Also the concept of "Neoliberal jihad is valid, but it is better to call it Neoliberal World revolution as it was borrowed
from Trotskyism
Notable quotes:
"... Jihad vs. McWorld ..."
"... In the two decades since Barber's book, this conflict has seemed to play out along overtly cultural lines: with Islamic extremism representing jihad, in opposition to Western neoliberalism representing McWorld. ..."
"... Linking Brexit and Trump to global right-wing tribal nationalisms doesn't mean conflating them all, of course. ..."
"... Yet at the same time, we can't understand our 21st century world without a recognition of this widespread phenomenon of global, tribal nationalism. ..."
In his ground-breaking
1995 book Jihad vs. McWorld , political scientist Benjamin Barber posits that the
global conflicts of the early 21st century would be driven by two opposing but equally
undemocratic forces: neoliberal corporate globalization (which he dubbed "McWorld") and
reactionary tribal nationalisms (which he dubbed "Jihad"). Although distinct in many ways, both
of these forces, Barber persuasively argues, succeed by denying the possibilities for
democratic consensus and action, and so both must be opposed by civic engagement and activism
on a broad scale.
In the two decades since Barber's book, this conflict has seemed to play out along overtly
cultural lines: with Islamic extremism representing jihad, in opposition to Western
neoliberalism representing McWorld. Case in pitch-perfect point: the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Center. Yet despite his use of the Arabic word Jihad, Barber is clear that
reactionary tribalism is a worldwide phenomenon -- and in 2016 we're seeing particularly
striking examples of that tribalism in Western nations such as Great Britain and the United
States.
Britain's vote this week in favor of leaving the European Union was driven entirely by such
reactionary tribal nationalism. The far-right United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and its
leader Nigel Farage
led the charge in favor of Leave , as exemplified by a recent UKIP poster featuring a photo
of Syrian refugees with the caption " Breaking point: the EU has failed
us ." Farage and his allies like to point to demographic statistics about how much the UK
has changed in the last few decades , and more
exactly how the nation's white majority has been somewhat shifted over that time by the
arrival
of sizeable African and Asian immigrant communities.
It's impossible not to link the UKIP's emphases on such issues of immigration and demography
to the presidential campaign of the one prominent U.S. politician who is
cheering for the Brexit vote : presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. From his
campaign-launching speech about Mexican immigrant "criminals and rapists" to his proposal to
ban Muslim immigration and his "Make American Great Again" slogan, Trump has relied on
reactionary tribal nationalism at every stage of his campaign, and has received the
enthusiastic endorsement
of white supremacist and far-right organizations as a result. For such American tribal
nationalists, the 1965 Immigration Act is the chief bogeyman, the origin point of continuing
demographic shifts that have placed white America in a precarious position.
The only problem with that narrative is that it's entirely inaccurate. What the 1965 Act did
was reverse a
recent, exclusionary trend in American immigration law and policy, returning the nation to
the more inclusive and welcoming stance it had taken throughout the rest of its history.
Moreover, while the numbers of Americans from Latin American, Asian, and Muslim cultures have
increased in recent decades, all of those
communities have been part of o
ur national community from its origin points . Which is to say, this right-wing tribal
nationalism isn't just opposed to fundamental realities of 21st century American identity -- it
also depends on historical and national narratives that are as mythic as they are
exclusionary.
Linking Brexit and Trump to global right-wing tribal nationalisms doesn't mean conflating
them all, of course. Although Trump rallies have featured troubling instances of violence, and
although the
murderer of British politican Jo Cox was an avowed white supremacist and Leave supporter,
the right-wing Islamic extremism of groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram rely far more
consistently and centrally on violence and terrorism in support of their worldview and goals.
Such specific contexts and nuances are important and shouldn't be elided.
Yet at the same time, we can't understand our 21st century world without a recognition of
this widespread phenomenon of global, tribal nationalism. From ISIS to UKIP, Trump to France's
Jean-Marie Le Pen, such reactionary forces have become and remain dominant players across the
world, influencing local and international politics, economics, and culture. Benjamin Barber
called this trend two decades ago, and we would do well to read and remember his analyses -- as
well as his call for civic engagement and activism to resist these forces and fight for
democracy.
Petras did not mention that it was Carter who started neoliberalization of the USA. The subsequent election of Reagan signified
the victory of neoliberalism in this country or "quite coup". The death of New Deal from this point was just a matter
of time. Labor relations drastically changes and war on union and atomization of workforce are a norm.
Welfare state still exists but only for corporation and MIC. Otherwise the New Deal society is almost completely dismanted.
It is true that "The ' New Deal' was, at best, a de facto ' historical compromise' between the capitalist class
and the labor unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition
while the capitalists retained their executive prerogatives." But the key factor in this compromise was the existence of the USSR as
a threat to the power of capitalists in the USA. when the USSR disappeared cannibalistic instincts of the US elite prevailed over caution.
Notable quotes:
"... The earlier welfare 'reforms' and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East. ..."
"... In the 1940's through the 1960's, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program – a form of ' social imperialism' , which 'buy off' the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity and poor health. ..."
"... modern welfare state' ..."
"... Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections, collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility. ..."
"... Social Security legislation was approved along with workers' compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace shop steward councils organized 'on the spot' job action to protect safe working conditions. ..."
"... World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers' collective bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number were also killed or wounded in the war. ..."
"... So-called ' right to work' ..."
"... Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses. Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing hours (" thirty hours work for forty hours pay ..."
"... Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers' incomes, increased, inequalities, especially in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans' access to high-quality subsidized education declined ..."
"... With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the " Volker Plan " – freezing workers' wages as a means to combat inflation. ..."
"... Guns without butter' became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based on politically fragile foundations. ..."
"... The anti-labor offensive from the ' Oval Office' intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization, capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor's share of national income. ..."
"... The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression, at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its control of the commanding heights of the economy ..."
"... Hand in bloody glove' with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home. The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers. Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas and turned their backs on labor at home. ..."
"... President 'Bill' Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard 'Bernie' Madoff. ..."
"... Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor 'workfare', exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families ravaged the urban communities. ..."
"... President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush's two overseas wars to Obama's seven. ..."
"... Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued to moralize to black families about ' values' . ..."
"... Obama's war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa. The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of Africans flooding Europe. ..."
"... Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump ..."
"... Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. The remains of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society -- are on the chopping block. ..."
"... The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the 'Great Society's' gravediggers, while wailing at Trump's allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave. ..."
"... Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ' labor movement' has contributed to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ' strike-breaker' Reagan, ' workfare' Clinton, ' Wall Street crash' Bush, ' Wall Street savior' Obama and ' Trickle-down' Trump. ..."
"... Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from the 'Great Financial Meltdown' of the 21 st century. ..."
"... The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class polarized social system in history ..."
"... "The collaboration of liberals and unions in promoting endless wars opened the door to Trump's mirage of a stateless, tax-less, ruling class." ..."
"... Corporations [now] are welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up ..."
"... Corporations not only continuously seek monopolies (with the aid and sanction of the state) but they steadily fine tune the welfare state for their benefit. In fact, in reality, welfare for prols and peasants wouldn't exist if it didn't act as a money conduit and ultimate profit center for the big money grubbers. ..."
"... The article is dismal reading, and evidence of the failings of the "unregulated" society, where the anything goes as long as you are wealthy. ..."
"... Like the Pentagon. Americans still don't readily call this welfare, but they will eventually. Defense profiteers are unions in a sense, you're either in their club Or you're in the service industry that surrounds it. ..."
The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period, the
capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.
Between the mid 1970's to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies for
affordable housing have been gutted. ' Workfare' (under President 'Bill' Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced
workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits to an
astronomical degree.
What started as incremental reversals during the 1990's under Clinton has snowballed over the last two decades decimating welfare
legislation and institutions.
The earlier welfare 'reforms' and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a
series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East.
In the 1940's through the 1960's, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program
– a form of ' social imperialism' , which 'buy off' the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized
by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity
and poor health.
New Deals and Big Wars
The 1930's witnessed the advent of social legislation and action, which laid the foundations of what is called the ' modern
welfare state' .
Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections,
collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and
benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class
and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility.
Social Security legislation was approved along with workers' compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through
federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace
shop steward councils organized 'on the spot' job action to protect safe working conditions.
World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers' collective
bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number
were also killed or wounded in the war.
The post-war period witnessed a contradictory process: wages and salaries increased while legislation curtailed union rights via
the Taft Hartley Act and the McCarthyist purge of leftwing trade union activists. So-called ' right to work' laws effectively
outlawed unionization mostly in southern states, which drove industries to relocate to the anti-union states.
Welfare reforms, in the form of the GI bill, provided educational opportunities for working class and rural veterans, while federal-subsidized
low interest mortgages encourage home-ownership, especially for veterans.
The New Deal created concrete improvements but did not consolidate labor influence at any level. Capitalists and management still
retained control over capital, the workplace and plant location of production.
Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses.
Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing
hours (" thirty hours work for forty hours pay "). Dissident local unions were seized and gutted by the trade union bosses
– sometimes through violence.
Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the
will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist
class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers' incomes, increased, inequalities, especially
in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans' access to high-quality subsidized education declined.
While a new wave of social welfare legislation and programs began in the 1960's and early 1970's it was no longer a result of
a mass trade union or workers' "class struggle". Moreover, trade union collaboration with the capitalist regional war policies led
to the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of workers in two wars – the Korean and Vietnamese wars.
Much of social legislation resulted from the civil and welfare rights movements. While specific programs were helpful, none of
them addressed structural racism and poverty.
The Last Wave of Social Welfarism
The 1960'a witnessed the greatest racial war in modern US history: Mass movements in the South and North rocked state and federal
governments, while advancing the cause of civil, social and political rights. Millions of black citizens, joined by white activists
and, in many cases, led by African American Viet Nam War veterans, confronted the state. At the same time, millions of students and
young workers, threatened by military conscription, challenged the military and social order.
Energized by mass movements, a new wave of social welfare legislation was launched by the federal government to pacify mass opposition
among blacks, students, community organizers and middle class Americans. Despite this mass popular movement, the union bosses at
the AFL-CIO openly supported the war, police repression and the military, or at best, were passive impotent spectators of the drama
unfolding in the nation's streets. Dissident union members and activists were the exception, as many had multiple identities to represent:
African American, Hispanic, draft resisters, etc.
Under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, the EPA and multiple poverty programs were implemented.
A national health program, expanding Medicare for all Americans, was introduced by President Nixon and sabotaged by the Kennedy Democrats
and the AFL-CIO. Overall, social and economic inequalities diminished during this period.
The Vietnam War ended in defeat for the American militarist empire. This coincided with the beginning of the end of social welfare
as we knew it – as the bill for militarism placed even greater demands on the public treasury.
With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were
accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the " Volker Plan " – freezing workers' wages as a means to combat inflation.
Guns without butter' became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based
on politically fragile foundations.
The Debacle of Welfarism
Private sector trade union membership declined from a post-world war peak of 30% falling to 12% in the 1990's. Today it has sunk
to 7%. Capitalists embarked on a massive program of closing thousands of factories in the unionized North which were then relocated
to the non-unionized low wage southern states and then overseas to Mexico and Asia. Millions of stable jobs disappeared.
Following the election of 'Jimmy Carter', neither Democratic nor Republican Presidents felt any need to support labor organizations.
On the contrary, they facilitated contracts dictated by management, which reduced wages, job security, benefits and social welfare.
The anti-labor offensive from the ' Oval Office' intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention
firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush
and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was
astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization,
capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor's share of national income.
The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression,
at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its
control of the commanding heights of the economy.
The ' New Deal' was, at best, a de facto ' historical compromise' between the capitalist class and the labor
unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition while the capitalists
retained their executive prerogatives.
The Second World War secured the economic recovery for capital and subordinated labor through a federally mandated no strike
production agreement. There were a few notable exceptions: The coal miners' union organized strikes in strategic sectors and some
leftist leaders and organizers encouraged slow-downs, work to rule and other in-plant actions when employers ran roughshod with special
brutality over the workers. The recovery of capital was the prelude to a post-war offensive against independent labor-based political
organizations. The quality of labor organization declined even as the quantity of trade union membership increased.
Labor union officials consolidated internal control in collaboration with the capitalist elite. Capitalist class-labor official
collaboration was extended overseas with strategic consequences.
The post-war corporate alliance between the state and capital led to a global offensive – the replacement of European-Japanese
colonial control and exploitation by US business and bankers. Imperialism was later 're-branded' as ' globalization' . It
pried open markets, secured cheap docile labor and pillaged resources for US manufacturers and importers.
US labor unions played a major role by sabotaging militant unions abroad in cooperation with the US security apparatus: They worked
to coopt and bribe nationalist and leftist labor leaders and supported police-state regime repression and assassination of recalcitrant
militants.
' Hand in bloody glove' with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home.
The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers.
Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas
and turned their backs on labor at home.
Labor union officials had laid the groundwork for the demise of stable jobs and social benefits for American workers. Their collaboration
increased the rate of capitalist profit and overall power in the political system. Their complicity in the brutal purges of militants,
activists and leftist union members and leaders at home and abroad put an end to labor's capacity to sustain and expand the welfare
state.
Trade unions in the US did not use their collaboration with empire in its bloody regional wars to win social benefits for the
rank and file workers. The time of social-imperialism, where workers within the empire benefited from imperialism's pillage, was
over. Gains in social welfare henceforth could result only from mass struggles led by the urban poor, especially Afro-Americans,
community-based working poor and militant youth organizers.
The last significant social welfare reforms were implemented in the early 1970's – coinciding with the end of the Vietnam War
(and victory for the Vietnamese people) and ended with the absorption of the urban and anti-war movements into the Democratic Party.
Henceforward the US corporate state advanced through the overseas expansion of the multi-national corporations and via large-scale,
non-unionized production at home.
The technological changes of this period did not benefit labor. The belief, common in the 1950's, that science and technology
would increase leisure, decrease work and improve living standards for the working class, was shattered. Instead technological changes
displaced well-paid industrial labor while increasing the number of mind-numbing, poorly paid, and politically impotent jobs in the
so-called 'service sector' – a rapidly growing section of unorganized and vulnerable workers – especially including women and minorities.
Labor union membership declined precipitously. The demise of the USSR and China's turn to capitalism had a dual effect: It eliminated
collectivist (socialist) pressure for social welfare and opened their labor markets with cheap, disciplined workers for foreign manufacturers.
Labor as a political force disappeared on every count. The US Federal Reserve and President 'Bill' Clinton deregulated financial
capital leading to a frenzy of speculation. Congress wrote laws, which permitted overseas tax evasion – especially in Caribbean tax
havens. Regional free-trade agreements, like NAFTA, spurred the relocation of jobs abroad. De-industrialization accompanied the decline
of wages, living standards and social benefits for millions of American workers.
The New Abolitionists: Trillionaires
The New Deal, the Great Society, trade unions, and the anti-war and urban movements were in retreat and primed for abolition.
Wars without welfare (or guns without butter) replaced earlier 'social imperialism' with a huge growth of poverty and homelessness.
Domestic labor was now exploited to finance overseas wars not vice versa. The fruits of imperial plunder were not shared.
As the working and middle classes drifted downward, they were used up, abandoned and deceived on all sides – especially by the
Democratic Party. They elected militarists and demagogues as their new presidents.
President 'Bill' Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the
prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard 'Bernie' Madoff.
Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor 'workfare', exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next
generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families
ravaged the urban communities.
Provoked by an act of terrorism (9/11) President G.W. Bush Jr. launched the 'endless' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and deepened
the police state (Patriot Act). Wages for American workers and profits for American capitalist moved in opposite directions.
The Great Financial Crash of 2008-2011 shook the paper economy to its roots and led to the greatest shakedown of any national
treasury in history directed by the First Black American President. Trillions of public wealth were funneled into the criminal banks
on Wall Street – which were ' just too big to fail .' Millions of American workers and homeowners, however, were '
just
too small to matter' .
The Age of Demagogues
President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion
to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush's two overseas wars to Obama's seven.
Obama's electoral 'donor-owners' stashed away two trillion dollars in overseas tax havens and looked forward to global free trade
pacts – pushed by the eloquent African American President.
Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while
swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama
completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued
to moralize to black families about ' values' .
Obama's war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa.
The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of
Africans flooding Europe.
'Obamacare' , his imitation of an earlier Republican governor's health plan, was formulated by the private corporate
health industry (private insurance, Big Pharma and the for-profit hospitals), to mandate enrollment and ensure triple digit profits
with double digit increases in premiums. By the 2016 Presidential elections, ' Obama-care' was opposed by a 45%-43% margin
of the American people. Obama's propagandists could not show any improvement of life expectancy or decrease in infant and maternal
mortality as a result of his 'health care reform'. Indeed the opposite occurred among the marginalized working class in the old 'rust
belt' and in the rural areas. This failure to show any significant health improvement for the masses of Americans is in stark contrast
to LBJ's Medicare program of the 1960's, which continues to receive massive popular support.
Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump
Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
The remains of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society -- are on the chopping block.
The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare
state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the 'Great Society's' gravediggers, while wailing
at Trump's allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave.
Conclusion
Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ' labor movement' has contributed
to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ' strike-breaker' Reagan, ' workfare' Clinton, ' Wall Street crash' Bush,
' Wall Street savior' Obama and ' Trickle-down' Trump.
Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions
into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in
the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from
the 'Great Financial Meltdown' of the 21 st century.
The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and
among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off
state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class
polarized social system in history. The first trillionaire and multi-billionaire tax evaders rose on the backs of a miserable
standing army of tens of millions of low-wage workers, stripped of rights and representation. State subsidies eliminate virtually
all risk to capital. The end of social welfare coerced labor (including young mother with children) to seek insecure low-income employment
while slashing education and health – cementing the feet of generations into poverty. Regional wars abroad have depleted the Treasury
and robbed the country of productive investment. Economic imperialism exports profits, reversing the historic relation of the past.
Labor is left without compass or direction; it flails in all directions and falls deeper in the web of deception and demagogy.
To escape from Reagan and the strike breakers, labor embraced the cheap-labor predator Clinton; black and white workers united to
elect Obama who expelled millions of immigrant workers, pursued 7 wars, abandoned black workers and enriched the already filthy rich.
Deception and demagogy of the labor-
If the welfare state in America was abolished, major American cities would burn to the ground. Anarchy would ensue, it would be
magnitudes bigger than anything that happened in Ferguson or Baltimore. It would likely be simultaneous.
I think that's one of the only situations where preppers would actually live out what they've been prepping for (except for
a natural disaster).
I've been thinking about this a little over the past few years after seeing the race riots. What exactly is the line between
our society being civilized and breaking out into chaos. It's probably a lot thinner than most people think.
I don't know who said it but someone long ago said something along the lines of, "Democracy can only work until the people
figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury." We are definitely in this situation today.
I wonder how long it can last.
While I agree with Petras's intent (notwithstanding several exaggerations and unnecessary conflations with, for example, racism),
I don't agree so much with the method he proposes. I don't mind welfare and unions to a certain extent, but they are not going
to save us unless there is full employment and large corporations that can afford to pay an all-union workforce. That happened
during WW2, as only wartime demand and those pesky wage freezes solved the Depression, regardless of all the public works programs;
while the postwar era benefited from the US becoming the world's creditor, meaning that capital could expand while labor participation
did as well.
From then on, it is quite hard to achieve the same success after outsourcing and mechanization have happened all over the world.
Both of these phenomena not only create displaced workers, but also displaced industries, meaning that it makes more sense to
develop individual workfare (and even then, do it well, not the shoddy way it is done now) rather than giving away checks that
probably will not be cashed for entrepreneurial purposes, and rather than giving away money to corrupt unions who depend on trusts
to be able to pay for their benefits, while raising the cost of hiring that only encourages more outsourcing.
The amount of welfare given is not necessarily the main problem, the problem is doing it right for the people who truly need
it, and efficiently – that is, with the least amount of waste lost between the chain of distribution, which should reach intended
targets and not moochers.
Which inevitably means a sound tax system that targets unearned wealth and (to a lesser degree) foreign competition instead
of national production, coupled with strict, yet devolved and simple government processes that benefit both business and individuals
tired of bureaucracy, while keeping budgets balanced. Best of both worlds, and no military-industrial complex needed to drive
up demand.
The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period,
the capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.
Wrong wrong wrong.
Corporations [now] are welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up, and welfare for
them started before 1935. In fact, it started in America before there was a USA. I do not have time to elaborate, but what were
the various companies such as the British East India Company and the Dutch West India Companies but state pampered, welfare based
entities? ~200 years ago, Herbert Spencer, if memory serves, pointed out that the British East India Company couldn't make a profit
even with all the special, government granted favors showered upon it.
Corporations not only continuously seek monopolies (with the aid and sanction of the state) but they steadily fine tune
the welfare state for their benefit. In fact, in reality, welfare for prols and peasants wouldn't exist if it didn't act as a
money conduit and ultimate profit center for the big money grubbers.
Well, the author kind of nails it. I remember from my childhood in the 50-60 ties in Scandinavia that the US was the ultimate
goal in welfare. The country where you could make a good living with your two hands, get you kids to UNI, have a house, a telly
ECT. It was not consumerism, it was the American dream, a chicken in every pot; we chewed imported American gum and dreamed.
In the 70-80 ties Scandinavia had a tremendous social and economic growth, EQUALLY distributed, an immense leap forward. In the
middle of the 80 ties we were equal to the US in standards of living.
Since we have not looked at the US, unless in pity, as we have seen the decline of the general income, social wealth fall way
behind our own.
The average US workers income has not increased since 90 figures adjusted for inflation. The Scandinavian workers income in the
same period has almost quadrupled. And so has our societies.
The article is dismal reading, and evidence of the failings of the "unregulated" society, where the anything goes as long
as you are wealthy.
Between the mid 1970's to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies
for affordable housing have been gutted. 'Workfare' (under President 'Bill' Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced
workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits
to an astronomical degree.
What does Hollywood "elite" JAP and wannabe hack-stand-up-comic Sarah Silverman think about the class struggle and problems
facing destitute Americans? "Qu'ils mangent de la bagels!", source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake
Like the Pentagon. Americans still don't readily call this welfare, but they will eventually. Defense profiteers are unions
in a sense, you're either in their club Or you're in the service industry that surrounds it.
As other commenters have pointed out, it's Petras curious choice of words that sometimes don't make too much sense. We can probably
blame the maleable English language for that, but here it's too obvious. If you don't define a union, people might assume you're
only talking about a bunch of meat cutters at Safeway.
The welfare state is alive and well for corporate America. Unions are still here – but they are defined by access and secrecy,
you're either in the club or not.
The war on unions was successful first by co-option but mostly by the media. But what kind of analysis leaves out the role
of the media in the American transformation? The success is mind blowing.
America has barely literate (white) middle aged males trained to spout incoherent Calvinistic weirdness: unabased hatred for
the poor (or whoever they're told to hate) and a glorification of hedge fund managers as they get laid off, fired and foreclosed
on, with a side of opiates.
There is hardly anything more tragic then seeing a web filled with progressives (management consultants) dedicated to disempowering,
disabling and deligitimizing victims by claiming they are victims of biology, disease or a lack of an education rather than a
system that issues violence while portending (with the best media money can buy) that they claim the higher ground.
""Democracy can only work until the people figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public
treasury." We are definitely in this situation today."
Quite right: the 0.01% have worked it out & US democracy is a Theatre for the masses.
I don't know who said it but someone long ago said something along the lines of, "Democracy can only work until the people
figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury."
Some French aristocrat put it as, once the gates to the treasury have been breached, they can only be closed again with gunpowder.
Anyone recognize the author?
The author doesn't get it. What we have now IS the welfare state in an intensely diverse society. We have more transfer spending
than ever before and Obamacare represents another huge entitlement.
Intellectuals continue to fantasize about the US becoming a Big Sweden, but Sweden has only been successful insofar as it has
been a modest nation-state populated by ethnic Swedes. Intense diversity in a huge country with only the remnants of federalism
results in massive non-consensual decision-making, fragmentation, increased inequality, and corruption.
The welfare state is alive and well for corporate America. Unions are still here – but they are defined by access and
secrecy, you're either in the club or not.
They are largely defined as Doctors, Lawyers, and University Professors who teach the first two. Of course they are not called
unions. Access is via credentialing and licensing. Good Day
Bernie Sanders, speaking on behalf of the MIC's welfare bird: "It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and
of NATO."
Elizabeth Warren, referring to Mossad's Estes Rockets: "The Israeli military has the right to attack Palestinian hospitals
and schools in self defense"
Barack Obama, yukking it up with pop stars: "Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming."
It's not the agitprop that confuses the sheep, it's whose blowhole it's coming out of (labled D or R for convenience) that
gets them to bare their teeth and speak of poo.
What came first, the credentialing or the idea that it is a necessary part of education? It certainly isn't an accurate indication
of what people know or their general intelligence – although that myth has flourished. Good afternoon.
For an interesting projection of what might happen in total civilizational collapse, I recommend the Dies the Fire series of
novels by SM Stirling.
It has a science-fictiony setup in that all high-energy system (gunpowder, electricity, explosives, internal combustion, even
high-energy steam engines) suddenly stop working. But I think it does a good job of extrapolating what would happen if suddenly
the cities did not have food, water, power, etc.
Spoiler alert: It ain't pretty. Those who dream of a world without guns have not really thought it through.
It has been pointed out repeatedly that Sweden does very well relative to the USA. It has also been noted that people of Swedish
ancestry in the USA do pretty well also. In fact considerably better than Swedes in Sweden
This was a pretty profitc book, if you think that it was publishe in 1995. At the same time
neoliberalm is not atolerant isther and we can talk about "neoliberal jihad"
Notable quotes:
"... As neoliberal economic theory -- not to be confused with social liberalism -- is the force behind globalization, this critique is relevant on a much larger scale. ..."
"... Barber argues that there are several imperatives that make up the McWorld, or the globalization of politics : a market imperative, a resource imperative, an information-technology imperative, and an ecological imperative. Due to globalization, our market has expanded and is vulnerable to the transnational markets where free trade, easy access to banking and exchange of currency are available. ..."
"... Barber sees Jihad as offering solidarity and protecting identities, but at the potential cost of tolerance and stability. ..."
The book was based on a March 1992 article by Barber first published in The Atlantic Monthly .
[1]
The book employs the basic critique of neoliberalism seen in Barber's earlier,
seminal work Strong
Democracy . As neoliberal economic theory -- not to be
confused with social
liberalism -- is the force behind globalization, this critique is relevant on a much larger
scale. Unregulated market forces encounter parochial (which he calls tribal ) forces.
These tribal forces come in many varieties: religious, cultural, ethnic, regional, local,
etc. As globalization imposes a culture of its own on a population, the tribal forces feel
threatened and react. More than just economic, the crises that arise from these confrontations
often take on a sacred quality to the tribal elements; thus Barber's use of the term "Jihad"
(although in the second edition, he expresses regret at having used that term). [
why? ]
Barber's prognosis in Jihad vs McWorld is generally negative -- he concludes that
neither global corporations nor traditional cultures are supportive of democracy . He further posits that McWorld could ultimately win the
"struggle". He also proposes a model for small, local democratic institutions and
civic engagement
as the hope for an alternative to these two forces.
Barber argues that there are several imperatives that make up the McWorld, or the
globalization of politics
: a market imperative, a resource imperative, an information-technology imperative, and an
ecological imperative. Due to globalization, our market has expanded and is vulnerable to the
transnational markets where free trade, easy access to banking and exchange of currency are
available. With the emergence of our markets, we have come up with international laws and
treaties in order to maintain stability and efficiency in the interconnected economy. Resources
are also an imperative aspect in the McWorld, where autarky seems insufficient and inefficient
in presence of globalization. The information-technology of globalization has opened up
communications to people all over the world, allowing us to exchange information. Also,
technology is now systematically integrated into everyone's lives to the point where it "gives
every person on earth access to every other person". [3] Globalization of
ecology may seem cliche; Barber argues that whatever a nation does to their own ecology, it
affects everyone on earth. For instance, cutting down a jungle will upset the overall oxygen
balance, which affects our "global lungs". McWorld may promote peace and prosperity, but Barber
sees this as being done at the cost of independence and identity , and notes that no more
social justice or equality than necessary are needed to promote efficient economic production
and consumption.
Barber sees Jihad as offering solidarity and protecting identities, but at the potential
cost of tolerance and stability. Barber describes the solidarity needed within the concept
of Jihad as being secured through exclusion and war against outsiders. As a result, he argues,
different forms of anti-democratization can arise through anti-democratic one-party
dictatorships, military juntas, or theocratic fundamentalism. Barber also describes through
modern day examples what these 'players' are. "they are cultures, not countries; parts, not
wholes; sects, not religions, rebellious factions and dissenting minorities at war not just
with globalism but with the traditional nation-state. Kurds, Basques, Puerto Ricans, Ossetians,
East Timoreans, Quebecois, the Catholics of Northern Ireland, Catalans, Tamils, and of course,
Palestinians- people with countries, inhabiting nations not their own, seeking smaller worlds
within borders that will seal them off from modernity." [4]
Barber writes democracy can be spread and secured through the world satisfying the needs of
both the McWorld and Jihad. "With its concern for accountability, the protection of minorities,
and the universal rule of law, a confederalized representative system would serve the political
needs of McWorld as well as oligarchic bureaucratism or meritocratic elitism is currently
doing." [4] Some can accept
democracy faster than others. Every case is different, however "Democracy grows from the bottom
up and cannot be imposed from the top down. Civil society has to be built from the inside out."
[1] He
goes on to further explain exactly what the confederal option means and how it will help. "It
certainly seems possible that the most attractive democratic ideal in the face of the brutal
realities of Jihad and the dull realities of McWorld will be a confederal union of semi
autonomous communities smaller than nation-states, tied together into regional economic
associations and markets larger than nation-states -- participatory and self-determining in
local matters at the bottom, representative and accountable at the top. The nation-state would
play a diminished role, and sovereignty would lose some of its political potency."
[4]
The US official religion is neoliberalism not Christianity. Christianity is in sharp decline.
Notable quotes:
"... Where evangelicals emphasize asking God for forgiveness, Trump says, "I am not sure I have. I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't." ..."
"... Compare these remarks to the more earnest faith of President George W. Bush, who claimed divine consultation before invading Iraq, or the incessant God-talk of candidates like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and Ben Carson ..."
"... Since then, it's hard to see what benefit America's strong leaning toward theocracy has had. Comparing 17 first-world prosperous democracies on a number of societal health measures, social scientist Gregory S. Paul found that the most religious country of them all-the United States -- had by far the worse measures on a number of criteria, including the highest rates of homicides, suicides, incarceration, STDs, teen pregnancies, abortions, divorce, alcohol consumption, corruption, poverty and income inequality. Correlation is not causation, of course. ..."
"... "Seems to me Donald has been doing a lot more God talk since taking office, " I agree 1,000% – which just validates my view that Trump is all bullsh*ter. Elmer Gantry comes to mind ..."
"... And another point – it strikes me that those saying Trump is a liar misses the point – Trump is more like a parrot in that Trump will say (parrot) whatever he believes is necessary to get the cracker (though I didn't intend "cracker" to mean racists, but merely a reward, I note one can interpret that as one wishes .). ..."
"... PAUL JAY: Under the protection of God, America, we'll use the Mother of All Bombs and fight without restraint. That's the message Donald wanted to send, and perhaps that's the message this bomb was meant to deliver in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Pointing out hypocrisy misses the point because it's never been about religious doctrine as much as trying to belong to something and have purpose. Trump can miss every question about angels dancing on heads of pins, and it won't matter. Trump in his own way embraced the evangelicals. In effect, Hillary said she wanted the non-evangelical republicans who are so smart and moderate. ..."
"... In "The Merchant of Venice" (Act 1, Scene 3), Antonio says, "even the devil can cite scripture for his own use." This is all they need because it's not about scripture and never has been. ..."
"... You and Marx: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" ..."
This Sunday [Easter], tens of millions of American Christians will celebrate Easter, and thousands of children and their families
will descend on the White House to take part in the annual Easter Egg Roll. As the festivities spill over the grounds of 1600
Penn., I wonder if anyone will stop to note the obvious irony: That President Donald J. Trump is very likely the least religious
president to occupy the White House since Thomas Jefferson.
I'm not saying Trump is a closeted atheist, but he's no evangelical. As a self-proclaimed Protestant, or Presbyterian, or something
he describes as "a wonderful religion," Trump nominally attends the nondenominational Marble Collegiate Church in New York City.
Where evangelicals emphasize asking God for forgiveness, Trump says, "I am not sure I have. I think if I do something wrong,
I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't."
Compare these remarks to the more earnest
faith of President George W. Bush, who claimed divine consultation before invading Iraq, or the incessant God-talk of candidates
like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and Ben Carson.
Since then, it's hard to see what benefit America's strong leaning toward theocracy has had. Comparing 17 first-world prosperous
democracies on a number of societal health measures, social scientist Gregory S. Paul found that the most religious country of
them all-the United States -- had by far the worse measures on a number of criteria, including the highest rates of homicides, suicides,
incarceration, STDs, teen pregnancies, abortions, divorce, alcohol consumption, corruption, poverty and income inequality. Correlation
is not causation, of course. But if religion is suppose to be such a powerful force for societal health, then why is America-the
most religious nation in the Western world-also the unhealthiest on all of these important social measures?***
===================================================
I almost posted this yesterday, but I thought that would be churlish.
I read Trump's "religious" remarks and find them extremely off putting. Than I read the religious remarks of other repubs, and
I find them EVEN MORE off putting .
***Teen pregnancy – so much for the solemn pledges of abstinence made by teenagers .*** ***
*** *** What is it with the US? How can anybody in hypersexualized America really believe American teens are gonna keep it in
their pants?
"Seems to me Donald has been doing a lot more God talk since taking office, "
I agree 1,000% – which just validates my view that Trump is all bullsh*ter. Elmer Gantry comes to mind.
And another point – it strikes me that those saying Trump is a liar misses the point – Trump is more like a parrot in that Trump
will say (parrot) whatever he believes is necessary to get the cracker (though I didn't intend "cracker" to mean racists, but
merely a reward, I note one can interpret that as one wishes .).
PAUL JAY: Under the protection of God, America, we'll use the Mother of All Bombs and fight without restraint. That's the message
Donald wanted to send, and perhaps that's the message this bomb was meant to deliver in Afghanistan.
From my experience with Catholic school and church, I've long since determined "god talk" isn't as relevant as "us v. them"
talk. Hillary's "deplorable" statement was just an affirmation of a view many "Christians" believe is held about them.
Pointing out hypocrisy misses the point because it's never been about religious doctrine as much as trying to belong to something
and have purpose. Trump can miss every question about angels dancing on heads of pins, and it won't matter. Trump in his own way
embraced the evangelicals. In effect, Hillary said she wanted the non-evangelical republicans who are so smart and moderate.
In "The Merchant of Venice" (Act 1, Scene 3), Antonio says, "even the devil can cite scripture for his own use." This is all
they need because it's not about scripture and never has been.
Why were enslaved Africans in the American South so religious?
Actually, they weren't all that religious. The slave owners allowed them time off on Sunday for religious services. The slaves
were savvy enough to make sure that "services" were an all-day affair. Even meals and socialization were woven into the Sunday
religious celebrations. That practice is the genesis of many AME and AME-Z all day (or most of the day) Sunday services today.
(I learned that bit of information in my Black Religion college course many years ago.)
You and Marx: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.
It is the opium of the people"
Should probably be "neoliberal religion has de-legitimized itself with its hypocrisy
Notable quotes:
"... Sorry, as a church-attending person, I object. Religion has de-legitimized itself with its hypocrisy. One example: Jerry Falwell, a "battler" against abortion actually supported it before his plutocratic masters told him it was a wedge issue. ..."
"... Michael Hudso says Jesus' first appearance in the Jerusalem temple was to announce just such a Jubilee Boy is that ever ignored! ..."
"... Your correlating the hypocritical actions of the leadership with the ideals of a religion. Corrupt leadership may delegitimize those individuals but does not delegitimize the ideals of the religion. Is the ideal of America totally dependent on the actions of its political leadership? Personally, I think there is far more to America than just the president and congress whether corrupt or not. ..."
"... What is or are the ideal(s) of "America?" Get rich quick, violence on all fronts, anti-intellectualism, imperial project across the planet? "Democracy?" If you trot that out as a "feature", you better explain what you mean, with some specificity. More to America? If youtube is any guide, try searching it for "syria combat" or "redneck" or "full auto," or all the really sick racist and extreme stuff - a pretty sorry place. But we all recite the Pledge so dutifully, don't we? and feel a thrill as the F-22s swoop over the football stadium? ..."
Sorry, as a church-attending person, I object. Religion has de-legitimized itself with its hypocrisy. One example: Jerry
Falwell, a "battler" against abortion actually supported it before his plutocratic masters told him it was a wedge issue.
Positions on the wedge issues (abortion, the gays) are actually difficult to prove with scripture–not that it has the
kind of authority it did before 35,000 variations on old manuscripts were discovered in the 17th century. (Marcus Borg is the
scholar to consult here).
Meanwhile, the big issues - e.g. covetousness, forbidden very explicitly in one of the 10 commandments - is an *industry* in
the U.S.
I'll believe these evangelicals are guided by the bible when I see them picketing Madison Avenue for promoting covetousness,
or when I see them lobbying for a debt jubilee.
Michael Hudso says Jesus' first appearance in the Jerusalem temple was to announce just such a Jubilee Boy is that ever ignored!
Your correlating the hypocritical actions of the leadership with the ideals of a religion. Corrupt leadership may delegitimize
those individuals but does not delegitimize the ideals of the religion. Is the ideal of America totally dependent on the actions
of its political leadership? Personally, I think there is far more to America than just the president and congress whether corrupt
or not.
Ideals only serve in practice to create primordial debts, buttress power differentials, and enable selective malfeasance. I
fail to see the social utility of any of those products and believe humanity would be better off repudiating them and their vectors.
Disease is not a public good.
Well I am using this definition of ideal: "a person or thing conceived as embodying such a conception or conforming to such
a standard, and taken as a model for imitation". I guess you are welcome to your definition.
I think "America" is maybe a shibboleth of some sort, but there is not a dam' thing left of the stuff I was taught and brought
to believe, as a young person, Boy Scout, attendee at the Presbyterian Westminster Fellowship, attentive student of Mrs. Thompson
and Mr. Fleming in Civics, Social Studies and US History classes, and all that. I was well enough steeped in that stuff to let
"patriotism" overcome better sense, strongly enough to enlist in the Army in 1966.
Maybe you think "The Birth of a Nation" captures the essence of our great country?
What is or are the ideal(s) of "America?" Get rich quick, violence on all fronts, anti-intellectualism, imperial project
across the planet? "Democracy?" If you trot that out as a "feature", you better explain what you mean, with some specificity.
More to America? If youtube is any guide, try searching it for "syria combat" or "redneck" or "full auto," or all the really sick
racist and extreme stuff - a pretty sorry place. But we all recite the Pledge so dutifully, don't we? and feel a thrill as the
F-22s swoop over the football stadium?
The book was based on a March 1992 article by Barber first published in The Atlantic Monthly .
[1]
The book employs the basic critique of neoliberalism seen in Barber's earlier,
seminal work Strong
Democracy . As neoliberal economic theory -- not to be
confused with social
liberalism -- is the force behind globalization, this critique is relevant on a much larger
scale. Unregulated market forces encounter parochial (which he calls tribal ) forces.
These tribal forces come in many varieties: religious, cultural, ethnic, regional, local,
etc. As globalization imposes a culture of its own on a population, the tribal forces feel
threatened and react. More than just economic, the crises that arise from these confrontations
often take on a sacred quality to the tribal elements; thus Barber's use of the term "Jihad"
(although in the second edition, he expresses regret at having used that term). [
why? ]
Barber's prognosis in Jihad vs McWorld is generally negative -- he concludes that
neither global corporations nor traditional cultures are supportive of democracy . He further posits that McWorld could ultimately win the
"struggle". He also proposes a model for small, local democratic institutions and
civic engagement
as the hope for an alternative to these two forces.
Barber argues that there are several imperatives that make up the McWorld, or the
globalization of politics
: a market imperative, a resource imperative, an information-technology imperative, and an
ecological imperative. Due to globalization, our market has expanded and is vulnerable to the
transnational markets where free trade, easy access to banking and exchange of currency are
available. With the emergence of our markets, we have come up with international laws and
treaties in order to maintain stability and efficiency in the interconnected economy. Resources
are also an imperative aspect in the McWorld, where autarky seems insufficient and inefficient
in presence of globalization. The information-technology of globalization has opened up
communications to people all over the world, allowing us to exchange information. Also,
technology is now systematically integrated into everyone's lives to the point where it "gives
every person on earth access to every other person". [3] Globalization of
ecology may seem cliche; Barber argues that whatever a nation does to their own ecology, it
affects everyone on earth. For instance, cutting down a jungle will upset the overall oxygen
balance, which affects our "global lungs". McWorld may promote peace and prosperity, but Barber
sees this as being done at the cost of independence and identity , and notes that no more
social justice or equality than necessary are needed to promote efficient economic production
and consumption.
Barber sees Jihad as offering solidarity and protecting identities, but at the potential
cost of tolerance and stability. Barber describes the solidarity needed within the concept of
Jihad as being secured through exclusion and war against outsiders. As a result, he argues,
different forms of anti-democratization can arise through anti-democratic one-party
dictatorships, military juntas, or theocratic fundamentalism. Barber also describes through
modern day examples what these 'players' are. "they are cultures, not countries; parts, not
wholes; sects, not religions, rebellious factions and dissenting minorities at war not just
with globalism but with the traditional nation-state. Kurds, Basques, Puerto Ricans, Ossetians,
East Timoreans, Quebecois, the Catholics of Northern Ireland, Catalans, Tamils, and of course,
Palestinians- people with countries, inhabiting nations not their own, seeking smaller worlds
within borders that will seal them off from modernity." [4]
Barber writes democracy can be spread and secured through the world satisfying the needs of
both the McWorld and Jihad. "With its concern for accountability, the protection of minorities,
and the universal rule of law, a confederalized representative system would serve the political
needs of McWorld as well as oligarchic bureaucratism or meritocratic elitism is currently
doing." [4] Some can accept
democracy faster than others. Every case is different, however "Democracy grows from the bottom
up and cannot be imposed from the top down. Civil society has to be built from the inside out."
[1] He
goes on to further explain exactly what the confederal option means and how it will help. "It
certainly seems possible that the most attractive democratic ideal in the face of the brutal
realities of Jihad and the dull realities of McWorld will be a confederal union of semi
autonomous communities smaller than nation-states, tied together into regional economic
associations and markets larger than nation-states -- participatory and self-determining in
local matters at the bottom, representative and accountable at the top. The nation-state would
play a diminished role, and sovereignty would lose some of its political potency."
[4]
Globalization, which was supposed to benefit developed and developing countries alike, is now reviled almost
everywhere, as the political backlash in Europe and the US in recent years has shown. The challenge is to minimize the
risk that the backlash will intensify, and that starts by understanding – and avoiding – past mistakes.
NEW YORK – Fifteen years ago, I published
Globalization and Its
Discontents,
a book that sought to explain why there was so much dissatisfaction with globalization within the
developing countries. Quite simply, many believed that the system was "rigged" against them, and global trade agreements
were singled out for being particularly unfair.
The Year Ahead 2018
The world's leading thinkers and policymakers examine what's come apart in the past year, and anticipate
what will define the year ahead.
Order now
Now discontent with globalization has fueled a wave of populism in
the United States and other advanced economies, led by politicians who claim that the system is unfair to their
countries. In the US, President Donald Trump insists that America's trade negotiators were snookered by those from
Mexico and China.
So how could something that was supposed to benefit all, in developed
and developing countries alike, now be reviled almost everywhere? How can a trade agreement be unfair to all parties?
To those in developing countries, Trump's claims – like Trump himself
– are laughable. The US basically wrote the rules and created the institutions of globalization. In some of these
institutions – for example, the International Monetary Fund – the US still has veto power, despite America's diminished
role in the global economy (a role which Trump seems determined to diminish still further).
To someone like me, who has watched trade negotiations closely for
more than a quarter-century, it is clear that US trade negotiators got most of what they wanted. The problem was with
what
they wanted. Their agenda was set, behind closed doors, by corporations. It was an agenda written by and for large
multinational companies, at the expense of workers and ordinary citizens everywhere.
Indeed, it often seems that workers, who have seen their wages fall
and jobs disappear, are just collateral damage – innocent but unavoidable victims in the inexorable march of economic
progress. But there is another interpretation of what has happened: one of the objectives of globalization was to weaken
workers' bargaining power. What corporations wanted was cheaper labor, however they could get it.
This interpretation helps explain some puzzling aspects of trade
agreements. Why is it, for example, that advanced countries gave away one of their biggest advantages, the rule of law?
Indeed, provisions embedded in most recent trade agreements give foreign investors more rights than are provided to
investors in the US. They are compensated, for example, should the government adopt a regulation that hurts their bottom
line, no matter how desirable the regulation or how great the harm caused by the corporation in its absence.
There are three responses to globalized discontent with
globalization. The first – call it the Las Vegas strategy – is to double down on the bet on globalization
as it has
been managed for the past quarter-century
. This bet, like all bets on proven policy failures (such as trickle-down
economics) is based on the hope that somehow it will succeed in the future.
The second response is Trump_vs_deep_state: cut oneself off from globalization,
in the hope that doing so will somehow bring back a bygone world. But protectionism won't work. Globally, manufacturing
jobs are on the decline, simply because productivity growth has outpaced growth in demand.
Even if manufacturing were to come back, the jobs won't. Advanced
manufacturing technology, including robots, means that the few jobs created will require higher skills and will be
placed at different locations than the jobs that were lost. Like doubling down, this approach is doomed to fail, further
increasing the discontent felt by those left behind.
Trump will fail even in his proclaimed goal of reducing the trade
deficit, which is determined by the disparity between domestic savings and investment. Now that the Republicans have
gotten their way and enacted a tax cut for billionaires, national savings will fall and the trade deficit will rise,
owing to an increase in the value of the dollar. (Fiscal deficits and trade deficits normally move so closely together
that they are called "twin" deficits.) Trump may not like it, but as he is slowly finding out, there are some things
that even a person in the most powerful position in the world cannot control.
There is a third approach: social protection without protectionism,
the kind of approach that the small Nordic countries took. They knew that as small countries they had to remain open.
But they also knew that remaining open would expose workers to risk. Thus, they had to have a social contract that
helped workers move from old jobs to new and provide some help in the interim.
The Nordic countries are deeply democratic societies, so they knew
that unless most workers regarded globalization as benefiting them, it wouldn't be sustained. And the wealthy in these
countries recognized that if globalization worked as it should, there would be enough benefits to go around.
American capitalism in recent years has been marked by unbridled
greed – the 2008 financial crisis provides ample confirmation of that. But, as some countries have shown, a market
economy can take forms that temper the excesses of both capitalism and globalization, and deliver more sustainable
growth and higher standards of living for most citizens.
We can learn from such successes what to do, just as we can learn
from past mistakes what not to do. As has become evident, if we do not manage globalization so that it benefits all, the
backlash – from the New Discontents in the North and the Old Discontents in the South – is at risk of intensifying.
"... In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries. And the initiative, Foreign Policy notes, 'is likely to grow'. This is not surprising: if Germany ('the EU') wants to become truly autonomous from the US, it needs to acquire military sovereignty, which it currently lacks. ..."
"... so many people in Europe will see it being necessitated by the growing chaos in the Middle East and in Africa. ..."
"... Never let a crisis go to waste ..."
"... Certainly not those of the inhabitants of the constituent "nations" of the EU (ironic quotation marks fully intended). And now Muti Merkel and the authoritarian scolds of Brussels are trying to force a quota of these migrants upon all of the "nations" – or should we say, the administrative zones – of the EU. Orban, Le Pen, the AfD, and ilk are not stupid, you know. ..."
"... I worked in and with "Brussels" for many years and can say that many, if not most, of the personnel involved with EU institutions are neo-liberals, neo-cons and deluded with the fantasy of an EU imperium, Greece to America's Rome. ..."
"... I think I concur with Mitchell that a Federal EU State is a big no no for Germany, based on the fact fiscal transfers would be out of the German coffers, and this fact is amplified by the exit of the UK, which was a big net EU contributor. The rumour mill has it that Jans Weidmann will be the next ECB Head, which means we can expect more, not less austerity imposed as the EU elite push further EMU, which, is certainly not in the interests of the average Joe across the Euro member states. ..."
"... Anyhow, check Bill Mitchell out, so decent material and nice to see people standing up for the Nation State, rather than supranational entities and corporations. ..."
"... If Germany is trying to build a mini-imperial system straddling all of Europe, then it would seek willing 'elites' in the small European countries to give a slice of pie to in exchange for their cooperation with that agenda. This is standard (neo)colonial policy today, which is best understood as the neocon/neoliberal approach the United States has taken to world domination – aka bad cop/good cop. "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we'll deliver a carpet of bombs", is another version of that offer. The one that can't be refused? ..."
"... This is because public debt in the eurozone is used as a political tool – a disciplining tool – to get governments to implement socially harmful policies (and to get citizens to accept these policies by portraying them as inevitable), which explains why Germany continues to refuse to seriously consider any form of debt relief for Greece, despite the various commitments and promises to that end made in recent years: debt is the chain that keeps Greece (and other member states) from straying 'off course'. ..."
"... That would be the neoliberal mechanism of control; notice here how debts assumed by small nations are not like debts assumed by the controlling powers, either. Rather like student loan holders vs. central banks – students can't print money to pay off their debts, that's the difference. ..."
"... So, if it is true in economics that stability creates instability, then the creation of a stable Europe will undo itself in the manner that this article appears to be saying. ..."
"... This corporate super-entity reminds me of "Omnius Prime" in the Dune universe – a computer with nearly total sociopathic control over humanity. The corporate super-entity, whose AI program's only concern is maximizing short term profits by inflating securities and equities, will eat the Earth if we allow it to continue – digesting and purging humans which have been commodified like everything else. ..."
"... Then we see power blocks aligning, the US (and it's proxies), the EU under Germany, Russia, and China. Clearly we are sitting on a powder keg that is the disintegrating neo-liberal world orde. What will serve as the spark that lights the fuse? Trump and North Korea? War for fun and profit in the Middle East? ..."
The basis of this thesis was plain when the ECB was placed in Germany.
The Economic regime is: Germany books the profits, and you lazy (non Germans) book the
losses.
Welcome to the neoliberal roots of the next 30 years war. The 30 years war was the
imposition of the ruler's denomination, Catholicism, on the people. This next 30 years one is
imposing asset stripping (rent extraction) on the people and enriching a few Aristocrats, as
a dogma.
Now do you understand Brexit? Do you believe the British could not see this coming?
I'll repeat: This was the obvious outcome when the ECB was placed in Germany. I'm English
and discussed this very topic with my family and friends there, and there was general
agreement that German ambition would pave the path.
Those who don't know their history are condemned to repeat it.
Now do you understand Brexit? Do you believe the British could not see this coming?
Exactly. Those average British voters weren't stupid as claimed. If the EU/Germans are
trying to do this whose aims are, and I quote:
"to further erode what little sovereignty and autonomy member states have left, particularly
in the area of fiscal policy, and to facilitate the imposition of neoliberal 'structural
reforms' – flexibilisation of labour markets, reduction of collective bargaining
rights, etc. – on reluctant countries." and the year is only 2017, then what would it
be like in the EU by the year, say, 2040?
Those British voters knew exactly what was coming down the turnpike and decided to bail and
accept a whole lot of present pain. It was not their fault that it turned out that their
leadership turned out to be a load of stuff-ups. To reinforce the point, look at the pain and
deaths that the American colonies had to endure to get out of the British Empire. Before 1777
that would not have seemed to be the logical thing to do.
Does this direction become a hazard to the United States? Mr. Putin appears to have an answer, but perhaps does not have ready yet the next step,
namely the needed set of trained personnel, trays, software, and printed pieces of paper, so
that one way or another a country that wants to jettison the Euro can convert its ATMs very
quickly to do so. Being set up to print very large stocks of Euros from the country that is
leaving also comes to mind. Readers will recognize other steps.
Unlike some years ago, fast air access from Russia to southern European countries by
overflying Mr Putin's friend Turkey is now probably available.
A good summary of a situation that is too complex to be neatly summarized – so many
political, historical, religious, cultural, etc. issues come into play not only for each
nation involved but also on an individual level for hundreds of millions of people. My most
immediate reaction to these suggestions that a militarily capable fourth Reich may be
emerging is that so many people in Europe will see it being necessitated by the growing chaos
in the Middle East and in Africa.
In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries.
And the initiative, Foreign Policy notes, 'is likely to grow'. This is not surprising: if
Germany ('the EU') wants to become truly autonomous from the US, it needs to acquire
military sovereignty, which it currently lacks.
And I seriously doubt that Germany really "controls" the armies of four countries.
The fact is that so far Germany's military strategy was conceived only within the NATO
framework -- where it could rely upon the heavy-lifting of the USA logistical train, the
ground experience and battle-readiness of the French and the British, and the availability of
the navies from Spain and Italy. Germany has neither the equipment, nor the personnel, nor
the experience to take the lead of a EU military, and other countries will probably
strenuously oppose such endeavours which would rob them from their last symbolic and
practical vestiges of sovereignty.
On the other hand, as the article explains, Germany is well on its way to assert its
complete dominion over the economic and institutional arrangements in the EU.
Ah, yes, a crisis greatly exacerbated by taking down Libya, a country which had served as
a bulwark against much of the tide of migration into Southern Europe from Sub-Saharan Africa,
as well as an enemy to Wahabbi/Salafist terror.
Not to mention the EU support for the dismemberment of Syria that launched its own tidal
wave of migration into Europe, whilst Syria was also an enemy of Wahabbi/Salafist terror.
In light of that, one must ask, in whose interest were these actions undertaken, and at
whose behest? Well?
Certainly not those of the inhabitants of the constituent "nations" of the EU (ironic
quotation marks fully intended). And now Muti Merkel and the authoritarian scolds of Brussels
are trying to force a quota of these migrants upon all of the "nations" – or should we
say, the administrative zones – of the EU. Orban, Le Pen, the AfD, and ilk are not
stupid, you know. Europeans, at least those of you who still possess a quantum of
self-respect, and who honor your histories and cultures, gather your courage and tell Muti
and the Commissars of Brussels that the game is over before they can inflict yet more damage.
But – perhaps – you are already too comfortably numb to remember why and how to
do this? Well, then, into the veal pen with you.
Further to "France's corporate offensive in Italy", one-sided as France took recent
exception to the take over of one its shipbuilders by an Italian rival, I would argue that
it's an offensive by the EU's 1%, a strategy of immiseration facilitated by the likes of Guy
Verhofstadt as per http://www.sofina.be/board-management/ . Sofina
is well-connected with the French establishment by way of Eurazeo and the Italian
establishment by way of Banca Leonardo.
I worked in and with "Brussels" for many years and can say that many, if not most, of
the personnel involved with EU institutions are neo-liberals, neo-cons and deluded with the
fantasy of an EU imperium, Greece to America's Rome. It suits them and their
cheerleaders, including in Blighty, to pretend that this is due to the malign influence of
Albion perfide or Anglo-Saxons. One should not expect a change of tack after Brexit. The
"racaille" are profit(eer)ing too much and are able to get away with it under the cover of
more Europe.
As far as EMU is concerned, monetarist economic thinking has been predominant in much of
the Europhiles output on monetary union since the 70s, that is, prior to the UK joining the
Community. Bill Mitchell has written concisely on this over the past week & is quite
scathing of Mitterrand and Delors for their embrace of what we now term 'neoliberalism',
combine this with a desire for an actual military arm & one really does worry about the
direction of the EU, with or without the UK.
Further, and within the lecture presented by Sir Ivan Rogers last week concerning Cameron
& Brexit, the fact remains both the UK Elite & Euro Elite were keen on pushing TTIP,
this despite the fact many believe it was the UK pushing neoliberalism on to Europe.
I think I concur with Mitchell that a Federal EU State is a big no no for Germany, based
on the fact fiscal transfers would be out of the German coffers, and this fact is amplified
by the exit of the UK, which was a big net EU contributor. The rumour mill has it that Jans
Weidmann will be the next ECB Head, which means we can expect more, not less austerity
imposed as the EU elite push further EMU, which, is certainly not in the interests of the
average Joe across the Euro member states.
Anyhow, check Bill Mitchell out, so decent material and nice to see people standing up for
the Nation State, rather than supranational entities and corporations.
I found the first about 1/3 of this post informative. But then the author gets to the main
thesis:
The process underway can only be understood through the lens of the
geopolitical-economic tensions and conflicts between leading capitalist states and regional
blocs, and the conflicting interests between the different financial/industrial capital
fractions located in those states , which have always characterised the European economy.
In particular, it means looking at Germany's historic struggle for economic hegemony over
the European continent.
This suggests that the national battles in Europe are battles between different national
"capital fractions," in particular German capital with its everlasting desire for economic
hegemony over Europe against (presumably) other European national capitals that are opposed
to Germany.
That does not strike me as an accurate description of the current status of Europe or the
EU, and nothing in the rest of the piece suggests that this is a (the most?) useful lens for
interpreting events. The author even admits that elites from smaller Euro countries are happy
in the role of compradors to Germany's economically dominant capitalists and that "European
elites" are united in their anti-democratic tendencies. Even the German election results show
this thesis to be dubious – if "Germany" is well on its way to it's long-cherished goal
of European economic hegemony, why on earth would voters be tired of Merkel? They should make
her Kaiser!
If Germany is trying to build a mini-imperial system straddling all of Europe, then it
would seek willing 'elites' in the small European countries to give a slice of pie to in
exchange for their cooperation with that agenda. This is standard (neo)colonial policy today,
which is best understood as the neocon/neoliberal approach the United States has taken to
world domination – aka bad cop/good cop. "Accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we'll
deliver a carpet of bombs", is another version of that offer. The one that can't be
refused?
Jump down a few paragraphs from your quote to this:
This is because public debt in the eurozone is used as a political tool – a
disciplining tool – to get governments to implement socially harmful policies (and to
get citizens to accept these policies by portraying them as inevitable), which explains why
Germany continues to refuse to seriously consider any form of debt relief for Greece,
despite the various commitments and promises to that end made in recent years: debt is the
chain that keeps Greece (and other member states) from straying 'off course'.
That would be the neoliberal mechanism of control; notice here how debts assumed by
small nations are not like debts assumed by the controlling powers, either. Rather like
student loan holders vs. central banks – students can't print money to pay off their
debts, that's the difference.
As far as Germany's voters, well, the reality of Empire is that trickle-down is a myth.
Empires always deliver the tribute from foreign holdings to a small circle of politically
connected elites – British lords, French aristocrats, Wall Street billionaires, Third
World tin-pot dictators, etc. The general public always suffers as a result; you have to fund
the foreign military adventures over the domestic infrastructure, health care and education
needs. Hence Empires always try to limit and undermine democratic rule; the German voters
probably see this as well.
So, if it is true in economics that stability creates instability, then the creation of a
stable Europe will undo itself in the manner that this article appears to be saying. In order
to avoid conflict, the European Union has created a trading zone that has a great deal of
inequality in it–not just in trade but inequality in the financial system that will
continue to grow as corporations merge and become ever larger and as banks become ever more
monolithic. Perhaps, national sovereignty will succumb to financial hegemony rather than
becoming the victims of German hegemony.
And what would have been the plans for Britain?
Big omission in the article. That was a damned if they do, damned if they don't option.
Isn't a lot of the EU's bill for Britain about making sure they pay for EU officials
pensions?
While everywhere else it is austerity for Eurozone and EU countries' pensioners
Although I found this article helpful in summarizing many of the changes in EU politics,
the author is incorrect in his premise that the German government is at the root of the
anti-democratic, neoliberal EU movement. The author ignores the dominant role that the
interconnected multinational corporations (
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed–the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/
) play in running the global political economy.
69 of the top 100 economies are now corporations (
https://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/world-s-top-100-economies-31-countries-69-corporations
). National politics have become subservient to the interests of the financial economy which
can move money quickly and destroy a state's economy when political decisions do not follow
the neoliberal script of austerity. The author's premise that "Germany needs to seize control
of the most coveted institution of them all – the ECB –, which hitherto has never
been under direct German control" is backwards. It is the ECB that has had control of the
German political leaders for years. Whether "Merkel now has her eyes on the ECB's presidency"
or not does not matter. She is merely a cog in the corporate machine – easily replaced
if she fails to follow the neoliberal agenda of austerity.
Of course we must recognize that austerity is only imposed as an attempt to inflate the
debt bubble by squeezing those least capable of paying, those considered disposable in the
sociopathic and mechanistic corporate hive mind. The "automatic stabilizing mechanisms" that
"put the economy on 'autopilot', thus removing any element of democratic discussion and/or
decision-making" are really just manifestations of the emergent behavior that this corporate
super-organism expresses and imposes on the global economy. (
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/01/ai-has-already-taken-over-its-called-the-corporation/
)
This corporate super-entity reminds me of "Omnius Prime" in the Dune universe – a
computer with nearly total sociopathic control over humanity. The corporate super-entity,
whose AI program's only concern is maximizing short term profits by inflating securities and
equities, will eat the Earth if we allow it to continue – digesting and purging humans
which have been commodified like everything else.
This total corporatization is at the root of both existential threats to humanity –
nuclear war and climate change. The risk of nuclear war (primarily from some mistake or
miscalculation) results from the military-industrial complex's imperial program of
globalization to further multinational corporate profits and control, and climate change is a
cancer driven by corporate resource exploitation that will surely kill humanity if we don't
cut out the corporate tumors and stop smoking that oil.
I'm beginning to think that the only way to save humanity, to save the planet, will be a
"Butlerian Jihad" to rid us of the existential threat that corporations represent. I wonder
how many people will have to be consumed by this corporate monster before we rise up to kill
it. There will be a cost to eliminating corporations, to ending the limited liability of the
owners, but that cost will be well worth the price of saving humanity, civilization, and our
ecosystem. "There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation
of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by corporations. The power of all
corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never
fails to be a source of abuses." James Madison
Argument by assertion doesn't work here. There is no evidence whatsoever that the ECB has
influence over German leaders. More generally, German politics are dominated by industrial
capital, particularly its automakers, not financial capital. And in fact the Bundesbank has
disproportionate influence over the ECB. And Germany has repeatedly checked measures that
would provide more support to the banking system and lead to more Eurozone integration to
preserve its advantaged position.
In addition, the EU is perfectly willing to take on global corporations, contrary to your
claims. Did you miss the massive anti-trust fine it imposed on Microsoft, and the fines it
has imposed on Google? The EU competition ruling on Google will force Google to change how it
does business in a fundamental manner, and the fines (up to 10% of global revenues for a
violation in a single line of business) are high enough to bring Google to heel. The EU also
is requiring Apple to pay a ginormous tax bill for its special tax avoidance scheme in
Ireland.
If you are going to comment on European politics, you need to know the terrain. You don't,
and worse you say things that mislead readers.
Jeebus! I had no idea that Germany had extended it's claws so far into the affairs of
other countries as to be integrating their army units.
I suppose it's a much better strategy than attacking those armies and risking people
getting killed. :-/
But, seriously, Germany has moved far beyond it's mercantilist advantages and subjugation
of Greece and other periphery nations. It has become beyond obvious to me that they learned
from their experience in WWII and decided that economic hegemony was the way to go to achieve
de facto political hegemony. I think the Fourth Reich is fitting.
Thank you for having the courage to put those two words together so chillingly: "Fourth
Reich". You are not an alarmist to do so – you are right on the money. This has indeed
been a deliberate decades-long campaign to install German hegemony (no "accident"), and the
project is well along its way.
From here we can soberly project a future in which Europe *does* finally institute a
fiscal compact – wholly on Germany's terms. Is it too outrageous to suggest that there
will one day be a new Holy Roman Emperor to wear the crown of Charlemagne? And would it be
too forward to make guesses as to the nationality of said emperor?
Then we see power blocks aligning, the US (and it's proxies), the EU under Germany,
Russia, and China. Clearly we are sitting on a powder keg that is the disintegrating
neo-liberal world orde. What will serve as the spark that lights the fuse? Trump and North
Korea? War for fun and profit in the Middle East?
Actually it was the West, especially the USA which created political Islam to fight Soviets. They essentially created Osama bin
Laden as a political figure. The USA is also the main protector of Saudi Arabia were Wahhabism is the official religion. Then
they tried to partition Russia by supporting Chechen islamists and financed the jihadist groups in Russia (especially in Dagestan).
Obama administration flirted with Muslim Brotherhood and unleashed the wars in Lybia and Siria were islamists were trying to
take down the legitimate governments.
So Political Islam despite its anti-Western message used as a tool as a patsy for the destabilization of "unfriendly", the dogs
that could be unleashed when weapons and money started to flow.
Now it looks like boomerang returns home.
Notable quotes:
"... I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development. ..."
"... Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. ..."
"... The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. ..."
"... To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. ..."
"... If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. ..."
FPR:Your book
The Sword of the Prophet was published back in 2002, yet here we are-15 years later-still scratching our heads over this problem.
Defeating Jihad you wrote ten years ago, and yet we are still fumbling around in the dark. It seems like we don't have the
ability to say what is right and what is wrong. We've lost the ability we had had during the Cold War to say out way is better than
their way . . .
ST: I'm afraid the problem is deeper than that. It is in the unwillingness of the ruling elite in the Western world to come to
grips with the nature of Islam-as-such. There is this constant tendency by the politicians, the media and the academia to treat jihadism
as some sort of aberration which is alien to "true" Islam. We had an example of that in 2014, when President Obama went so far as
to say that ISIS was "un-Islamic"! It is rather curious that the President of the United States assumes the authority of a theologian
who can pass definite judgments on whether a certain phenomenon is "Islamic" or not. Likewise we have this constant repetition of
the mantra of the "religion of peace and tolerance," which is simply not supported by 14 centuries of historical experience. What
I've tried to emphasize in both those books you've mentioned, and in my various other writings and public appearances, is that the
problem of Islam resides in the core texts, in the Kuran and the Hadith , the "Traditions" of the prophet of Islam,
Muhammed. This is the source from which the historical practice has been derived ever since. The problem is not in the jihadists
misinterpreting Islam, but rather in interpreting it all too well. This mythical "moderate Islam," for which everybody seems to be
looking these days, is an exception and not the rule.
In answer to your question, I'd say that "scratching one's head" is-by now-only the phenomenon of those who refuse to face reality.
Reasonable people who are capable of judging phenomena on their merits and on the basis of ample empirical evidence, are no longer
in doubt. They see that the problem is not in the alleged misinterpretation of the Islamic teaching, but rather in its rigorous application
and literal understanding. I'm afraid things will not get better, because with each and every new jihadist attack, such as the
Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris a year ago, or again in Paris last November, or the New Year's Eve violence in Germany, we are
witnessing-time and over again-the same problem. The Islamic mindset, the Islamic understanding of the world, the Muslim Weltanschauung
, world outlook, is fundamentally incompatible with the Western value system and the Western way of life.
FPR:. . . It seems obvious, regarding Islam, that its "freedom of religion" is impacting other people, and it's dictated to
do so-it must go out and fight the infidels. And that's where we have the disconnect. Maybe there is some traction to the statement,
as you put it, that fundamentalism reflects a far more thorough following of Islam, and that it is simply incompatible with the Constitution?
ST: It is inevitable, because if you are an orthodox, practicing, mainstream Muslim, then you necessarily believe in the need
to impose Sharia as the law of the land. Sharia is much more than a legal code. It is also a political program, it is a code of social
behavior, it is the blueprint for the totality of human experience. That's why it is impossible to make Sharia compatible with the
liberal principle of "live and let live": it is inherently aggressive to non-Islam. In the Islamic paradigm, the world is divided
in the Manichean manner, black-and-white, into "the World of Faith," Dar al-Islam , literally "the world of submission," and
"the World of War, Dar al-Harb .
It is the divine duty of each and every Muslim to seek the expansion of Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb
until the one true faith is triumphant throughout the world. In this sense the Islamic mindset is very similar to Bolshevism.
The Bolsheviks also believed that "the first country of Socialism" should expand its reach and control until the whole world has
undergone the proletarian revolution and has become one in the march to the Utopia of communism. There is constant inner tension
in the Islamic world, in the sense that for as long as non-Islam exists, it is inherently perceived as "the other," as an abomination.
In that sense, Muslims perceive any concession made by the West-for instance in allowing mass immigration into Western Europe-not
as a gesture of good will and multicultural tolerance, but as a sign of weakness that needs to be exploited and used as a means to
an end.
FPR:The Roman Catholic Church has its Catechism which decides the issues of doctrine. Until there's an Islamic "catechism"
which can say "no, this is no longer the right interpretation, this is not what it means any more"-and I don't think this would be
a short-term thing, because you'd still have the splinter groups dissenting against the "traitors"-but is this the only way to go
to the center of theological jurisprudence in the Islamic world?
ST: The problem is twofold. First of all, there is no "interpretation" of the Kuran . Classical Islamic sources are adamant
that the Kuran needs to be taken at face value, literally. If it says in Sura 9, verse 5, "fight the infidels wherever you find them,
and let them go if they convert," or if it says time and over again that the choice for a non-Muslim is to accept Islam, or to live
as a second-class citizen-the dhimmi -under Islamic supremacy, or else to be killed it is very hard to imagine what sort of
authority in the Islamic world would be capable of saying "now we are going to relativize and soften the message."
The second part of the problem is that there is no single authority in Islam. It is not organized in a hierarchical way like the
Roman Catholic Church, where if the Pope speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are obligatory for all Catholics everywhere.
Islam is a diffused religion, with various centers of learning and various ullema who may or may not agree on certain peripheral
details. Yet any any one of them who'd dare say "look, now we rally need to reinterpret the fundamental sources, the Kuran
and the Hadith, so as to make it compatible with the pluralist society"-they'd immediately be condemned as heretics. We've seen attempts
at reform in the past. In the end the orthodox interpretation always prevails, because it is-sadly-the right interpretation of the
core texts. With neither the hierarchy capable of imposing a new form of teaching on the faithful, nor the existence of alternative
core texts which would provide grounds for such reinterpretation, it is very hard to see how it could be done.
FPR:How do we go forward? . . . How does the end-game play out?
ST:I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French
weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie
out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's
National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went
via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used
by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form
of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development.
But if we look at the past 14 centuries, time and over again we see the same phenomenon. The first time they tried to conquer
Europe was across the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Iberian Peninsula, today's Spain. Then they crossed the Pyrinees and were
only stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel in 732AD. Then they were gradually being pushed back, and the Reconquista -- the reconquest
of Spain-lasted 800 years, until 1492, when Cordoba finally fell to the Christian forces. Then came the second, Ottoman onslaught,
in the XIVth century, which went across the Dardanelles into the Balkan Peninsula. The Turks were only finally stopped at the gates
of Vienna in 1683. Pushing Turkey out of Europe went all the way to 1912, to the First Balkan War.
So we may say that we are now witnessing the third Islamic conquest of Europe. This time it is not using armed janissaries,
it is using so-called refugees. In fact most of them are healthy young men, and the whole process is obviously a strategic exercise
-- a joint venture between Ankara and Riyadh, who are logistically and financially helping this mass transfer of people from the
Turkish and Middle Eastern refugee camps to the heart of Europe. The effect may be the same, but this time it is far more dangerous
because, on the European side-unlike in 732, or 1683-there is no political will and there is no moral strength to resist. This is
happening because the migrants, the invaders, see Europe as the candy store with a busted lock and they are taking advantage of that
fact.
FPR: When you see the horrors of rapes and sexual assaults that took place across Germany, and now we see the Germans' response
. . . vigilantes on their streets . . . this is something that we either control politically and with leadership, or else it falls
apart into anarchy, Prof. Trifkovic?
ST: Instead of anarchy I think we will have a form of postmodern totalitarianism. The elite class, the government of Germany etc,
and the media, will demonize those who try to resist. In fact we already have the spectacle of the minister of the interior of one
of the German states saying that "hate speech" on the social networks and websites was far worse than the "incidents" in Cologne.
And the Mayor of Cologne-an ultra-feminist who is also a pro-immigration enthusiast-said that in order to prevent such events in
the future women should observe a "code of conduct" and keep distance "at an arm's length" from men. It's a classic example of blaming
the victim. The victims of Islamic violence should change their behavior in order to adapt themselves to the code of conduct and
values of the invaders. This is truly unprecedented.
Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government
has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally
accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade
by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized.
The same applies to Marine Le Pen in France and to her party, the Front National , or to Geert Wilders in Holland, or to Strache
in Austria. Whoever tries to articulate a coherent plan of action that includes a ban or limits on Islamic immigration is immediately
demonized as a right-wing fanatic or a fascist. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, that you have a multi-million Islamic
diaspora in Europe which is not assimilating, which refuses even to accept a code of conduct of the host population, the reaction
is always the same: blame the victim, and demonize those who try to articulate some form of resistance.
FPR: Dr. Trifkovic, how does a country such as ours, the United States, fix this problem . . .
ST: The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers.
It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive
political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. In both cases we have a committed, highly motivated group
of people who want to effect a fundamental transformation of the United States in a way that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution,
to the American way of life, and to the American values. It is time to stop the Islamists from hiding behind the "freedom of religion"
mantra. What they are seeking is not some "freedom of religion" but the freedom to organize in order to pursue political subversion.
They do not accept the U.S. Constitution.
To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or
her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States.
None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while
the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. I happen to know the oath because I am myself a naturalized U.S. citizen. They can
do it "in good faith" from their point of view by practicing taqqiya . This is the Arab word for the art of dissimulation,
when the Muslim lies to the infidel in order to protect the faith. For them to lie to investigators or to immigration officials about
their beliefs and their objectives does not create any conflict of conscience. The prophet of Islam himself has mandated the use
of taqqiya if it serves the objective of spreading the faith.
FPR: Can a civil war come out of this? Is it conceivable?
ST: If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism
and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted
in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably
lost. I do not believe that there will be many people fighting on the side of the multiculturalists' suicide, but nevertheless we
still have very effective forces of coercion and control on the government side which can be deployed to prevent the articulation
of any long-term, coherent plan of resistance.
FPR: Where can people continue to read you writings, Dr. Trifkovic?
ST: On Chroniclesmagazine.org where I publish weekly
online commentaries, and also in the print edition of Chronicles where I have my regular column.
Actually it was the West, especially the USA which created political Islam to fight Soviets. They essentially created Osama bin
Laden as a political figure. The USA is also the main protector of Saudi Arabia were Wahhabism is the official religion. Then
they tried to partition Russia by supporting Chechen islamists and financed the jihadist groups in Russia (especially in Dagestan).
Obama administration flirted with Muslim Brotherhood and unleashed the wars in Lybia and Siria were islamists were trying to
take down the legitimate governments.
So Political Islam despite its anti-Western message used as a tool as a patsy for the destabilization of "unfriendly", the dogs
that could be unleashed when weapons and money started to flow.
Now it looks like boomerang returns home.
Notable quotes:
"... I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development. ..."
"... Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. ..."
"... The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. ..."
"... To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. ..."
"... If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. ..."
FPR:Your book
The Sword of the Prophet was published back in 2002, yet here we are-15 years later-still scratching our heads over this problem.
Defeating Jihad you wrote ten years ago, and yet we are still fumbling around in the dark. It seems like we don't have the
ability to say what is right and what is wrong. We've lost the ability we had had during the Cold War to say out way is better than
their way . . .
ST: I'm afraid the problem is deeper than that. It is in the unwillingness of the ruling elite in the Western world to come to
grips with the nature of Islam-as-such. There is this constant tendency by the politicians, the media and the academia to treat jihadism
as some sort of aberration which is alien to "true" Islam. We had an example of that in 2014, when President Obama went so far as
to say that ISIS was "un-Islamic"! It is rather curious that the President of the United States assumes the authority of a theologian
who can pass definite judgments on whether a certain phenomenon is "Islamic" or not. Likewise we have this constant repetition of
the mantra of the "religion of peace and tolerance," which is simply not supported by 14 centuries of historical experience. What
I've tried to emphasize in both those books you've mentioned, and in my various other writings and public appearances, is that the
problem of Islam resides in the core texts, in the Kuran and the Hadith , the "Traditions" of the prophet of Islam,
Muhammed. This is the source from which the historical practice has been derived ever since. The problem is not in the jihadists
misinterpreting Islam, but rather in interpreting it all too well. This mythical "moderate Islam," for which everybody seems to be
looking these days, is an exception and not the rule.
In answer to your question, I'd say that "scratching one's head" is-by now-only the phenomenon of those who refuse to face reality.
Reasonable people who are capable of judging phenomena on their merits and on the basis of ample empirical evidence, are no longer
in doubt. They see that the problem is not in the alleged misinterpretation of the Islamic teaching, but rather in its rigorous application
and literal understanding. I'm afraid things will not get better, because with each and every new jihadist attack, such as the
Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris a year ago, or again in Paris last November, or the New Year's Eve violence in Germany, we are
witnessing-time and over again-the same problem. The Islamic mindset, the Islamic understanding of the world, the Muslim Weltanschauung
, world outlook, is fundamentally incompatible with the Western value system and the Western way of life.
FPR:. . . It seems obvious, regarding Islam, that its "freedom of religion" is impacting other people, and it's dictated to
do so-it must go out and fight the infidels. And that's where we have the disconnect. Maybe there is some traction to the statement,
as you put it, that fundamentalism reflects a far more thorough following of Islam, and that it is simply incompatible with the Constitution?
ST: It is inevitable, because if you are an orthodox, practicing, mainstream Muslim, then you necessarily believe in the need
to impose Sharia as the law of the land. Sharia is much more than a legal code. It is also a political program, it is a code of social
behavior, it is the blueprint for the totality of human experience. That's why it is impossible to make Sharia compatible with the
liberal principle of "live and let live": it is inherently aggressive to non-Islam. In the Islamic paradigm, the world is divided
in the Manichean manner, black-and-white, into "the World of Faith," Dar al-Islam , literally "the world of submission," and
"the World of War, Dar al-Harb .
It is the divine duty of each and every Muslim to seek the expansion of Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb
until the one true faith is triumphant throughout the world. In this sense the Islamic mindset is very similar to Bolshevism.
The Bolsheviks also believed that "the first country of Socialism" should expand its reach and control until the whole world has
undergone the proletarian revolution and has become one in the march to the Utopia of communism. There is constant inner tension
in the Islamic world, in the sense that for as long as non-Islam exists, it is inherently perceived as "the other," as an abomination.
In that sense, Muslims perceive any concession made by the West-for instance in allowing mass immigration into Western Europe-not
as a gesture of good will and multicultural tolerance, but as a sign of weakness that needs to be exploited and used as a means to
an end.
FPR:The Roman Catholic Church has its Catechism which decides the issues of doctrine. Until there's an Islamic "catechism"
which can say "no, this is no longer the right interpretation, this is not what it means any more"-and I don't think this would be
a short-term thing, because you'd still have the splinter groups dissenting against the "traitors"-but is this the only way to go
to the center of theological jurisprudence in the Islamic world?
ST: The problem is twofold. First of all, there is no "interpretation" of the Kuran . Classical Islamic sources are adamant
that the Kuran needs to be taken at face value, literally. If it says in Sura 9, verse 5, "fight the infidels wherever you find them,
and let them go if they convert," or if it says time and over again that the choice for a non-Muslim is to accept Islam, or to live
as a second-class citizen-the dhimmi -under Islamic supremacy, or else to be killed it is very hard to imagine what sort of
authority in the Islamic world would be capable of saying "now we are going to relativize and soften the message."
The second part of the problem is that there is no single authority in Islam. It is not organized in a hierarchical way like the
Roman Catholic Church, where if the Pope speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are obligatory for all Catholics everywhere.
Islam is a diffused religion, with various centers of learning and various ullema who may or may not agree on certain peripheral
details. Yet any any one of them who'd dare say "look, now we rally need to reinterpret the fundamental sources, the Kuran
and the Hadith, so as to make it compatible with the pluralist society"-they'd immediately be condemned as heretics. We've seen attempts
at reform in the past. In the end the orthodox interpretation always prevails, because it is-sadly-the right interpretation of the
core texts. With neither the hierarchy capable of imposing a new form of teaching on the faithful, nor the existence of alternative
core texts which would provide grounds for such reinterpretation, it is very hard to see how it could be done.
FPR:How do we go forward? . . . How does the end-game play out?
ST:I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French
weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie
out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's
National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went
via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used
by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form
of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development.
But if we look at the past 14 centuries, time and over again we see the same phenomenon. The first time they tried to conquer
Europe was across the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Iberian Peninsula, today's Spain. Then they crossed the Pyrinees and were
only stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel in 732AD. Then they were gradually being pushed back, and the Reconquista -- the reconquest
of Spain-lasted 800 years, until 1492, when Cordoba finally fell to the Christian forces. Then came the second, Ottoman onslaught,
in the XIVth century, which went across the Dardanelles into the Balkan Peninsula. The Turks were only finally stopped at the gates
of Vienna in 1683. Pushing Turkey out of Europe went all the way to 1912, to the First Balkan War.
So we may say that we are now witnessing the third Islamic conquest of Europe. This time it is not using armed janissaries,
it is using so-called refugees. In fact most of them are healthy young men, and the whole process is obviously a strategic exercise
-- a joint venture between Ankara and Riyadh, who are logistically and financially helping this mass transfer of people from the
Turkish and Middle Eastern refugee camps to the heart of Europe. The effect may be the same, but this time it is far more dangerous
because, on the European side-unlike in 732, or 1683-there is no political will and there is no moral strength to resist. This is
happening because the migrants, the invaders, see Europe as the candy store with a busted lock and they are taking advantage of that
fact.
FPR: When you see the horrors of rapes and sexual assaults that took place across Germany, and now we see the Germans' response
. . . vigilantes on their streets . . . this is something that we either control politically and with leadership, or else it falls
apart into anarchy, Prof. Trifkovic?
