world wages for themselves, yet we all want to pay cheap prices. Something has to give – and right now it is the wages of the working class.
nothing but the truth , January 1, 2016 at 10:40 am
the west is no longer a society. it is a collection of nuclear individuals. i doubt they can form a positive, beneficial political force anymore. except in the Marcus Olson sense, tight groups linked by ethnic or financial interest which conspire to extract from the "outsiders". These groups are predatory and will do anything to protect their privileges.
I think the party has ended for the west ("the white people"). Its economies are mostly based on high brow money laundering, no future for the kids, and ever more frustrated population.
Dave , January 1, 2016 at 3:13 pm
Mr. Hudson,
You are the best economic writer I have ever seen. Have been following others' blogs, books and lectures for years. Bought most of your books and truly appreciate your ability to take the hideously complex and explain in several different ways so that amateurs can understand. (Sorry Yves, you presuppose a graduate degree in economics, but we still love you.) Love the footnotes instead of having to flip back and forth to the back of the book. But, why, oh why, is there not an index in "Killing The Host"? Please create one for the second edition.
Thank you!
Jack Heape , January 1, 2016 at 11:26 am
I would also have mentioned the Greece fiasco. What the ECB and EU did to Greece I think is a turning point which will eventually lead to the dissolution of the EU. I can't help but believe that behind the scenes various governments are working on plans to return to their own central banks and currencies if need be. The drum beats of nationalism are just starting and as economic conditions worsen they will only get louder.
Michaell Hudson , January 1, 2016 at 11:39 am
Yves and the rest of you are absolutely right about what I left out.
I was phoned and asked to go on Skype in 10 minutes. I thought I'd have the usual 20 minutes or so to talk. Just as I was getting started, the interview was over. So I didn't have a chance to say what you commentators are rightly bringing up.
The economy is in a mess. It's not recovering. And instead of blaming debt deflation and the tax shift off the FIRE sector onto labor and industry, China is blamed for not growing fast enough to provide enough of a market to compensate for Western austerity and financialization.
There is no thought that maybe the West should emulate China and return to the idea of social democratic industrial capitalism of a century ago, as it seemed to be evolving into socialism.
I wasn't sent a link (and still can't find the interview on TRNN's site), so i couldn't change Haitian to Asian. But I love these machine-translators. Maybe robotization of life and culture can only go so far …
JEHR , January 1, 2016 at 11:53 am
On Canadian TV I heard someone (maybe a comedian) describe the relationship of Canada and the US. This article brings it to mind. Basically she said (and I'm paraphrasing here),
When the US thinks of Canada at all, it thinks of it as its hat; when Canada thinks of the US, they should think of the US as Canada's pants–and those pants are dirty.
I just think that is very funny and better than the elephant and mouse analogy. It's my joke for the New Year.
Synoia , January 1, 2016 at 12:18 pm
The collapse in commodities prices is a symptom of the fact that China has started to "export" deflation.
Yes, but…as manufacture-r to-the-world, China is dependent on demand. There appears to be a demand gap in the US and Europe, driven by austerity.
Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence? Or part of the plan after the brilliant leadership which gave China its manufacturer-to-the-world leadership though the export of jobs from, the US and Europe?
Steven , January 1, 2016 at 2:12 pm
Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence?
I've been curious about this as well. The driving force seems to rest with Hudson's observation that "The product of Wall Street (WS) is debt." To WS – and Washington – it doesn't really seem to matter who holds that debt – only that they continue to be allowed to create ever more of it. To that end, of course, the debt so created has to at least seem to be able to produce an income stream seemingly capable of paying the economic rent, the claims on society's future wealth its purchasers are led to believe they are buying – that or produce immediate 'capital gains' as a substitute.
But Hudson also suggests that 'austerity' is just a prelude to seizing what remains of what once were called 'the commons', i.e. the last remaining publicly owned assets. A variation on this theme would be that the 0.01% at least understand what they own these days is DEBT – not wealth. And they are anxious to exchange it for something real before the fraudulent social order they have foisted on an anesthetized public stands revealed. See Hudson's Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy
Of course, it may not be that complicated – just Davos group-think along the lines of "the 99.99% must use less so we the 0.01% can have more".
Michael Hudson , January 1, 2016 at 1:25 pm
The political choice for 2016 (It's singular)
Here's what I MEANT to post (I copied the wrong text above; apologies). The choice for 2016 in Europe as well as America will be between "Yes" (independents), "Yes, please" (Democrats), and "Yes, thank you!" (Republicans). All yes to further tax cuts for the wealthy, bank bailouts to "save the system," downsized social security and other social spending, and a smaller non-military budget as "balanced budgets" mean cutbacks for what is left for the civilian economy after Wall Street and the FIRE sector siphon off their subsidies.