ST: Instead of anarchy I think we will have a form of postmodern totalitarianism. The elite class, the government of Germany etc,
and the media, will demonize those who try to resist. In fact we already have the spectacle of the minister of the interior of one
of the German states saying that "hate speech" on the social networks and websites was far worse than the "incidents" in Cologne.
And the Mayor of Cologne-an ultra-feminist who is also a pro-immigration enthusiast-said that in order to prevent such events in
the future women should observe a "code of conduct" and keep distance "at an arm's length" from men. It's a classic example of blaming
the victim. The victims of Islamic violence should change their behavior in order to adapt themselves to the code of conduct and
values of the invaders. This is truly unprecedented.
Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government
has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally
accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade
by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized.
The same applies to Marine Le Pen in France and to her party, the Front National , or to Geert Wilders in Holland, or to Strache
in Austria. Whoever tries to articulate a coherent plan of action that includes a ban or limits on Islamic immigration is immediately
demonized as a right-wing fanatic or a fascist. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, that you have a multi-million Islamic
diaspora in Europe which is not assimilating, which refuses even to accept a code of conduct of the host population, the reaction
is always the same: blame the victim, and demonize those who try to articulate some form of resistance.
FPR: Dr. Trifkovic, how does a country such as ours, the United States, fix this problem . . .
ST: The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers.
It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive
political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. In both cases we have a committed, highly motivated group
of people who want to effect a fundamental transformation of the United States in a way that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution,
to the American way of life, and to the American values. It is time to stop the Islamists from hiding behind the "freedom of religion"
mantra. What they are seeking is not some "freedom of religion" but the freedom to organize in order to pursue political subversion.
They do not accept the U.S. Constitution.
To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or
her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States.
None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while
the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. I happen to know the oath because I am myself a naturalized U.S. citizen. They can
do it "in good faith" from their point of view by practicing taqqiya . This is the Arab word for the art of dissimulation,
when the Muslim lies to the infidel in order to protect the faith. For them to lie to investigators or to immigration officials about
their beliefs and their objectives does not create any conflict of conscience. The prophet of Islam himself has mandated the use
of taqqiya if it serves the objective of spreading the faith.
FPR: Can a civil war come out of this? Is it conceivable?
ST: If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism
and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted
in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably
lost. I do not believe that there will be many people fighting on the side of the multiculturalists' suicide, but nevertheless we
still have very effective forces of coercion and control on the government side which can be deployed to prevent the articulation
of any long-term, coherent plan of resistance.
FPR: Where can people continue to read you writings, Dr. Trifkovic?
ST: On Chroniclesmagazine.org where I publish weekly
online commentaries, and also in the print edition of Chronicles where I have my regular column.
We endure potholes and live in fear of collapsing highway bridges because our leaders
wanted these very special people to have an even larger second yacht
It's not enough to say, in response to the Paradise Papers revelations, that we
already knew that rich people parked their money in offshore tax havens, where their piles
accumulate far from the scrutiny of our government. Nor is it enough to say that we were
already aware that we live in a time of "inequality."
What we have learned this week is the clinical definition of the word. What we have learned
is how much the rich and the virtuous have been hiding away and where they're hiding it. Yes,
there are sinister-looking Russian capitalists involved. But there's also our favorite actors
and singers. Our beloved alma mater, supposedly a charitable institution. Everyone with money
seems to be in on it.
We're also learning that maybe we've had it backwards all along. Tax havens on some tropical island aren't
some sideshow to western capitalism; they are a central reality. Those hidden billions are like
an unseen planet whose gravity is pulling our politics and our economy always in a certain
direction. And this week we finally began to understand what that uncharted planet looks like;
we started to grasp its mass and its power.
Think about it like this. For decades Americans have been erupting in anger at what they can
see happening to their beloved middle-class world. We think we know what the culprit is; we can
see it vaguely through a darkened glass. It's "elitism". It's a "rigged system". It's people
who think they're better than us. And for decades we have lashed out. At the immigrant next
door. At Jews. At Muslims. At school teachers. At public workers who are still paid a decent
wage. Our fury, unrelenting, grows and grows.
We revolt, but it turns out we have chosen the wrong political leader. We revolt again; this
time, the leader is even worse.
This week we are coming face to face with a big part of the right answer: it's that the
celebrities and business leaders we have raised up above ourselves would like to have nothing
to do with us. Yes, they are grateful for the protection of our laws. Yes, they like having the
police and the marine corps on hand to defend their property.
Yes, they eat our food and breathe our air and expect us to keep these pure and healthy;
they demand that we get educated before we may come and work for them, and for that purpose
they expect us to pay for a vast system of public schools. They also expect us to watch their
movies, to buy their products, to use their software. They expect our (slowly declining) middle
class to be their loyal customers.
But those celebrities and business types would prefer not to do what it takes to support all
this. That burden's on us. Oh, they're happy to haul billions out of our economy and use us up
in the workplace, but maintaining the machinery that keeps it all running – that's on
us.
I don't want to go too far here. I know that what the billionaires and the celebrities have
done is legal. They merely took advantage of the system. It's the system itself, and the way it
was deliberately constructed to achieve these awful ends, that should be the target of our
fury.
For decades Americans have lashed out against taxation because they were told that cutting
taxes would give people an incentive to work harder and thus make the American economy
flourish. Our populist leaders told us this – they're telling us this still, as they
reform taxes in Washington – and they rolled back the income tax, they crusaded against
the estate tax, and they worked to keep our government from taking action against offshore tax
havens.
In reality, though, it was never about us and our economy at all. Today it is obvious that
all of this had only one rationale: to raise up a class of supermen above us. It had nothing to
do with jobs or growth. Or freedom either. The only person's freedom to be enhanced by these
tax havens was the billionaire's freedom. It was all to make his life even better, not
ours.
Think, for a moment, of how this country has been starved so the holders of these offshore
accounts might enjoy their private jets in peace. Think of what we might have done with the
sums we have lost to these tax strategies over the decades. All the crumbling infrastructure
that politicians love to complain about: it should have – and could have - been fixed
long ago.
Think of all the young people saddled with catastrophic student-loan debt: we should have
– could have – made that unnecessary. Think of all the decayed small towns, and the
dying rust belt cities, and the drug-addicted hopeless: all of them should have – could
have – been helped.
But no. Instead America chose a different project. Our leaders raised up a tiny class of
otherworldly individuals and built a paradise for them, made their lives supremely delicious.
Today they hold unimaginable and unaccountable power.
We endure potholes and live in fear of collapsing highway bridges because our leaders wanted
these very special people to have an even larger second yacht. Our kids sit in overcrowded
classrooms in underfunded schools so that a handful of exalted individuals can relax on their
own private beach.
Today it is these same golden figures with their offshore billions who host the fundraisers,
hire the lobbyists, bankroll the think tanks and subsidize the artists and intellectuals.
This is their democracy today. We just happen to live in it.
In other parts in this series, I have discussed the tools that the elite are using to achieve
their goals.
In part I, I talked about how debt is used as a tool of enslavement, and in
part II I explained how central banking is a system of financial control that literally dominates
the entire planet (
Part III and
Part IV here) Professor Quigley also mentioned this system of financial control
in his book
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create
a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each
country and the economy of the world as a whole."
Today, a system of interlocking global treaties is slowly but surely merging us into a global
economic system. The World Trade Organization was formed on January 1, 1995, and 164 nations now
belong to it. And every time you hear of a new "free trade agreement" being signed, that is another
step toward a one world economy.
Of course economics is just one element of their overall plan. Ultimately the goal is to erode
national sovereignty almost completely and to merge the nations of the world into a single unified
system of global governance.
... ... ...
Once you start looking into these things, you will see that the elite are very openly telling us
what they intend to do.
One of my favorite examples of this phenomenon is a quote from David Rockefeller's book entitled
Memoirs
Some even believe we are a part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United
States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around
the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you
will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty and I am proud of it
As David Rockefeller openly admitted, they are "internationalists" that are intent on establishing
a one world system.
"... Google is algorithmically burying leftist news and opinion sources such as Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News, and Truthout, among others. ..."
"... my political essays are often reposted by right-wing and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists, socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin Luther Jesus-on-a-stick. ..."
"... What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature. They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism, and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment). ..."
"... Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary. ..."
"... Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy," as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural). ..."
"... Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies, mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war, like any other victorious force, it has been "clear-and-holding" the conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map, and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of extremism" propagated by the corporate media. ..."
"... Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism" will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology will be systematically marginalized and pathologized. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
"... That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening. ..."
"... Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what also the EU is, I would be worried. ..."
"... This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing & are infinitely flexible is central to their power. ..."
Back in October of 2016, I wrote
a somewhat divisive essay in which I suggested that political dissent is being systematically
pathologized. In fact, this process has been ongoing for decades, but it has been significantly accelerated
since the Brexit referendum and the Rise of Trump (or, rather, the Fall of Hillary Clinton, as it
was Americans' lack of enthusiasm for eight more years of corporatocracy with a sugar coating of
identity politics, and not their enthusiasm for Trump, that mostly put the clown in office.)
In the twelve months since I wrote that piece, we have been subjected to a concerted campaign
of corporate media propaganda for which there is no historical precedent. Virtually every major organ
of the Western media apparatus (the most powerful propaganda machine in the annals of powerful propaganda
machines) has been relentlessly churning out variations on a new official ideological narrative designed
to generate and enforce conformity. The gist of this propaganda campaign is that "Western democracy"
is under attack by a confederacy of Russians and white supremacists, as well as "the terrorists"
and other "extremists" it's been under attack by for the last sixteen years.
I've been writing about this campaign for a year now, so I'm not going to rehash all the details.
Suffice to say we've gone from
Russian operatives hacking the American elections to "Russia-linked" persons "apparently" setting
up "illegitimate" Facebook accounts, "likely operated out of Russia," and publishing ads that are
"indistinguishable from legitimate political speech" on the Internet. This is what the corporate
media is presenting as evidence of
"an unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy," a handful of political ads on Facebook.
In addition to the Russian hacker propaganda, since August, we have also been treated to relentless
white supremacist hysteria and daily reminders from the corporate media that
"white nationalism is destroying the West." The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been
blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably slouching its way towards the White House to officially
launch the Trumpian Reich.
At the same time, government and corporate entities have been aggressively restricting (and in
many cases eliminating) fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of expression, freedom of the
press, the right of assembly, the right to privacy, and the right to due process under the law. The
justification for this curtailment of rights (which started in earnest in 2001, following the September
11 attacks) is protecting the public from the threat of "terrorism," which apparently shows no signs
of abating. As of now, the United States has been in
a State of Emergency for over sixteen years. The UK is in
a virtual State of Emergency . France is now in the process of enshrining
its permanent State of Emergency into law. Draconian counter-terrorism measures have been
implemented throughout the EU . Not just
the notorious American police but
police
throughout the West have been militarized . Every other day we learn of some
new emergency security measure designed to keep us safe from "the terrorists," the "lone wolf
shooters," and other "extremists."
Conveniently, since the Brexit referendum and unexpected election of Trump (which is when the
capitalist ruling classes first recognized that they had a widespread nationalist backlash on their
hands), the definition of "terrorism" (or, more broadly, "extremism") has been expanded to include
not just Al Qaeda, or ISIS, or whoever we're calling "the terrorists" these days, but anyone else
the ruling classes decide they need to label "extremists." The FBI has designated Black Lives Matter
"Black Identity Extremists." The FBI and the DHS have designated Antifa
"domestic terrorists."
Whatever your opinion of these organizations and "extremist" persons is beside the point. I'm
not a big fan of neo-Nazis, personally, but neither am I a fan of Antifa. I don't have much use for
conspiracy theories, or a lot of the nonsense one finds on the Internet, but I consume a fair amount
of alternative media, and I publish in CounterPunch, The Unz Review, ColdType, and other non-corporate
journals.
I consider myself a leftist, basically, but my political essays are often reposted by right-wing
and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists,
socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately
agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none
of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and
looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on
effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin
Luther Jesus-on-a-stick.
What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power
in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature.
They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump
them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable
category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism,
and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment).
As I wrote in that essay a year ago, "a line is being drawn in the ideological sand." This line
cuts across both Left and Right, dividing what the capitalist ruling classes designate "normal" from
what they label "extremist." The traditional ideological paradigm, Left versus Right, is disappearing
(except as a kind of minstrel show), and is being replaced, or overwritten, by a pathological
paradigm based upon the concept of "extremism."
* * *
Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as
we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three
decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain
old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary.
In the early 1990s, as the U.S.S.R. disintegrated, and globalized Western capitalism became the
unrivaled global-hegemonic ideological system that it is today, a new concept was needed to represent
the official enemy and its ideology. The concept of "extremism" does that perfectly, as it connotes,
not an external enemy with a definable ideological goal, but rather, a deviation from the norm. The
nature of the deviation (e.g., right-wing, left-wing, faith-based, and so on) is secondary, almost
incidental. The deviation itself is the point. The "terrorist," the "extremist," the "white supremacist,"
the "religious fanatic," the "violent anarchist" these figures are not rational actors whose ideas
we need to intellectually engage with in order to debate or debunk. They are pathological deviations,
mutant cells within the body of "normality," which we need to identify and eliminate, not for ideological
reasons, but purely in order to maintain "security."
A truly global-hegemonic system like contemporary global capitalism (the first of this kind in
human history), technically, has no ideology. "Normality" is its ideology an ideology which erases
itself and substitutes the concept of what's "normal," or, in other words, "just the way it is."
The specific characteristics of "normality," although not quite arbitrary, are ever-changing. In
the West, for example, thirty years ago, smoking was normal. Now, it's abnormal. Being gay was abnormal.
Now, it's normal. Being transgender is becoming normal, although we're still in the early stages
of the process. Racism has become abnormal. Body hair is currently abnormal. Walking down the street
in a semi-fugue state robotically thumbing the screen of a smartphone that you just finished thumbing
a minute ago is "normal." Capitalism has no qualms with these constant revisions to what is considered
normal, because none of them are threats to capitalism. On the contrary, as far as values are concerned,
the more flexible and commodifiable the better.
See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny,
homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these
values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we
have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't
much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture
or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every
object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will
bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
Yes, we all want there to be other values, and we pretend there are, but there aren't, not really.
Although we're free to enjoy parochial subcultures based on alternative values (i.e., religious bodies,
the arts, and so on), these subcultures operate within capitalist society, and ultimately conform
to its rules. In the arts, for example, works are either commercial products, like any other commodity,
or they are subsidized by what could be called "the simulated aristocracy," the ivy league-educated
leisure classes (and lower class artists aspiring thereto) who need to pretend that they still have
"culture" in order to feel superior to the masses. In the latter case, this feeling of superiority
is the upscale product being sold. In the former, it is entertainment, distraction from the depressing
realities of living, not in a society at all, but in a marketplace with no real human values. (In
the absence of any real cultural values, there is no qualitative difference between Gerhard
Richter and Adam Sandler, for example. They're both successful capitalist artists. They're just selling
their products in different markets.)
The fact that it has no human values is the evil genius of global capitalist society. Unlike the
despotic societies it replaced, it has no allegiance to any cultural identities, or traditions, or
anything other than money. It can accommodate any form of government, as long as it plays ball with
global capitalism. Thus, the window dressing of "normality" is markedly different from country to
country, but the essence of "normality" remains the same. Even in countries with state religions
(like Iran) or state ideologies (like China), the governments play by the rules of global capitalism
like everyone else. If they don't, they can expect to receive a visit from global capitalism's Regime
Change Department (i.e., the US military and its assorted partners).
Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the
West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed
countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies.
The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature
of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global
capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy,"
as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural).
We haven't really got our minds around it yet, because we're still in the early stages of it,
but we have entered an epoch in which historical events are primarily being driven, and societies
reshaped, not by sovereign nation states acting in their national interests but by supranational
corporations acting in their corporate interests. Paramount among these corporate interests is the
maintenance and expansion of global capitalism, and the elimination of any impediments thereto. Forget
about the United States (i.e., the actual nation state) for a moment, and look at what's been happening
since the early 1990s. The US military's "disastrous misadventures" in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan,
Syria, and the former Yugoslavia, among other exotic places (which have obviously had nothing to
do with the welfare or security of any actual Americans), begin to make a lot more sense.
Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold
War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies,
mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war,
like any other victorious force, it has been
"clear-and-holding" the
conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map,
and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and
its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last
fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant
surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of
extremism" propagated by the corporate media.
I'm not suggesting there's a bunch of capitalists sitting around in a room somewhere in their
shiny black top hats planning all of this. I'm talking about systemic development, which is a little
more complex than that, and much more difficult to intelligently discuss because we're used to perceiving
historico-political events in the context of competing nation states, rather than competing ideological
systems or non-competing ideological systems, for capitalism has no competition . What it
has, instead, is a variety of insurgencies, the faith-based Islamic fundamentalist insurgency and
the neo-nationalist insurgency chief among them. There will certainly be others throughout the near
future as global capitalism consolidates control and restructures societies according to its values.
None of these insurgencies will be successful.
Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know,
violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless
interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism"
will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit
referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing
a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise
might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology
will be systematically marginalized and pathologized.
This won't happen right away, of course. Things are liable to get ugly first (as if they weren't
ugly enough already), but probably not in the way we're expecting, or being trained to expect by
the corporate media. Look, I'll give you a dollar if it turns out I'm wrong, and the Russians, terrorists,
white supremacists, and other "extremists" do bring down "democracy" and launch their Islamic, white
supremacist, Russo-Nazi Reich, or whatever, but from where I sit it looks pretty clear tomorrow belongs
to the Corporatocracy.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin.
His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut
novel,
ZONE
23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at
cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
Brilliant Article. But this has been going on for nearly a century or more. New York Jewish bankers
fund the Bolshevik revolution which gets rid of the Romanov dynasty and many of the revolutionaries
are not even Russian. What many people do not know is that many Western companies invested money
in Bolshevik Russia as the Bolsheviks were speeding up the modernising of the country. What many
do not know is that Feminism, destruction of families and traditional societies, homoerotic art
etc . was forced on the new Soviet population in a shock therapy sort of way. The same process
has been implemented in the West by the elites using a much slower 'boiling the frog' method using
Cultural Marxism. The aim of the Soviet Union was to spread Communism around the World and hence
bring about the One World Government as wished by the globalists. Their national anthem was the
'Internationale'. The globalists were funding revolutionary movements throughout Europe and other
parts of the world. One such attempt went extremely wrong and that was in Germany where instead
of the Communists coming in power, the National Socialists come in power which was the most dangerous
challenge faced by the Zio/globalists/elite gang. The Globalists force a war using false flag
events like Pearl Harbour etc and crushed the powers which challenged their rule i.e. Germany,
Japan and Italy. That is why Capitalist USA funded Communist Soviet Union using the land lease
program, which on the surface never makes any sense.
However in Soviet Russia, a power struggle leads to Stalin destroying the old Communist order
of Lenin Trotsky. Trotsky and his supporters leave the Soviet Union. Many of the present Neo Cons
are ex Trotskyites and hence the crazy hatred for Russia even today in American politics. These
Neocons do not have any principles, they will use any ideology such as Communism, Islam, twisted
Western Conservatism anything to attain their global goals.
Now with Stalin coming to power, things actually improved and the war with Hitler's Third Reich
gave Stalin the chance to purge many old school globalist commies and then the Soviet Union went
towards a more nationalist road. Jews slowly started losing their hold on power with Russians
and eventually other Soviets gaining more powerful positions. These folks found the ugly modern
art culture of the early Soviet period revolting and started a new movement where the messages
of Socialism can be delivered with more healthy beautiful art and culture. This process was called
'Social Realism'. So strangely what happened was that the Capitalist Christian West was becoming
more and more less traditional with time (Cultural Marxism/Fabien Socialism via media, education,
Hollywood) while the Eastern block was slowly moving in an opposite direction. The CIA (which
is basically the intelligence agency arm of Wall Street Bankers) was working to stop this 'Social
Realism' movement.
These same globalists also funded Mao and pulled the rug under Chiang Kai Shek who they were
supporting earlier. Yes, Mao was funded by the Rockerfeller/ Rothschild Cabal. Now, even if the
Globalists were not happy with Stalin gaining power in the Soviet Union (they preferred the internationalist
Trotskyites), they still found that they could work out with the Soviet Union. That is why during
the 2nd World war, the USA supports the USSR with money and material, Stalin gets a facelift as
'friendly Uncle Joe' for the Western audience. Many Cossack families who had escaped the Soviet
Union to the West were sent to their deaths after the War to the Soviet Union. Why? Mr. Eden of
Britain who could not stand Hitler wanted a New World Order where they could work with the more
murderous Soviet Union.
Now we have the cold war. What is not known is that behind the scenes at a higher level, the
Americans and the Soviets cooperated with each other exchanging technology, basically the cold
war was quite fake. But the Cold war gave the American government (basically the Globalists) to
take American Tax payers hard earned money to fund many projects such as Star Wars programme etc
All this was not needed, as a gentleman named Keenan had shown in his book that all the Americans
needed to do was to make sure Japan, Germany and Britain did not fall to the Soviets, that's it.
Thus trillions of American tax payer money would be saved. But obviously the Military Industrial
Complex did not like that idea. Both the Soviet and the American governments got the excuse spend
their people's hard money on weapons research as well as exchanging some of that technology in
the back ground. It is during this period that the precursor to the Internet was already developed.
Many of the technology we use today was already invented much earlier by government agencies but
released to the people later.
Then we have the Vietnam war. Now you must realise that the Globalist government of America
uses wars not only to change enemy societies but also the domestic society in the West. So during
the Vietnam War, the US government using the alphabet agencies such as the CIA kick start the
fake opposition hippie movements. The CIA not only drugged the Vietnamese population using drugs
from the Golden Triangle but later released them on the home population in the USA and the West.
This was all part of the Cultural Marxist plan to change or social engineer American/ Western
society. Many institutes like the Travestock Institute were part of this process. For example
one of the main hochos of the Cultural Marxism, a Mr. Aderno was closely related to the Beatles
movement.
Several experiments was done on mind control such as MK Ultra, monarch programming, Edward
Bernay's works etc Their aim was to destroy traditional Western society and the long term goal
is a New World Order. Blacks for example were used as weapons against Whites at the same time
the black social order was destroyed further via the media etc
Now, Nixon going to China was to start a long term (long planned) process to bring about Corporate
Communism. Yes that is going to be economic system in the coming New World Order. China is the
test tube, where the Worst of Communism and the Worst of Crony Capitalism be brought together
as an experiment. As the Soviet Union was going in a direction, the globalist was not happy about
(it was becoming more nationalist), they worked to bring the Soviet Union down and thus the Soviet
experiment ended only to be continued in China.
NATO today is the core military arm of the globalists, a precursor to a One World Military
Force. That explains why after the Warsaw pact was dismantled, NATO was not or why NATO would
interfere in the Middle East which is far away from the Atlantic Ocean.
The coming Cashless society will finally lead to a moneyless or distribution society, in other
words Communism, that is the long term plan.
My point is, many of the geo political events as well as social movements of the last century
(feminism for example) were all planned for a long time and are not accidents. The coming technologies
like the internet of things, 5G technology, Cashless society, biometric identification everywhere
etc are all designed to help bring about the final aim of the globalists. The final aim is a one
world government with Corporate ruled Communism where we, the worker bees will be living in our
shitty inner city like ghetto homes eating GM plastic foods and listening to crappy music. That
is the future they have planned for us. A inner city ghetto like place under Communism ruled by
greedy evil corporates.
"Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know,
violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its
ruthless interests."
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical
of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting
proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with
mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy
seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening.
That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical
of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting
proles.
There must be some evidence for your assertions about the long term plans and aims of globalists
and others if there is truth in them. The sort of people you are referring to would often have
kept private diaries and certainly written many hundreds or thousands of letters. Can you give
any references to such evidence of say 80 to 130 years ago?
.. puzzling that the writer feels the need to virtue-signal by saying he "doesn't have much
time for conspiracy theories" while condemning an absolutely massive conspiracy to present establishment
lies as truth.
That is one of the most depressing demonstrations of the success of the ruling creeps that
I have yet come across.
Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last
French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU
parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what
also the EU is, I would be worried.
"See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny,
homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these
values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which
we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which
isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of
human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything,
everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what
the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value."
This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's
go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing
& are infinitely flexible is central to their power.
Mr Hopkins is also correct when he points out that Capitalism has essentially NO values (exchange
value is a value, but also a mechanism). Again, Capitalism stands for nothing: any form of government
is acceptable as long as it bows to neoliberal markets.
However, the author probably goes to far:
"Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies
are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every
developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony
I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony.
Systemic, supranational hegemony".
Capitalism has no values: however the Masters of the capitalist system most certainly do: Capitalism
is a means, the most thorough, profound means yet invented, for the attainment of that value which
has NO exchange value: POWER.
Capitalism is a supranational hegemony – yet the Elites which control it, who will act as one
when presented with any external threats to Capitalism itself, are not unified internally. Indeed,
they will engage in cut throat competition, whether considered as individuals or nations or as
particular industries.
US Imperialism is not imaginary, it is not a mere appearance or mirage of Capitalism, supranational
or not. US Imperialism in essence empowers certain sets of Capitalists over other sets. No, they
may not purposely endanger the System as a whole, however, that still leaves plenty of space for
aggressive competition, up to & including war.
Imperialism is the political corollary to the ultimate economic goal of the individual Capitalist:
Monopoly.
Psychologically daring (being no minstrel to corporatocracy nor irrelevant activism and other
"religions" that endorse the current world global system as the overhead), rationally correct,
relevant, core definition of the larger geo-world and deeper "ideological" grounding( in the case
of capitalism the quite shallow brute forcing of greed as an incentive, as sterile a society as
possible), and adhering to longer timelines of reality of planet earth. Perfectly captures the
"essence" of the dynamics of our times.
The few come to the authors' through-sites by many venue-ways, that's where some of the corporocratic
world, by sheer statistics wind up also. Why do they not get the overhand into molding the shallow
into anything better in the long haul. No world leader, no intellectual within power circles,
even within confined quarters, speaks to the absurdity of the ongoing slugging and maltering of
global human?
The elites of now are too dumb to consider the planet exo-human as a limited resource. Immigration,
migration, is the de facto path to "normalization" in the terms of the author. Reducing the world
population is not "in" the capitalist ideology. A major weakness, or if one prefers the stake
that pinches the concept of capitalism: more instead of quality principles.
The game changers, the possible game changers: eugenics and how they play out as to the elites
( understanding the genome and manipulating it), artificial intelligence ( defining it first,
not the "Elon Musk" definition), and as a far outlier exo-planetary arguments.
Confront the above with the "unexpected", the not-human engineered possible events (astroids
and the like, secondary effects of human induced toxicity, others), and the chances to get to
the author's "dollar" and what it by then might mean is indeed tiny.
As to the content, one of the utmost relevant articles, it is "art" to condense such broad
a world view into a few words, it requires a deep understanding foremost, left to wonder what
can be grasped by most reading above. Some-one try the numbers?, "big data" anyone, they might
turn out in favor of what the author undoubtedly absorbed as the nucleus of twenty-first thinking,
strategy and engineering.
This kind of thinking and "Harvard" conventionality, what a distance.
Great article, spot on. Indeed we are all at the mercy now of a relatively small clique of ruthless
criminals who are served by armies of desensitized, stupid mercenaries: MBAs, politicians, thugs,
college professors, "whorenalists", etc. I am afraid that the best answer to the current and future
dystopia is what the Germans call "innere Emigration," to psychologically detach oneself
from the contemporary world.
Thus, the only way out of this hellhole is through reading and thinking, which every self-respecting
individual should engage in. Shun most contemporary "literature" and instead turn to the classics
of European culture: there you will find all you need.
For an earlier and ever so pertinent analysis of the contemporary desert, I can heartily recommend
Umberto Galimberti's I vizi capitali e i nuovi vizi (Milan, 2003).
And yes, another verbally strong expression of the in your face truth, though for so few to
grasp. The author again has a deep understanding, if one prefers, it points to the venueway of
coming to terms, the empirical pathway as to the understanding.
"Plasticky" society is my preferred term for designating the aberrance that most (within the
elites), the rest who cares (as an historical truth), do not seem to identify as proper cluelessness
in the light of longer timelines. The current global ideology, religion of capitalism-democracy
is the equivalent of opportunistic naval staring of the elites. They are not aware that suffocation
will irreversibly affect oneself. Not enough air is the equivalent of no air in the end.
The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably
slouching its way towards the White House to officially launch the Trumpian Reich.
While the above is true, I hope most folks understand that the basic concept of controlling
people through fear is nothing new. The much vaunted constitution was crammed down our collective
throats by the rich scoundrels of the time in the words of more than one anti-federalist through
the conjuring of quite a set of threats, all bogus.
I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty
We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.
- Patrick Henry, Foreign Wars, Civil Wars, and Indian Wars -- Three Bugbears, June 5, 7,
and 9, 1788
Bottom line: Concentrated wealth and power suck.The USA was ruled by a plutoligarchy from its
inception, and the material benefits we still enjoy have occurred not because of it but
despite it.
For today's goofy "right wing" big business "conservatives" who think the US won WW2, I got news
for you. Monopoly capitalism, complete with increasing centralization of the economy and political
forces were given boosts by both world wars.
It was precisely in reaction to their impending defeat at the hands of the competitive storms
of the market tha t business turned, increasingly after the 1900′s, to the federal government
for aid and protection. In short, the intervention by the federal government was designed,
not to curb big business monopoly for the sake of the public weal, but to create monopolies
that big business (as well as trade associations smaller business) had not been able
to establish amidst the competitive gales of the free market. Both Left and Right have been
persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish
and anti-business. Hence the mythology of the New-Fair Deal-as-Red that is endemic on the Right.
Both the big businessmen, led by the Morgan interests, and Professor Kolko almost uniquely
in the academic world, have realized that monopoly privilege can only be created by the
State and not as a result of free market operations.
-Murray N. Rothbard, Rothbard Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, [Originally appeared
in Left and Right, Spring 1965, pp. 4-22.]
It was all about connecting the dots really. Connecting the dots of too many books I have gobe
through and videos I have seen. Too many to list here.
You can get a lot of info from the book 'Tragedy and Hope' by Carroll Quigley though he avoids
mantioning Jews and calls it the Anglo American establishment, Anthony Sutton however I completely
disagree about funding of the Third Reich but he does talk a lot about the secret relationship
between the USA and the USSR, Revilo Oliver etc.. etc Well you could read the Protocols. Now if
you think that the protocols was a forgery, you gotta see this, especially the last part.
Also check this out
Also check out what this Wall Street guy realised in his career.
Also this 911 firefighter, what he found out after some research
Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only
has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms
of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural
world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient
being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more,
no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.
This looks like the "financialization" of society with Citizens morphing into Consumers.
And it's worth saying that Citizenship and Consumership are completely different concepts:
Citizenship – Dictionary.com
1. – the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen.
2. – the character of an individual viewed as a member of society;behavior in terms of the
duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen:
an award for good citizenship.
The Consumer – Dictionary.com
1. a person or thing that consumes.
2. Economics. a person or organization that uses a commodity or service.
A good citizen can then define themselves in a rather non-selfish, non-financial way as for
example, someone who respects others, contributes to local decisions (politically active), gains
respect through work and ethical standards etc.
A good consumer on the other hand, seems to be more a self-idea, essentially someone who buys
and consumes a lot (financial idea), has little political interest – and probably defines themselves
(and others) by how they spend money and what they own.
It's clear that US, and global capitalism, prefers active consumers over active citizens, and
maybe it explains why the US has such a worthless and dysfunctional political process.
Some folks are completely unable to connect the dots even when spoon fed the evidence. You'll
note that some, in risible displays of quasi-intellectual arrogance, make virtually impossible
demands for proof, none of which they'll ever accept. Rather, they flock to self aggrandizing
mythology like flies to fresh sewage which the plutoligarchy produces nearly infinitely.
Your observations appear pretty accurate and self justifying I'd say.
Look up the film director Aaron Russo (recently deceased), discussing how David Rockefeller
tried to bring him over to the dark side. Rockefeller discussed for example the women's movement,
its engineering. Also, there's Aldous Huxley's speech The Ultimate Revolution, on how drugs are
the final solution to rabble troubles–we will think we're happy even in the most appalling societal
conditions.
I can only say Beware of Zinn, best friend of Chomsky, endlessly tauted by shysters like Amy
Goodman and Counterpunch. Like all liberal gatekeepers, he wouldn't touch 911. I saw him speak
not long before he died, and when questioned on this he said, 'That was a long time ago, let's
talk about now.'
This from a professed historian, and it was only 7 years after 911. He seemed to have the same
old Jewish agenda, make Europeans look really bad at all times. He was always on message, like
the shyster Chomsky. Sincerely probing for the truth was not part of his agenda; his truths were
highly selective, and such a colossal event as 911 concerned him not at all, with the ensuing
wars, Patriot Acts, bullshit war on Terror, etc etc
" capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic
values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic
purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system."
This is a typical Left Lie. Capitalism in its present internationalist phase absolutely requires
Anti-Racism to lubricate sales uh, internationally and domestically. We are all Equal.
Then, the ticking-off of the rest of the bad isms, and labeling them 'despotic' is another
Leftwing and poetic attack on more or less all of us white folks, who have largely invented Capitalism,
from a racialist point of view.
"Poetic" because it is an emotional appeal, not a rational argument. The other 'despotisms'
are not despotic, unless you claim, like I do that racial personalities are more, or less despotic,
with Whites being the least despotic. The Left totalitarian thinks emotional despotism's source
is political or statist. It are not. However, Capitalism has been far less despotic than communism,
etc.
Emotional Despotism is part of who Homo Sapiens is, and this emotional despotism is not racially
equal. Whites are the least despotic, and have organized law and rules to contain such despotism.
Systems arise naturally from the Human Condition, like it or not. The attempt here is to sully
the Capitalist system, and that is all it is. This article itself is despotic propaganda.
Arguably, human nature is despotic, and White civilization has attempted to limit our despotic
nature.
This is another story.
As for elevating capitalism into a 'social system' .this is somewhat true. However, that is
not totally bad, as capitalism delivers the goods, which is the first thing, after getting out
of bed.
The second thing, is having a conformable social environment, and that is where racial accord
enters.
People want familiar and trustworthy people around them and that is just the way human nature
is genetic similarity, etc.
Beyond that, the various Leftie complaints-without-end, are also just the way it is. And yes
they can be addressed and ameliorated to some degree, but human nature is not a System to be manipulated,
even thought the current crop of scientistic lefties talk a good storyline about epigenetics and
other Hopes, false of course, like communist planning which makes its first priority, Social Change
which is always despotic. Society takes care of itself, especially racial society.
As Senator Vail said about the 1924 Immigration Act which held the line against Immigration,
"if there is going to be any changing being done, we will do it and nobody else." That 'we' was
a White we.
Capitalism must be national. International capital is tyranny.
US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US
Big Government taxes on a single gallon are around seventy-one cents for US states & rising, the
tax is now $1.00 per gallon for CA.
IOW, greedy US governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make, and it is
the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.
And that is just in the US. Have a look at Europe's taxes. My, my.
Some agendas require the "state sponsored" part to be hidden.
That is part of the reason why the constitutional convention was held in secret as well.
The cunning connivers who ram government down our throats don't like their designs exposed,
and it's an old trick which nearly always works.
Here's Aristophanes on the subject. His play is worth a read. Short and great satire on the
politicians of the day.
SAUSAGE-SELLER
No, Cleon, little you care for his reigning in Arcadia, it's to pillage and impose on the
allies at will that you reckon; y ou wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist,
that Demos may see nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for
his bread. But if ever peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort
himself once more with good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings
you have kept him out of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage,
he will rise, burning with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is
for this you rock him to sleep with your lies.
The first loyalty of jews is supposed to be to jews.
Norman Finkelstein is called a traitor by jews, the Dutch jew Hamburger is called a traitor
by Dutch jews, he's the chairman of 'Een ander joodse geluid', best translated by 'another jewish
opinion', the organisation criticises Israel.
Jewish involvement in Sept 11 seems probable, the 'dancing Israelis', the assertion that most
jews working in the Twin Towers at the time were either sick or took a day off, the fact that
the Towers were jewish property, ready for a costly demolition, much abestos in the buildings,
thus the 'terrorist' act brought a great profit.
Can one expect a jew to expose things like this ?
On his book, I did not find inconsistencies with literature I already knew.
The merit of the book is listing many events that affected common people in the USA, and destroying
the myth that 'in the USA who is poor has only himself to blame'.
This nonsense becomes clear even from the diaries of Harold L Ickes, or from Jonathan Raban
Bad Land, 1997.
As for Zinn's criticism of the adored USA constitution, I read that Charles A Beard already
in 1919 resigned because he also criticised this constitution.
Indeed, in our countries about half the national income goes to the governments by taxes, this
is the reason a country like Denmark is the best country to live in.
"... In the 1970s a programming shop was legacy American, with only a thin scattering of foreigners like myself. Twenty years later programming had been considerably foreignized , thanks to the H-1B visa program. Now, twenty years further on, I believe legacy-American programmers are an endangered species. ..."
"... So a well-paid and mentally rewarding corner of the middle-class job market has been handed over to foreigners -- for the sole reason, of course, that they are cheaper than Americans. The desire for cheap labor explains 95 percent of U.S. immigration policy. The other five percent is sentimentality. ..."
"... Now they are brazen in their crime: you have heard, I'm sure, those stories about American workers being laid off, with severance packages conditional on their helping train their cheaper foreign replacements. That's our legal ..."
"... A "merit-based" points system won't fix that. It will quickly and easily be gamed by employers to lay waste yet more middle-class occupational zones for Americans. If it was restricted to the higher levels of "merit," we would just be importing a professional overclass of foreigners, most East and South Asians, to direct the labors of less-meritorious legacy Americans. How would that ..."
"... Measured by the number of workers per year, the largest guestworker program in the entire immigration system is now student visas through the Optional Practical Training program (OPT). Last year over 154,000 aliens were approved to work on student visas. By comparison, 114,000 aliens entered the workforce on H-1B guestworker visas. ..."
"... A History of the 'Optional Practical Training' Guestworker Program , ..."
"... incredible amount ..."
"... on all sorts of subjects ..."
"... for all kinds of outlets. (This ..."
"... no longer includes ..."
"... National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and ..."
"... and several other ..."
"... . He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: ..."
"... ( also available in Kindle ) and ..."
"... Has it ever occurred to anyone other than me that the cost associated with foreign workers using our schools and hospitals and pubic services for free, is more than off-set by the cheap price being paid for grocery store items like boneless chicken breast, grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce etc, which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive even for the wealthy? ..."
Item-wise, the biggest heading there is the second one, "Interior Enforcement." That's very
welcome.
Of course we need improved border security so that people don't enter our country without
permission. That comes under the first heading. An equally pressing problem, though, is the
millions of foreigners who are living and working here, and using our schools and hospitals and
public services, who should not be here.
The President's proposals on interior enforcement cover all bases: Sanctuary
cities , visa
overstays , law-enforcement
resources , compulsory E-Verify , more
deportations , improved visa security.
This is a major, wonderful improvement in national policy, when you consider that less than
a year ago the
White House and
Justice Department were run by committed open-borders
fanatics. I thank the President and his staff for having put so much work into such a
detailed proposal for restoring American sovereignty and the rights of American workers and
taxpayers.
That said, here come the quibbles.
That third heading, "Merit-Based Immigration System," with just four items, needs work.
Setting aside improvements on visa controls under the other headings, this is really the only
part of the proposal that covers legal immigration. In my opinion, it does so imperfectly.
There's some good meat in there, mind. Three of the four items -- numbers one, three, and
four -- got a fist-pump from me:
cutting down chain
migration by limiting it to spouse and dependent children; eliminating the Diversity
Visa Lottery ; and limiting the number of refugees admitted, assuming this means severely
cutting back on the numbers, preferably all the way to
zero.
Good stuff. Item two, however, is a problem. Quote:
Establish a new, points-based system for the awarding of Green Cards (lawful permanent
residents) based on factors that allow individuals to successfully assimilate and support
themselves financially.
sounds OK, bringing in talented, well-educated, well-socialized people, rather than
what the late Lee
Kuan Yew referred to as " fruit-pickers ." Forgive
me if I have a rather jaundiced view of this merit-based approach.
For most of my adult life I made a living as a computer programmer. I spent four years
doing this in the U.S.A. through the mid-1970s. Then I came back in the late 1980s and
worked at the same trade here through the 1990s. (Pictured right–my actual H-1B visa ) That gave me two
clear snapshots twenty years apart, of this particular corner of skilled middle-class
employment in America.
In the 1970s a programming shop was legacy American, with only a thin scattering of
foreigners like myself. Twenty years later programming had been considerably foreignized ,
thanks to the H-1B visa program. Now, twenty years further on, I believe legacy-American
programmers are an endangered species.
So a well-paid and mentally rewarding corner of the middle-class job market has been
handed over to foreigners -- for the sole reason, of course, that they are cheaper than
Americans. The desire for cheap labor explains 95 percent of U.S. immigration policy. The other
five percent is sentimentality.
On so-called "merit-based immigration," therefore, you can count me a cynic. I have no doubt
that American firms could recruit all the computer programmers they need from among our legacy
population. They used to do so, forty years ago. Then they discovered how to game the
immigration system for cheaper labor.
A "merit-based" points system won't fix that. It will quickly and easily be gamed by
employers to lay waste yet more middle-class occupational zones for Americans. If it was
restricted to the higher levels of "merit," we would just be importing a professional overclass
of foreigners, most East and South Asians, to direct the labors of less-meritorious legacy
Americans. How would that contribute to social harmony?
With coming up to a third of a
billion people, the U.S.A. has all the talent, all the merit , it needs. You might
make a case for a handful of certified geniuses like Einstein or worthy dissidents like
Solzhenitsyn, but those cases aside, there is no reason at all to have guest-worker programs.
They should all be shut down.
Some of these cheap-labor rackets don't even need congressional action to shut them down; it
can be done by regulatory change via executive order. The scandalous OPT-visa scam, for
example, which brings in cheap workers under the guise of student visas.
Here is John Miano writing about the OPT program last month, quote:
Measured by the number of workers per year, the largest guestworker program in the
entire immigration system is now student visas through the Optional Practical Training
program (OPT). Last year over 154,000 aliens were approved to work on student visas. By
comparison, 114,000 aliens entered the workforce on H-1B guestworker visas.
Because there is no reporting on how long guestworkers stay in the country, we do not know
the total number of workers in each category. Nonetheless, the number of approvals for work
on student visas has grown by 62 percent over the past four years so their numbers will soon
dwarf those on H-1B visas.
End quote. (And a cheery wave of acknowledgement to John Miano here from one of the
other seventeen people in the U.S.A. that knows the correct placement of the hyphen in
"H-1B.")
Our legal immigration system is addled with these scams. Don't even get me started
on
the EB-5 investor's visa . It all needs sweeping away.
So for preference I would rewrite that third heading to include, yes, items one, three, and
four -- cutting down chain migration, ending the Diversity Visa Lottery, and ending refugee
settlement for anyone of less stature than Solzhenitsyn; but then, I'd replace item two with
the following:
End all guest-worker programs, with exceptions only for the highest levels of
talent and accomplishment, limit one hundred visas per annum .
So much for my amendments to the President's October 8th proposals. There is, though, one
glaring omission from that 70-item list. The proposal has no mention at all of birthright
citizenship.
Yes, yes, I know: some constitutional authorities argue that birthright citizenship is
implied in the
Fourteenth Amendment , although it is certain that the framers of that Amendment did not
have foreign tourists or illegal entrants in mind. Other scholars think Congress could
legislate against it.
The only way to find out is to have Congress legislate. If the courts strike down the
legislation as unconstitutional, let's then frame a constitutional amendment and put it to the
people.
Getting rid of birthright citizenship might end up a long and difficult process. We might
ultimately fail. The only way to find out is to get the process started . Failure to
mention this in the President's proposal is a very glaring omission.
I agree with ending birthright citizenship. But Trump should wait until he can put at
least one more strict constitutionalist in the supreme court. There will be a court
challenge, and we need judges who can understand that if the 14th Amendment didn't give
automatic citizenship to American Indians it doesn't give automatic citizenship to children
of Mexican citizens who jumped our border.
John's article, it seems to me, ignores the elephant in the room: the DACA colonists.
Trump is offering this proposal, more or less, in return for some sort of semi-permanent
regularization of their status. Bad trade, in my opinion. Ending DACA and sending those
illegals back where they belong will have more real effect on illegal and legal
immigration/colonization than all sorts of proposals to be implemented in the future, which
can and will be changed by subsequent Administrations and Congresses.
Trump would also be able to drive a much harder bargain with Congress (like maybe a
moratorium on any immigration) if he had kept his campaign promise, ended DACA the afternoon
of January 20, 2017, and busloads of DACA colonists were being sent south of the Rio
Grande.
The best hope for immigration patriots is that the Democrats are so wedded to Open Borders
that the entire proposal dies and Trump, in disgust, reenacts Ike's Operation Wetback.
Well, in the real world, things just don't work that way. It's pay me now or pay me
later. Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans
refuse to do are run out the country, then what?
Right, prior to 1965, Americans didn't exist. They had all starved to death because, as
everyone knows, no Americans will work to produce food and, even if they did, once Tyson
chicken plants stop making 50 percent on capital they just shut down.
If there were no Somalis in Minnesota, even Warren Buffett couldn't afford grapes.
Illegal immigrants picking American produce is a false economy.
Illegal immigrants are subsidized by the taxpayer in terms of public health, education,
housing, and welfare.
If businesses didn't have access to cheap and subsidized illegal alien labor, they would
be compelled to resort to more farm automation to reduce cost.
Cheap illegal alien labor delays the inevitable use of newer farm automation
technologies.
Many Americans would likely prefer a machine touch their food rather than a illegal alien
with strange hygiene practices.
In addition, anti-American Democrats and neocons prefer certain kinds of illegal aliens
because they bolster their diversity scheme.
@Realist "Once all the undocumented workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs
Americans refuse to do are run out the country, then what?"
Eliminate welfare...then you'll have plenty of workers. Unfortunately, that train left the
station long ago. With or without welfare, there's simply no way soft, spoiled, lazy,
over-indulged Americans who have never hit a lick at anything their life, will ever perform
manual labor for anyone, including themselves.
@Randal Probably people other than you have worked out that once their wages are not
being continually undercut by cheap and easy immigrant competition, the American working
classes will actually be able to earn enough to pay the increased prices for grocery store
items, especially as the Americans who, along with machines, will replace those immigrants
doing the "jobs Americans won't do" will also be earning more and actually paying taxes on
it.
The "jobs Americans/Brits/etc won't do" myth is a deliberate distortion of reality that
ignores the laws of supply and demand. There are no jobs Americans etc won't do, only jobs
for which the employers are not prepared to pay wages high enough to make them worthwhile for
Americans etc to do.
Now of course it is more complicated than that. There are jobs that would not be
economically viable if the required wages were to be paid, and there are marginal
contributions to job creation by immigrant populations, but those aspects are in reality far
less significant than the bosses seeking cheap labour want people to think they are.
As a broad summary, a situation in which labour is tight, jobs are easy to come by and
staff hard to hold on to is infinitely better for the ordinary working people of any nation
than one in which there is a huge pool of excess labour, and therefore wages are low and
employees disposable.
You'd think anyone purporting to be on the "left", in the sense of supporting working
class people would understand that basic reality, but far too many on the left have been
indoctrinated in radical leftist anti-racist and internationalist dogmas that make them
functional stooges for big business and its mass immigration program.
Probably people other than you have worked out that once their wages are not being
continually undercut by cheap and easy immigrant competition, the American working classes
will actually be able to earn enough to pay the increased prices for grocery store items,
especially as the Americans who, along with machines, will replace those immigrants doing
the "jobs Americans won't do" will also be earning more and actually paying taxes on
it.
There might be some truth in this. When I was a student in England in the 60′s I
spent every summer working on farms, picking hops, apples, pears, potatoes and made some
money and had a lot of fun too and became an expert farm tractor operator.
No reason why US students and high school seniors should not pick up a lot of the slack.
Young people like camping in the countryside and sleeping rough, plus lots of
opportunity to meet others, have sex, smoke weed, drink beer, or whatever. If you get a free
vacation plus a nice check at the end, that makes the relatively low wages worthwhile. It is
not always a question of how much you are paid, but how much you can save.
We can fix the EB-5 visa scam. My suggestion: charge would-be "investors" $1 million to
enter the US. This $1 is not refundable under any circumstance. It is paid when the
"investor's" visa is approved. If the "investor" is convicted of a felony, he is deported. He
may bring no one with him. No wife, no child, no aunt, no uncle. Unless he pays $1 million
for that person.
We will get a few thousand Russian oligarchs and Saudi princes a year under this
program
As to fixing the H-1B visa program, we charge employer users of the program say $25,000
per year per employee. We require the employers to inform all employees that if any is asked
to train a replacement, he should inform the DOJ immediately. The DOJ investigates and if
true, charges managerial employees who asked that a replacement be trained with fraud.
As to birthright citizenship: I say make it a five-year felony to have a child while in
the US illegally. Make it a condition of getting a tourist visa that one not be pregnant. If
the tourist visa lasts say 60 days and the woman has a child while in the US, she gets
charged with fraud.
None of these suggestions requires a constitutional amendment.
In the United States middle class prosperity reached its apogee in 1965 – before the
disastrous (and eminently foreseeable) wage-lowering consequence of the Hart-Celler Open
Immigration Act's massive admission of foreigners increased the supply of labor which began
to lower middle class prosperity and to shrink and eradicate the middle class.
It was in 1965 that ordinary Americans, enjoying maximum employment because employers were
forced to compete for Americans' talents and labor, wielded their peak purchasing
power . Since 1970 wages have remained stagnant, and since 1965 the purchasing power of
ordinary Americans has gone into steep decline.
It is long past time to halt Perpetual Mass Immigration into the United States, to end
birthright citizenship, and to deport all illegal aliens – if, that is, our leaders
genuinely care about and represent us ordinary Americans instead of continuing their
legislative, policy, and judicial enrichment of the 1-percenter campaign donor/rentier class
of transnational Globali$t Open Border$ E$tabli$hment $ellout$.
Re the birthright citizenship argument, that is not settled law in that SCOTUS has never
ruled on the question of whether a child born in the US is thereby a citizen if the parents
are illegally present. Way back in 1897, SCOTUS did resolve the issue of whether a child born
to alien parents who were legally present was thereby a citizen. That case is U.S. vs Wong
Kim Ark 169 US 649. SCOTUS ruled in favor of citizenship. If that was a justiciable issue how
much more so is it when the parents are illegally present?
My thinking is that the result would be the same but, at least, the question would be
settled. I cannot see justices returning a toddler to Beijing or worse. They would never have
invitations to cocktail parties again for the shame heaped upon them for such uncaring
conduct. Today, the title of citizen is conferred simply by bureaucratic rule, not by
judicial order.
Arguments Against Fourteenth Amendment Anchor Baby Interpretation
J. Paige Straley
Part One. Anchor Baby Argument, Mexican Case.
The ruling part of the US Constitution is Amendment Fourteen: "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Here is the ruling part of the Mexican Constitution, Section II, Article Thirty:
Article 30
Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of
their parents:
II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and
a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
III. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels. "
A baby born to Mexican nationals within the United States is automatically a Mexican
citizen. Under the anchor baby reasoning, this baby acquires US citizenship at the same time
and so is a dual citizen. Mexican citizenship is primary because it stems from a primary
source, the parents' citizenship and the law of Mexico. The Mexican Constitution states the
child of Mexican parents is automatically a Mexican citizen at birth no matter where the
birth occurs. Since the child would be a Mexican citizen in any country, and becomes an
American citizen only if born in America, it is clear that Mexico has the primary claim of
citizenry on the child. This alone should be enough to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment
jurisdiction thereof argument. Since Mexican citizenship is primary, it has primary
jurisdiction; thus by the plain words of the Fourteenth such child is not an American citizen
at birth.
[MORE]
There is a second argument for primary Mexican citizenship in the case of anchor babies.
Citizenship, whether Mexican or American, establishes rights and duties. Citizenship is a
reciprocal relationship, thus establishing jurisdiction. This case for primary Mexican
citizenship is supported by the fact that Mexico allows and encourages Mexicans resident in
the US, either illegal aliens or legal residents, to vote in Mexican elections. They are
counted as Mexican citizens abroad, even if dual citizens, and their government provides
widespread consular services as well as voting access to Mexicans residing in the US. As far
as Mexico is concerned, these persons are not Mexican in name only, but have a civil
relationship strong enough to allow a political voice; in essence, full citizenship. Clearly,
all this is the expression of typical reciprocal civic relationships expressed in legal
citizenship, further supporting the establishment of jurisdiction.
Part Two: Wong Kim Ark (1898) case. (Birthright Citizenship)
The Wong Kim Ark (WKA) case is often cited as the essential legal reasoning and precedent
for application of the fourteenth amendment as applied to aliens. There has been plenty of
commentary on WKA, but the truly narrow application of the case is emphasized reviewing a
concise statement of the question the case was meant to decide, written by Hon. Horace Gray,
Justice for the majority in this decision.
"[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the
time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and
residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in
any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his
birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution." (Italics added.)
For WKA to justify birthright citizenship, the parents must have " permanent domicile and
residence " But how can an illegal alien have permanent residence when the threat of
deportation is constantly present? There is no statute of limitation for illegal presence in
the US and the passage of time does not eliminate the legal remedy of deportation. This alone
would seem to invalidate WKA as a support and precedent for illegal alien birthright
citizenship.
If illegal (or legal) alien parents are unemployed, unemployable, illegally employed, or
if they get their living by illegal means, then they are not ". . .carrying on business. .
.", and so the children of indigent or criminal aliens may not be eligible for birthright
citizenship
If legal aliens meet the two tests provided in WKA, birthright citizenship applies.
Clearly the WKA case addresses the specific situation of the children of legal aliens, and so
is not an applicable precedent to justify birthright citizenship for the children of illegal
aliens.
Part three. Birth Tourism
Occasionally foreign couples take a trip to the US during the last phase of the wife's
pregnancy so she can give birth in the US, thus conferring birthright citizenship on the
child. This practice is called "birth tourism." WKA provides two tests for birthright
citizenship: permanent domicile and residence and doing business, and a temporary visit
answers neither condition. WKA is therefore disqualified as justification for a "birth
tourism" child to be granted birthright citizenship.
@Carroll Price Unfortunately, that train left the station long ago. With or without
welfare, there's simply no way soft, spoiled, lazy, over-indulged Americans who have never
hit a lick at anything their life, will ever perform manual labor for anyone, including
themselves. Then let them starve to death. The Pilgrims nipped that dumb ass idea (welfare)
in the bud
An equally pressing problem, though, is the millions of foreigners who are living and
working here, and using our schools and hospitals and public services, who should not be
here.
Has it ever occurred to anyone other than me that the cost associated with
foreign workers using our schools and hospitals and pubic services for free, is more than
off-set by the cheap price being paid for grocery store items like boneless chicken breast,
grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce etc, which would otherwise be prohibitively expensive even
for the wealthy?
Let alone relatively poor people (like myself) and those on fixed incomes? What
un-thinking Americans want, is having their cake and eating it too. Well, in the real world,
things just don't work that way. It's pay me now or pay me later. Once all the undocumented
workers who are doing all the dirty, nasty jobs Americans refuse to do are run out the
country, then what? Please look up;History; United States; pre mid-twentieth century. I'm
pretty sure Americans were eating chicken, grapes, apples, peaches, lettuce, etc. prior to
that period. I don't think their diet consisted of venison and tree bark.
But since I wasn't there, maybe I'm wrong and that is actually what they were eating.
I know some people born in the 1920′s; I'll check with them and let you know what they
say.
"... Following Frances Fox Piven, "neoliberal economic policies" refers to the set of policies carried out, in the name of individualism and unfettered markets, for "the deregulation of corporations, and particularly of financial institutions; the rollback of public services and benefit programs; curbing labor unions; 'free trade' policies that would pry open foreign markets; and wherever possible the replacement of public programs with private markets" (Piven, 2007: 13). ..."
"... The case of the United States is particularly useful to examine because its elites have projected themselves as "first among equals" of the globalization project ( Bello , 2006), and it is the place of the Global North where the neoliberal project has been pursued most resolutely and has advanced the farthest. In other words, the experiences of American workers illuminate the affects of the neoliberal project in the Global North to the greatest extent, and suggest what will happen to working people in other northern countries should they accept their respective government's adoption of such policies. ..."
"... However, it is believed that the implementation of these neoliberal economic policies and the cultural wars to divert public attention are part of a larger, conscious political program by the elites within this country that is intended to prevent re-emergence of the collective solidarity among the American people that we saw during the late 1960s-early 1970s (see Piven, 2004, 2007) -- of which the internal breakdown of discipline within the US military, in Vietnam and around the world, was arguably the most crucial (see Moser, 1996; Zeiger, 2006) -- that ultimately challenged, however inchoately, the very structure of the established social order, both internationally and in the United States itself. ..."
Most contemporary discussions of globalization, and especially of the impact of neoliberal economic
policies, focus on the countries of the Global South (see, for example, Bond, 2005; Ellner and Hellinger,
eds., 2003; a number of articles in Harris, ed., 2006; Klein, 2007; Monthly Review, 2007;
and, among others, see Scipes, 1999, 2006b). Recent articles arguing that the globalization project
has receded and might be taking different approaches (Bello, 2006; Thornton, 2007) have also focused
on the Global South. What has been somewhat discussed (see Giroux, 2004; Piven, 2004; Aronowitz,
2005) but not systematically addressed, however, is what has been the impact of globalization and
especially related neoliberal economic policies on working people in a northern country?
[i]
This paper specifically addresses this question by looking at the impact of neoliberal economic
policies on working people in the United States . Following Frances Fox Piven, "neoliberal economic
policies" refers to the set of policies carried out, in the name of individualism and unfettered
markets, for "the deregulation of corporations, and particularly of financial institutions; the rollback
of public services and benefit programs; curbing labor unions; 'free trade' policies that would pry
open foreign markets; and wherever possible the replacement of public programs with private markets"
(Piven, 2007: 13).
The case of the United States is particularly useful to examine because its elites have projected
themselves as "first among equals" of the globalization project ( Bello , 2006), and it is the place
of the Global North where the neoliberal project has been pursued most resolutely and has advanced
the farthest. In other words, the experiences of American workers illuminate the affects of the neoliberal
project in the Global North to the greatest extent, and suggest what will happen to working people
in other northern countries should they accept their respective government's adoption of such policies.
However, care must be taken as to how this is understood. While sociologically-focused textbooks
(e.g., Aguirre and Baker, eds., 2008; Hurst, 2007) have joined together some of the most recent thinking
on social inequality -- and have demonstrated that inequality not only exists but is increasing --
this has been generally presented in a national context; in this case, within the United States.
And if they recognize that globalization is part of the reason for increasing inequality, it is generally
included as one of a set of reasons.
This paper argues that we simply cannot understand what is happening unless we put developments
within a global context: the United States effects, and is affected by, global processes.
Thus, while some of the impacts can be understood on a national level, we cannot ask related questions
as to causes -- or future consequences -- by confining our examination to a national level: we absolutely
must approach this from a global perspective (see Nederveen Pieterse, 2004, 2008).
This also must be put in historical perspective as well, although the focus in this piece will
be limited to the post-World War II world. Inequality within what is now the United States today
did not -- obviously -- arise overnight. Unquestionably, it began at least 400 years ago in Jamestown
-- with the terribly unequal and socially stratified society of England's colonial Virginia before
Africans were brought to North America (see Fischer, 1989), much less after their arrival in
1619, before the Pilgrims. Yet, to understand the roots of development of contemporary social
inequality in the US , we must understand the rise of " Europe " in relation to the rest of the world
(see, among others, Rodney, 1972; Nederveen Pieterse, 1989). In short, again, we have to understand
that the development of the United States has been and will always be a global project and, without
recognizing that, we simply cannot begin to understand developments within the United States .
We also have to understand the multiple and changing forms of social stratification and resulting
inequalities in this country. This paper prioritizes economic stratification, although is not limited
to just the resulting inequalities. Nonetheless, it does not focus on racial, gender or any other
type of social stratification. However, this paper is not written from the perspective that economic
stratification is always the most important form of stratification, nor from the perspective
that we can only understand other forms of stratification by understanding economic stratification:
all that is being claimed herein is that economic stratification is one type of social stratification,
arguably one of the most important types yet only one of several, and investigates the issue of economic
stratification in the context of contemporary globalization and the neoliberal economic policies
that have developed to address this phenomenon as it affects the United States.
Once this global-historical perspective is understood and after quickly suggesting in the "prologue"
why the connection between neoliberal economic policies and the affects on working people
in the United States has not been made usually, this paper focuses on several interrelated issues:
(1) it reports the current economic situation for workers in the United States; (2) it provides a
historical overview of US society since World War II; (3) it analyzes the results of US Government
economic policies; and (4) it ties these issues together. From that, it comes to a conclusion about
the affects of neoliberal economic policies on working people in the United States .
Prologue: Origins of neoliberal economic policies in the United States
As stated above, most of the attention directed toward understanding the impact of neoliberal
economic policies on various countries has been confined to the countries of the Global South. However,
these policies have been implemented in the United States as well. This arguably began in 1982, when
the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, launched a vicious attack on inflation -- and
caused the deepest US recession since the Great Depression of the late 1920s-1930s.
However, these neoliberal policies have been implemented in the US perhaps more subtly than in
the Global South. This is said because, when trying to understand changes that continue to take place
in the United States, these economic policies are hidden "under" the various and sundry "cultural
wars" (around issues such as drugs, premarital sex, gun control, abortion, marriages for gays and
lesbians) that have been taking place in this country and, thus, not made obvious: most Americans,
and especially working people, are not aware of the changes detailed below.
[ii]
However, it is believed that the implementation of these neoliberal economic policies and
the cultural wars to divert public attention are part of a larger, conscious political program
by the elites within this country that is intended to prevent re-emergence of the collective solidarity
among the American people that we saw during the late 1960s-early 1970s (see Piven, 2004, 2007) --
of which the internal breakdown of discipline within the US military, in Vietnam and around
the world, was arguably the most crucial (see Moser, 1996; Zeiger, 2006) -- that ultimately challenged,
however inchoately, the very structure of the established social order, both internationally and
in the United States itself. Thus, we see both Democratic and Republican Parties in agreement
to maintain and expand the US Empire (in more neutral political science-ese, a "uni-polar world"),
but the differences that emerge within each party and between each party are generally confined to
how this can best be accomplished. While this paper focuses on the economic and social changes going
on, it should be kept in mind that these changes did not "just happen": conscious political decisions
have been made that produced social results (see Piven, 2004) that make the US experience -- at the
center of a global social order based on an "advanced" capitalist economy -- qualitatively different
from experiences in other more economically-developed countries.
So, what has been the impact of these policies on workers in the US?
1) The current situation for workers and growing economic inequality
Steven Greenhouse of The New York Times published a piece on September 4, 2006, writing
about entry-level workers, young people who were just entering the job market. Mr. Greenhouse noted
changes in the US economy; in fact, there have been substantial changes since early 2000, when the
economy last created many jobs.
Median incomes for families with one parent age 25-34 fell 5.9 per cent between 2000-2005.
It had jumped 12 per cent during the late '90s. (The median annual income for these families today
is $48,405.)
Between 2000-2005, entry-level wages for male college graduates fell by 7.3 per cent (to $19.72/hr)
Entry-level wages for female college graduates fell by 3.5 per cent (to $17.08)
Entry-level wages for male high school graduates fell by 3.3 per cent (to $10.93)
Entry-level wages for female high school graduates fell by 4.9 per cent (to $9.08)
Yet, the percentage drop in wages hides the growing gap between college and high school graduates.
Today, on average, college grads earn 45 per cent more than high school graduates, where the gap
had "only" been 23 per cent in 1979: the gap has doubled in 26 years (Greenhouse, 2006b).
A 2004 story in Business Week found that 24 per cent of all working Americans received
wages below the poverty line ( Business Week , 2004).
[iii] In January 2004, 23.5 million
Americans received free food from food pantries. "The surge for food demand is fueled by several
forces -- job losses, expired unemployment benefits, soaring health-care and housing costs, and the
inability of many people to find jobs that match the income and benefits of the jobs they had." And
43 million people were living in low-income families with children (Jones, 2004).
A 2006 story in Business Week found that US job growth between 2001-2006 was really based
on one industry: health care. Over this five-year period, the health-care sector has added 1.7 million
jobs, while the rest of the private sector has been stagnant. Michael Mandel, the economics editor
of the magazine, writes:
information technology, the great electronic promise of the 1990s, has turned into one of
the greatest job-growth disappointments of all time. Despite the splashy success of companies
such as Google and Yahoo!, businesses at the core of the information economy -- software, semi-conductors,
telecom, and the whole range of Web companies -- have lost more than 1.1 million jobs in the past
five years. These businesses employ fewer Americans today than they did in 1998, when the Internet
frenzy kicked into high gear (Mandel, 2006: 56) .
In fact, "take away health-care hiring in the US, and quicker than you can say cardiac bypass,
the US unemployment rate would be 1 to 2 percentage points higher" (Mandel, 2006: 57).
There has been extensive job loss in manufacturing. Over 3.4 million manufacturing jobs have been
lost since 1998, and 2.9 million of them have been lost since 2001. Additionally, over 40,000 manufacturing
firms have closed since 1999, and 90 per cent have been medium and large shops. In labor-import intensive
industries, 25 per cent of laid-off workers remain unemployed after six months, two-thirds of them
who do find new jobs earn less than on their old job, and one-quarter of those who find new jobs
"suffer wage losses of more than 30 percent" (AFL-CIO, 2006a: 2).
The AFL-CIO details the US job loss by manufacturing sector in the 2001-05 period:
Computer and electronics: 543,000 workers or 29.2 per cent
Semiconductor and electronic components: 260,100 or 36.7 per cent
Electrical equipment and appliances: 152,500 or 26 per cent
Vehicle parts: 153,400 or 18.6 per cent
Machinery: 289,400 or 19.9 per cent
Fabricated metal products: 235,200 or 13.3 per cent
Primary metals: 144,800 or 23.5 per cent
Transportation equipment: 246,300 or 12.1 per cent
Furniture products: 58,500 or 13.4 per cent
Textile mills: 158,500 or 43.1 per cent
Apparel 220,000 or 46.6 per cent
Leather products: 24,700 or 38.3 per cent
Printing: 159,300 or 19.9 per cent
Paper products: 122,600 or 20.4 per cent
Plastics and rubber products: 141,400 or 15 per cent
Chemicals: 94,900 or 9.7 per cent
Aerospace: 46,900 or 9.1 per cent
Textiles and apparel declined by 870,000 jobs 1994-2006, a decline of 65.4 per cent (AFL-CIO,
2006a: 2).
As of the end of 2005, only 10.7 per cent of all US employment was in manufacturing -- down from
21.6 per cent at its height in 1979 -- in raw numbers, manufacturing employment totaled 19.426 million
in 1979, 17.263 million in 2000, and 14.232 million in 2005.
[iv] The number of production workers
in this country at the end of 2005 was 9.378 million.
[v] This was only slightly above
the 9.306 million production workers in 1983, and was considerably below the 11.463 million as recently
as 2000 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006b). As one writer puts it, this is "the biggest long-term
trend in the economy: the decline of manufacturing." He notes that employment in the durable goods
(e.g., cars and cable TV boxes) category of manufacturing has declined from 19 per cent of all employment
in 1965 to 8 per cent in 2005 (Altman, 2006). And at the end of 2006, only 11.7 per cent of all manufacturing
workers were in unions (US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007).
In addition, in 2004 and 2005, "the real hourly and weekly wages of US manufacturing workers have
fallen 3 per cent and 2.2 per cent respectively" (AFL-CIO, 2006a: 2).
The minimum wage level went unchanged for nine years: until recently when there was a small increase
-- to $5.85 an hour on July 24, 2007 -- US minimum wage had remained at $5.15 an hour since September
1, 1997 . During that time, the cost of living rose 26 percent. After adjusting for inflation, this
was the lowest level of the minimum wage since 1955. At the same time, the minimum wage was only
31 per cent of the average pay of non-supervisory workers in the private sector, which is the lowest
share since World War II (Bernstein and Shapiro, 2006).
In addition to the drop in wages at all levels, fewer new workers get health care benefits with
their jobs: [vi] in 2005, 64 per
cent of all college grads got health coverage in entry-level jobs, where 71 per cent had gotten it
in 2000 -- a 7 per cent drop in just five years. Over a longer term, we can see what has happened
to high school grads: in 1979, two-thirds of all high school graduates got health care coverage in
entry-level jobs, while only one-third do today (Greenhouse, 2006b). It must be kept in mind that
only about 28 per cent of the US workforce are college graduates -- most of the work force only has
a high school degree, although a growing percentage of them have some college, but not college degrees.
Because things have gotten so bad, many young adults have gotten discouraged and given up. The
unemployment rate is 4.4 per cent for ages 25-34, but 8.2 per cent for workers 20-24. (Greenhouse,
2006b).
Yet things are actually worse than that. In the US , unemployment rates are artificially low.
If a person gets laid off and gets unemployment benefits -- which fewer and fewer workers even get
-- they get a check for six months. If they have not gotten a job by the end of six months -- and
it is taking longer and longer to get a job -- and they have given up searching for work, then not
only do they loose their unemployment benefits, but they are no longer counted as unemployed: one
doesn't even count in the statistics!
A report from April 2004 provides details. According to the then-head of the US Federal Reserve
System, Alan Greenspan, "the average duration of unemployment increased from twelve weeks in September
2000 to twenty weeks in March [2004]" (quoted in Shapiro, 2004: 4). In March 2004, 354,000 jobs workers
had exhausted their unemployment benefits, and were unable to get any additional federal unemployment
assistance: Shapiro (2004: 1) notes, "In no other month on record, with data available back to 1971,
have there been so many 'exhaustees'."
Additionally, although it's rarely reported, unemployment rates vary by racial grouping. No matter
what the unemployment rate is, it really only reflects the rate of whites who are unemployed because
about 78 per cent of the workforce is white. However, since 1954, the unemployment rate of African-Americans
has always been more than twice that of whites, and Latinos are about 1 1/2 times that of whites.
So, for example, if the overall rate is five percent, then it's at least ten per cent for African-Americans
and 7.5 per cent for Latinos.
However, most of the developments presented above -- other than the racial affects of unemployment
-- have been relatively recent. What about longer term? Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning Princeton
University economist who writes for The New York Times, pointed out these longer term affects:
non-supervisory workers make less in real wages today (2006) than they made in 1973! So, after inflation
is taken out, non-supervisory workers are making less today in real terms that their contemporaries
made 33 years ago (Krugman, 2006b). Figures provided by Stephen Franklin -- obtained from the US
Bureau of Statistics, and presented in 1982 dollars -- show that a production worker in January 1973
earned $9.08 an hour -- and $8.19 an hour in December 2005 (Franklin, 2006). Workers in 2005 also
had less long-term job security, fewer benefits, less stable pensions (when they have them), and
rising health care costs. [vii]
In short, the economic situation for "average Americans" is getting worse. A front-page story
in the Chicago Tribune tells about a worker who six years ago was making $29 an hour, working
at a nuclear power plant. He got laid off, and now makes $12.24 an hour, working on the bottom tier
of a two-tiered unionized factory owned by Caterpillar, the multinational earth moving equipment
producer, which is less than half of his old wages. The article pointed out, "Glued to a bare bones
budget, he saved for weeks to buy a five-pack of $7 T-shirts" ( Franklin , 2006).
As Foster and Magdoff point out:
Except for a small rise in the late 1990s, real wages have been sluggish for decades. The
typical (median-income) family has sought to compensate for this by increasing the number of jobs
and working hours per household. Nevertheless, the real (inflation-adjusted) income of the typical
household fell for five years in a row through 2004 (Foster and Magdoff, 2009: 28).
A report by Workers Independent News (WIN) stated that while a majority of metropolitan
areas have regained the 2.6 million jobs lost during the first two years of the Bush Administration,
"the new jobs on average pay $9,000 less than the jobs replaced," a 21 per cent decline from $43,629
to $34,378. However, WIN says that "99 out of the 361 metro areas will not recover jobs before 2007
and could be waiting until 2015 before they reach full recovery" (Russell, 2006).
At the same time, Americans are going deeper and deeper into debt. At the end of 2000, total US
household debt was $7.008 trillion, with home mortgage debt being $4.811 trillion and non-mortgage
debt $1.749 trillion; at the end of 2006, comparable numbers were a total of $12.817 trillion; $9.705
trillion (doubling since 2000); and $2.431 trillion (US Federal Reserve, 2007-rounding by author).
Foster and Magdoff (2009: 29) show that this debt is not only increasing, but based on figures from
the Federal Reserve, that debt as a percentage of disposable income has increased overall from 62%
in 1975 to 96.8% in 2000, and to 127.2% in 2005.
Three polls from mid-2006 found "deep pessimism among American workers, with most saying that
wages were not keeping pace with inflation, and that workers were worse off in many ways than a generation
ago" (Greenhouse, 2006a). And, one might notice, nothing has been said about increasing gas prices,
lower home values, etc. The economic situation for most working people is not looking pretty.
In fact, bankruptcy filings totaled 2.043 million in 2005, up 31.6 per cent from 2004 (Associated
Press, 2006), before gas prices went through the ceiling and housing prices began falling in mid-2006.
Yet in 1998, writers for the Chicago Tribune had written, " the number of personal bankruptcy
filings skyrocketed 19.5 per cent last year, to an all-time high of 1,335,053, compared with 1,117,470
in 1996" (Schmeltzer and Gruber, 1998).
And at the same time, there were 37 million Americans in poverty in 2005, one of out every eight.
Again, the rates vary by racial grouping: while 12.6 per cent of all Americans were in poverty, the
poverty rate for whites was 8.3 percent; for African Americans, 24.9 per cent were in poverty, as
were 21.8 per cent of all Latinos. (What is rarely acknowledged, however, is that 65 per cent of
all people in poverty in the US are white.) And 17.6 per cent of all children were in poverty (US
Census Bureau, 2005).
What about the "other half"? This time, Paul Krugman gives details from a report by two Northwestern
University professors, Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon, titled "Where Did the Productivity Growth
Go?" Krugman writes:
Between 1973 and 2001, the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile
of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 per cent per year. But income at the
99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income
at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. No, that's not a misprint. Just to give you a sense
of who we're talking about: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that this year, the 99th
percentile will correspond to an income of $402,306, and the 99.9th percentile to an income of
$1,672,726. The Center doesn't give a number for the 99.99th percentile, but it's probably well
over $6 million a year (Krugman, 2006a) .
But how can we understand what is going on? We need to put take a historical approach to understand
the significance of the changes reported above.
(2) A historical look at the US social order since World War II
When considering the US situation, it makes most sense to look at "recent" US developments, those
since World War II. Just after the War, in 1947, the US population was about six per cent of the
world's total. Nonetheless, this six per cent produced about 48 per cent of all goods and services
in the world! [viii] With Europe
and Japan devastated, the US was the only industrialized economy that had not been laid waste. Everybody
needed what the US produced -- and this country produced the goods, and sent them around the world.
At the same time, the US economy was not only the most productive, but the rise of the industrial
union movement in the 1930s and '40s -- the CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) -- meant that
workers had some power to demand a share of the wealth produced. In 1946, just after the war, the
US had the largest strike wave in its history: 116,000,000 production days were lost in early 1946,
as industry-wide strikes in auto, steel, meat packing, and the electrical industry took place across
the United States and Canada , along with smaller strikes in individual firms. Not only that, but
there were general strikes that year in Oakland , California and Stamford , Connecticut . Workers
had been held back during the war, but they demonstrated their power immediately thereafter (Lipsitz,
1994; Murolo and Chitty, 2001). Industry knew that if it wanted the production it could sell, it
had to include unionized workers in on the deal.
It was this combination -- devastated economic markets around the world and great demand for goods
and services, the world's most developed industrial economy, and a militant union movement -- that
combined to create what is now known as the "great American middle class."
[ix]
To understand the economic impact of these factors, changes in income distribution in US society
must be examined. The best way to illuminate this is to assemble family data on income or wealth
[x] -- income data is more available,
so that will be used; arrange it from the smallest amount to the largest; and then to divide the
population into fifths, or quintiles. In other words, arrange every family's annual income from the
lowest to the highest, and divide the total number of family incomes into quintiles or by 20 percents
(i.e., fifths). Then compare changes in the top incomes for each quintile. By doing so, one can then
observe changes in income distribution over specified time periods.
The years between 1947 and 1973 are considered the "golden years" of the US society.
[xi] The values are presented
in 2005 dollars, so that means that inflation has been taken out: these are real dollar values,
and that means these are valid comparisons.
Figure 1: US family income, in US dollars, growth and istribution, by quintile, 1947-1973 compared
to 1973-2001, in 2005 dollars
Source: US Commerce Department, Bureau of the Census (hereafter, US Census Bureau) at
www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html
. All dollar values converted to 2005 dollars by US Census Bureau, removing inflation and comparing
real values. Differences and percentages calculated by author. Percentages shown in both rows labeled
"Difference" show the dollar difference as a percentage of the first year of the comparison.
Data for the first period, 1947-1973 -- the data above the grey line -- shows there was
considerable real economic growth for each quintile . Over the 26-year period, there was approximately
100 per cent real economic growth for the incomes at the top of each quintile, which meant incomes
doubled after inflation was removed; thus, there was significant economic growth in the society.
And importantly, this real economic growth was distributed fairly evenly . The data in
the fourth line (in parentheses) is the percentage relationship between the difference between 1947-1973
real income when compared to the 1947 real income, with 100 per cent representing a doubling of real
income: i.e., the difference for the bottom quintile between 1947 and 1973 was an increase
of $11,386, which is 97 per cent more than $11,758 that the top of the quintile had in 1947. As can
be seen, other quintiles also saw increases of roughly comparable amounts: in ascending order, 100
percent, 107 percent, 101 percent, and 91 percent. In other words, the rate of growth by quintile
was very similar across all five quintiles of the population.
When looking at the figures for 1973-2001, something vastly different can be observed. This is
the section below the grey line. What can be seen? First, economic growth has slowed considerably:
the highest rate of growth for any quintile was that of 58 per cent for those who topped the
fifth quintile, and this was far below the "lagger" of 91 per cent of the earlier period.
Second, of what growth there was, it was distributed extremely unequally . And the growth
rates for those in lower quintiles were generally lower than for those above them: for the bottom
quintile, their real income grew only 14 per cent over the 1973-2001 period; for the second quintile,
19 percent; for the third, 29 percent; for the fourth, 42 percent; and for the 80-95 percent, 58
percent: loosely speaking, the rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.
Why the change? I think two things in particular. First, as industrialized countries recovered
from World War II, corporations based in these countries could again compete with those from the
US -- first in their own home countries, and then through importing into the US , and then ultimately
when they invested in the United States . Think of Toyota : they began importing into the US in the
early 1970s, and with their investments here in the early '80s and forward, they now are the largest
domestic US auto producer.
Second cause for the change has been the deterioration of the American labor movement: from 35.3
per cent of the non-agricultural workforce in unions in 1954, to only 12.0 per cent of all American
workers in unions in 2006 -- and only 7.4 per cent of all private industry workers are unionized,
which is less than in 1930!
This decline in unionization has a number of reasons. Part of this deterioration has been the
result of government policies -- everything from the crushing of the air traffic controllers when
they went on strike by the Reagan Administration in 1981, to reform of labor law, to reactionary
appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees administration of labor law. Certainly
a key government policy, signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, has been the North American
Free Trade Act or NAFTA. One analyst came straight to the point:
Since [NAFTA] was signed in 1993, the rise in the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico
through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 US jobs. Most of
these lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is
just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the US economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed
to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective
bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits (Scott, 2003:
1).
These attacks by elected officials have been joined by the affects due to the restructuring of
the economy. There has been a shift from manufacturing to services. However, within manufacturing,
which has long been a union stronghold, there has been significant job loss: between July 2000 and
January 2004, the US lost three million manufacturing jobs, or 17.5 percent, and 5.2 million since
the historical peak in 1979, so that "Employment in manufacturing [in January 2004] was its lowest
since July 1950" (CBO, 2004). This is due to both outsourcing labor-intensive production overseas
and, more importantly, technological displacement as new technology has enabled greater production
at higher quality with fewer workers in capital-intensive production (see Fisher, 2004). Others have
blamed burgeoning trade deficits for the rise: " an increasing share of domestic demand for manufacturing
output is satisfied by foreign rather than domestic producers" (Bivens, 2005).
[xiii] Others have even attributed
it to changes in consumer preferences (Schweitzer and Zaman, 2006). Whatever the reason, of the 50
states, only five (Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming) did not see any job loss in manufacturing
between 1993-2003, yet 37 lost between 5.6 and 35.9 per cent of their manufacturing jobs during this
period (Public Policy Institute, 2004).
However, part of the credit for deterioration of the labor movement must be given to the labor
movement itself: the leadership has been simply unable to confront these changes and, at the same
time, they have consistently worked against any independent action by rank-and-file members.
[xiv]
However, it must be asked: are the changes in the economy presented herein merely statistical
manipulations, or is this indicating something real?
This point can be illustrated another way: by using CAGR, the Compound Annual Growth Rate. This
is a single number that is computed, based on compounded amounts, across a range of years, to come
up with an average number to represent the rate of increase or decrease each year across the entire
period. This looks pretty complex, but it is based on the same idea as compound interest used in
our savings accounts: you put in $10 today and (this is obviously not a real example) because you
get ten per cent interest, so you have $11 the next year. Well, the following year, interest is not
computed off the original $10, but is computed on the $11. So, by the third year, from your $10,
you now have $12.10. Etc. And this is what is meant by the Compound Annual Growth Rate: this is average
compound growth by year across a designated period.
Based on the numbers presented above in Figure 1, the author calculated the Compound Annual Growth
Rate by quintiles (Figure 2). The annual growth rate has been calculated for the first period, 1947-1973,
the years known as the "golden years" of US society. What has happened since then? Compare results
from the 1947-73 period to the annual growth rate across the second period, 1973-2001, again calculated
by the author.
Figure 2: Annual percentage of family income growth, by quintile, 1947-1973 compared to 1973-2001
What we can see here is that while everyone's income was growing at about the same rate in the
first period -- between 2.51 and 2.84 per cent annually -- by the second period, not only had growth
slowed down across the board, but it grew by very different rates: what we see here, again,
is that the rich are getting richer, and the poor poorer.
If these figures are correct, a change over time in the percentage of income received by each
quintile should be observable. Ideally, if the society were egalitarian, each 20 per cent of the
population would get 20 per cent of the income in any one year. In reality, it differs. To understand
Figure 3, below, one must not only look at the percentage of income held by a quintile across the
chart, comparing selected year by selected year, but one needs to look to see whether a quintile's
share of income is moving toward or away from the ideal 20 percent.
Figure 3: Percentage of family income distribution by quintile, 1947, 1973, 2001.
Population by quintiles
1947
1973
2001
Top fifth (lower limit of top 5percent, or 95th Percentile)-- $184,500
[xv]
Unfortunately, much of the data available publicly ended in 2001. However, in the summer of 2007,
after years of not releasing data any later than 2001, the Census Bureau released income data up
to 2005. It allows us to examine what has taken place regarding family income inequality during the
first four years of the Bush Administration.
Figure 4: US family income, in US dollars, growth and distribution, by quintile,
2001-2005, 2005 US dollars
Lowest 20%
Second 20%
Middle 20%
Fourth 20%
Lowest level of top 5%
2001
$26,467
$45,855
$68,925
$103,828
$180,973
2005
$25,616
$45,021
$68,304
$103,100
$184,500
Difference
(4 years)
-$851
(-3.2%)
-$834
(-1.8%)
-$621
(-.01%)
-$728
(-.007%)
$3,527
(1.94%)
Source: US Census Bureau at
www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f01ar.html
. (Over time, the Census Bureau refigures these amounts, so they have subsequently converted
amounts to 2006 dollar values. These values are from their 2005 dollar values, and were calculated
by the Census Bureau.) Differences and percentages calculated by author.
Thus, what we've seen under the first four years of the Bush Administration is that for at most
Americans, their economic situation has worsened: not only has over all economic growth for any quintile
slowed to a minuscule 1.94 per cent at the most, but that the bottom 80 per cent actually lost income;
losing money (an absolute loss), rather than growing a little but falling further behind the top
quintile (a relative loss). Further, the decrease across the bottom four quintiles has been suffered
disproportionately by those in the lowest 40 per cent of the society.
This can perhaps be seen more clearly by examining CAGR rates by period.
We can now add the results of the 2001-2005 period share of income by quintile to our earlier
chart:
Figure 5: Percentage of income growth per year by percentile, 1947-2005
As can be seen, the percentage of family income at each of the four bottom quintiles is less in
2005 than in 1947; the only place there has been improvement over this 58-year period is at the 95th
percentile (and above).
Figure 6: Percentage of family income distribution by quintile, 1947, 1973, 2001, 2005.
Population by quintiles
1947
1973
2001
2005
Top fifth (lower limit of top 5percent, or 95th Percentile)-- $184,500
What has been presented so far, regarding changes in income distribution, has been at the group
level; in this case, quintile by quintile. It is time now to see how this has affected the society
overall.
Sociologists and economists use a number called the Gini index to measure inequality. Family income
data has been used so far, and we will continue using it. A Gini index is fairly simple to use. It
measures inequality in a society. A Gini index is generally reported in a range between 0.000 and
1.000, and is written in thousandths, just like a winning percentage mark: three digits after the
decimal. And the higher the Gini score, the greater the inequality.
Looking at the Gini index, we can see two periods since 1947, when the US Government began computing
the Gini index for the country. From 1947-1968, with yearly change greater or smaller, the trend
is downward, indicating reduced inequality: from .376 in 1947 to .378 in 1950, but then downward
to .348 in 1968. So, again, over the first period, the trend is downward.
What has happened since then? From the low point in 1968 of .348, the trend has been upward. In
1982, the Gini index hit .380, which was higher than any single year between 1947-1968, and the US
has never gone below .380 since then. By 1992, it hit .403, and we've never gone back below .400.
In 2001, the US hit .435. But the score for 2005 has only recently been published: .440 (source:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f04.html
). So, the trend is getting worse, and with the policies established under George W. Bush, I
see them only continuing to increase in the forthcoming period. [And by the way, this increasing
trend has continued under both the Republicans and the Democrats, but since the Republicans have
controlled the presidency for 18 of the last 26 years (since 1981), they get most of the credit --
but let's not forget that the Democrats have controlled Congress across many of those years, so they,
too, have been an equal opportunity destroyer!]
However, one more question must be asked: how does this income inequality in the US, compare to
other countries around the world? Is the level of income inequality comparable to other "developed"
societies, or is it comparable to "developing" countries?
We must turn to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for our data. The CIA computes Gini scores
for family income on most of the countries around the world, and the last time checked in 2007 (August
1), they had data on 122 countries on their web page and these numbers had last been updated on July
19, 2007 (US Central Intelligence Agency, 2007). With each country listed, there is a Gini score
provided. Now, the CIA doesn't compute Gini scores yearly, but they give the last year it was computed,
so these are not exactly equivalent but they are suggestive enough to use. However, when they do
assemble these Gini scores in one place, they list them alphabetically, which is not of much comparative
use (US Central Intelligence Agency, 2007).
However, the World Bank categorizes countries, which means they can be compared within category
and across categories. The World Bank, which does not provide Gini scores, puts 208 countries into
one of four categories based on Gross National Income per capita -- that's total value of goods and
services sold in the market in a year, divided by population size. This is a useful statistic, because
it allows us to compare societies with economies of vastly different size: per capita income removes
the size differences between countries.
The World Bank locates each country into one of four categories: lower income, lower middle income,
upper middle income, and high income (World Bank, 2007a). Basically, those in the lower three categories
are "developing" or what we used to call "third world" countries, while the high income countries
are all of the so-called developed countries.
The countries listed by the CIA with their respective Gini scores were placed into the specific
World Bank categories in which the World Bank had previously located them (World Bank, 2007b). Once
grouped in their categories, median Gini scores were computed for each group. When trying to get
one number to represent a group of numbers, median is considered more accurate than an average, so
the median was used, which means half of the scores are higher, half are lower -- in other words,
the data is at the 50th percentile for each category.
The Gini score for countries, by Gross National Income per capita, categorized by the World Bank:
Figure 7: Median Gini Scores by World Bank income categories (countries selected by US Central
Intelligence Agency were placed in categories developed by the World Bank) and compared to 2004 US
Gini score as calculated by US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Income category
Median Gini score
Gini score, US (2004)
Low income countries (less than $875/person/year)
.406
.450
Lower-middle income countries (between $876-3,465/person/year)
.414
.450
Upper-middle income countries (between $3,466-10,725/person/year
.370
.450
Upper-income countries (over $10,726/person/year
.316
.450
As can be seen, with the (CIA-calculated) Gini score of .450, the US family income is more
unequal than the medians for each category, and is more unequal than some of the poorest countries
on earth, such as Bangladesh (.318 -- calculated in 2000), Cambodia (.400, 2004 est.), Laos (.370-1997),
Mozambique (.396, 1996-97), Uganda (.430-1999) and Vietnam (.361, 1998). This same finding also holds
true using the more conservative Census Bureau-calculated Gini score of .440.
Thus, the US has not only become more unequal over the 35 years, as has been demonstrated above,
but has attained a level of inequality that is much more comparable to those of developing countries
in general and, in fact, is more unequal today than some of the poorest countries on Earth. There
is nothing suggesting that this increasing inequality will lessen anytime soon. And since this increasing
income inequality has taken place under the leadership of both major political parties, there is
nothing on the horizon that suggests either will resolutely address this issue in the foreseeable
future regardless of campaign promises made.
However, to move beyond discussion of whether President Obama is likely to address these and related
issues, some consideration of governmental economic policies is required. Thus, he will be constrained
by decisions made by previous administrations, as well as by the ideological blinders worn by those
he has chosen to serve at the top levels of his administration.
3) Governmental economic policies
There are two key points that are especially important for our consideration: the US Budget and
the US National Debt. They are similar, but different -- and consideration of each of them enhances
understanding.
A) US budget. Every year, the US Government passes a budget, whereby governmental officials
estimate beforehand how much money needs to be taken in to cover all expenses. If the government
actually takes in more money than it spends, the budget is said to have a surplus; if it takes in
less than it spends, the budget is said to be in deficit.
Since 1970, when Richard Nixon was President, the US budget has been in deficit every year
except for the last four years under Clinton (1998-2001), where there was a surplus. But this
surplus began declining under Clinton -- it was $236.2 billion in 2000, and only $128.2 billion in
2001, Clinton 's last budget. Under Bush, the US has gone drastically into deficit: -$157.8 billion
in 2002; -$377.6 billion in 2003; -$412.7 billion in 2004; -$318.3 billion in 2005; and "only"-$248.2
billion in 2006 (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-78).
Now, that is just yearly surpluses and deficits. They get combined with all the other surpluses
and deficits since the US became a country in 1789 to create to create a cumulative amount, what
is called the National Debt.
B) US national debt. Between 1789 and1980 -- from Presidents Washington through
Carter -- the accumulated US National Debt was $909 billion or, to put it another way, $.909 trillion.
During Ronald Reagan's presidency (1981-89), the National Debt tripled, from $.9 trillion to $2.868
trillion. It has continued to rise. As of the end of 2006, 17 years later and after a four-year period
of surpluses where the debt was somewhat reduced, National Debt (or Gross Federal Debt) was $8.451
trillion (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-78).
To put it into context: the US economy, the most productive in the world, had a Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) of $13.061 trillion in 2006, but the National Debt was $8.451 trillion -- 64.7 per
cent of GDP -- and growing (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-1).
In April 2006, one investor reported that "the US Treasury has a hair under $8.4 trillion in outstanding
debt. How much is that? He put it into this context: " if you deposited one million dollars into
a bank account every day, starting 2006 years ago, that you would not even have ONE trillion dollars
in that account" (Van Eeden, 2006).
Let's return to the budget deficit: like a family budget, when one spends more than one brings
in, they can do basically one of three things: (a) they can cut spending; (b) they can increase taxes
(or obviously a combination of the two); or (c) they can take what I call the "Wimpy" approach.
For those who might not know this, Wimpy was a cartoon character, a partner of "Popeye the Sailor,"
a Saturday morning cartoon that was played for over 30 years in the United States . Wimpy had a great
love for hamburgers. And his approach to life was summed up in his rap: "I'll gladly give you two
hamburgers on Tuesday, for a hamburger today."
What is argued is that the US Government has been taking what I call the Wimpy approach to its
budgetary problems: it does not reduce spending, it does not raise taxes to pay for the increased
expenditures -- in fact, President Bush has cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans
[xvi] -- but instead it sells
US Government securities, often known as Treasuries, to rich investors, private corporations or,
increasingly, to other countries to cover the budget deficit. In a set number of years, the US Government
agrees to pay off each bond -- and the difference between what the purchaser bought them for and
the increased amount the US Government pays to redeem them is the cost of financing the Treasuries,
a certain percentage of the total value. By buying US Treasuries, other countries have helped keep
US interest rates low, helping to keep the US economy in as good of shape as it has been (thus, keeping
the US market flourishing for them), while allowing the US Government not to have to confront its
annual deficits. At the end of 2006, the total value of outstanding Treasuries -- to all investors,
not just other countries -- was $8.507 trillion (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table B-87).
It turns out that at in December 2004, foreigners owned approximately 61 per cent of all outstanding
US Treasuries. Of that, seven per cent was held by China ; these were valued at $223 billion (Gundzik,
2005).
The percentage of foreign and international investors' purchases of the total US public debt since
1996 has never been less than 17.7 percent, and it has reached a high of 25.08 per cent in September
2006. In September 2006, foreigners purchased $2.134 trillion of Treasuries; these were 25.08 per
cent of all purchases, and 52.4 per cent of all privately-owned purchases (Economic Report of the
President, 2007: Table B-89). [xvii]
Altogether, "the world now holds financial claims amounting to $3.5 trillion against the United
States , or 26 per cent of our GDP" (Humpage and Shenk, 2007: 4).
Since the US Government continues to run deficits, because the Bush Administration has refused
to address this problem, the United States has become dependent on other countries buying Treasuries.
Like a junky on heroin, the US must get other investors (increasingly countries) to finance
its budgetary deficits.
To keep the money flowing in, the US must keep interest rates high -- basically, interest rates
are the price that must be paid to borrow money. Over the past year or so, the Federal Reserve has
not raised interest rates, but prior to that, for 15 straight quarterly meetings, they did. And,
as known, the higher the interest rate, the mostly costly it is to borrow money domestically, which
means increasingly likelihood of recession -- if not worse. In other words, dependence on foreigners
to finance the substantial US budget deficits means that the US must be prepared to raise interests
rates which, at some point, will choke off domestic borrowing and consumption, throwing the US economy
into recession. [xviii]
Yet this threat is not just to the United States -- according to the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), it is a threat to the global economy. A story about a then-recently issued report by the IMF
begins, "With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the United States is running
up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of
the global economy ." The report suggested that net financial obligations of the US to the rest of
the world could equal 40 per cent of its total economy if nothing was done about it in a few years,
"an unprecedented level of external debt for a larger industrial country" according to the report.
What was perhaps even more shocking than what the report said was which institution said it: "The
IMF has often been accused of being an adjunct of the United States , its largest shareholder" (Becker
and Andrews, 2004).
Other analysts go further. After discussing the increasingly risky nature of global investing,
and noting that "The investor managers of private equity funds and major banks have displaced national
banks and international bodies such as the IMF," Gabriel Kolko (2007) quotes Stephen Roach, Morgan
Stanley's chief economist, on April 24, 2007: "a major financial crisis seemed imminent and that
the global institutions that could forestall it, including the IMF, the World Bank and other mechanisms
of the international financial architecture, were utterly inadequate." Kolko recognizes that things
may not collapse immediately, and that analysts could be wrong, but still concludes, "the transformation
of the global financial system will sooner or later lead to dire results" (Kolko, 2007: 5).
What might happen if investors decided to take their money out of US Treasuries and, say, invest
in Euro-based bonds? The US would be in big trouble, would be forced to raise its interest
rates even higher than it wants -- leading to possibly a severe recession -- and if investors really
shifted their money, the US could be observably bankrupt; the curtain hiding the "little man" would
be opened, and he would be observable to all.
Why would investors rather shift their investment money into Euro-bonds instead of US Treasuries?
Well, obviously, one measure is the perceived strength of the US economy. To get a good idea of how
solid a country's economy is, one looks at things such as budget deficits, but perhaps even more
importantly balance of trade: how well is this economy doing in comparison with other countries?
The US international balance of trade is in the red and is worsening: -$717 billion in
2005. In 1991, it was -$31 billion. Since 1998, the US trade balance has set a new record for being
in the hole every year, except during 2001, and then breaking the all time high the very next
year! -$165 B in 1998; -$263 B in 1999; -$378 B in 2000; only -$362 B in 2001; -$421 B in 2002;
-$494 B in 2003; -$617 B in 2004; and - $717 B in 2005 (Economic Report of the President, 2007: Table
B-103). According to the Census Department, the balance of trade in 2006 was -$759 billion (US Census
Bureau, 2007).
And the US current account balance, the broadest measure of a country's international financial
situation -- which includes investment inside and outside the US in addition to balance of trade
-- is even worse: it was -$805 B in 2005, or 6.4 per cent of national income. "The bottom line is
that a current account deficit of this unparalleled magnitude is unsustainable and there is no hope
of it being painlessly resolved through higher exports alone," according to one analyst (quoted in
Swann, 2006). Scott notes that the current account deficit in 2006 was -$857 billion (Scott, 2007a:
8, fn. 1). "In effect, the United States is living beyond its means and selling off national assets
to pay its bills" (Scott, 2007b: 1).
[xix]
In addition, during mid-2007, there was a bursting of a domestic "housing bubble," which has threatened
domestic economic well-being but that ultimately threatens the well-being of global financial markets.
There had been a tremendous run-up in US housing values since 1995 -- with an increase of more than
70 per cent after adjusting for the rate of inflation -- and this had created "more than $8 trillion
in housing wealth compared with a scenario in which house prices had continued to rise at the same
rate of inflation," which they had done for over 100 years, between 1890 and 1995 (Baker, 2007: 8).
This led to a massive oversupply of housing, accompanied with falling house prices: according
to Dean Baker, "the peak inventory of unsold new homes of 573,000 in July 2006 was more than 50 per
cent higher than the previous peak of 377,000 in May of 1989" (Baker, 2007: 12-13). This caused massive
problems in the sub-prime housing market -- estimates are that almost $2 trillion in sub-prime loans
were made during 2005-06, and that about $325 billion of these loans will default, with more than
1 million people losing their homes (Liedtke, 2007) -- but these problems are not confined to the
sub-prime loan category: because sub-prime and "Alt-A" mortgages (the category immediately above
sub-prime) financed 40 per cent of the housing market in 2006, "it is almost inevitable that the
problems will spill over into the rest of the market" (Baker, 2007: 15). And Business Week
agrees: "Subprime woes have moved far beyond the mortgage industry." It notes that at least five
hedge funds have gone out of business, corporate loans and junk bonds have been hurt, and the leveraged
buyout market has been hurt (Goldstein and Henry, 2007).
David Leonhardt (2007) agrees with the continuing threat to the financial industry. Discussing
"adjustable rate mortgages" -- where interest rates start out low, but reset to higher rates, resulting
in higher mortgage payments to the borrower -- he points out that about $50 billion of mortgages
will reset during October 2007, and that this amount of resetting will remain over $30 billion monthly
through September 2008. "In all," he writes," the interest rates on about $1 trillion worth of mortgages
or 12 per cent of the nation's total, will reset for the first time this year or next."
Why all of this is so important is because bankers have gotten incredibly "creative" in creating
new mortgages, which they sell to home buyers. Then they bundle these obligations and sell to other
financial institutions and which, in turn, create new securities (called derivatives) based on these
questionable new mortgages. Yes, it is basically a legal ponzi scheme, but it requires the continuous
selling and buying of these derivatives to keep working: in early August 2007, however, liquidity
-- especially "financial instruments backed by home mortgages" -- dried up, as no one wanted to buy
these instruments (Krugman, 2007). The US Federal Research and the European Central Bank felt it
necessary to pump over $100 billion into the financial markets in mid-August 2007 to keep the international
economy solvent (Norris, 2007).
So, economically, this country is in terrible shape -- with no solution in sight.
On top of this -- as if all of this is not bad enough -- the Bush Administration is asking for
another $481.4 billion for the Pentagon's base budget, which it notes is "a 62 per cent increase
over 2001." Further, the Administration seeks an additional $93.4 billion in supplemental funds for
2007 and another $141.7 billion for 2008 to help fund the "Global War on Terror" and US operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan (US Government, 2007). According to Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute (SIPRI), in 2006, the US "defense" spending was equivalent to 46 per cent of all military
spending in the world, meaning that almost more money is provided for the US military in one year
than is spent by the militaries of all the other countries in the world combined (SIPRI, 2007).
And SIPRI's accounting doesn't include the $500 billion spent so far, approximately, on wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq .
In short, not only have things gotten worse for American working people since 1973 -- and especially
after 1982, with the imposition of neoliberal economic policies by institutions of the US Government
-- but on-going Federal budget deficits, the escalating National Debt, the need to attract foreign
money into US Treasuries, the financial market "meltdown" as well as the massive amounts of money
being channeled to continue the Empire, all suggest that not only will intensifying social problems
not be addressed, but will get worse for the foreseeable future.
4) Synopsis
This analysis provides an extensive look at the impact of neoliberal economic policies enacted
in the United States on American working people. These neoliberal economic policies have been enacted
as a conscious strategy by US corporate leaders and their governmental allies in both major political
parties as a way to address intensifying globalization while seeking to maintain US dominance over
the global political economy.
While it will be a while before anyone can determine success or failure overall of this elite
strategy but, because of is global-historical perspective, sufficient evidence is already available
to evaluate the affects of these policies on American working people. For the non-elites of this
country, these policies have had a deleterious impact and they are getting worse. Employment data
in manufacturing, worsening since 1979 but especially since 2000 (see Aronowitz, 2005), has been
horrific -- and since this has been the traditional path for non-college educated workers to be able
to support themselves and their families, and provide for their children, this data suggests social
catastrophe for many -- see Rubin (1995), Barnes (2005), and Bageant (2007), and accounts in Finnegan
(1998) and Lipper (2004) that support this -- because comparable jobs available to these workers
are not being created. Thus, the problem is not just that people are losing previously stable, good-paying
jobs -- as bad as that is -- but that there is nothing being created to replace these lost jobs,
and there is not even a social safety net in many cases that can generally cushion the blow (see
Wilson, 1996; Appelbaum, Bernhardt, and Murnane, eds., 2003).
Yet the impact of these social changes has not been limited to only blue-collar workers, although
the impact has been arguably greatest upon them. The overall economic growth of the society has been
so limited since 1973, and the results increasingly being unequally distributed since then, that
the entire society is becoming more and more unequal: each of the four bottom quintiles -- the bottom
80 per cent of families -- has seen a decrease in the amount of family income available to each quintile
between 2001-05. This not only increases inequality and resulting resentments -- including criminal
behaviors -- but it also produces deleterious affects on individual and social health (Kawachi, Kennedy
and Wilkinson, eds., 1999; Eitzen and Eitzen Smith, 2003). And, as shown above, this level of inequality
is much more comparable internationally to "developing" countries rather than "developed" ones.
When this material is joined with material on the US budget, and especially the US National Debt,
it is clear that these "problems" are not the product of individual failure, but of a social order
that is increasingly unsustainable. While we have no idea of what it will take before the US economy
will implode, all indications are that US elites are speeding up a run-away train of debt combined
with job-destroying technology and off-shoring production, creating a worsening balance of trade
with the rest of the world and a worsening current account, with an unstable housing market and intensifying
militarism and an increasingly antagonistic foreign policy: it is like they are building a bridge
over an abyss, with a train increasingly speeding up as it travels toward the bridge, and crucial
indicators suggest that the bridge cannot be completed in time.
Whether the American public will notice and demand a radical change in time is not certain --
it will not be enough to simply slow the train down, but it must turn down an alternative track (see
Albert, 2003; Woodin and Lucas, 2004; Starr, 2005) -- but it is almost certain that foreign investors
will. Should they not be able to get the interest rates here available elsewhere in the "developed"
parts of the world, investors will shift their investments, causing more damage to working people
in the United States .
And when this economic-focused analysis is joined with an environmental one -- George Monbiot
(2007) reports that the best science available argues that industrialized countries have to reduce
their carbon dioxide emissions by 90 per cent by the year 2030 if we are to have a chance to stop
global warming -- then it is clear that US society is facing a period of serious social instability.
5) Conclusion
This article has argued that the situation for working people in the United States, propelled
by the general governmental adoption of neoliberal economic policies, is getting worse -- and there
is no end in sight. The current situation and historical change have been presented and discussed.
Further, an examination and analysis of directly relevant US economic policies have been presented,
and there has been nothing in this analysis that suggests a radical, but necessary, change by US
elected officials is in sight. In other words, working people in this country are in bad shape generally
-- and it is worse for workers of color than for white workers -- and there is nothing within the
established social order that suggests needed changes will be effected.
The neoliberal economic policies enacted by US corporate and government leaders has been a social
disaster for increasing numbers of families in the United States .
Globalization for profit -- or what could be better claimed to be "globalization from above" --
and its resulting neoliberal economic policies have long-been recognized as being a disaster for
most countries in the Global South. This study argues that this top-down globalization and the accompanying
neoliberal economic policies has been a disaster for working people in northern countries as well,
and most particularly in the United States .
The political implications from these findings remains to be seen. Surely, one argument is not
only that another world is possible, but that it is essential.
[Kim Scipes is assistant professor of sociology , Purdue University, North Central, Westville
, IN 46391. The author's web site is at
http://faculty.pnc.edu/kscipes .This paper was given at the 2009 Annual Conference of the United
Association for Labor Education at the National Labor College in Silver Spring , MD. It has been
posted at Links International Journal of Socialist
Renewal with Kim Scipes' permission.]
* * *
Note to labor educators: This is a very different approach than you usually take. While
presenting a "big picture," this does not suggest what you are doing is "wrong" or "bad." What it
suggests, however, is that the traditional labor education approach is too limited: this suggests
that your work is valuable but that you need to put it into a much larger context than is generally
done, and that it is in the interaction between your work and this that we each can think out the
ways to go forward. This is presented in the spirit of respect for the important work that each of
you do on a daily basis.
As living standards continue to fall for the majority of their populations, tariff barriers will
start to go up to protect their societies from cheap imports or from the "offshoring" of jobs. The freewheeling
capitalism post 1979 is over. The crash of 2008 saw to that. Look at oil prices and global economic
growth.
Notable quotes:
"... First. You assume that neo-Liberal "Free Trade" globalisation is going to continue. It will
not. Trade blocs already exist e.g. the EU. As living standards continue to fall for the majority of
their populations, tariff barriers will start to go up to protect their societies from cheap imports
or from the "offshoring" of jobs. The freewheeling capitalism post 1979 is over. The crash of 2008 saw
to that. Look at oil prices and global economic growth. ..."
"... Cheap labour costs are irrelevant if the skills are low grade and you have low productivity.
Look at Germany. High quality skills, high quality manufacturing , high productivity and high wages.
..."
"... Manufacturers are already relocating closer to their markets where there is long term stability.
China has already become far less attractive because of rising wages and no added value. The level of
wealth inequity in China is also rising and China is heading for a demographic time bomb in the next
10 years which has already hit Japan. China will have its own serious problems in the next 10 years.
..."
The premise of your argument is on very shaky ground for several reasons.
First. You assume that neo-Liberal "Free Trade" globalisation is going to continue. It
will not. Trade blocs already exist e.g. the EU. As living standards continue to fall for the
majority of their populations, tariff barriers will start to go up to protect their societies
from cheap imports or from the "offshoring" of jobs. The freewheeling capitalism post 1979 is
over. The crash of 2008 saw to that. Look at oil prices and global economic growth.
The present levels of wealth inequality in European countries and even in the U.S.A. will not
be tolerated for much longer. The days of Gordon Gekko are numbered. Expect to see more State
intervention in the economy together with more international cooperation over tax evasion and
the systematic closing down of offshore, international tax havens.
Second. Education/Skills and Technology. Cheap labour costs are irrelevant if the skills
are low grade and you have low productivity. Look at Germany. High quality skills, high quality
manufacturing , high productivity and high wages.
Manufacturers are already relocating closer to their markets where there is long term stability.
China has already become far less attractive because of rising wages and no added value. The level
of wealth inequity in China is also rising and China is heading for a demographic time bomb in
the next 10 years which has already hit Japan. China will have its own serious problems in the
next 10 years.
The robots are already here and the investment is not in third world countries but in Europe
and the U.S.A. These robots will make most of the working populations redundant in the next 20
years especially in manufacturing. This, together with the needs of an ever ageing population
are going to be the real issues for the majority of us.
Third. The real elephant in the room which everyone is trying to ignore is climate change.
The tipping point has now passed. We are going to see radical and dramatic global climate change
in the next 10 years, not 20 or 30 years and with ever rising temperatures humanity is facing
extinction and no amount of human technology is going to save the majority of us.
I think we're seeing a regionalization of global power structures within the state system --
regional
hegemons like Germany in Europe, Brazil in Latin America, China in East Asia.
Obviously, the United States still has a global position, but times have changed. Obama can
go to the G20 and say, "We should do this," and Angela Merkel can say, "We're not doing that."
That would not have happened in the 1970s.
So the geopolitical situation has become more regionalized, there's more autonomy. I think
that's partly a result of the end of the Cold War. Countries like Germany no longer rely on the
United States for protection.
Furthermore, what has been called the "new capitalist class" of
Bill Gates , Amazon , and
Silicon
Valley has a different politics than traditional oil and energy.
As a result they tend to go their own particular ways, so there's a lot of sectional rivalry
between, say, energy and finance, and energy and the Silicon Valley crowd, and so on. There are
serious divisions that are evident on something like climate change, for example.
The other thing I think is crucial is that the neoliberal push of the 1970s didn't pass
without strong resistance. There was massive resistance from labor, from communist parties in
Europe, and so on.
But I would say that by the end of the 1980s the battle was lost. So to the degree that
resistance has disappeared, labor doesn't have the power it once had, solidarity among the
ruling class is no longer necessary for it to work. It doesn't have to get together and do
something about struggle from below because there is no threat anymore. The ruling class is
doing extremely well so it doesn't really have to change anything.
Yet while the capitalist class is doing very well, capitalism is doing rather badly. Profit
rates have recovered but reinvestment
rates are appallingly low, so a lot of money is not circulating back into production and is
flowing into land-grabs and asset-procurement instead.
"... But this is one of the good things about having a Deep State, the existence of which has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt since the intelligence community declared war on Trump last November. While it prevents Trump from reaching a reasonable modus vivendi ..."
"... If the U.S. says that Moscow's activities in the eastern Ukraine are illegitimate, then, as the world's sole remaining "hyperpower," it will see to it that Russia suffers accordingly. If China demands more of a say in Central Asia or the western Pacific, then right-thinking folks the world over will shake their heads sadly and accuse it of undermining international democracy, which is always synonymous with U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... There is no one – no institution – that Russia or China can appeal to in such circumstances because the U.S. is also in charge of the appellate division. It is the "indispensable nation" in the immortal words of Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, because "we stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future." Given such amazing brilliance, how can any other country possibly object? ..."
"... Next to go was Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, sent packing in October 2001, followed by Slobodan Milosevic, hauled before an international tribunal in 2002; Saddam Hussein, executed in 2006, and Muammar Gaddafi, killed by a mob in 2011. For a while, the world really did seem like " Gunsmoke ," and the U.S. really did seem like Sheriff Matt Dillon. ..."
"... Although The New York Times wrote that U.S. pressure to cut off North Korean oil supplies has put China "in a tight spot," this was nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. There is no reason to think that Xi is the least bit uncomfortable. To the contrary, he is no doubt enjoying himself immensely as he watches America paint itself into yet another corner. ..."
"... Unipolarity will slink off to the sidelines while multilateralism takes center stage. Given that U.S. share of global GDP has fallen by better than 20 percent since 1989, a retreat is inevitable. America has tried to compensate by making maximum use of its military and political advantages. That would be a losing proposition even if it had the most brilliant leadership in the world. Yet it doesn't. Instead, it has a President who is an international laughingstock, a dysfunctional Congress, and a foreign-policy establishment lost in a neocon dream world. As a consequence, retreat is turning into a disorderly rout. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
The bigger picture behind Official Washington's hysteria over Russia, Syria and North
Korea is the image of a decaying but dangerous American hegemon resisting the start of a new
multipolar order, explains Daniel Lazare.
By Daniel Lazare
September 9, 2017
The showdown with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a seminal event that can only
end in one of two ways: a nuclear exchange or a reconfiguration of the international order.
While complacency is always unwarranted, the first seems increasingly unlikely. As no less a
global strategist than Steven Bannon observed about the possibility of a
pre-emptive U.S. strike: "There's no military solution. Forget it. Until somebody solves the
part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30
minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about. There's no military
solution here. They got us."
This doesn't mean that Donald Trump, Bannon's ex-boss, couldn't still do something rash.
After all, this is a man who prides himself on being unpredictable in business negotiations, as
historian William R. Polk, who worked for the Kennedy administration during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, points out . So maybe
Trump thinks it would be a swell idea to go a bit nuts on the DPRK.
But this is one of the good things about having a Deep State, the existence of which has
been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt since the intelligence community declared war on Trump
last November. While it prevents Trump from reaching a reasonable modus vivendi with
Russia, it also means that the President is continually surrounded by generals, spooks, and
other professionals who know the difference between real estate and nuclear war.
As ideologically fogbound as they may be, they can presumably be counted on to make sure
that Trump does not plunge the world into Armageddon (named, by the way, for a Bronze Age city about 20 miles southeast of
Haifa, Israel).
That leaves option number two: reconfiguration. The two people who know best about the
subject are Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Both have been
chafing for years under a new world order in which one nation gets to serve as judge, jury, and
high executioner. This, of course, is the United States.
If the U.S. says that Moscow's activities in the eastern Ukraine are illegitimate, then, as
the world's sole remaining "hyperpower," it will see to it that Russia suffers accordingly. If
China demands more of a say in Central Asia or the western Pacific, then right-thinking folks
the world over will shake their heads sadly and accuse it of undermining international
democracy, which is always synonymous with U.S. foreign policy.
There is no one – no institution – that Russia or China can appeal to in such
circumstances because the U.S. is also in charge of the appellate division. It is the
"indispensable nation" in the immortal words of Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State under
Bill Clinton, because "we stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future."
Given such amazing brilliance, how can any other country possibly object?
Challenging the Rule-Maker
But now that a small and beleaguered state on the Korean peninsula is outmaneuvering the
United States and forcing it to back off, the U.S. no longer seems so far-sighted. If North
Korea really has checkmated the U.S., as Bannon says, then other states will want to do the
same. The American hegemon will be revealed as an overweight 71-year-old man naked except for
his bouffant hairdo.
Not that the U.S. hasn't suffered setbacks before. To the contrary, it was forced to accept
the Castro regime following the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and it suffered a massive defeat
in Vietnam in 1975. But this time is different. Where both East and West were expected to parry
and thrust during the Cold War, giving as good as they got, the U.S., as the global hegemon,
must now do everything in its power to preserve its aura of invincibility.
Since 1989, this has meant knocking over a string of "bad guys" who had the bad luck to get
in its way. First to go was Manuel Noriega, toppled six weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall
in an invasion that cost the lives of as many as 500 Panamanian soldiers and
possibly thousands of civilians as well.
Next to go was Mullah Omar of Afghanistan, sent packing in October 2001, followed by
Slobodan Milosevic, hauled before an international tribunal in 2002; Saddam Hussein, executed
in 2006, and Muammar Gaddafi, killed by a mob in 2011. For a while, the world really did seem
like " Gunsmoke ," and the U.S. really did
seem like Sheriff Matt Dillon.
But then came a few bumps in the road. The Obama administration cheered on a
Nazi-spearheaded coup d'état in Kiev in early 2014 only to watch helplessly as Putin,
under intense popular pressure, responded by detaching Crimea, which historically had been part
of Russia and was home to the strategic Russian naval base at Sevastopol, and bringing it back
into Russia.
Backed by Russia, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dealt Washington another blow by driving
U.S.-backed, pro-Al Qaeda forces out of East Aleppo in December 2016. Predictably, the
Huffington Post compared the Syrian offensive to the fascist
bombing of Guernica .
Fire and Fury
Finally, beginning in March, North Korea's Kim Jong Un entered into a game of one-upmanship
with Trump, firing ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan,
test-firing an ICBM that might be capable
of hitting California , and then exploding a hydrogen warhead roughly
eight times as powerful as the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima in 1945. When Trump vowed
to respond "with fire, fury, and frankly power, the likes of which the world has never seen
before," Kim upped the ante by firing a missile over the northern Japanese island of
Hokkaido.
As bizarre as Kim's behavior can be at times, there is method to his madness. As Putin
explained during the BRICS summit with Brazil, India, China, and South Africa, the DPRK's
"supreme leader" has seen how America destroyed Libya and Iraq and has therefore concluded that
a nuclear delivery system is the only surefire guarantee against U.S. invasion.
"We all remember what happened with Iraq and Saddam Hussein," he
said . "His children were killed, I think his grandson was shot, the whole country was
destroyed and Saddam Hussein was hanged . We all know how this happened and people in North
Korea remember well what happened in Iraq . They will eat grass but will not stop their nuclear
program as long as they do not feel safe."
Since Kim's actions are ultimately defensive in nature, the logical solution would be for
the U.S. to pull back and enter into negotiations. But Trump, desperate to save face, quickly
ruled it out. "Talking is not the answer!" he tweeted . Yet the
result of such bluster is only to make America seem more helpless than ever.
Although The New York Times wrote
that U.S. pressure to cut off North Korean oil supplies has put China "in a tight spot," this
was nothing more than whistling past the graveyard. There is no reason to think that Xi is the
least bit uncomfortable. To the contrary, he is no doubt enjoying himself immensely as he
watches America paint itself into yet another corner.
The U.S. Corner
If Trump backs down at this point, the U.S. standing in the region will suffer while China's
will be correspondingly enhanced. On the other hand, if Trump does something rash, it will be a
golden opportunity for Beijing, Moscow, or both to step in as peacemakers. Japan and South
Korea will have no choice but to recognize that there are now three arbiters in the region
instead of just one while other countries – the Philippines, Indonesia, and maybe even
Australia and New Zealand – will have to follow suit.
Unipolarity will slink off to the sidelines while multilateralism takes center stage. Given
that U.S. share of global GDP has fallen
by better than 20 percent since 1989, a retreat is inevitable. America has tried to
compensate by making maximum use of its military and political advantages. That would be a
losing proposition even if it had the most brilliant leadership in the world. Yet it doesn't.
Instead, it has a President who is an international laughingstock, a dysfunctional Congress,
and a foreign-policy establishment lost in a neocon dream world. As a consequence, retreat is
turning into a disorderly rout.
Assuming a mushroom cloud doesn't go up over Los Angeles, the world is going to be a very
different place coming out of the Korean crisis than when it went in. Of course, if a mushroom
cloud does go up, it will be even more so.
* Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
As the forces of globalism retreat after numerous defeats in the United States, the United
Kingdom, Turkey, and other nations, there is a resurgent popularity in national, historical,
and cultural symbols. These include flags, statues of forbearers, place names, language, and,
in fact, anything that distinguishes one national or sub-national group from others. The
negative reactions to cultural and religious threats brought about by the manifestations of
globalism – mass movement of refugees, dictates from supranational organizations like the
European Union and the United Nations, and the loss of financial independence – should
have been expected by the globalists. Caught up in their own self-importance and hubris, the
globalists are now debasing the forces of national, religious, and cultural identity as threats
to the "world order."
The most egregious examples of globalist pushback against aspirant nationhood and the
symbols of national identity are Catalonia and Kurdistan. Two plebiscites on independence, a
September 25, 2017 referendum on the Kurdistan Regional Government declaring independence from
Iraq and an October 1 referendum on Catalonia beginning the process of breaking away from the
Kingdom of Spain, are expected to achieve "yes" votes. Neither plebiscite in binding, a fact
that will result in both votes being ignored by the mother countries.
Iraq, the United States, Turkey, and Iran have warned Kurdish Iraq against holding the
independence referendum. The United States is prepared to double-cross its erstwhile Kurdish
allies for a fourth time. President Woodrow Wilson, who has been cited as the "first
neoconservative or neocon, reneged on Kurdish independence during the post-World War I
Versailles peace conference. Henry Kissinger double-crossed Kurdish leader Mustafa Barzani in
1975 with the Algiers Accord between Iraq and Iran, a perfidious act that forced 100,000 of
Barzani's Kurdish forces into exile in Iran. George H. W. Bush promised the Kurds help after
Operation Desert Storm in 1991 if they revolted against Saddam Hussein's government. US
military aid was not forthcoming and the Kurds were forced into a small sliver of northern
Iraq, over which a US "no-fly zone" was imposed. Now, Donald Trump's administration has warned
the Kurds not to even think about independence, even though the Kurdish peshmerga forces helped
the US and its allies to drive the Islamic State out of Kirkuk and the rest of northern
Iraq.
In Spain, the conservative prime minister is trying to emulate the Spanish fascist dictator
Generalissimo Francisco Franco in making threats against Catalonia's independence wishes.
In response to the Catalan Parliament's vote to hold an October 1 referendum on Catalonia's
independence from Spain, Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy and his People's Party government have
promised to round up the pro-independence members of the Catalan government, as well as
pro-independence legislators of the parliament and mayors, and criminally charge them with
sedition.
Rajoy's stance should be no surprise since his party, the Popular Party, is the political
heir of Franco's Falangist party. Franco's version of the Nazi Gestapo, the Guardia Civil,
brutally suppressed Catalan and Basque identity. Particular targets for suppression, according
to Falangist doctrine, were "anti-Spanish activists," "Reds," "separatists," "liberals,"
"Jews," "Freemasons," and "judeomarxistas."
The Falange was eventually replaced by the National Movement, which continued many of
Franco's policies, including repression of the Catalan and Basque culture, autonomy, and
language.
The Francoist People's Alliance, founded in 1989 by Franco's Interior Minister, Manuel Fraga
Iribarne, eventually morphed into the People's Party of Rajoy. The People's Party considers
itself "Christian Democratic," but it receives support from Franco's fascist Roman Catholic
order, the Opus Dei.
Rajoy is using a decision by Spain's Constitutional Court, suspending the independence
referendum in Catalonia, as justification for his threats against the region. Apparently, the
neo-fascist government of Spain has been trawling Twitter to collect the names of Catalan
mayors who have posted photographs of themselves and messages of support for the "Junts pel Si"
(Together for Yes) pro-independence coalition. The mayors, along with members of parliament and
the government in Barcelona, are being placed on a Guardia Civil list targeting them with
arrest and incarceration if the referendum is carried out.
Rajoy has also warned officials of local municipal councils that their cooperation in
holding a referendum vote will be considered an act of sedition and that they, too, face arrest
and detention.
Rajoy's channeling of Franco will only solidify anti-Spanish feelings in Catalonia, even
among those not keen on independence. The iron boot of Rajoy and the People's Party in
Catalonia will only boost support for Catalan independence from those mildly opposed to it or
neutral. If Catalonia's regional and local government leaders are paraded off to prisons, the
peaceful independence movement in the region could easily turn violent. There is also
widespread support for Catalan independence in the separatist Basque region, where parades have
been held in support of the Catalan cause. In August, 3000 pro-Catalan independence Basques
marched in the Basque city of San Sebastian. If Rajoy carries through with his threat against
Catalonia, the Basque region will also see it as a threat to them and join in a renewed
campaign of violence against the Madrid neo-fascists. The Basque secessionist terrorist group
ETA agreed to disarm in 2011 but it has not turned in all its weapons.
The Basque party EH Bildu has already submitted a bill in the regional Basque parliament
that is a copy of the Catalan independence referendum bill that passed the parliament in
Barcelona.
People around the world are rejecting the notion that states, harboring more than one
nation, ethnic group, or tribal entity, should be recognized by globalist institutions like the
EU and UN as representing all the constituent parts. Currently, the Republic of Macedonia is
negotiating with Greece, the EU, and NATO on membership under a nation-state name that suits
Greece. Greece does not recognize Macedonia by that name because it believes Macedonia harbors
irredentist designs on Greek Macedonia. Greece insists the country use the provisional name of
FYROM, which stands for the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." Macedonian nationalists
scoff at such a name, likening it to being forced to use the fictional Klingon language of
"Star Trek."
As a result of the United Kingdom's exit from the EU, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland
are demanding that London grant them the right to maintain their own economic and other links
with the Eurocrats in Brussels. Scotland may hold a second independence referendum with or
without the blessing of London. The Welsh Assembly in Cardiff is sounding more and more like
the Scottish Parliament in demanding a separate deal with the EU for Wales. Even in the heart
of the EU bureaucracy – Belgium – Flanders and Wallonia show no signs of abandoning
their march toward independence, leaving Brussels as its own independent city-state hosting the
headquarters of the EU, NATO, and Godiva Chocolatier. Rather than the Belgian flag, one is more
likely to find Flemish flags flying from poles in Antwerp and Walloon flags adorning buildings
in Liège.
Around the world, statues of historical figures are being defaced and removed by contrarian
groups who bear ethnic or political grudges. They include Confederate General Robert E. Lee
throughout the United States, Captain James Cook in Australia, Father Junipero Serra in
California, Christopher Columbus in New York, King Kamehameha in Hawaii, Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela, and Marthinus Pretorius and Paul Kruger in South Africa. This all represents the
trend toward dissolution of the nation-state. Nation-state flags, monuments of past political
and religious figures, and other nation-state symbols are not only being questioned but, in
some cases, ignored or cast aside completely. The world is "going tribal" and there is little
the governing globalists and elites can do about it. They brought this situation upon
themselves with their aloofness and ignorance. The UN General Assembly will soon welcome
193-member state leaders to its plenary session in New York. The UN may do well to plan for
future sessions at which 300 or more member-state leaders, from Åland to Zanzibar and
Baltistan to Mthwakazi, converge on New York.
Sovereignty is oppose of neoliberal globalization, so in a way this is an some kind of
affirmation of Trump election position. How serious it is is not clear. Probably not much as
Imperial faction now controls Trump, making him more of a marionette that a political leader of
the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He forgot to mention pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. ..."
"... The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in. ..."
"... There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you endanger yourself if you don't do as told". ..."
"... "The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in" ..."
"... The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005. The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had. ..."
"... He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the Libya invasion. ..."
"... Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to 2011. ..."
"... How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces. ..."
"... Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi gaining in economic, science and technology ..."
"... I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open. ..."
"... Trump - the Republican Obama ..."
"... "The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet to accept this new reality. ..."
"... The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well. Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the ship(s) materialize?" ..."
"... it seems to me with Trump an era of so-called globalization has come to its end. ..."
"... Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with sovereignty. They are ..."
"... baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking. ..."
"... In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
Today the President of the United States Donald Trump
spoke (rush transcript) to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech's main the me was sovereignty. The word occurs 18(!) times. It emphasized
Westphalian
principles .
[W]e do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties, to respect the
interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation
All leaders of countries should always put their countries first, he said, and "the nation
state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition ."
The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 - bigger
Sovereignty was the core message of his speech. It rhymed well with his somewhat
isolationist emphasis of "America first" during his campaign. The second part of the speech the first by threatened the sovereignty of several countries
the U.S. ruling class traditionally dislikes. This year's "axis of evil"
included North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba:
The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket man is on a
suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able,
but hopefully this will not be necessary."
Many people will criticize that as an outrageous and irresponsible use of words. It is. But there is nothing new to it. In fact the U.S., acting on behalf of the UN, totally
destroyed Korea in the 1950s. The last U.S. president
made the same threat Trump made today:
President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to North Korea on Tuesday, reminding its
"erratic" and "irresponsible" leader that America's nuclear arsenal could "destroy" his
country.
The South Korean military sounds equally belligerent :
A military source told the Yonhap news agency every part of Pyongyang "will be completely
destroyed by ballistic missiles and high-explosives shells". ... The city, the source said,
"will be reduced to ashes and removed from the map".
Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem
in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an
economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He
forgot to mention
pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act
that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump
mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. There was essentially nothing in Trump's threats than the claptrap the last two U.S.
presidents also delivered. Trump
may be crazy, but the speech today is not a sign of that.
The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in.
Posted by b on September 19, 2017 at 01:05 PM | Permalink
There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the
sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like
is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you
endanger yourself if you don't do as told".
If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must
fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our
nations, their interests and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty from the
Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and
respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.
And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront
together those who threatens us with chaos, turmoil, and terror. The score of our planet
today is small regimes that violate every principle that the United Nations is based. They
respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries. If the
righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people
and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and
strength.
@2 somebody - yes, unaimed hostile prose from the speechwriter. Such is in the speech of
every U.S. president. But it is not the general theme of the Trump speech when one reads it
as one piece. The weight is put in the other direction (though the media will likely point to
the threats instead of reading the more extraordinary parts where Trump pushes national
sovereignty.)
"The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump
indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if
that it is something he genuinely believes in"
It appears that his generals are instructing him what to "believe in". At least, he
certainly doesn't seem to "believe in" most of his campaign promises, not unlike his recent
predecessors. The whole "democracy and freedom" thing in the US is just a charade, as far as
I am concerned.
The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN
Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005.
The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of
Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back
off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had.
I think this was a very good interview of Vijay Prashadby
by Chris Hedges
He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of
the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War
in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the
US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the
Libya invasion.
Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting
that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to
2011.
--------
The good news is that Syria is turning out much different than Libya. Would be great to see the US cooperate with the China/Russia etc economic goals rather
than stirring up trouble in the Phillippines, Myanmar etc. The first test will be to see if Trump can deliver single payer health care to the US. :)
ie start to back off on the anti socialism rhetoric
The "nation state" brought us the millions slaughtered in World War 1. The nation states
threatened by the internationalist communist ideology of the USSR (in its early days)
ultimately brought us World War 2. The hypertrophied nation state that is the United States
of America will bring us World War 3 in its drive to secure its total supremacy. Luckily for
us, there will be no World War 4.
How can a country A be "forced to defend itself" by a country B so weak comparatively to
country A it can actually be "totally destroyed" by country A?
How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the
nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is
rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less
taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces.
Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New
York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi
gaining in economic, science and technology
The United Nations is based upon the equal sovereignty of nations.
--from the UN Charter --
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act
in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its
Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from
membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with
the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations
Trump's speech seemed to represent an ignorant mouthy bully with a big stick who is
threatening any nation he is told to hate. I have to agree with Paveway IV that Trump is just
the announcer. The "national sovereignty" comments were just for internal consumption for his
base of supporters.
To a major extent Trump's focus on the "great leader" of countries opposed to the US helps
simplify the hate for the "little people" in the US. They have not noticed that the US (as in
most other Western countries) has many mini "great leaders" who work toward the same goals
while distracting the "little people" with political theatre.
I really don't know what the purpose of this rambling threat to the rest of the world was
supposed to accomplish.
Yes, it really was nothing new. The fundamental material of the speech was the very same
garbage written by the same Washington establishment of previous administrations -
essentially the nuclear armed US regime is 'special' and reserves the right to attack and
destroy any country it chooses to.
While the Trump speech is rightly being both ridiculed around the world, what is very
scary is the humiliated Trump base is seizing on it.
The Trump base is begging for their failed 'God Emperor' to attack someone to feel better
about their own humiliation.
Sovereignty is also an excuse for US intervention, get it? . . .Trump does....
America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty
is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety,
their interests, and their well-being, including their prosperity.
His speechwriters deserve to be fired and the text size on both teleprompters should have
been increased. Alternatively, he should wear glasses (along with a more suitably fitted
toupee). Sarah Palin would seem like Einstein at the side of this clown.
Trump's speech is Orwellian!
Not just generally-- it is arguably an elaboration of a close paraphase of an Orwell
quote, to wit: "All nations are sovereign, but some nations are more sovereign than others."
I have a strongly ambivalent reaction to Trump's UN appearance-- although I confess that I
can only stand to watch and listen to him for brief time periods. It's appalling and embarrassing to watch any of the US's seemingly inexhaustible supply of
lizard-brained degenerates at the UN. But part of me thinks it's better to have the quintessential Ugly Amerikan beating his
chest and engaging in rhetorical feces-flinging. At least the rest of the world won't be bamboozled, the way they might be by a smooth,
silver-tongued liar.
This is on the heels of Trump's threatening to exclude China from use of SWIFT (the USD)
and China's gold yuan oil futures contract coming mid October as opposed to USD. The
petro-yuan is a game changer; hitting the petro-dollar hegemony that keeps the dollar in
worldwide demand.
The toothless dog has only his bark. Are Americans prepared for hyper-inflation?
I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial
system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global
private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open.
The abuse of the term sovereignty by Trump is part of a crafted Big Lie message. Just like
Trump linking to the poster of him, with a rope over his shoulder, dragging a barge of
companies back to America......the internationalism genie will never go completely back into
the bottle and is counterproductive to all.
John Bolton and the moron, Sean Hannity, love the speech. That should be all anyone needs to
know. It was Orwellian, super-villain, double-speak.
If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.
Madman. How has Iran violated the U.N. charter? They were invited into Iraq and Syria by the UN
recognized govts. Okay, they make veiled threats against Israel, they get a demerit for that. Even if you
argue that they are 'predicting' rather can 'threatening to cause' Israel's demise, I'd take
that as a veiled threat. But Israel makes equally hostile comments towards Iran albeit, in a
passive / aggressive manner. Netanyahu, 'We recognize Iran's right to exist but truth be told
the planet, no wait, the entire universe itself would be better off if they disappeared'.
Well, it has finally arrived at the U.N. speech. Trump is showing his real colors, whether
they are forced or were originally his own. It doesn't matter. He is spouting the same
nonsenze as the neocons and the rest of them. He has crossed over - he maybe never knew the
way through, but was only parroting other's views. He is clearly a chameleon, willing to
change his stripes on a dime. The man is darkly lost in the woods, or is it the swamp?
While there have been hints that the Rohingya "rebels" are receiving funds from
expatriates in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is there anything concrete that connects the CIA to
the rebels?
Frankly Trump is a big mouth, but there's no evidence that he's more than that. If he wanted
war, we'd already be there. It's different from Saddam in the old days, who went to war
within a year of becoming leader, or the Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, who
launched the war against Yemen.
59 Tomahawks, that's the style. I haven't seen different from then.
The advantage of having Trump around is that he seems to diffuse energy. He is not building a
case against N. Korea like Bush did with Iraq, but instead he is big on bluster. There is no
appeal to the emotions of people and their fears and as such he is not marketing it,
something he knows a lot about. In his own way I believe he is defusing the situation by
talking big but remebering Bannon's comments when he left. And as a consummate player at the
table of power (unlike the novice Obama) he has his status.
What interests me is Tillerson and the State Department and its attitude to Israel. Syria
is where Israel met its match and was soundly thrashed. The world will never be the same
again, And the State Department is recognizing this reality. I think there is a recognition
in certain powerful quarters that whole neocon-Zionist shit has got America nowhere. As
Talking Heads said, "We're on the road to nowhere."
The speech (it reminds me on movie The Kings Speech https://youtu.be/PPLIw64rLJc TERRIBLE MOVIE) is for
internal the US purpose, for Amerikkaans. Majority of them, according to the Gov. media
outlets, support military action against DPRK and mostly likely against Iran (the most hatred
nation by far) as well. Amerikkaans will support any crime anywhere and probably destruction
of whole planet Earth.
In the same time his words and deeds are the most irrelevant of any US presidents. I bet
he never heard of that word "sovereignty" before nor for "nation state". This morning when
Trump woke up some member of National Security Council put sheet of paper with the speech on
his desk and tell him "Read this!". Just as they did to Obama in many occasions, one of
example is this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/may/04/obama-drinks-flint-water-video
There some people in the US who knows what is going on:
For all the very considerable expense, however, the American military does not have a very
impressive record of achieving victory. It has won no wars since 1945!especially if victory
is defined as achieving an objective at acceptable cost!except against enemy forces that
essentially didn't exist.
@7 financial matters.. good comment and relevant.. i agree with you.. unipolar no more..
however, not quite multipolar yet either... we are still in a transitional place.. syria is
no libya fortunately.. but causing this kind of shit around the globe is what the usa is
known for.. they will continue to make war projects, especially if you believe as b notes a
couple of threads ago - trump is no longer calling the shots.. it is military guys full on..
I rather liked the film "The King's Speech because it was about speech. Your English is
fucking awful Chancey, not good enough for this forum. Get some lessons and come back.
"The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall
Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet
to accept this new reality.
The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well.
Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but
shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia
and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired
an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert
dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the
ship(s) materialize?"
For a Nazi.
A question, do you believe in science? Here is one. But does one need to be scientist to
figure this out?"The Rise of Incivility and Bullying in America"
Violating the sovereign sanctity of nations is what the Outlaw US Empire has done without
parallel since the United Nation's formation. One of those nations was Vietnam, and a
somewhat respected documentary film maker looks like he's going to try--again--to pull wool
over the eyes of his intended audience by trying to legitimate the Big Lie that provided the
rationale for the Outlaw US Empire's illegal war against Vietnam. The detailed argument
regarding Ken Burns's effort to "correct" the actual historical record can be read here,
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/19/getting-the-gulf-of-tonkin-wrong-are-ken-burns-and-lynn-novick-telling-stories-about-the-central-events-used-to-legitimize-the-us-attack-against-vietnam/
and it is probably the sort of history Trump would enjoy since he doesn't seem to know any
better.
How many nick/names do you have? You may hide under this and that stupid but your
associations are still here. You stay stupid. I know, I know the truth hurts. You Amerikkaans are not used to it. Go and watch a porn,
before de-dollarization is in full swing. Than you are going to stave to death, no more
credit cards and quantitative easing. That's is Trump's speech for.
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 19, 2017 2:22:58 PM | 7
Nice interview from a couple of years back. Prashad's worldview is worthy of reposting.
Enjoyable. Cheers.
US Americans might have proved themselves very adept at destroying both nation states and
the English language, though it will be Syria who restores true meaning to the word
'sovereign' - with some collective help of course.
The almost failed state will emerge from this steeled with a sense of identity, pride and
purpose. The minnow that refused to buckle.
The Don putting together some performances that finally warrant the unified, rabid
reaction from the press....
"But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in."
Are you serious? Everything coming out of DC is still the same - sanctions against other
sovereign countries who do not tow the line the US demands, cruise missiles for the little
guys, disavowing and de-legitimizing the JCPOA, unrelenting 'freedom of navigation' patrols,
threats to cut nations off from the SWIFT system, every word out of Nikki Haleys' mouth...
It's really easy to go on and on, and his first year isn't even done.
The amount of disrespect for other sovereign nations by the USA is mind boggling, and that
is only the official stuff. Throw in CIA ops and NGO ops and there you have an entire other
level of the failure to recognize sovereignty.
Can you send me some of what you are smoking? Because it obviously makes you oblivious to
the obvious, and that may help my mood...
Obviously, the UN has became an arena of the one country show and that country puppets.
Zionist PM, the West most "faithful ally" on Middle East, and his speech. Mix of infantilism,
rhetoric and implicit racism of "God Chosen People". And sea of self-congratulating lies.
Great comment re: Vietnam. The Ken Burns documentary is just one more fairy tale of the
U.S. involvement/war in Vietnam.
Among the many myths, foremost is that Ho Chi Minh was a communist; he most assuredly was
not. Yes, he was a member of the party in France, but it is irrelevent to history (Ho was a
nationalist).
Did you know he tried to engage FDR?
Below is a remarkable interview with John Pilger on the real history of the U.S. and Vietnam;
it ain't pretty. Even Mao tried to engage the U.S., which the U.S. duly ignored.
Why is everyone hating on Trump? Be realistic: sometimes you have to genocide 25 million
people to save them. We're the God damn hero here - you bastards should be thanking
the USA.
Well, I guess we're really not trying to save the North Koreans at all. But they refuse to
leave the buffer zone (all of North Korea) that is protecting the world from red Chinese
expansion south. Worse than that, the North Koreans insist on protecting themselves BY FORCE
from the US. How evil is that?
Reminds me of those evil Syrians and Iraqis who refuse to vacate the buffer zone
protecting Israel from Iran. The nerve!
Only US lapdog nations have the right to defend themselves - as long as its with US-made
weapons and they're protecting themselves from anybody except the US. And we get to
build US bases on their soil. Who wouldn't want that? Because the US is... what did Trump
say... RIGHTEOUS. You know:
Tell me which one of those synonyms DOES NOT apply to the US? I prefer 'angelic'.
The first thing psychopaths do when they attain any measure of power and control is to
redefine evil as anything that threatens their power and control. Then constantly
hammer that threat into the minds of the little people so the little people don't think too
hard about stringing them up from the lamp posts.
Everything the US has done in my lifetime has been about preserving and protecting the
US government no matter how corrupt, evil or immoral it acts. Protecting the people is
only given lip service when it can be used to justify further protections for the state.
Creation of the Department of Homeland Security Stazi is probably the end stage for
full-spectrum dominance over the little people - it is slowly morphing (as planned) into a
federal armed force to protect the US government FROM the little people. I guess the
FBI wasn't up to the task.
"The government you elect is the government you deserve" Thomas Jefferson, Founding
Terrorist.
Do you agree that to point of National Interest article seem to be that the US is not
capable of invading and controlling non-European countries?
I did find the Cato Institute author to be very poorly informed about the US invasions of
Granada and Panama, the Balkan wars, the Kosovo invasion and the Syrian war.
As for ISIS, the author does not know anything about the incubation of ISIS by the US
administrations and the Libyan war (Hillary/Obama/Sarkozy) connection . He also does not
discuss the billions in military hardware that the US allowed ISIS to capture in Iraq.
As for the US efforts they are more about preventing the formation of an integrated
economic sphere between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanese Republic. The war efforts by the US in
fighting ISIS are minimal compared to the Syrian and Russian efforts, yet he lies by omission
to pump up the US efforts. At least he didn't attempt to praise Turkey (sic) for their
efforts in cutting off aid to ISIS and Al Qaeda (under all its names).
Remember that the Cato Institute is another flavor of the NGO spider supporting the deep
state!
Please understand that this is not a personal attack as I am here to learn and share.
Canada's Trudeau will follow Trump at the UN on Thursday. Today he received an award from the
Atlantic Council: 'Worldwide the long established international order is being tested..' And
obviously the sexy northern selfie-king knows his place in it... https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kp49TFRMR8g
@ 49
Yes, to save the 25 million North Koreans the US must destroy them!
"No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people
than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of
millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of
countless more."
. ..but there are limits. . .
"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or
its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."
So give me that "no more contempt" line again, Donald?
(Personally, I can't imagine Hillary doing any less. So much for elections.)
"Why is everyone hating on Trump?"
Preposterous. You give him too much importance. He is rather the object of ridicule.
"The word occurs 18(!) times."
While the word Sovereignty
Sovereignty is actually main subject of the Russian president Putin and he never miss
opportunity to emphasize that. He put it so forcefully in this speech. https://youtu.be/Yumaa4pkxMU
Maybe by accident maybe not just conspicuous coincidence. But it seems to me with Trump an
era of so-called globalization has come to its end. With self-inflicted wounds ($20T Gov.
debt) and new president who is (initially) inward looking, it is time to talk about old
stuff. As if the US statehood has been in question for a moment. Old trick of capitalist
class.
Targeting Iran was never about nuclear weapons (the U.S. let Pakistan expand its nuclear
weapons program without interfering, despite knowing all about the AQ Khan network, because
Pakistan was cooperating with the U.S. agenda in Afghanistan and elsewhere), it was about the
Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (during the GW Bush era) and the expansion of economic ties with
Syria (during the Obama era).
Now, with the easing of sanctions, Iran's pipeline deals have been revived, such as
Iran-Pakistan,
or Iran-India (undersea) , Iran-Europe, with China and Russia and Turkey as potential
partners. Meanwhile, the proposed TAPI pipeline backed by the Clinton, Bush & Obama State
Departments, as well as Chevron and Exxon, from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean, is still
held up due to instability in Afghanistan (i.e. the Taliban would immediately blow it up).
Obama's 30,000 troop surge to 100,000 couldn't solve that, and the recent Trump troop surge
(much smaller) will have little effect on that either. TAPI pipe dreams
continue, Sep 17 2017
There's no way Trump or Tillerson would ever be honest about this in an international
forum, any more than Obama and Clinton would, or Bush and Condi Rice, but it's the same old
"great game" for Central Asian oil and gas that's dominated U.S. regional foreign policy
since the end of the Cold War.
@ 54/55 Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with
sovereignty. They are subject to baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking.
It is foolish to consider the trumpet's lunatic ravings in isolation, according to that organ
of empire
foreign policy dot com , the amerikan airforce is ready and rearing to go and blast the
bejeezuz outta North Korea.
Sure it may be bluster when they come out with seeming tosh like:
""We're ready to fight tonight," Gen. Robin Rand, commander of the Air Force's Global
Strike Command, told reporters at an Air Force conference in Washington on Monday. "We
don't have to spin up, we're ready.""
Because everyone knows that a manned tactical airforce is on the way out, that bombing a
population has only ever served to strengthen resolve within that population, but the first
point that the airforce of jocks n fighters is verging on obsolescence, might just drive the
generals of middle management, concerned that their career is about to hit a brick wall, to
go for one last roll of the dice. Blow some shit up, create a few heroes and maybe the
inevitable can be staved off for long enough for their scum to rise to the surface, jag a
great gig with a contractor, then retire in luxury. I mean to say it's gotta be worth a shot
right? The alternative of layoffs and all the sexy fighting stuff being done by unsexy
drones, is just too awful to consider.
So what if Guam gets wasted, a good memorial at Arlington will balance that shit and when
it is all said and done, most of the people who will get nuked by DPRK aren't amerikans - but
here's the best bit, we can sell them to the idjits just like they were, while we build the
anger and bloodlust, then backpedal on that when it comes down to lawsuits, compensation or
whatever it is those whale-fuckers whine about - right?
A pre-emptive attack based on the possibility that DPRK hasn't yet developed nuke tech
sufficiently, but will do so "if we continue to sit on our asses" would be an easy sell to an
orange derp whose access to alternative points of view has been cut off.
The only real question is whether the rest of the military (the non-airforce parts) go for
it.
The navy likely will because they are in the same boat (pun intended) as the airforce when it
comes down to usefulness as a front line conflict agent and they too will
likely get a role to play in the destruction of North Korea - at the very least as a weapons
platform (just like with the mindless Syria aggression) and may even get to be the forward
C&C base since South Korea isn't mobile and may cop a fair amount of DPRK reaction.
Only the army for whom a pre emptive attack on the people of North Korea has little
upside, but lots of downside, may oppose this insane butchery. The army will be tasked with
neutralising a population whose innate loathing of all things amerikan has just been raised
by about ten notches. So soon after the Iraq debacle, they may see an attack as all negative
in that once again they will cop the blame and even worse the old enemies - the airforce and
navy - will come out smelling like roses. It is true that the bulk of the yellow monkey's
'advisors' are army types, so under normal circumstances they would obstruct any such
bullshit grabs for the brass ring by the navy & airforce upstarts - but there is a high
probability that the army leadership will do no such thing.
The reason for that is as old as humanity itself and I was sad to see that it copped little
mention in the last thread about the 'soft' coup at the whitehouse.
Many people were cheering the takeover by the military doubtless the same people who
imagine that "amerika could be great again - if only we go back to the way it was in the
1950's and 60's". What they miss is that everything is fluid; nothing is held in stasis as a
proof that perfection has been reached. The 'eisenhower/johnson years were merely steps on
the path, the world was never gonna stay in white bourgeois contentment no matter whether
unwhites kicked up or not. There are diverse reasons for that from ambitious careerism
forcing change so a lucky few can ascend one more rung on the ladder, to the reality that it
is impossible for all humans to be content all the time -some groups will be disadvantaged,
advertise that then be 'adopted' by careerists as an excuse for forcing change. That is
inevitable - as inevitable as the reality that once the military gained power, their next
move would be to consolidate it and to try ensure that they kept it for ever.
In other words the initial coup may have been largely bloodless (altho several million
dead mid easterners would strongly disagree if they could) but any study of human behavior
reveals that it is the need to hold on to power which is what really incites oppression
violence and mass murder.
The Pennsylvania Avenue generals understand that the simplest way of retaining control is
gonna be if the orange 'whipped* gains re-election. If the orange chunder is gonna win the
next one he needs to hit some home runs and have a lot less ties or outright defeats.
At this stage it doesn't matter what turkey kicked up the Korea bizzo, or even it it has
any moral dimension at all, what matters is that the trumpet has made it a major issue and if
he doesn't 'prevail' in the short-term, the odds of him retaining support much less gaining
more support, are gone - very likely for the duration of the tangerine prezdency. It's not as
if the ME situation offers the slightest chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Syria is
history now and that Iran thing has a good chance of dividing europe from amerika, just as
climate change has. I reckon that the junta who, individually & institutionally have a
big investment in Nato, will be looking to steer the orange nit away from inciting a
confrontation over the nuke deal. Korea could be the alternate shiny thing the junta draws
trumpet's attention to in order to distract the dingbat.
So even though it is a total cleft stick that the junta is in, I reckon it is extremely
probable that the army branch of the amerikan government will allow the airforce and possibly
the navy as well, their moment in the sun.
The way this fuckwittery is shaping up, people of Korea are more likely to be enduring
Predators up their jacksies than not, before the end of "the
summer of '18'
*anyone who doesn't see that the trumpet displays all the signs (boasting of alleged
performance, number of 'conquests' size of penis etc) of a man who is unable to have his
voice heard above the demands of the women around him, doesn't comprehend the nature of
inter-gender relationships (doncha love 'inter-gender' it sounds exactly like the type of
pallid word the identity-ists would use heheh).
The main problem I have with your post is China. You do not say anything about China.
The Chinese made it clear that if the U.S. pre-emptively attacks the DPRK; China will get
involved; and I should think Russia will be somehow involved as well.
Moon Jae-In has told the U.S. it (SK) will be the one to decide on an attack, as it
should.
But, I do get your drift; I just hope the U.S. will not act...for once.
That said; I do think the U.S. lost its tether decades ago...
There's one little factor about getting it on with DPRK, besides the ones mentioned, and that
is that SecDef Gates several years ago declared that Korea was safe enough to allow it to be
an accompanied tour, i.e. soldiers could have their families join them in the Land of the
Morning Calm. This coincided with the consolidation of US bases, with a ten billion dollar
expansion of Camp Humphreys about seventy miles south of the DMZ. So now we have high-rise
apartments with wives, kids, pets, etc. in this "safe" place, now 35,000 strong including
all. They practice evacuation. From a recent report --
The noncombatant evacuation operations, or NEO, are aimed at making sure everybody knows
their roles in the event of a noncombatant evacuation, which may be ordered in the event of
war, political or civil unrest, or a natural or man-made disaster. "I liken the NEO operation
to being a scaffolding. It's not a fully fleshed out plan because it's preparing for a
million different worst-case scenarios," 1st Lt. Katelyn Radack, a spokeswoman for the 2nd
Combat Aviation Brigade, told Stars and Stripes. ... Brandy Madrigal, 32, was participating
in her third NEO -- so she knew exactly what to pack when she got the call to report to the
Assembly Point at the main gym at Camp Humphreys on June 5. She ticked off the list -- clothes, food for the kids, documents, phone, toiletries
-- before driving with her two
children from their first-floor apartment to the base to be processed.
Imagine that -- all those people assembling in one place for "processing." They'd get
processed, all right. So the US Army won't be red-hot for the mighty US Air Force to (again)
conduct its aerial murder in North Korea, with their loved ones being in rocket range of a
counter-attack. That's in addition to any feelings people have for the ten million plus South
Koreans in Seoul, close to the border.
re: Ken Burns Viet Nam -- one only has to look at the sponsors. Burns will cleave to the
line only more so. Darling of the aristocratic charities. Somehow reaching the glory 50 years
later. Now that Agent Orange has nearly completed the harvest.
Action against Iran and NK, could it really be termed "war", anymore?
I deliberately left China outta the equation because the conflict with DPRK will be
engineered to be kicked off with a provocation allegedly committed by DRPK, amerika will
'respond' andthe war will quickly escalate. Yes PRC may become involved, but getting into a
war with amerika right now is not great for the PRC either, if the most vital concern is the
proximity of amerikan troops to the China border, amerika can give an agreement signed in
blood that amerikan military will pull back behind the 38th parallel once the 'regime has
been changed' and that only Korean men and equipment will remain.
Of course China would be smart to distrust that but sold correctly with incentives and maybe
even the use of some mutually trusted referee, China might decide that is a superior option
to kicking off ww3.
As for the enlisted mens families somehow I doubt that the military cares any more about them
than it does the men and women they have in their forces - so not very much - smart officer
class types will be considering the need to 'further their children's education back home'
right now, whether or not the trump decides to go for broke. As I pointed out before, the
plan will require that DRPK feels trapped into committing some type of really egregious
provocation, or false flagging such a provocation.
Imagine Guam got nuked and all initial evidence pointed to DRPK, China is in a tough spot
plus most amerikans will be of the opinion that protecting the families in South Korean
barracks comes second to vengeance. That would be an easy sell on fox and msnbc.
Amerika seemingly being attacked is also gonna end msnbc & the rest's potshots at the
orange derp, just as 911 halted just about all reference to the view shrub stole the election
from Gore in the MSM.
What scares me the most about the US regime's threats to attack and destroy North Korea is
I had naively assumed that all the talk was just the standard game theory back and forth.
There never was any real threat beyond the occasional minor incident like there have been in
the past few decades.
And I didn't understand why China would so openly and absolutely support North Korea with
any sort of attack by the US regime.
But then I read some of the neocon online postings or writings about North Korea and it
was a sickening shock to realize that I had been so foolish to believe the Korean crisis was
not about Korea, but China.
Getting the US regime's military directly on the Chinese border is something the
neocons are perfectly willing, and most likely gleefully happy, to trade millions to tens of
millions of North and South Korean lives for.
I can't imagine the revulsion and horror the rest of the world must be feeling towards the
United States right now.
The German philosopher and sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855 – 1936)
distinguished between two types of social groupings. Gemeinschaft (often translated as
community or left untranslated) and Gesellschaft (often translated as society). Gemeinschaft
and Gesellschaft describe the crucial distinction between community and "Civil Society";
community being characterized by a dispensationalist consensus or a sacred communal consensus
on a dispensation sent down from on high, and the latter being characterized as a consensus
to "agree to disagree" and to agree that a consensus in any meaningful form can no longer be
reached, paving the way to a "conventional" polity (agreed to by secular-humanist
convention). This "agreement to disagree" which crystalized between the Peace of Augsburg
(1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1644 – 1648) was, in effect, the West's long and
excruciating decision to throw out the baby of Community with the bathwater of the Church's
malfeasance in the revolutionary fervor of the Reformation and the "Enlightenment" that
followed in its wake. But whereas the integrality of church and state was lost with the Peace
of Westphalia circa 1648 whereat pre-Westphalian communities gave way to the Westphalian
order of "Civil Societies", the Islamic Revolution of 1979 restored community to the Moslem
nation of Iran.
I posted this comment over in the latest Syria summary thread but then thought that it
belongs here as an example of the craven duplicity of empire about Syria sovereignty.
The following is a link and article quote from China news that says Russia is accusing the
US of chickenshit (my term) tactics in Syria
"He said the advancing Syrian government troops supported by the Russian Air Force managed to
break the fierce resistance and liberate more than 60 square km of territory on the left bank of the Euphrates River in the last 24
hours.
But their advance was hampered by a sudden rise of the water level in the Euphrates and a
two-fold increase of the speed of its current after the government troops started crossing the river, Konashenkov said.
In the absence of precipitation, the only source of such changes in the water level could be
a man-made discharge of water at the dams north of the Euphrates, which are held by the opposition formations controlled by the
international coalition led by the United States, he said. "
What's worries me the most in Trumps speech, sounds actually ominously, is the phrases
"dead Poles, fighting [???!!!] French, strong[!] English" ... Is this what's planned
for the near future? I'm not liking it a bit.
Situation in the US is getting worse, seems that this Fall big changes are coming, and no
lies can hide the truth: LIES, LIES & OMG
MORE LIES Who is the enemy? Some names can be found here (and in a recent Eric Zuesse piece):
The Borg, the AngloZio pedo-satanic cabal of the City of London Crown Corporation, the web
of merchants of death and corporate oligarchy have been doing whatever possible to help her
stay relevant and expand information war, blame Russia:
Nice summary but I disagree with the dedollarization part. To me, ending the US dollar as
reserve Currency is just a part of the issue. If that occurs American paper money becomes
worthless as the article states. While this bankrupts the US, what will it do to the global
world of private finance, BIS, SWIFT, IMF, etc.? Does private finance, private property and
inheritance all get dealt with in this adjustment? How long will the adjustment period
take?
What is clear though now is that there are two factions that are moving in "opposite"
directions and the implications will lock up global commerce at some point....fairly soon
(weeks/months)......and hopefully adults from all sides will work things out peacefully.
these 16 years of bin laden wars constitute the most concerted assault on sovereignty
since time out of mind. conspicuously in the cradle of civilization...cultural harmonies
undermined and religious sects set at each others throats, tribes ripped from their roots,
their facilities and systems desecrated, their families ravaged by rack and ruin and
displacement, an alien scourge unleashed on their landscape.
but as someone upstream suggested, the window on these destructive incursions might be
closing, what with Russia and China being unconquerable and all.
of course there are other dark forces gnawing at sovereignty , possibly even more
stealthily treacherous ones...
On the one hand, Trump defended sovereignty as a universal ideal. On the other, he demanded
that America's enemies stop mistreating their people. The result was gobbledygook.
...
to make his incoherence even more explicit, Trump declared that "our respect for
sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their
safety, their interests and their well-being." That's like saying that my respect for your
right to do whatever you want in your garden should be a call to action for you to stop
growing weed.
...
For Trump, by contrast, sovereignty means both that no one can tell the United States what
to do inside its borders and that the United States can do exactly that to the countries it
doesn't like. That's not the liberal internationalism that Obama espoused. Nor is it the
realism of some of Obama's most trenchant critics. It is imperialism. General Pershing, in
the Philippines, would have approved.
In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the
planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and
made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come
to a virtual standstill. Sure, the Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing
nothing. That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting, is a
blessing for the rest of the planet because it allows everybody else to get things done.
Pressure will be intense on U S business in east coast China to refrain from converting their
'yuan' profits into gold .
What a contradictory set of pressures much
It looks like Trump initially has a four point platform that was anti-neoliberal in its essence:
Non-interventionism. End the wars for the expansion of American neoliberal empire.
Détente was Russia. Abolishing NATO and saving money on this. Let European defend themselves.
Etc.
No to neoliberal globalization. Abolishing of transnational treaties that favor large
multinationals such as TPP, NAFTA, etc. Tariffs and other means of punishing corporations who
move production overseas. Repatriation of foreign profits to the USA and closing of tax holes
which allow to keep profits in tax heavens without paying a dime to the US government.
No to neoliberal "transnational job market" -- free movement of labor. Criminal prosecution
and deportation of illegal immigrants. Cutting intake of refugees. Curtailing legal immigration,
especially fake and abused programs like H1B. Making it more difficult for people from countries
with substantial terrorist risk to enter the USA including temporary prohibition of issuing visas
from certain (pretty populous) Muslim countries.
No to the multiculturalism. Stress on "Christian past" and "white heritage" of American
society and the role of whites in building the country. Rejection of advertising "special rights"
of minorities such as black population, LGBT, etc. Promotion them as "identity wedges" in elections
was the trick so dear to DemoRats and, especially Hillary and Obama.
That means that Trump election platform on an intuitive level has caught several important problem
that were created in the US society by dismantling of the "New Deal" and rampant neoliberalism practiced
since Reagan ("Greed is good" mantra).
Of cause, after election he decided to practice the same "bait and switch" maneuver as Obama.
Generally he folded in less then 100 days. Not without help from DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats)
which created a witch hunt over "Russian ties" with their dreams of the second Watergate.
But in any case, this platform still provides a path to election victory in any forthcoming election,
as problems listed are real , are not solved, and are extremely important for lower 90% of Americans.
Tulsi Gabbard so far is that only democratic politician that IMHO qualifies. Sanders is way too old
and somewhat inconsistent on No.1.
Frank was the first to note this "revolutionary" part of Tramp platform:
Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble
and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in
which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years.
But I also noticed something surprising. In each of the speeches I watched, Trump spent a good
part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate issue, one that could even be called left-wing.
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about
it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build
a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame.
He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by
Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies
that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those
companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
"... Yes, in the sense that it had nothing to do with fulfilling the expectations of people who voted for it. But certainly it may had something to do with weakening the EU under German and to lesser extent French leadership. Releasing thousands of refugees from Turkey to Europe in 2015 in the direction of Germany was probably also a part of weakening the EU plan. The wholehearted welcoming of refugees by Merkel and German elites is a part of a theater as well but for a different audience. ..."
"... What about Viktor Orbán? What about the whole Visegrad Group? What about Marine Le Pen? Do you side with them, or against them, in their struggle against the wholesale cultural transformation of Europe through mass immigration? ..."
"... The Empire "lowerarchy" only needs entertain the voter masses during the theatric event popularly known as POTUS elections. They know that the People never get a candidate choice which is not pre-approved. ..."
"... In fact, I intuit that The Empire appreciates having even major "idiot" donors to their uni-Party campaign theater. ..."
Good points, Priss Factor, and I will add one for your consideration.
At Davos 2017, Anthony Scaramucci assured the congregation that "President Trump is
the last hope of the globalists."
I am mindful how powerful forces of Deception can cunningly co-opt populism /
nationalism to their N.W.O. advantage.
A question.
Do you believe international banksters gave the Brits an opportunity to decide whether
"in or out" of the EUROPEAN UNION?
I think the Brexit outcome was theater, a globalist "invasion" & occupation of
planet-scale perception.
Thanks and I trust you will reply!
===
I think the Brexit outcome was theater
Yes, in the sense that it had nothing to do with fulfilling the expectations of people
who voted for it. But certainly it may had something to do with weakening the EU under
German and to lesser extent French leadership. Releasing thousands of refugees from Turkey
to Europe in 2015 in the direction of Germany was probably also a part of weakening the EU
plan. The wholehearted welcoming of refugees by Merkel and German elites is a part of a
theater as well but for a different audience.
@Vinteuil If The Powers That
Be (TPTB) in Europe constantly attacked Islam & demanded the repatriation of Muslims to
their homelands, the Dinh/Revusky thesis would at least *make sense.* The hatred of Muslims
by TPTB would explain why they go to such trouble to fake all these attacks.
But, in fact, said powers endlessly insist that Not All Muslims Are Like That, and do
everything they can to import more of them.
Angela Merkel, anybody? Jean-Claude Juncker? The entire European MSM? I mean, hello?
And they stigmatize anybody who doubts the wisdom of this policy - like, say, Marine Le
Pen or Viktor Orbán - as "far right" extremists! Serious question, VD/JR:
What about Viktor Orbán? What about the whole Visegrad Group? What about Marine
Le Pen? Do you side with them, or against them, in their struggle against the wholesale
cultural transformation of Europe through mass immigration?
Yes, in the sense that it had nothing to do with fulfilling the expectations of people
who voted for it. But certainly it may had something to do with weakening the EU under
German and to lesser extent French leadership. Releasing thousands of refugees from Turkey
to Europe in 2015 in the direction of Germany was probably also a part of weakening the EU
plan. The wholehearted welcoming of refugees by Merkel and German elites is a part of a
theater as well but for a different audience. Utu,
For me, the title of this article alone is a learning experience.