NC remains the best summary of how this scenario is unfolding day to day (AM and PM installments). The gap between its and other internet reporting and mainstream media seems to be widening.
craazyboy , January 1, 2016 at 1:27 pm
There is a mysterious region over the Pacific where an exporters deflation transforms into margin improvement for importers.
China's problem isn't all export demand. For the last 15 years, half their economy was internal investment spending (infrastructure, too many factories, and ghost cities) There are trying to increase consumption and reduce internal investment. Except workers in china don't have that much money. Oopsie.
Exports have dropped too, implying world demand is down somewhat. But commodity prices are probably impacted as much by ramping down internal investment consumption as by export weakness. Of course industrial commodity producers have ramped up capacity these last 15 years to meet China's demand. The party only goes so long.
I checked some data on Cu recently. China was importing 25% of world copper production. Half of that was used internally, the other half got made into electrical/electronic exports. You could probably find similar data on oil, aluminum, steel, etc…They are also a big importer of semiconductors – and the electronic boxes get filled and shipped back out again. No iPhone deflation apparent in the US.
***This was supposed to be a response to Synoia above.
Mickey Marzick in Akron, Ohio , January 1, 2016 at 2:17 pm
How does the failure of the domestic economy to recover in any meaningful sense for the vast majority of Americans contribute to an explanation of why the Russian bear, Chinese dragon, and the Islamic caliphate now pose existential threats to the United States? Fear and economic insecurity at home are externalized outwards beyond the homeland and justify increased military expenditures in conjunction with the erosion of civil liberties, the increasing militarization of society, especially within and among law enforcement, and the expansion of the national security state – all in the name of these existential threats.
The US simply cannot afford peace. It would destroy the raison d'etre of the military industrial security [MIS] complex. The latter now must be fed to protect economic lebensraum – global trade routes and capital mobility. This is what makes the US Navy a force for good, right? But it has to be on our terms. Otherwise, resistance morphs readily into terrorism or espionage in its various forms, electronic, industrial. No longer benign "military Keynesianism", if it ever was is debatable, but now simply aggressive economic expansionism backed by military force coupled with increasing austerity in the homeland. Guns with butter are no longer affordable. So it will be guns!
I couldn't help thinking while I watched the last Republican debate that for two hours the American people were terrorized, but NOT by ISIS. The terrorists were the stooges up on stage posing as candidates for President. If not radical Islam, then China or Putin dominated the discussion. Rand Paul perhaps offered a different take but it had little impact.
No, it just seems to me that the failure of domestic policy across the board in this country is now held hostage by the MIS complex, and its needs – economic, political, and ideological – are driving foreign policy. Indeed, to what extent are the needs of the MIS complex responsible for the failure of domestic policy – especially economic recovery?
Happy New Year!
tegnost , January 1, 2016 at 6:01 pm
I have a couple of questions, one, is austerity in the u.s and europe of a similar variety. In europe currently it seems to me austerity is enforced as a policy choice whereas in the usa it enforced through class warfare, play the game or live in a tent under the freeway, then after you're in the tent under the freeway you're a "free spirit" who's chosen this way of life so your own damn fault, live with your choices because in usa anyone succeeds who wants to. Next, I wonder whether tpp is really a war against china, or if our genius financial engineers want china to be the engine of growth, allow wages in china to go up but using the trade deal to isolate chinas increased consumption and create comparative advantage by selling vietnamese goods to the chinese through u.s. corporations thus enriching the u.s. elite? Basically extra-national globalism of elite power. Do either of these thoughts make sense?
craazyboy , January 1, 2016 at 8:12 pm
Close. Except another valuable trade route is US corporations (and Japan and Europe) will sell Vietnam products (and products from other places in Asia with even worse poverty than China) back to the US..(and their home corporate domiciles) It's also easier to put your own factories in these places. In China, I think the Chinese guv still wants to own 51%, with some exceptions. They don't kick in any money tho. Not that that's a terribly big problem for us because they are overbuilt in so many industries so you just have a bidding war between Chinese companies instead. Then in downturns, you don't have the associated debt with factory and capital equipment, and debt deflation is now someone else's problem!
The only thing is the industrial capabilities of these other places are limited at this point. They do clothing, Barbie dolls and disk drives. It's still Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China (coming on) for things more sophisticated.
RBHoughton , January 1, 2016 at 6:49 pm
I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him.
Larry Coffield , January 2, 2016 at 6:53 am
In spirit I've been voting Michael Hudson Nobels for decades. He's too great for a Nobel. I consider Michael to be our Thorstein Veblen, and such free-thinking radicals are not welcome in a club that allows criticism but not repudiation of neoliberalism.
Lambert Strether January 2, 2016 at 10:48 pm
Killing the Host is very good; I wish I could have reviewed it before the holiday shopping season…
different clue , January 2, 2016 at 5:26 pm
The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon.
Google matched content |
Society
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|
|
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site |
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.
Last modified: January, 02, 2020