The Empire "lowerarchy" only needs entertain the voter masses during the theatric event
popularly known as POTUS elections. They know that the People never get a candidate choice
which is not pre-approved.
In fact, I intuit that The Empire appreciates having even major "idiot" donors to their
uni-Party campaign theater.
Ecomonist is a propaganda venue not so much about globalism as about
neoliberalism. This is one of the leading neoliberal publications.
Notable quotes:
"... Mr Derbyshire is wrong to say that the Antifa and their like are funded by the "Billionaire Left". They do fund them, but to call them the Billionaire Left is incorrect. These people are best described as Corporatist Oligarchs, aided and created by Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is not liberal, it is thoroughly illiberal and unconcerned about free markets or free societies. As an example, SABMiller and Anheuser-Busch are merging. They will have 45% of the US beer market, when merged. 30 years, when the US still had competition laws, this would not be permitted. Indeed, it would not even be attempted. ..."
Given that
The Economist
is a major journalistic voice for the globalist,
nation-hating, open-borders, anti-Trump club of
the Billionaire
Left
; and given that
AntiFa
is the "
muscle
" of that club; it's not very surprising that when our President attacks AntiFa,
The Economist
pulls out all the stops.
The cover
of the current
(August 19th-25th) issue tells you all you need to know. Trump is bellowing into a megaphone
drawn as a sideways-lying KKK hood.
The accompanying editorial is what you'd expect.
His unsteady response [i.e. to the riot engineered by state and city authorities in
Charlottesville last week] contains a terrible message for Americans. Far from being the
savior of the Republic, their President is politically inept, morally barren and
temperamentally unfit for office.
It comes of course with a doctored version of history to conform to current CultMarx
dogmas.
White supremacists and neo-Nazis yearn for a society based on race, which America fought a
world war to prevent.
If you had asked 1,000 Americans in 1945 what they had been fighting for, then ranked their
responses by common themes, I venture to suggest that "to prevent a society based on race"
would not have been anywhere near the top of the rankings. I wonder if it would even have
figured at all.
And what a great many white Americans today yearn for is a society
not
based on
race: one in which their own race is
not
constantly belittled and insulted by talk of
"white privilege," one
not
riddled with preferences and favoritism on behalf of other
races, one in which
multicultural
triumphalists
do
not
crow over whites' impending replacement, and elites do
not
seem hell-bent on
bringing about that
replacement
.
The Economist
tells us that defending Confederate statues!a cause which, for 150
years, was not even
present
in the collective American consciousness because those
statues were not threatened!is a rearguard action by the evil, bitter past against
the Radiant
Future
.
Mr Trump's seemingly heartfelt defence of those marching to defend Confederate statues
spoke to the degree to which white grievance and angry, sour nostalgia is part of his world
view.
Perhaps one man's "angry, sour nostalgia" is another man's natural reaction to great but
unnecessary social changes undertaken to the advantage of people who hate him.
What do you have to drink to get through
Economist
drivel/propaganda? I'm spending
some time in a hotel where we have CNN. I can't watch more than two to three
minutes–nothing but Trump criticism. The Russian news channels are more informative
even though my Russian is very rudimentary
Mr Derbyshire is wrong to say that the Antifa and their like are funded by the
"Billionaire Left". They do fund them, but to call them the Billionaire Left is
incorrect.
These people are best described as Corporatist Oligarchs, aided and created by Neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is not liberal, it is thoroughly illiberal and unconcerned about free markets
or free societies. As an example, SABMiller and Anheuser-Busch are merging. They will have
45% of the US beer market, when merged. 30 years, when the US still had competition laws,
this would not be permitted. Indeed, it would not even be attempted.
Effective competition laws are one of the cornerstones of a Capitalist society, or even
one with a more Mixed Economy. Large areas of the US economy are now dominated by
oligopolies: individual companies are often largely owned or controlled by one person,
sometimes a few. These oligopolists seek cheap labour, open borders, free trade and exemption
from the laws of the state. Indeed, as the TPTA made explicit, they wanted to be subject to
rules made by themselves, not any state.
Their aims cannot be said to be left wing. These policies benefit a small number of oligarchs
and their associates, whose income has risen enormously. Most of the rest of us suffer as a
result.
These oligarchs not only fund dim-witted left wing groups to do their bidding, they
control most of the media and the political parties. They constitute a very serious threat to
the State, Society and ordinary people.
These oligopolies must be broken up and sold in parts to a wide range of new owners.
Effective Competition Laws must be reinstated and anti-completion laws ( e.g.
Telecommunications Act 1996 ) rescinded. The holdings of individual oligarchs should be
confiscated without compensation and the worst offenders (Soros, Bezos, Zuckerberg et al )
sent to Work Camps in Northern Alaska, along with all the staff of $PLC. The money so
confiscated should be donated to charitable funds, e.g. VDARE, The John Derbyshire Retirement
Fund.
As a previous 20 year subscriber to the Economist magazine, this article touches a raw
nerve in me. There was a time when I had a fascination with the world of globalism and the
Economist was a source of great wisdom to be cherished on a Sunday morning. But as the real
world of globalism started showing its ugly head, I started getting tired of this mouthpiece
of the Illuminati and their mega sophisticated propaganda news of which I will expose some of
the important myths they have acclaimed during the 90′s and in the first decade of the
21st century. Unfortunately, I don't have the references for these articles as I am drawing
from my long memory:
-In one of their articles about the falling crime rate in America, they credited Roe vs Wade
for legalizing abortion " which led to a marked decline in undesired children and therefore a
reduced crime rate". Indicting innocent unborn children as potential criminals is the
Economist way. It escaped them, that had abortion been legal when Steven Jobs saw the light
of day, chances are the man would have not lived as a child born out of wedlock.
-The Economist called for Arab oil producers to reduce the price of a barrel of oil to USD
5.00 to drive all potential non OPEC competitors out of the market in order to survive the
coming drop in the price of oil. What happened after this article is that oil prices kept
creeping up until it reached the price of USD 147.
-The Economist was a supporter of the abrogation of the Glass Steegal Act that separated
commercial banking from investment banking calling it an outdated law. Needless to remind the
reader that the cancellation of the law by the Clinton Administration at the behest of Robert
Rubin who had been appointed as Citi Chair while still working for the U S government was a
case of conflict of interest and the reason for the 2008 financial crisis and the phony
legacy of " too big to fail" and " too big to jail".
- The Economist was as big of a supporter of the war on Iraq just as its ilk The New York
Slimes, a war that has killed millions and cost the American tax payer trillions of
Dollars.
I will limit my critique of the Economist to the above points while hoping that other new
doubters in the authenticity of this propaganda machine will contribute theirs.
The New Yorker used a similar Trump/KKK cover. These people have such original minds. My
guess is there's a new Journolist site somewhere that hasn't been smoked out yet, because the
coordination is clear as day.
@Diversity Heretic
What do you have to drink to get through
Economist
drivel/propaganda? I'm spending some time in a hotel where we have CNN. I can't watch more
than two to three minutes--nothing but Trump criticism. The Russian news channels are more
informative even though my Russian is very rudimentary A life-long friend visiting from Italy
this past December, while staying in a Manhattan hotel, noted that the CNN programming was
all anti-Trump, all the time. He wondered if they reported any news.
Yes some percentage are probably racist. But majority of people who are voted again globalism in the USA in the recent election,
sending Hillary packing, are not.
The death of Heather Heyer allow media to paint alt-right as 'domestic terrorists.' Hysteria wipe out by the media, the political
establishment, and the technocracy in Silicon Valley moved into over-drive and rached the proportion of an entirely artificial moral
panic.
M edia attention to the non-event in Charlottesville lasted an astonishing three full days. It completely displaced coverage devoted
to instances of Islamic terror and eclipses Western coverage devoted to serious terrorist incidents in the Middle East. Charlottesville
has been packaged for mass consumption as even that proved that anti-globalization forces are illegitimate and need to be procecuted.
Media has been attempting to spin this incident as some kind of defining historical moment -- a litmus test for the tolerance of
contemporary society.
Notable quotes:
"... The anti-globalization movement is a loose coalition of many, very diverse groups that are fighting the government/corporate
alliance and their corporate globalization agenda. They have different end goals and different tactics, but all have the purpose to
stop the course of corporate globalization. The diverse nature of the anti-globalization movement has resulted in some unique strengths
and weaknesses of the movement. An understanding of the nature of these groups is necessary to try to understand the movement and to
understand what the movement is doing. ..."
Original title: The Protests of the Anti-Globalization Movement
A new social movement is gaining strength. This movement is commonly referred to as the anti-globalization movement, although
it might more correctly be referred to as the anti-corporate globalization movement. This movement gained notoriety at the WTO protests
in Seattle on November 30 th , 1999. On this day approximately 60,000 people took to the streets of Seattle and used peaceful
protest and civil disobedience to shut down the WTO negotiations. Since then similar protests have occurred across North America
and Europe. With each protest the movement gains support from the public and solidarity among its members. And with each protest
the police state oppression grows as well.
The anti-globalization movement is a loose coalition of many, very diverse groups that are fighting the government/corporate
alliance and their corporate globalization agenda. They have different end goals and different tactics, but all have the purpose
to stop the course of corporate globalization. The diverse nature of the anti-globalization movement has resulted in some unique
strengths and weaknesses of the movement. An understanding of the nature of these groups is necessary to try to understand the movement
and to understand what the movement is doing.
The groups that make up the anti-globalization movement can be split into six categories. There are the environmental and social
justice movements, the third world groups, the organized labour groups, the indigenous rights movement, the nationalist groups, and
the moral majority movement. These categories are not strict divisions. Some groups may have ideologies common to two different categories,
and individuals may be sympathetic to the ideologies of one category while actively working with a group from another. But these
simple divisions serve to help understand this diverse group.
The visible groups in the anti-globalization movement that get identified by the public as the trouble causing protestors are
the environmental and social justice groups. These groups can be grouped together as they have a common complaint about corporate
globalization -- it destroys the environment and social justice. Concerns that these groups are fighting against include species
and habitat loss, pollution, unsustainable resource use, loss of democracy, loss of human rights, gender and race inequality, and
restriction of sexuality. Individual groups may be more specific in their concerns and deal with only one aspect of the environment
or social justice or more general and include the entire gambit. But these groups would agree on all of the issues presented above,
they merely have different focuses.
These groups are predominantly white middle-class activists that have the resource base to mobilize against the system. A common
criticism of these groups is the lack of participation of people from other ethnic or socio-economic backgrounds in a movement that
claims to represent the people. However, this is a strong and well organized part of the anti-globalization movement that has had
some success in bringing about change. The environmental and social justice groups can be divided into two broad sub-categories based
on their proposed solution: there are the anarchist groups and the neo-liberal reform groups.
The anarchist segment is different from other activist segments because they are not striving for reform. The anarchists, more
than any other group, includes a very diverse number of autonomous groups but some generalizations can be made. These groups think
that the hierarchical consumerist driven system is the problem. The solution is not to get some political change, but rather to change
the entire framework that the system works in. This philosophy incorporates Thoreau and his anti-growth, small is beautiful ideas,
Gandhi's ideas of Swadeshi, and ecofeminist antipatriarchical and antihierarchical ideas.
... ... ...
The anarchist groups are fundamentally against hierarchy.
... ... ...
All of these anarchist groups are non-violent, but there is some disagreement in what that means. Some groups say that property
damage is not violence, while others say that violence is violence whether directed against people or property. Proponents of property
damage say that the only way to stop corporations is to hurt them financially and property damage hurts them financially. The most
well publicized of these groups are the militant anarchists of Eugene, but there are many such groups across North America and Europe.
These groups are usually referred to as the Black Bloc. The Black Bloc refers to a commonality in ideology, not a formal organization.
Any one group within the Black Bloc may consist of 10 to 20 individuals and there is no formal organization between groups (Warcry
(4) , on
Breaking the Spell ).
... ... ...
The anarchist subcategory of the environmental and social justice movement is visible and intriguing, but at least as powerful
are the neo-liberal reformist environmental and social justice movements. These groups want to reform of the capitalist system to
include protections for the environment and to ensure social justice. These groups are traditional, hierarchical, top-down organizations.
They are the publically known activist groups with the majority of the public finding, but not the strength behind the anti-globalization
protests.
Some neo-liberal reform groups can be very radical. They can propose radical political change (such as the cessation of all logging).
What differentiates neo-liberal reform groups is that they propose to achieve their goals through regulations imposed within the
existing system. They are in support of the neo-liberal economic agenda, they just want to be able to add in certain regulations
to protect those things that they value. It is important to note that these groups may not consider themselves to be in favor of
neo-liberalism. But they are in support of it in that they wish to use its existing framework and build on it to make it more palatable.
Also, many individuals within some of the more radical neo-liberal reform groups (i.e. Greenpeace, Sierra Club) may actually have
personal anarchist philosophies but are working within a neo-liberal reform organization.
Neo-liberal reform groups do use traditional political channels to try to effect traditional political change. They will attempt
to influence elections and they will use lobbying. Some neo-liberal reform groups will also support civil disobedience or diversity
of tactics (Loretta Gerlach
(9) , personal
communication). Those that do use them hope to cause political change through the same three mechanisms that the anarchist groups
were using to create cultural change.
Another broad category of anti-globalization movements are the third world groups. Groups of people who are directly and immediately
harmed by globalization organize against imperialism in other countries. They have much less strength on the international level.
They have dedicated people but not the resources to mobilize. Other groups (especially the neo-liberal reform groups mentioned above)
may sponsor individuals from these third world groups to come to Canada to speak. Both Berta Caceras of the Lenca people in Honduras
(sponsored by Rights Action) and Alberto Achito of the Embera Katio of Colombia (sponsored by the Inter Church Committee on Human
Rights) have came to the U of L this semester. Some first world activist groups send aid to these third world groups as well. And
some groups have worked to sponsor third world representatives to the protests at Seattle and Quebec City.
The third world groups are involved in a very different scale of protest against globalization. People in these groups are manufacturing
discontent at a considerable risk to their own life. These groups are striving for very immediate practical solutions to specific
problems (i.e. getting killed by US funded paramilitary forces). There has been some work to try to use these dedicated third world
groups to create lasting political change. There has been student activist education of FARC (Force of Armed Revolutionaries of Colombia)
in political theory (Oscar Guzman
(10) , personal
communication).
A third category of anti-globalization movements are the labour movements. The labour movement is a very strong movement with
a large vested interest in the process of globalization. These groups range from groups with Marxist end goals (conventional organized
unions) to anarcho-syndicate end goals (Industrial Workers of the World). The tactics employed by labour movements range from very
conventional to civil disobedience. The Steelworkers Union was a civil disobedience force in the November 30 th protests
in Seattle, and CUPE National is organizing for the Summit of the Americas protests in Quebec City.
Many of the groups within the environmental and social justice movements are attempting to forge alliances with groups within
the labour movement. This has been actively hindered by both government and corporate forces, especially in the labour industry.
Both government and corporate forces work hard to manufacture hatred towards environmentalists within the logging community and encourage
and aid vigilante behaviour amoung the loggers (Bryce Gilroy-Scott
(11) , personal
communication).
The indigenous rights movement is another category of activists groups within the anti-globalization movement. The goal of this
movement is indigenous sovereignty. The indigenous rights movement is also against the corporate/government alliance and shares many
common values with anarchist groups (such as community empowerment and social justice). Indigenous rights groups have yet to become
very active in the anti-globalization movement but they have made some notable contributions and interest in the movement is growing.
... ... ...
A very different category of anti-globalization groups are the nationalist groups. These are movements to protect the sovereignty
of nations that is eroded by international trade agreements. This is a strong movement that generally comes from the right end of
the political spectrum. It generally has very little in common with the internationalist focused movements of the other groups. Many
of the nationalist groups are strong supporters of democracy and do connect with the other anti-globalization movements in this respect.
The main unifying force between the nationalist groups and the previously mentioned groups is that they have the common goal of fighting
corporate power. The tactics of this group can include property damage in some of the more militant groups.
The moral majority is another category of anti-globalization groups that has even less in common with the above mentioned groups
than the nationalist groups. These are ultra-right wing groups that are generally Christian. These groups had a presence in Seattle
(Stu Crawford, personal experience). These groups may feel that the corporatization of the planet results in an erosion of their
strong family values. Generally the only commonality that they have with the other anti-globalization groups is that they have a
common enemy.
This wide diversity of groups reviewed above creates a very unique movement.
"... Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power. ..."
"... "That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying." ..."
"... The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free. I've got my hands back on my weapons ..."
Axios:
that part of that war effort might include a brand new cable news network to the right of Fox
News.
Axios' Jonathan Swan hears Bannon has told friends he sees a massive opening to the right of
Fox News , raising the possibility that he's going to start a network. Bannon's friends are speculating about whether it will be a standalone TV network, or online
streaming only.
Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a
channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist
direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power.
Now he has the means, motive and opportunity: His chief financial backer, Long Island hedge
fund billionaire Bob Mercer, is ready to invest big in what's coming next, including a huge
overseas expansion of Breitbart News. Of course, this new speculation comes after Bannon declared last Friday that he was "
going to war" for
Trump ...
" If there's any confusion out there, let me clear it up. I'm leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents... on Capitol
Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,
Meanwhile, with regard his internal adversaries , at the departments of State and Defense,
who think the United States can enlist Beijing's aid on the North Korean standoff, and at
Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system,
Bannon was ever harsher...
"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which
was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only
temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has
big plans to marginalize their influence.
"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury
and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."
Finally, perhaps no one can summarize what Bannon has planned for the future than Bannon
himself:
"The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free.
I've got my hands back on my weapons.
I am definitely going to crush the opposition. There's no
doubt. I built a f***ing machine at Breitbart. And now we're about to rev that machine up."
But mainstream economists and organizations are now starting to say that globalization
increases inequality.
The
National Bureau of
Economic Research
– the largest economics research organization in the United States,
with many Nobel economists and Chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisers as members –
published
, a report in May finding:
Recent globalization trends have increased U.S. inequality by disproportionately raising top
incomes.
***
Rising import competition has adversely affected manufacturing employment, led firms to
upgrade their production and caused labor earnings to fall.
NBER
explains
that
globalization allows executives to gain the system to their advantage:
This paper examines the role of globalization in the rapid increase in top incomes. Using a
comprehensive data set of thousands of executives at U.S. firms from 1993-2013, we find that
exports, along with technology and firm size, have contributed to rising executive
compensation. Isolating changes in exports that are unrelated to the executive's talent and
actions, we show that globalization has affected executive pay not only through market channels
but also through non-market channels. Furthermore, exogenous export shocks raise executive
compensation mostly through bonus payments in poor-governance settings, in line with the
hypothesis that globalization has enhanced the executive's rent capture opportunities. Overall,
these results indicate that globalization has played a more central role in the rapid growth of
executive compensation and U.S. inequality than previously thought, and that rent capture is an
important part of this story.
A World Bank document
says
globalization "may have led to rising wage
inequality". It notes:
Recent evidence for the US suggests that adjustment costs for those employed in sectors
exposed to import competition from China are much higher than previously thought.
***
Trade may have contributed to rising inequality in high income economies .
The World Bank also
cites
Nobel prize-winning economist Eric Maskin's view that globalization increases
inequality because it increases the mismatch between the skills of different workers.
A report by the International Monetary Fund
notes
:
High trade and financial flows between countries, partly enabled by technological advances,
are commonly cited as driving income inequality . In advanced economies, the ability of firms
to adopt laborsaving technologies and offshoring has been cited as an important driver of the
decline in manufacturing and rising skill premium (Feenstra and Hanson 1996, 1999, 2003) .
***
Increased financial flows, particularly foreign direct investment (FDI) and portfolio flows
have been shown to increase income inequality in both advanced and emerging market economies
(Freeman 2010). One potential explanation is the concentration of foreign assets and
liabilities in relatively higher skill- and technology-intensive sectors, which pushes up the
demand for and wages of higher skilled workers. In addition, FDI could induce skill-specific
technological change, be associated with skill-specific wage bargaining, and result in more
training for skilled than unskilled workers (Willem te Velde 2003). Moreover, low-skill,
outward FDI from advanced economies may in effect be relatively high-skilled, inward FDI in
developing economies (Figini and Görg 2011), thus exacerbating the demand for high-skilled
workers in recipient countries. Financial deregulation and globalization have also been cited
as factors underlying the increase in financial wealth, relative skill intensity, and wages in
the finance industry, one of the fastest growing sectors in advanced economies (Phillipon and
Reshef 2012; Furceri and Loungani 2013).
The Bank of International Settlements – the "Central Banks' Central Bank" – also
notes that globalization isn't all
peaches
and
cream
. The Financial Times
explains
:
A trio of recent papers by top officials from the Bank for International Settlements goes
further, however, arguing that financial globalisation itself makes booms and busts far more
frequent and destabilising than they otherwise would be.
Most economists have been blindsided by the backlash [against globalization]. A few saw it
coming. It is worth studying their reasoning .
***
Branko Milanovic of the City University of New York believes such costs perpetuate a cycle
of globalisation. He argues that periods of global integration and technological progress
generate rising inequality .
Supporters of economic integration underestimated the risks that big slices of society would
feel left behind .
Were the experts wrong about the benefits of trade for the American economy?
***
Voters' anger and frustration, driven in part by relentless globalization and technological
change [has made Trump and Sanders popular, and] is already having a big impact on America's
future, shaking a
once-solid consensus
that freer trade is, necessarily, a good thing.
"The economic populism of the presidential campaign has forced the recognition that expanded
trade is a double-edged sword,"
wrote Jared Bernstein
, former economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
What seems most striking is that the angry working class -- dismissed so often as myopic,
unable to understand the economic trade-offs
presented by trade -- appears to have
understood what the experts are only belatedly finding to be true: The benefits from trade to
the American economy may not always justify its costs.
I
n
a recent study
, three
economists -- David Autor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David Dorn at the
University of Zurich and Gordon Hanson at the University of California, San Diego -- raised a
profound challenge to all of us brought up to believe that economies quickly recover from trade
shocks. In theory, a developed industrial country like the United States adjusts to import
competition by moving workers into more advanced industries that can successfully compete in
global markets.
They examined the experience of American workers after China erupted onto world markets some
two decades ago. The presumed adjustment, they concluded, never happened. Or at least hasn't
happened yet. Wages remain low and unemployment high in the most affected local job markets.
Nationally, there is no sign of offsetting job gains elsewhere in the economy. What's more,
they found that sagging wages in local labor markets exposed to Chinese competition reduced
earnings by $213 per adult per year.
In
another
study
they wrote with Daron Acemoglu and Brendan Price from M.I.T., they estimated that
rising Chinese imports from 1999 to 2011 cost up to 2.4 million American jobs.
"These results should cause us to rethink the short- and medium-run gains from trade," they
argued. "Having failed to anticipate how significant the dislocations from trade might be, it
is incumbent on the literature to more convincingly estimate the gains from trade, such that
the case for free trade is not based on the sway of theory alone, but on a foundation of
evidence that illuminates who gains, who loses, by how much, and under what conditions."
***
The case for globalization based on the fact that it helps expand the economic pie by 3
percent becomes much weaker when it also changes the distribution of the slices by 50 percent,
Mr. Autor argued.
And Steve Keen – economics professor and Head of the School of Economics, History and
Politics at Kingston University in London –
notes
:
Plenty of people will try to convince you that globalization and free trade could benefit
everyone, if only the gains were more fairly shared. The only problem with the party, they'll
say, is that the neighbours weren't invited. We'll share the benefits more equally now, we
promise.
Let's keep the party going. Globalization and Free Trade are good.
This belief is shared by almost all politicians in both parties, and it's an article of
faith for the economics profession.
***
It's a fallacy based on a fantasy, and it has been ever since David Ricardo dreamed up the
idea of "Comparative Advantage and the Gains from Trade" two centuries ago.
***
[Globalization's] little shell and pea trick is therefore like most conventional economic
theory: it's neat, plausible, and wrong. It's the product of armchair thinking by people who
never put foot in the factories that their economic theories turned into rust buckets.
So the gains from trade for everyone and for every country that could supposedly be shared
more fairly simply aren't there in the first place. Specialization is a con job!but one that
the Washington elite fell for (to its benefit, of course). Rather than making a country better
off, specialization makes it worse off, with scrapped machinery that's no longer useful for
anything, and with less ways to invent new industries from which growth actually comes.
Excellent real-world research by Harvard University's "
Atlas of Economic Complexity
" has found diversity, not
specialization, is the "magic ingredient" that actually generates growth. Successful countries
have a diversified set of industries, and they grow more rapidly than more specialized
economies because they can invent new industries by melding existing ones.
***
Of course, specialization, and the trade it necessitates, generates plenty of financial
services and insurance fees, and plenty of international junkets to negotiate trade deals. The
wealthy elite that hangs out in the Washington party benefits, but the country as a whole
loses, especially its working class.
Some Big Companies Losing Interest In
Globalization
Ironically, the Washington Post
noted
in 2015 that the giant multinational corporations themselves are losing interest in
globalization and many are starting to bring the factories back home:
Yet despite all this activity and enthusiasm, hardly any of the promised returns from
globalization have materialized, and what was until recently a taboo topic inside
multinationals -- to wit, should we reconsider, even rein in, our global growth strategy? -- has
become an urgent, if still hushed, discussion.
***
Given the failures of globalization, virtually every major company is struggling to find the
most productive international business model.
***
Reshoring -- or relocating manufacturing operations back to Western factories from emerging
nations -- is one option. As labor costs escalate in places such as China, Thailand, Brazil and
South Africa, companies are finding that making products in, say, the United States that are
destined for North American markets is much more cost-efficient. The gains are even more
significant when productivity of emerging countries is taken into account.
***
Moreover, new disruptive manufacturing technologies -- such as 3-D printing, which allows
on-site production of components and parts at assembly plants -- make the idea of locating
factories where the assembled products will be sold more practicable.
***
GE, Whirlpool, Stanley Black & Decker, Peerless and many others have reopened shuttered
factories or built new ones in the United States.
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately
understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together,
into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History
makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations
cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so
that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts
about those international events.
The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.
First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented
(via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the
current news: America's aristocracy
controls both the U.S.
federal government and
press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance
from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly
called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance
presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which
is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The
MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely
drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get
overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's
international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires
behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC.
The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the
American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around
the world.
The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes
a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from
the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those
privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it
protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the
U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's
super-rich.
Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly
as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means)
as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies
in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats
with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy
resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced
against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is
the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's
billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based
international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government
actually represents .
The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand
current events.
For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control
of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately
replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances
between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy
over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy
is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining
the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often
referred to the U.S. government,
"The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has
been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come."
To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable."
All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for
the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise.
Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money,
to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit
their given nation's public.
The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called
"Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been
central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being
increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking
up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed
and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without
any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into.
Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will
against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief
locus of the old order's fractures .
This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the
MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic
sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are
increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the
backlash-phase of it.
This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately,
a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread
like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from
Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part
of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.)
Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum,
then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them
protection as Russian citizens.
On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued
"Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the
Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law
right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia
and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty"
over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans
by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet
era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around
the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships
even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have
asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization
of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed
control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right
Ukrainian thugs, who were
racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what
Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's
vassal aristocracies then
imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted
overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive
rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government
and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this
had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western
press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a
secret their public would not be allowed to know.)
It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though
the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined
on August 1st,
"Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the
bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed
it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage --
the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that
U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had
secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under
Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this
hot war against Russia is via the
"Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also
backed up by
major increases in physical weaponry , and by
the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear
weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible
blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian
people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western
press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments
have become lying aggressors.
Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online,
by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of
the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that
are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being
referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to
on this):
All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other
nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of
the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another,
so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military)
aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here
from rt dot com):
"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights
concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining
why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations
regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such
as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in
the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned.
So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading
this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is
being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break
their existing corrupt mold) don't publish
this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type,
such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia.
The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on
the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never
expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is
'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.
The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian
edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined
"Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war
on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian
but all editions, was
"Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed
Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign
to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's
Xinhua News Agency bannered
"Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" ,
and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29
showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the
way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent
were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's
performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his
single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME
cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires
are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.
Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and
do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin
, because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like
finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely
done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval
of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings,
they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about
this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the
ugly reality about him.
However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is
a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue
a study,
"Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results
of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear
exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded
that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor;
and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing
words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence
of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid
to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."
The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown
by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to
overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende,
Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and
against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always
claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have
been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed
by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government
has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted.
Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not
produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces
only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments
the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they
order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened
when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those
80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and,
after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60%
.
President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not
as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to
be, he is fascist ; just
not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular
among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their
'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad --
e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His
fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media,
which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President,
Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy
itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret,
of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy
has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling
its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most
recently, of
They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of
CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS:
The Event that Created Christianity .
Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic
government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the
correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been
fascist to some degree.
One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise
the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium
it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The
claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer
a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance
of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised
by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.
" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic
public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "
These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it
clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs
Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador
for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should
be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.
Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump
does not hold her hand.
Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly
during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old
Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely
integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered
by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state
of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing
as a normal business practice.
On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that
since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore
the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever
since Wilson).
Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not
so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and
beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein
running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th
Century.
Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and
anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity,
the Roman empire, were celebrated.
One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians,
it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very
hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini
was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their
hatred of communism.
Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what
nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true
fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)
US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the
nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.
It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.
Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it
might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.
Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia,
deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews,
BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran,
Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.
They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be
different from Jewish obsessions.
Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be
very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.
So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat'
around.
We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But
Hitler had Rohm wiped out.
Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.
One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's
piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants.
But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists'
wanted.
It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what
is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.
Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.
Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling
goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek
ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never
been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.
I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites
is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate
sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.
Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi."
I'm open to suggestions.
and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments
against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the
master-aristocracy's will.
They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon
media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads
skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe,
as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has
been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial
chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's
economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.
No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering
sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations
given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.
@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine
private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him:
one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed
his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.
While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage
the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One
solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology,
and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political
candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy,
narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come
from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the
likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would
be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.
Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most.
Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity
and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock
being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good
deal right.
First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by
Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst
kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because
if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be
trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the
little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.
It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of
WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.
Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite
Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3%
of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be
closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita
Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.
The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them
blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State
Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics
– is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.
Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against
the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry
for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are
far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the
American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem
'immigrant' as Pope.
Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and
America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should
need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's
non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.
Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville
was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all.
This story must be told.
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling
"aristocracy." Lots of Jews.
Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."
Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians
mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of
Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.
Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer
Lansky and many many others.
Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.
"... Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one. ..."
"... Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense. ..."
"... Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual. ..."
"... n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills. ..."
"... The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland. ..."
"... I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it. ..."
"... As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration. ..."
"... In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway. ..."
"... The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise. ..."
"... The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots. ..."
The announcement of the
'resignation' of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon represents the culmination of a process which began with the equally
forced 'resignation' of President Trump's first National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.
Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people
like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one.
Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican
conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands:
General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the
Secretary of Defense.
In the case of Bannon, it is his clear that his ousting was insisted on by General Kelly, who is
continuing to tighten
his control of the White House.
Bannon's removal – not coincidentally – has come at the same time that General H.R. McMaster is
completing his purge of
the remaining Flynn holdovers on the staff of the National Security Council.
Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior
official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual.
I n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be
no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than
rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated.
Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political
skills.
Bannon is sometimes credited as being the author of the President's two travel ban Executive Orders. I am sure this wrong. The
Executive Orders clearly originate with the wishes of the President himself. If Bannon did have any role in them – which is possible
– it would have been secondary to the President's own. I would add that in that case Bannon must take some of the blame for the disastrously
incompetent execution of the first of these two Executive Orders, which set the scene for the legal challenges that followed.
The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President
delivered during his recent trip to Poland.
I have already made known my views of this speech
. I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points,
and the President has derived no political benefit from it.
However it is the closest thing to an ideological statement the President has made since he took office, and Bannon is widely
believed – probably rightly – to have written it.
As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and
appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible
since the inauguration.
In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump
administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to
know much about Bannon anyway.
It is in a completely different respect – one wholly independent of President Trump's success or failure as President – that the
events of the last few weeks give cause for serious concern.
The events of the last year highlight the extent to which the US is in deep political crisis.
The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are
openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both
now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise.
All this is happening at the same time that there is growing criticism of the economic institutions of the US government, which
since the 2008 financial crisis have seemed to side with a wealthy and unprincipled minority against the interests of the majority.
The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure
of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots.
It is striking that the only officials President Trump can nominate to senior positions who do not immediately run into bitter
opposition have been – apart from General Flynn, who was a special case – senior soldiers.
Now the military in the persons of Kelly, McMaster and Mattis find themselves at the heart of the US government to an extent that
has never been true before in US history, even during the Presidencies of former military men like Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant
or Dwight Eisenhower.
The last time that happened in a major Western nation – that the civilian institutions of the state had become so dysfunctional
that the military as the only functioning institution left ended up dominating the nation's government and deciding the nation's
policies – was in Germany in the lead up to the First World War.
Time will show what the results will be this time, but the German example is hardly a reassuring one.
To a certain extent Bannon symbolized backlash against neoliberal globalization, that is mounting in the USA. With him gone Trump
is a really emasculated and become a puppet of generals, who are the only allies left capable to run the show. Some of them are real
neocons. What a betrayal of voters who are sick and tired of wars for expansion and protection of global neoliberal empire.
Notable quotes:
"... What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit. ..."
"... The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies). ..."
"... Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters hate the idea of taking it away. ..."
"... So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump is now bankrupt. ..."
"... with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars. ..."
Everyone seems to be reporting that Steve Bannon is out. I have no insights about the palace intrigue; and anyone who thinks
Trump will become "presidential" now is an idiot. In particular, I very much doubt that the influence of white supremacists and
neo-Nazis will wane.
What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different
from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit.
The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance
company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies).
Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what
we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama
paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters
hate the idea of taking it away.
So what's a tax-cutter to do? His agenda is fundamentally unpopular; how can it be sold?
One long-standing answer is to muddy the waters, and make elections about white resentment. That's been the strategy since
Nixon, and Trump turned the dial up to 11. And they've won a lot of elections -- but never had the political capital to reverse
the welfare state.
Another strategy is to invoke voodoo: to claim that taxes can be cut without spending cuts, because miracles will happen. That
has sometimes worked as a political strategy, but overall it seems to have lost its punch. Kansas is a cautionary tale; and under
Obama federal taxes on the top 1 percent basically went back up to pre-Reagan levels.
So what did Trump seem to offer that was new? First, during the campaign he combined racist appeals with claims that he wouldn't
cut the safety net. This sounded as if he was offering a kind of herrenvolk welfare state: all the benefits you expect, but only
for your kind of people.
Second, he offered economic nationalism: we were going to beat up on the Chinese, the Mexicans, somebody, make the Europeans
pay tribute for defense, and that would provide the money for so much winning, you'd get tired of winning. Economic nonsense,
but some voters believed it.
Where are we now? The herrenvolk welfare state never materialized, in part because Trump is too lazy to understand policy at
all, and outsourced health care to the usual suspects. So Trumpcare turned out to be the same old Republican thing: slash benefits
for the vulnerable to cut taxes for the rich. And it was desperately unpopular.
Meanwhile, things have moved very slowly on the economic nationalism front -- partly because a bit of reality struck, as export
industries realized what was at stake and retailers and others balked at the notion of new import taxes. But also, there were
very few actual voices for that policy with Trump's ear -- mainly Bannon, as far as I can tell.
So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump
is now bankrupt.
But he does have the racism thing. And my prediction is that with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually
double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such
a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars.
"... " Hey, I'm a nationalist and a globalist ," Donald Trump recently declared, "I'm both". The only way in which the two (seemingly contradictory) positions can be reconciled is by introducing a third term, one that is absent from Trump's vocabulary: imperialism ..."
"... Trump defaults to what is common, established, and respected in the history of Washington politics. In other words, he turns to the only dominant understanding of American international politics that anyone socialized in the US would possess: "American leadership," that is, US global dominance. ..."
"... My thesis revolves around facts such as senior Goldman Sachs executives readily jumping aboard the engine of the "Trump train," after being denounced in Trump campaign advertising, which suggests that they do not see Trump's much touted nationalism as anything that needs to cause them any concern. There are now more Goldman Sachs figures in the Trump administration than in any previous administration. 1 This is perhaps the most fundamental "reversal" of Trump's course, that I argue points to the proper framework for assessing all of the other reversals that pile up with each passing day. That Trump plays to the media is a superficial sign of the deeper currents outlined below. ..."
"... A nationalism that extends itself globally, that projects its "interests" into other nations and then proclaims the right to defend those interests, is best understood as imperialism. ..."
"... As many others have argued, anthropologist Bruce Kapferer made the point that "the concept of globalization disguises the emergence to unchallenged (if momentary) global imperial dominance of the USA, whose own claim to international sovereignty reduces the sovereignty of many nation-states" (Kapferer, 2005, p. 286). ..."
"... Trump is now committed to a nationalist globalism ..."
"... That the US and Western mass media continue to lampoon Trump may thus unintentionally serve to undermine US foreign policy, since it is led by Trump. ..."
"... With his statement that he is both a nationalist and a globalist, Trump is making a major concession that contradicts a position he announced a year ago to the day: "We will no longer surrender our country or its people to the false song of globalism ". ..."
"... One of the more difficult questions involves explaining what moved Trump to abandon his promised foreign policy goals and his repeatedly stated anti-interventionist and anti-globalist principles that attracted significant support. ..."
"... state-subsidized ..."
"... shut up and keep working ..."
"... Trump may have reversed himself in terms of the opportunistic targeting of Goldman Sachs, as a symbol, but there is little point in evading the fact that he entered the electoral campaign as the owner of a large family corporation. What is more difficult to explain is why Trump, as a national capitalist, lent himself so quickly to supporting a transnational capitalist class with economic and financial interests different from his own, which was also ideologically opposed to his campaign. ..."
"... Ivanka's husband, Jared Kushner, may also be a key to the globalist push in the White House, with his reputed financial ties to George Soros . A strategist for a financial services firm recently exalted that what " stopped nationalism in the White House " was an assemblage of super-wealthy members of the transnational elite (globalists) within the administration. ..."
"
Hey, I'm a nationalist and a globalist ," Donald Trump recently declared, "I'm both". The only
way in which the two (seemingly contradictory) positions can be reconciled is by introducing a third
term, one that is absent from Trump's vocabulary: imperialism .
Trump might not be conscious of the implication of his statement (nor would he be the only one
sleepwalking toward regime change ), but that makes the explanation all the more powerful. In
the absence of both conviction that matches his campaign platform, and a well developed program for
an alternative US foreign policy that transforms the international "order" which the US underpins
-- a very tall order --
Trump defaults to what is common, established, and respected in the history of Washington
politics. In other words, he turns to the only dominant understanding of American international politics
that anyone socialized in the US would possess: "American leadership," that is, US global dominance.
The equipment to fulfill that vision is already in place and ready to produce instant results that
can then be cast as "winning," "standing strong," or as Fox News' Sean Hannity likes to inexplicably
exclaim, "America is back" (from what?). So why did Donald Trump, the so-called outsider, default
to the established course in US politics?
One question is whether Trump drifted into this position out of disorder, confusion, lack of conviction,
and a government undermined by factions. Another is whether he was "placed" in this position (by
others and/or himself), in what would then effectively amount to the corporate oligarchy's biggest
ever electoral heist. Others will instead point to Trump craving respect and adulation, and thus
playing to the media to improve his image. Some have made what I think are misleading and self-serving
arguments: that Trump's changes reflect an encounter with "reality," or represent "learning on the
job". The assumption here is that reality is somehow hard-coded with neoliberal principles. If learning
on the job meant learning to continue the imperial presidency, then they might have a point, even
if it's not the one they wanted to make.
Other questions to ask include (in no particular order of importance):
In which ways does nationalist globalism relate to imperialism?
How does Trump's newfound globalism connect to issues of conflict of interest and nepotism?
What role does class play in charting Trump's actual domestic and foreign policy directions?
Are the ostensible changes traceable to Trump's preexisting and underlying ambitions and interests,
or were the changes forced on him by circumstance?
Is this a story about the workings of the "deep state"?
Is Trump's presidency good news, after all, for extending the life of global liberal capitalism?
How might Trump's presidency end up strengthening the hands of anti-imperialists?
This article (long as it is, it has been significantly abridged), begins by examining "nationalist
globalism". I then focus on changes to Trump's stated positions seen from a domestic angle, and in
particular on his stances regarding Obama and the Clintons, his declared interest in turning the
Republican party into a "workers' party" while in fact returning it to the hold of Wall Street, and
thus I look at the ties between his cabinet, Goldman Sachs, and Wall Street broadly --
this is also where we discuss the nature of the "oligarchic corporate imperial state". After that,
we see how this mutated policy extends internationally, from Cuba to Russia, Syria, North Korea,
NAFTA, NATO, and WikiLeaks. I end the essay by discussing whether we can still proclaim the "end
of liberalism" (short answer: yes), and consider how Trump's presidency could aid the cause of anti-imperialism.
I considered some of the prospects of a Trump presidency with respect to US imperialism in an
equally lengthy article last October. In "
Donald Trump and Empire: An Assessment " I got some things right, and some things wrong, as is
true of everyone else. I asked: "how can Donald Trump make the decline in US global power 'beautiful,'
and how can he turn withdrawal into 'greatness'?". This question is now null and void. I also wrote
that, "on foreign policy, globalization, and military intervention, Donald Trump is a transitional
figure" -- that might hold some validity, but not in any straightforward sense: he may be inadvertently
setting the conditions for a truly transitional figure yet to come (but that could be true of any
representative of the power elite).
I was mistaken however in suggesting that, "Trump would be leading the equivalent of a perestroika
for US empire". I also argued that what Trump was offering was, "not so much radical change as an
intermediate passage, and a way of managing imperial decline" -- from where we now stand, the
last thing that seems to be on Trump's mind is anything remotely to do with "managing decline". Where
the analysis was on slightly less thin ice was when I said that Trump appeared to be, "not much of
one thing, not much of another, and somewhere in between . neither an anti-imperialist nor pro-imperialist,
nor even an absolute non-imperialist" -- but that is perhaps because, inside ambiguity, one
can hide anything. I also pointed out that,
"Nowhere, as far as I have seen, does Donald Trump ever proclaim himself an 'anti-imperialist'.
Apart from using the word 'Empire' for one of his fragrances, there is little evidence of the
word in his writings and speeches. Likewise, he never identifies himself as 'pro-imperialist'
either. Donald Trump certainly does advocate for American power, and 'American strength,' and
even calls himself a militarist on some occasions -- but with more caveats than his political
adversaries".
The above still largely holds, I think. It is also still truer than ever that "there are multiple
competing editions of Donald Trump" -- and one can find support for almost any argument about
Trump's stated intentions, by using Trump's own past words. Where I did point out that Trump had
taken decisively pro-imperialist positions in the past (regardless of his choice of words) was on
Iraq and its oil, on Libya, and on Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela.
Matters have now become considerably simplified. We no longer need to debate where Trump stands
and what he might do once he became president. Now we know what , even if we still debate
why . However, understanding why might tell us something about what comes
next.
My thesis revolves around facts such as senior Goldman Sachs executives readily jumping aboard
the engine of the "Trump train," after being denounced in Trump campaign advertising, which suggests
that they do not see Trump's much touted nationalism as anything that needs to cause them any concern.
There are now more Goldman Sachs figures in the Trump administration than in any previous administration.
1 This is perhaps the most fundamental "reversal" of Trump's course, that I argue points
to the proper framework for assessing all of the other reversals that pile up with each passing day.
That Trump plays to the media is a superficial sign of the deeper currents outlined below.
What is Nationalist Globalism?
A nationalism that extends itself globally, that projects its "interests" into other nations
and then proclaims the right to defend those interests, is best understood as imperialism. Nationalism
and globalization are not striking contradictions, when referring to the ideology of an imperial
state that maximizes its power over globalization processes in order to gain at the expense of other
states. Besides the observation that what we know of as globalization was largely the product of
state action (legislation, economic incentives, building the infrastructures of global commerce and
communications, the creation of multilateral organizations, and so on), one state in particular can
claim a leading role in globalization. Barack Obama could thus declare in 2010, "no nation should
be better positioned to lead in an era of globalization than America -- the Nation that helped
bring globalization about" (quoted in Forte, 2015, p. 10). As many others have argued, anthropologist
Bruce Kapferer made the point that "the concept of globalization disguises the emergence to unchallenged
(if momentary) global imperial dominance of the USA, whose own claim to international sovereignty
reduces the sovereignty of many nation-states" (Kapferer, 2005, p. 286).
... ... ...
Trump is now committed to a nationalist globalism -- or imperialism --
one that is all too familiar and has been described by anthropologist Neil Smith (2005) as "Americanism".
We will need to keep analyzing Trump's policies as the months and years pass, but right now
we have an outline of the kinds of imperialism that Trump upholds. One is an economic imperialism
that goes back to the first premises of the US
"new empire" of the late 1800s: belligerently opening up foreign markets in order to absorb US
overproduction. So far, Trump is using political and economic means to achieve that goal --
as in trying to intimidate Canada into opening up its dairy market to an even greater number of US
imports, while punishing it for exporting cheap softwood lumber to the US. However, he is apparently
willing to trade economic goals for military ones, as in the case of dropping any antagonism toward
China about trade issues, in return for China's promise to somehow alter North Korea's foreign policy,
just as the US escalates military maneuvers with a possible military strike actively being considered.
(Confusingly, he reverses this pattern with South Korea, where military measures were then
clouded
by talk of
revising a trade agreement and extracting payment for US missile defense.)
Added to the corporate capitalist imperialism, and military imperialism , Trump is also toying
with liberal-humanitarian imperialism in the case of Syria. However -- and this is very important
-- what he lacks here is a "soft power" platform of any size or credibility. The ability of
Trump to preside over an effective program of cultural imperialism is diminished to the point of
zero, and is likely far less than even zero. That the US and Western mass media continue to lampoon
Trump may thus unintentionally serve to undermine US foreign policy, since it is led by Trump.
With his statement that he is both a nationalist and a globalist, Trump is making a major
concession that contradicts a position he announced a year ago to the day: "We will no longer surrender
our country or its people to
the false song of globalism ". A year later he effectively declared himself an adherent
to nationalism, plus something false. His statement also marks the new release of yet another edition
of Trump, such that we can set up extensive debates between various versions of Trump as published
in past books, speeches, and interviews. Just on the question of Syria alone, one could produce a
loud debate between
anti-interventionist
Trump of years past and pro-interventionist Trump of today. Explaining this apparent bifurcation,
and attempting to read it into his past statements on US regime change, is a complicated matter,
and those who make light of it with statements of having known with certainty that what we have today
would be the inevitable result, are being disingenuous. 2
The only promise made by Trump that still rings true is that of his "unpredictability". Being
unpredictable and flexible might be virtues in some situations, but when it comes to charting a course,
standing by a campaign platform, and committing oneself to a
contract with voters, such qualities are synonymous with being capricious, unreliable, unsteady,
opportunistic, and even treacherous. That would also hold true in business, and especially when living
up to commitments one makes in deals. That Trump tries to lighten the nature of his apparent deficit
of principles and conviction -- that he essentially admits he will not permit himself to be
fooled by his own words -- only aggravates the problem. A man with such little political accountability
to himself, can hardly be expected to be accountable to everyone else. For his independent-minded
supporters, this will not look like a problem of having a two-sided coin; rather, it's a problem
of having no coin at all if there is no value.
Renewing the Corporate Oligarchic State after November 8, 2016
Among those few who
predicted Trump's victory , few or none predicted that Trump would then move on to defeating
Trump. Some partisans have come up with slogans like "Love Trumps Hate," but no one to my knowledge
has ever exclaimed, "Trump Trumps Trump" -- thankfully. A recent list of the
monumental
ruin to which standard, corporate-fueled and media-driven machine politics fell thanks to the
Trump campaign, provides only an incomplete story of 2016. Now we have to rewrite even the story
of 2016. While a candidate could win a presidential campaign, as an "outsider," even as he was reviled
by his own party elite, demonized by the mass media, shunned by the mass of corporate donors, and
so forth, it also means that the status quo can win on the cheap. The establishment won, and all
without the usual investments, and not so much as a single compliment to the winning candidate who
would uphold their order -- at little or no cost to them. The next US political candidate to
campaign on being an "outsider" will face a greater challenge in being taken seriously; by the same
token, the dominant elites may disarm themselves, thinking the next outsider will be easy to co-opt
or browbeat into submission.
One of the more difficult questions involves explaining what moved Trump to abandon his promised
foreign policy goals and his repeatedly stated anti-interventionist and anti-globalist principles
that attracted significant support. For example, where trade is concerned, Trump has consistently
opposed free trade deals for nearly three decades. He would say that he believed in free trade, but
only if it was fair, and he did not believe any of the existing free trade deals were fair. Yet here
too he would alter course -- what was unfair was something he could generally tolerate for
now. That was not to be predicted, because there was no evidentiary basis for predicting it.
... ... ...
The Workers' Party (brought to you by Carl's Jr.)
Turning to the working class, and Trump's talk of transforming the Republican party into "
the party of the American worker " -- a claim he made both
before
and
after the election -- here two significant acts stand out, and they deserve a longer essay
in their own right. Trump's first choice for Secretary of Labor was none other than
Andrew Puzder , who at
the time was the chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants, which owns Hardee's and Carl's Jr. Puzder
was notoriously anti-union, and his opposition to raising the minimum wage, his
cheating CKE employees of their wages, support for automation, and employment of an undocumented
domestic servant while not paying taxes for her services, hardly represented the qualities of a leader
of some new workers' movement. This is the person Trump chose to supposedly enforce labour regulations.
Later, after Puzder withdrew himself from the nomination, Trump replaced him with
Alex Acosta , dean of the Florida International Law School, who also served on the National Labor
Relations Board and received the support of AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka. This belated correction
-- imposed by circumstances beyond Trump's control -- was among the reasons some still
claim that
Trump should be taken seriously on wanting to make the GOP into the workers' party. I would prefer
to remind the reader about Trump's actual priorities, and consider the person he chose as his
number one preference.
That there is no accident in Trump's choices has a lot to do with his class prejudices and his
class ambitions. His choice of cabinet members, with a preference for billionaires (or generals),
shows who he tends to trust and respect. Some historians have said that Trump's cabinet is
the richest in US history , with a combined worth estimated as ranging from
$11 billion to
$14 billion
. One can attempt to remodel Trump as a "blue collar billionaire," but it seems futile. He would
tell his supporters on the campaign trail that "we need the rich" (a statement which can be ambiguous
in its implications) and "no poor man ever gave you a job" (which is unambiguous). The way his decision-making
apparatus has been structured also reveals Trump's interests: billionaires in actual positions of
power in his cabinet, but only
consultations with union officials .
When it comes to trade unions, Trump's first weeks since the election reinforce this tendency
toward a top-down, patronizing approach. On the one hand, he in fact won the
support of many key unions , primarily private-sector unions in construction and trades, and
secondarily among autoworkers, machinists, and steelworkers. On the other hand, one of Trump's earliest
skirmishes since he was elected was with
Chuck Jones , president of the United Steelworkers local 1999, over Trump's inflated claims about
saving jobs at the Carrier plant in Indiana that was to shut down as the company relocated to Mexico.
That planned move and the layoffs it entailed played an important part in the 2016 election, underscoring
both Trump's and Sanders' arguments against NAFTA. It seems that Trump, at most, scored half
of a victory in persuading Carrier to retain some jobs in Indiana, while still moving a substantial
portion to Mexico, only now with the blessing of millions of dollars in tax credits. The irony is
that Carrier is now performing a state-subsidized transfer of jobs to Mexico. Trump claimed
Carrier would keep 1,100 jobs in place -- but Jones argued that the number included 350 jobs
that were never scheduled to leave (yet 550 other union members would still lose their jobs), adding
that Trump completely ignored the fact that Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, still
planned to completely shut down and transfer 700 factory jobs from Huntington, Indiana, to Monterrey,
Mexico. Some of
Jones' statements to the press were very sharp. In response, Trump proceeded to lambast Jones
in Twitter, with a couple of apparently
vindictive and inflamed smears .
First, Trump appears to blame workers themselves for the loss of their own jobs, as if they were
the owners of capital, or had a direct role in corporate decision-making, or were to blame for NAFTA's
existence. It's the kind of spontaneous anti-worker outburst that demonstrates where Trump's allegiance
ultimately rests. The second message repeats the claim that workers are the ones responsible for
keeping their jobs in place, thus more victim blaming, while adding a chilling new twist: shut
up and keep working , plus unions should have less money (and thus less power). Jones is likely
right in thinking that if Trump had
blamed the loss of the jobs on the union and its workers during the campaign, he would have lost
some votes. Jones is likely also correct when he stated about Trump that, "I'm not naive enough to
think he's going to be a friend to
the working class people". 3
None of this can take away the fact that Trump's victory was thanks primarily to working-class
voters, especially women and members of ethnic minorities among them. Though the numbers are not
definitive, the best knowledge we have is that
54.4% of Trump's voters were women and minorities , and 66% of whites without a college degree,
who are typically working class, also supported Trump.
The Wall Street Party (brought to you by Goldman Sachs)
As widely recognized by many others, one of the most glaring shifts in Trump's positioning concerns
Goldman Sachs. In his last, and very memorable television advertisement ending his electoral campaign,
Trump took direct aim at Goldman Sachs (featuring its president and corporate logo), the New
York Stock Exchange, and George Soros, all as representatives of a corrupt global power structure
that has robbed millions of Americans of their livelihoods. After the election, Trump nominated at
least five former Goldman Sachs executives to high-level positions in his cabinet -- though
not necessarily because of their varied associations with Goldman Sachs.
Steve Bannon , Trump's Chief Strategist, is a millionaire and was a former vice president of
Goldman Sachs until he left in 1990, and is perhaps the one pick that was not aligned with Goldman
Sachs' support for globalization.
Steven Mnuchin , a former senior partner at Goldman Sachs, and a hedge fund manager, was selected
by Trump to be the Secretary of the Treasury.
Gary Cohn , former president of Goldman Sachs, was chosen by Trump to head the National Economic
Council.
Dina Habib Powell , President Trump's senior counselor for economic initiatives, was recently
appointed as a deputy national security adviser for strategy -- Powell works closely with Jared
Kushner, and was recently the president of the Goldman Sachs Foundation.
Jay Clayton , who did not work at Goldman Sachs, was a partner at the Manhattan law firm of Sullivan
& Cromwell, 4 which represents Goldman Sachs, and his wife Gretchen works for Goldman
Sachs. Others have also reported that Trump's reversals are due to the sway of the
"Wall Street wing" of the White House.
As another writer noted, "
not since the Eisenhower administration have so many business executives landed top government jobs
, making Trump's Cabinet the wealthiest in American history". (Also, as mentioned in Note #1 below,
this chart shows some of the key ties that dominated the Eisenhower administration .) The list
of corporate executives in Trump's cabinet exceeds those mentioned above. Rex Tillerson, now Secretary
of State, was the CEO of Exxon. Ross Wilbur, a billionaire investor, is the Commerce Secretary. Of
course, we must also include the presence of the Trump corporation itself at the apex of the administration.
As some observed, Trump's choices send "the most powerful signal yet that Mr. Trump plans to emphasize
policies friendly to Wall Street, like tax cuts and a relaxation of regulation .that approach has
been
cheered by investors ". For weeks on end the stock market boomed, reaching new records, as if
celebrating a major victory. The fact that stock markets reacted so positively, and so quickly, to
Trump assuming the presidency almost suggests something akin to a coup, with some having had the
benefit of advance, inside knowledge. These features bring to mind Kapferer's discussion of the "
corporate oligarchic imperial state ":
"Current configurations of global, imperial and state power relate to formations of oligarchic
control. A major feature of this is the command of political organizations and institutions by
close-knit social groups (families or familial dynasties, groups of kin, closed associations or
tightly controlled interlinked networks of persons) for the purpose of the relatively exclusive
control of economic resources and their distribution". (Kapferer, 2005, p. 285)
Trump may have reversed himself in terms of the opportunistic targeting of Goldman Sachs,
as a symbol, but there is little point in evading the fact that he entered the electoral campaign
as the owner of a large family corporation. What is more difficult to explain is why Trump, as a
national capitalist, lent himself so quickly to supporting a transnational capitalist class with
economic and financial interests different from his own, which was also ideologically opposed to
his campaign. I see many taking matters for granted, by resorting to easy assertions that "they
are all the one percent," or "they are all oligarchs". That is broadly accurate, but also facile,
because such commentary focuses (knowingly or not) on capital, in broad terms, and not on the capitalist
class which is divided into competing factions. The elite political class of experts, managers, technocrats
and legislators, certainly remains more united than ever against Trump since his victory --
but the capitalist class is seeing some remarkable reconciliation thanks to Trump (at least for now).
So why did Trump choose to perform this service?
One hypothesis we should consider is that Trump, ever so concerned about his brand, preoccupied
with the futures of his children and grandchildren, and the future of his family's corporate empire
-- matters that are first and foremost for Trump -- wants to make a transition away from
a position as a national capitalist in order to enter the transnational capitalist
class, where the real global power lies. 5 It was a gamble, but we can surmise that Trump
(consciously or not) sees the presidency of the most powerful state of the world -- power that
was conceivably (and now actually) within his reach -- as being also the most powerful way
to boost the fortunes of the Trump brand. (Remember, this is a man who took the time to hold a press
conference during the campaign just to defend Trump-branded products in what resembled an
infomercial , and as president took to Twitter to shame chain stores for blocking sales of Ivanka
Trump's branded product lines.)
With the inevitable global networking that a presidency affords, conducted within the surroundings
of the Trump resort at
Mar-a-Lago
, Trump seems to be looking at the global expansion of his corporate interests. He had already started
to dip his toe in the pool of transnational capitalism by building hotels in a dozen different countries
(Canada, the UK, the UAE, Turkey, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Panama, the Dominican Republic,
Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina). Arguably the Miss Universe pageant also fits within the circuit of transnational
capitalism. The neo-regal style of Trump's lifestyle and his hotels, aided like a royal patriarch
by the ambassadorial service of his daughter Ivanka, may all be part of an expansionist, globalist
sales pitch of the Trump empire and the family that leads it.
Ivanka's husband, Jared Kushner, may also be a key to the globalist push in the White
House, with his
reputed financial ties to George Soros . A strategist for a financial services firm recently
exalted that what "
stopped nationalism in the White House " was an assemblage of super-wealthy members of the transnational
elite (globalists) within the administration.
Trump's pleasure at the remarkable absence of legal constraints on the presidency regarding nepotism
and conflict of interest, does not mean that conflict of interest and nepotism do not mark his presidency,
according to the commonly understood meanings of these terms. Germany's foreign minister, Sigmar
Gabriel, thus really could not be countered when he recently exclaimed, "it always bothers me when
members of a family, who have never been elected, show up suddenly as official state representatives
and are treated almost as if they were members of
a royal family ". Trump will now essentially rent out the US military in order to extract tribute
to advance his quasi-monarchic ambitions.
"... The recently-deceased Mr. Rockefeller, whose elders turned to banking seeing in it a source of lucre far greater than what had been available in oil, who resided at the helm of Chase Bank, and chaired the Council on Foreign Relations for many years, had the wealth and contacts necessary to pursue a purposeful agenda beyond the needs of mere international trade. It is said he had a rolodex containing over 10,000 names. ..."
"... But globalism as an ideology long predates today's advanced technology. It has been around for close to 250 years -- at least since the five scions of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 – 1812) were directed to found banks in four of the biggest cities in Europe (the fifth remaining in Frankfurt-am-Main ), all remaining in communication with Dad and with each other. ..."
"... "Give me control of a nation's currency," Mayer Amschel is alleged to have said, "and I care not who makes the laws." Kings and other political figures who in one way or another crossed a Rothschild found themselves in one of many (fomented) regional wars of nineteenth century Europe. ..."
"... Globalism piggybacked on the relative success of the mixed economy that grew out of the New Deal, post-war Keynesianism, and the understandable desire to avoid another world war. The idea of a mixed economy (private and public, profit-driven enterprises encircled by and sometimes assisted by politically-created regulations, are what is "mixed," after all) returns us to political economy , which is what Adam Smith and other classical writers considered their subject to be. There was no such thing, in other words, as nontrivial "economic law," comparable to physics, abstracted from political and related considerations particular to time and place. ..."
"... Globalist machinations have empowered a superelite -- whose members move capital across borders and cut deals that affect the lives of millions of people as easily as we cross the room. Their nemeses include the distrustful national footdraggers who loused up the Doha Round and "populists" like Trump who roused the rabble against, e.g., NAFTA and the (now dead) TPP, and who question the wisdom of open borders policies which, arguably, have caused chaos all across Europe -- outside the protected enclaves of EU banking titans and globalists such as Angela Merkel. ..."
"... Globalist political economy has left people behind, because in the globalist worldview, people are as disposable as cheaply made Chinese products. ..."
"... Mishra's key observation (my way of putting it): globalization created expectations around the world that have been thwarted by globalist reality : impoverishment of former middle classes; chronic instability; incompatible cultures thrown into involuntary contact, some of them refugees of wars of choice; and a loss of autonomy for all involved, amidst a massive and growing consolidation of wealth at the top. ..."
"... The real 'clash of civilizations' is thus between incompatible visions of the future of civilization: between that of globalists and those I will call localists . What I have in mind here incorporates nationalists and those who want still smaller forms of governance, because for them the nation-state is too large. ..."
"... Globalists want to dominate the world by dominating its financial systems and, through those, its political economy -- visible politicians being vetted and controlled, and a "mainstream" media owned by their corporations. They want a mass consumption monoculture, cultural differences being cosmetic rather than substantive. Education must be tailored to this, and not toward graduating students with thinking skills apart from the mass. ..."
"... Globalists sing the praises of "democratic capitalism," but there is no reason to believe their vision has anything to do with either democracy, conceived as a political system answering to its people, or free markets. For under the mixed economy it became a given that markets needed regulating if only to improve the health and safety of an often-uninformed public (unless you really believe, e.g., that cigarette manufacturers would put warning labels on their products voluntarily, this being just one example). It was then just one step to global markets needing regulators with global reach, and other global problems (e.g., alleged man-made climate change) requiring coordinated global solutions. "Free trade" has evolved considerably since Ricardo schooled us about comparative advantage. It is now freedom for billionaires to do as they please, often at the expense of the livelihoods of millions! ..."
"... Opposing globalism openly is risky in any event. An academic who defended economic nationalism would likely be forced from his job in the present environment. Independent commentators may have the Internet but can forget about being published in well-paying markets. ..."
"... Trump's campaign was self-funded, and this was one source of his appeal. His present travails are proof of how hard it is to oppose globalism even in one of the world's most powerful offices. ..."
"... The "swamp" is proving deeper, wider, and more venomous than I think he imagined in his worst nightmares! ..."
"... By a long shot, globalist ideology is driven by western nations, especially America. The west needs moral and philosophical reformations, new ways of thinking that respect identity without the paranoid screeching about bigotry. The alt-right, with its pure focus on whiteness, is not going to be able to do this. It takes a broader vision to create and propagate new ideologies that can be applied to society in general. ..."
"... As Socrates observed, many people who claimed to know about some particular thing erred–committed "original sin" in the Greek, not Old Testament sense–when they generalized, on the basis of their limited knowledge, and thinking that they knew a lot about a lot, talked authoritatively about that with which they were not familiar. ..."
The attacks came at once, as if on cue. Consider Eugene Robinson's
op-ed in the ever-reliably Trump-hating Washington Post . Robinson asked snarkily, "Triumph
over whom?"
Let's treat this as a fair question. Over ISIS? North Korea? Russia? Those being the villains
of the moment, they are easy to single out. Trump did not name the real enemy in this speech:
globalism (he did say, in his
acceptance speech
, "Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo!"). Despite struggling with allegations (still with
the flimsiest of evidential support) that Russia interfered with the 2016 election and that his campaign
staff now including his son Don Jr. colluded with them, Trump is still seen as a major threat to
globalist interests.
As I use the term, globalism is not the same thing as globalization . In many respects,
globalization goes back millennia. It emerged with explorers of ancient times wanting to know what
was over the horizon, and who lived there. In modern times it involves advances in technology, especially
communications, that facilitate cross-border trade. None of these need erase national borders or
a people's cultural identity; through consciousness of differences it might even enhance them.
Globalism is a more specific ideology holding that economies should integrate, that borders should
be dissolved, culture is irrelevant, and that peoples can be moved around like chess pieces "reinventing
themselves," merged into a monoculture of mass consumption and disposability. The process needs transnational
regulation and so must culminate in a world state, de facto or de jure , with a single
global currency -- digital rather than physical, so that all transactions can be recorded and monitored
(even those involving cryptos!)
The global system would be ruled by an elite superclass (in my book
Four Cardinal Errors: Reasons for the Decline of the American Republic I call this entity
the superelite to distinguish it from more visible national elites) overseeing a hierarchy
of administrators and technocrats. This superclass already controls most of the world's wealth. The
"developed" world is easily four fifths of the way to this kind of system, referred to as the "liberal
order" or the "international order" or with some similar euphemism. The Brexiteers, Donald Trumps,
Geert Wilders, and Marine Le Pens of the world are dragging their feet. The first two of these succeeded -- at least for the moment. The latter lost major elections, placing their causes on hold.
Does globalism actually exist as I describe it, or is it a "
conspiracy theory "? Let's consult two architects of globalist thought. Zbigniew Brzezinski stated
in his 1970 book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era (p. 56-62 of 1970
ed.):
The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal
creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in
terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state .
A global human conscience is for the first time beginning to manifest itself . Today we are
witnessing the emergence of transnational elites composed of international businessmen, scholars,
professional men, and public officials. The ties of these new elites cut across national boundaries,
their perspectives are not confined by national traditions, and their interests are more functional
than national. These global communities are gaining in strength and it is likely that before long
the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist
in spirit and outlook
The new global consciousness, however, is only beginning to become an influential force. It
still lacks identity, cohesion, and focus. Much of humanity -- indeed, the majority of humanity -- still neither shares nor is prepared to support it. Science and technology are still used to
buttress ideological claims, to fortify national aspirations, and to reward narrowly national
interests . The new global unity has yet to find its own structure, consensus, and harmony.
David Rockefeller Sr. read the above, contacted the author, and with Henry Kissinger they organized
the Trilateral Commission to address the problem identified in the final paragraph. Rockefeller was
quoted two decades later telling a Bilderberg assembly (June 1991):
"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great
publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion
for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world
if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is
now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational
sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination
practiced in past centuries."
This is probably the most famous David Rockefeller quote. There's no hard proof he actually said
it, though. He might have said it. We don't know. What it says is not foreign to his thinking. He
did assert the following, in his
Memoirs (2002, pp. 404-05), in the context of a riposte against "populists," and this
time there is no doubt:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have
seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence
they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are
part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing
my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build
a more integrated global political and economic structure -- one world, if you will. If that's
the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
The recently-deceased Mr. Rockefeller, whose elders turned to banking seeing in it a source
of lucre far greater than what had been available in oil, who resided at the helm of Chase Bank,
and chaired the Council on Foreign Relations for many years, had the wealth and contacts necessary
to pursue a purposeful agenda beyond the needs of mere international trade. It is said he had a rolodex
containing over 10,000 names.
We can thus rest our case that globalism is a real phenomenon. Is it a conspiracy? Conspiracies,
by definition, are hidden from you. As two of the above statements indicate, its leaders have hardly
been hiding. Perhaps the reading public can be faulted for preferring glitzy bestsellers to books
about reality.
The question before us: what is the alternative to it? One can almost hear the chorus: There
Is No Alternative . Writers such as Robinson above are very good at invoking "economic theory"
against "populism." He had previously said: "The speech Trump delivered had nothing useful to say
about today's interconnected world in which goods, people and ideas have contempt for borders." He
elaborated: "Industrial supply chains cross borders and span oceans. Words and images flash around
the globe at the speed of light. Global issues, such as nuclear proliferation and climate change,
demand global solutions. Like it or not, we are all in this together."
In this case, who laid down those supply chains, and why must they invite "contempt for borders"?
Are these aspects of a natural, deterministic dynamic that a technologically advancing, creative-destruction
driven civilization is bound to follow? It is easy to argue that there is such a dynamic,
in which case globalists are being carried along with the rest of us and are identifiable only because
they are smarter than we mere mortals and therefore more conscious of the process than we are -- not
to mention better situated to profit from it.
But globalism as an ideology long predates today's advanced technology. It has been around
for close to 250 years -- at least since the five scions of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 – 1812)
were directed to found banks in four of the biggest cities in Europe (the fifth remaining in Frankfurt-am-Main
), all remaining in communication with Dad and with each other. The coldly talented Nathan established
himself as a dominant player in the City of London and succeeded his father as family patriarch as
he built up N.M. Rothschild & Sons; his eldest son Lionel would succeed him. What ensued was not
merely amassing wealth but accruing power, the power of private banking, international moneylending,
and investment. "Give me control of a nation's currency," Mayer Amschel is alleged to have said,
"and I care not who makes the laws." Kings and other political figures who in one way or another
crossed a Rothschild found themselves in one of many (fomented) regional wars of nineteenth century
Europe.
There is a longstanding debate over what drives history: material forces (economic ones, blood
ties, etc.) or ideas and worldviews (e.g., Christianity -- or Judaism -- or materialism). I hold out
for the latter, because most material forces of modern times would not exist without men of power
putting them in place guided by an idea or worldview (and
materialism is a worldview,
not a fact established by any science).
Globalism piggybacked on the relative success of the mixed economy that grew out of the New
Deal, post-war Keynesianism, and the understandable desire to avoid another world war. The idea of
a mixed economy (private and public, profit-driven enterprises encircled by and sometimes
assisted by politically-created regulations, are what is "mixed," after all) returns us to political
economy , which is what Adam Smith and other classical writers considered their subject to be.
There was no such thing, in other words, as nontrivial "economic law," comparable to physics, abstracted
from political and related considerations particular to time and place.
But the mixed economy has been a mixed blessing. It created prosperity and the largest middle
class the world had ever seen, but had numerous costs. One was that individuals, including those
in that middle class, became increasingly dependent on its systems. This is a separate article; for
now we will just observe that these systems, which over a period lasting more than a century intertwined
the political economy of the changing workplace with advancing technology, mass media culture, and
family dynamics, diminished real individual freedoms as people were encircled by its effects
and its products -- their lives made less and less convenient if they did not cooperate and consume.
Brzezinski foresaw the culmination of these changes:
Another threat confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology,
it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would
be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific
know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate
to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior
and keeping society under surveillance and control (pp. 252-53).
There can be no doubt this has happened. Globalist machinations have empowered a superelite -- whose members move capital across borders and cut deals that affect the lives of millions of people
as easily as we cross the room. Their nemeses include the distrustful national footdraggers who loused
up the Doha Round and "populists" like Trump who roused the rabble against, e.g., NAFTA and the (now
dead) TPP, and who question the wisdom of open borders policies which, arguably, have caused chaos
all across Europe -- outside the protected enclaves of EU banking titans and globalists such as Angela
Merkel.
Globalist political economy has left people behind, because in the globalist worldview, people
are as disposable as cheaply made Chinese products. Those left behind now have voices of various
stripes across the ideological spectrum -- people like Trump and Le Pen on the right, Bernie Sanders
on the left, and writers such as Pankaj Mishra who aren't easily classifiable but whose
Age of Anger: A History of the Present is, in my humble opinion, a must read. Mishra's
key observation (my way of putting it): globalization created expectations around the world
that have been thwarted by globalist reality : impoverishment of former middle classes; chronic
instability; incompatible cultures thrown into involuntary contact, some of them refugees of wars
of choice; and a loss of autonomy for all involved, amidst a massive and growing consolidation of
wealth at the top.
The real 'clash of civilizations' is thus between incompatible visions of the future
of civilization: between that of globalists and those I will call localists . What I have
in mind here incorporates nationalists and those who want still smaller forms of governance, because
for them the nation-state is too large.
Globalists want to dominate the world by dominating its financial systems and, through those,
its political economy -- visible politicians being vetted and controlled, and a "mainstream" media
owned by their corporations. They want a mass consumption monoculture, cultural differences being
cosmetic rather than substantive. Education must be tailored to this, and not toward graduating students
with thinking skills apart from the mass.
Localists want autonomy: freedom from encircling forces they had no say in and no control over,
whether created by "free trade" deals or open borders policies they did not sign off on. They want
control over their lives, families, communities, economies, and nations.
Globalists sing the praises of "democratic capitalism," but there is no reason to believe
their vision has anything to do with either democracy, conceived as a political system answering
to its people, or free markets. For under the mixed economy it became a given that markets needed
regulating if only to improve the health and safety of an often-uninformed public (unless you really
believe, e.g., that cigarette manufacturers would put warning labels on their products voluntarily,
this being just one example). It was then just one step to global markets needing regulators with
global reach, and other global problems (e.g., alleged man-made climate change) requiring coordinated
global solutions. "Free trade" has evolved considerably since Ricardo schooled us about comparative
advantage. It is now freedom for billionaires to do as they please, often at the expense of the livelihoods
of millions!
The globalists world state would answer primarily to their corporations because the latter have
the money, having profited from those global supply lines and from having moved operations to where
labor is cheapest -- before, that is, labor is replaced altogether by technology and thrown
to the wolves.
The problem is again, many of these groups want nothing to do with one another. Readers of this
essay may be antiglobalists but want nothing to do with most of them. Some are not even aware of
others. This lack of any semblance of unity does not bode well for any strategy of opposition.
Opposing globalism openly is risky in any event. An academic who defended economic nationalism
would likely be forced from his job in the present environment. Independent commentators may have
the Internet but can forget about being published in well-paying markets. Candidates for public
office who speak openly of globalism being an enemy of freedom in America can forget about being
able to raise the money and gain the visibility necessary to run credible campaigns. Funding sources
tend to be wired into globalist interests. They would not be where they are otherwise. As for visible
figures who don't need the money, e.g., Trump, if his enemies should succeed in taking him down,
whether via substanceless Russia allegations or by some other ploy, we might see how risky! We might
see whether Trump's election was more than a speed bump on the road towards a global state. Things
are getting late, after all! Were this a baseball game, we'd be starting the ninth inning!
Trump's campaign was self-funded, and this was one source of his appeal. His present travails
are proof of how hard it is to oppose globalism even in one of the world's most powerful offices.
The "swamp" is proving deeper, wider, and more venomous than I think he imagined in his worst
nightmares!
... ... ... ...
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Steven Yates is a writer with a Ph.D. in philosophy. He is the author of the books Civil Wrongs:
What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Four Cardinal Errors: Reasons for the Decline of
the American Republic (2011), approximately two dozen articles and reviews in academic journals and
anthologies, and over a hundred articles of online commentary, especially on
NewsWithViews.com . Dr. Yates taught
philosophy at several colleges and universities in the Southeast. In 2012 he moved from South Carolina
to Santiago, Chile, where he has taught periodically at two universities there, as well as having
involved himself in teaching English and operating a small editing business,
Final Draft Editing Service
. He is married to a Chilean, and at present writes almost full time. He blogs about philosophy and
the foibles of academia at
Lost Generation Philosopher
.
He(Yates) blogs about philosophy and the foibles of academia at Lost Generation Philosopher.
His Patreon donation page is here. Is Patreon reliable? Not to Lauren Southern. Speaking of endangering lives, it is globalist wars and the open borders policy that are leading
to killings, rapes, violence, but never mind. Patreon is just a globalist corporation.
" The real 'clash of civilizations' is thus between incompatible visions of the future of civilization:
between that of globalists and those I will call localists. "
This clash now is quite visible over new Polish legislation.
A new law creates democratic control over the nomination of judges, something the USA has for
high court judges since the USA exists.
But Brussels opposes this, threatens with taking away Poland's voting right in EU decisions, stopping
EU subsidies to Poland.
A similar clash is over Hungary, the country has enough of Soros' propaganda university.
But Soros visited Juncker and Tusk, Hungary was put under pressure, and now I'm not sure if Soros'
institutions will be expelled or not.
Then there is the clash over immigration, the orthodox catholic E European countries refuse
Muslim migrants.
And of course we see this clash over Brexit, the EU is of the opinion that the European High
Court after Brexit still has jurisdiction in GB.
Brussels does not see that the Anglican Church was created to stop the pope interfering in British
affairs.
Excuse me not having taken time to finish reading your article before responding to the stimulus
of your (apprpriately) distinguishing globalisation and globalism. As one who generally supports
the standard argùments for free trade despite also wanting to do a quality check on immigrants
to my proserous and fairly law abiding country I would be pleased to see a study of the problems
of small countries and what ordering of the world could and should mitigate them.
Establlished small countries seem to be OK. But what about the Greeces? Especially, what about
an African small country possibly with only one major mineral deposit as a source of wealth and
inevitable volatity in its commodity's price?
The super-elite are rapidly losing their grip on the hearts & minds of the populace. This will
accelerate as they move to implement more coercive measures (already happening) so it's only a
matter of time before some mass-depopulation program becomes desirable.
By a long shot, globalist ideology is driven by western nations, especially America. The west needs moral and philosophical reformations, new ways of thinking that respect identity
without the paranoid screeching about bigotry. The alt-right, with its pure focus on whiteness,
is not going to be able to do this. It takes a broader vision to create and propagate new ideologies
that can be applied to society in general.
I live in Poland and the story with the legislation is different and a bit
more complex.The problem is that it's basically putting judges under direct political control of the ruling
party with no checks and balances in their choice or dismissal. Lots of people would be in favor of some reform of the judiciary which is fairly terrible but
this is an obvious power grab (the government would also appoint those in charge of verifying
elections).
Scuttlebut is that the purpose is to trump up legal charges against opposition candidates to
keep them out of future elections.
Wandering Jews have long been labeled "rootless cosmopolitans". Their culture is an adaption
to their lifestyle, is this lifestyle. (Largely Jewish) Globalists take a model that works in
the particular case of the Jewish people and try to generalize it to apply to the whole world.
But what works as an exception is made possible by the existence of the base upon which it rests.
The rule that governs the exception cannot in and of itself build or sustain the foundation upon
which the exception rests.
Humans are personal animals who need an intimate connection with their environs and other people.
A mathematic model based on the economic principles of banking cannot be the base upon which human
societies are created.
As Socrates observed, many people who claimed to know about some particular thing erred–committed
"original sin" in the Greek, not Old Testament sense–when they generalized, on the basis of their
limited knowledge, and thinking that they knew a lot about a lot, talked authoritatively about
that with which they were not familiar.
Bankers are ill equipped to construct the Ideal Society.
@Michael Kenny You're wrong. The US (and the EU) is fully controlled by the supranational
globalists. At least it was until Trump but that battle is still to be decided. The EU was not
created to make the member nations stronger – it was designed to remove the sovereignty from the
populace while they're being genocided. Open your eyes.
The idea of globalism is much older. The ottoman empire was an example of globalism. The mongol
empire before that, was globalism. Heck even the roman empire was globalistic in a way. Globalistic
forces have always existed alongside localistic forces. And it was a form of globalism (colonialisation)
that also helped make the west wealthy. It is also globalism that helped make the united states
a super-power by helping its dollar become the global reserve currency.
Thats globalism right there.
But localism is also important because sometimes leaders of countries know whats best for their
people better than some foreign person. Even if the foreign-persons have good intentions, they
may not 'get it right' as native born leaders do. A lot of people in the world might not have
achieved the living standards they have now ..if it was not for the development of 'nation-states'
in the first place.
So i think a 'balance' of globalism and localism is better over one or the other.
@Jason Liu By a long shot, globalist ideology is driven by western nations, especially America.
The west needs moral and philosophical reformations, new ways of thinking that respect identity
without the paranoid screeching about bigotry. The alt-right, with its pure focus on whiteness,
is not going to be able to do this. It takes a broader vision to create and propagate new ideologies
that can be applied to society in general. Every minority pressure group out there is a reliable
source of virulent anti-white hatred.
Diversity did not have to be but those who brought it about were unwise. The idea that America
should be anything other than a white majority nation is absurd. Hosannas issue when hostile minorities
and unassimilable foreigners talk about ethnic and racial interests but whites are just supposed
to fade gracefully to khaki. And shut up about it. Reassert ourselves? The horror.
Economic collapse will flush a lot of stupidity from the system. It will be a giant game of
52 Pick Up but better chaos soon than certain degradation later.
Populism is a weasel word that is use by neoliberal MSM to delitimize the resistance. This is a typical neoliberal thinking.
Financial globalization is different from trade. It is more of neocolonialism that racket, as is
the case with trade.
Notable quotes:
"... Financial globalisation appears to have produced adverse distributional impacts within countries as well, in part through its effect on incidence and severity of financial crises. Most noteworthy is the recent analysis by Furceri et al. (2017) that looks at 224 episodes of capital account liberalisation. They find that capital-account liberalisation leads to statistically significant and long-lasting declines in the labour share of income and corresponding increases in the Gini coefficient of income inequality and in the shares of top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income. Further, capital mobility shifts both the tax burden and the burden of economic shocks onto the immobile factor, labour. ..."
"... I suggest that the fact that these two countries are arguably the most unequal in the advanced world has something to do with this. Also, on many measures I believe these two countries appear to be the most 'damaged' societies in the advanced world – levels of relationship breakdown, teenage crime, drug use, teenage pregnancies etc. I doubt this is a coincidence. ..."
"... Forced Free Trade was intended to be destructive to American society, and it was . . . exactly as intended. Millions of jobs were abolished here and shipped to foreign countries used as economic aggression platforms against America. So of course American society became damaged as the American economy became mass-jobicided. On purpose. With malice aforethought. ..."
"... "Populism" seems to me to be a pejorative term used to delegitimize the grievances of the economically disenfranchised and dismiss them derision. ..."
"... In the capitalist economies globalization is/was inevitable; the outcome is easy to observe ..and suffer under. ..."
"... they never get into the nitty-gritty of the "immobility" of the general populations who have been crushed by the lost jobs, homes, families, lives ..."
"... This piece was a lengthy run-on Econ 101 bollocks. Not only does the writer dismiss debt/interest and the effects of rentier banking, but they come off as very simplistic. Reads like some sheltered preppy attempt at explaining populism ..."
"... But like almost all economists, Rodrik is ignoring the political part of political economy. Historically, humanity has developed two organizational forms to select and steer toward preferred economic destinies: governments of nation states, and corporations. ..."
"... The liberalization of trade has come, I would argue, with a huge political cost no economist has reckoned yet. Instead, economists are whining about the reaction to this political cost without facing up to the political cost itself. Or even accept its legitimacy. ..."
"... Second, there are massive negative effects of trade liberalization that economists simply refuse to look at. Arbitration of environmental and worker safety laws and regulations is one. ..."
"... As I have argued elsewhere, the most important economic activity a society engages in us the development and diffusion of new science and technology. ..."
"... Rodrik is also wrong about the historical origins of agrarian populism in USA. It was not trade, but the oligopoly power of railroads, farm equipment makers, and banks that were the original grievances of the Grangers, Farmers Alliances after the Civil War. ..."
"... The salient characteristic of populism is favoring the people vs. the establishment. The whole left/right dichotomy is a creation of the establishment, used to divide the public and PREVENT an effective populist backlash. As Gore Vidal astutely pointed out decades ago, there is really only one party in the U.S. – the Property Party – and the Ds and Rs are just two heads of the same hydra. Especially in the past 10 years or so. ..."
'Populism' is a loose label that encompasses a diverse set of movements. The term originates from
the late 19th century, when a coalition of farmers, workers, and miners in the US rallied against
the Gold Standard and the Northeastern banking and finance establishment. Latin America has a long
tradition of populism going back to the 1930s, and exemplified by Peronism. Today populism spans
a wide gamut of political movements, including anti-euro and anti-immigrant parties in Europe, Syriza
and Podemos in Greece and Spain, Trump's anti-trade nativism in the US, the economic populism of
Chavez in Latin America, and many others in between. What all these share is an anti-establishment
orientation, a claim to speak for the people against the elites, opposition to liberal economics
and globalisation, and often (but not always) a penchant for authoritarian governance.
The populist backlash may have been a surprise to many, but it really should not have been in
light of economic history and economic theory.
Take history first. The first era of globalisation under the Gold Standard produced the first
self-conscious populist movement in history, as noted above. In trade, finance, and immigration,
political backlash was not late in coming. The decline in world agricultural prices in 1870s and
1880s produced pressure for resumption in import protection. With the exception of Britain, nearly
all European countries raised agricultural tariffs towards the end of the 19th century. Immigration
limits also began to appear in the late 19th century. The United States Congress passed in 1882 the
infamous Chinese Exclusion Act that restricted Chinese immigration specifically. Japanese immigration
was restricted in 1907. And the Gold Standard aroused farmers' ire because it was seen to produce
tight credit conditions and a deflationary effect on agricultural prices. In a speech at the Democratic
national convention of 1896, the populist firebrand William Jennings Bryan uttered the famous words:
"You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
To anyone familiar with the basic economics of trade and financial integration, the politically
contentious nature of globalisation should not be a surprise. The workhorse models with which international
economists work tend to have strong redistributive implications. One of the most remarkable theorems
in economics is the Stolper-Samuelson theorem, which generates very sharp distributional implications
from opening up to trade. Specifically, in a model with two goods and two factors of production,
with full inter-sectoral mobility of the factors, owners of one of the two factors are made necessarily
worse off with the opening to trade. The factor which is used intensively in the importable good
must experience a decline in its real earnings.
The Stolper-Samuelson theorem assumes very specific conditions. But there is one Stolper-Samuelson-like
result that is extremely general, and which can be stated as follows. Under competitive conditions,
as long as the importable good(s) continue to be produced at home – that is, ruling out complete
specialisation – there is always at least one factor of production that is rendered worse off by
the liberalisation of trade. In other words, trade generically produces losers. Redistribution is
the flip side of the gains from trade; no pain, no gain.
Economic theory has an additional implication, which is less well recognised. In relative terms,
the redistributive effects of liberalisation get larger and tend to swamp the net gains as the trade
barriers in question become smaller. The ratio of redistribution to net gains rises as trade liberalisation
tackles progressively lower barriers.
The logic is simple. Consider the denominator of this ratio first. It is a standard result in
public finance that the efficiency cost of a tax increases with the square of the tax rate. Since
an import tariff is a tax on imports, the same convexity applies to tariffs as well. Small tariffs
have very small distorting effects; large tariffs have very large negative effects. Correspondingly,
the efficiency gains of trade liberalisation become progressively smaller as the barriers get lower.
The redistributive effects, on the other hand, are roughly linear with respect to price changes and
are invariant, at the margin, to the magnitude of the barriers. Putting these two facts together,
we have the result just stated, namely that the losses incurred by adversely affected groups per
dollar of efficiency gain are higher the lower the barrier that is removed.
Evidence is in line with these theoretical expectations. For example, in the case of NAFTA, Hakobyan
and McLaren (2016) have found very large adverse effects for an "important minority" of US workers,
while Caliendo and Parro (2015) estimate that the overall gains to the US economy from the agreement
were minute (a "welfare" gain of 0.08%).
In principle, the gains from trade can be redistributed to compensate the losers and ensure no
identifiable group is left behind. Trade openness has been greatly facilitated in Europe by the creation
of welfare states. But the US, which became a truly open economy relatively late, did not move in
the same direction. This may account for why imports from specific trade partners such as China or
Mexico are so much more contentious in the US.
Economists understand that trade causes job displacement and income losses for some groups. But
they have a harder time making sense of why trade gets picked on so much by populists both on the
right and the left. After all, imports are only one source of churn in labour markets, and typically
not even the most important source. What is it that renders trade so much more salient politically?
Perhaps trade is a convenient scapegoat. But there is another, deeper issue that renders redistribution
caused by trade more contentious than other forms of competition or technological change. Sometimes
international trade involves types of competition that are ruled out at home because they violate
widely held domestic norms or social understandings. When such "blocked exchanges" (Walzer 1983)
are enabled through trade they raise difficult questions of distributive justice. What arouses popular
opposition is not inequality per se, but perceived unfairness.
Financial globalisation is in principle similar to trade insofar as it generates overall economic
benefits. Nevertheless, the economics profession's current views on financial globalisation can be
best described as ambivalent. Most of the scepticism is directed at short-term financial flows, which
are associated with financial crises and other excesses. Long-term flows and direct foreign investment
in particular are generally still viewed favourably. Direct foreign investment tends to be more stable
and growth-promoting. But there is evidence that it has produced shifts in taxation and bargaining
power that are adverse to labour.
The boom-and-bust cycle associated with capital inflows has long been familiar to developing nations.
Prior to the Global Crisis, there was a presumption that such problems were largely the province
of poorer countries. Advanced economies, with their better institutions and regulation, would be
insulated from financial crises induced by financial globalisation. It did not quite turn out that
way. In the US, the housing bubble, excessive risk-taking, and over-leveraging during the years leading
up to the crisis were amplified by capital inflows from the rest of the world. In the Eurozone, financial
integration, on a regional scale, played an even larger role. Credit booms fostered by interest-rate
convergence would eventually turn into bust and sustained economic collapses in Greece, Spain, Portugal,
and Ireland once credit dried up in the immediate aftermath of the crisis in the US.
Financial globalisation appears to have produced adverse distributional impacts within countries
as well, in part through its effect on incidence and severity of financial crises. Most noteworthy
is the recent analysis by Furceri et al. (2017) that looks at 224 episodes of capital account liberalisation.
They find that capital-account liberalisation leads to statistically significant and long-lasting
declines in the labour share of income and corresponding increases in the Gini coefficient of income
inequality and in the shares of top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income. Further, capital mobility shifts both
the tax burden and the burden of economic shocks onto the immobile factor, labour.
The populist backlash may have been predictable, but the specific form it took was less so. Populism
comes in different versions. It is useful to distinguish between left-wing and right-wing variants
of populism, which differ with respect to the societal cleavages that populist politicians highlight
and render salient. The US progressive movement and most Latin American populism took a left-wing
form. Donald Trump and European populism today represent, with some instructive exceptions, the right-wing
variant (Figure 2). What accounts for the emergence of right-wing versus left-wing variants of opposition
to globalization?
Figure 2 Contrasting patterns of populism in Europe and Latin America
Notes : See Rodrik (2017) for sources and methods.
I suggest that these different reactions are related to the forms in which globalisation shocks
make themselves felt in society (Rodrik 2017). It is easier for populist politicians to mobilise
along ethno-national/cultural cleavages when the globalisation shock becomes salient in the form
of immigration and refugees. That is largely the story of advanced countries in Europe. On the other
hand, it is easier to mobilise along income/social class lines when the globalisation shock takes
the form mainly of trade, finance, and foreign investment. That in turn is the case with southern
Europe and Latin America. The US, where arguably both types of shocks have become highly salient
recently, has produced populists of both stripes (Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump).
It is important to distinguish between the demand and supply sides of the rise in populism. The
economic anxiety and distributional struggles exacerbated by globalisation generate a base for populism,
but do not necessarily determine its political orientation. The relative salience of available cleavages
and the narratives provided by populist leaders are what provides direction and content to the grievances.
Overlooking this distinction can obscure the respective roles of economic and cultural factors in
driving populist politics.
Finally, it is important to emphasise that globalization has not been the only force at play -
nor necessarily even the most important one. Changes in technology, rise of winner-take-all markets,
erosion of labour market protections, and decline of norms restricting pay differentials all have
played their part. These developments are not entirely independent from globalisation, insofar as
they both fostered globalization and were reinforced by it. But neither can they be reduced to it.
Nevertheless, economic history and economic theory both give us strong reasons to believe that advanced
stages of globalisation are prone to populist backlash.
One question he does not address is why the opposition to globalization has had its most obvious
consequences in two countries:- the US and the UK with Trump and Brexit respectively.
I suggest
that the fact that these two countries are arguably the most unequal in the advanced world has
something to do with this. Also, on many measures I believe these two countries appear to be the
most 'damaged' societies in the advanced world – levels of relationship breakdown, teenage crime,
drug use, teenage pregnancies etc. I doubt this is a coincidence.
For me the lessons are obvious
– ensure the benefits of increased trade are distributed among all affected, not just some; act
to prevent excessive inequality; nurture people so that their lives are happier.
re: "ensure the benefits of increased trade are distributed among all affected"
Note that for the recent TPP, industry executives and senior government officials were well
represented for the drafting of the agreement, labor and environmental groups were not.
There simply may be no mechanism to "ensure the benefits are distributed among all affected"
in the USA political climate as those benefits are grabbed by favored groups, who don't want to
re-distribute them later.
Some USA politicians argue for passing flawed legislation while suggesting they will fix it
later, as I remember California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein stating when she voted for
Bush Jr's Medicare Part D ("buy elderly votes for Republicans").
It has been about 15 years, and I don't remember any reform efforts on Medicare Part D from
Di-Fi.
Legislation should be approached with the anticipated inequality problems solved FIRST when
wealthy and powerful interests are only anticipating increased wealth via "free trade". Instead,
the political process gifts first to the wealthy and powerful first and adopts a "we'll fix it
later" attitude for those harmed. And the same process occurs, the wealthy/powerful subsequently
strongly resist sharing their newly acquired "free trade" wealth increment with the free trade
losers..
If the USA adopted a "fix inequality first" requirement, one wonders if these free trade bills
would get much purchase with the elite.
Forced Free Trade was intended to be destructive to American society, and it was . . . exactly
as intended.
Millions of jobs were abolished here and shipped to foreign countries used as economic aggression
platforms against America. So of course American society became damaged as the American economy
became mass-jobicided. On purpose. With malice aforethought.
NAFTA Bill Clinton lit the fuse to the bomb which finally exploded under his lovely wife Hillary
in 2016.
The big problem I find in this analysis is that it completely forgets how different countries
use fiscal/financial policies to play merchantilistic games under globalization.
Yves, thanks for posting this from Dani Rodrik - whose clear thinking is always worthwhile.
It's an excellent, succinct post. Still, one 'ouch': "Redistribution is the flip side of the gains
from trade; no pain, no gain."
This is dehumanizing glibness that we cannot afford. The pain spreads like wildfire. It burns
down houses, savings, jobs, communities, bridges, roads, health and health care, education, food
systems, air, water, the 'real' economy, civility, shared values - in short everything for billions
of human beings - all while sickening, isolating and killing.
The gain? Yes, as you so often point out, cui bono? But, really it goes beyond even that question.
It requires asking, "Is this gain so obscene to arguably be no gain at all because its price for
those who cannot have too many homes and yachts and so forth is the loss of humanity?
Consider, for example, Mitch McConnell. He cannot reasonably be considered human. At all. And,
before the trolls create any gifs for the Teenager-In-Chief, one could say the same - or almost
the same - for any number of flexians who denominate themselves D or R (e.g. Jamie Gorelick).
No pain, no gain? Fine for getting into better shape or choosing to get better at some discipline.
It's an abominable abstraction, though, for describing phenomena now so far along toward planet-o-cide.
"Populism" seems to me to be a pejorative term used to delegitimize the grievances of the economically
disenfranchised and dismiss them derision.
Another categorization that I find less than apt, outmoded
and a misnomer is the phrase "advanced economies", especially given that level of industrialization
and gdp per capita are the key metrics used to arrive at these classifications. Globalization
has shifted most industrial activity away from countries that invested in rapid industrialization
post WW2 to countries with large pools of readily exploitable labour while gdp per capita numbers
include sections of the population with no direct participation in creating economic output (and
the growth of these marginalized sections is trending ever upward).
Meanwhile the financial benefits
of growing GDP numbers gush ever upwards to the financial-political elites instead of "trickling
downwards" as we are told they should, inequality grows unabated, stress related diseases eat
away at the bodies of otherwise young men and women etc. I'm not sure any of these dynamics, which
describe perfectly what is happening in many so called advanced economies, are the mark of societies
that should describe themselves as "advanced"
Sorry, but the original populist movement in the US called themselves the Populists or the
Populist Party. Being popular is good. You are the one who is assigning a pejorative tone to it.
Populism is widely used in the mainstream media, and even in the so called alternative media,
as a really pejorative term. That is what he means (I would say).
"What all these share is an anti-establishment orientation, a claim to speak for the people
against the elites, opposition to liberal economics and globalisation, and often (but not always)
a penchant for authoritarian governance."
On the other hand:
"What all these share is an establishment orientation, a claim to speak for the elites against
the people, support for liberal economics and globalisation, and always a penchant for authoritarian
governance."
"Financial globalisation appears to have produced adverse distributional impacts within countries
as well, in part through its effect on incidence and severity of financial crises. Most noteworthy
is the recent analysis by Furceri et al. (2017) that looks at 224 episodes of capital account
liberalisation. They find that capital-account liberalisation leads to statistically significant
and long-lasting declines in the labour share of income and corresponding increases in the Gini
coefficient of income inequality and in the shares of top 1%, 5%, and 10% of income. Further,
capital mobility shifts both the tax burden and the burden of economic shocks onto the immobile
factor, labour."
So, translated, Rodrick is saying that the free flow of money across borders, while people
are confined within these artificial constraints, results in all the riches flowing to the fat
cats and all the taxes, famines, wars, droughts, floods and other natural disasters being dumped
upon the peasants.
The Lakota, roaming the grassy plains of the North American mid-continent, glorified their
'fat cats,' the hunters who brought back the bison which provided food, shelter and clothing to
the people. And the rule was that the spoils of the hunt were shared unequally; the old, women
and children got the choice high calorie fatty parts. The more that a hunter gave away, the more
he was revered.
The Lakota, after some decades of interaction with the European invaders, bestowed on them
a disparaging soubriquet: wasi'chu. It means 'fat-taker;' someone who is greedy, taking all the
best parts for himself and leaving nothing for the people.
"So, translated, Rodrick is saying that the free flow of money across borders, while people
are confined within these artificial constraints .."
Nailed it!!
That's something that has always bothered me it's great for the propagandists to acclaim globalization
but they never get into the nitty-gritty of the "immobility" of the general populations who have
been crushed by the lost jobs, homes, families, lives .there should be a murderous outrage against
this kind of globalized exploitation and the consequent sufferings. Oh, but I forgot! It's all
about the money that is supposed to give incentive to those who are left behind to "recoup",
"regroup" and in today's age develop some kind of "app" to make up for all those losses .
In the
capitalist economies globalization is/was inevitable; the outcome is easy to observe ..and suffer
under.
they never get into the nitty-gritty of the "immobility" of the general populations who
have been crushed by the lost jobs, homes, families, lives
That's a feature, not a bug. Notice that big corporations are all in favor of globalization
except when it comes to things like labor law. Then, somehow, local is better.
"The economic anxiety and distributional struggles exacerbated by globalization generate a
base for populism, but do not necessarily determine its political orientation. The relative salience
of available cleavages and the narratives provided by populist leaders are what provides direction
and content to the grievances. "
Excellent and interesting point. Which political party presents itself as a believable tool
for redress affects the direction populism will take, making itself available as supply to the
existing populist demand. That should provide for 100 years of political science research.
Anonymous2 : "For me the lessons are obvious – ensure the benefits of increased trade are distributed
among all affected, not just some; act to prevent excessive inequality; nurture people so that
their lives are happier."
It ought to be but sadly I fear our politicians are bought. I am unsure I have the solution
. In the past when things got really bad I suspect people ended up with a major war before these
sorts of problems could be addressed. I doubt that is going to be a solution this time.
This piece was a lengthy run-on Econ 101 bollocks. Not only does the writer dismiss debt/interest
and the effects of rentier banking, but they come off as very simplistic. Reads like some sheltered
preppy attempt at explaining populism
Yep, Rodrik has been writing about these things for decades and has a remarkable talent for
never actually getting anywhere. He's particularly enamored by the neoliberal shiny toy of "skills",
as if predation, looting, and fraud simply don't exist.
This is a prime example of what is wrong with professional economic thinking. First, note that
Rodrik is nominally on our side: socially progressive, conscious of the increasingly frightful
cost of enviro externalities, etc.
But like almost all economists, Rodrik is ignoring the political
part of political economy. Historically, humanity has developed two organizational forms to select
and steer toward preferred economic destinies: governments of nation states, and corporations.
Only nation states provide the mass of people any form and extent of political participation in
determining their own destiny. The failure of corporations to provide political participation
can probably be recited my almost all readers of NC. Indeed, a key problem of the past few decades
is that corp.s have increasingly marginalized the role of nation states and mass political participation.
The liberalization of trade has come, I would argue, with a huge political cost no economist has
reckoned yet. Instead, economists are whining about the reaction to this political cost without
facing up to the political cost itself. Or even accept its legitimacy.
Second, there are massive negative effects of trade liberalization that economists simply refuse
to look at. Arbitration of environmental and worker safety laws and regulations is one. Another
is the aftereffects of the economic dislocations Rodrik alludes to.
One is the increasing constriction
of government budgets. These in turn have caused a scaling back of science R&D which I believe
will have huge but incalculable negative effects in coming years. How do you measure the cost
of failing to find a cure for a disease? Or failing to develop technologies to reverse climate
change? Or just to double the charge duration of electric batteries under load? As I have argued
elsewhere, the most important economic activity a society engages in us the development and diffusion
of new science and technology.
Intellectually poisoned by his social environment perhaps. The biggest problems with this piece
were its sweeping generalizations about unquantified socio-political trends. The things that academic
economists are least trained in; the things they speak about in passing without much thought.
I.e. Descriptions of political 'populism' that lumps Peronists, 19th century U.S. prairie populists,
Trump, and Sanders all into one neat category. Because, social movements driven by immiseration
of the common man are interchangeable like paper cups at a fast food restaurant.
Agree with much of what you comment .I believe that the conditions you describe are conveniently
dismissed by the pro economists as: "Externalities" LOL!! They seem to dump everything that doesn't
correlate to their dream of "Free Markets", "Globalization", etc .into that category .you gotta
love 'em!!
Rodrik is also wrong about the historical origins of agrarian populism in USA. It was not trade,
but the oligopoly power of railroads, farm equipment makers, and banks that were the original
grievances of the Grangers, Farmers Alliances after the Civil War.
In fact, the best historian of USA agrarian populism, Lawrence Goodwyn, argued that it was
exactly the populists' reluctant alliance with Byran in the 1896 election that destroyed the populist
movement. It was not so much an issue of the gold standard, as it was "hard money" vs "soft money"
: gold AND silver vs the populists' preference for greenbacks, and currency and credit issued
by US Treasury instead of the eastern banks.
A rough analogy is that Byran was the Hillary Clinton
of his day, with the voters not given any way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or
the House of Morgan.
"the oligopoly power of railroads, farm equipment makers, and banks that were the original
grievances "
That power was expressed in total control of the Congress and Presidential office. Then, as
now, the 80-90% of the voters had neither R or D party that represented their economic, property,
and safety interests. Given the same economic circumstances, if one party truly pushed for ameliorating
regulations or programs the populist movement would be unnecessary. Yes, Bryan was allowed to
run (and he had a large following) and to speak at the Dem convention, much like Bernie today.
The "Bourbon Democrats" kept firm control of the party and downed Jennings' programs just as the
neolib Dem estab today keep control of the party out of the hands of progressives.
an aside: among many things, the progressives pushed for good government (ending cronyism),
trust busting, and honest trade, i.e not selling unfit tinned and bottled food as wholesome food.
Today, we could use an "honest contracts and dealings" act to regulate the theft committed by
what the banks call "honest contract enforcement", complete with forges documents. (Upton Sinclair
wrote The Jungle (1906) about the meatpacking industry. What would he make of today's mortgage
industry, or insurance industry, for example.)
For an author and article so interested in international trade, I'm fascinated by the lack
of evidence or argumentation that trade is the problem. The real issue being described here is
excessive inequality delivered through authoritarianism, not international trade. The intra-city
divergence between a hospital administrator and a home health aid is a much bigger problem in
the US than trade across national borders. The empire abroad and the police state at home is a
much bigger problem than competition from China or Mexico. Etc. Blaming international trade for
domestic policies (and opposition to them) is just simple misdirection and xenophobia, nothing
more.
I take exception to most of Prof. Rodrik's post, which is filled with factual and/or logical
inaccuracies.
"Populism appears to be a recent phenomenon, but it has been on the rise for quite some time
(Figure 1)."
Wrong. Pretending that a historical generic is somehow new Populism has been around since
at least the time of Jesus or William Wallace or the American Revolution or FDR.
"What all these share is an anti-establishment orientation, a claim to speak for the people
against the elites, opposition to liberal economics and globalisation, and often (but not always)
a penchant for authoritarian governance."
Wrong. Creating a straw man through overgeneralization. Just because one country's "populism"
appears to have taken on a certain color, does not mean the current populist movement in another
part of the world will be the same. The only essential characteristics of populism are the anti-establishment
orientation and seeking policies that will redress an imbalance in which some elites have aggrandized
themselves unjustly at the expense of the rest of the people. The rest of the items in the list
above are straw men in a generalization. Rise of authoritarian (non-democratic) governance after
a populist uprising implies the rise of a new elite and would be a failure, a derailing of the
populist movement – not a characteristic of it.
"Correspondingly, the efficiency gains of trade liberalisation become progressively smaller
as the barriers get lower."
If, in fact, we were seeing lower trade barriers, and this was driving populism, this whole
line of reasoning might have some value. But as it is, well over half the US economy is either
loaded with barriers, subject to monopolistic pricing, or has not seen any "trade liberalization".
Pharmaceuticals, despite being commodities, have no common global price the way, say, oil does.
Oil hasn't had lowered barriers, though, and thus doesn't count in favor of the argument either.
When China, Japan and Europe drop their import barriers, and all of them plus the U.S. get serious
about antitrust enforcement, there might be a case to be made
"It is useful to distinguish between left-wing and right-wing variants of populism"
Actually it isn't. The salient characteristic of populism is favoring the people vs. the establishment.
The whole left/right dichotomy is a creation of the establishment, used to divide the public and
PREVENT an effective populist backlash. As Gore Vidal astutely pointed out decades ago, there
is really only one party in the U.S. – the Property Party – and the Ds and Rs are just two heads
of the same hydra. Especially in the past 10 years or so.
About the only thing the author gets right is the admission that certain economic policies
unjustly create pain among many groups of people, leading to popular retribution. But that's not
insightful, especially since he fails to address the issue quantitatively and identify WHICH policies
have created the bulk of the pain. For instance, was more damage done by globalization, or by
the multi-trillion-$ fleecing of the U.S. middle class by the bankers and federal reserve during
the recent housing bubble and aftermath? What about the more recent ongoing fleecing of the government
and the people by the healthcare cartels, at about $1.5-2 trillion/year in the U.S.?
What arouses popular opposition is not inequality per se, but perceived unfairness.
Which is the primary worldview setting for the neo-reactionary right in America. Everything
is a question of whether or not ones income was "fairly earned."
So you get government employees
and union members voting for politicians who've practically declared war against those voters'
class, but vote for them anyway because they set their arguments in a mode of fairness morality:
You can vote for the party of hard workers, or the party of handouts to the lazy. Which is why
China keeps getting depicted as a currency manipulator and exploiter of free trade agreements.
Economic rivals can only succeed via "cheating," not being industrious like the US.
That describes a number of my relatives and their friends. They are union members and government
employees yet hold hard right-wing views and are always complaining about lazy moochers living
on welfare. I ask them why they love the Republicans so much when this same party demonizes union
members and public employees as overpaid and lazy and the usual answer is that Republicans are
talking about some other unions or other government employees, usually teachers.
I suspect that the people in my anecdote hate public school teachers and their unions because
they are often female and non-white or teach in areas with a lot of minority children. I see this
a lot with white guys in traditional masculine industrial unions. They sometimes look down on
unions in fields that have many female and non-white members, teachers being the best example
I can think of.
"... No I want the return on New Deal Capitalism. But this is impossible as managerial class changed it allegiance and the political block that made the New Deal possible no longer exists. ..."
"... I do not see the alternative to neoliberalism right now. Soviet style "state capitalism" (which some call socialism) is definitely worse. Over centralization proved to be really deadly for large states. ..."
"... Left is not panacea for solving economic problems. Neither is the US style neoliberalism. There is probably "golden level" in redistributive policies like in tennis: if you hold the racket too tightly you can't play well; if you hold it too lose (deregulation) you can't play well either. ..."
So, you want Chavez style government
with all the wealth redistributed to the masses and the central bank printing money like crazy
so everyone is able to consume far more than is produced?
Or do you blame Obama for US oil production
doubling while oil demand was cut by efficiency and alternatives thus destroying half the wealth
in Venezuela, the half Chavez hadn't yet redistributed?
I can't figure out which is worse, the free lunch right-wing or the free lunch leftist.
"So, you want Chavez style
government with all the wealth redistributed to the masses and the central bank printing
money like crazy so everyone is able to consume far more than is produced?"
No I want
the return on New Deal Capitalism. But this is impossible as managerial class changed it
allegiance and the political block that made the New Deal possible no longer exists.
I do not see the alternative to neoliberalism right now. Soviet style "state capitalism"
(which some call socialism) is definitely worse. Over centralization proved to be really
deadly for large states.
As for Venezuela we simply do not know what part of their problems were created externally
(being of the same continent with Uncle Sam and not to dance to his neoliberal tune is a
dangerous undertaking, if you ask me). Please note the Argentina and Brazil already folded
and neoliberal governments are in power again, and not without help from Uncle Sam.
And what part are internal and rooted in mismanagement of the economy due to corruption
within the left government and or unrealistic redistribution policies.
Left is not panacea for solving economic problems. Neither is the US style neoliberalism.
There is probably "golden level" in redistributive policies like in tennis: if you hold
the racket too tightly you can't play well; if you hold it too lose (deregulation) you can't
play well either.
"... Nobody should have any doubts about the determination of this former Rothschild banker to carry out his mission, which is none other than to be the Margaret Thatcher of France. In any case, if he was chosen for this role, it is precisely because he has been trained for decades in the most absolute discipline and because he does not seem to have any particular emotional ties with his own country. It is not a professional politician but a man of "the markets" and of Finance who has come to govern France. If there is anyone who is determined to display as much harshness as is necessary and to take as many risks as are necessary, that person is Macron. ..."
"... Macron's appearance, the day that he won the election, was flawless. Even his arrogance evidently served as a reminder to the French that he came from the class that is destined to govern. His speech was a series of generalities, which could have been delivered a century in the past or a century in the future. Except at one point: where he skewered via the terms "extremisms" the Left and the far Right, serving notice that his aim was war against them. ..."
"... The banker-President has come to disencumber the country of all of this type of thing. His amazing success: entering politics and becoming President of France within three years, is a reflection of the massive power, influence and potential of finance capital, the Empire of Davos, in our era. ..."
"... This is probably Finance Capital's "Plan B". But after the election of Trump and the Brexit there came the Dutch, and now the French, elections, to curb (temporarily?) its impetus. ..."
"... Macron's victory gives the EU a reprieve, staving off the likelihood of a sudden death, even though it would be a mistake for anyone to assume that its crisis has been overcome. ..."
"... In the final analysis Macron probably won because France did not trust (this time) a lady of the far right, which seemed dangerous to it, but also because it felt the Left is not yet ready. This delay in the manifestation of the crisis will most probably contribute to its revealing itself more powerfully at a certain point. ..."
"... This is ensured in any case by today's European elites, who are more than ever dependent on, and guided by Finance and so persist in precisely the policies that caused the crisis, the discontent and the rebellion. ..."
Macron "scooped the pool and decamped" in the second round of the French presidential elections,
scoring an easy victory over Marine Le Pen. Her performance was in any case so bad in the last week
of the pre-election campaign that it led some commentators to the conclusion that the National Front
did not want to be required to govern.
We have to wait and see if Macron consolidates his victory in the parliamentary elections also.
But already both the Socialist Party and the Right, the two traditional parties of power in the country,
project a picture of total disintegration and decay, with their cadres leaping into the water like
rodents from a sinking ship and heading for the safety of Macron.
Consummating the humiliation of France's political class, former "socialist" Prime Minister Manuel
Valls pronounced the Socialist Party dead and affirmed his transposition to the party of Macron,
for which he said he intended to be a parliamentary candidate. Only to receive the public answer
from the party of his former Minister that he must submit his application through the Internet, following
the procedures applicable for everyone. Finally they told him that his services are not required.
But even if in the parliamentary elections he achieves the institutional omnipotence that is his
dream, Macron and his ideas remain isolated and espoused by a minority in French society, as indicated
by analysis of the results of the first and second round of the presidential elections. The capture
of the GS & M factory by its workers, who threaten to blow it up as these lines are being written,
is a reminder that the tasks the new President has been set, or has set himself, will not be in any
way easy.
A man of the "Markets" and of "Finance"
Nobody should have any doubts about the determination of this former Rothschild banker to carry
out his mission, which is none other than to be the Margaret Thatcher of France. In any case, if
he was chosen for this role, it is precisely because he has been trained for decades in the most
absolute discipline and because he does not seem to have any particular emotional ties with his own
country. It is not a professional politician but a man of "the markets" and of Finance who has come
to govern France. If there is anyone who is determined to display as much harshness as is necessary
and to take as many risks as are necessary, that person is Macron.
His hagiographers are now proliferating in the French press at the speed of mushrooms in the forest
after rain. Many would like to liken him to Napoleon. Aware, though, that they would run the risk
of being ridiculed, they confine themselves to reminders that since the Emperor the country has never
had such a young ruler.
But this Napoleon does not plan to start any war with the monarchs of Europe, who linked themselves
together, funded – it is said – by Rothschild, to strangle revolutionary France. His campaigns will
be on the domestic front, like those of Thiers. Recall also that the Paris Commune emerged from the
refusal of the people of France to accept their country's capitulation to Germany.
Macron's appearance, the day that he won the election, was flawless. Even his arrogance evidently
served as a reminder to the French that he came from the class that is destined to govern. His speech
was a series of generalities, which could have been delivered a century in the past or a century
in the future. Except at one point: where he skewered via the terms "extremisms" the Left and the
far Right, serving notice that his aim was war against them.
The only half-way human spontaneous element of M. Macron on his day of victory was at the end
of celebrations, his embarrassed laugh when he was the only one in the group not to sing the Marseillaise.
Either he did not know the words or he could not sing them.
If there is one song that the ruling class of France hates it is the country's national anthem,
summoning the citizenry "to arms". And the same applies for the national rallying emblem
"Liberté,
égalité, fraternité."
The banker-President has come to disencumber the country of all of this type of thing. His amazing
success: entering politics and becoming President of France within three years, is a reflection of
the massive power, influence and potential of finance capital, the Empire of Davos, in our era.
At the international level, Macron's victory discontinues, at least temporarily, the string of
successes of the most radical wing of the Western establishment which, persuaded that Fukuyama-type
"benign globalization" is not making much progress, decided to place its bets on the "Huntington
model" of the war of civilizations.
This is probably Finance Capital's "Plan B". But after the election of Trump and the Brexit there
came the Dutch, and now the French, elections, to curb (temporarily?) its impetus.
Macron's victory gives the EU a reprieve, staving off the likelihood of a sudden death, even though
it would be a mistake for anyone to assume that its crisis has been overcome.
And how could it overcome it when the predominant political forces on the continent, Berlin and
the Commission, persist with insouciance of a Marie Antoinette, in the same policies of administering
to the patient the medicine that is killing him.
A minority president
The new president was elected by a minority of French voters in absolute terms and many who voted
for him did not endorse his program but wanted to block Le Pen.
* In contrast to Chirac, who won 82% of the vote against Jean-Marie Le Pen in 2002, Macron
obtained only 65%.
* For the first time since 1969 participation in the second round smaller (by 3%) than in the
first.
* Τhe 12% figure for spoiled or blank ballots was an absolute record for the Fifth Republic
(in 2012 it was 5.8%)
* 42% of those with the right to vote supported Macron and of those, according to public opinion
polls, only 55% agreed with his ideas.
The results of the first round are genuinely representative of the political preferences of the
French, half of whom voted for political forces opposed to the European Union in its present form.
If we factor in the votes for "La France Insoumise", Mélenchon, the left-wing Socialist Hamon
and the two Trotskyist candidates, we see that they account for 27% of the votes in the first round,
slightly more than the proportion of votes that went to the far right and the anti-systemic Right
Gaullists of Dupon-Aignan. Even if we do not count Hamon, we are still speaking of more than 50%
"anti-systemic" votes, in a European country of central importance.
Hamon, remember, supported policies which, if implemented, would have led to clashes with Brussels.
The reason that we include him in an intermediate category is that he was clearly unwilling to proceed
to a break with the EU for the sake of imposing them.
In other words 50-55% of voters favor "antisystemic" parties, whether of the Left, the Right or
the extreme Right.
55% was also the percentage of the French who voted against the draft European Constitutional
Treaty (in essence the Maastricht structure) in the 2005 referendum. But at that time there were
no political subjects in France to articulate this "No". And the deep structural economic crisis
of 2008 had not yet broken.
France became the second country in the EU, after Greece, where the majority of citizens voted
for parties declaring themselves to be "antisystemic". Confirming that we are in a situation of profound
and intensifying structural, not cyclical, crisis of Western capitalism and its political system,
of a depth, though not of an intensity, comparable to that of the 1929 crisis.
As occurred in the 1930s, the crisis tends to generate radical political subjects on the left
and the far right, particularly in relatively stronger countries such as France, Britain and the
United States, which can more easily imagine relying on their own forces. In weaker countries radicalization
has manifested itself mainly on the Left, as with SYRIZA and PODEMOS.
A geopolitical Weimar
Not only are there significant structural similarities between the socio-political crisis of today's
Europe and that of the Weimar Republic (1919-33) in interwar Germany. Geopolitically today Europe
is also reminiscent of the 1930s and early 1940s . By all indications it is under German hegemony,
with only two countries at the opposite extremes challenging the desiderata of Berlin: Putin's Russia
to the east, obliged almost against its will to resist the West. And to the west Britain, whose ruling
class dreams of a more powerful role for London, for the benefit always of the rising "Empire of
Finance" and the USA.
Italy comes over as the perennial opportunist and vacillator, as in the time of Mussolini, prior
to his final decision to side with Hitler. Poland reminds us in some ways of Pilsudski's heyday.
Spain seems to have withdrawn into its own peninsula, as it did then. A special case on the European
periphery is Turkey, which is bargaining for its international position, not to mention another non-European
country, which did not exist in the interwar period, Israel, but exerts massive influence over European,
and even more so Mediterranean, developments.
Of course "German hegemony" over Europe always remains under the supervision of Finance, of the
IMF, of the USA and NATO, which take care from time to time to remind Berlin of the limits of the
permissible, and to impose them.
France has for some time positioned itself in a stance of submission and subordination to Germany,
somewhat reminiscent – naturally with all due allowances for the very different conditions – of the
Vichy regime of General Petain.
France is now , mutandis mutandis , in the position Germany was towards the victors of
the First World War. This is why there is a potential for developing both a leftist radical and a
far right answer, as happened with Germany in the intrawar period, when it vacillated between the
Left and Hitler, ending with the Nazis, given the incompetence and betrayal of both German Social
Democrats and Communists.
France, Germany and the EU
In Berlin signs of relief greeted the election of Macron in preference to Le Pen. They were soon
followed, however, by warnings both from Germany and from the Brussels Commission to the newly elected
President not to expect relaxation of "fiscal discipline".
Macron has the support of the "International of Finance", of which he is any case a representative.
But despite the fact that Berlin allied itself with this "International" to impose its priorities
on Europe, the German Right has no desire to expend the German surpluses on assisting its allies
or the revival of the European and international economy, despite the fact that Mr. Gabriel (but
not Mr. Schulz) and certain Green politicians are beginning to flirt with the idea, judging that
the maintenance of German hegemony requires somewhat greater flexibility.
It remains to be seen what Macron is going to do, given that he must on the one hand confront
a very real, albeit dissimulated, "civilized" German nationalism and on the other prepare to proceed
with the demolition of labour law in his own country.
The resurrection of the Left
France is a country that has made ten revolutions in two centuries. From the Popular Front to
the post-war predominance of the Communist Party, from the Trotskyists' struggle for the Algerian
Revolution up to May 1968 and the Socialist Party's electoral victory in 1981, the Left has set its
seal on the country's history.
Many believed that this tradition has died, along with the distinction between Left and Right,
with the total capitulation of the Socialist Party to neoliberalism, in conditions of progressive
cultural decline and "Americanization". The traditional socialist culture of the popular classes
survived, but in a state of perennial defensiveness, without ideological-political representatives
or a presence in the media. What remained of social revolt began to emigrate to the far right, the
National Front of Marine Le Pen.
Until the underlying social demand for a true, authentic left met up with the political drive
of Mélenchon and a miracle, a resurrection, occurred, a Left was born that has some connection with
its name.
Mélenchon's result in the first round must be seen as historic. It brings to a close the era of
Socialist Party hegemony that opened with the Epinay congress in 1971, a development analogous to
SYRIZA's eclipse of PASOK.
There is nothing accidental about this result for Mélenchon. It reflects the enormous demand in
all of the Western world for an authentic Left wing. A recent poll showed that 45% of American youth
would vote socialist and 21% communist, although socialists and communists are almost non-existent
in the US (or perhaps also because they are non-existent!). A few days ago a majority of British
people opted in opinion polls for the Leftist electoral program of the Labour Party, which provides
for renationalization of the railways, the Post Office and water, with corresponding measures to
that effect.
It appears to have been pre-planned from the outset that the electoral game in France would go
the way it went, with a match between Macron and Le Pen. Only against Le Pen was Macron assured of
victory. Only against the Macron-Rothschild and deploying every dissident element in her arsenal
could Le Pen have any hope of attaining credibility.
Mélenchon's performance, challenging Le Pen's monopoly over expression of social dissent and revolt,
changed the situational data. And we cannot know what would have happened if the terrorist attack
had not taken place on the eve of the first round, strengthening Macron, stabilizing Fillon and assisting
with exclusion of Mélenchon.
"La France Insoumise" won more than three times as many votes as the Socialist candidate. Its
rise has been as spectacular as that of SYRIZA, Corbyn and Sanders. Of course getting off to a very
good start by no means ensures that the sequel will be as propitious. Problems frequently arise in
the next stage as the tragic experience of the Greek betrayal and disaster has already amply proven.
In the case of France the problems emerged immediately with the sectarianism and the inability
of the French Left as a whole to coalesce for the parliamentary elections. Given France's super-majoritarian,
two-round, profoundly undemocratic electoral system, this failure may have adverse consequences when
it comes to the final number of left-wing members in parliament.
In the final analysis Macron probably won because France did not trust (this time) a lady of the
far right, which seemed dangerous to it, but also because it felt the Left is not yet ready. This
delay in the manifestation of the crisis will most probably contribute to its revealing itself more
powerfully at a certain point.
This is ensured in any case by today's European elites, who are more than ever dependent on, and
guided by Finance and so persist in precisely the policies that caused the crisis, the discontent
and the rebellion.
Dimitris Konstantakopoulos is a journalist and writer, former Secretary of the Independent
Citizens Movement, former member SYRIZA's Central Committee, current editorial board member of the
international magazine Utopia Review, ex-chief of the Greek Press Agency office in Moscow, formerly
served as Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou's adviser in East-West relations and arms control.
Le Pen was similar to Trump in her desire to improve the relations with Russia and generally more
realistic view of recent events. she is not a USA stooge. That probably a partial reason why she lost.
Macron is somewhat like French Obama a shadow figure who is a marionette of forces behind him, not a
actual politician.
Notable quotes:
"... the 'abstain in disgust' demographic has been over-hyped from the day after results were announced. ..."
"... the abstain thing was overhyped for one and only reason, put the "shame" on the the left so that'll cut their chances for the June Legsilatives election (the one that counts contrary to the sunday joke). ..."
"... It's the only reason all major tv/radio/newspapers spent the last 2 weeks vociferating against Melenchon & his voters as "irresponsible" while 90% of those insulted will NOT vote for Le Pen. That would be total nonsense if the thing those media were fighting was Le Pen... ..."
"... Problem is with the media and the establishment EU globalists, all dissenting and opposite views will be quashed even further under the 'fighting terrorism' guise. People will be smeared, fined, arrested, jailed, whatever it takes for them to maintain a grip on power. ..."
"... Yes the russian-hating-blaming-millionare Macron will win no doubt, the election is more or less fixed after the propaganda campaing for him everywhere in the west. The same Macron and MSM are already cooking up disinformation about russian hackers, theese people are insane, and its also a sign of what policy he will carry out. ..."
"... Long term though? Next election Le Pen or whoever rule her party will win. It will also cause more extremism because the elite under Macron wont deal with regular people and their problems but with the elite. ..."
"... to be fair though, those emails leaks seem totally dull. I browsed what I could, it's just generic staff chat, campaign bills to pay, bills to make, yadda yadda Whoever got the mail passwords few months ago must have waited for something juicy to land and since nothing really interesting came up, they're just posting the whole stock as is. Won't make the slightest difference on sunday. ..."
"... Exactly. I wouldnt be surprised if its Macron team itself that leaked this dull, uninportant stuff to show that "russians have interfered". ..."
"... Macron won 1st step with the intense fear campaign spammed on our heads during 6 months. I know plenty reasonable people who voted Macron while they hardly can stand his program, because they were told hundreds times he was the "best choice" to beat Le Pen. ..."
"... That's so absurd Macron got the most votes last sunday AND at the same time got the LOWEST "adhesion" (adherence ? not sure in english) rate of all 11 candidates, basically nearly half of "his" voters put the bulletin with his name for reasons that have nothing to do with him. ..."
"... they're both pro-Zionist. Just another shell game of an election whilst the media does its assigned job of shouting loudly about some supposed vast gulf existing between the 2 candidates. Having said that, if I was French there's just no way I could vote for a slimy Rothschild banking reptile like Macron. At least Le Pen appears to be an actual human. ..."
"... Without Trump's 100 first days, le Pen would probably have done better, possibly even taken it. The French have been given full flood propaganda that Marine le Pen is the equivalent of Donald Trump. She is not. There are some similarities, but le Pen is more nuanced than Trump, far more experienced in politics, and would be at least somewhat more consistent with her campaign promises. ..."
"... That said, she is not the economic "populist" many imagine and many more hope for. Her actual platform would be remarkably like that of Obama or Hillary; neoliberal. ..."
"... she might make improvements in, and the emphasis should be on "might", one of them is avoiding participation in every war that the US starts up in the Middle East as well as all the Putin bashing that is de rigeur for US allies ..."
"... long term outcome of globalists verses nationalists? the globalists are going to win, and full on slavery will continue to ensue.. the younger generations will not see the comforts and lifestyle their parents enjoyed - far from it in fact.. freedoms will be clamped down, alternative views will be made illegal and stuff like that.. after that, there is a small chance people will possibly wake up, but i wouldn't count on it.. ..."
"... " the epic fight of globalists versus nationalists" No. It is the epic fight of corporatists versus nationalists. ..."
"... Corporations are trying to assert themselves as bigger, better and more powerful than states. Time to remind corporatists that they exist only at the will and control of a state. By allowing a corporation to establish themselves, the state should be their front, Potemkin village or not. ..."
"... A strand in F politics / commentators etc. brands him as a candidat fabriqué , a candidat du système a sort of cut-out ersatz pol, created and boosted by the financial elites, Mega Corps., banking - as he worked for Rotschild, etc. The MSM, particularly magazines... ensuring his win with 24/24 favorable coverage. Sure, he is young, good-looking, etc. ..."
"... Some gays support Macron as rumors about him being gay with his older wife as a 'mommy type cover' indulging in an affair with some sultry media guy. ..."
"... Macron is an opportunist taking advantage of the break-down of trad. F politics - death of the Socialist party, divisions on the right, oppos parties no clout, Sarkozy despised, Hollande then more so.. to present a quasi 'evangelical' solution as a last ditch effort against decline, sinking GDP per capita, > as 'collaborationist' with the US-EU-NATO - etc. He is most likely quite, or semi-sincere, in his desire to fix it all. A 'maverick' who is yet 'hyper conventional' - a very conventional profile! ..."
"... You're right about Trump I think. Even if the 100 day benchmark is arbitrary it's something that's paid a lot of attention. It's been very unsettling for a lot of Americans. Other countries have been watching closely. They watched as Trump front loaded his cabinet with bankers and generals. They wondered whatever happened to nonintervention and draining the swamp. They wondered if the demonization of certain religious and ethnic groups was the harbinger of a brave new world that wasn't all that brave or all that new. His attack on all things environmental, while weather events become worse year by year, strictly to accommodate big business is another problem. So is the new health bill that gives the coup de grâce to any idea that he's the champion of the common man. ..."
"... In any case the French election will go a long way to determining if the new philosophy of undoing all the constructs since WW11 is what the people want. it's starting to look like it isn't. The losers are sure to cry that big finance and the press skewered the vote but it might just be that the French are happy the way things are. ..."
"... Macron will be to France what Obama has been to the US. Just like Obama's presidency made possible Trump's victory four years later, Macron's presidency will make possible a Front National victory in five years. ..."
"... The Chancellors of the French universities have asked their students to vote Macron. (Link in French) Not a single Chancellor has asked students to vote Le Pen. The same can be said of the French press. The media barrage in favor of Macron has been so one-sided, some Frenchmen call their country jokingly "East Corea" ..."
"... I find it difficult to hear people praising Le Pen who won't have to live under her presidency. Let me remind you that Europe had more than its share of nationalist wars, and the last thing the continent needs are governments adding fuel to the fire of existing tensions. Macron is a puppet, but in the end he'll do what's necessary to stabilize things. Le Pen might well blow things up and lead to civil war. ..."
"... I am not a supporter of Le Pen and hell no, not supporter of a "French Trump" Macron, Yes, it is Macron in my opinion that is French Trump, a Flaccid Clown of Global Oligarchy while Le Pen is slightly reversed Sanders as far as elements of political platform that matter for ordinary people in France and the US. ..."
"... Brilliant move by Marine Le Pen was to campaign on her own more centrist platform and not be obliged to follow strictly FN platform as a FN leader would have to follow. ..."
"... In fact as Macron was first who shed his discrediting Socialist label as hated Hollande minister, now Le Pen shed her FN right-wing and neo-fascist label to commence entirely new campaign as true French populist and nationalist. ..."
"... She already told French that they have a clear choice between neoliberal oligarchic rule of globalists under a thieving investment banker or French people rule under populist leader liken to de Gaulle. ..."
"... Does she have a chance against unified block of French MSM media and Globalist media worldwide, against slander, lies and fake news, against 95% of largest French press being against her? Not likely, especial that as it was documented CIA has capabilities and used them to manipulate french elections already in the past. But it is more complicated than that and Marine Le Pen is not Trump. ..."
"... The Macron campaign identified the first tweet referring to the documents as coming from the Twitter account of Nathan Damigo , a far-right activist and convicted felon based in northern California. Damigo is known on social media for punching a female anti-fascist in the face at a Berkeley protest. ..."
"... Originated online in California, just before the 2.5 hour debate between Le Pen and Macron. ..."
"... Melenchon is the one to listen to to understand the situation in France. While he didn't make it into round two, he has a good chance of a large parliamentary victory in the round of elections after the presidential one. He's been locked out of the English-language press in the U.S. and Britain (he falls outside their narrow spectrum of acceptable political views) so you have to read the French press (I use Google Translate) or watch his youtube (with subcaptions) channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsGkA4TXqyw ..."
"... In order to combat mass immigration, which is mainly internal to developing countries, the causes of migration must be tackled: the impossibility of any development in the countries of departure, due to debts and Structural adjustment policies imposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, the plundering of resources by multinationals and free trade. ..."
"... Outside the fact most media pre-prepare their headlines for such occasions when time does not allow for late information to be disseminated by normal publishing procedures, the Dewey / Truman was marked by the media believing their own propaganda to the extent they became divorced from reality. This recently has shown its tracks in the Clinton / Trump campaign with 'interesting result' - the Russians did it! ..."
"... Macron has no effective political party in the French parliament, the fictional party he was supported by has no parliamentary standing and is unlikely to obtain standing. ..."
"... she has said that she won't allow French citizens to have Israeli passports ..."
"... Those Francophone African countries that are part of the West African and Central African Franc currency zones were among the most enthusiastic backers of Colonel Muammar Gaddhafi's pan-African "gold dinar" economic market. No wonder Nicolas Sarkozy signed onto the US no-fly zone over Libya idiocy tout de suite in 2011. ..."
"... The relative lack of power of France made me wonder the real reason why they led the NATO attack on Libya. Was it the financial dealings between Sarkozy and Gaddhafi like some sites say or were they really prodded by the US to lead the way of the overall game plan? ..."
"... Macron's dirty secrets according to The Duran: http://theduran.com/breaking-macron-emails-lead-to-allegations-of-drug-use-homosexual-adventurism-and-rothschild-money/ ..."
"... Le Pen voters, who decry globalisation, foreignors, terrorists, muslims, etc. / the remnants of the left (socialist - Trotskyist - add anarchist - ..), who voted Mélenchon or not at all / those who are 'foreign' - outcasts in any case - and thus can't rally to Le Pen or to anyone.. and just keep their heads down. ..."
"... The divide-to-rule strategy has worked perfectly on these workers. In two factories I know of, the 3 different groups don't speak to each other, except as routine politeness / ugly jokes small skirmish etc., as they are all in the same boat, subject to the same oppressive rules, etc. though some contacts/friendships cross these lines. ..."
"... Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to vomit. Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the crap people post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they are to believe the lies. ..."
"... As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that I find rather rational considering all the craziness taking place. ..."
"... Good short summmary: The Truth About Macron https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6H0cjIN4gw ..."
"... n America, American Voters in the USA elections, are allowed to elect by majority vote, either of two persons(for each position); but the between candidate platforms, boil down to the same side of two identical coins. Those elected are paid a salary to operate the USA for the benefit of, and "according to" the "allowed policy" established by, those in control of the national policy. ..."
"... The French election is not about choice of platforms, but instead, the French election is about choice of persons to be paid to execute the allowed platforms. The range of choices in the French election.. and in republics throughout the world, has been and is, limited to candidates who subscribe to "allowed platforms". It is clear to me, the policies the candidates will be paid, if elected, to execute are, all the same in every Republic, around the globe. ..."
"... That all the evils in western society are the fault of the external bogeyman. Putin, ISIS Refugees, Asian footwear makers, whatever. ..."
"... Is that your services & politicians Would never pull a false leak or a controlled leak or a limited hangout. That they are angels that sit on their hands. ..."
"... These two underpin the absolute lunacy we have seen unfold before our eyes. An extraordinarily dangerous situation to be in which is getting worse fast. ..."
"... Everyone backed the wrong horse. Instead of pushing for JL Melenchon who's also a non-interventionist on foreign policy from the very beginning as opposed to the unpopular candidate of Sarkozy's party, F. Fillon, and then the Islamophobe Le Pen, you'all had to back Le Pen who had no chance in hell of winning because she scared not only Muslims but many on the Left. ..."
"... Obomo praises Emmanuel Macron well run campaign and like Emmanuel Macron's "Liberal value" . Good ridden! ..."
"... Last year, when Joe visited the US, we were discussing the US presidential campaign and Bernie Sanders. Joe and I agreed that the West is experiencing a general political meltdown. Joe then went on to describe the default pattern that EU elections follow: ..."
"... The prospective candidates are inevitably the "Usual Suspects", i.e. centrist/moderate careerist technocrats, the odd "maverick" or two with limited, cultlike support-- and The Extremist ..."
"... The Establishment power elite, institutions, and complicit mass-media begin an orchestrated howling: "Anybody But [insert Extremist du jour here]!" ..."
"... The "Anybody But!" coalition throws massive resources into a public relations campaign to generate mass hysterical fear at the prospect that The Extremist may win and lead the nation straight to Hell. ..."
"... The terrified, confused, hysterical, panic-stricken public accordingly falls in line and elects the favorite centrist/moderate careerist technocrat who will perpetuate the neoliberal status quo. ..."
"... The Establishment power elite and its mass-media megaphone will effusively praise the inconquerable wisdom and good sense of The People in once again Saving the Republic by rejecting a dangerous Extremist. ..."
"... Macron is a shark (report from the family), not a victim of the banksters. He followed May's strategy in UK of staying quiet till elected. Future policy: not merely a bankster, but also the son of a conservative family of doctors from Amiens. So not a pure neo-liberal, as has been suggested, but someone who is forced by his family background to take their point of view into account. ..."
"... The prospect is not too bad. Other than in foreign policy, where he has declared himself against the Asad regime in Syria. I don't take that too seriously. Once in power, he may discover what is implied in attacking Asad, that is war against Russia, and he may hesitate. ..."
"... I am French. Macron won because of an unprecedented media onslaught that led 25% of voters who don't know their heads for their a... to vote for him in the first round, while the media had blocked anyone but Macron and Le Pen from getting to the second round. That's because they know that people would elect a head of lettuce if that head of lettuce was running against Le Pen. ..."
"... You see, the US only stopped major civil war kind of s... because Trump won, which disarmed the anger of the disenfranchised masses. Unfortunately, in France, Emmanuel Clinton won. And the French extreme left wing, who hates Macron's guts, can be dangerous. I mean, physically dangerous. Other clear-headed observers than Gave are already mumbling words like "barricades" and "civil war". ..."
"... What does that say about any French thinking their vote matters? Look at the choices they were "offered". ..."
"... the parallels between obama and micro seem very strong ... someone linked elsewhere - on the open thread - to a biography of obama that had him making decisions with an eye to future "political showbiz" career at an early age. ..."
"... the 'destiny' of the 'political' showbiz - class seems now to be to surf the waves of financial power, all pretense to politics long gone. probably always thus, to a great extent. but with the need for real politics so striking now - the disaster to be had for relying on autopilot more apparent than ever - so too is the self-centeredness of the showbiz personalities. ..."
"... If Macron manages to trick the French fools again and his non-existing party actually gets a majority in parliament, I expect things to go South before his first mandate is over. ..."
"... A total of 4.2 million of French voters cast empty ballots in the presidential run-off on Synday, a survey conducted by Ispos and Sopra Steria said ....8.9 percent of the total of 47.6 million voters cast empty ballots, refusing to give their support to either of the candidates." ..."
The French 2017 election has become the battle of the status quo; one a historical myth (La Pen)
providing some comfort from a perceived tradition, the other of hidden political power looking
to perpetuate itself by stealth and deception (Macron). Should the French electorate decide that
silence can be an effective form of a lie, they can support the candidate which best meets the
voter's best interests. La Pen is a candidate of a legitimate but small political party; Macron
has, like any good magician, produced a facsimile political group, a crypto-political party. Taking
a page from U.S. political history, lies never produce the results they promise. Good luck France,
reach into your conscious and vote your best interests Sunday. The world awaits your collective
decision if politics still operates in France.
"It seems clear so far the the synthetic Rothschild candidate will win this round."
That's the way it's shaping up, despite the weirdness of Obama adding his name to the Kiss
Of Death list of pro-Micron Swamp Dwellers headed by such unpopular has-beens as Hollande, Sarkozy
et al.
There's too much contrived 'flexibility' in this charade. In Round 1 the voter-participation
rate settled at 77.1% after early cites that it was a fraction under 70%. That's a huge jump in
a factor which normally reveals reliable trends. Also the 'abstain in disgust' demographic has
been over-hyped from the day after results were announced.
The final outcome will hinge on how gullible/docile French voters are, historically-speaking.
the abstain thing was overhyped for one and only reason, put the "shame" on the the left so that'll
cut their chances for the June Legsilatives election (the one that counts contrary to the sunday
joke).
It's the only reason all major tv/radio/newspapers spent the last 2 weeks vociferating
against Melenchon & his voters as "irresponsible" while 90% of those insulted will NOT vote for
Le Pen. That would be total nonsense if the thing those media were fighting was Le Pen...
France will be rudderless, adrift, enduring a exponential increase in violence and internal political
and cultural strife. Then, next election Le Pen will nab it. They aren't there yet.
Problem is with the media and the establishment EU globalists, all dissenting and opposite
views will be quashed even further under the 'fighting terrorism' guise. People will be smeared,
fined, arrested, jailed, whatever it takes for them to maintain a grip on power.
I see the UK is now wanting to introduce more investigatory powers on the web essentially eliminating
end to end encryption. The EU countries are going to go full Big Brother before they let the populist
right movement gain any more traction. Again, they may only be delaying the inevitable.
Yes the russian-hating-blaming-millionare Macron will win no doubt, the election is more or
less fixed after the propaganda campaing for him everywhere in the west.
The same Macron and MSM are already cooking up disinformation about russian hackers, theese people
are insane, and its also a sign of what policy he will carry out.
Pro-bankers
Pro-war
Pro-establishment
Anti-Russia
Pro-Nato
Pro EU
Long term though? Next election Le Pen or whoever rule her party will win. It will also cause
more extremism because the elite under Macron wont deal with regular people and their problems
but with the elite.
I cant see why anyone would vote for Macron, even his eyes/looks are slimy.
Another Leaks about emails, this time about Macron. The difference is that nobody is allowed to
publish any part of it by the electoral commission (15,000 euros fine). No doubt there will be
a huge crackdown on alt media once he gets elected.
France is an occupied country, much more than the US
to be fair though, those emails leaks seem totally dull. I browsed what I could, it's just
generic staff chat, campaign bills to pay, bills to make, yadda yadda Whoever got the mail passwords
few months ago must have waited for something juicy to land and since nothing really interesting
came up, they're just posting the whole stock as is. Won't make the slightest difference on sunday.
@jen : what possibility ? none Macron won 1st step with the intense fear campaign spammed on our heads during 6 months. I
know plenty reasonable people who voted Macron while they hardly can stand his program, because
they were told hundreds times he was the "best choice" to beat Le Pen. And that's it. They
probably don't fully believe it, but the doubt was hammered deep in their mind, and they won't
take the (imaginary) risk to appear the on "wrong" side of history and be shamed for years...
And the same thing will obviously happen tomorrow.
That's so absurd Macron got the most votes last sunday AND at the same time got the LOWEST
"adhesion" (adherence ? not sure in english) rate of all 11 candidates, basically nearly half
of "his" voters put the bulletin with his name for reasons that have nothing to do with him.
they're both pro-Zionist. Just another shell game of an election whilst the media does its assigned
job of shouting loudly about some supposed vast gulf existing between the 2 candidates. Having
said that, if I was French there's just no way I could vote for a slimy Rothschild banking reptile
like Macron. At least Le Pen appears to be an actual human.
Without Trump's 100 first days, le Pen would probably have done better, possibly even taken
it. The French have been given full flood propaganda that Marine le Pen is the equivalent of Donald
Trump. She is not. There are some similarities, but le Pen is more nuanced than Trump, far more
experienced in politics, and would be at least somewhat more consistent with her campaign promises.
That said, she is not the economic "populist" many imagine and many more hope for. Her
actual platform would be remarkably like that of Obama or Hillary; neoliberal. Of the two
areas she might make improvements in, and the emphasis should be on "might", one of them is
avoiding participation in every war that the US starts up in the Middle East as well as all the
Putin bashing that is de rigeur for US allies . The other is possibly succeeding in upending
the European Union and the Eurozone - which as it stands, does everything for rapacious banks
and an export at any cost dependent Germany, and nothing for anyone else other than a small group
of plutocrats.
long term outcome of globalists verses nationalists? the globalists are going to win, and full
on slavery will continue to ensue.. the younger generations will not see the comforts and lifestyle
their parents enjoyed - far from it in fact.. freedoms will be clamped down, alternative views
will be made illegal and stuff like that.. after that, there is a small chance people will possibly
wake up, but i wouldn't count on it..
in france, terrorism will continue.. in europe a greater
malaise will prevail.. in the world, things look to be falling apart.. maybe more war for all
the wrong reasons, if nothing else.. macron will be onside with global dominance thru the west
of syria.. the usual lame excuses will be trotted out..
" the epic fight of globalists versus nationalists" No. It is the epic fight of corporatists
versus nationalists.
Corporations are trying to assert themselves as bigger, better and more powerful than states.
Time to remind corporatists that they exist only at the will and control of a state. By allowing
a corporation to establish themselves, the state should be their front, Potemkin village or not.
This US has ceded much of their power to corporations. Past time to take it back.
Macron, next Pres. of France, an exceptional person. (I am not a fan.)
A strand in F politics / commentators etc. brands him as a candidat fabriqué , a
candidat du système a sort of cut-out ersatz pol, created and boosted by the financial
elites, Mega Corps., banking - as he worked for Rotschild, etc. The MSM, particularly magazines...
ensuring his win with 24/24 favorable coverage. Sure, he is young, good-looking, etc.
This pov is conveniently conspiratorial, and the media support is real; yet, the MSM merely
follow and go for the winner, in kind of positive feed-back loop, pretty mindless.
"Manu" - pour les intimes - is very clever, tough, and determined to rise / become powerful
since he was a precocious child, attracted to and competing within the world of adults, since
the age of 5? Yes, a psych profile approach is superficial, junky, or only one aspect.
The 'parental' love of his life was his grand-mother. Manu took decisions about his life very
young. At 12 he was baptised Catholic, by his decision. Pic in church first from coll. of pix
young Macron, Gala gossip mag.
At 15 -17 he decided he would marry the teacher B. Trogneux (24 years older than him, with
one child older than him, another the same age and in his class at school), and he managed that.
The 'unconventional' marriage is now 100% accepted, and even a I'd say a 'plus' point, in the
sense that 'different love-lives' tinged with trangression attract support from certain quarters.
Some gays support Macron as rumors about him being gay with his older wife as a 'mommy type
cover' indulging in an affair with some sultry media guy.
Macron is an opportunist taking advantage of the break-down of trad. F politics - death
of the Socialist party, divisions on the right, oppos parties no clout, Sarkozy despised, Hollande
then more so.. to present a quasi 'evangelical' solution as a last ditch effort against decline,
sinking GDP per capita, > as 'collaborationist' with the US-EU-NATO - etc. He is most likely quite,
or semi-sincere, in his desire to fix it all. A 'maverick' who is yet 'hyper conventional' - a
very conventional profile!
@ Gravatomic at 6. Le Pen will never win, the FN will never have a 'prez.' About the social
unrest, yes.
You're right about Trump I think. Even if the 100 day benchmark is arbitrary it's something
that's paid a lot of attention. It's been very unsettling for a lot of Americans. Other countries
have been watching closely. They watched as Trump front loaded his cabinet with bankers and generals.
They wondered whatever happened to nonintervention and draining the swamp. They wondered if the
demonization of certain religious and ethnic groups was the harbinger of a brave new world that
wasn't all that brave or all that new. His attack on all things environmental, while weather events
become worse year by year, strictly to accommodate big business is another problem. So is the
new health bill that gives the coup de grâce to any idea that he's the champion of the common
man.
This whole idea of turning everything upside down to spark some kind of political renewal has
taken a few hits of late. After Trump's election and Brexit the there was a school of thought
that had it that upcoming elections in Europe would fall in line with the new political philosophy.
First would be The Netherlands, that didn't happen. Then it would be France, unless something
very drastic and unexpected happens then that's another bad bet. Nobody's yet surmising that Merkel
is toast. In spite of the unpopularity of her immigration policy at its outset it may be that
Germans are ready to forgive her that and stick with the status quo. I don't know enough about
English politics to guess if any party can unseat May but it's evident that a lot of Brits are
wishing that Brexit had failed.
In any case the French election will go a long way to determining if the new philosophy
of undoing all the constructs since WW11 is what the people want. it's starting to look like it
isn't. The losers are sure to cry that big finance and the press skewered the vote but it might
just be that the French are happy the way things are.
Emmanuel Macron will have to make a decisive move on Europe The most exciting promise of his candidacy is the agenda for eurozone reform
--Wolfgang Münchau Emmanuel Macron has a convincing lead in the polls, but a low turnout among his more reluctant
supporters could still produce a result too close for comfort.
The final round of the French presidential election on May 7 should not really be a contest.
Mr Macron has the backing of more or less the entire political establishment - from the left to
the centre-right. But events can intrude even in such a situation and already have. His decision
to celebrate his first-round victory in a smart brasserie in Paris's sixth arrondissement was
politically illiterate. During a visit to a Whirlpool factory in Amiens, northern France, Mr
Macron was upstaged by his opponent, Marine Le Pen, leader of the far right National Front.
As a political campaigner she is in a different league. If she crushes him in Wednesday's television
debate, she might have a chance.
The problem with Mr Macron's agenda is that nobody really knows how he can make it work. The
role of the French president is powerful, but the fate of François Hollande should serve as a
cautionary tale of the limits of what a president can do. Mr Hollande's Socialists at least had
a majority in the National Assembly, the French parliament. It is not clear whether Mr Macron
will have a single MP after the legislative elections in June. Will he end up as a mere figurehead
- like the German president - whose job is to shake hands and give grand speeches? Or can he find
a way to force change?
Macron will be to France what Obama has been to the US.
Just like Obama's presidency made possible Trump's victory four years later, Macron's presidency
will make possible a Front National victory in five years.
Here's my prediction: five years from now, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen will win the presidential
elections.
sounds like the french will find in micro endless, magnificent diversion from the collapse
of their republic at the hands of his puppet masters the financiers. had he a religion at all
before choosing to become a catholic at 12? or just ambition?
The Chancellors of the French universities have asked their students to vote Macron.
(Link in French) Not a single Chancellor has asked students to vote Le Pen. The same can be
said of the French press. The media barrage in favor of Macron has been so one-sided, some Frenchmen call their country
jokingly "East Corea"
I find it difficult to hear people praising Le Pen who won't have to live under her presidency.
Let me remind you that Europe had more than its share of nationalist wars, and the last thing
the continent needs are governments adding fuel to the fire of existing tensions.
Macron is a puppet, but in the end he'll do what's necessary to stabilize things.
Le Pen might well blow things up and lead to civil war.
Truth be told, even if she hadn't much chance of winning, Le Pen could've hoped to go close to
45% if she had played it right and campaigned well. She totally blew it with an awful performance
in the debate, though, while Macron was probably a bit better than expected.
The most worrying bit is that voters who sided with Macron might feel compelled to give him a
majority in parliament, which is the key. Considering how human psychoology tends to work too
often, there will be a follower/commitment effect with some voters, who have crossed a line by
voting for him and will find it less abhorrent to back him again in the legislative elections.
If that happens, imho, it would mean France had just gone through a coup, and democracy is dead
there. The good news is that it means that sooner or later, bloody revolution will sweep the country
- but it might take time and, as most if not all revolutions, will probably not be thorough enough
in wiping out the ruling elites.
@33 smuks quote "Macron is a puppet, but in the end he'll do what's necessary to stabilize things."
there is stability and then there is stability.. if a house of cards needs to be held up - macron
is the man, lol..
Will people of France show that they are worthy their great sons like Voltaire and vote their
conscience or will they vote out of fear and intimidation?
That is the question.
I admit that French people or EU citizen may have totally different view of the French political
process from perspective of the details and particularities they are acutely aware of, than my
view from The US, by may be this very distance and emotionally cold judgment of outsider is needed
as well to have truly a big picture of what is going on.
I am not a supporter of Le Pen and hell no, not supporter of a "French Trump" Macron, Yes,
it is Macron in my opinion that is French Trump, a Flaccid Clown of Global Oligarchy while Le
Pen is slightly reversed Sanders as far as elements of political platform that matter for ordinary
people in France and the US.
None of them are politically radical in any shape or form, and definitely not Marine Le Pen
who just want to ask French people what to do since they never had really a chance to do so. Either
to support continuing pauperization of society and allowing for further collapse of French sovereignty
and cultural autonomy which is one of the pillars of European culture and western tradition and
hence retain status quo or reject it by demanding EU to return to its EEC roots and give up on
a superstate projects like Euro or banking unity/ECB. And that is the highest crime in Brussels
and hence she was set for at least metaphorical assassination of her character and her populist
appeal.
Brilliant move by Marine Le Pen was to campaign on her own more centrist platform and not be
obliged to follow strictly FN platform as a FN leader would have to follow.
In fact as Macron was first who shed his discrediting Socialist label as hated Hollande minister,
now Le Pen shed her FN right-wing and neo-fascist label to commence entirely new campaign as true
French populist and nationalist.
She already told French that they have a clear choice between neoliberal oligarchic rule of
globalists under a thieving investment banker or French people rule under populist leader liken
to de Gaulle.
Does she have a chance against unified block of French MSM media and Globalist media worldwide,
against slander, lies and fake news, against 95% of largest French press being against her? Not
likely, especial that as it was documented CIA has capabilities and used them to manipulate french
elections already in the past. But it is more complicated than that and Marine Le Pen is not Trump.
The real issue in these elections though will be how strong roots of sociopolitical/economic
dependency on EU imperial clique are in France and believe me they are strong.
Millions of French know or feel there are dependent of Brussels and will vote status-quo regardless
even of their suffering, threatened with supposedly worse alternative under Le Pen.
How strong such a calcifying paralysis may be was shown in Roman empire collapsing over two
centuries only because people supported status-quo in fear of change into unknown, even when the
world around them was collapsing.
But if Le Pen thinks she can do without a sort of "revolution" metaphorically breaking legs
and heads, she is not gonna get anywhere since the autocratic EU system is designed to prevent
popular upheavals and drastic changes to the EU imperial order of bureaucratic rule.
EU has all the money, power, courts and propaganda machine to derail Le Pen presidency without
another French revolution to defend it.
Even case of Brexit showed that EU turned from happy family of loving EU nations to a pool
of viscous brats, little puny weasels, exhibiting embarrassing insecure teenage hysteria, wanting
revenge and nursing their personal hurt feelings, pretending to be conducting supposedly rational
and serious international negotiations among formally at least, sovereign countries.
This Sunday we will know if in France once again fear prevailed over courage.
The Macron campaign identified the first tweet referring to the documents as coming
from the Twitter account of
Nathan Damigo , a far-right activist and convicted felon based in northern California.
Damigo is known on social media for punching a female anti-fascist in the face at a Berkeley
protest.
Melenchon is the one to listen to to understand the situation in France. While he didn't make
it into round two, he has a good chance of a large parliamentary victory in the round of elections
after the presidential one. He's been locked out of the English-language press in the U.S. and
Britain (he falls outside their narrow spectrum of acceptable political views) so you have to
read the French press (I use Google Translate) or watch his youtube (with subcaptions) channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsGkA4TXqyw
Melenchon is the only one who points out the realities (translate from Lemonde):
In order to combat mass immigration, which is mainly internal to developing countries, the
causes of migration must be tackled: the impossibility of any development in the countries
of departure, due to debts and Structural adjustment policies imposed by the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, the plundering of resources by multinationals and free
trade.
Here's Melenchon on Africa, LeMonde Feb 17:
"We are part of the political camp that was against colonialism and for the self-determination
of peoples. We know the misfortunes endured, but we consider that it is up to historians to
write history and not to politicians to instrumentalize it. It seems to us more urgent to fight
the scourge of ultraliberal predation that is falling on Africa."
"The best advantage that France can derive from it is the harmonious and successful development
of African societies. If we consider only the climatic risk, it is 250 million migrants whose
humanity will have to deal with by 2050. It is time to ensure a balanced development that does
not aggravate the state of the planet. But the condition for achieving this is to return Africa
to the Africans, to ensure national and popular sovereignty on the bases advocated by Thomas
Sankara or Patrice Lumumba." [Notably Lumumba was overthrown and killed in a CIA-supported
coup in 1961]
"The defense agreements, and in particular their secret clauses – which have the real objective
of controlling popular movements for the benefit of dictators – must be denounced by democratic
scrutiny by Parliament. In the event that some of these bases are maintained, military cooperation
can only be envisaged with democracies, with priority being given to the formation of an
independent national republican army."
Can you imagine any U.S. politician pledging to end military cooperation with Saudi Arabia
unless it converts to a democratic form of government? Maybe Tulsi Gabbard, I don't know.
Outside the fact most media pre-prepare their headlines for such occasions when time does not
allow for late information to be disseminated by normal publishing procedures, the Dewey / Truman
was marked by the media believing their own propaganda to the extent they became divorced from
reality. This recently has shown its tracks in the Clinton / Trump campaign with 'interesting
result' - the Russians did it! It also had effect in Brexit as well and may be at work in France,
though time will tell the better story there. Propaganda may be omnipotent in many ways, it certainly
isn't omniscient and predicting the future of things that haven't happened is notoriously difficult.
Whoever wins the French presidency can be helped or hobbled by other factors. Macron has no effective
political party in the French parliament, the fictional party he was supported by has no parliamentary
standing and is unlikely to obtain standing. M. Le Pen's party has been on the margins of the
French political spectrum but does have an identifiable political history that is evolving from
its origins. Of the two, the least likely to effect disastrous policy on the French public is
the FN of Le Pen, it is a known and does have knowledgable opposition to waywardness; not so Macron
who hasn't revealed who supports or funds his candidacy for the office. That would be the greatest
danger to the French Republic. About this time tomorrow, the electorate will have spoken.
The French still collect billions of whatever currency you want to use from their ex-African colonies.
An agreement for paying the French for leaving and for the "benefits of colonialism". It's a big
% of the French government budget - straight from the poorest countries on the planet. This is
why I hate France with all my heart.
Macron is an opportunist taking advantage of the break-down of trad. F politics.
With regards to FN's steady rise over decades, this really is well forecasted opportunism at
work here. Spot climate trending too far in one direction, find slogan like 'never le pen', install
manufactured centre left/right cardboard cutout.
And (as far as the west goes with it's super concentrated media power nearly running off one
script) it could nearly be cut and pasted into any race where one side strays too far from centre.
I'm sure there is a couple of seminars at Davos about it.
When far-right National Front leader Marine Le Pen Marine made it through to the run-off
of the French presidential election on Sunday, some powerful people in the United States were
celebrating.
One is hoping to be celebrating in Paris tomorrow.
BTW: The dual nationals : French -Israeli may have to rethink in which country they would want
to live should Marine become Mme La Présidente ( she has said that she won't allow French
citizens to have Israeli passports )
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen is [allegedly] the daughter of
Roger Auque:
Roger Auque died from brain cancer on September 8, 2014, at the age of 58. He revealed
in a book that was published posthumously in 2015 that he had been a Mossad agent.
. . . . .
In 1989, he is said to have fathered a child with Yann, the daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen.
This daughter, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, elected deputy in 2012, was born out of wedlock
and subsequently recognized by Yann's husband, Samuel Maréchal, a fact only revealed publicly
in 2013 in a book by Christine Clerc titled "Les Conquérantes."[6]
Mischi @ 48: Those Francophone African countries that are part of the West African and Central
African Franc currency zones were among the most enthusiastic backers of Colonel Muammar Gaddhafi's
pan-African "gold dinar" economic market. No wonder Nicolas Sarkozy signed onto the US no-fly
zone over Libya idiocy tout de suite in 2011.
In these times, it really shows how small influence people have, it is media and their
millionaire
candidate that have already fixed the election with their huge power. Quite sad.
@46 anon.. that macron leak story has legs! i like what some guy on twitter said - "Amazing that
the French government and media now stand as enemies of freedom of speech." who whudda thunk it?
lol... remind anyone of any other countries?
AKSA 8 The relative lack of power of France made me wonder the real reason why they led the NATO attack
on Libya. Was it the financial dealings between Sarkozy and Gaddhafi like some sites say or were
they really prodded by the US to lead the way of the overall game plan?
USA will win anyway. Macron and Dupont-Aignan (prime minister of Le Pen) was both member of the
program of "The Young Leaders : French-American Foundation France":
http://french-american.org/en/initiatives/young-leaders/
Its means neoliberalism, NATO and free finance.
Well well well... you know... its France... le pen's mother made nacked pictures for french playboy
when she divorced the father... another one is on x... just pawns.
The MSM are going to be embarassed with the leaks. On one side they keep referring to the Ruskies
and Trump, and on the other no one among the Western politicians has a B plan in case Trump continues
to wreck havoc (and he will).
Next week, he goes to KSA before Israel and since the Saudi prince said it would be 'historical'
we can bet KSA will announce the recognizance of Israel
Then step 2 will be to say Syria and Iran: you recognize or we turn you to Somalia.
And where will Junker, Hollande, Macron and co go then?
even Wikileaks says the metadata is full of cyrillic. clumsiness or the will to point towards
the usual culprits?
not sure if Hollande has really turned into a Machiavel but that sounds like him
More broadly, the U.S. should reconsider whether blindly supporting the EU is in America's
best interests. The EU is a supranational organization that infringes on national sovereignty.
It prevents the creation of genuine transatlantic free trade areas, harms transatlantic security,
distorts European immigration policies, and wastes taxpayer money.
jfl @ 30. Something like that yes! - no religion afaik before 12 yrs. (Macron.)
jen wrote: "What's the possibility that le Pen will receive a large proportion of her votes
from people who would vote for anyone who looks like a winner, regardless of political and ideological
affiliations, simply to stop Macron from winning?"
MLP will not attract votes as 'the winner' as it is known that she is, and probably always
will be - a loser. Yet, some Mélenchon - Fillon, 'other' voters, who are rabidly against Macron,
will vote Le Pen. The anti-Macron crowd was discussing voting MLP/abstention/nul vote to death
on boards, and some said, heh go for MLP.
My prediction was that the outcome would be closer to 70-30 than 60-40, in favor of Macron;
for sure MLP will pick up some anti-M voters, not enough though imho to change that prediction,
but who knows, trivial details, no matter.
More seriously.. It is generally assumed, or put forward, that Le Pen voters are the poor,
the unemployed, the ugly racists, etc. - see Trump and Brexit. While the correlation with region/unemployment
is high (as in GB and rust-belt US), for the rest it doesn't hold.
The poor - those under the poverty line or severely disadvantaged, vote exactly the same as
the national average, that is, not more for the FN, Le Pen, or FN candidates. (no link..)
Le Pen's *presumed electorate* in the worker category, i.e. low-paid private-sector
employees (factories, supermarkets, services, small biz, agri, etc.; *State* personnel votes socialist)
is imho made up of roughly 3 equal parts.
Le Pen voters, who decry globalisation, foreignors, terrorists, muslims, etc. / the remnants
of the left (socialist - Trotskyist - add anarchist - ..), who voted Mélenchon or not at all /
those who are 'foreign' - outcasts in any case - and thus can't rally to Le Pen or to anyone..
and just keep their heads down.
The divide-to-rule strategy has worked perfectly on these workers. In two factories I know
of, the 3 different groups don't speak to each other, except as routine politeness / ugly jokes
small skirmish etc., as they are all in the same boat, subject to the same oppressive rules, etc.
though some contacts/friendships cross these lines.
Marine is not pro-worker, and 2/3 ppl working one or two jobs of that type or those wanting
to actually GET a job like that are aware. The last third grabs an opportunity to make noise,
be heard, posture, play some kind of role, etc.
Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to vomit.
Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the crap people
post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they are to believe
the lies.
Started watching 500 Nations
about Europeans 'discovering' the Americas and all the brutality that came from it... had
to turn it off because it isn't the sort of program a person wants to watch right before bed (unless
one likes horror tales before sleep)
All Spanish, English, French, South American, Central American and North American people should
be required to watch it and contemplate our future based on this terrible past. Brutal thugs is
what most of our supposed 'hero/discoverers' were, just like now.
We continue to repeat the past, doing the same stupid crap that brought us to this moment in
time when we have the ability to wipe our species off the face of the planet (as well as most
other too). Will we continue on the road to mutually assured destruction, or will we try something
new?
As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp
of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is
the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how
nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that I find
rather rational considering all the craziness taking place.
Every nation in Europe and the USA have at least 25-30% nativist, nationalist, (name of country
here)-first voters. Trump managed to take advantage of a nearly dysfunctional electoral system,
a fawning, celebrity-obsessed media and a highly disliked opposition candidate to gain enough
popular votes to win. Other systems are not as dysfunctional, nor are their media as useless,
but they will remain a presence on the political landscape, ready to exploit any weaknesses they
can use to their advantage.
Everybody expected Le Pen to be much stronger than Macron for the debate on Wednesday. Instead,
she made a fool of herself and certainly lost a number of her own voters. check "Macron Le Pen
débat" on google you will probably find videos. the image and sounds should be enough without
need of subtitles.
Really? Asking the question of what will be the long term result of elections within the bailiwick
of the western plutocracy? I believe it is long past the time of crystal ball gazing and time
to grow up and face the reality of the situation. Any political entity that is not issuing from
a grassroots spontaneous popular grievance is completely suspect. When any of these candidates
can have a million or more people accompany them as they march on the plutocracy's seat of power
at the site of government and more importantly the site of their central banks then I will believe
their message that they mean to clean house and usher in the necessary changes needed. Otherwise
we must assume that an illusion is being presented as a deception to bestow legitimacy, via false
democratic institutions, on an illegitimate system of plutocratic rule conducted with a carrot
and stick structure that permeates all levels of civil society.
The EU is drawing up a tax haven blacklist, due to be finalized by the end of 2017, with the
intention of preventing money from being diverted to avoid taxation. It is also compiling a
list sanctions it will take against any country or jurisdiction that ends up on the EU tax
haven blacklist.
I think the between nation comparison of platforms shows, except for the individuals named to
play the role of candidate, in each of the respective countries, the role of the candidates is
the same, to carry out "allowed policy". Further, the "allowed policy" seems nearly always the
same in all of the Republic nations. Some-how the "allowed policies" are being established globally
and mandated locally?
I n America, American Voters in the USA elections, are allowed to elect by majority vote,
either of two persons(for each position); but the between candidate platforms, boil down to the
same side of two identical coins. Those elected are paid a salary to operate the USA for the benefit
of, and "according to" the "allowed policy" established by, those in control of the national policy.
The French election is not about choice of platforms, but instead, the French election is
about choice of persons to be paid to execute the allowed platforms. The range of choices in the
French election.. and in republics throughout the world, has been and is, limited to candidates
who subscribe to "allowed platforms". It is clear to me, the policies the candidates will be paid,
if elected, to execute are, all the same in every Republic, around the globe.
Candidate A or Candidate B may seem to be a choice: but either, if elected, will be obligated
to execute only the "allowed platforms" established by those in control of these Republics. Candidates
seeking to present non-allowed platforms, are nearly always silenced and defeated. Example: the
policy allowed by the hidden powers is that the target nation, is slated to go to war. That "go
to war" policy may or may not be articulated by the viable person candidates, but the election
is not about whether or not "perpetual war should be the policy of the nation" instead the election
is about which candidate should be paid to operate the war time government in accord to "globally
determined, locally allowed policy".
On election day citizens may choose; but if they don't, make a choice on election day, the
choice of elected persons will be made for them; either way the winning candidate is obligated
to execute only the "allowed policy".
Maybe it would be useful to concentrate discussions, not to the person of the candidates, but
to "allowed policy", such person candidates, if elected, will be obligated to accord with, when
talking about national elections.
Politics is always a 'house of cards'. A political/ societal system exists as long as most
everyone believes in its legitimacy; once this is no longer the case, it can rapidly disintegrate.
And don't say 'things can't get worse', they definitely can - would you prefer living in a delicate
'house of cards' or in a civil war?
@somebody 70
Exactly. There is no more profits/ capital yield under stable conditions ('new normal'), so
let's create a huge crisis to reap the benefits. It's strange how many people hate the 'deep state'
in their own country, yet wilfully support its agenda in other parts of the world.
@jfl 72
It's not a question of belief, but of analysing what's actually going on. Don't let prejudice
get in the way of a rational view. It's still a long way to go, but there are important first
and second steps. What do you think why the right-wing (=pro-capital) media is so anti-EU?
The title is misleading (typical with France Culture) what the journalist says is that no actual
figures exist for the expenses of each ministries. She had been trying to find the figures dealing
with the decrease of subsidies for culture in the last 5 years and could not get a single document
from the gov. When you start the famous ENA school, the first thing you are told is that all the
number are fakes. The journalist of this piece i linked to ends up her paper saying that in the
end, discussing the few figures mentioned here and there without any support by the officials
is equivalent to spreading fake news.
None of it makes sense, yet everyone laps it up like mother's milk. This is the 1st of these
leaks to have obvious forgeries in it.
The release date makes no sense, there appears to be nothing damaging in it, the speed at
which the trusties found the Cyrillic metadata says they were looking for it / told where to
look / not looking for damaging material.
The sheer scale of the breach from what must be the closely monitored mail server in political
history.
None of it adds up if you look at it with an open mind. This is dangerous slavish behavior
from infosec, the media and public. If you will swallow this hook, line & sinker then your
parliaments need more fire extinguishers
Everything is based on two enormous falacies.
1. That all the evils in western society are the fault of the external bogeyman. Putin,
ISIS Refugees, Asian footwear makers, whatever. That the Trumps, Le Pens, Farages are
not a native virus.
2. Is that your services & politicians Would never pull a false leak or a controlled
leak or a limited hangout. That they are angels that sit on their hands.
These two underpin the absolute lunacy we have seen unfold before our eyes. An extraordinarily
dangerous situation to be in which is getting worse fast.
"You can flood these [phishing] addresses with multiple passwords and log-ins, true ones, false
ones, so the people behind them use up a lot of time trying to figure them out," Mounir Mahjoubi,
the head of Macron's digital team, told The Daily Beast for its earlier article on this subject.
In the end, whoever made the dump may not have known what is real and what is false, which
would explain in part the odd timing. After the disruptive revelations of the Democratic National
Committee hacks in the United States, the public is conditioned to think that if there's a
document dump like this, it has to be incriminating. By putting it out just before the news
blackout, when Macron cannot respond in detail, the dump becomes both the medium and the message.
...
>> The relative lack of power of France
>> wonder the real reason why they
>> led the NATO attack on Libya.
Because they were the only unit Oceania could field safely at the time without potentially
undermining its political regime.
"War weary" populations oppose overt war. (When populations oppose more overt war, regimes
start or continue wars un-overtly.) Sizable percentages of the populations in the rest of NATO
realized they'd been conned. What would be the domestic reaction if those NATO countries "led"
another effort against an "enemy" generally considered even less dangerous than the prior one
(whom the populations learned wasn't a threat)?
In contrast, because France didn't join in on the most recent invasion of Iraq, their population
was not as "war weary" and thus did not protest/oppose overt war.
>> Was it the financial dealings between
>> Sarkozy and Gaddhafi like some sites say
What do they say? Heard that G gave money to S's campaign. I didn't read anything into that
other than "another example of why never again to trust or give money to a politician".
>> or were they really prodded by the US to
>> lead the way of the overall game plan?
Think about "the dogs that did not bark".
What do EU leaders do in response to allegations of being bugged? They blame Eurasia for interfering
with elections! That tells me Oceania is their master.
Everyone backed the wrong horse. Instead of pushing for JL Melenchon who's also a non-interventionist
on foreign policy from the very beginning as opposed to the unpopular candidate of Sarkozy's party,
F. Fillon, and then the Islamophobe Le Pen, you'all had to back Le Pen who had no chance in hell
of winning because she scared not only Muslims but many on the Left.
So now the result is this - more of the same shit. Ugh.
Emmanuel Macron victory speech praising 5-years François Hollande's regime.
Good luck good ridden!
exiled off mainstreet | May 7, 2017 3:21:46 PM |
106
It is unfortunate that the propaganda globalist state now appears unassailable. How anyone of
intelligence could support such a fascist empty suit carrying his baggage is beyond me, unless
propaganda received wisdom has reached such a level. I agree that it would have been better if
Melenchon or Fillon had been the opponent, since Le Pen carries the baggage of her family inheritance.
It seems to me that an undoubted status of being part of a present day fascist structure is
more relevant than having an inheritance of collaboration with a prior regime a lifetime ago.
It is also obvious that Le Pen's positions were in the interest of the French people rather than
the unelected international power structure. I see little future for anything after this result.
I wonder when Israel will start sweating. The idea is to make the use of lethal force against
Muslims acceptable in the NATO countries with mass influx of them that will not assimilate but
go to war on their host one way or another. Good plan but...
Plans could go awry as there is a real danger of a Sharia Europe if they forgotten how to be
a barbarian.
the media in unison crowing over the result of course. Was at a lunch today and all the obedient
little Europhiles there watching the media talking heads were delighted.
I'm not even a Le Pen supporter in particular but merely by questioning Macron's agenda, where
he came from, etc, I was met with mock Nazi salutes and snide remarks. The ideologues amongst
the middle classes who back the EU/Globalist project are genuine fanatics, I can see it with my
own eyes with every passing week. They won't accept any counter arguments or dissenting voices.
They refuse to think critically but merely rehash whatever the Guardian, New York Times or BBC
say. The level of pro-Brussels tribalism is astonishing, even as someone who has grown up with
and befriended many of these people down the years. One day their bubble will burst though but
unlike them I'll have the good grace to smile inside and whisper "I told you so" under my breath.
Indeed, these people are brainwashed, they have no idea whats going on in the world, just watching
msm and like you say you cant debate with people like these. The worst is that the left is the
most brainwashed by this liberal right-wing propaganda. Thats why leftists parties are so weak
today.
I know that France attempts to rigorously regulate "their" French language, so I presume that
the Académie française prohibits the importation of the US colloquial term "sheeple".
So we won't see any French newspapers or websites proudly proclaiming " La Sheeple Ont Parlé!
"
This is an utterly predictable, even routine tragicomedy. But I must post this to give credit
to an expatriate relative I'll call "Joe"; Joe lives in France, and has proved to be a prophet.
Last year, when Joe visited the US, we were discussing the US presidential campaign and
Bernie Sanders. Joe and I agreed that the West is experiencing a general political meltdown. Joe
then went on to describe the default pattern that EU elections follow:
1) The prospective candidates are inevitably the "Usual Suspects", i.e. centrist/moderate
careerist technocrats, the odd "maverick" or two with limited, cultlike support-- and The Extremist
(s).
2) The Establishment power elite, institutions, and complicit mass-media begin an orchestrated
howling: "Anybody But [insert Extremist du jour here]!"
3) The "Anybody But!" coalition throws massive resources into a public relations campaign
to generate mass hysterical fear at the prospect that The Extremist may win and lead the nation
straight to Hell.
4) The terrified, confused, hysterical, panic-stricken public accordingly falls in line
and elects the favorite centrist/moderate careerist technocrat who will perpetuate the neoliberal
status quo.
5) The Establishment power elite and its mass-media megaphone will effusively praise the
inconquerable wisdom and good sense of The People in once again Saving the Republic by rejecting
a dangerous Extremist.
________________________________________________
At the time, Joe offered this scenario to explain why Bernie Sanders wouldn't be allowed to
succeed. As it turned out, there are many reasons why the US debacle didn't precisely conform
to this pattern.
But Joe's description perfectly fits what's happened in France.
The French elections are also the end of the post-world war 2 world order. Until now, the elections
were left against right, socialists against conservatives.
In these elections both socialists and conservatives lost out. Now it's nationalism against
globalisation.
So Macron 65%, and Le Pen has already conceded. Campaign well run. Macron is a shark (report
from the family), not a victim of the banksters. He followed May's strategy in UK of staying quiet
till elected. Future policy: not merely a bankster, but also the son of a conservative family
of doctors from Amiens. So not a pure neo-liberal, as has been suggested, but someone who is forced
by his family background to take their point of view into account.
The prospect is not too bad. Other than in foreign policy, where he has declared himself
against the Asad regime in Syria. I don't take that too seriously. Once in power, he may discover
what is implied in attacking Asad, that is war against Russia, and he may hesitate.
"The worst is that the left is the most brainwashed by this liberal right-wing propaganda.
Thats why leftists parties are so weak today."
couldn't have put it better. As many have commented on, the notion of left vs right is dying.
In Europe it has morphed into something akin to pro-EU vs pro-nation state. The levels of cognitive
dissonance from people of the traditional left is truly astonishing.
I am French. Macron won because of an unprecedented media onslaught that led 25% of voters
who don't know their heads for their a... to vote for him in the first round, while the media
had blocked anyone but Macron and Le Pen from getting to the second round. That's because they
know that people would elect a head of lettuce if that head of lettuce was running against Le
Pen.
There is a very good interview of a French liberal (as in "proponent of free-market rather
than big State". Americans would call him "a libertarian"), Charles Gave, who gives a clear vision
of the whole shebang, and of why this could be getting out of control in the near future.
You see, the US only stopped major civil war kind of s... because Trump won, which disarmed
the anger of the disenfranchised masses. Unfortunately, in France, Emmanuel Clinton won. And the
French extreme left wing, who hates Macron's guts, can be dangerous. I mean, physically
dangerous. Other clear-headed observers than Gave are already mumbling words like "barricades"
and "civil war".
@90, smuks, 'It's not a question of belief, but of analysing what's actually going on. ...'
righto ... you offer an assertion with zero analysis. meanwhile the rothschilds guy is president
of france. superficial analysis, sure, but hard to walk around. or is big finance our friend?
seems to be yours.
the parallels between obama and micro seem very strong ... someone linked elsewhere - on
the open thread - to a biography of obama that had him making decisions with an eye to future
"political showbiz" career at an early age.
the 'destiny' of the 'political' showbiz - class seems now to be to surf the waves of financial
power, all pretense to politics long gone. probably always thus, to a great extent. but with the
need for real politics so striking now - the disaster to be had for relying on autopilot more
apparent than ever - so too is the self-centeredness of the showbiz personalities.
@119 Psychohistorian: the other way around. High turnout compared to your average election in
Western democracies, moderate turnout for France. Macron still got more than 40% of all possible
voters' approval.
Which leads me to:
@117 Lea: If Macron manages to trick the French fools again and his non-existing party actually gets
a majority in parliament, I expect things to go South before his first mandate is over. As
in major demonstrations. And unlike Nick, I'll make my best to remind to all my acquaintances
who voted Macron by default / because their friends/significant others were brainwashed idiots
who would've killed them otherwise that they did vote for the guy and are to be blamed for that
shit. I want all those who voted for him without considering him worthy of the office and despite
considering his opinions as utter shit to actually hate themselves for what they've just done,
and then to hate him for what they did. And I mean *hate*, not dislike.
I'm also not sure it's hardcore leftists who would go the farthest in violence; antifas and
similar groups mostly seem to focus on soft targets and heavily outnumbered cops. FN guys are
just as tough and desiring violence, they just don't dare to risk it now considering how everyone
else suspects them of being closer fascists; and the longer they're kept out of any significant
power, the closer they'll come to giving in to violence.
" ...PARIS (Sputnik) - A total of 4.2 million of French voters cast empty ballots in
the presidential run-off on Synday, a survey conducted by Ispos and Sopra Steria said ....8.9
percent of the total of 47.6 million voters cast empty ballots, refusing to give their support
to either of the candidates."
Kind of a new French Trump with Goldman Sachs flavor -- the person who never hold a
political office. this is a configuration the neoliberalism is still strong and can
counterattack and win. In this sense French election are somewhat similar to Argentinean elections.
Notable quotes:
"... It was globalization against nationalism. ..."
"... Emmanuel Macron, the centrist who has never held elected office, won because he was the beneficiary of a uniquely French historic and cultural legacy ..."
The French presidential runoff transcended national politics. It was globalization against
nationalism. It was the future versus the past. Open versus closed.
But in his resounding victory on Sunday night, Emmanuel Macron, the centrist who has never
held elected office, won because he was the beneficiary of a uniquely French historic and
cultural legacy, where many voters wanted change but were appalled at the type of populist
anger that had upturned politics in Britain and the United States. He trounced the far-right
candidate Marine Le Pen, keeping her well under 40 percent, even as her aides said before the
vote that anything below that figure would be considered a failure.
His victory quickly brought joy from Europe's political establishment, especially since a Le
Pen victory would have plunged the European Union into crisis. But in the end, Mr. Macron, only
39, a former investment banker and an uninspired campaigner, won because of luck, an unexpected
demonstration of political skill, and the ingrained fears and contempt that a majority of French
still feel toward Ms. Le Pen and her party, the National Front.
... ... ...
But he also played his limited hand with great skill from the beginning, outmaneuvering his
elders. First, he wisely renounced the man who had given him his break, the deeply unpopular
Socialist president François Hollande, quitting his post as economy minister in Mr. Hollande's
government before it was too late. Then, he refused to take part in the Socialist Party primary
in January, rightly judging that party activists would dominate and choose a far-left candidate
on the fringes, who would then be devoured by Mr. Mélenchon - exactly what happened.
Mr. Macron's final correct bet was that French voters, like those elsewhere, were disgusted by
the mainstream parties, having judged the policy prescriptions of both the establishment right
and left as failures in dealing with France's multiple ills. He positioned himself in the center,
drawing on left and right, balancing protection of the French welfare state with mild
encouragement for business, in an attempt to break through France's employment and productivity
stagnation.
But Mr. Macron's pro-market views stirred much opposition. Mr. Mélenchon not only refused to
endorse him, but also encouraged the idea that Mr. Macron and Ms. Le Pen were equivalent menaces
- a calculation endorsed by many far-left voters. Nearly half the first-round electorate voted
for candidates hostile to the free market and to capitalism. Even if they voted for Mr. Macron on
Sunday to save the country from Ms. Le Pen, they did so without enthusiasm.
Some of the antipathy sprang from his hermetic persona, as a caricature of the elite-educated,
know-it-all technocrats, perpetually encased in a dark suit, who have guided France for much its
postwar history, usually from behind the scenes, and whose record is mixed.
"He's not someone I feel a lot of conviction for," said Thomas Goldschmidt, a 26-year-old
architectural firm employee in Paris who voted for Mr. Macron after supporting the Socialist
Benoît Hamon in the first round. "He's someone who raises a lot of questions. It's a vision of
society that is too business-friendly," Mr. Goldschmidt said. "It's this whole idea of making
working life more uncertain. We just can't bet on it, that everyone out there can be an
entrepreneur. Society isn't built like that."
... ... ...
The National Front could win as many as 100 seats in the new Parliament, according to some
analyses, making it a formidable opposition party. Indeed, even as Ms. Le Pen was soundly
defeated on Sunday, she still managed a showing that not too long ago would have been
unthinkable. And in her concession, she made it clear that she was already looking toward the
parliamentary elections, and the future.
Then there is the potential opposition represented by Mr. Mélenchon, who won in some of
France's biggest cities - Marseilles, Toulouse and Lille - and is already claiming the mantle of
Mr. Macron's principal opponent on the left. His voters, as much as Ms. Le Pen's, do not trust
Mr. Macron.
"... This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left' is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism, mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. ..."
"... The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases than they make in outsourcing and insourcing. ..."
"... And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. ..."
"... The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think) ..."
Introduction: Every day in unimaginable ways, prominent leaders from the left and the right,
from bankers to Parisian intellectuals, are fabricating stories and pushing slogans that denigrate
presidential candidate Marine Le Pen.
They obfuscate her program, substituting the label 'extremist' for her pro-working class and anti-imperialist
commitment. Fear and envy over the fact that a new leader heads a popular movement has seeped into
Emmanuel "Manny" Macron's champagne-soaked dinner parties. He has good reason to be afraid: Le Pen
addresses the fundamental interests of the vast- majority of French workers, farmers, public employees,
unemployed and underemployed youth and older workers approaching retirement.
The mass media, political class and judicial as well as street provocateurs savagely assault Le
Pen, distorting her domestic and foreign policies. They are incensed that Le Pen pledges to remove
France from NATO's integrated command – effectively ending its commitment to US directed global wars.
Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched
bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum over the
EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and, instead, increase
trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine.
Le Pen is committed to Keynesian demand-driven industrial revitalization as opposed to Emmanuel
Macron's ultra-neoliberal supply-side agenda.
Le Pen's program will raise taxes on banks and financial transactions while fining capital flight
in order to continue funding France's retirement age of 62 for women and 65 for men, keeping the
35 hour work-week, and providing tax free overtime pay. She promises direct state intervention to
prevent factories from relocating to low wage EU economies and firing French workers.
Le Pen is committed to increasing public spending for childcare and for the poor and disabled.
She has pledged to protect French farmers against subsidized, cheap imports.
Marine Le Pen supports abortion rights and gay rights. She opposes the death penalty. She promises
to cut taxes by 10% for low-wage workers. Marine is committed to fighting against sexism and for
equal pay for women.
Marine Le Pen will reduce migration to ten thousand people and crack down on immigrants with links
to terrorists.
Emmanuel Macron: Macro Billionaire and Micro Worker Programs
Macron has been an investment banker serving the Rothschild and Cie Banque oligarchy, which profited
from speculation and the pillage of the public treasury. Macron served in President Hollande's Economy
Ministry, in charge of 'Industry and Digital Affairs' from 2014 through 2016. This was when the 'Socialist'
Hollande imposed a pro-business agenda, which included a 40 billion-euro tax cut for the rich.
Macron is tied to the Republican Party and its allied banking and business Confederations, whose
demands include: raising the retirement age, reducing social spending, firing tens of thousands of
public employees and facilitating the outflow of capital and the inflow of cheap imports.
Macron is an unconditional supporter of NATO and the Pentagon. He fully supports the European
Union. For their part, the EU oligarchs are thrilled with Macron's embrace of greater austerity for
French workers, while the generals can expect total material support for the ongoing and future US-NATO
wars on three continents.
Propaganda, Labels and Lies
Macron's pro-war, anti-working class and 'supply-side' economic policies leave us with only one
conclusion: Marine Le Pen is the only candidate of the left. Her program and commitments are pro-labor,
not 'hard' or 'far' right – and certainly not 'fascist'.
Macron, on the other hand is a committed rightwing extremist, certainly no 'centrist', as the
media and the political elite claim! One has only to look at his background in banking, his current
supporters among the oligarchs and his ministerial policies when he served Francois Holland.
The 'Macronistas' have accused Marine Le Pen of extreme 'nationalism', 'fascism', 'anti-Semitism'
and 'anti-immigrant racism'. 'The French Left', or what remains of it, has blindly swallowed the
oligarchs' campaign against Le Pen despite the malodorous source of these libels.
Le Pen is above all a 'sovereigntist': 'France First'. Her fight is against the Brussels oligarchs
and for the restoration of sovereignty to the French people. There is an infinite irony in labeling
the fight against imperial political power as 'hard right'. It is insulting to debase popular demands
for domestic democratic power over basic economic policies, fiscal spending, incomes and prices policies,
budgets and deficits as 'extremist and far right'.
Marine Le Pen has systematically transformed the leadership, social, economic program and direction
of the National Front Party.
She expelled its anti-Semites, including her own father! She transformed its policy on women's
rights, abortion, gays and race. She won the support of young unemployed and employed factory workers,
public employees and farmers. Young workers are three times more likely to support her national industrial
revitalization program over Macron's 'free market dogma'. Le Pen has drawn support from French farmers
as well as the downwardly mobile provincial middle-class, shopkeepers, clerks and tourism-based workers
and business owners.
Despite the trends among the French masses against the oligarchs, academics, intellectuals and
political journalists have aped the elite's slander against Le Pen because they will not antagonize
the prestigious media and their administrators in the universities. They will not acknowledge the
profound changes that have occurred within the National Front under Marine Le Pen. They are masters
of the 'double discourse' – speaking from the left while working with the right. They confuse the
lesser evil with the greater evil.
If Macron wins this election (and nothing is guaranteed!), he will certainly implement his 'hard'
and 'extreme' neo-liberal agenda. When the French workers go on strike and demonstrators erect barricades
in the streets in response to Macron's austerity, the fake-left will bleat out their inconsequential
'critique' of 'impure reason'. They will claim that they were right all along.
If Le Pen loses this election, Macron will impose his program and ignite popular fury. Marine
will make an even stronger candidate in the next election if the French oligarchs' judiciary does
not imprison her for the crime of defending sovereignty and social justice.
This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left'
is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism,
mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. Thus any salves by the 'left'
or 'far-left' (Hi Syriza and your blanket amnesty of illegal immigrants at a time of 40% unemployment
in Greece!) will be temporary at best. No amount of welfare will make up for increased unemployment,
lowered wages, a lack of housing, a lack of affordable family foundation and ethnic displacement.
It makes me sick when I see so-called socialists making energetic campaigns to stop failed asylum
seekers being deported.
The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore
welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more
an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases
than they make in outsourcing and insourcing.
And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so
many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the
working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. It's painful to watch. One's ethnic
group having a majority and centrality in it's homeland is the most valuable thing imaginable.
The wealthy whites who sneer pay an exorbitant tax to insulate their children and raise them among
their own kind, but don't ever seem to realise.
The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often
exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they
don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and
thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think)
Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after seeing this short
video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting World War III with
Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and then asking for a comment:
The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:
the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
the German occupation was relatively benign.
Both statements are objectively true.
Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the
Present', San Francisco 1997
Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
@Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after
seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting
World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and
then asking for a comment:
@Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after
seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting
World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and
then asking for a comment:
The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though opinion polls suggest
most French people support immigration restrictionism.
The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so
easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?
In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen
for two reasons:
1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists)
and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote
2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically
inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.
"Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have
enriched bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum
over the EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and,
instead, increase trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran
and Palestine."
Do you remember anybody from recent history who also made similar lofty promises, but found
himself neutered by invisible rulers?
France (that hypocrite nation) is a proud part of the western civilisation, which thrives on
hegemony. So, LePen-the-cursed will not do anything to change that fundamental world order. Therein
lies the rub.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
True but misleading. Most of those deaths were due to accidentally introduced diseases. North
America, in particular, was largely emptied out by waves of new diseases that struck down tribes
that had never seen or heard of the white man.
Yes, there was some fighting, though much of it was factional rather than racial - eg, the
abused slaves of the Aztecs sided with the Spaniards for good reason . the Spaniards, at least,
weren't cannibals (except in the transubstantiational sense.) Yes, there were a few cases where
- after the vast accidental wipeout - whites noticed the disease vulnerability of the natives
and intentionally exploited it (smallpox tainted blankets).
But even if none of the deliberate massacres had been done, the demographics wouldn't look
much different - a Europe teeming with starving peasants simply wasn't going to stay put while
the recently-emptied North America sat mostly idle. Nature abhors a vacuum and adverse-possession
laws exist for a reason.
Today, of course, whites in Europe and America contracept themselves to extinction and then
bitch and moan about Moslem and Mexican invasion . silly people. At least the American Indians
didn't do it to themselves.
@Z-man Amanpour isn't a Neocon, per say, as she isn't genetically a Jew. However since she
married and had an offspring with a Jew and from this interview's tone she now qualifies. lol
She is also a beast to look at or listen to. (Grin)
@jilles dykstra The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:
- the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
- the German occupation was relatively benign.
Both statements are objectively true.
Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the
Present', San Francisco 1997
Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.
@unpc downunder The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though
opinion polls suggest most French people support immigration restrictionism.
The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so
easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?
In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen
for two reasons:
1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists)
and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote
2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically
inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.
Readers might like to know that Davis Sloan Wilson is a fervent champion
of the importance of group selection in evolution, a possible mechanism
(differential survival among groups, distinct in genetically-based
socially-mediated characters) often deployed as an 'explanation' for
altruistic behaviours. He also sees an understanding of group selection as
crucial to the solution of myriad human social ills: "Evolutionary science,"
Wilson argues, "will eventually prove so useful on a daily basis that we
will wonder how we survived without it. I'm here to make that day come
sooner rather than later, starting with my own city of Binghamton [NY]."
After decades of effort, he has so far failed to make many converts, and
the prevailing view is that, while group selection is indeed a mechanism
that might possibly operate in some circumstances, those circumstances are
generally very limited in most organisms, and, moreover, the strength of
group selection will almost always be much lower than that operating among
individuals. As Jerry Coyne put it in a commentary on Wilson's
"Neighbourhood Project" in the NYT: "Group selection isn't widely accepted
by evolutionists for several reasons. First, it's not an efficient way to
select for traits, like altruistic behavior, that are supposed to be
detrimental to the individual but good for the group. Groups divide to form
other groups much less often than organisms reproduce to form other
organisms, so group selection for altruism would be unlikely to override the
tendency of each group to quickly lose its altruists through natural
selection favoring cheaters. Further, little evidence exists that selection
on groups has promoted the evolution of any trait. Finally, other, more
plausible evolutionary forces, like direct selection on individuals for
reciprocal support, could have made humans prosocial." see
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/books/review/the-neighborhood-project-by-david-sloan-wilson-book-review.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
"... [Neo]liberalism that needs monsters to destroy can never politically engage with its enemies. It can never understand those enemies as political actors, making calculations, taking advantage of opportunities, and responding to constraints. It can never see in those enemies anything other than a black hole of motivation, a cesspool where reason goes to die. ..."
"... Hence the refusal of empathy for Trump's supporters. Insofar as it marks a demand that we not abandon antiracist principle and practice for the sake of winning over a mythicized white working class, the refusal is unimpeachable. ..."
"... Such a [neo]liberalism becomes dependent on the very thing it opposes, with a tepid mix of neoliberal markets and multicultural morals getting much-needed spice from a terrifying right. Hillary Clinton ran hard on the threat of Trump, as if his presence were enough to authorize her presidency. ..."
"... Clinton waged this campaign on the belief that her neoliberalism of fear could defeat the ethnonationalism of the right. ..."
"... In the novel, what begins as a struggle against inherited privilege results in the consolidation of a new ruling class that derives its legitimacy from superior merit. This class becomes, within a few generations, a hereditary aristocracy in its own right. Sequestered within elite institutions, people of high intelligence marry among themselves, passing along their high social position and superior genes to their progeny. Terminal inequality is the result. The gradual shift from inheritance to merit, Young writes, made "nonsense of all their loose talk of the equality of man": ..."
"... Losing every young person of promise to the meritocracy had deprived the working class of its prospective leaders, rendering it unable to coordinate a movement to manifest its political will. ..."
"... A policy of benign neglect of immigration laws invites into our country a casualized workforce without any leverage, one that competes with the native-born and destroys whatever leverage the latter have to negotiate better terms for themselves. The policy is a subsidy to American agribusiness, meatpacking plants, restaurants, bars, and construction companies, and to American families who would not otherwise be able to afford the outsourcing of childcare and domestic labor that the postfeminist, dual-income family requires. At the same time, a policy of free trade pits native-born workers against foreign ones content to earn pennies on the dollar of their American counterparts. ..."
"... Four decades of neoliberal globalization have cleaved our country into two hostile classes, and the line cuts across the race divide. On one side, college students credential themselves for meritocratic success. On the other, the white working class increasingly comes to resemble the black underclass in indices of social disorganization. On one side of the divide, much energy is expended on the eradication of subtler inequalities; on the other side, an equality of immiseration increasingly obtains. ..."
[Neo]liberalism that needs monsters to destroy can never politically engage with its enemies.
It can never understand those enemies as political actors, making calculations, taking advantage
of opportunities, and responding to constraints. It can never see in those enemies anything other
than a black hole of motivation, a cesspool where reason goes to die.
Hence the refusal of empathy for Trump's supporters. Insofar as it marks a demand that we
not abandon antiracist principle and practice for the sake of winning over a mythicized white working
class, the refusal is unimpeachable. But like the know-nothing disavowal of knowledge after
9/11, when explanations of terrorism were construed as exonerations of terrorism, the refusal of
empathy since 11/9 is a will to ignorance. Far simpler to imagine Trump voters as possessed by a
kind of demonic intelligence, or anti-intelligence, transcending all the rules of the established
order. Rather than treat Trump as the outgrowth of normal politics and traditional institutions -
it is the Electoral College, after all, not some beating heart of darkness, that sent Trump to the
White House - there is a disabling insistence that he and his forces are like no political formation
we've seen. By encouraging us to see only novelty in his monstrosity, analyses of this kind may prove
as crippling as the neocons' assessment of Saddam's regime. That, too, was held to be like no tyranny
we'd seen, a despotism where the ordinary rules of politics didn't apply and knowledge of the subject
was therefore useless.
Such a [neo]liberalism becomes dependent on the very thing it opposes, with a tepid mix of
neoliberal markets and multicultural morals getting much-needed spice from a terrifying right. Hillary
Clinton ran hard on the threat of Trump, as if his presence were enough to authorize her presidency.
Where Sanders promised to change the conversation, to make the battlefield a contest between a
multicultural neoliberalism and a multiracial social democracy, Clinton sought to keep the battlefield
as it has been for the past quarter-century. In this single respect, she can claim a substantial
victory. It's no accident that one of the most spectacular confrontations since the election pitted
the actors of Hamilton against the tweets of Trump. These fixed, frozen positions - high
on rhetoric, low on action - offer an almost perfect tableau of our ongoing gridlock of recrimination.
Clinton waged this campaign on the belief that her neoliberalism of fear could defeat the
ethnonationalism of the right. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Let us not be addicted
to "the drug of danger," as Athena says in the Oresteia, to "the dream of the enemy that
has to be crushed, like a herb, before [we] can smell freedom."
The term "meritocracy" became shorthand for a desirable societal ideal soon after it was coined
by the British socialist Sir Michael Young. But Young had originally used it to describe a dystopian
future. His 1958 satirical novel, The Rise of the Meritocracy, imagines the creation and growth of
a national system of intelligence testing, which identifies talented young people from every stratum
of society in order to install them in special schools, where they are groomed to make the best use
possible of their innate advantages.
In the novel, what begins as a struggle against inherited privilege results in the consolidation
of a new ruling class that derives its legitimacy from superior merit. This class becomes, within
a few generations, a hereditary aristocracy in its own right. Sequestered within elite institutions,
people of high intelligence marry among themselves, passing along their high social position and
superior genes to their progeny. Terminal inequality is the result. The gradual shift from inheritance
to merit, Young writes, made "nonsense of all their loose talk of the equality of man":
Men, after all, are notable not for the equality, but for the inequality, of their endowment.
Once all the geniuses are amongst the elite, and all the morons are amongst the workers, what meaning
can equality have? What ideal can be upheld except the principle of equal status for equal intelligence?
What is the purpose of abolishing inequalities in nurture except to reveal and make more pronounced
the inescapable inequalities of Nature?
I thought about this book often in the years before the crack-up of November 2016. In early 2015,
the Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam published a book that seemed to tell as history the same story
that Young had written as prophecy. Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis opens with an evocation
of the small town of Port Clinton, Ohio, where Putnam grew up in the 1950s - a "passable embodiment
of the American Dream, a place that offered decent opportunity for all the kids in town, whatever
their background." Port Clinton was, as Putnam is quick to concede, a nearly all-white town in a
pre-feminist and pre-civil-rights America, and it was marked by the unequal distribution of power
that spurred those movements into being. Yet it was also a place of high employment, strong unions,
widespread homeownership, relative class equality, and generally intact two-parent families. Everyone
knew one another by their first names and almost everyone was headed toward a better future; nearly
three quarters of all the classmates Putnam surveyed fifty years later had surpassed their parents
in both educational attainment and wealth.
When he revisited it in 2013, the town had become a kind of American nightmare. In the 1970s,
the industrial base entered a terminal decline, and the town's economy declined with it. Downtown
shops closed. Crime, delinquency, and drug use skyrocketed. In 1993, the factory that had offered
high-wage blue-collar employment finally shuttered for good. By 2010, the rate of births to unwed
mothers had risen to 40 percent. Two years later, the average worker in the county "was paid roughly
16 percent less in inflation-adjusted dollars than his or her grandfather in the early 1970s."
Young's novel ends with an editorial note informing readers that the fictional author of the text
had been killed in a riot that was part of a violent populist insurrection against the meritocracy,
an insurrection that the author had been insisting would pose no lasting threat to the social order.
Losing every young person of promise to the meritocracy had deprived the working class of its
prospective leaders, rendering it unable to coordinate a movement to manifest its political will.
"Without intelligence in their heads," he wrote, "the lower classes are never more menacing
than a rabble."
We are in the midst of a global insurrection against ruling elites. In the wake of the most destructive
of the blows recently delivered, a furious debate arose over whether those who supported Donald Trump
deserve empathy or scorn. The answer, of course, is that they deserve scorn for resorting to so depraved
and false a solution to their predicament - and empathy for the predicament itself. (And not just
because advances in technology are likely to make their predicament far more widely shared.) What
is owed to them is not the lachrymose pity reserved for victims (though they have suffered greatly)
but rather a practical appreciation of how their antagonism to the policies that determined the course
of this campaign - mass immigration and free trade - was a fully political antagonism that was disregarded
for decades, to our collective detriment.
A policy of benign neglect of immigration laws invites into our country a casualized workforce
without any leverage, one that competes with the native-born and destroys whatever leverage the latter
have to negotiate better terms for themselves. The policy is a subsidy to American agribusiness,
meatpacking plants, restaurants, bars, and construction companies, and to American families who would
not otherwise be able to afford the outsourcing of childcare and domestic labor that the postfeminist,
dual-income family requires. At the same time, a policy of free trade pits native-born workers against
foreign ones content to earn pennies on the dollar of their American counterparts.
In lieu of the social-democratic provision of childcare and other services of domestic support,
we have built a privatized, ad hoc system of subsidies based on loose border enforcement - in effect,
the nation cutting a deal with itself at the expense of the life chances of its native-born working
class. In lieu of an industrial policy that would preserve intact the economic foundation of their
lives, we rapidly dismantled our industrial base in pursuit of maximal aggregate economic growth,
with no concern for the uneven distribution of the harms and the benefits. Some were enriched hugely
by these policies: the college-educated bankers, accountants, consultants, technologists, lawyers,
economists, and corporate executives who built a supply chain that reached to the countries where
we shipped the jobs. Eventually, of course, many of these workers learned that both political parties
regarded them as fungible factors of production, readily discarded in favor of a machine or a migrant
willing to bunk eight to a room.
Four decades of neoliberal globalization have cleaved our country into two hostile classes,
and the line cuts across the race divide. On one side, college students credential themselves for
meritocratic success. On the other, the white working class increasingly comes to resemble the black
underclass in indices of social disorganization. On one side of the divide, much energy is expended
on the eradication of subtler inequalities; on the other side, an equality of immiseration increasingly
obtains.
Even before the ruling elite sent the proletariat off to fight a misbegotten war, even before
it wrecked the world economy through heedless lending, even before its politicians rescued those
responsible for the crisis while allowing working-class victims of all colors to sink, the working
class knew that it had been sacrificed to the interests of those sitting atop the meritocratic ladder.
The hostility was never just about differing patterns in taste and consumption. It was also about
one class prospering off the suffering of another. We learned this year that political interests
that go neglected for decades invariably summon up demagogues who exploit them for their own gain.
The demagogues will go on to betray their supporters and do enormous harm to others.
If we are to arrest the global descent into barbarism, we will have to understand the political
antagonism at the heart of the meritocratic project and seek a new kind of politics. If we choose
to neglect the valid interests of the working class, Trump will prove in retrospect to have been
a pale harbinger of even darker nightmares to come.
almost all the increment in incomes
has been harvested by the top 1%. As values,
principles and moral purpose are lost, the promise of growth is all that's left.
You can see the effects in a
leaked memo
from the UK's Foreign Office: "Trade and growth are now priorities
for all posts work like climate change and illegal wildlife trade will be scaled
down." All that counts is the rate at which we turn natural wealth into cash. If this
destroys our prosperity and the wonders that surround us, who cares?
We cannot hope to address our predicament without a new worldview. We cannot use
the models that caused our crises to solve them. We need to reframe the problem. This
is what the most inspiring book published so far this year has done.
In
Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist
, Kate
Raworth of Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute reminds us that
economic growth was not, at first, intended to signify wellbeing.
Simon Kuznets
, who standardised the measurement of growth, warned: "The welfare
of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income." Economic
growth, he pointed out, measured only annual flow, rather than stocks of wealth and
their distribution.
Raworth
points out that economics in the 20th century "lost the desire to
articulate its goals". It aspired to be a science of human behaviour: a science based
on a deeply flawed portrait of humanity. The dominant model – "rational economic
man", self-interested, isolated, calculating – says more about the nature of
economists than it does about other humans. The loss of an explicit objective allowed
the discipline to be captured by a proxy goal: endless growth.
The aim of economic activity, she argues, should be "meeting the needs of all
within the means of the planet". Instead of economies that need to grow, whether or
not they make us thrive, we need economies that "make us thrive, whether or not they
grow". This means changing our picture of what the economy is and how it works.
The central image in mainstream economics is the circular flow diagram. It depicts
a closed flow of income cycling between households, businesses, banks, government and
trade, operating in a social and ecological vacuum. Energy, materials, the natural
world, human society, power, the wealth we hold in common all are missing from the
model. The unpaid work of carers – principally women – is ignored, though no economy
could function without them. Like rational economic man, this representation of
economic activity bears little relationship to reality.
So Raworth begins by redrawing the economy. She embeds it in the Earth's systems
and in society, showing how it depends on the flow of materials and energy, and
reminding us that we are more than just workers, consumers and owners of capital.
If people can:
1. understand the nature of money which
is in fact energy
2. bypass fiat currencies and therefore
Immune to all the misery from these fake
money (such as unfair wealth
distribution...etc)
3. have some elementary-math
understanding about energy constraint by
https://1drv.ms/o/s!AlY9OXkn9NHujFuH2HElKWc3WgeJ
A proper land tax, progressive taxation
and a utter ruthless pursuit of those
that don't pay their share. Oh and,
here's a thought, corporation tax not
set at a pissy ridiculous level. But
then the great British public always
vote for the opposite of all these
things. Well done!
Reply
Share
Let down in the last few sentences.
Idealised models are all well and good
but the crucial issue is the current
wealth distribution and the unequal
power that stems from it. We now live in
an era of nationalist autocracies, a
necessary carapace for post capitalism
but definitely not a prerequisite for
the kind of model you describe.
Reply
Share
Constant economic growth also
necessitates a pyramid scheme of
constant population growth to supply
labor.
In Western countries with low birth
rates and high salaries, this translates
into our oligarchs adopting the
neoliberal model of immigration,
globalization, and free trade.
From a certain perspective, all the
recent political upheaval in the West
(Brexit, Trump, Etc.) can be described
as the working classes realizing what
"constant growth" and resulting
neoliberalism means for them and their
children personally.
Another interesting model is that of the
Gift-economy, the system that dominated
the world during millenia (and persists
somewhat today). In its extreme form -
the potlatch - an entire society's drive
is based on how much wealth it can give
away, not take. Georges Bataille
described this as "feneral economics"
whereas academic economists' mumblings
he called "restricted economics", a
purely useless attempt to erase life.
Time to read him and the anthropologists
(Mauss, Bloch, Mead, Levi-Strauss) who
described this, again.
State-owned banks
would
invest in projects that transform our
relationship with the living world,
State owned banks? As in a
nationalised banking alternative....in
Britain?
Mention the word "nationalisation" in
London and the Home Counties and
everyone, from the middle-classes
upwards, immediately assumes this must
mean a return to Miners strikes, a three
day week, power cuts, flared trousers,
beer and sandwiches, formica kitchen
workops, the lot!
State-owned banks is what we got
after the 2008 banking crisis. But if
your suggestion is that politicians
can make better investment decisions
than commercial banks and with access
to all the money printing power of
the economy then that would be truly
scary.
Reply
Share
Nothing wrong with flared trousers or
miners' strikes ot Formica. And even
power cuts would be tolerable if they
meant absence of HIV, 3-day weeks and
a thoroughly humiliated, depressed
Establishment - my idea of heaven :)
Reply
Share
This looks like an extension to John
Elkington's triple bottom line model
published in 1997, updated to embrace
the advance of social enterprise and to
acknowledge the ever greater impact of
global warming.
I'd will have to read
the full book to understand this new
model better. It would be interesting to
see how any government, in power or in
waiting, could articulate real
objectives associated with this model to
give a sense that we were on a better
economic journey than present.
Thoughtful and well presented article..
BUT...Until money and the worship of
power it creates is relieved of its God
like status..the 'opening' towards a
more sustainable values system continues
to be a very tough sell...in essence,
the door remains closed..
Reply
Share
An economic model is supposed to
describe way the economy actually works,
not the way you would like it to work.
To judge that I suppose I will have to
read the book and perhaps some critical
reviews, since you can't get and sense
of that from Monbiot's article. Does it
provide a better forecast about the
effect of Brexit for example? would it
have predicted the financial crash of
2008? If it can't do these things then
it isn't an economic model but it might
be a philosophy or belief system like
Zen Buddhism and should be treated with
the same level of detachment we would
apply to such faiths, including that of
Monbiot.
One where people were incentivised to
mis-price assets and not
de-incentivised from doing so.
Because one of the rules of an
economic model is that people respond
to incentives.
People declaim that "economics" is
dead as proved by 2008, whereas what
the crash actually proves is that
ignoring some of the incentives means
you don't understand what people are
doing.
"Economics" is not the model, it's
the modelling process. Climatology,
to pick another modelling discipline,
has produced some astoundingly wrong
results in the past -- the 1970s
cooling hypothesis, for example --
but we don't declare it dead, we let
it have more goes in the hope of
getting outputs which help us
understand the world.
I mistakenly gave you a thumbs up
before I realized that "tawhid"
refers to the monotheistic belief
that muslims adopted from the older
Jewish religion (islam and
christianity both being Jewish
religions). Just religious propaganda
on your part, in other words.
Religion is a load of crap so I take
back my thumbs up. Fuck "God". Fuck
religion.
Your earlier post about
the interview with Banisadr looks
more interesting.
We are converging on a realisation that
we have things catastrophically wrong
and continue to do so. George
understands,
Kate clearly understands
and
Peter Joseph
more than understands
to create a movement. I've hopefully
tried to connect Peter and Kate through
Twitter, Kate has responded favourably.
Currently reading '
The
New Human Rights Movement'
and have
'Doughnut Economics' on order. We have
solutions but will we overcome
resistance in culture due to ignorance
and religion? I hope so but have little
'faith' in the way that humanity is
conducting itself with regard to itself
and the planet.
Tell it how it is Peter and Kate. We
need a new direction toward happiness,
sustainability and understanding. Our
current power structures are crumbling
and rightly so...
Sadly it will probably take a
catastrophic collapse before any new
model is implemented. It was only in
the wake of WW2 that social welfare
systems and health services were set
up in western countries. I am fearful
of what we might have to endure
before a political consensus emerges
that a new economic model is needed.
Reply
Share
>"It was only in the wake of WW2 that
social welfare systems and health
services were set up in western
countries."
Grossly untrue. Such
systems, albeit primitive compared to
the NHS but not the state pension,
were pioneered by Bismarck (a
conservative!) in Germany around
1870. The German healthcare system
still suffers from a "first adopter"
syndrome.
"then demand that those who wield power
start working towards its objectives:" -
I am very willing. Do you think an email
will do the trick?
Reply
Share
I think this probably counts as an
interesting economic description but I
don't see it as a great leap forward of
understanding at the practical level.
The advice for how an economy should be
run as opposed to the current approach
doesn't change. Forget deficits and
surpluses, forget growth and don't
obsess about inflation, in a well run
economy, these things will look after
themselves.
A well run economy is one which
maximises its main potential, which is
its workforce by trying to ensure
they're in gainful employment (less than
2% unemployment)
. Gainful employment
means not massaging the numbers by
making delivery drivers self-employed or
using zero hours contracts but having
people do useful work for proper wages
and if the private sector can't always
supply it then the public sector should
- that is real work not just New-Labour
bean counting (measuring what other
people do). Do that and you will always
(by definition) have enough growth and
whilst at times you will (if you bother
to check) run big public deficits, you
are also likely to find yourself running
occasional public surpluses.
Beyond that you want to encourage work
which utilises renewables &/or recycling
and discourage plundering natural
resources - including foreign resources,
the tax system can help with that, make
the polluters & plunderers subsidise the
recyclers, as well as other , currently
seen as a sin, government interference
in markets.
Sounds nice but...what about about
automation destroying lots of the
lovely jobs you're talking about? It
seems to me that a crucial question
for our times is whether in the face
of the latest wave of automation, AI
and machine learning, the lump of
labour fallacy will still hold true.
If it doesn't, I forecast a lot of
violence and death in addition to the
violence and death that climate
change and antibiotic resistance are
already causing and which I
respectfully suggest is going to grow
exponentially.
Unemployment isn't measured by what
the government says it is. It's
measured by phoning people up and
asking them if they think they're in
work. In order to get the figures
down, you'd have to get a bunch of
unemployed people to say they were in
work in order for them to help out a
government they presumably don't
think much of.
I think my interview with Iran's former
president, Banisadr who lives in exile,
can enrich the argument. Especially the
part, which talks about the structural
problems with capitalism and the way to
overcome it:
We also need a society which meets our
psychological needs as well as our
material and environmental needs on a
sustainable basis. Thankfully the fairly
new field of positive psychology is now
showing us how to do this and there have
recently been prestigious conferences in
London and Dubai involving the OECD and
government personnel around the world
centred on adapting policies to meet
these needs. This is the missing
ingredient that can help us create a
better world. But it will require a mass
movement focussing on these three
elements to galvanise opinion formers
and the political community into taking
the necessary action.
Positive psychology, while admirable
in it's goals, has suffered from a
lack of empirical data to support
it's theories. For ages it was
focused on theories and half assed
science (admittedly it's been a while
since I visited it). They have had
the positive influence in that people
are researching topics in parallel
with positive psychology. Though many
researchers still try to distance
themselves from that field due to the
lack of empiricism* that was rife.
It has potential though, I'll say
that, and it's aims are admirable.
*I don't know if that's still the
case!! It just used to be one of it's
many criticisms. I heard a research
proposal recently investigating
resilience using fMRI, and many of
the proposal's themes resonated with
positive psychology. When I brought
that up, there were a few raised
eyebrows and a sigh of relief when I
pointed out that it was simply a
comment on the parallelism...
It basically drifts far too close to
pseudo-psychology to be taken
serious. If it could rain that in and
pull itself towards a more empirical
approach then people within the
scientific community would be more
willing to engage. Otherwise you
might as well get tips on how to fold
your arms (and what that conveys)
from Cosmopolitan, or engage in
'power stance' to feel more
'confident'... both perfect examples
of pseudo-psychology.
Again, these
are general (and fair) criticisms of
positive psychology. It does have
aspects I like, for example they try
to develop techniques for improving
mental health (or well-being as they
would maybe refer to it as) that
don't require a physician or a
psychologist. Ones that you can do on
your phone and what have you. Which
would be great if there was
sufficient evidence that their
techniques work.
I'm bemused by Mr Monbiots arguments. He
seems to be railing against the
monitizing of society, and yet moans
about the lack of money for carers? This
caring argument seems to include
housework, a lot of which is done by
women, though why or who would pay for
this type of caring is always
unexplained. I'd have thought that just
being human demands a certain level
domestic care from everyone ? Then
there's the community energy idea. It
sounds lovely and cosey, if a bit
Royston Vasey, but doesn't he wonder why
the old local authority power generators
stopped working, and a National Grid was
developed? What's called the After
Diversity Maximum Demand, on an
electrical system might give him a clue
as to why big generators and a
transmission system beats lots of little
generators hands down.
It's the irony of the modern left. On
the one hand, bemoaning the rich for
always wanting more money and on the
other, demanding more money....
Reply
Share
The example you give, the National
Grid, was a socialist creation,
stolen from the UK people by the
vile, despicable and fortunately very
dead Margaret Thatcher, the worst
thing to have happened to Britain
since Adolf Hitler.
Reply
Share
The aim of economic activity, she
argues, should be "meeting the needs
of all within the means of the
planet".
is a paraphrase of the most likely
criminal
and bankster gofer Maurice
Strong's "definition" of sustainability.
"Development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet
their own needs."
as filtered through the openly
Communist UN Bruntland Commission.
It is a Technocratic, UN-
corporatist- global governance-based
ideology that -- to nobody's surprise --
Monbiot thinks is newly-baked and right
out of the oven.
And the radical new doughnut way of
looking at global development is
straight out of UN Agenda 21/30.
The undercooked intellectual pudding
Monbiot is slopping about in and
describing as the finest chocolate
mousse since sliced bread, is just an
old and rejected 1930's version of
Technocracy, which was revised in the
1970s, and then, again in the 1990s, and
which, at its heart, is nothing but the
call for the institution of a fascistic
world government that will, we are
assured, give us more social justice
than we could ever need.
If the author of the reviewed book
hasn't made these attributions, and is
passing this global governance schematic
and MO off as her own, then she's
plagiarizing.
"Okay, step back and
absorb this one. Mr. Prasad is saying that millions of manufacturing workers in the Midwest lost
their jobs and saw their communities decimated because the Bush administration wanted to press China
to enforce Pfizer's patents on drugs, Microsoft's copyrights on Windows, and to secure better access
to China's financial markets for Goldman Sachs.
This is not a new story, in fact I say it all the time. But it's nice to have the story confirmed
by the person who occupied the International Monetary Fund's China desk at the time.
Porter then jumps in and gets his story completely 100 percent wrong:
"At the end of the day, economists argued at the time, Chinese exchange rate policies didn't cost
the United States much. After all, in 2007 the United States was operating at full employment. The
trade deficit was because of Americans' dismal savings rate and supercharged consumption, not a cheap
renminbi. After all, if Americans wanted to consume more than they created, they had to get it somewhere."
Sorry, this was the time when even very calm sensible people like Federal Reserve Board Chair
Ben Bernanke were talking about a "savings glut." The U.S. and the world had too much savings, which
lead to a serious problem of unemployment. Oh, we did eventually find a way to deal with excess savings.
Anyone remember the housing bubble?"
I don't remember Krugman or PGL saying China or trade policy was a problem at the time. They'd
just argue the Fed needs to lower rates to compensate.
Trump Isn't Wrong on China Currency Manipulation, Just Late
by Eduardo Porter
ECONOMIC SCENE APRIL 11, 2017
Has the United States mismanaged the ascent of China?
By April 15, the Treasury Department is required to present to Congress a report on the
exchange rate policies of the country's major trading partners, intended to identify manipulators
that cheapen their currency to make their exports more attractive and gain market share in
the United States, a designation that could eventually lead to retaliation.
It would be hard, these days, to find an economist who feels China fits the bill. Under
a trade law passed in 2015, a country must meet three criteria: It would have to have a "material"
trade surplus with the rest of the world, have a "significant" surplus with the United States,
and intervene persistently in foreign exchange markets to push its currency in one direction.
While China's surplus with the United States is pretty big - almost $350 billion - its global
surplus is modest, at 2.4 percent of its gross domestic product last year. Most significant,
it has been pushing its currency up, not down. Since the middle of 2014 it has sold over $1
trillion from its reserves to prop up the renminbi, under pressure from capital flight by Chinese
companies and savers.
Even President Trump - who as a candidate promised to label China a currency manipulator
on Day 1 and put a 45 percent tariff on imports of Chinese goods - seems to be backing away
from broad, immediate retaliation.
And yet the temptation remains. "When you talk about currency manipulation, when you talk
about devaluations," the Chinese "are world champions," Mr. Trump told The Financial Times,
ahead of the state visit of the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, to the United States last week.
For all Mr. Trump's random impulsiveness and bluster - and despite his lack of a coherent
strategy to engage with what is likely soon to become the world's biggest economy - he is not
entirely alone with his views.
Many learned economists and policy experts ruefully acknowledge that the president's intuition
is broadly right: While labeling China a currency manipulator now would look ridiculous, the
United States should have done it a long time ago.
"With the benefit of hindsight, China should have been named," said Brad Setser, an expert
on international economics and finance who worked in the Obama administration and is now at
the Council on Foreign Relations.
There were reasonable arguments against putting China on the spot and starting a process
that could eventually lead to American retaliation.
Yet by not pushing back against China's currency manipulation, and allowing China to deploy
an arsenal of trade tactics of dubious legality to increase exports to the United States, successive
administrations - Republican and Democratic - arguably contributed to the economic dislocations
that pummeled so many American workers over more than a decade. Those dislocations helped propel
Mr. Trump to power.
From 2000 to 2014 China definitely suppressed the rise of the renminbi to maintain a competitive
advantage for its exports, buying dollars hand over fist and adding $4 trillion to its foreign
reserves over the period. Until 2005, the Chinese government kept the renminbi pegged to the
dollar, following it down as the greenback slid against other major currencies starting in
2003.
American multinationals were flocking into China, taking advantage of its entry into the
World Trade Organization in December 2001, which guaranteed access to the American and other
world markets for its exports. By 2007, China's broad trade surplus hit 10 percent of its gross
domestic product - an unheard-of imbalance for an economy this large. And its surplus with
the United States amounted to a full third of the American deficit with the world.
Though the requirement that the Treasury identify currency manipulators "gaining unfair
competitive advantage in international trade" dates back to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
Act of 1988, China was never called out.
There were good reasons. Or at least they seemed so at the time. For one, China hands in
the administration of George W. Bush argued that putting China on the spot would make negotiations
more difficult, because even Chinese leaders who understood the need to allow their currency
to rise could not be seen to bow to American pressure.
Labeling China a manipulator could have severely hindered progress in other areas of a complex
bilateral economic relationship. And the United States had bigger fish to fry.
"There were other dimensions of China's economic policies that were seen as more important
to U.S. economic and business interests," Eswar Prasad, who headed the China desk at the International
Monetary Fund and is now a professor at Cornell, told me. These included "greater market access,
better intellectual property rights protection, easier access to investment opportunities,
etc."
At the end of the day, economists argued at the time, Chinese exchange rate policies didn't
cost the United States much. After all, in 2007 the United States was operating at full employment.
The trade deficit was because of Americans' dismal savings rate and supercharged consumption,
not a cheap renminbi. After all, if Americans wanted to consume more than they created, they
had to get it somewhere.
And the United States had a stake in China's rise. A crucial strategic goal of American
foreign policy since Mao's death had been how to peacefully incorporate China into the existing
order of free-market economies, bound by international law into the fabric of the postwar multilateral
institutions.
And the strategy even worked - a little bit. China did allow its currency to rise a little
from 2005 to 2008. And when the financial crisis hit, it took the foot off the export pedal
and deployed a giant fiscal stimulus, which bolstered internal demand.
Yet though these arguments may all be true, they omitted an important consideration: The
overhaul of the world economy imposed by China's global rise also created losers.
In a set of influential papers that have come to inform the thinking about the United States'
relations with China, David Autor, Daron Acemoglu and Brendan Price from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; Gordon Hanson from the University of California, San Diego; and David
Dorn from the University of Zurich concluded that lots of American workers, in many communities,
suffered a blow from which they never recovered.
Rising Chinese imports from 1999 to 2011 cost up to 2.4 million American jobs, one paper
estimated. Another found that sagging wages in local labor markets exposed to Chinese competition
reduced earnings by $213 per adult per year.
Economic theory posited that a developed country like the United States would adjust to
import competition by moving workers into more advanced industries that competed successfully
in global markets. In the real world of American workers exposed to the rush of imports after
China erupted onto world markets, the adjustment didn't happen.
If mediocre job prospects and low wages didn't stop American families from consuming, it
was because the American financial system was flush with Chinese cash and willing to lend,
financing their homes and refinancing them to buy the furniture. But that equilibrium didn't
end well either, did it?
What it left was a lot of betrayed anger floating around among many Americans on the wrong
end of these dynamics. "By not following the law, the administration sent a political signal
that the U.S. wouldn't stand up to Chinese cheating," said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations. "As we can see now, that hurt in terms of maintaining political
support for open trade."
If there was a winner from this dynamic, it was Mr. Trump.
Will Mr. Trump really go after China? In addition to an expected executive order to retaliate
against the dumping of Chinese steel, he has promised more. He could tinker with the definitions
of "material" and "significant" trade surpluses to justify a manipulation charge.
And yet a charge of manipulation would add irony upon irony. "It would be incredibly ironic
not to have named China a manipulator when it was manipulating, and name it when it is not,"
Mr. Setser told me. And Mr. Trump would be retaliating against the economic dynamic that handed
him the presidency.
"What it left was a lot of betrayed
anger floating around among many Americans on the wrong end of these dynamics. "By not following
the law, the administration sent a political signal that the U.S. wouldn't stand up to Chinese
cheating," said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "As we can
see now, that hurt in terms of maintaining political support for open trade."
If there was
a winner from this dynamic, it was Mr. Trump."
So PGL the Facile and Krugman - the New Democrats - helped elect with their corporate free
trade.
International Trade Lessons for the New York Times
The New York Times told readers * that Mexico is preparing to "play the corn card" in its negotiations
with Donald Trump. The piece warns:
"Now corn has taken on a new role - as a powerful lever for Mexican officials in the run-up
to talks over Nafta, the North American Free Trade Agreement.
"The reason: Much of the corn that Mexico consumes comes from the United States, making it
America's top agricultural export to its southern neighbor. And even though President Trump appears
to be pulling back from his vows to completely overhaul Nafta, Mexico has taken his threats to
heart and has begun flexing its own muscle.
"The Mexican government is exploring buying its corn elsewhere - including Argentina or Brazil
- as well as increasing domestic production. In a fit of political pique, a Mexican senator even
submitted a bill to eliminate corn purchases from the United States within three years."
It then warns of the potential devastation from this threat:
"The prospect that the United States could lose its largest foreign market for corn and other
key products has shaken farming communities throughout the American Midwest, where corn production
is a vital part of the economy. The threat is particularly unsettling for many residents of the
Corn Belt because much of the region voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump in the presidential election.
" 'If we lose Mexico as a customer, it will be absolutely devastating to the ag economy,' said
Philip Gordon, 68, who grows corn, soybeans and wheat on a farm in Saline, Mich., that has been
in his family for 140 years."
Okay, I hate to spoil a good scare story with a dose of reality, but let's think this one through
for a moment. According to the piece, instead of buying corn from the United States, Mexico might
buy it from Argentina or Brazil. So, we'll lose our Mexican market to these two countries.
But who is buying corn from Argentina and Brazil now? If this corn had previously been going
to other countries, then presumably these other countries will be looking to buy corn from someone
else, like perhaps U.S. farmers?
It is of course possible that Argentina and Brazil will switch production away from other crops
to corn to meet Mexico's demand, but that would likely leave openings in these other crops for
U.S. farmers. The transition to new markets for corn crops or a switch from corn to the crops
vacated by Brazil and Argentina would not be costless, but it also may not imply the sort of devastation
promised by the New York Times.
See, market economies are flexible. This is something that economists know, as should reporters
who write on economic issues. This may undermine scare stories that are being told to push an
agenda, but life is tough.
Not mentioned is that Mexico is the home of corn, that thousands of farmers who used to make their
livings raising native corns lost their farms to market rate competition from the USA under NAFTA.
Nick Begich - Wikipedia
Dr. Nick Begich
is the eldest son of the late United States Congressman from Alaska, Nick Begich Sr., and political
activist Pegge Begich. He is well known in Alaska for his own political activities. He was twice
elected President of both the Alaska Federation of Teachers and the Anchorage Council of Education.
He has been pursuing independent research in the sciences and politics for most of his adult life.
Begich received Doctor of Medicine (Medicina Alternitiva), honoris causa, for independent work in
health and political science, from The Open International University for Complementary Medicines,
Colombo, Sri Lanka, in November 1994.
Yes, There Really Are Things We Can Do to Reduce the Trade Deficit
Donald Trump's bluster about imposing large tariffs and force companies to make things in America
has led to backlash where we have people saying things to the effect that we are in a global economy
and we just can't do anything about shifting from foreign produced items to domestically produced
items. Paul Krugman's blogpost * on trade can be seen in this light, although it is not exactly what
he say and he surely knows better.
The post points out that imports account for a large percentage of the cost of many of the goods
we produce here. This means that if we raise the price of imports, we also make it more expensive
to produce goods in the United States.
This is of course true, but that doesn't mean that higher import prices would not lead to a shift
towards domestic production. For example, if we take the case of transport equipment he highlights,
if all the parts that we imported cost 20 percent more, then over time we would expect car producers
in the United States to produce with a larger share of domestically produced parts than would otherwise
be the case. This doesn't mean that imported parts go to zero, or even that they necessarily fall,
but just that they would be less than would be the case if import prices were 20 percent lower. This
is pretty much basic economics -- at a higher price we buy less.
While arbitrary tariffs are not a good way to raise the relative price of imports, we do have
an obvious tool that is designed for exactly this purpose. We can reduce the value of the dollar
against the currencies of our trading partners. This is probably best done through negotiations,
** which would inevitably involve trade-offs (e.g. less pressure to enforce U.S. patents and copyrights
and less concern about access for the U.S. financial industry). Loud threats against our trading
partners are likely to prove counter-productive. (We should also remove the protectionist barriers
that keep our doctors and dentists from enjoying the full benefits of international competition.)
Anyhow, we can do something about our trade deficits if had a president who thought seriously
about the issue. As it is, the current occupant of the White House seems to not know which way is
up when it comes to trade.
The post points out that imports account for a large percentage of the cost of many of the
goods we produce here. This means that if we raise the price of imports, we also make it more
expensive to produce goods in the United States.
== end of quote ==
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones ...
The problems is that many strategically important, high technology components production
is offshored.
"... " This looks more like what you'd see in a banana republic, " says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen, a liberal watchdog group. " You've got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business. " ..."
"... In the first paragraph, we're told that jobs are moving to Mexico -- as usual. It's taken for granted (and without much concern here from Krugman) that US employers are going to keep exporting manufacturing jobs. This is followed by a defense of NAFTA, an attack on protectionism, and the suggestion that there is no alternative better than the status quo. And Democrats wonder why they're losing the Rust Belt states? ..."
"... The governmental action that was probably most important in creating the rust belt was the Reagan tax cuts. Those came as the Volcker effort to end inflation was still happening. That had to be continued, so the Reagan deficit could not be paid by inflating the money supply, and the necessary US bond sales kept our interest rate up, making the US the best place in the world to park money. Foreign exchange poured in, and the dollar's value soared by 70%. That rise made foreign production cheaper to Americans, and made US production uncompetitive elsewhere. ..."
"... Isn't this the same question that the British asked in 1845. The only thing we really know is that there are millions who no longer have a role in our economy. ..."
"... Liberals and Conservatives will not emerge until after the purge. Paul Krugman and Paul Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism. The belong to the same Tory Party of Robert Peel the only debate is about how best to grow the economy. ..."
"... The world's financial elite all fly the same flag called the Jolly Roger and finally we have a US government not ashamed to unfurl it. ..."
"... globalization has clearly not produced the promised big boost in overall growth in this country - economists would not be talking about "secular stagnation" if it had. ..."
"... Instead of denying the obvious facts and trying to divert the discussion with false claims about robots, why don't US economist try to work through the complications of trade and aim at policies which really would benefit US workers and might reduce the ever-growing inequality? Do they need to devote all their attention to defending the Democratic political establishment and their own failed theories and assumptions? ..."
"... It is obvious to most that the huge trade surge with China disrupted many commodity industries, steel, solar cells, electronics. ..."
"... If you do not see nothing obviously wrong, when a US company , bailed out by the US taxpayer, thanks the tax payer by importing cars made at Chinese wages to the US, putting out of work US workers, you must be a macro economist. ..."
"... Nowhere on the GM website is mentioned that those cars are made in China. Check ..."
"... the effective ban on big Western internet services like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, as well as local data storage rules for those who are allowed to operate. It's all done in the name of security ..."
Amazing how so many conservatives dismiss what Krugman as to say since he's so clearly a 'commie.'
Then they support Trump the capitalist businessman who will get things done.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Krugman is writing capitalist essays on his blog about the benefits
of Trade, and trump is running a kleptocracy that seeks to bring back a disproven form of protectionism
that would be much more at home among early 20th century socialists than with Milton Freedman
or Adam Smith.
It goes to show that the Republicans are a party without a purpose. They have given up on their
capitalist roots and instead just cater to the whims of the highest bidding campaign contributors
and the worst instincts of their bigoted base.
Paul Mathisis a trusted commenter Fairfax, Virginia
1 day ago
Nobody Knew Trade Could Be So Complicated!
Actually everybody knows that negotiating trade deals takes years of intensive efforts because
there are many moving parts that all affect each other.
Since Trump has the attention span of the average 3 year old, he has no time for anything more
complicated than banning Muslims from traveling to America. That simple "solution" did not work
out either.
So Trump is not going to do anything on trade simply because it is way too complicated and
time consuming. After all, he couldn't even spend 3 weeks on replacing Obamacare with his "fantastic"
plan. One month ago:
"We have a plan that I think is going to be fantastic. . . . I think it's going to be something
special ... I think you're going to like what you hear." --CNN
Re: "Oh, and China currency manipulation was an issue 5 years ago - but isn't now." I find
this interesting. Five years ago China was building up their reserves by purchasing US government
and agency bonds to keep their exchange rate low. Today those reserves of government and agency
bonds are falling as they are converted into US real estate and corporate assets while the trade
deficit remains at some $500 billion. This is supposed to make everything OK. What am I missing
here? http://www.rweconomics.com/htm/WDCh_2.htm
China has more than 1.3 billion people, and wages in China have risen faster for a longer period
of time than anywhere ever.
It's not a mystery why wages in China are what they are. It started as a poor country with
an enormous, mostly rural population. If anything, the surprise is that they have managed to increase
wages so strongly for so long.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about trade and immigration, of course, but understanding
Trump requires one to abandon the notion that he is appealing to legitimate concerns.
He is appealing to spite. Anything resembling a legitimate concern is pretense, to give cover
to what would otherwise be recognized as ugly and deplorable. He says the spiteful parts loudly
and doesn't even feign competence or coherence on policy.
Once this is fully recognized, all that he says and does makes sense. It also suggests that
people interested in real substantive policy discussions should disregard Trump entirely.
Dr. K. is correct we should watch what DJT actually does, instead of what he says, though what
DJT says is designed to whip up his partisans by pointing to real issues, but instead of blaming
the ' lost factories ' and ' stripped wealth ' on the portion of economic strata DJT inhabits
- which is where the wealth stripping/lost factory hedgies and sacrosanct banker pay contract
holders also exist - DJT always points somewhere else.
Somewhere else is a moving target that can shift each time a new sun rises on the Twitter-verse.
And it's hard to see how everyone will continue to admire the Emperor's new clothes when the
stock markets reverse course, or if there is a 2011 re-dux next month over House GOP'ers raising
the debt ceiling.
Anyhoooo, the best indicator of how things are going regarding economic policies at the White
House is to see how DJT adviser Carl Icahn has benefited from specific policy carve-outs:
" This looks more like what you'd see in a banana republic, " says Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen,
a liberal watchdog group. " You've got a strongman who surrounds himself with billionaires or
wealthy advisers who conduct the business of government to benefit their business. "
Though DJT may be correct there are issues with NAFTA and at WTO, those issues are preferable
to bald-faced kleptocracy.
In the first paragraph, we're told that jobs are moving to Mexico -- as usual. It's taken for
granted (and without much concern here from Krugman) that US employers are going to keep exporting
manufacturing jobs. This is followed by a defense of NAFTA, an attack on protectionism, and the
suggestion that there is no alternative better than the status quo. And Democrats wonder why they're
losing the Rust Belt states?
Trump's record low approval rating is likely to take a further hit in the near future from
deteriorating economic conditions. Measures of consumer and business confidence soared since the
election yet hard economic data continues to weaken with the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow estimate of
first quarter GDP growth falling to just 0.9%, after this morning's weak personal income and spending
report. Indeed, growth in real personal consumption expenditures peaked way back in January 2015.
While there was a mild rebound that started in March 2016 the trend has since turned negative
since the start of the 2017. See chart:
Interesting fact is the recent polarization of consumer confidence readings. Democrats are
generally pessimists while Republicans are optimistic about the economy. That suggests consumer
confidence readings will fall when Republicans get over their infatuation with Trump. And will
most likely be driven by disappointing economic growth -- actual growth and not empty promises.
Trump promised 4% growth which is impossible over the long term due to slow population growth.
Yet, that growth rate now looks far out of reach even for a single quarter and fiscal stimulus
looks less and less likely to happen even if some tax cuts for the wealthy do manage to pass Congress.
Tax cuts are not stimulative if they heavily favor the wealthy. Probably the opposite is true
considering the Bush tax cuts were so ineffective.
Krugman is an economist; he's not merely trying to sway voters. And he knows that the decline
in industrial jobs is more due to productivity gains than factories' moving abroad. In any case,
measures like Trump's scolding businessmen is not and will not be important in keeping jobs from
leaving. More important is the exchange rate.
The governmental action that was probably most important in creating the rust belt was the
Reagan tax cuts. Those came as the Volcker effort to end inflation was still happening. That had
to be continued, so the Reagan deficit could not be paid by inflating the money supply, and the
necessary US bond sales kept our interest rate up, making the US the best place in the world to
park money. Foreign exchange poured in, and the dollar's value soared by 70%. That rise made foreign
production cheaper to Americans, and made US production uncompetitive elsewhere.
But the decline in manufacturing would be happening regardless. It is the same process that
did in most US family farms throughout the 20th century. US farming is now so efficient that farmers,
once 3/4 of us, are now as small a fraction of Americans as "gardeners, groundskeepers, and growers
of ornamental plants." The same thing is now happening to factories; we're just too efficient
at making things to require the number of manufacturing workers we once did.
Ron Cohenis a trusted commenter Waltham, MA
20 hours ago
Prof. Krugman, in your column today about Coal Country, you rightfully identify it as a state
of mind. But that state of mind is not nostaglia as you argue. Rather, it is a profound cultural
resentment that motivates the voters of West Virginia.
For perspective on this subject, I urge you to read Arlie Hochschild's, widely praised, "Strangers
in Their Own Land." http://thenewpress.com/node/10362
.
All but one of the columns, below, are from The New York Times. Taken together, they form a
coda to Hochschild's book. I suggest you start with the last one, Sabrina Tavernise's piece.
Bernie Sanders Has A Plan To Win Back Trump Voters, The Huffington Post, March 9, 2017
http://tinyurl.com/zy2nzxh
Trump Budget Proposal Reflects Working-Class Resentment of the Poor, Eduardo Porter, March
7, 2017 http://tinyurl.com/ho5zkha
Thank you or the opportunity of answering your question with my question.
Isn't this the same question that the British asked in 1845. The only thing we really know
is that there are millions who no longer have a role in our economy.
Liberals and Conservatives will not emerge until after the purge. Paul Krugman and Paul
Ryan are part of the same priesthood of the only acceptable theology the Church of Neoliberalism.
The belong to the same Tory Party of Robert Peel the only debate is about how best to grow the
economy.
The question that comes to my mind is why do we want to grow an economy where production exceeds
demand every day and our ideological Dogma says we must work even harder than ever to increase
the inequality between supply and demand?
We have ceded control to the Whigs and I fear it isn't only 3 million Irish peasants who will
disappear. The conversion of dollars into real estate really struck a high note as those worthless
hovels that housed 3 million economically worthless peasants provided room for what was most important
in the Irish economy pigs and cattle. Again I feel I must repeat there was no famine in Ireland
it was a failure of potato crops and each year Ireland exported enough food to feed all of Ireland's
hungry for seven potatoless years. Then as now the bible was The Economist.
The world's financial elite all fly the same flag called the Jolly Roger and finally we
have a US government not ashamed to unfurl it.
A good start would be to insist on living wages in mexico and Asia along with humane working
conditions. That's a starting position a trump or Clinton administration would never consider,
but Sanders would have. Bringing those changes about would create more of a level playing field
for US workers. Also if China isn't controlling currency anymore why is labor still so cheap.?
It can't be fully explained by excess labor supply. Something must be going on, and we should
be trying to figure it out.
skeptonomistis a trusted commenter Tennessee
1 day ago
lt's true that modern trade is very complicated but certain things are obvious. One is that
the US runs huge trade deficits, amounting to nearly $750 billion in goods. Yes, this is obviously
bigly unfair to the United States, that is considering the majority of its citizens and especially
wage earners, who have been put into competition with those in developing countries, rather than
the capitalists whose profits have been increased by the lower wage costs. Those goods represent
a very large number of jobs that are now in other countries. Another is that globalization has
clearly not produced the promised big boost in overall growth in this country - economists would
not be talking about "secular stagnation" if it had.
Instead of denying the obvious facts and trying to divert the discussion with false claims
about robots, why don't US economist try to work through the complications of trade and aim at
policies which really would benefit US workers and might reduce the ever-growing inequality? Do
they need to devote all their attention to defending the Democratic political establishment and
their own failed theories and assumptions?
Trade is a tough policy to debate with people and come to consensus. It is obvious to most
that the huge trade surge with China disrupted many commodity industries, steel, solar cells,
electronics. More should have been done to minimize the disruption. That said we are where we
are.
Our manufacturing now is higher up the value chain. Our commodity mills now need to innovate
to take advantage of niche higher value low volume markets that big producers can't supply effectively.
Innovate to develop new materials and specialized processes that displace current materials. Innovation,
flexibility and agility is our competitive advantage. Time to make the jobs of the future, commodity
production is in the past.
"But even there it's not obvious what you would demand from a new agreement."
Let me help out the professor with an article from the NY Times 3/30/17 and provide an obvious
example
"China's Taxes on Imported Cars Feed Trade Tensions With U.S."
reporting that a Jeep retailing for $ $40,530 in the US cost in China , quote " $ $71,000,
mostly because of taxes that Beijing charges on every car, minivan and sport utility vehicle that
is made in another country"
Meanwhile , quote "General Motors started shipping the Buick Envision model from a factory
in eastern China's Shandong Province to the United States last year. That decision irritated the
United Automobile Workers union"
But that is not all. The NY Times reported on 1/29/16 that GM's Cadillac devision started to
import its " plug-in hybrid version of its new CT6 flagship sedan from China " and "A PEEK under
the hood of three new cars from Buick and Cadillac will not reveal a Made in China label"
If you do not see nothing obviously wrong, when a US company , bailed out by the US taxpayer,
thanks the tax payer by importing cars made at Chinese wages to the US, putting out of work US
workers, you must be a macro economist.
Either US consumer win (cheaper cars) or US companies (more profit for the stock holders).
Final Note
Nowhere on the GM website is mentioned that those cars are made in China. Check
Ron,
Europe's parliamentary democracies have always given the 20% an outsized role in elections and
governance because coalitions are the rule not the exception and 20% is a lot of seats.
From here on a less than 4 hour drive to Waltham it looks like your 20% has the house, the senate,
the executive and soon the courts and the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump was a wake-up call for the world's 80% as Europe like North America is over 80% urban.
If Trump had the attention span and work ethic needed to become a dictator, he would seek the
confrontation over expelling the undocumented, not over trade. Trade isn't visceral enough, not
existential enough, to sustain the fear of the Other a dictator needs.
On China, there actually are a few obvious imbalances that affect the tech industry, though
it's doubtful the US has the leverage to change them.
The first comes from the Chinese government's drive to build their domestic tech industry by
coercing technology transfer from Western firms outsourcing manufacturing in China.
The second is the effective ban on big Western internet services like Google, Facebook, and
Twitter, as well as local data storage rules for those who are allowed to operate. It's all done
in the name of security (and censorship), of course, but it's also an obvious form of protectionism. Baidu and Weibo might not exist otherwise.
The government is also investing in a Chinese variant
of Linux, no doubt with the ultimate goal of gaining complete control over all software running
inside the country.
"... Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany, so the swampiest part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction. ..."
"... Obama was a rapacious doer for the .001%. ..."
"... That smirky dubya-esque smile on his face while on Sir Richard Branson's private island off of the coast of Madagascar says it all. "Fuck all of y'all, I got out and away with screwing the rest of the nation, not once, but twice!" ..."
"... Draining Wall Street is more challenging than cleaning out the Augean stables. ..."
"... Not for nothing, but Preet came out of Schumer's office who has parlayed being Wall Street's senator into dejure leadership of the Senate Dems and defacto control of the Democratic party. ..."
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate professor
of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and c–founder of Bank Whistleblowers
United. Jointly published with New
Economic Perspectives
The New York Times' editorial board published an
editorial on March 12, 2017, praising Preet Bharara as the "Prosecutor Who Knew How to Drain
a Swamp." I agree with the title. At all times when he was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
of New York (which includes Wall Street) Bharara knew how to drain the swamp. Further, he had the
authority, the jurisdiction, the resources, and the testimony from whistleblowers like Richard Bowen
(a co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United (BWU)) to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bowen personally
contacted Bharara beginning in 2005.
You were quoted in The Nation magazine as saying that if a whistleblower comes forward
with evidence of wrongdoing, then you would be the first to prosecute [elite bankers].
I am writing this email to inform you that there is a body of evidence concerning wrongdoing,
which the Department of Justice has refused to act on in order to determine whether criminal charges
should be pursued.
Bowen explained that he was a whistleblower about Citigroup's senior managers and that he was
(again) coming forward to aid Bharara to prosecute. Bowen tried repeatedly to interest Bharara in
draining the Citigroup swamp. Bharara refused to respond to Bowen's blowing of the whistle on the
massive frauds led by Citigroup's senior officers.
Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp and was positioned to do so because he had federal
prosecutorial jurisdiction over Wall Street crimes. Whistleblowers like Bowen, who lacked any meaningful
power, sacrificed their careers and repeatedly demonstrated courage to ensure that Bharara would
have the testimony and documents essential to prosecute successfully some of Wall Street's most elite
felons. Bharara never mustered the courage to prosecute those elites. Indeed, Bharara never mustered
the courtesy to respond to Bowen's offers to aid his office.
The editorial lauds Bharara for his actions against public corruption in New York.
New Yorkers, who have had a front-row seat to his work over the last seven years, know him
for his efforts to drain one of the swampiest states in the country of its rampant public corruption.
We are all for rooting out public corruption. The editorial ignores three key facts. First, New
York politics are less corrupt than many other states, but Wall Street's leaders created the "swampiest"
region in American business. Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany,
so the swampiest part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction. Second, Wall
Street CEOs created, and infest, the swampiest of regions over which Bharara had jurisdiction. They
led the epidemics of "control fraud" that hyper-inflated the housing bubble, drove the financial
crisis, and caused the Great Recession. Third, Bharara did not prosecute any of them even when whistleblowers
brought him the cases on platinum platters. Indeed, Bharara did not prosecute even low-level bank
officers who were minor leaders in implementing those fraud epidemics.
I will summarize briefly Bowen's story as it intersects Bharara. Bowen held a senior position
with Citigroup supervising a staff of several hundred professionals that conducted risk assessments
on roughly $100 billion in annual mortgage purchases – a majority of which Citigroup resold to Fannie
and Freddie or mortgage securitizers. Citigroup was exposed to enormous losses on these mortgages
because the sellers had strong incentives to provide false "reps and warranties" to Citigroup and
sell them fraudulently originated loans that were particularly likely to default and suffer larger
losses upon default. Citigroup could only sell these fraudulently originated mortgages to others
through making essentially the same fraudulent reps and warranties that it received from the original
sellers. Bowen's staff found originally that 60% of the loans it was buying had false reps and warranties.
He warned his superiors about the problem, but they responded by weakening Citigroup's already inadequate
underwriting by buying pervasively fraudulent "liar's" loans. Bowen put Citigroup's senior management,
including Robert Rubin, on written notice of the growing crisis and called for immediate intervention
to stem the crisis. Citigroup's senior management responded by removing Bowen's staff and responsibilities.
The incidence of fraud grew to 80 percent.
Bowen was blowing the whistle internally at Citigroup and acting exactly as he was supposed to
do – as Citigroup articulated what an officer should do in such circumstances. He was not looking
for money or a lawsuit. He was the opposite of a disgruntled employee. He had never gone public.
Citigroup's top leaders forced Bowen out – for doing exactly the right think according to Citigroup's
own policies. Bowen did eventually blow the whistle to the public about the Citigroup's top leadership
and the banks hundreds of billions of dollars in sales of mortgages through false reps and warranties.
Those sales, because of the losses they caused to Fannie and Freddie, were substantial contributors
to Fannie and Freddie's failures and the public bailout of both firms. Bowen met with the SEC staff
and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in several districts to provide them with the critical facts
and documents. Bowen also testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which
made multiple criminal referrals against Citigroup, including a referral based on Bowen's testimony.
Bowen was the perfect witness for a criminal prosecution of Citigroup's senior managers and for an
SEC enforcement action against Citigroup for securities fraud.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in Denver, the Eastern District of New York (where Loretta Lynch
was then the U.S. Attorney), and Bharara's office told Bowen that the Department of Justice (DOJ)
had never sent the criminal referrals that FCIC made about Citigroup to them. Bowen met with the
AUSAs to assist them in what he had expected to be a series of prosecutions in 2016. Phil Angelides,
FCIC's Chairman, made public in 2016 the fact that the FCIC had made a criminal referral about Citigroup
based on Bowen's testimony before the inquiry. Bowen was by 2016 one of the best-known and most respected
whistleblowers in America. FCIC's chair found his testimony about Citigroup's leaders highly credible,
leading him to make the criminal referral, but DOJ's leadership not only refused to prosecute, but
also buried the criminal referrals to discourage any U.S. Attorney from prosecuting Citigroup's fraudulent
leaders.
AUSA Jonathon Schmidt (San Francisco) called Bowen on July 10, 2010. Bowen gave him everything.
Schmidt was excited and said that they were going to pursue the claims that Bowen had laid out, particularly
Citigroup's fraudulent reps and warranties. Bowen challenged Schmidt, telling him that I believed
that once he talked to DC DOJ that Bowen would never hear from him again. Schmidt promised he would
be back to Bowen within a week. Bowen never heard from him again.
Alayne Fleischmann, also one of the most famous whistleblowers to emerge from the crisis, provided
vital information and documents to DOJ prosecutors about frauds led by JPMorgan's senior managers.
Fleischmann continued to seek to aid a DOJ prosecution after the Attorney General transferred responsibility
for the case to Bharara's office. No prosecution has occurred.
Bharara is like every other federal prosecutor and the SEC's top leaders. Bowen met with the SEC
staff and five Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) in four different districts (including Bharara's)
to provide them with the critical facts and documents. Each failed to prosecute the elite Wall Street
officials who drove the three epidemics of fraud that drove the financial crisis. What is different
is that because his office had jurisdiction over the elite frauds and the staff to conduct sophisticated
investigations and prosecutions he could have drained the Wall Street swamp. Bharara simply had to
take advantage of the courage and competence of whistleblowers like Bowen and Fleischman who brought
him cases against the top managers of two of the world's largest banks on a platinum platter. Bharara
also could have taken advantage of the expertise and experience of regulators and prosecutors who
worked together to produce over 1,000 felony convictions in "major" cases against financial executives
and their co-conspirators in the savings and loan debacle. Bharara (and Lynch and their counterparts)
failed to take either approach.
Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp. He had the facts, the staff, and the jurisdiction
to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bharara refused to do so.
Sorry to say it but the situation as it stands now makes mob actions against the financial
elites a rational choice.
I know that such ideas are an essential part of the Libertarian Dream State, but, what else is
left to do then either submit or fight?
As is the case in our politics now, reform is no longer an option.
Of course the NYT defines the liberal version of draining the swamp. Government actors are
already considered bad eggs. But the upper echelons of elite Wall St firms sit on the boards of
America's cultural and educational institutions and are culturally liberal, so whatever they may
have done was done with no ill intent nor malice. Black exposes this as completely bogus in a
short editorial but the leading pundits will be pounding on Russia, Hillbillies, and Russia some
more.
Dang, NC needs those up arrows so I could show my approval. The philanthropy fig-leaf of America's
elite hides a plentitude of warts. Too many people are duped by these 'pillars of community.'
Prof. Black loses some credibility when he writes,
First, New York politics are less corrupt than many other states
Evidence? Links to studies? Anything?
Given the national trends of the last few decades (many of them originating from Wall Street
or Wall Street-owned politicians in D.C.), the NYS economy would have been fighting some very
strong headwinds in any case. But the cesspool in Albany helped convince a lot of businesses and
individuals to make their futures elsewhere.
Parents in NYS know that their children's adult lives will (if they're lucky) be spent somewhere
else.
Yes, Preen is a fraud, but Albany was and remains a very corrupt place and the state suffers
because of it.
Recall Bill Black's work during the S & L crisis across the country. I'm one who was involved
with the economic class of Americans who were likely to have their savings in CDs in the fraudulent
institutions in the swamp that Black was instrumental in draining. And, pertinent to this piece
about Citi, I recently met a group of former Citi mid-level execs who were laid off during the
mortgage mess: they rec'd golden parachutes, stock options, and never had to work again.
I couldn't paste the link successfully but this is from the Center for Public Integrity: New
York GRADE:D-(61)RANK:31ST
So 19 states are worse than New York. More than a few in other words, and only 3 states scored
higher than a D+. At any rate, the swamp in Albany was not under Bhahara's jurisdiction anyway,
as Black points out.
I have great respect for the work that Prof. Black did in the past and the work he continues
to do.
But public corruption can be incredibly damaging to government functions
in the short and medium run, and corrosive to trust in government in the long run.
To suggest that NYS doesn't have a serious problem is not helpful.
I would much rather have the USA for SDNY devoting limited resources to going after that,
even if it might be publicity-seeking bigfooting of the USA in Albany,
rather than crusading against insider trading.
Even though I agree that Bharara, Breuer and Holder (and the czar they all worked for)
were a disaster for the rule of law in this country.
Further, the Northern District of New York has jurisdiction over Albany, so the swampiest
part of New York State politics did not lie in Bharara's jurisdiction.
Bill Black has all the credibility he needs. This is a classic propaganda technique to focus
on unimportant minor points to impeach an otherwise very import essay. People here know better
than to listen to that.
The Obama Administration prevented any investigations, let alone prosecutions, of Wall Street
and large scale mortgage fraud. Obama's 50 State Solution was sold as consolidation of multiple
state efforts, which were making good progress, into a single, streamlined and comprehensive federal
effort that would take the burden off the states. It was a lie.
Preet Bharara was fired by Trump and has gotten a lot of sympathetic press over his firing.
And he has certainly done many good things. But when it came to the biggest financial crimes in
the history of the world he followed his orders, failed to do his job, and kept his mouth shut
as the criminals reaped hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of American families suffered.
And he is still keeping his mouth shut. But other than that .
+1,000,000! Obama was a rapacious doer for the .001%.
That smirky dubya-esque smile on his
face while on Sir Richard Branson's private island off of the coast of Madagascar says it all.
"Fuck all of y'all, I got out and away with screwing the rest of the nation, not once, but twice!"
There's not one politician who doesn't deserve pitchforks and lamposts. Tar and feather these
folk!
Good essay by a man I highly respect, but I, too, noted long ago that New York State politics
are real down and dirty. It's the home of Wall Street, so how could it be otherwise?
It is all theater. We read Wikileaks exposures. There are crimes or at least valid reasons
for investigations.
We get teasers that investigations will happen.
They never do.
The political and corporate leadership class is immune from prosecution except for passing fine
monies back and forth.
These people are completely corrupt and have greatly participated in corrupting our society and
its cultures.
I have always found the Richard Bowen story particularly fascinating and infuriating. His memo
to Rob Rubin is unbelievable. Frontline also did a piece on the failure to prosecute the banks.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission took testimony from Bowen but then locked it up under
seal for five years. Do we have any rational explanation for this other than that the system is
that corrupt. I am a cynic but this still shocks me to the point where I can't fathom that it
is really this bad.
"Bharara knew how to drain the Wall Street swamp. He had the facts, the staff, and the jurisdiction
to drain the Wall Street swamp. Bharara refused to do so."
If my memory serves me, perhaps, like Neil Barofsky (SIGTARP), he had lunch with Larry Summers
where it was explained to him that if he wanted to have a $$$career after leaving government it
would be wise to let things slide ( i.e. see Lanny Breuer).
Bahara did what he was told by Obama. That's the end of it.
Anyone who wants to deify Obama – and I know far too many people who do – are completely ignoring
Obama's and Bahara's criminal neglect to hold the banks and Wall St truly accountable.
Recall Jamie "Presidential Cufflinks" Dimon basically thumbing his snooty nose at the hoi poloi.
What? Me, worry? Sucks to be you, great to be me.
These crooks will never do a perp walk, and Bahara made sure that they didn't. All the whining
about Bahara being "fired" by Trump is ignoring these inconvenient truths.
I'm no Obama apologist, but if Bahara indited someone on Wall Street just how was Obama going
to explain firing him? If either had an ounce of integrity the right people would be in jail.
Some manufactured scandal or leak regarding improper or compromising behaviour, well before
the ball trully got rolling on prosecuting our criminal elite forcing Obama to step in and either
move him down, sideways or outright let go to ensure the integrity of the office.
Citigroup (previously Citibank, etc) has always been corrupt. They were caught money laundering
for drug cartels in the 1980s and terrorism back in the 1990s and should have been shut down forever
both times. They weren't.
The only conclusion I can come to is that Citigroup is a heavily exposed to CIA activity. It
sounds like a loony conspiracy theory until you look at the history of Riggs Bank, BCCI, etc and
realize that historically its in the realm of possibility. So yes, its entirely possible.
It doesn't sound at all loony to me, sd. I think the current mess goes all the way back to
the 50s. In defiance of financial prudence, in 1954, the rich guys went to DC, like some super
mercenary army (pun intended) and threw what was called "The Bankruptcy Ball" which everyone who
was anyone attended, all decked out in tuxedos and gowns. Catherine Graham's autobiography. And
I think it marks a point in time when our government became blood brothers with the banks. A relationship
that saw us through the Cold War – which had already bankrupted us – and the Vietnam War which
was an awful and senseless debacle; and on through till the USSR finally said "enough" – at which
point our government and the banks were one. One big mess. We should have had the integrity at
that point, 1990, to fix things. But we couldn't because our capitalist economy, upon which most
of the world had become addicted, would have failed without the crazy growth that the banksters
provided so, god. Talk about a mess. But that's just my opinion.
Ah, yes, the ol' "Bank of Crooks and Criminals, Intl." I remember them and good old Clark Clifford.
Boy, that guy died just in time, huh? Good times! / sarc
Well said, Professor Black. The Southern District of New York was the biggest crime scene in
the U.S. during Bharara's tenure as United States Attorney, and he was the man in charge of the
Holder doctrine, printing "Get Out of Jail Free" cards for the donor class. Of course, Bharara
is ambitious enough not to take a multi-million dollar desk at Covington like Holder and Breuer
did. Bad optics. He's going to academia, as a Distinguished Scholar in Residence at NYU School
of Law. How noble!
NOT. Naked Capitalism readers recognize NYU as what Pam Martens called "a tyrannical slush
fund for privileged interests" where Obot Flexian grifters roost in luxury:
Not for nothing, but Preet came out of Schumer's office who has parlayed being Wall Street's
senator into dejure leadership of the Senate Dems and defacto control of the Democratic party.
Picking off egregious individuals like Madoff, who can be described as "bad apples" while ignoring
systemic fraud is the playbook.
"... What's more, the overall numbers hide serious declines in most areas of manufacturing. A 2013 paper by Susan Houseman, Timothy Bartik and Timothy Sturgeon found that strong growth in computer-related manufacturing obscured a decline in almost all other areas. "In most of manufacturing," they write, "real GDP growth has been weak or negative and productivity growth modest." ..."
"... And, more troubling, the U.S. is now losing computer manufacturing. Houseman et al. show that U.S. computer production began to fall during the Great Recession. In semiconductors, output has grown slightly, but has been far outpaced by most East Asian countries. Meanwhile, trade deficits in these areas have been climbing. ..."
"... He cites Sematech, a government-led consortium that tried to help the U.S. retain its lead in semiconductor manufacturing in the 1980s and 1990s, as a successful example of high-tech industrial policy. ..."
Staying Rich
Without Manufacturing
Will Be Hard
MARCH 28, 2017 8:00
AM EDT
Discussions about
manufacturing tend to
get very contentious.
Many economists and
commentators believe
that there's nothing
inherently special
about making things
and that efforts to
restore U.S.
manufacturing to its
former glory reek of
industrial policy,
protectionism,
mercantilism and
antiquated thinking.
But in their
eagerness to guard
against the return of
these ideas,
manufacturing's
detractors often
overstate their case.
Manufacturing is in
bigger trouble than
the conventional
wisdom would have you
believe.
One common
assertion is that
while manufacturing
jobs have declined,
output has actually
risen. But this piece
of conventional wisdom
is now outdated. U.S.
manufacturing output
is almost exactly the
same as it was just
before the financial
crisis of 2008:
[chart]
In the 1990s, it
really was true that
manufacturing
production was booming
even though employment
in the sector was
falling. During that
decade, output rose by
almost half. That's
almost a 4 percent
annualized growth
rate. The expansion of
the early 2000s, in
contrast, saw
manufacturing increase
by only about 15
percent peak-to-peak
over eight years --
less than a 2 percent
annual growth rate.
And in the eight years
between 2008 and 2016,
the growth rate has
averaged zero.
But even this may
overstate U.S.
manufacturing's
performance. An
alternative measure,
called industrial
production, shows an
outright decrease from
a decade ago:
[chart]
So it isn't just
manufacturing
employment and the
sector's share of
gross domestic product
that are hurting in
the U.S. It's total
output. The U.S.
doesn't really make
more stuff than it
used to.
What's more, the
overall numbers hide
serious declines in
most areas of
manufacturing. A 2013
paper by Susan
Houseman, Timothy
Bartik and Timothy
Sturgeon found that
strong growth in
computer-related
manufacturing obscured
a decline in almost
all other areas. "In
most of
manufacturing," they
write, "real GDP
growth has been weak
or negative and
productivity growth
modest."
And, more
troubling, the U.S. is
now losing computer
manufacturing.
Houseman et al. show
that U.S. computer
production began to
fall during the Great
Recession. In
semiconductors, output
has grown slightly,
but has been far
outpaced by most East
Asian countries.
Meanwhile, trade
deficits in these
areas have been
climbing.
In other words,
Asia is still
solidifying its place
as the workshop of the
world, while the U.S.
de-industrializes. The
1990s provided a brief
respite from this
trend, as new
industries arose to
replace the ones that
had been lost. But the
years since the turn
of the century have
reversed this short
renaissance, and
manufacturing is once
more migrating
overseas.
Manufacturing
skeptics often draw
parallels to what
happened to
agriculture in the
Industrial Revolution.
But the two situations
aren't analogous. In
the 20th century, U.S.
agricultural output
soared even as it shed
jobs and shrank as a
percent of GDP.
Machines replaced most
human farmers, but the
total value of U.S.
crops kept climbing.
Meanwhile, the U.S.
to this day runs a
trade surplus in
agriculture even as it
runs a huge deficit in
manufactured products.
America pays for
computers and cars and
phones with soybeans
and corn and beef.
So U.S.
manufacturing is
hurting in ways that
U.S. agriculture never
did. The common
refrain that the
modern shift to
services parallels the
earlier shift to
industry might turn
out to be true, but
the parallels are not
encouraging.
Faced with this
evidence, many
skeptics will question
why the sector is
important at all. Why
should a country
specialize in making
things, when it can
instead specialize in
designing, marketing
and financing the
making of things?
This is a
legitimate question,
but there are reasons
to think a successful
developed nation still
needs a healthy
manufacturing sector.
Harvard University's
Kennedy School of
Government economist
Ricardo Hausmann
believes that a
country's economic
development depends
crucially on where it
lies in the so-called
product space. If a
country makes complex
products that are
linked to many other
industries -- such as
computers, cars and
chemicals -- it will
be rich. But if it
makes simple products
that don't have much
of a supply chain --
soybeans or oil -- it
will stay poor. In the
past, the U.S. was
very successful at
positioning itself at
the top of the global
value chain. But with
manufacturing's
decline, the rise of
finance, real estate
and other orphaned
service industries may
not be enough to keep
the country rich in
the long run.
More top economists
are starting to come
around to the view
that manufacturing is
important.
Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology economist
David Autor, in a
recent phone
conversation, told me
he now believes that
the U.S. should focus
more on industrial
policy designed to
keep cutting-edge
manufacturing
industries in the
country. He cites Sematech, a
government-led
consortium that tried
to help the U.S.
retain its lead in
semiconductor
manufacturing in the
1980s and 1990s, as a
successful example of
high-tech industrial
policy.
The stellar
performance of
semiconductor
manufacturing in the
1990s and 2000s
relative to other
industries in the
sector, as reported by
Houseman et al., seems
like something the
U.S. should aim to
emulate with
next-generation
industries.
So U.S. leaders
should listen to
manufacturing skeptics
a little bit less, and
pay more attention to
those who say the
sector is crucial.
It's worth noting that
President Donald
Trump, who was elected
on a promise to
restore American
manufacturing, has
shown more interest in
cutting government
programs designed to
give industry a
helping hand. If
there's going to be a
U.S. industrial policy
renaissance, it might
not be his
administration that
leads it.
"... Stewart criticized Republicans leaders such as Senator Mitch McConnell and the House speaker, Paul Ryan, for the hypocrisy of ensuring the government is stuck at a standstill and then claiming that government doesn't get anything done. ..."
"... "They're not draining the swamp," he said. "McConnell and Ryan – those guys are the swamp." He also added: "I will guarantee you Republicans are going to come to Jesus now about the power of government. ..."
"... The same country with all its grace and flaws and volatility and insecurity and strength and resilience exists today as existed two weeks ago. The same country that elected Donald Trump elected Barack Obama ..."
"He's not a Republican. He's a repudiation of Republicans. But they will reap the benefit of his
victory, in all of their cynicism," Stewart told
CBS's This Morning co-host Charlie Rose on Thursday.
Stewart criticized
Republicans leaders
such as Senator Mitch McConnell and the House speaker, Paul Ryan, for the hypocrisy of ensuring the
government is stuck at a standstill and then claiming that government doesn't get anything done.
"They're not draining the swamp," he said. "McConnell and Ryan – those guys are the swamp." He
also added: "I will guarantee you Republicans are going to come to Jesus now about the power of government.
... ... ...
"I don't believe we are a fundamentally different country today than we were two weeks ago," Stewart
told Rose.
"The same country with all its grace and flaws and volatility and insecurity and strength and
resilience exists today as existed two weeks ago. The same country that elected Donald Trump elected
Barack Obama," said Stewart.
The comedian also criticized liberals for lumping all Trump supporters into the category of "racist".
... ... ...
"Like, there are guys in my neighborhood that I love, that I respect, that I think have incredible
qualities who are not afraid of Mexicans, and not afraid of Muslims, and not afraid of blacks. They're
afraid of their insurance premiums," he said. "In the liberal community, you hate this idea of creating
people as a monolith. Don't look at Muslims as a monolith. They are the individuals and it would
be ignorance. But everybody who voted for Trump is a monolith, is a racist. That hypocrisy is also
real in our country."
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern
Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer
By Dean Baker
The Old Technology and Inequality Scam: The Story of
Patents and Copyrights
One of the amazing lines often repeated by people in
policy debates is that, as a result of technology, we are
seeing income redistributed from people who work for a living
to the people who own the technology. While the
redistribution part of the story may be mostly true, the
problem is that the technology does not determine who "owns"
the technology. The people who write the laws determine who
owns the technology.
Specifically, patents and copyrights give their holders
monopolies on technology or creative work for their duration.
If we are concerned that money is going from ordinary workers
to people who hold patents and copyrights, then one policy we
may want to consider is shortening and weakening these
monopolies. But policy has gone sharply in the opposite
direction over the last four decades, as a wide variety of
measures have been put into law that make these protections
longer and stronger. Thus, the redistribution from people who
work to people who own the technology should not be
surprising - that was the purpose of the policy.
If stronger rules on patents and copyrights produced
economic dividends in the form of more innovation and more
creative output, then this upward redistribution might be
justified. But the evidence doesn't indicate there has been
any noticeable growth dividend associated with this upward
redistribution. In fact, stronger patent protection seems to
be associated with slower growth.
Before directly considering the case, it is worth thinking
for a minute about what the world might look like if we had
alternative mechanisms to patents and copyrights, so that the
items now subject to these monopolies could be sold in a free
market just like paper cups and shovels.
The biggest impact would be in prescription drugs. The
breakthrough drugs for cancer, hepatitis C, and other
diseases, which now sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of
dollars annually, would instead sell for a few hundred
dollars. No one would have to struggle to get their insurer
to pay for drugs or scrape together the money from friends
and family. Almost every drug would be well within an
affordable price range for a middle-class family, and
covering the cost for poorer families could be easily managed
by governments and aid agencies.
The same would be the case with various medical tests and
treatments. Doctors would not have to struggle with a
decision about whether to prescribe an expensive scan, which
might be the best way to detect a cancerous growth or other
health issue, or to rely on cheaper but less reliable
technology. In the absence of patent protection even the most
cutting edge scans would be reasonably priced.
Health care is not the only area that would be transformed
by a free market in technology and creative work. Imagine
that all the textbooks needed by college students could be
downloaded at no cost over the web and printed out for the
price of the paper. Suppose that a vast amount of new books,
recorded music, and movies was freely available on the web.
People or companies who create and innovate deserve to be
compensated, but there is little reason to believe that the
current system of patent and copyright monopolies is the best
way to support their work. It's not surprising that the
people who benefit from the current system are reluctant to
have the efficiency of patents and copyrights become a topic
for public debate, but those who are serious about inequality
have no choice. These forms of property claims have been
important drivers of inequality in the last four decades.
The explicit assumption behind the steps over the last
four decades to increase the strength and duration of patent
and copyright protection is that the higher prices resulting
from increased protection will be more than offset by an
increased incentive for innovation and creative work. Patent
and copyright protection should be understood as being like
very large tariffs. These protections can often the raise the
price of protected items by several multiples of the free
market price, making them comparable to tariffs of several
hundred or even several thousand percent. The resulting
economic distortions are comparable to what they would be if
we imposed tariffs of this magnitude.
The justification for granting these monopoly protections
is that the increased innovation and creative work that is
produced as a result of these incentives exceeds the economic
costs from patent and copyright monopolies. However, there is
remarkably little evidence to support this assumption. While
the cost of patent and copyright protection in higher prices
is apparent, even if not well-measured, there is little
evidence of a substantial payoff in the form of a more rapid
pace of innovation or more and better creative work....
In the GE Aviation
lobby, as Indiana
Governor Holcomb
rocked slightly in
custom-made cowboy
boots – black, pointed
toes, an outline of
Indiana on the front
of the shaft – and the
sound of the ignition
of his SUV signaling
the end of a Wednesday
afternoon at the GE
plant, Plant Manager
Matteson added one
more thing:
Immigration reform
would really help on a
number of fronts,
starting with clearing
the way for the talent
pool coming out of
Indiana Universities
and other engineering
schools.
This is the
new manufacturing that
is replacing the
factories being
shuttered. They are
run by engineers, many
of them foreign. They
hire workers who they
will train and workers
must be capable of
learning and fitting
in with the work
culture. Manufacturing
is locating in urban
areas and near
Universities where
they can find a pool
of high skill talent
and a workforce that
is accustomed to
diversity. They will
NOT go to a redneck
sundown town where the
Indian engineers are
going to be harassed
and maybe shot. The
Sundown towns are
chasing away the very
people they need to
save their
communities. The
denigrate education
and fail to teach
their children the
math skills they would
need to become high
skill engineering
talent. Low skill jobs
cannot have high pay
without unions. These
voters have voted for
politicians who have
destroyed their unions
with Right to Work
laws and other bad
policy.
They are egged on
by Trump who
understands none of
this and promises to
return their low skill
jobs. The GOP and
Trump blame trade and
immigrants, pushing
the cultural buttons
to deflect attention
to their complicity in
destroying unions,
underfunding education
and failure to invest
in the workforce
Yep. There is certainly a roach motel policy aspect to
globalization. Dependencies upon existing supply chains both
for wage and regulatory arbitrage pricing and for invested
fixed capital stock impose yuuge drags on on-shoring efforts.
The poverty economics from 40 acres and mule all the way to
single parent eligibility requirements and subsequent
"reforms" for family financial aid were also roach motel
economics. Now we have the irony of the sharing economy
further suppressing wages.
A Lefty Legend Pleads for a Return to a New Deal Ethos
By JONATHAN MARTIN
MARCH 7, 2017
WASHINGTON - Charles Peters, the renowned Washington
Monthly editor, is going on 91, does not get around very
easily and was disgusted enough by President Trump's address
to Congress to let loose a few profanities in his gentle West
Virginia drawl.
But Mr. Peters remains an optimist, believing that
salvation is still possible if the country returns to the
true faith of his New Deal youth.
"Maybe I'm old," he said in an interview in his living
room here last week, "but I'm forever hopeful about the
Democratic Party."
Mr. Peters has spent much of his life in and around
politics. He was once a young state legislator who thought he
wanted to be governor. Then he felt the tug to the nation's
capital, where he was one of the first executives of the
Peace Corps.
Eventually he founded and ran a feisty, liberal-leaning
policy magazine perhaps best known for launching the careers
of dozens of prominent journalists, including James Fallows,
Jon Meacham, David Ignatius and Katherine Boo. Now he has
written a book that some of those old charges think amounts
to a last testament.
To hear Mr. Peters himself tell it, though, the book, "We
Do Our Part," is a desperate plea to his country and party to
resist the temptations of greed, materialism and elitism -
vices he believes have corroded the civic culture and led to
the Democrats' failure last year.
"I'm trying to grab people by the lapels and say, 'We've
got to change,'" he said. "And I feel that there is a realism
to that hope because of the shock of this election."
Mr. Peters's book - the title is taken from the motto of
the New Deal's National Recovery Administration - is not a
memoir. But his own formative experiences are at the core of
his cri de coeur.
Democrats, Washington and too much of the country, he
argues, have drifted from the sense of shared purpose that
lifted America out of the Depression, created the will to win
World War II and fostered the rise of a more egalitarian, if
still inequitable, society.
Mr. Peters saw it firsthand. As a child, he witnessed his
parents hand food to hungry strangers who came to the back
door of their Charleston, W.Va., home.
Later, as a young lawyer, he oversaw the local
presidential campaign of a Catholic senator hoping to win
over a largely Protestant state. The success of John F.
Kennedy in the 1960 Democratic primary there helped forge a
conviction that Mr. Peters feels his party must not lose
sight of today, even as more working-class whites drift from
what was the party of their class.
"The better angels of the state's voters had won out,
engraving on me the lesson that prejudice can be overcome,"
he writes.
Mr. Peters's idealism is undiminished: He thinks that the
sort of blue-collar white voters who just rejected Hillary
Clinton in his native state, where she lost by 42 percentage
points, can be won back if Democrats are again seen as the
party of the common man rather than the liberal professional
class. But he spends much of 274 pages outlining why that may
prove so difficult.
Through a series of anecdotes, statistics and other
plucked-from-the-news items that will be familiar to anyone
who read his "Tilting at Windmills" column in Washington
Monthly, Mr. Peters recounts how liberals were once
invigorated with the public-spirited fervor of the New Deal
and New Frontier, but sold out. Race-baiting conservatives
then swooped in, he says, and the country was left the worse
for it.
"Our national problem is that too many of our cultural
winds are blowing us in the direction of self-absorption,
self-promotion, and making a barrel of money," he writes.
He piles up the evidence, reserving most of his scorn for
the liberal meritocratic class that he believes has allowed
Democrats to be depicted as out of touch.
Thought-provoking, wide-ranging blog post by Jared* on
international trade. I guess PGL only had time to read Timmy
Taylor in his rush to post first.
He disagrees with
Navarro** about trade deficits always being a problem and
notes that there are two sides or aspects to the equation.
"As long as the world's excess global savings continue to
flow to our shores, our trade deficit will persist, and going
after bilateral deficits one at a time becomes a game of
whack-a-mole that we can't win."
Jared notes how Brad Setser suggests a solution: "As Brad
Setser convincingly argues, encouraging countries with large
surpluses (which must show up as deficits somewhere else) to
engage in more internal investment is a far preferable way to
reduce our own imbalances than tariffs and trade barriers."
Too bad we don't have a WTO that could force surplus
nations like Germany and China to do this.
But Jared admits Navarro isn't always wrong (something PGL
can't bring himself to do given his hateful nature.)
"Second, Navarro is not wrong to worry about the drag on
demand from negative net exports, but only when there's
nothing in the pipeline to offset it. The Federal Reserve can
lower interest rates to offset the drag, but not if they're
near zero, or in "normalization" mode (raising rates), both
of which are operative today. Fiscal policy can pick up the
slack, but not if Congress refuses to step up.
So yeah, today's trade deficits are a problem. They've not
been large enough to keep the economy from growing and
unemployment from falling, but remember, it's year eight of
an economic expansion and we've still not fully closed the
GDP output gap (and that's even the case as potential GDP has
been lowered). In the absence of offsets, we could have used
that extra demand."
This is what the neoliberals like PGL and Sanjait don't
understand or can't admit. Why? Because of politics and how
Democrats like Bill Clinton and Obama pushed corporate free
trade deals and trade policy. Because critics like Navarro
and Bernie Sanders have struck a cord with populist voters
concerned about corporate trade.
Jared Bernstein wraps up with a plea for infrastructure
spending given the threat of the SecStags.
"But given the existential threat of climate change, or
for that matter, the general state of our public goods, I
find it awfully hard to accept the contention that there's
nothing productive in which to invest the excess savings
surplus countries continue to send our way."
Compare with Hillary' modest fiscal action which Alan
Blinder said wouldn't effect the Fed's reaction function.
DeLong still backed her over Sanders despite the threat of
the Secstags. Critics of Fed policy like Sanjait and PGL
still backed Hillary even though she had no criticisms of the
Fed or plans to reform its policy.
* like PGL, I pretend to know the write to give myself the
appearance more authority.
** PGL's bete noir.
Washington Post Lies to Readers Again: Job Loss in
Manufacturing Due to Trade, not Automation
The Washington Post must think that U.S. trade policy
is really awful. Why else would they continually lie to
their readers * and claim that the cause of the sharp job
loss in manufacturing in recent years was automation?
For fans of data rather than myths, the basic story is
that manufacturing has been declining as a share of total
employment since 1970. However there was relatively little
change in the number of jobs until the trade deficit
exploded in the last decade. Here's the graph.
[Manufacturing Employment, 1970-2017]
And, there was no great uptick in productivity **
coinciding with the plunge in employment at the start of
the last decade. It would be nice if the Washington Post
could discuss trade honestly. This sort of reporting gives
fuel to the Donald Trumps of the world.
In this context it is probably worth once again
mentioning that the Washington Post still refuses to
correct its pro-NAFTA editorial in which it made the
absurd claim *** that Mexico's GDP quadrupled from 1987 to
2007. The actual figure was 83 percent, according to the
International Monetary Fund.
"... He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated" anti-neoliberal sentiments. ..."
"... And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals: ..."
"... Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism ..."
"... Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization itself. ..."
"... "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," ..."
"... This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980. So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at ..."
The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president. What would motivate
many people to go out for weekend rallies now?
libezkova -> cm... , -1
"The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president."
You are absolutely wrong. Mission is not accomplished. It is not even started.
Trump IMHO was just a symbol of resistance against neoliberalism that is growing in the USA.
He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal
movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis
of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated"
anti-neoliberal sentiments.
And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals:
Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve
détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and
hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism
(despite
being neoliberal country with neoliberal President -- Putin is probably somewhat similar to Trump
"bastard neoliberal" a strange mixture of neoliberal in domestic politics with "economic nationalist"
on international arena that rejects neoliberal globalization, on term favorable to multinational
corporations).
Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on
Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization
itself.
The problem is there is extremely powerful and influential "fifth column" of globalization
within the country and they can't allow Trump to go this path. As Senator Dick Durbin said about
banks and the US Congress
== quote ==
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been battling the banks the last few weeks in an effort to
get 60 votes lined up for bankruptcy reform. He's losing.
On Monday night in an interview with a radio host back home, he came to a stark conclusion:
the banks own the Senate.
"And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many
of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly
own the place,"
== end of the quote ==
This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980.
So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to
return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at
Not every globalist is a (((globalist))), but an important globalist is usually a (((globalist))).
Thank you if you are really fighting globalism and not being just another controlled opposition.
+Jake Coughlin People like Clinton and Merkel don't truly believe in globalism either, they
are just opportunists. I like to look at them as just pawns in this game. Clinton could never
be an independent politician, since she is receiving so much money from very controversial sources.
I really like Ron Paul too, he is awesome and he is addressing some very important subjects.
Thanks to globalism, The Rebel has media outlets that can transmit to other countries. Thanks
to globalism, they can buy high performance cameras to film their anti-globalism videos.
Thanks to globalism, you can buy a vast variety of products at a cheap price. Globalism is
what makes free markets possible.
In other words globalism is the very definition of freedom of businesses. Thanks to globalism,
you don't have to live in a primitive, nationalist, isolated, 1800s society where you have Kings
and Queens who rule like conservative tyrants and keep the population ignorant as peasants. Globalism
is capitalism, the very value that made America so notorious.
Nationalism is feeling that one's country is superior to another. That's not pride in one's
country, don't get it twisted. Patriotism is pride in one's country and its values. Don't let
the nationalist confuse you with their twisted definitions of globalism.
Nationalism is what tyrants during WW1 and WW2 fed to the people in order to make them sign
up for a war that would only benefit those monarchies. Nationalism appeals to a very primitive
feeling of pride instead of logic and progress. Nationalism goes hand in hand with isolationism
which prevents small businesses to grow and limits the country to a very small group of overpriced
home products. Nationalism is regressive thinking. It opposes development and growth.
Technological progress is not globalism. Trade agreements between countries are not globalism.
You don't have to destroy all independent countries to have free markets. Poor kid... this is
how severe case of globalist brainwashing looks like.
For those of you who are interested in a brief, but quite penetrating introduction to Marx's overall
project (I realize this may seem like an acquired taste), as understood and elaborated upon by Harvey,
might I suggest watching this lecture? It includes a (newly developed) visualization of how capital
circulates through its various moments (resources, labor power, commodities that then have to be
sold, etc.), analogous to how water goes through the various stages listed in the water cycle: David
Harvey, Visualizing Capital
.
Main problem with it: 'taxes funds govt spending' - he should really talk to Michael Hudson about
this.
"... US companies were always able to offshore work. Before commodity internet, telecom, and international transport (OK in good part enabled by international trade/etc. deals), that was much more costly. ..."
"... IT has made it possible to effectively manage larger business/institutional aggregate than before on an industrial scale and using industrial management paradigms. Others and I have made that case before. ..."
"... Put yourself in 1980, though. Think about the coordination you can organize. Think about sending components to a low labor cost jurisdiction for assembly. Perhaps paying a tariff and transportation to get there, then a tariff and transportation to get back. The labor is essentially free, but the other is real money. Ten years later the tariffs start to disappear. Containerization continues to drive down transport per unit. ..."
"... Sure, by now the best manufacturers are often foreign. They did not get there without our help. ..."
"... In the case of subsidiaries, this requires international legal frameworks allowing US companies to operate foreign subsidiaries, or buying foreign companies, with low enough overheads ("compliance" etc.) to make distributing work worthwhile. ..."
"... The general sentiment seems to be that people in "low cost geographies" are of lesser quality at least as concerns the subject matter. This is not my experience. What used to lack (as of today I would doubt even that) is years of experience, as the offshoring industry branches hadn't existed in the remote locations, so all you could hire was freshers; or a lag in access to bleeding edge Western technology and research literature. This is no longer the case, and hasn't been the case for about a decade. ..."
"... That IN THEORY, the exchange rate and other prices should adjust to any change in tax or regulatory regime to at least partly offset it. A lot of the practical problems arise, because price adjustments do not actually seem to happen to the extent predicted, and large financial imbalances are seen to become secular features of the economic landscape. ..."
"Revoking Trade Deals Will Not Help American Middle Classes."
Brad lives in a world with jump discontinuities in the distribution of expected returns from
labor arbitrage. That changing the cost of doing a deal will not reduce or unwind deals because
the gains from trade individually exceed any costs that could be imposed. So he can say, elsewhere,
the jobs ain't coming back, full stop.
"If the United States had imposed barriers to the construction of intercontinental value chains
would the semi-skilled and skilled manufacturing workers of the U.S. be better off?"
Brad does not find any relation between "imposing barriers" and "removing subsidy". Or in establishing
the older trade deals, between "removing barriers" and "subsidizing foreign labor". Where the
foreign labor operated in a low environmental protection environment, a low labor protection environment,
and probably others, it seems enabling US firms to invest in foreign operations to reap the savings
of less protection should be seen as subsidy.
US companies were always able to offshore work. Before commodity internet, telecom, and
international transport (OK in good part enabled by international trade/etc. deals), that was
much more costly.
IMO, offshoring has largely been an automation and IT story.
Likewise domestic/national level business consolidation.
IT has made it possible to effectively manage larger business/institutional aggregate than
before on an industrial scale and using industrial management paradigms. Others and I have made
that case before.
This is not a new insight, but probably still not an obvious one.
Put yourself in 1980, though. Think about the coordination you can organize. Think about sending
components to a low labor cost jurisdiction for assembly. Perhaps paying a tariff and transportation
to get there, then a tariff and transportation to get back. The labor is essentially free, but
the other is real money. Ten years later the tariffs start to disappear. Containerization continues
to drive down transport per unit.
Point one is that Brad assumes there is no one doing this now who is near break-even and would
go upside down with any change in tariff regime, so there is no one to relocate to the USA.
Point two is that we import environmental degradation and below market labor when we allow/encourage
these to be part of the ROI calculation through tariff policy.
Sure, by now the best manufacturers are often foreign. They did not get there without our help.
Well, one can argue that environmental improvements credited to regulation were in part exporting
environmental degradation, simply by moving polluting production facilities "over there".
E.g. I have seen it in my own work and with many others: companies can farm out any work to foreign
subsidiaries or contractors they don't want to keep stateside for some reason. In the case of
subsidiaries, this requires international legal frameworks allowing US companies to operate foreign
subsidiaries, or buying foreign companies, with low enough overheads ("compliance" etc.) to make
distributing work worthwhile.
Considering the case of US vs. Asia - depending on where you are in the US, Asia/PAC (India/Far
East/Pacific) business hours are off by about a half day because of time zone effects. To a lesser
but similar degree this applies to Europe and the Middle East.
The general sentiment seems to be that people in "low cost geographies" are of lesser quality
at least as concerns the subject matter. This is not my experience. What used to lack (as of today
I would doubt even that) is years of experience, as the offshoring industry branches hadn't existed
in the remote locations, so all you could hire was freshers; or a lag in access to bleeding edge
Western technology and research literature. This is no longer the case, and hasn't been the case
for about a decade.
Then there is the aspect that people in "some" geographies are more habituated to top-down
management styles, talking back less, etc. which may be an advantage or liability depending on
what the business requires of them.
I think one thing that is forgotten almost always in such discussions is that the arguments for
or against trade start with barter not so much with monetary exchange.
That IN THEORY, the exchange
rate and other prices should adjust to any change in tax or regulatory regime to at least partly
offset it. A lot of the practical problems arise, because price adjustments do not actually seem
to happen to the extent predicted, and large financial imbalances are seen to become secular features
of the economic landscape.
This is why I'm inclined to say that trade barriers are a bit of red
herring, the really big issues are financial (including the need for finding ways to repair damaged
middle class balance sheets). We need to stop seeing redistribution as a dirty word. It is what
democratic governments worth the name should be doing.
Our situation with neoliberalism reminds me lines from the "Hotel California " ;-)
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eagles/hotelcalifornia.html
== quote ==
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
"Relax, " said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "
We can agree that all politico-economic
systems tried thus far by man have fatal flaws. Ours just works better, or has, for longer than any
other, so far that is.
Out situation with neoliberalism
reminds me lines from "Hotel California ;-)
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eagles/hotelcalifornia.html
== quote ==
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
"Relax, " said the night man,
"We are programmed to receive.
You can check-out any time you like,
But you can never leave! "
It has worked for longer than
its contemporary contenders. E.g. the Roman empire could point to more centuries of existence.
When would you say "this system" started? E.g. is the current US a smooth continuation of the
late 1700's version, or were there "reboots" in between? How about a continuation of British
capitalism (also 1700s or earlier)?
I think his point was that the
USA (1776 - current)=="USA capitalism" which is around 200 years old outlasted Bolshevism which
lasted for only 74 years.
Of course, British capitalism is as long existing as the US capitalism (probably slightly
longer, as we can view period of slave ownership as "imperfect" or mixed capitalism).
In other words capitalism in its various forms is a relatively long term social system.
Which experienced several, often dramatic, transformations along the way. Probably all post
Napoleonic years can be viewed as years of existence of capitalism. So the USA is as old as
capitalism itself.
Of course various forms of capitalism are short lived:
New Deal capitalism (1933-1980) lasted around 47 years.
neoliberalism (around 1980-current) is approximately 37 years old.
In this sense Bolshevism (which Chinese viewed as a form of imperialism ;-) which lasted
74 years or so outlasted them.
"... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
"... From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto. ..."
"... Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make or shipbuilding in Asia. ..."
"... Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the past? ..."
"... Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization. Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts, already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise? ..."
"... Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing else. ..."
"... So proof is required to rollback globalization, but no proof was required to launch it or continue dishing it out? It's good to be the King, eh? ..."
"... America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico, you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak English. How do you make this work? ..."
"... The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. ..."
"... There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve. ..."
"... When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to production problems and issues. ..."
"... After his speech he took questions. I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing to Asia. "No" was his answer. ..."
"... In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control. ..."
"... How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the wind. ..."
"... The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved. ..."
"... I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying ..."
"... "Right to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive pay." ..."
"... I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not under threat from it. ..."
"... First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem", where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk. ..."
"... So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden? ..."
"... One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to the 3rd in the past. ..."
"... And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately played the global guilt card in response. ..."
"... During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders. ..."
"... Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast returns that way but that's just the point. ..."
"... China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on. ..."
"... In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. ..."
"... "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system." ..."
"... The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian. Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread subsidy. Ciao. ..."
"... 80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country! ..."
"... Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political platforms. ..."
"... Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction. ..."
"... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers' ..."
"... and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. ..."
"... The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
Definitely a pleasant read but IMHO wrong conclusion: Yet, a return to protectionism is
not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate
compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The
world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.
From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels
that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making
this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto.
We need a world where goods move little as possible (yep!) when smart ideas and technology
(medical, science, industry, yep that's essential) move as much as possible. Internet makes this
possible. This is no dream but a XXIth century reality.
Work – the big one – is required and done where and when it occurs. That is on all continents
if not in every country. Not in an insanely remote suburbs of Asia.
Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their
views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make
or shipbuilding in Asia.
Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not
create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the
past?
Yves Smith can have nasty words when it comes to discussing massive trade surplus and policies
that supports them. That's my single most important motivation for reading this challenging blog,
by the way.
Another thing is that reliance on complex supply chains is risky. The book 1177 B.C.: The Year
Civilization Collapsed describes how the ancient Mediterranian civilization collapsed when the
supply chains stopped working.
Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization.
Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts,
already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise?
Is Finland somehow supposed to force the US and China to adopt similar worker rights and environmental
protections? No, globalization, no matter how you slice it,is a race to the bottom.
I do not agree with the article's conclusion either.
Reshoring would have 1 of 2 outcomes:
Lots of manufacturing jobs and a solid middle class. We may be looking at more than 20
percent total employment in manufacturing and more than 30 percent of our GDP in manufacturing.
If the robots take over, we still have a lot of manufacturing jobs. Japan for example has
the most robots per capita, yet they still maintain very large amounts of manufacturing employment.
It does not mean the end of manufacturing at all, having worked in manufacturing before.
Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing
else.
The conclusion is the least important thing. Conclusions are just interpretations, afterthoughts,
divagations (which btw are often just sneaky ways to get your work published by TPTB, surreptitiously
inserting radical stuff under the noses of the guardians of orthodoxy).
The value of these reports is in providing hardcore statistical evidence and quantification
for something for which so many people have a gut feeling but just cann't prove it (although many
seem to think that just having a strong opinion is sufficient).
Yes, correct. Intuition is great for coming up with hypotheses, but it is important to test
them. And while a correlation isn't causation, it at least says the hypothesis isn't nuts on its
face.
In addition, studies like this are helpful in challenging the oft-made claim, particularly
in the US, that people who vote for nationalist policies are bigots of some stripe.
You are missing the transition costs, which will take ten years, maybe a generation.
America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors
and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico,
you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to
the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some
would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak
English. How do you make this work?
The only culture with demonstrated success in working with supposedly hopeless US workers is
the Japanese, who proved that with the NUMMI joint venture with GM in one of its very worst factories
(in terms of the alleged caliber of the workforce, as in many would show up for work drunk). Toyota
got the plant to function at better than average (as in lower) defect levels and comparable productivity
to its plants in Japan, which was light years better than Big Three norms.
I'm not sure any other foreign managers are as sensitive to detail and the fine points of working
conditions as the Japanese (having worked with them extensively, the Japanese hear frequencies
of power dynamics that are lost on Westerners. And the Chinese do not even begin to have that
capability, as much as they have other valuable cultural attributes).
That is really interesting about the Japanese sensitivity to detail and power dynamics. If
anyone has managed to describe this in any detail, I would love to read more, though I suppose
if their ability is alien to most Westerners the task of describing it might also be too much
to handle.
I lean more to ten years than a generation. And in the grand scheme of things, 10 years is
nothing.
The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies
are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. Which means having a sense
that the US government is serious, and will continue to be serious, about penalizing off-shoring.
Regardless of Trump's bluster, which has so far only resulted in a handful of companies halting
future offshoring decisions (all to the good), we are nowhere close to that yet.
There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products
arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one
has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve.
When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to
production problems and issues.
Sometimes the solution to these problems can lead to new products outside of one's main
business, for example the USA's Kingsford Charcoal arose from a scrap wood disposal problem that
Henry Ford had.
If one googles for "patent applications by countries" one gets these numbers, which could be
an indirect indication of some of the manufacturing shift from the USA to Asia.
Patent applications for the top 10 offices, 2014
1. China 928,177
2. US 578,802
3. Japan 325,989
4. South Korea 210,292
What is not captured in these numbers are manufacturing processes known as "trade secrets"
that are not disclosed in a patent. The idea that the USA can move move much of its manufacturing
overseas without long term harming its workforce and economy seems implausible to me.
While a design EE at HP, they brought in an author who had written about Toyota's lean design
method, which was currently the management hot button du jour. After his speech he took questions.
I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing
to Asia. "No" was his answer.
In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer
in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around
that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And
when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control.
And BTW, after manufacturing went overseas, management told us for costing to assume "Labor
is free". Some level playing field.
Oh gawd! The man talks about the effects of globalization and says that the solution is a "a
more inclusive model of globalization"? Seriously? Furthermore he singles out Chinese imports
as the cause of people being pushed to the right. Yeah, right.
How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants
to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in
both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western
countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the
wind.
This study is so incomplete it is almost useless. The only thing that comes to mind to say
about this study is the phrase "Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" And what form
of appropriate compensation of its 'losers' would they suggest? Training for non-existent jobs?
Free moving fees to the east or west coast for Americans in flyover country? Subsidized emigration
fees to third world countries where life is cheaper for workers with no future where they are?
Nice try fellas but time to redo your work again until it is fit for a passing grade.
Aw jeez, mate – you've just hurt my feelings here. Take a look at the actual article again.
The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It
is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they
did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved.
Hey, here is an interesting thought experiment for you. How about we apply the scientific method
to the past 40 years of economic theory since models with actual data strike your fancy. If we
find that the empirical data does not support a theory such as the theory of economic neoliberalism,
we can junk it then and replace it with something that actually works then. So far as I know,
modern economics seems to be immune to scientific rigour in their methods unlike the real sciences.
Not all relevant factors need to be included for a statistical analysis to be valid, as long
as relevant ignored factors are randomized amongst the sampling units, but you know that of course.
Thanks for you kind words about the real sciences, we work hard to keep it real, but once again,
in all fairness, between you and me mate, is not all rigour, it is a lot more Feyerabend than
Popper.
What you say is entirely true. The trouble has always been to make sure that that statistical
analysis actually reflects the real world enough to make it valid. An example of where it all
falls apart can be seen in the political world when the pundits, media and all the pollsters assured
America that Clinton had it in the bag. It was only after the dust had settled that it was revealed
how bodgy the methodology used had been.
By the way, Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend sound very interesting so thanks for the heads
up. Have you heard of some of the material of another bloke called Mark Blyth at all? He has some
interesting observations to make on modern economic practices.
I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment
over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying and
I immediately thought of Blyth who laments the whole phylogeny of economics as more or less serving
the rich.
The one solution he offered up a while ago was (paraphrasing) 'don't sweat the deficit spending
because it is all 6s in the end' which is true if distribution doesn't stagnate. So as it stands
now, offshoring arms, legs and firstborns is like 'nothing to see here, please move on'. The suggestion
that we need a more inclusive form of global trade kind of begs the question. Made me uneasy too.
"Gut things like unions." How so? In my recent interaction with my apartment agency's preferred
contractors, random contractors not unionized, I experienced a 6 month-long disaster.
These construction workers bragged that in 2 weeks they would have the complete job done -
a reconstructed deck and sunroom. Verbatim quote: "Union workers complete the job and tear it
down to keep everyone paying." Ha Ha! What a laugh!
Only to have these same dudes keep saying "next week", "next week", "next week", "next week".
The work began in August and only was finished (not completely!) in late January. Sloppy crap!
Even the apartment agency head maintenance guy who I finally bitched at said "I guess good work
is hard to come by these days."
Of the non-union guys he hired.
My state just elected a republican governor who promised "right to work." This was just signed
into law.
Immigrants and Mexicans had nothing to do with it. They're not an impact in my city. "Right
to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive
pay."
Now I await whether my rent goes up to pay for this nonsense.
They look at the labor cost, assume someone can do it cheaper. They don't think it's that difficult.
Maybe it's not. The hard part of any and all construction work is getting it finished. Getting
started is easy. Getting it finished on time? Nah, you can't afford that.
I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not
under threat from it. Beyond that, I think the flood of cheap Chinese goods is actually helping
suppress populist anger by allowing workers whose wages are dropping in real value terms to maintain
the illusion of prosperity. To me, a more "inclusive" form of globalization would include replacing
every economist with a Chinese immigrant earning minimum wage. That way they'd get to "experience"
how awesome it is and the value of future economic analysis would be just as good.
I'm going to question a few of the author's assumptions.
First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify
Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza
and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would
say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem",
where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk.
Secondly, when discussing the concept of economic nationalism and the nation of China, it would
be interesting to discuss how these two things go together. China has more billionaires than refugees
accepted in the past 20 years. Also it is practically impossible for a non Han Chinese person
to become a naturalized Chinese citizen. And when China buys Boeing aircraft, they wisely insist
on the production being done in China. A close look at Japan would yield similar results.
So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get
to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden?
One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty
which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great
War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for
the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to
the 3rd in the past.
Of course during colonialism the costs were socialized within colonizing states and so it was
the people of the colonial power who paid those costs that weren't borne by the colonial subjects
themselves, who of course paid dearly, and it was the oligarchic class that privatized the colonial
profits. But the 1st world oligarchs and their urban bourgeoisie are in strong agreement that
the deplorable working classes are to blame for systems that hurt working classes but powerfully
enriched the wealthy!
And so with the recent rebellions against Globalization, the 1st and 3rd world oligarchs are
convinced these are nothing more than the 1st world working classes attempting to shirk their
historic guilt debt by refusing to pay the rightful reparations in terms of standard of living
that workers deserve to pay for the crimes committed in the past by their wealthy co-nationals.
And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders
denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately
played the global guilt card in response.
Interesting. Another way to look at it is from the point of view of entropy and closed vs open
systems. Before globalisation the 1st world working classes enjoyed a high standard of living
which was possible because their system was relatively closed to the rest of the world. It was
a high entropy, strongly structured socio-economic arrangement, with a large difference in standard
of living between 1st world and 3rd world working classes. Once their system became more open
by virtue (or vice) of globalisation, entropy increased as commanded by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
so the 1st world and 3rd world working classes became more equalised. The socio-economic arrangements
became less structured. This means for the Trumpening kind of politicians it is a steep uphill
battle, to increase entropy again.
Yes, I agree, but if we step back in history a bit we can see the colonial period as a sort
of reverse globalization which perhaps portends a bit of optimism for the Trumpening.
I use the term open and closed borders but these are not precise. What I am really saying is
that open borders does not allow a country to filter out negative flows across their border. Closed
borders does allow a nation to impose a filter. So currently the US has more open borders (filters
are frowned upon) and China has closed borders (they can filter out what they don't want) despite
the fact that obviously China has plenty of things crossing its border.
During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial
powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world
themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist
movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the
boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders.
So the 3rd world to some extent (certainly in China at least) was able to overcome entropy
and regain control of their borders. You are correct in that it will be an uphill struggle for
the 1st world to repeat this trick. In the ideal world both forms of globalization (colonialism
and the current form) would be sidelined and all nations would be allowed to use the border filters
they think would best protect the prosperity of their citizens.
Another good option would be a version of the current globalization but where the losers are
the wealthy oligarchs themselves and the winners are the working classes. It's hard to imagine
it's easy if you try!
What's interesting about the concept of entropy is that it stands in contradiction to the concept
of perpetual progress. I'm sure there is some sort of thesis, antithesis, synthesis solution to
these conflicting concepts.
To overcome an entropy current requires superb skill commanding a large magnitude of work applied
densely on a small substratum (think of the evolution of the DNA, the internal combustion engine).
I believe the Trumpening laudable effort and persuasion would have a chance of success in a country
the size of The Netherlands, or even France, but the USA, the largest State machinery in the world,
hardly. When the entropy current flooded the Soviet system the solution came firstly in the form
of shrinkage.
We need to think more about it, a lot more, in order to succeed in this 1st world uphill struggle
to repeat the trick. I am pretty sure that as Pierre de Fermat famously claimed about his alleged
proof, the solution "is too large to fit in the margins of this book".
My little entropy epiphany goes like this: it's like boxes – containers, if you will, of energy
or money, or trade goods, the flow of which is best slowed down so everybody can grab some. Break
it all down, decentralize it and force it into containers which slow the pace and share the wealth.
Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other
people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast
returns that way but that's just the point.
Don't you mean "It was a LOWER entropy (as in "more ordered"), strongly structured socio-economic
arrangement, with a large difference in standard of living between 1st world"?
The entropy increased as a consequence of human guided globalization.
Of course, from a thermodynamic standpoint, the earth is not a closed system as it is continually
flooded with new energy in the form of solar radiation.
The Globalized Versailles Treaty -- Permit me a short laughter . The terms of the crippling
treaty were dictated by the victors largely on insecurities of France.
The crimes of the 1st against the 3rd go on even now- the only difference is that some of the
South like China and India are major nuclear powers now.
The racist crimes in the US are even more flagrant- the Blacks whose labour as slaves allowed
for cotton revolution enabling US capitalists to ride the industrial horse are yet to be rehabilitated
, Obama or no Obama. It is a matter of profound shame.
The benefits of Globalization have gone only to the cartel of 1st and 3rd World Capitalists.
And they are very happy as the lower classes keep fighting. Very happy indeed.
The gorgon cry of the past is all over the present , including in " unsuspecting" paying folks
of today! Blacks being brought to US as slave agricultural labour was Globalisation. Their energy
vibrated the machinery of Economics subsequently. What Nationalism and where is it hiding pray?
Bogus analysis here , yes.
The reigning social democratic parties in Europe today are not the Swedish traditional parties
of yesteryear they have morphed into neoliberal austerians committed to globalization and export
driven economic models at any cost (CETA vote recently) and most responsible for the economic
collapse in the EU
I wonder they chose Chinese imports as the cause of the right-wing shift, when they themselves
admit that the shift started in the 1990s. At that time, there were few Chinese imports and China
was not even part of the WHO.
If they are thinking of movements like the Lega Nord and Vlaams Blok, the reasons are clearly
not to be found in imports, but in immigration, the welfare state and lack of national homogeneity,
perceived or not.
And the beginnings of the precariat.
So it is not really the globalization of commerce that did it, but the loss of relevance of
national and local identities.
Correlation does not imply causation, but lack of correlation definitely excludes it.
The Lega was formed in the 1980s, Vlaams Blok at the end of the '70s. They both had their best
days in the 1990s. Chinese imports at the time were insignificant.
I cannot find the breakdown of Chinese imports per EU country, but here are the total Chinese
exports since 1983:
China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly
have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even
for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the
same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on.
The timescales just do not match. Whatever was causing "populism", it was not Chinese imports,
and I can think of half a dozen other, more likely causes.
Furthermore, the 1980s and 1990s were something of an industrial renaissance for Lombardy and
Flanders: hardly the time to worry about Chinese imports.
And if you look at the map. the country least affected by the import shock (France) is the
one with the strongest populist movement (Le Pen).
People try to conflate Trump_vs_deep_state and Brexit with each other, then try to conflate this "anglo-saxon"
populism with previous populisms in Europe, and try to deduce something from the whole exercise.
That "something" is just not there and the exercise is pointless. IMHO at least.
European regionalism is often the result of the rise of the EU as a new, alternative national
government in the eyes of the disgruntled regions. Typically there are three levels of government,
local, regional (states) and national. With the rise of the EU we have a fourth level, supra-national.
But to the Flemish, Scottish, Catalans, etc, they see the EU as a potential replacement for the
National-level governments they currently are unhappy being under the authority of.
Capitalism should be evolving but it went backwards. Keynesian capitalism evolved from the
free market capitalism that preceded it. The absolute faith in markets had been laid low by 1929
and the Great Depression.
After the Keynesian era we went back to the old free market capitalism of neoclassical economics.
Instead of evolving, capitalism went backwards. We had another Wall Street Crash that has laid
low the once vibrant global economy and we have entered into the new normal of secular stagnation.
In the 1930s, Irving Fisher studied the debt deflation caused by debt saturated economies. Today
only a few economists outside the mainstream realise this is the problem today.
In the 1930s, Keynes realized only fiscal stimulus would pull the US out of the Great Depression,
eventually the US implemented the New Deal and it started to recover. Today we use monetary policy
that keeps asset prices up but cannot overcome the drag of all that debt in the system and its
associated repayments.
In the 1920s, they relied on debt based consumption, not realizing how consumers will eventually
become saturated with debt and demand will fail. Today we rely on debt based consumption again,
Greece consumed on debt. until it maxed out on debt and collapsed.
In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a
sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. Keynes was involved with
the Bretton-Woods agreement after the Second World War and recycled the US surplus to Europe to
restore trade when Europe lay in ruins. Europe could rebuild itself and consume US products, everyone
benefitted.
Today there are no direct fiscal transfers within the Euro-zone and it is polarizing. No one
can see the benefits of rebuilding Greece, to allow it to carry on consuming the goods from surplus
nations and it just sinks further and further into the mire. There is a lot to be said for capitalism
going forwards rather than backwards and making the same old mistakes a second time.
The ECB didn't listen and killed Greece with austerity and is laying low the Club-Med nations.
Someone who knows what they are doing, after studying the Great Depression and Japan after 1989.
Let's keep him out of the limelight; he has no place on the ship of fools running the show.
DEBT on Debt with QEs+ ZRP ( borrowing from future) was the 'solution' by Bernanke to mask
the 2008 crisis and NOT address the underlying structural reforms in the Banking and the Financial
industry. He was part of the problem for housing problem and occurred under his watch! He just
kicked the can with explosive credit growth ( but no corresponding growth in the productive Economy!)and
easy money!
We have a 'Mother of all bubbles' at our door step. Just matter of time when it will BLOW and
NOT if! There is record levels of DEBT ( both sovereign, public and private) in the history of
mankind, all over the World.
DEBT has been used as a panacea for all the financial problems by CBers including Bernanke!
Fed's balance sheet was than less 1 Trillion in 2008 ( for all the years of existence of our Country!)
but now over 3.5 Trillions and climbing!
Kicking the can down the road is like passing the buck to some one (future generations!). And
you call that solution by Mr. Bernanke? Wow!
Will they say again " No one saw this coming'? when next one descends?
The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their
track record.
The FED presided over the dot.com bust and 2008, unaware that they were happening and of their
consequences. Alan Greenspan spots irrational exuberance in the markets in 1996 and passes comment.
As the subsequent dot.com boom and housing booms run away with themselves he says nothing.
The money supply is flat in the recession of the early 1990s.
Then it really starts to take off as the dot.com boom gets going which rapidly morphs into
the US housing boom, courtesy of Alan Greenspan's loose monetary policy.
When M3 gets closer to the vertical, the black swan is coming and you have an out of control
credit bubble on your hands (money = debt).
We can only presume the FED wasn't looking at the US money supply, what on earth were they
doing?
The BoE is aware of how money is created from debt and destroyed by repayments of that debt.
"Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without
limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive
banking system."
The BoE's statement was true, but is not true now as banks can securitize bad loans and get
them off their books. Before 2008, banks were securitising all the garbage sub-prime mortgages,
e.g. NINJA mortgages, and getting them off their books. Money is being created freely and without
limit, M3 is going exponential before 2008.
Bad debt is entering the system and no one is taking any responsibility for it. The credit
bubble is reflected in the money supply that should be obvious to anyone that cares to look.
Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression and doesn't appear to have learnt very much.
Irving Fisher studied the Great Depression in the 1930s and comes up with a theory of debt
deflation. A debt inflated asset bubble collapses and the debt saturated economy sinks into debt
deflation. 2008 is the same as 1929 except a different asset class is involved.
1929 – Margin lending into US stocks
2008 – Mortgage lending into US housing
Hyman Minsky carried on with his work and came up with the "Financial Instability Hypothesis"
in 1974.
Steve Keen carried on with their work and spotted 2008 coming in 2005. We can see what Steve
Keen saw in 2005 in the US money supply graph above.
The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their
track record.
Good to see studies confirming what was already known.
This apparently surprised:
On the contrary, as globalisation threatens the success and survival of entire industrial
districts, the affected communities seem to have voted in a homogeneous way, regardless of
each voter's personal situation.
It is only surprising for people not part of communities, those who are part of communities
see how it affects people around them and solidarity with the so called 'losers' is then shown.
Seems like radical right is the preferred term, it does make it more difficult to sympathize
with someone branded as radical right . The difference seems to be between the radical liberals
vs the conservative. The radical liberals are too cowardly to propose the laws they want, they
prefer to selectively apply the laws as they see fit. Either enforce the laws or change the laws,
anything else is plain wrong.
Socialism for the upper classes, capitalism for the lower classes? That will turn out well.
Debt slaves and wage slaves will revolt. That is all the analysis the OP requires. The upper class
will respond with suppression, not policy reversal every time. Socialism = making everyone equally
poor (obviously not for the upper classes who benefit from the arrangement).
Regrettably today we have socialism for the wealthy, with all the benefits of gov regulations,
sympathetic courts and legislatures etc. etc.
Workers are supposed to take care for themselves and the devil take the hind most. How many
workers get fired vs the 1%, when there is a failure in the company plan?
The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian.
Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread
subsidy. Ciao.
Globalization created winners and losers throughout the world. The winners liked it, the losers
didn't. Democracy is based on the support of the majority.
The majority in the East were winners. The majority in the West were losers.
The Left has maintained its support of neoliberal globalisation in the West. The Right has
moved on. There has been a shift to the Right. Democracy is all about winners and losers and whether
the majority are winning or losing. It hasn't changed.
Globalization( along with communication -internet and transportation) made the Labor wage arbitration,
easy in favor of capital ( Multi-Nationals). Most of the jobs gone overseas will NEVER come back.
Robotic revolution will render the remaining jobs, less and less!
The 'new' Economy by passed the majority of lower 80-90% and favored the top 10%. The Losers
and the Winners!
80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of
global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country!
The Rich became richer!
The tension between Have and Have -Nots has just begun, as Marx predicted!
I think it's about time that we stopped referring to opposition to globalization as a product
or policy of the "extreme right". It would be truer to say that globalization represents a temporary,
and now fading, triumph of certain ideas about trade and movement of people and capital which
have always existed, but were not dominant in the past. Fifty years ago, most mainstream political
parties were "protectionist" in the sense the word is used today. Thirty years ago, protectionism
was often seen as a left)wing idea, to preserve standards of living and conditions of employment
(Wynne Godley and co). Today, all establishment political parties in the West have swallowed neoliberal
dogma, so the voters turn elsewhere, to parties outside the mainstream. Often, it's convenient
politically to label them "extreme right", although in Europe some left-wing parties take basically
the same position. If you ignore peoples' interests, they won't vote for you. Quelle surprise!
as Yves would say.
Yes, there are many reasons to be skeptical of too much globalization such as energy considerations.
I think another interesting one is exchange rates.
One of the important concepts of MMT is the importance of having a flexible exchange rate to
have full power over your currency. This is fine as far as it goes but tends to put hard currencies
against soft currencies where a hard currency can be defined as one that has international authority/acceptance.
Having flexible exchange rates also opens up massive amounts of financial speculation relative
to fluctuations of these currencies against each other and trying to protect against these fluctuations.
""Keynes' proposal of the bancor was to put a barrier between national currencies, that is
to have a currency of account at the global level. Keynes warned that free trade, flexible exchange
rates and free movement of capital globally were incompatible with maintaining full employment
at the local level""
""Sufficiency provisioning also means that trade would be discouraged rather than encouraged.""
Local currencies can work very well locally to promote employment but can have trouble when
they reach out to get resources outside of their currency space especially if they have a soft
currency. Global sustainability programs need to take a closer look at how to overcome this sort
of social injustice. (Debt or Democracy)
As has already been pointed out so eloquently here in the comments section, economic nationalism
is not necessarily the preserve of the right, nor is it necessarily the same thing as nationalism.
In the UK the original, most vociferous objectors to EEC membership in the 70s (now the EU)
were traditionally the Left, on the basis that it would gradually erode labour rights and devalue
the cost of labour in the longer term. Got that completely wrong obviously .
In the same way that global trade has become synonymous with globalisation, the immigration
debate has been hijacked and cynically conflated with free movement of (mainly low cost, unskilled)
labour and race when they are all VERY different divisive issues.
The other point alluded to in the comments above is the nature of free trade generally. The
accepted (neoliberal) wisdom being that 'collateral damage' is unfortunate but inevitable, but
it is pretty much an unstoppable or uncontrollable force for the greater global good, and the
false dichotomy persists that you either embrace it fully or pull up all the drawbridges with
nothing in between.
One of the primary reasons that some competing sectors of some Western economies have done
so badly out of globalisation is that they have adhered to 'free market principles' whilst other
countries, particularly China, clearly have not with currency controls, domestic barriers to trade,
massive state subsidies, wage suppression etc
The China aspect is also fascinating when developed nations look at the uncomfortable 'morality
of global wealth distribution' often cited by proponents of globalisation as one of their wider
philanthropic goals. Bless 'em. What is clear is that highly populated China and most of its people,
from the bottom to the top, has been the primary beneficiaries of this global wealth redistribution,
but the rest of the developing world's poor clearly not quite so much.
The map on it's own, in terms of the English one time industrial Midlands & North West being
shown as an almost black hole, is in itself a kind of " Nuff Said ".
It is also apart from London, where the vast bulk of immigrants have settled.
The upcoming bye-election in Stoke, which could lead to U-Kip taking a once traditionally always
strong Labour seat, is right in the middle of that dark cloud.
The problem from the UK 's position, I suggest, is that autarky is not a viable proposition
so economic nationalism becomes a two-edged sword. Yes, of course, the UK can place restrictions
on imports and immigration but there will inevitably be retaliation and they will enter a game
of beggar my neighbour. The current government talks of becoming a beacon for free trade. If we
are heading to a more protectionist world, that can only end badly IMHO.
Unless we get some meaningful change in thinking on a global scale, I think we are heading
somewhere very dark whatever the relative tinkering with an essentially broken system.
The horse is long gone, leaving a huge pile of shit in it's stable.
As for what might happen, I do not know, but I have the impression that we are at the end of
a cycle.
This is quite interesting, but only part of the story. Interestingly the districts/provinces
suffering the most from the chinese import shock are usually densely populated industrial regions
of Europe. The electoral systems in Europe (I think all, but I did not check) usually do not weight
equally each district, favouring those less populated, more rural (which by the way tend to be
very conservative but not so nationalistic). These differences in vote weigthing may have somehow
masked the effect seen in this study if radical nationalistic rigth wing votes concentrate in
areas with lower weigthed value of votes. For instance, in Spain, the province of Soria is mostly
rural and certainly less impacted by chinese imports compared with, for instance, Madrid. But
1 vote in Soria weigths the same as 4 votes in Madrid in number of representatives in the congress.
This migth, in part, explain why in Spain, the radical rigth does not have the same power as in
Austria or the Netherlands. It intuitively fits the hypothesis of this study.
Nevertheless, similar processes can occur in rural areas. For instance, when Spain entered
the EU, french rural areas turned nationalistic against what they thougth could be a wave of agricultural
imports from Spain. Ok, agricultural globalization may have less impact in terms of vote numbers
in a given country but it still can be politically very influential. In fact spanish entry more
that 30 years ago could still be one of the forces behind Le Penism.
All this statistical math and yada yada to explain a rise in vote for radical right from 3%
in 1985 to 5% now on average? And only a 0.7% marginal boost if your the place really getting
hammmered by imports from China? If I'm reading it right, that is, while focusing on Figure 2.
The real "shock" no pun intended, is the vote totals arent a lot higher everywhere.
Then the Post concludes with reference to a "surge in support" - 3% to 5% or so over 30 years
is a surge? The line looks like a pretty steady rise over 3 decades.
Maybe I'm missing sommething here.
Also what is this thing they're callling an "Open World" of the past 30 years? And why is that
in danger from more balanced trade? It makes no sense. Even back in the 60s and 70s people could
go alll over the world for vacations. Or at least most places they coould go. If theh spent their
money they'd make friends. Greece even used to be a goood place people went and had fun on a beach.
I think this one is a situation of math runing amuck. Math running like a thousand horses over
a hill trampling every blade of grass into mud.
I bet the China factor is just a referent for an entire constellatio of forces that probably
don't lend themselves (no pun intended) partiicularly well to social science and principal component
analysis - as interesting as that is for those who are interested in that kind of thing (which
I am acctually).
Also, I wouldn't call this "free trade". Not that the authors do either, but trade means reciprocity
not having your livelihood smashed the like a pinata at Christmas with all your candy eaten by
your "fellow countrymen". I wouldn't call that "trade". It's something else.
Regarding your first point, it is a small effect but it is all due to the China imports impact,
you have to add the growth of these parties due to other reasons such as immigration to get the
full picture of their growth. Also I think the recent USA election was decided by smaller percentage
advantages in three States?
Globalisation is nothing but free trade extended to the entire world. Free trade is a tool
used to prevent competition. By flooding countries with our cheaper exports, they do not develop
the capacity to compete with us by making their own widgets. So, why are we shocked when those
other countries return the favor and when they get the upper hand, we respond in a protectionist
way? It looks to me that those countries who are now competing with us in electronics, automobiles,
etc. only got to develop those industries in their countries because of protectionism.
Refugees in great numbers are a symptom of globalization, especially economic refugees but
also political and environmental ones. This has strained the social order in many countries that
have accepted them in and it's one of the central issues that the so-called "right" is highlighting.
It is no surprise there has been an uproar over immigration policy in the US which is an issue
of class as much as foreign policy because of the disenfranchisement of large numbers of workers
on both sides of the equation - those who lost their jobs to outsourcing and those who emigrated
due to the lack of decent employment opportunities in their own countries.
We're seeing the tip of the iceberg. What will happen when the coming multiple environmental
calamities cause mass starvation and dislocation of coastal populations? Walls and military forces
can't deter hungry, desperate, and angry people.
The total reliance and gorging on fossil energy by western countries, especially the US, has
mandated military aggression to force compliance in many areas of the world. This has brought
a backlash of perpetual terrorism. We are living under a dysfunctional system ruled by sociopaths
whose extreme greed is leading to world war and environmental collapse.
Who created the REFUGEE PROBLEMS in the ME – WEST including USA,UK++
Obama's DRONE program kept BOMBING in SEVEN Countries killing innocents – children and women!
All in the name of fighting Terrorism. Billions of arms to sale Saudi Arabia! Wow!
Where were the Democrats and the Resistance and Women's march? Hypocrites!
Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political
platforms.
Just a reminder that nationalism doesn't have to be associated with the radical right. The left
is not required to reject it, especially when it can be understood as basically patriotism, expressed
as solidarity with all of your fellow citizens.
Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction.
Well, that may be true as far as Trump's motivations are concerned, but a major component (the
most important?) of the TPP was strong restraint of trade, a protectionist measure, by intellectual
property owners.
Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost
ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers'
Japan has long been 'smart' protectionist, and this has helped prevent the 'loser' problem, in
part because Japan, being nationalist, makes it a very high priority to create/maintain a society
in which almost all Japanese are more or less middle class. So, it is a fact that protectionism
has been and can be associated with more egalitarian societies, in which there are few 'losers'
like we see in the West. But the U.S. and most Western countries have a long way to go if they
decide to make the effort to be more egalitarian. And, of course, protectionism alone is not enough
to make most of the losers into winners again. You'll need smart skills training, better education
all around, fewer low-skill immigrants, time, and, most of all strong and long-term commitment
to making full employment at good wages national priority number one.
and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies.
Growth has been week since the 2008, even though markets are as free as they've ever been. Growth
requires a lot more consumers with willingness and cash to spend on expensive, high-value-added
goods. So, besides the world finally escaping the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, exporting
countries need prosperous consumers either at home or abroad, and greater economic security. And
if a little bit of protectionism generates more consumer prosperity and economic stability, exporting
countries might benefit overall.
The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.
Well, yes, the world needs more inclusivity, but globalization doesn't need to be part of the
picture. Keep your eyes on the prize: inclusivity/equality, whether latched onto nationally, regionally,
'internationally' or globally, any which way is fine! But prioritization of globalization over
those two is likely a victory for more inequality, for more shoveling of our wealth up to the
ruling top 1%.
"... In the conclusion, he says "I argued that it is the roach motel of currencies. Like the Hotel
California of the song: you can check in, but you can't check out." To be precise, that's true of the
Roach Motel (see here , if you don't know what that's all about), but, according to the Eagles, you
can actually check out of the Hotel California, though you can never leave (hmm... sounds kind of like
"Brexit"...). ..."
"... In any case, the fact it hangs together because eurozone members feel trapped by the costs
of exit is hardly an affirmative case for the single currency. ..."
Barry Eichengreen column headlined "Don't Sell the Euro Short. It's Here to Stay"
He writes:
Two forms of glue hold the euro together. First, the economic costs of break-up would be great.
The minute investors heard that Greece was seriously contemplating reintroducing the drachma with
the purpose of depreciating it against the euro, or against a "new Deutsche mark," they would
wire all their money to Frankfurt. Greece would experience the mother of all banking crises. The
"new Deutsche mark" would then shoot through the roof, destroying Germany's export industry.
More generally, those predicting, or advocating, the euro's demise tend to underestimate the
technical difficulties of reintroducing national currencies.
In the conclusion, he says "I argued that it is the roach motel of currencies. Like the Hotel
California of the song: you can check in, but you can't check out." To be precise, that's true of
the Roach Motel (see here
, if you don't know what that's all about), but,
according to the Eagles,
you can actually check out of the Hotel California, though you can never leave (hmm... sounds
kind of like "Brexit"...).
In any case, the fact it hangs together because eurozone members feel trapped by the costs
of exit is hardly an affirmative case for the single currency. In Greece's case, its hard to
believe that the costs of exit really would have been higher than the costs of staying; this
FT Alphablog post by Matthew Klein pointed out this figure from the
IMF's Article IV report :
The fact that the eurozone rolls on with no sign that a depression in one of its smaller constituent
economies is enough to bring about a fundamental change is disturbing. It wouldn't be able to ignore
an election of Marine LePen as President of France -
Gavyn Davies
considers the consequences of that.
"The fact that the eurozone rolls on with no sign that a depression in one of its smaller
constituent economies is enough to bring about a fundamental change is disturbing."
Why so? Isn't it in fact encouraging, a sign that the eurozone can withstand such problems
(especially a problem in one of its smaller economies)? There's scant reason to think it would
be a good thing if the eurozone opted for "fundamental change" every time one of its constituent
nations experienced a problem.
Fair enough - it is true that the Greek crisis didn't cause the euro to break up at least.
But I think what happened in Greece (and Ireland to an extent) is more than a local problem; it
revealed a fundamental design flaw which they haven't fully confronted - the lack of a "banking
union". From the outset, economists doubted whether the euro area met the traditional criteria
for an optimum currency area (OCA), and those issues are relevant, but I think Greece shows that
a banking union (i.e., shared lender of last resort, banking regulation and deposit insurance)
is necessary to make it work. I.e., if Greek banks were european banks, the bank-sovereign "doom
loop" could be circumvented. The euro area needs a way for countries to go bankrupt without bringing
their banks down with them.
I tend to agree with you regarding the necessity for a "banking union"; not having one is
indeed a design flaw, and no, it hasn't been confronted. Does that mean the eurozone's days are
numbered? Could be, but of course we won't know for certain-sure until the breakup does (or doesn't)
happen. So it goes.
...So my question for the degrowth community is whether declining investment is an occasion
for celebration? Does this mean that economic policy is actually getting something right?
Here's one answer I won't accept: we don't care about growth in general, just growth of bad
stuff, like fossil fuels, accumulation of waste, destruction of coastlines, etc. That isn't a
degrowth position. Everyone wants more of the good and less of the bad, however they define it.
I'm in favor of only toothsome pizza crusts and I'm dead set against the soggy kind, but that's
not the same as being on a diet.
This is a practical, policy-relevant question. There are many smart economists trying to understand
the investment slump so they can devise policies to turn it around. You'll notice this concern
is prominent in the writing on increasing industrial concentration, the shareholder value obsession,
globalization and outsourcing, and other topics. The goal of these researchers is to reform corporate
and market structure in order to restore a higher rate of investment, among other things. That
of course would tend to accelerate economic growth. So what's the degrowth position on all this?
Should economists be looking for additional measures to discourage investment?
Again, please don't tell me that it's just investment in "bads" that needs to be discouraged.
That's a given across the entire spectrum of economic rationality (which is admittedly somewhat
narrower than the political spectrum). In the aggregate, is it good that investment is trending
down?
My own view, as readers of this blog will know (see here and here), is that degrowth is a suicide
cult masquerading as a political position. I'm pretty sure that radically transforming our economy
to make it sustainable will involve a tremendous amount of investment and new production, and
it seems clear to me that boosting living standards through more and better consumption is both
politically and ethically essential. But I could be wrong. I would sincerely appreciate intelligent
arguments from the degrowth side.
[Asked and answered, sort of. Degrowth or beneficial degrowth is relative to what metrics (i.e.,
resources rather than capital) and realistically a far enough ways from where we are now to be
moot.]
I think this is too simplistic. There is (and has always been) a growing realization that more
is not always better. This insight is not uniform for any given geographic or socioeconomic population
group, but often informed by how one relates to the economic process (which correlates with age),
individually as well as at the peer group level.
When a larger group is exposed to a situation where the trappings of success are hard to obtain
(e.g. younger people coming out of school/college into a bad job market), or where there is an
appearance that new technology/gadgets may be initially exciting but don't really translate into
better quality of life or better effectiveness of work/activities ("productivity"), or even degrade
either (more typical for older people who are not seeing new gadgets/technologies for the first
time?), then rejection of whatever is proclaimed as "improvement" can become socially acceptable.
I'm also at the point where I don't really want new stuff, because my impression is that it
is generally not better than the previous edition, or if better, then not better in a write-home-about-it
way. And the realization many acquisitions create more liabilities than benefits in the long term
(for one thing, accumulation of junk and need to throw out "something" - which I may not really
want to throw out).
A problem with today's views about globalization is that they look backward rather than forward.
The future's globalization is much different from the past's globalization. In particular, growing
nationalism is the future in the places, such as China, that have benefited from globalization.
By that I mean China is beginning to produce goods for China firms rather than for western firms
to compete with goods produced for western (American) firms including goods produced in China
for western firms.
It's a much different dynamic than what we have experienced in the past 30 years. And the response
to the new globalization should (and will) be much different.
Ironically, Trump's views about globalization come closer to what will be the response as western
firms adjust to the new globalization. Is Trump that smart? No, it's just that everybody else
is that dumb.
1) Mexican workers are paid ~$1 an
hour and US workers doing the same work are paid ~$13 hour
and US plants are closing and moving to Mexico
and
2) ..."But some companies that produce goods in Mexico say
there's no going back to the U.S. That includes Delphi.
The company just announced a plan for more layoffs in
Warren, where only 1,500 employees remain.
Speaking at Barclay's Global Automotive Conference in New
York in December, Delphi's chief financial officer Joe
Massaro explained what he thought would happen to Delphi
under several Trump trade scenarios.
If Trump were to close the border with Mexico outright,
"in less than a week, all the people who voted for him in
Michigan and Ohio would be out of work," Massaro argued,
underscoring the fact that many factories in the U.S.,
including car makers in Detroit, depend on parts made in
Mexico.
If the United States were to withdraw from NAFTA and start
taxing imports from Mexico again, Delphi would continue doing
business in Mexico, he said. The company would pass on the
extra cost to its suppliers or to consumers, or would find a
way to reduce its production costs - which could mean layoffs
or salary cuts in Mexico."...
Trump can't fix that discrepancy in worker pay. Reagan's
so-called Free Trade began a race to the bottom for US
workers. It was known and discussed at the time. Reagan and
the Republican Party did not stand up for US workers and
neither did the Democrats in the day. Workers pay was
bartered off for cheaper goods to be bought at our stores.
That's the bargain made by Wall Street and D.C. and accepted
by American Workers who liked paying less at the store, not
realizing it meant they would be paid less - eventually.
And they certainly never dreamed it meant that in 20+
years their jobs would disappear overseas too.
BY: Right. Brexit and maybe even Trump's
victory say something about the arrogance of the elite.
Bankers say that free trade should prevail. Even we,
academics-how many of us are actually looking into
distribution and redistribution? Few. We're still spending
time on writing dynamic models to talk about the gains of
trade.
Even if old-fashioned free trade is correct, the speed of
adjustment is very important. We know that rapid adjustment
is no good. How many of us ask ourselves what should be the
adjustment in trade? We rarely talk about that.
The world may have changed. I gave you my conjecture. But we
are also arrogant. We hold on to our old beliefs on the gains
of trade.
----
Very Dani Rodrick, I thought. Interesting stuff.
Also, this is something that I think you'll like. I have not
read all of it yet but here is the link and an excerpt:
http://evonomics.com/time-new-economic-thinking-based-best-science-available-not-ideology/
"Some will cling on to the idea that the consensus can be
revived. They will say we just need to defend it more
vigorously, the facts will eventually prevail, the populist
wave is exaggerated, it's really just about immigration,
Brexit will be a compromise, Clinton won more votes than
Trump, and so on. But this is wishful thinking. Large swathes
of the electorate have lost faith in the neoliberal
consensus, the political parties that backed it, and the
institutions that promoted it. This has created an
ideological vacuum being filled by bad old ideas, most
notably a revival of nationalism in the US and a number of
European countries, as well as a revival of the hard
socialist left in some countries."
I think Peter K has been making similar points for a long
time now. Interesting stuff.
Consensus among whom? The economic-political elite? Maybe;
but certainly not among the general electorate. Most voters
were voting for parties out of habit, or on cultural issues
(for or against diversity and civil rights), or bread &
butter economic issues ("the Republicans will cut my taxes
and the regulation of my business" versus "the Democrats will
preserve my Medicare and Social Security"). I don't think
most voters had/have any clue of what neoliberalism is.
Well, you raise an excellent point. I don't have a solid
rejoinder but I will note that if even 5% of the electorate
changes its mind an election result can flip one way or the
other. But, yes, I agree with you that most voters are not
selecting a candidate based on which candidate's economic
philosophy is most closely aligned with theirs. Still,
especially in the primaries, where the voters are a different
population than the general, it could make a difference. I
would argue that it was just this difference that made
Sanders surprisingly popular among the Democratic primary
voters.
The question is to what extent people were voting FOR a
candidate, as AGAINST a candidate or the status quo. That's
the only point I was trying to make.
Most voters have neither the time, energy, inclination, or
knowledge base to delve into the issues to make an informed
decision on which candidate/platform most reflects their
values and aspirations. They subcontract out that vetting of
individual candidates to parties that they believe are
broadly reflective of their views.
This past general election, and its preceding primaries,
was the result of a broad revolt against the candidates
anointed by the parties' elites, indicating deep
dissatisfaction with the status quo.
"I think Peter K has been making similar points for a long
time now. Interesting stuff."
Yes I liked the as well.
Luigi Zingales is a member of the editorial board for Pro
Market and he had some piece published in the New York Times
about economics and politics (specifically Italian I think).
He was the first I read who compared Trump with Silvio
Berlusconi. Zingales discussed how Berlusconi was brought
down, by being treated as an ordinary conservative
politician. Perhaps the same will work with Trump.
Yes, I had read the evonomics piece and thought it was good.
Thanks. Eric Beinhocker makes some good points. I liked his
optimism as far as some forms of populism were concerned, and
had a slight hope that Donald Trump might turn into a
Theodore Roosevelt type of populist. That hope has
disappeared completely and now we face the realization that
we are truly completely screwed.
asymmetric information, and the recent illuminating example
of Wells Fargo's excellence in pushing products that
customers did not want nor need.
BY: Some financial "innovation" is faddish. It does not
create value.
GR: Approximately 9 percent of U.S. GDP is finance. Some
economists argue that probably 3-5 percent is useful for
allocating capital, storing value, smoothing consumptions,
and creating competition, and the rest is preying on
asymmetric information
"
~~Guy Roinik~
Do you see how this asymmetric information
plays out?
It is the retail vendor who keeps better information than
the retail customer. It is the vendor's expectations of
disinflation vs inflation rather than the customer's
expectations that control the change in M2V. Got it?
When vendor expects deflation he dumps inventory, but when
he expects inflation he holds on to inventory as he waits for
higher profit margins to arrive. He holds onto merchandise by
simply raising prices. But why do economists advertise the
reverse mechanism? Why does the status quo have a need for
distorting truth?
Inflation is offered to the proles as a substitute for tax
relief to the impoverished. Do you see how it works?
"
Tax relief for the wealthy will give you delicious inflation.
Now jump for it!
"
~~The Yea Sayers~
... A 2015 survey by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation
found there are more than 450 structurally deficient bridges
in the state, although the number is down from previous
years. Every working day, nearly 10 million cars, trucks, and
school buses cross these deteriorating overpasses. And then
there's the nation's rail system and airports, which lag far
behind other nations in speed, efficiency, and modernization.
...
Bridgework and a partial plate! Should we shift gears on
our interstate construction?
By building our long haul interstates as one-way roads
interleaved with roads going in other direction, we could
have twice as many roads but intersections could be much
simpler, efficient, and less confusing. Freeflow
overpass/underpass with turning ramps will save fuel thus
environment. Sure!
We waste lot of traffic control man hours and squad cars
that could be otherwise deployed towards solving crime and
crushing the mob. By proper design and construction of speed
bumps some of this highway patrol could be eliminated. Ceu!
Rather that short 2 foot bumps in the road, build smooth
slow and long valley and knoll that will not rattle your
frame and bill you for steering realignment but instead send
an 18 wheeler up into the air for a half gainer. This kind of
speed trap could eliminate lot of bad
"... More than any other economist of his century, Marx tied together the three major kinds of crisis that were occurring. His Theories of Surplus Value explained the two main forms of crises his classical predecessors had pointed to, and which the bourgeois revolutions of 1848 were fought over. These crises were the result of survivals from Europe's feudal epoch of landed aristocracy and banking fortunes. ..."
"... Financially, Marx pointed to the tendency of debts to grow exponentially, independently of the economy's ability to pay, and indeed faster than the economy itself. The rise in debt and accrual of interest was autonomous from the industrial capital and wage labor dynamics on which Volume I of Capital focused. Debts are self-expanding by purely mathematical rules – the "magic of compound interest." ..."
"... Industrial companies profit from labor not only by employing it, but by lending to customers. General Motors made most of its profits for many years by its credit arm, GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corp.), as did General Electric through its financial arm. Profits made by Macy's and other retailers on their credit card lending sometimes accounted for their entire earnings. ..."
"... This privatization of rents and their transformation into a flow of interest payments (shifting the tax burden onto wage income and corporate profits) represents a failure of industrial capitalism to free society from the legacies of feudalism. ..."
"... Marx expected economies to act in their long-term interest to increase the means of production and avoid unproductive rentier income, underconsumption and debt deflation. Believing that every mode of production was shaped by the technological, political and social needs of economies to advance, he expected banking and finance to become subordinate to these dynamics. ..."
"... It seemed that the banking system's role as allocator of credit would pave the way for a socialist organization of economies. Marx endorsed free trade on the ground that industrial capitalism would transform and modernize the world's backward countries. Instead, it has brought Western rentier finance and privatization of the land and natural resources, and even brought the right to use these country's currencies and financial systems as casinos. And in the advanced creditor nations, failure of the U.S. and European economies to recover from their 2008 financial crisis stems from leaving in place the reckless "junk mortgage" debts, whose carrying charges are absorbing income. Banks were saved instead of industrial economies, whose debts were left in place. ..."
"... No observer of Marx's epoch was so pessimistic as to expect finance capital to overpower industrial capitalism, engulfing economies as the world is seeing today. Discussing the 1857 financial crisis, Marx showed how unthinkable anything like the 2008-09 Bush-Obama bailout of financial speculators seemed to be in his day. "The entire artificial system of forced expansion of the reproduction process cannot, of course, be remedied by having some bank, like the Bank of England, give to all the swindlers the deficient capital by means of its paper and having it buy up all the depreciated commodities at their old nominal values." [6] ..."
"... Marx wrote this reductio ad absurdum not dreaming that it would become the Federal Reserve's policy in autumn 2008. The U.S. Treasury paid off all of A.I.G.'s gambles and other counterparty "casino capitalist" losses at taxpayer expense, followed by the Federal Reserve buying junk mortgage packages at par. ..."
"... The failure to socialize banking (or even to complete its industrialization) has become the most glaring economic tragedy of Western industrial capitalism. It became the tragedy of post-Soviet Russia after 1991, letting its natural resources and industrial economy be financialized while failing to tax land and natural resource rent. The commanding heights were sold to domestic oligarchs and Western investors buying on credit with their own banks or in association with Western banks. This bank credit was simply created on computer keyboards. Such credit creation should be a public utility, but it has broken free from public regulation in the West. That credit is now reaching out to China and the post-Soviet economies as a means of appropriating their resources. ..."
"... Note: Marx described productive capital investment by the formula M–C–M´, signifying money (M) invested to produce commodities (C) that sell for yet more money (M´). But the growth of "usury capital" – government bond financing for war deficits, and consumer lending (mortgages, personal loans and credit card debt) – consist of the disembodied M–M´, making money simply from money in a sterile operation. ..."
The Paradox of Financialized Industrialization
By Michael Friday, October 16, 2015
These remarks were made at the World Congress on Marxism, 2015, at the School of Marxism, Peking
University, October 10, 2015. The presentation was part of a debate with Bertell Ollman (NYU).
I was honored to be made a permanent Guest Professor at China's most prestigious university.
When I lectured here at the Marxist School six years ago, someone asked me whether Marx was
right or wrong. I didn't know how to answer this question at the time, because the answer is so
complex. But at least today I can focus on his view of crises.
More than any other economist of his century, Marx tied together the three major kinds
of crisis that were occurring. His Theories of Surplus Value explained the two main forms of crises
his classical predecessors had pointed to, and which the bourgeois revolutions of 1848 were fought
over. These crises were the result of survivals from Europe's feudal epoch of landed aristocracy
and banking fortunes.
Financially, Marx pointed to the tendency of debts to grow exponentially, independently
of the economy's ability to pay, and indeed faster than the economy itself. The rise in debt and
accrual of interest was autonomous from the industrial capital and wage labor dynamics on which
Volume I of Capital focused. Debts are self-expanding by purely mathematical rules – the "magic
of compound interest."
We can see in America and Europe how interest charges, stock buybacks, debt leveraging and
other financial maneuverings eat into profits, deterring investment in plant and equipment by
diverting revenue to economically empty financial operations. Marx called finance capital "imaginary"
or "fictitious" to the extent that it does not stem from within the industrial economy, and because
– in the end – its demands for payment cannot be met. Calling this financial accrual a "void form
of capital."
[1] It was fictitious because it consisted of bonds, mortgages, bank loans and other rentier
claims on the means of production and the flow of wages, profit and tangible capital investment.
The second factor leading to economic crisis was more long-term: Ricardian land rent. Landlords
and monopolists levied an "ownership tax" on the economy by extracting rent as a result of privileges
that (like interest) were independent of the mode of production. Land rent would rise as economies
became larger and more prosperous. More and more of the economic surplus (profits and surplus
value) would be diverted to owners of land, natural resources and monopolies. These forms of economic
rent were the result of privileges that had no intrinsic value or cost of production. Ultimately,
they would push up wage levels and leave no room for profit. Marx described this as Ricardo's
Armageddon.
These two contributing forces to crisis, Marx pointed out, were legacies of Europe's feudal
origins: landlords conquering the land and appropriating natural resources and infrastructure;
and banks, which remained largely usurious and predatory, making war loans to governments and
exploiting consumers in petty usury. Rent and interest were in large part the products of wars.
As such, they were external to the means of production and its direct cost (that is, the value
of products).
Most of all, of course, Marx pointed to the form of exploitation of wage labor by its employers.
That did indeed stem from the capitalist production process. Bertell Ollman has just explained
that dynamic so well that I need not repeat it here.
Today's economic crisis in the West: financial and rent extraction, leading to debt deflation
Bertell Ollman has described how Marx analyzed economic crisis stemming from the inability of
wage labor to buy what it produces. That is the inner contradiction specific to industrial capitalism.
As described in Volume I of Capital, employers seek to maximize profits by paying workers as little
as possible. This leads to excessive exploitation of wage labor, causing underconsumption and
a market glut.
I will focus here on the extent to which today's financial crisis is largely independent of
the industrial mode of production. As Marx noted in Volumes II and III of Capital and Theories
of Surplus Value, banking and rent extraction are in many ways adverse to industrial capitalism.
Our debate is over how to analyze the crisis the Western economies are in today. To me, it
is first and foremost a financial crisis. The banking crisis and indebtedness stems mainly from
real estate mortgage loans – and also from the kind of massive fraud that Marx found characteristic
of the high finance of his day, especially in canal and railroad financing.
So to answer the question that I was asked about whether Marx was right or wrong, Marx certainly
provided the tools needed to analyze the crises that the industrial capitalist economies have
been suffering for the past two hundred years.
But history has not worked out the way Marx expected. He expected every class to act in its
own class interest. That is the only way to reasonably project the future. The historical task
and destiny of industrial capitalism, Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, was to free society
from the "excrescences" of interest and rent (mainly land and natural resource rent, along with
monopoly rent) that industrial capitalism had inherited from medieval and even ancient society.
These useless rentier charges on production are faux frais, costs that slow the accumulation of
industrial capital. They do not stem from the production process, but are a legacy of the feudal
warlords who conquered England and other European realms to found hereditary landed aristocracies.
Financial overhead in the form of usury-capital is, to Marx, a legacy of the banking families
that built up fortunes by war lending and usury.
Marx's concept of national income differs radically from today's National Income and Product
Accounts (NIPA). Every Western economy measures "output" as Gross National Product (GNP). This
accounting format includes the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector as part of the
economy's output. It does this because it treats rent and interest as "earnings," on the same
plane as wages and industrial profits – as if privatized finance, insurance and real estate are
part of the production process. Marx treated them as external to it. Their income was not "earned,"
but was "unearned." This concept was shared by the Physiocrats, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and
other major classical economists. Marx was simply pressing classical economics to its logical
conclusion.
The interest of the rising class of industrial capitalists was to free economies from this
legacy of feudalism, from the unnecessary faux frais of production – prices in excess of real
cost-value. The destiny of industrial capitalism, Marx believed, was to rationalize economies
by getting rid of the idle landlord and banking class – by socializing land, nationalizing natural
resources and basic infrastructure, and industrializing the banking system – to fund industrial
expansion instead of unproductive usury.
If capitalism had achieved this destiny, it would have been left primarily with the crisis
between industrial employers and workers discussed in Volume I of Capital: exploiting wage labor
to a point where labor could not buy its products. But at the same time, industrial capitalism
would be preparing the way for socialism, because industrialists needed to conquer the political
stranglehold of the landed aristocracy and the financial power of banking. It needed to promote
democratic political reform to overcome the vested interests in control of Parliaments and hence
the tax system. Labor's organization and voting power would press its own self-interest and turn
capitalism into socialism.
China has indeed exemplified this path. But it has not occurred in the West.
All three kinds of crisis that Marx described are occurring. But the West is now in a chronic
depression – what has been called Debt Deflation. Instead of banking being industrialized as Marx
expected, industry is being financialized. Instead of democracy freeing economies from land rent,
natural resource rent and monopoly rent, the rentiers have fought back and taken control of Western
governments, legal systems and tax policy. The result is that we are seeing a lapse back to the
pre-capitalist problems that Marx described in Volumes II and III of Capital and Theories of Surplus
Value.
This is where the debate between Bertell Ollman and myself centers. My focus is on finance
and rent overwhelming industrial capitalism to impose a depression stemming from debt deflation.
This over-indebtedness is making the labor/capital problem worse, by weakening labor's political
and economic position. To make matters worse, labor parties in the West no longer are fighting
over economic issues, as they were prior to World War I.
My differences with Ollman and Roemer: I focus on non-production costs
Bertell follows Marx in focusing on the production sector: hiring labor to produce products, but
trying to get as much markup as possible – while underselling rivals. This is Marx's great contribution
to the analysis of capitalism and its mode of production – employing wage labor at a profit. I
agree with this analysis.
However, my focus is on the causes of today's crisis that are independent and autonomous from
production: rentier claims for economic rent, for income without work – "empty" pricing without
value. This focus on rent and interest is where I differ from that of Ollman, and also of course
from that of Roemer. Any model of the crisis must tie together finance, real estate (and other
rent-seeking) as well as industry and employment.
The rising debt overhead can be traced mathematically, as can the symbiosis of the Finance,
Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector. But the interactions are too complex to be made into
a single economic "model." I am especially worried that Roemer's model might be followed here
in China, because it overlooks the most dangerous tendencies threatening China today: Western
financial practice and its pro-rentier tax policy.
China has spent the last half-century solving Marx's "Volume I" problem: the relations between
labor and its employers, recycling the economic surplus into new means of production to provide
more output, higher living standards, and most obviously, more infrastructure (roads, railways,
airlines) and housing.
But right now, it is experiencing financial problems from credit creation going into the stock
market instead of into tangible capital formation and rising consumption standards. And of course,
China has experienced a large real estate boom. Land prices are rising in China, much as they
are in the West.
What would Marx have said about this? I think that he would have warned China not to relapse
into the pre-capitalist problems of finance funding real estate – turning the rising land rent
into interest – and into permitting housing prices to rise without taxing them away.
Soviet planning failed to take the rent-of-location into account when planning where to build
housing and factories. But at least the Soviet era did not force labor or industry to pay interest
or for rising housing prices. Government banks simply created credit where it was needed to expand
the means of production, to build factories, machinery and equipment, homes and office buildings.
What worries me about the political consequences of Roemer's model is that it focuses only
on what Marx said about the production sector and employer-labor relations. It does not ask how
"endowments" come into being – or how China has changed so radically in the past generation. It
therefore neglects the danger of industrial capitalism lapsing back into a rent-and-interest economy.
And by the same token, it underplays the threat to China and other socialist economies of adopting
the West's surviving pre-feudal practices of predatory Bubble Finance (debt leveraging to raise
prices) and wealth in the form of land-rent charges.
These two dynamics – interest and rent – represent a privatization of banking and land that
rightly are public utilities. Marx expected industrial capitalism to achieve this transition.
Certainly socialist economies must achieve it!
China has no need of foreign bank credit – except to cover the cost of imports and the foreign-exchange
cost of investment in other countries. But China's foreign exchange reserves already are large
enough to be basically independent of the U.S. dollar and euro. Meanwhile, the American and European
economies are suffering from chronic debt deflation and depression that will reduce their ability
to serve as markets – for their own producers as well as for China.
Today's debt-wracked economies throw into question just what kind of crisis the capitalist
countries are experiencing. Marx's analysis provides the tools to analyze its financial, banking
and rent-extraction problems. However, most Marxists still view the 2008 financial and junk mortgage
crash as resulting ultimately from industrial employers squeezing wage labor. Finance capital
is viewed as a derivative of this exploitation, not as the autonomous dynamic Marx described.
The costs of carrying the rising debt burden (interest, amortization and penalties) deflate
the market for commodities by absorbing a growing wedge of disposable business and personal income.
This leaves less to be spent on goods and services, causing gluts that lead to crises in which
businesses scramble for money. Banks fail as bankruptcy spreads. By depleting markets, finance
capital is antithetical to the expansion of profits and tangible physical capital investment.
Despite this sterility, finance capital has achieved dominance over industrial capital. Transfers
of property from debtors to creditors – even privatizations of public assets and enterprises –
are inevitable as the growth of financial claims surpasses the ability of productive power and
earnings to keep pace. Foreclosures follow in the wake of crashes, enabling finance to take over
industrial companies and even governments.
China has largely solved the "Volume I" problem – that of expanding its internal market for
labor, investing the economic surplus in capital formation and rising living standards. It is
confronted by Western economies that have failed to solve this problem, and also have failed to
solve the "Volumes II and III" problem: finance and land rent. Yet few Western Marxists have applied
his theories to the present downturn and its rentier problem. Following Marx, they view the task
of solving this problem to be solved by industrial capitalism, starting with the bourgeois revolutions
of 1848.
Already in 1847, Marx's Poverty of Philosophy described the hatred that capitalists felt for
landlords, whose hereditary rents siphoned off income to an idle class. Upon being sent copies
of Henry George's Progress and Poverty a generation later, in 1881, he wrote to John Swinton that
taxing land rent was "a last attempt to save the capitalist regime." He dismissed the book as
falling under his 1847 critique of Proudhon: "We understand such economists as Mill, Cherbuliez,
Hilditch and others demanding that rent should be handed over to the state to serve in place of
taxes. That is a frank expression of the hatred the industrial capitalist bears towards the landed
proprietor, who seems to him a useless thing, an excrescence upon the general body of bourgeois
production."
[2]
As the program of industrial capital, the land tax movement stopped short of advocating labor's
rights and living standards. Marx criticized Proudhon and other critics of landlords by saying
that once you get rid of rent (and usurious interest by banks), you will still have the problem
of industrialists exploiting wage labor and trying to minimize their wages, drying up the market
for the goods they produce. This is to be the "final" economic problem to be solved – presumably
long after industrial capitalism has solved the rent and interest problems.
Industrial capitalism has failed to free economies from rentier interest and rent extraction
In retrospect, Marx was too optimistic about the future of industrial capitalism. As noted above,
he viewed its historical mission as being to free society from rent and usurious interest. Today's
financial system has generated an overgrowth of credit, while high rents are pricing American
labor out of world markets. Wages are stagnating, while the One Percent have monopolized the growth
in wealth and income since 1980 – and are not investing in new means of production. So we still
have the Volume II and III problems, not just a Volume I problem.
We are dealing with multiple organ failure.
Instead of funding new industrial capital formation, the stock and bond markets to transfer
ownership of companies, real estate and infrastructure already in place. About 80 percent of bank
credit is lent to buyers of real estate, inflating a mortgage bubble. Instead of taxing away the
land's rising rental and site value that John Stuart Mill described as what landlords make "in
their sleep," today's economies leave rental income "free" to be pledged to banks. The result
is that banks now play the role that landlords did in Marx's day: obtaining for themselves the
land's rising rental value. This reverses the central thrust of classical political economy by
keeping such rent away from government, along with natural resource and monopoly rents.
Industrial economies are being stifled by financial and other rentier dynamics. Rising mortgage
debt, student loans, credit card debt, automobile debt and payday loans have made workers afraid
to go on strike or even to protest working conditions. To the extent that wages do rise, they
must be paid increasingly to creditors (and now to privatized health insurance and drug monopolies),
not to buy the consumer goods they produce. Labor's debt dependency thus aggravates the "Volume
I" problem of labor's inability to purchase the products it produces. To top matters, when workers
seek to join the middle class "homeowner society" by purchasing their homes on mortgage instead
of paying rent, the price entails locking themselves into debt serfdom.
Industrial companies profit from labor not only by employing it, but by lending to customers.
General Motors made most of its profits for many years by its credit arm, GMAC (General Motors
Acceptance Corp.), as did General Electric through its financial arm. Profits made by Macy's and
other retailers on their credit card lending sometimes accounted for their entire earnings.
This privatization of rents and their transformation into a flow of interest payments (shifting
the tax burden onto wage income and corporate profits) represents a failure of industrial capitalism
to free society from the legacies of feudalism.
Marx expected industrial capitalism to act in its own self-interest by industrializing banking,
as Germany was doing along the lines that the French reformer Saint-Simon had urged. However,
industrial capitalism has failed to break free of pre-industrial usurious banking practice. And
in the sphere of tax policy, it has not shifted taxes away from land and natural resource rent.
It has inverted the classical reformers' idea of "free markets" as being free from economic rent
and predatory moneylending. The slogan now means economies free for the rentier class to extract
interest and rent.
Mode of production or mode of parasitism?
Instead of serving industrial capitalism, today's financial sector is bleeding it to death.
Instead of seeking profits by employing labor to produce goods at a markup, it doesn't even want
to hire labor or engage in the process of production and develop new markets. The epitome of this
postindustrial economics is Enron: its' managers wanted no capital at all – no employment, only
traders at a desk (and crooked accountants).
Today's characteristic mode of accumulating wealth is more by financial than industrial means:
riding the wave of debt-financed asset-price inflation to reap "capital" gains. This seemed unlikely
in Marx's era of the gold standard. Yet today, most academic Marxists still concentrate on his
"Volume I" crisis, neglecting finance capitalism's failure to free economies from the rentier
dynamics surviving from European feudalism and the colonial lands conquered by Europe.
Marxists who went into Wall Street have learned their lessons from Volumes II and III. But
academic Marxism has not focused on the FIRE sector – Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. It is
as if interest and rent extraction are secondary problems to the dynamics of wage labor.
The great question today is whether post-feudal rentier capitalism will stifle industrial capitalism
instead of serving it. The aim of finance is not merely to exploit labor, but to conquer and appropriate
industry, real estate and government. The result is a financial oligarchy, neither industrial
capitalism nor a tendency to evolve into socialism.
Marx's optimism that industrial capital would subordinate finance to serve its own needs
Having provided a compendium of historical citations describing how parasitic "usury capital"
multiplied at compound interest, Marx announced in an optimistic Darwinian tone that the destiny
of industrial capitalism was to mobilize finance capital to fund its economic expansion, rendering
usury an obsolete vestige of the "ancient" mode of production. It is as if "in the course of its
evolution, industrial capital must therefore subjugate these forms and transform them into derived
or special functions of itself." Finance capital would be subordinated to the dynamics of industrial
capital rather than growing to dominate it. "Where capitalist production has developed all its
manifold forms and has become the dominant mode of production," Marx concluded his draft notes
for Theories of Surplus Value, "interest-bearing capital is dominated by industrial capital, and
commercial capital becomes merely a form of industrial capital, derived from the circulation process."
[3]
Marx expected economies to act in their long-term interest to increase the means of production
and avoid unproductive rentier income, underconsumption and debt deflation. Believing that every
mode of production was shaped by the technological, political and social needs of economies to
advance, he expected banking and finance to become subordinate to these dynamics. "There is no
doubt," he wrote, "that the credit system will serve as a powerful lever during the transition
from the capitalist mode of production to the production by means of associated labor; but only
as one element in connection with other great organic revolutions of the mode of production itself."
[4]
The financial problem would take care of itself as industrial capitalism mobilized savings
productively, subordinating finance capital to serve its needs. This already was happening in
Germany and France.
It seemed that the banking system's role as allocator of credit would pave the way for a socialist
organization of economies. Marx endorsed free trade on the ground that industrial capitalism would
transform and modernize the world's backward countries. Instead, it has brought Western rentier
finance and privatization of the land and natural resources, and even brought the right to use
these country's currencies and financial systems as casinos. And in the advanced creditor nations,
failure of the U.S. and European economies to recover from their 2008 financial crisis stems from
leaving in place the reckless "junk mortgage" debts, whose carrying charges are absorbing income.
Banks were saved instead of industrial economies, whose debts were left in place.
Irving Fisher coined the term debt deflation in 1933. He described it as occurring when debt
service (interest and amortization) to pay banks and bondholders diverts income from being spent
on consumer goods and new business investment.
[5] Governments use their tax revenues to pay bondholders, cutting back public spending and
infrastructure investment, education, health and other social welfare.
No observer of Marx's epoch was so pessimistic as to expect finance capital to overpower industrial
capitalism, engulfing economies as the world is seeing today. Discussing the 1857 financial crisis,
Marx showed how unthinkable anything like the 2008-09 Bush-Obama bailout of financial speculators
seemed to be in his day. "The entire artificial system of forced expansion of the reproduction
process cannot, of course, be remedied by having some bank, like the Bank of England, give to
all the swindlers the deficient capital by means of its paper and having it buy up all the depreciated
commodities at their old nominal values."
[6]
Marx wrote this reductio ad absurdum not dreaming that it would become the Federal
Reserve's policy in autumn 2008. The U.S. Treasury paid off all of A.I.G.'s gambles and other
counterparty "casino capitalist" losses at taxpayer expense, followed by the Federal Reserve buying
junk mortgage packages at par.
Socialist policy regarding financial and tax reform
Marx described the historical destiny of industrial capitalism as being to free economies from
unproductive and predatory finance – from speculation, fraud and a diversion of income to pay
interest without funding new means of production. On this logic, it should be the destiny of socialist
economies to treat bank credit creation as a public function, to be used for public purposes –
to increase prosperity and the means of production to give populations a better life. Socialist
nations have freed their economies from the internal contradictions of industrial capitalism that
stifle wage labor.
China has solved the "Volume I" problem. But it still must deal with the West's unsolved "Volume
II and III" problem of privatized finance, land rent and natural resource rent. Western economies
seek to extend these neoliberal practices to use finance as a lever to pry away the economic surplus,
to finance the transfer of property at interest, and to turn profits, rent, wages and other income
into interest.
The failure to socialize banking (or even to complete its industrialization) has become
the most glaring economic tragedy of Western industrial capitalism. It became the tragedy of post-Soviet
Russia after 1991, letting its natural resources and industrial economy be financialized while
failing to tax land and natural resource rent. The commanding heights were sold to domestic oligarchs
and Western investors buying on credit with their own banks or in association with Western banks.
This bank credit was simply created on computer keyboards. Such credit creation should be a public
utility, but it has broken free from public regulation in the West. That credit is now reaching
out to China and the post-Soviet economies as a means of appropriating their resources.
The eurozone seems incapable of saving itself from debt deflation, and the United States and
Britain likewise are limping along as they de-industrialize. That is what leads them to hope that
perhaps socialist China can save them – as long as it remains free of the financial disease. asset
stripping and debt deflation. Western neoliberal economists claim that this financialization of
erstwhile industrial capitalism is "progress," and even the end of history. Yet having watched
China grow while their economies have remained stagnant since 2008 (except for the One Percent),
their hope is that socialist China's market can save their financialized economies driven too
deeply into debt to recover on their own.
Note: Marx described productive capital investment by the formula M–C–M´, signifying money
(M) invested to produce commodities (C) that sell for yet more money (M´). But the growth of "usury
capital" – government bond financing for war deficits, and consumer lending (mortgages, personal
loans and credit card debt) – consist of the disembodied M–M´, making money simply from money
in a sterile operation.
Footnotes
[1] In Volume III of Capital (ch. xxx; Chicago 1909: p. 461) and Volume III of Theories of
Surplus Value.
[2] Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy [1847] (Moscow, Progress Publishers, n.d.): 155.
[3] Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus Value III: 468
[4] Capital III (Chicago, 1905), p. 713.
[5] See Irving Fisher, "The Debt-Deflation Theory of the Great Depression," Econometrica (1933),
p. 342. Online at http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf. He used the term to
refer to bankruptcies wiped out bank credit and spending power, and hence the ability of economies
to invest and hire new workers. I provide a technical discussion in Killing the Host (ISLET 2015),
chapter 11, and "Saving, Asset-Price Inflation and Debt Deflation," in The Bubble and Beyond,
ch. 11 (ISLET 2012), pp. 297-319.
[6] Capital III (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1958), p. 479.
"... And I am not sure that it was neoliberal globalization as the only factor in rasining the standards of living in case of China. They have also industrialization process going on, give or take. Chinese maquiladoras were allowed under strict conditions of transferring technology. That's what distinguishes China from India or Mexico, where neoliberal administrations were much less protective of interest of their nations and allowed Western monopolies more freedom. ..."
"... On the basis of careful empirical work, Rodrik concluded that "globalization makes it difficult to sustain the postwar social bargain" of labor peace in exchange for "steadily improving worker pay and benefits." ..."
"... It's not globalization, it's "neoliberal globalization" and neoliberalism in general which killed the New Deal capitalism. As soon as the US elite realized the cookies are not enough for everybody they start withdrawing them from the table. Stagnation and the subsequent collapse of the USSR also played an important role, allowing neoliberal propagandists to claim the victory. ..."
""seem unimpressed by the fact that globalization has lifted
hundreds of millions of desperately poor people in China and
India into the global middle class. ""
Ergo enabling the savaging
of working class people in the US was worth it.
And I am not sure that it was neoliberal globalization as the
only factor in rasining the standards of living in case of China. They have also industrialization process going on, give or
take. Chinese maquiladoras were allowed under strict conditions
of transferring technology. That's what distinguishes China from
India or Mexico, where neoliberal administrations were much less
protective of interest of their nations and allowed Western monopolies
more freedom.
After all the Communist Party is still a ruling Party of China.
With a neoliberal twist yes, but they still adhere to the ideas
of Marx.
Kuttner really captures the contributions of Dani Rodrik. If
I had to pick one sentence to capture this review - it would
be this:
On the basis of careful empirical work, Rodrik concluded
that "globalization makes it difficult to sustain the postwar
social bargain" of labor peace in exchange for "steadily
improving worker pay and benefits."
libezkova -> pgl...
, -1
It's not globalization, it's "neoliberal globalization" and neoliberalism
in general which killed the New Deal capitalism. As soon as the US elite realized the cookies are not enough
for everybody they start withdrawing them from the table.
Stagnation and the subsequent collapse of the USSR also played
an important role, allowing neoliberal propagandists to claim
the victory.
"... The other is that the centre-left (aka 'soft" neoliberals) took economic growth largely for granted. New Labour believed that if it could provide stable macroeconomic policy and an attractive location for investment then growth would follow. That might have been the case in the 90s. But it isn't true in our new era of secular stagnation. We need supply-side socialism. ..."
"... Obama averaged 1.7 percent annual growth over 8 years after an epic financial crisis. ..."
"... As Dillow points out, economic stagnation causes politics to get meaner. ..."
Good post by Chris Dillow who comes out of the closet and
names the opposition (foe?) of neoliberalism which is
socialism.
"The victories of Trump and Brexit, and rise of
the National Front in France and AfD in Germany all vindicate
Ben Friedman's point that economic stagnation makes people
meaner. It causes a rise in right-wing extremism, not
leftism.
...
The other is that the centre-left (aka 'soft"
neoliberals) took economic growth largely for granted.
New Labour believed that if it could provide stable
macroeconomic policy and an attractive location for
investment then growth would follow. That might have been the
case in the 90s. But it isn't true in our new era of secular
stagnation. We need supply-side socialism.
"
This is what Krugman is missing with his discussion of
being near full employment with Trump planning fiscal
expansion. This is what the Fed is missing with its
determination to "normalize."
(I hate to be divisive and criticize Krugman.)
Maybe he's right and we won't have another major financial
crisis in a while. We'll move off of the ZLB as a mild
recession is followed by more growth and above target
inflation. It's possible. I hope he's right. But the history
is one of a shampoo economy: bubble, bust, repeat where
growth after the bust is too slow and recoveries are too
shallow. And labor gets the shaft.
Obama averaged 1.7 percent annual growth over 8 years
after an epic financial crisis.
This what we'd be
talking about if not for President Insane Clown Posse and his
Juggalos.
(It wasn't all Obama's fault of course, but in a
way it doesn't matter whose fault it was.
As Dillow
points out, economic stagnation causes politics to get
meaner.
)
"Bon courage, Benoît! As Ali said:
"Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not
a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential.
Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing."
There is a
stronger tradition of social democracy in the EU that could
coalesce around a candidate such as Benoît Hamon than there
is here in the US. FDR was a long time ago and still rather
conservative by post WWII European standards until
Thatcherism caught on there. You will note how much more
support that Sanders got from millennials than from our
generations. It will take more time here.
Good point, but in recent years it has been the populist
right who has really been the beneficiary in the U.S. and
Europe, with their scapegoating of globalization and
immigrants.
"If the national Democratic Party had more cultural appeal
to working-class whites, they might have been able to stop
the bleeding enough to hold states like Pennsylvania,
Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin or North Carolina."
Yeah you won't cultural appeal but not so much that you
abandon your principles. Calling them deplorable doesn't
help.
I feel the Democrats need to better appeal to them more on
the economic front. Instead of giving speeches at Goldman
Sachs functions, campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Instead of an infrastructure proposal of $275 billion over
5 years, go big like Bernie or the Senate Democrats with $1
trillion over 10 years. Trump went big with his rhetoric.
We'll see if he delivers anything.
"The white working class, even outside the south, has been
moving away from the Democratic Party for 20 years. Check out
the graph."
Agreed. I travel (a lot) and every hotel I stay
at has Faux News in the lobby (a large percentage don't even
have MSNBC as part of the cable in the room upstairs, every
restaurant/bar I go to has Faux News on. There are no liberal
talk radio programs (outside of Sirius), so every plumber,
sales guy driving to their next client, taxi driver, et al,
only hear a right wing message. Anyone who disagrees with
them is part of the "lame-stream media".
Undeniably, they control the messaging.
This is why they believe the economy was still bad last
qtr, that Democrats raised taxes, etc.
Of all the ways Reagan ruined our country, I'd argue the
worst thing he did (besides tripling the debt) was getting
rid of the "fairness doctrine" which required presenting both
sides of a discussion equally. This gave rise (IMO) to the
hate radio and the alt-fact universe we now live in.
And agreed re Fox news
too. When it is on, I always ask the desk clerk to change to
something nonpolitical like the Weather Channel or ESPN. I've
never had them refusse. On Inauguration Day I had to do that
at a sports bar! The bartender actually thanked me.
"The white working class, even outside the south, has been
moving away from the Democratic Party for 20 years."
Thanks
to Bill Clinton and the Democratic shift away from class
based economic programs to an exclusive focus on identity
issues. This is not an either/or choice, as Dillow points out
in his piece, and the Democrats did both successfully for
about 20 years in the 19560s-1970s. The DLC Democrats, like
the Clintons, abandoned economic justice/labor issues in the
mid-70s in order to attract more wealthy donors and overcome
the overwhelming fundraising advantage of the Republicans at
that time.
I think move to the right might continue for some time.
Clinton Democrats betrayal of working class give far right a
huge boost, to say nothing about paving way to Caesarism and
discarding the Democratic governance like used shoe box.
From comments:
"what is termed the Right is pretty much what would have
been [neoliberal] centre leftism not that long ago.
In practical terms there is nothing between the
governments of Cameron or May vs those of Blair.
"...And the likely failures of Brexit and Trumponomics might
well cause some kind of backlash.
There is, however, a more
pessimistic reading.
For one thing, we might not see the sort of backlash we
want..."
[That is what we have gotten already, backlash against
center left neoliberal mediocrity. Still with no other game
in town and a POTUS bound and determined to motivate liberal
voters any way that he can then a return to a center left
voting public and the policies that it will tolerate is not
so unlikely.]
The center left will still need to do something about low
wages, shitty jobs, and the high cost of higher education if
it wants to hang around for very long though.
"... While this act was sweeping and lacked finesse, operationally clumsy to say the least, the reaction to it was just about as dramatic, including tears. Well, that's politics in the 21st century. And I am sure we will see much more of this sort of thing over the next few years. ..."
While this act was sweeping and lacked finesse, operationally clumsy to say the least, the
reaction to it was just about as dramatic, including tears. Well, that's politics in the 21st
century. And I am sure we will see much more of this sort of thing over the next few years.
We are going to learn more about ourselves than we may have expected. There is nothing new in this;
it is the particular experience of about every other generation and their own 'rendezvous with
destiny.' How can we be content when the choices are between the 'lesser of two evils.' They are
both evil, and many including me are not happy about it- but it is what it is.
mulp said...
January 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM
Where are all the "uncertainty" Chicken Littles that were
running around during the Obama administration screaming
about all the job killing regulations mandating paying
lots more workers causing uncertainty and no job creation?
Now we have Trump uncertainty of promising job killing
deregulation in some places that will be clogged up in
court or uncertain times, plus the uncertainty of random
irrational new job killing regulations of obstacles to
international business.
Trump campaigned on unpredictable chaos to create
uncertainty.
Is it ironic that Trump is being more Obama, and
Carter, than Obama or Carter, and his supporters praise
that?
I note with amusement that Trump defenders cite their
two worst presidents ever as providing the template and
justification for Trump's executive actions. Carter and
Obama were the worst at not keeping America safe, so Trump
is doing immigration bans based on the failed policies of
Carter and Obama, polices that failed to keep America
safe. And Trump defenders point to the Bernardino shooter
coming from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as the justification
for banning immigrants from seven nations that are NOT
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. After all, Obama did not
include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in his failed policy, so
Trump is not including them in his correction because
failed Obama excluded them.
Progressives are just so dumb.
How can they let Republicans justify policies of Obama
based on Trump or Republicans doing them?
They should be emphasizing how much Trump and
Republicans are now advocating and doing the "failed"
policies of Obama.
Peter K. said in reply to mulp...
They should treat Trump like a regular Republican whose
trickle-down economic ideas doesn't work and has never
worked. Trump promised his voters something different.
Clinton did win the popular vote.
Reply
Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:33 AM
mulp said in reply to Peter K....
But she lost the Rust Belt which Obama tried to address by
failed stimulus spending on infrastructure which Clinton
doubled down on.
Trump alone can fix things because
doubling down on Clinton's doubling down on Obama's failed
infrastructure spending will work because he is a
Republican, not a radical leftist socialist Democrat doing
it.
Why, because Trump will spending a trillion dollars on
infrastructure but it won't cost a penny because he is
using tax cuts and the free market, and the free in free
market means free trillion dollar infrastructure.
Progressives are not liberals because they adopted
voodoo free lunch economics after the 80s. Obama was a
liberal who understands TANSTAAFL and called for paying
for things. Trump is the anti-Obama in that where Obama
policy and action cost, Trump can do exactly the same for
free, at no cost to anyone. Bernie was more like Trump in
promising trillions in spending at no cost, for free.
"They should treat Trump like a regular Republican
whose trickle-down economic ideas doesn't work and has
never worked." Which Republicans in the "they" believe
free lunch economics don't work? Which conservatives in
the "they" believe voodoo economics don't work?
"They" criticize/defend policies based on the identity
of the policy makers, not based on logic, fact, reason.
Republicans/conservatives justifying policies based on
Obama doing them or advocating them is just so absurd, and
so easy to eviscerate. "Are you saying Obama's policies
and selections of nations as sources of terrorist threats
were the best at keeping America safe?" "If Obama failed
to keep America safe because he picked the wrong nations,
why are you using Obama's wrong list of nations?"
Reply
Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 11:15 AM
anne said...
Important and finely written analysis. Judging from the
politically adamant president and close advisers, the
openings for Fed executives from the beginning, there is a
significant danger of the independence of the Federal
Reserve being compromised.
Reply
Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 10:43 AM
"... In the declining years of the British empire, some of its politicians flattered themselves that they could be "Greeks to their Romans" - providing wise and experienced counsel to the new American imperium. ..."
"... But the Emperor Nero has now taken power in Washington - and the British are having to smile and clap as he sets fires and reaches for his fiddle. ..."
"... imo, the risk of the USA becoming an oppressive authoritarian state (as opposed to an oligarchy with a veneer of democracy) is being willfully ignored by the the serfs, the bourgeoisie (e.g. EV commentators), and our oligarch lords and masters. ..."
"... spectacle of obvious lies being peddled by the White House is a tragedy for US democracy. ..."
"... While Trump immigration act was sweeping and lacked finesse that just is not important. This was what people who elected him expected from him. Be prepared for more. Trump administration can allow to be operationally clumsy the first 100 days, to say the least. Breaking things is a part of politics as Bismarck once noted: "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood." ..."
"... I am still waiting for neocons purge in the State Department and departure of Victoria Nuland. And I hope we will see much more of this sort of thing over the next few years. ..."
"... So those neoliberals who shed crocodile tears about Big, Bad Trump now should better be prepared :-) About every other generation has its own 'rendezvous with destiny.' Remember Great Depression, WWII, Vietnam War... ..."
"... "We are going to learn more about ourselves than we may have expected. There is nothing new in this; it is the particular experience of about every other generation and their own 'rendezvous with destiny.' How can we be content when the choices are between the 'lesser of two evils.' They are both evil, and many including me are not happy about it- but it is what it is." ..."
Britain cannot look to the US for support after its
divorce from the EU
Gideon Rachman
For the most ardent supporters of Brexit, the election of
Donald Trump was a mixture of vindication and salvation. The
president of the US, no less, thinks it is a great idea for
Britain to leave the EU. Even better, he seems to offer an
exciting escape route. The UK can leap off the rotting raft
of the EU and on to the gleaming battleship HMS Anglosphere.
It is an alluring vision. Unfortunately, it is precisely
wrong. The election of Mr Trump has transformed Brexit from a
risky decision into a straightforward disaster. For the past
40 years, Britain has had two central pillars to its foreign
policy: membership of the EU and a "special relationship"
with the US.
The decision to exit the EU leaves Britain much more
dependent on the US, just at a time when America has elected
an unstable president opposed to most of the central
propositions on which UK foreign policy is based.
During the brief trip to Washington by Theresa May, the UK
prime minister, this unpleasant truth was partly obscured by
trivia and trade. Mr Trump's decision to return the bust of
Winston Churchill to the Oval Office was greeted with slavish
delight by Brexiters. More substantively, the Trump
administration made it clear that it is minded to do a trade
deal with the UK just as soon as Britain's EU divorce comes
through.
... ... ...
Britain could defend free-trade far more effectively with
the EU's bulk behind it - and could also start to explore the
possibilities for more EU defence co-operation. As it is,
Britain has been thrown into the arms of an American
president that the UK's foreign secretary has called a
madman.
In the declining years of the British empire, some of
its politicians flattered themselves that they could be
"Greeks to their Romans" - providing wise and experienced
counsel to the new American imperium.
But the Emperor Nero has now taken power in Washington
- and the British are having to smile and clap as he sets
fires and reaches for his fiddle.
imo, the risk of the USA becoming an oppressive
authoritarian state (as opposed to an oligarchy with a veneer
of democracy) is being willfully ignored by the the serfs,
the bourgeoisie (e.g. EV commentators), and our oligarch
lords and masters.
You sound like Bernie
Sanders. As Bernie said if the Republicans become
increasingly successful in suppressing and limiting the vote,
we could be in trouble. And/or if they continue to corrupt
and strip away campaign finance rules like with Citizens
United. But the demographics are against them.
Falsehood cannot be the basis for US foreign policy
JANUARY 23, 2017 by: Gideon Rachman
The man from the BBC was laughing as he reported the White
House's false claims about the size of the crowd at Donald
Trump's inauguration. He should have been crying. What we are
witnessing is the destruction of the credibility of the
American government.
This
spectacle of obvious lies being peddled by the
White House is a tragedy for US democracy.
But the rest
of the world - and, in particular, America's allies - should
also be frightened. A Trump administration that is addicted
to the "big lie" has very dangerous implications for global
security.
Serious issue: true, his credibility is utterly gone in the
reality-based community, but seriously, what about the
general populace at large?
Remember the Reagan and Bush Jr.
Administrations. The presidents themselves were as oblivious
to reality as Trump appears to be, yet their credibility
wasn't totally demolished to a big portion of the populace.
Why should Trump fail where others have succeeded?
There's also mainstream media credibility, VSP
credibility, and (yes) Clinton credibility.
After all, there's the "credibility" of the Ruskie hacking
of our election.
Paul Krugman's credibility took a hit for me sometime
around a year ago, and as long as he keeps writing things
like the "Trump-Putin" regime, it's staying down.
Krugman's credibility took a bid hit from me when he started
attacking Bernie Sanders and his supporters during the
primary (which reminded me of the way he treated Obama in
2008).
Just go through his columns and blog posts on the
subject and it's amazing how brazenly awful they are.
Just me noticing, for myself, what bond investors
collectively are thinking about inflation over the coming 5
years, and thinking that inflation will be a little above 2%
or subdued.
There are two other sides to the credibility/trust issue.
Domestically there is the question of business confidence in
a cultural landscape which has shattered. Hatred and bigotry
is up; there is increasing likelihood of unrest and violence.
Business my be loathe to expand in such an unsettled,
uncertain landscape. And it may be this way for a while.
Internationally there is the question of whether foreign
consumers will find U.S. products to be attractive, and
untainted by ugly environmental and labor concerns -- and
inexpensive on world markets, if there is protectionism and
retaliation.
Trump is making the cardinal mistake of
believing that the U.S. is the indispensable nation, that
people will be forced to deal with him, that he can throw his
weight around.
While Trump immigration act was sweeping and lacked finesse
that just is not important. This was what people who elected
him expected from him. Be prepared for more.
Trump administration can allow to be operationally clumsy
the first 100 days, to say the least. Breaking things is a
part of politics as Bismarck once noted: "The great questions
of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and
majority decisions but by iron and blood."
I am still waiting for neocons purge in the State
Department and departure of Victoria Nuland. And I hope we
will see much more of this sort of thing over the next few
years.
So those neoliberals who shed crocodile tears about Big,
Bad Trump now should better be prepared :-) About every other generation has its own 'rendezvous with
destiny.' Remember Great Depression, WWII, Vietnam War...
== quote ==
"We are going to learn more about ourselves than we may
have expected. There is nothing new in this; it is the
particular experience of about every other generation and
their own 'rendezvous with destiny.' How can we be content
when the choices are between the 'lesser of two evils.' They
are both evil, and many including me are not happy about it-
but it is what it is."
The State Department has 7,600 Foreign Service officers and
11,000 civil servants.
libezkova :
"Administration officials have drafted a new executive order
aimed at overhauling, among other things, the H-1B work-visa
program that technology companies have long relied on to
bring top foreign engineering talent to their U.S.-based
locations" [USA Today]. "The order is aimed at ensuring that
"officials administer our laws in a manner that prioritizes
the interests of American workers and - to the maximum degree
possible - the jobs, wages and well-being of those workers,"
according to a copy of the document provided to USA TODAY."
"A market state, in contrast to the nation-state's focus on broad
economic prosperity and cultural integration, focuses on providing
opportunity to the individual. Finally, and most importantly to me, Trump
isn't dismantling neoliberalism to return to the old nation-state. He's
building, with the help of social networking, a new model of governance for
the US.
As President Donald Trump prepares - in the words of his
chief of staff - "a buffet of options" for dealing with
Mexico, trade and immigration, it's time for the Texas
congressional delegation to make a strong statement in
support of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Though much of Trump's focus last week was on the border
wall (and ways to make Mexico pay for it), his focus next
week is expected to be on trade.
"President Trump has taken his first steps toward an
'America first' approach to international trade, pulling out
of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on Monday and reaffirming
his intent to renegotiate NAFTA, the North American Free
Trade Agreement," the Boston Globe reports. "What does this
mean for U.S. companies and American workers? Trump's
executive order to withdraw from the TPP is anticlimactic.
That agreement was already a dead-letter, having been
disclaimed by both presidential candidates and never ratified
by Congress. But a new NAFTA could upend U.S.-Mexican
relations and disrupt whole sectors of the US economy."
And that would be disastrous for Texas.
Texas companies, big and small, export a total of $92.5
billion worth of goods to Mexico each year. That figure
dwarfs second-place California, which exports just $26.8
billion of goods.
"From the booming border city of Laredo to the bustling
trading hub of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas has become the
nation's top exporter of goods, according to the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas, and Mexico is its biggest customer,"
the Wall Street Journal explains. "Some 382,000 jobs in Texas
alone depend on trade with Mexico, according to 2014 data
released this month by the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, a nonpartisan global research group.
Goods exported from Texas help support more than a million
jobs across the U.S., according to the U.S. Commerce
Department."
Texas' top exports to Mexico are computer and electronic
products, petroleum and coal products, chemicals, machinery
and transportation equipment.
As University of Oregon economist Mark Thoma points out,
"NAFTA isn't the problem, and tariffs aren't the answer."
He says Trump believes that NAFTA is the reason the U.S.
has lost manufacturing jobs. But that's not the case, he
explains.
"Domestic manufacturing's employment decline began long
before NAFTA came along," Thoma wrote for CBS News.
"According to University of California Berkeley professor
Brad DeLong's calculations, 'A sector of the economy that
provided three out of 10 nonfarm jobs at the start of the
1950s and one in four nonfarm jobs at the start of the 1970s
now provides fewer than one in 11 nonfarm jobs today.
Proportionally, the United States has shed almost two-thirds
of relative manufacturing employment since 1971.' In
addition, much of that drop can be attributed to
technological change - the rise of robots and digital
technology - rather than globalization. Renegotiating trade
agreements can't change this."
It's time for the Texas delegation to Washington to stand
up and say they won't support Trump's short-sighted attempts
to kill NAFTA. Ditching NAFTA would be a mistake.
What is the answer? Seems to me that 'liberal' economists are
convinced that they know what we should NOT be doing, but
come up short on proposals that will actually solve the
problem.
All the focus on blaming trade for loss of manufacturing
distracts from the real conversation needed: How can we
better address the dislocation of workers due to advances in
technology?
Trump and the right blame trade and believe
that better trade policies or tariffs or "shaking up the
markets?" will miraculously bring back coal mining and
manufacturing.
The anti-NAFTA left is focusing on the ant and ignoring
the elephant. This enables Trump by placing all focus on
trade. Why focus on government programs to help the
dislocated if the dislocation problem can be fixed by
renegotiating NAFTA? Serious ideas such as green energy jobs
are dismissed in favor of fixing trade instead. The
conversation will never turn to real solutions about how
modern manufacturing jobs increasingly require computer
skills, education and training.
Most small towns have lost jobs because the manufacturers
they do have are hiring fewer workers or not net expanding
their workforce. At the same time, service sector jobs remain
low pay and much opposition to raising minimum wage or
Obamacare to provide them with health insurance.
Having the comparative data on manufacturing employment as a
percent of total employment for the United States, Canada,
United Kingdom, Germany, France, Sweden, the Netherlands,
Australia and Japan, running from 1970 through 2012, what is
striking is the similarity of pattern.
Also striking is the
relation between gains in manufacturing productivity and
decline in percent manufacturing employment in the United
States.
Mark Thoma, Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman would appear to
be right about trade relations having fairly little to do
with the long term decline of percent of employment in
manufacturing in the United States or other developed
countries.
What Happened to Automation and Robots: WaPo Tells of
Labor Shortage in Japan
Wow, things just keep getting worse. Automation is taking
all the jobs, and the aging of the population means we won't
have any workers. Yes, these are completely contradictory
concerns, but no one ever said that our policy elite had a
clue. (No, I'm not talking about Donald Trump's gang here.)
Anyhow, the Washington Post had a front page story *
telling us how older people are now working at retirement
homes in Japan as a result of the aging of its population.
The piece includes this great line:
"That means authorities need to think about ways to keep
seniors healthy and active for longer, but also about how to
augment the workforce to cope with labor shortages."
You sort of have to love the first part, since folks might
have thought authorities would have always been trying to
think about ways to keep seniors healthy and active longer.
After all, isn't this a main focus of public health policy?
The part about labor shortages is also interesting. When
there is a shortage of oil or wheat the price rises. If there
were a labor shortage in Japan then we should be seeing
rapidly rising wages. We aren't. Wages have been virtually
flat in recent years. That would seem to indicate that Japan
doesn't have a labor shortage -- or alternatively it has
economically ignorant managers who don't realize that the way
to attract workers is to offer higher pay.
"... most reports on Mexican employment aggregate manufacturing jobs with "industry", which would include oil gas drilling and construction...i did find one graph that shows a 20%, 5 million job jump in Mexican industrial employment in the first six years after NAFTA, but they never reached their prior peak, and i find the rest of the period inconclusive, not knowing much about Mexican business cycles: ..."
The percentage of employees working in manufacturing in the
US fell in a long surprisingly straight line from the late
1960s. The big drop in employee count in 2000 was a result of
the collapse of the dot-com boom. There has been a long,
steady downward pressure on manufacturing jobs, but we see
big drops in their absolute numbers in just about every
recession.
I do know that the 1990s were a big decade for increased
manufacturing efficiency. Supercomputers and
micro-controllers changed the way we designed and built cars,
cans and washing machines, for example. I know Silicon Valley
was rapidly changing the way computers were assembled as
design rules made chip design easier and new techniques made
chip placement and connection simpler. Does anyone even use a
wire wrap gun anymore? There was also the impact of the
Japanese challenge of the 1980s which made manufacturers
rethink their supply chain and encouraging robotics and
continuous inspection.
The official story is that the adoption of computers
didn't show up in productivity figures, but if you looked at
manufacturing, their impact was pervasive. Not every industry
is going to advance at the same time, and improvements that
helped one often lower costs and help others.
If you look at the chart, the big drop in 2000 rivals the
drop in the early 1980s and the similar drop during the most
recent crash. It's like a strong gust of wind knocking down
an old tree trunk. The trunk was rotting and weakening for
years, but it was the wind storm that knocked it down.
Nope. As you say, "the 1990s were a big decade for increased
manufacturing efficiency."
And yet the number of jobs in
manufacturing in the U.S. Actually *increased* slightly. And
the increase was worldwide.
"In November 1999, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene
Barshefsky and Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji made a trade deal
that led to China's admission into the World Trade
Organization (WTO) on November 10, 2001."
Offshoring intensified, according to the official
statistics of the U.S. Trade Representative. Here's the link,
showing that offshoring doubled by 2001:
http://www.trivisonno.com/offshoring
What happened that caused the decline in employment in the
U.S. To be so much more severe than in any other
industrialized country was China.
most reports on Mexican employment aggregate manufacturing
jobs with "industry", which would include oil gas drilling
and construction...i did find one graph that shows a 20%, 5
million job jump in Mexican industrial employment in the
first six years after NAFTA, but they never reached their
prior peak, and i find the rest of the period inconclusive,
not knowing much about Mexican business cycles:
Increases in productivity (technology is a broad term)
likely explain the bulk of the massive decrease in
manufacturing in both the USA and Japan. Furriners certainly
make good scapegoats, however.
"... Loss of one business is OK, two -- the same. But at some point quantity turns into quality and you get entirely new situation. Point of no return. ..."
"... If too many business close you not only lose the whole sector and but you suffer additional loses from the destruction of vertically integrated suppliers. You might lose the whole chain. ..."
"... And your "more technologically advanced facilities" will close too. I saw such a chain of event in chemical industry. And then you will get polluted ingredients from China and lose your customers to Germany. ..."
"... Looks like you do not understand the complexity of of manufacturing chains and thinking in very simplistic terms. ..."
"... And remember that your "high technological sector" is not immune. IT can be and is outsourced to India. Computers for Dell are now assembled in Taiwan. Gradually the design will move too as the best design is when you are close to production facility and understand complex processes involved in production. ..."
The problem is that you don't have the ability to compare what would have happened without NAFTA.
There is no doubt that the pain is real in those communities that saw their factory shut down
and the product being produced in Mexico instead. But would that factory have been shut down anyway
if NAFTA had not been? We know that a lot of manufacturing related to cars moved from the north
to the south within US - and from solid middle class salaries to $10-14/hour. Efficiencies and
hunts for lower cost would have continued regardless of NAFTA. So even though we know some effects
are real we don't know how much they count in the bigger picture of change.
Good point
Carrier will keep jobs here (for now) Will automate later
Try this scenario:
American businesses under pressure from shareholders and corporate raiders underinvest in their
manufacturing facilities and milk the profits. Meanwhile, new more productive competitors are
built incorporating technological advances many of them in developing countries that have strong
growth.
Recession hits and the least competitive businesses close. Those are primarily the rust belt
dinosaurs. After the recession ends, it is more competitive to increase production at more technologically
advanced facilities than to try to restart the dinosaurs. There is net loss of jobs to foreign
competition but much is due to misguided industrial and tax policy, not trade deals.
"Recession hits and the least competitive businesses close. Those are primarily the rust belt
dinosaurs. After the recession ends, it is more competitive to increase production at more
technologically advanced facilities than to try to restart the dinosaurs. There is net loss
of jobs to foreign competition but much is due to misguided industrial and tax policy, not
trade deals."
That't pure neoliberal baloney. Free market propaganda.
Loss of one business is OK, two -- the same. But at some point quantity turns into quality
and you get entirely new situation. Point of no return.
If too many business close you not only lose the whole sector and but you suffer additional
loses from the destruction of vertically integrated suppliers. You might lose the whole chain.
And your "more technologically advanced facilities" will close too. I saw such a chain
of event in chemical industry. And then you will get polluted ingredients from China and lose
your customers to Germany.
Looks like you do not understand the complexity of of manufacturing chains and thinking
in very simplistic terms.
And remember that your "high technological sector" is not immune. IT can be and is outsourced
to India. Computers for Dell are now assembled in Taiwan. Gradually the design will move too as
the best design is when you are close to production facility and understand complex processes
involved in production.
There was recently a story how Intel lost serious money just trying to move the process from
one place to another.
Another factor that outsourcing of manufacturing radically changes the balance of power between
the capital and the labor. It helped to decimate the power of organized labor, which was the explicit
goal of neoliberalism: atomization of labor force and conversion of them into autonomous "self-enhancing"
(via education and training at your own expense) units, competing with each other in the (pretty
unfair) "labor market".
It's simply amazing how many factors played in hand for neoliberal coup d'état of 1980th: computer
revolution, Internet and related communication revolution, financialization ( 401(k) plans were
enacted into law in 1978), dissolution of the USSR, outsourcing and related decimation on trade
unions power. And then came Clinton and officially buried the New Deal.
"... "[T]he decline in manufacturing employment ... is driven mainly by the secular trend of labor-saving technological progress." At this point I call nonsense. Until somebody shows me the "technological progress" that hit precisely like a tsunami in the year 2000, The argument made by DeLong and Rodrick is nonsense. I already debunked the "but, Germany!" Argument the other day, so don't even try that. ..."
"... The U.S. went from 30% of its nonfarm employees in manufacturing to 12% because of rapid growth in manufacturing productivity and limited demand, yes? The U.S. went from 12% to 9% because of stupid and destructive macro policies--the Reagan deficits, the strong-dollar policy pushed well past its sell-by date, too-tight monetary policy--that diverted it from its proper role as a net exporter of capital and finance to economies that need to be net sinks rather than net sources of the global flow of funds for investment, yes? The U.S. went from 9% to 8.7% because of the extraordinarily rapid rise of China, yes? The U.S. went from 8.7% to 8.6% because of NAFTA, yes? ..."
"... And yet the American political system right now is blaming all, 100%, every piece of that decline from 30% to 8.6% and every problem that can be laid its door on brown people from Mexico. ..."
"... Sanders addressed the issue too and for that he's insulted by the likes of Sanjait and other progressive neoliberals. ..."
What did NAFTA really do? : Brad De Long has written a
lengthy essay that defends NAFTA (and other trade deals) from the charge that they are responsible
for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. I agree with much that he says – in particular
with the points that the decline in manufacturing employment has been a long-term process that
predates NAFTA and the China shock and that it is driven mainly by the secular trend of labor-saving
technological progress. There is no way you can hold NAFTA responsible for employment de-industrialization
in the U.S. or expect that a "better" deal with Mexico will bring those jobs back.
At the same time, the essay leaves me frustrated and uneasy. It seems to gloss over the distributional
pain of NAFTA and overstate the overall gains.
So what does the evidence say on these issues? ...
A recently published academic study by Lorenzo Caliendo and Fernando Parro uses all the bells-and-whistles
of modern trade theory to produce the estimate that these overall gains amount to a "welfare"
gain of 0.08% for the U.S. That is, eight-hundredth of 1 percent! ... Trade volume impacts were
much larger: a doubling of U.S. imports from Mexico.
What is equally interesting is that fully half of the miniscule 0.08% gain for US is not an
efficiency gain, but actually a benefit due to terms-of-trade improvement. That is, Caliendo and
Parro estimate that the world prices of what the U.S. imports fell relative to what it exports.
These are not efficiency gains, but income transfers from other countries (here principally Mexico
and Canada). These gains came at the expense of other countries.
A gain, no matter how small, is still a gain. What about the distributional impacts?
The most detailed empirical analysis of the labor-market effects of NAFTA is contained in a
paper by John McLaren and Shushanik Hakobyan. They find that the aggregate effects were rather
small (in line with other work), but that impacts on directly affected communities were quite
severe. It is worth quoting John McLaren at length, from an
interview : ...
In other words, those high school dropouts who worked in industries protected by tariffs prior
to NAFTA experienced reductions in wage growth by as much as 17 percentage points relative to
wage growth in unaffected industries. I don't think anyone can argue that a 17 percentage drop
is small. As McLaren and Hakobyan emphasize, these losses were then propagated throughout the
localities in which these workers lived.
So here is the overall picture that these academic studies paint for the U.S.: NAFTA produced
large changes in trade volumes, tiny efficiency gains overall, and some very significant impacts
on adversely affected communities.
The consequences of NAFTA for Mexico are another topic which would require a separate post.
Let me just say that the great expectations the country's policy makers had for NAFTA
have not been fulfilled . ...
So is Trump deluded on NAFTA's overall impact on manufacturing jobs? Absolutely, yes.
Was he able to capitalize on the very real losses that this and other trade agreements produced
in certain parts of the country in a way that Democrats were unable to? Again, yes.
Tell me something! Who was the biggest friend NRA ever garnered?
44th President? When weapons industry was under Democratic threat of gun control did you see
lot and lot of folks rushing down to the firearms dealer for a final purchase of their favourite
hardware?
Same thing with the wall-around-USA? Under threat, consumers are now buying up all the running-shoes
in China and considering the purchase of all the tea in China-cups.
Even the wholesalers are filling their warehouse with new products from Pacific avenue in hopes
of avoiding the import duty about to befall us. Is that why all the consumer non-cyclical stocks
have shown such a splendid performance? From the expected profit on warehoused products that avoided
the new tariff If, will same trend boost same equities until the rumour becomes yesterday's news?
"[T]he decline in manufacturing employment ... is driven mainly by the secular trend of labor-saving
technological progress." At this point I call nonsense. Until somebody shows me the "technological
progress" that hit precisely like a tsunami in the year 2000, The argument made by DeLong and
Rodrick is nonsense. I already debunked the "but, Germany!" Argument the other day, so don't even
try that.
Let's try again with this fact: "the decline in manufacturing employment has been a long-term
process that predates NAFTA and the China shock". Did manufacturing employment peak exactly in
2000?
It seems manufacturing peaked during the Carter years. And then came Reagan and his toxic macroeconomic
mix which led to a massive dollar appreciation. What Krugman just wrote.
Good point. Manufacturing employment fell when Reagan came into power and it fell again after
2000. I guess the NAFTA bashers have some weird lag and lead model.
Yep. A new President Bush looking backward from the early '00s probably said, "Man, technology
is wreaking havoc on the working man. If this continues it's going to be real bad."
No, let's try again with THIS fact: manufacturing employment fell 12% during the 1980-82 recesions,
then remained stable until 2000.
Then it fell by over 30% in 10 years.
Please tell me exactly what technology improvement washed over manufacturing employment *precisely*
in the year 2000 to make it fall off a cliff exactly then? Oh and by the way, during that decade
the US$ declined in value on a trade weighted basis.
And while I am at it, Japan, Canada, France and Italy had far smaller % declines than the U.S.
C.mon, tell me what happened in the year 2000 that has made the decline in U.S. manufacturing
employment such a big outlier since then. Surely the free trade apologists here can name the productivity
improvement in the year 2000. What was it?
using the 2000 bubble is some nice cherry picking. if ones chooses the two previous recessions
the trends are very similar. there was also a distinct change in the slope of productivity per
hour starting in the late 80s so i think this is a more appropriate starting point
The U.S. Was not the only country that had a recession in 2001. Why the collapse *only* in the
U.S.?
I will move on when people admit that collapse was not due to an overnight spike in productivity.
We have double the loss of nearly any other industrialised country.
Was there possibly something else that happened in the year 2000?
ironically, i'm probably more opposed to so-called "free trade" deals than NDD. i've been gassed,
shot at, and even voted for perot despite his *repugnant* social conservatism. imo, the decimation
of labor rights and deregulation were major contributors to the ratification of trade agreements
that harmed working class people while benefiting the rich. i also believe the irrational black-white
position of many sanders social democrats on trade only helps trumpists promote america first
nationalism. union-busters, deregulators, and "job-creating" CEOs should not get a get-out-of-jail-free
card!
The percentage of employees working in manufacturing in the US fell in a long surprisingly straight
line from the late 1960s. The big drop in employee count in 2000 was a result of the collapse
of the dot-com boom. There has been a long, steady downward pressure on manufacturing jobs, but
we see big drops in their absolute numbers in just about every recession.
I do know that the 1990s were a big decade for increased manufacturing efficiency. Supercomputers
and micro-controllers changed the way we designed and built cars, cans and washing machines, for
example. I know Silicon Valley was rapidly changing the way computers were assembled as design
rules made chip design easier and new techniques made chip placement and connection simpler. Does
anyone even use a wire wrap gun anymore? There was also the impact of the Japanese challenge of
the 1980s which made manufacturers rethink their supply chain and encouraging robotics and continuous
inspection.
The official story is that the adoption of computers didn't show up in productivity figures,
but if you looked at manufacturing, their impact was pervasive. Not every industry is going to
advance at the same time, and improvements that helped one often lower costs and help others.
If you look at the chart, the big drop in 2000 rivals the drop in the early 1980s and the similar
drop during the most recent crash. It's like a strong gust of wind knocking down an old tree trunk.
The trunk was rotting and weakening for years, but it was the wind storm that knocked it down.
Nope. As you say, "the 1990s were a big decade for increased manufacturing efficiency."
And yet the number of jobs in manufacturing in the U.S. Actually *increased* slightly. And
the increase was worldwide.
"In November 1999, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky and Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji
made a trade deal that led to China's admission into the World Trade Organization (WTO) on November
10, 2001."
Offshoring intensified, according to the official statistics of the U.S. Trade Representative.
Here's the link, showing that offshoring doubled by 2001:
http://www.trivisonno.com/offshoring
What happened that caused the decline in employment in the U.S. To be so much more severe than
in any other industrialized country was China.
Increases in productivity (technology is a broad term) likely explain the bulk of the massive
decrease in manufacturing in both the USA and Japan. Furriners certainly make good scapegoats,
however.
"So here is the overall picture that these academic studies paint for the U.S.: NAFTA produced
large changes in trade volumes, tiny efficiency gains overall, and some very significant impacts
on adversely affected communities."
Yes the free trade cheerleaders always miss the distributional impacts. But I do remember a
few international economists when NAFTA first passed saying the efficiency gains would be only
modest. I guess they were not heard over the cheerleading.
But one should also note that shot across the bow of Team Trump that Dani took. As always -
one of the best on the issue of globalization.
Technological advances also have uneven distributional pain
Job losses to strong dollar policy have uneven distributional pain
Trump tells the lie that better Trade agreements will fix the distributional pain.
It won't because trade agreements only create a small fraction of that pain.
The elephant in the room is Technological advances. It is unwise and undesirable to fight progress
(as in Luddite)
The question obscured by scapegoating NAFTA is what policies will address dislocation? Clinton
proposed shifting dislocated miners to clean energy jobs. Dislocated miners rejected that idea
in favor of an empty promise to return mining jobs. The conversation will return to square one,
"What policies will address dislocation?" only after Trump trade policy upheaval fails because
it addresses the wrong problem
I'm not a Luddite but we could and should address those distributional consequences that you properly
note. And you are spot on - Trump is creating more dislocations with his stupid bluster.
I agree. The march of technology is responsible for the productivity gains, and those gains led
to the majority of the job losses.
But it is an economic argument that simply will not win elections when we say "only 5% of the
folks lost their jobs in manufacturing due to trade, so our recommended trade policy to you, the
American people, is to keep doing what we have been doing for the last 25 years, because it only
substantially harms a small number of Americans."
To the extent Americans vote based on trade considerations in the first place (which is unclear
to me), to win elections we need to be proposing plans for trade surpluses or balanced trade.
(My preference is to seek balanced trade.).
This is why I have been beating a drum about the Buffett plan
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/growing.pdf
trying to get you smart folks here to critique it and try to get some energy behind it, in
my own small (and ineffective way).
It is kind of hard to talk about a 13 year old plan when the updated numbers for today are much
more in favor of US. Today, if we just balanced our trade with China we would no longer have a
trade deficit.
This is a fair point. But it could be that 10 years from now we have some other cause of concern.
I seem to recall in the late 80's the concern was Japan taking over and a huge trade deficit with
Japan. That concern has receded but now the lion's share of the imbalance is with China. Can we
fix it once and for all? Also, what sort of policy proposals should people get behind that are
(A) winners politically/ help win elections, (B) economically sound, and (C) good for US workers
/ reduce inequality?
It would be great if some small group of smart folks like those who comment here could develop
such a policy prescription in the coming months by arguing and discussing amongst ourselves. If
we could do that then we could try to infect some unsuspecting politicians with the ideas, and
who knows, maybe in 4 years it could make a difference for our world.
The trade deficit is actually not that important nor is manufacturing. We are moving towards a
"Star Trek" like future where food and things can be delivered on demand without people having
to do anything. If we continue to want people to acquire those things using money, we have to
find ways to provide people with money. The reason we provide people with money via a job is that
we think there is a societal value to connecting work with getting money (to acquire stuff). I
am not sure how we can get out of that primitive mindset of "deserving" and spend our time on
something more meaningful.
"So is Trump deluded on NAFTA's overall impact on manufacturing jobs? Absolutely, yes. Was
he able to capitalize on the very real losses that this and other trade agreements produced in
certain parts of the country in a way that Democrats were unable to? Again, yes."
I guess Trump is not going to invite Dani to work for his CEA. Which is a loss for the nation.
"[H]igh school dropouts who worked in industries protected by tariffs prior to NAFTA experienced
reductions in wage growth by as much as 17 percentage points relative to wage growth in unaffected
industries."
And those high school drop outs all voted for Trump. So the bottom line is that high school
drop outs rule the nation because the rest of us don't vote as a bloc.
The problem is that you don't have the ability to compare what would have happened without NAFTA.
There is no doubt that the pain is real in those communities that saw their factory shut down
and the product being produced in Mexico instead. But would that factory have been shut down anyway
if NAFTA had not been? We know that a lot of manufacturing related to cars moved from the north
to the south within US - and from solid middle class salaries to $10-14/hour. Efficiencies and
hunts for lower cost would have continued regardless of NAFTA. So even though we know some effects
are real we don't know how much they count in the bigger picture of change.
Good point
Carrier will keep jobs here (for now) Will automate later
Try this scenario:
American businesses under pressure from shareholders and corporate raiders underinvest in their
manufacturing facilities and milk the profits. Meanwhile, new more productive competitors are
built incorporating technological advances many of them in developing countries that have strong
growth.
Recession hits and the least competitive businesses close. Those are primarily the rust belt
dinosaurs. After the recession ends, it is more competitive to increase production at more technologically
advanced facilities than to try to restart the dinosaurs. There is net loss of jobs to foreign
competition but much is due to misguided industrial and tax policy, not trade deals.
While he is generally right, this is rather disingenuous, since offshoring jobs started long before
NAFTA. It began with the maquiladora system in Mexico and by the 1990s had largely shifted to
SE Asia (anybody remember the Asian Tigers?). Even many maquiladoras relocated there. By the late
1990s, when NAFTA was signed, most of those jobs had already gone. As I keep saying, you need
to look at the details and not just the aggregates. Most the labor intensive industries relocated
to low wag/benefit countries with no labor or environmental protections before NAFTA, leaving
only those most amenable to automation. Blaming automation only works if you ignore the first
part.
The maquiladora system did start well before NAFTA. But note China has taken business away from
those maquiladoras. Putting that 20% border tax on Mexico that Trump wants means more business
for Asia.
I remember studying a prototype computer at an MIT lab in the mid-1980s. All of the chips (mainly
7400 series) were marked with Central American country names. One guy joked that he was glad we
had the contras fighting against freedom down there so we didn't have to worry about our supply
of 7404s.
What productivity increase hit like a tsunami in the U.S. and only the U.S. Precisely in the year
2000? Not in 1999 or any other year in the 1990s, but starting precisely in the year 2000.
If you can't name it, the thick skull is not mine.
"Hey look, there Dani Rodrik saying exactly what I've been saying for a while."
LOL no he's not!!!
"At the same time, the essay leaves me frustrated and uneasy. It seems to gloss over the distributional
pain of NAFTA and overstate the overall gains."
"Was he able to capitalize on the very real losses that this and other trade agreements produced
in certain parts of the country in a way that Democrats were unable to? Again, yes."
I don't want to cause more fights, and also I don't want to be the target of ridicule, but...
what is it that Dani Rodrick is saying that agrees with what you've said? I am not disputing you,
just asking for clarification, as he says several things here.
The consequences of NAFTA for Mexico are another topic which would require a separate post. Let
me just say that the great expectations the country's policy makers had for NAFTA have not been
fulfilled....
Between 1992 and 2015, real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Mexico increased slower than
in any country in Central America, any country in south America save for unfortunate Venezuela
and slower than in Canada or the United States.
Between 1992 and 2014, total factor productivity for Mexico actually decreased. Mexico fared
more poorly in productivity than in any country for which there are records in Central America,
any country in South America other than Venezuela and more poorly than in Canada or the US.
Between 1992 and 2015, real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Mexico increased slower than
in any country in Central America, any country in South America save for unfortunate Venezuela
and slower than in Canada or the United States.
Between 1992 and 2014, total factor productivity for Mexico actually decreased. Mexico fared
more poorly in productivity than in any country for which there are records in Central America,
any country in South America other than Venezuela and more poorly than in Canada or the US.
Between 1992 and 2015, real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Mexico increased slower than
in the Dominican Republic or Trinidad. Jamaica however grew more slowly.
Between 1992 and 2013, the last year for which there are records, real per capita Gross Domestic
Product for Mexico increased slower than in Puerto Rico or Cuba, despite the US embargo of trade
with Cuba.
Between 1992 and 2015, real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Mexico increased slower than
in language related Spain, Portugal, Angola or the Philippines.
Anne - Google processed trade. A big deal in China. And exactly what maquiladoras are. Yes they
do compete. And workers in these sectors are making around $3 an hour regardless of nation.
Google processed trade. A big deal in China. And exactly what maquiladoras are. Yes they do compete.
And workers in these sectors are making around $3 an hour regardless of nation.
Trump wants border taxes aka tariffs. Paul Ryan wants the Destination Based Cash Flow Tax aka
border adjustments. If Trump does not know they are different, his advisers are lying to him.
Of course I am no fan of that border adjustments idea Speaker Ryan is pushing. But that is a much
deeper conversation. Let's just say - Ryan is lying every time the weasel smiles.
Trump wants border taxes aka tariffs. Paul Ryan wants the Destination Based Cash Flow Tax aka
border adjustments....
[ I am only interested in understanding the difference between a tariff and a destination tax
and who pays each. The point is to understand each of the 2 possibilities and who will pay in
each case. Tariffs are paid by consumers. Who will pay a destination tax?
Yes I am sure they understand that this will reduce the value of the peso at least by 20% so in
the end US will end up paying for the wall and then some. It is just that low information voters
and low information Presidents will think we made Mexico pay for it.
"At the same time, [DeLong's] essay leaves me frustrated and uneasy. It seems to gloss over
the distributional pain of NAFTA and overstate the overall gains."
He's a neoliberal like PGL and Sanjait.
They don't care about the distributional pain. They're hacks defending hack centrist politicians.
The distributional pain helped elect Trump and the neoliberals can't admit it.
"At the same time, [DeLong's] essay leaves me frustrated and uneasy. It seems to gloss over the
distributional pain of NAFTA and overstate the overall gains."
Rodrik could have substituted PGL or Krugman for DeLong.
"The distributional pain helped elect Trump and the neoliberals can't admit it."
Distributional pain aka the Stopler Samuelson theorem. I talk about this often. Krugman does
too. But then this requires a little bit of analytical ability which serial idiots like you don't
do. Rage on - troll.
All you and Krugman do is mock Bernie Sanders and his supporters, people who would actually
do something about the distributional pain Rodrik talks about.
Rodrik:
"At the same time, [DeLong's] essay leaves me frustrated and uneasy. It seems to gloss over
the distributional pain of NAFTA and overstate the overall gains."
Just like PGL and Krugman. That's why neoliberal Hillary lost. It's why Trump won. And the
neoliberals still won't admit it.
In short, it's complicated – not all bad, by any means, but not the pure uprising of idealists
the more enthusiastic supporters imagine.
The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have an illuminating discussion
of Sanders support. The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is this:
Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger,
authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to
which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected
white men.
The point is not to demonize, but, if you like, to de-angelize. Like any political movement
(including the Democratic Party, which is, yes, a coalition of interest groups) Sandersism has
been an assemblage of people with a variety of motives, not all of them pretty. Here's a short
list based on my own encounters:
1.Genuine idealists: For sure, quite a few Sanders supporters dream of a better society, and
for whatever reason – maybe just because they're very young – are ready to dismiss practical arguments
about why all their dreams can't be accomplished in a day.
2.Romantics: This kind of idealism shades over into something that's less about changing society
than about the fun and ego gratification of being part of The Movement. (Those of us who were
students in the 60s and early 70s very much recognize the type.) For a while there – especially
for those who didn't understand delegate math – it felt like a wonderful joy ride, the scrappy
young on the march about to overthrow the villainous old. But there's a thin line between love
and hate: when reality began to set in, all too many romantics reacted by descending into bitterness,
with angry claims that they were being cheated.
3.Purists: A somewhat different strand in the movement, also familiar to those of us of a certain
age, consists of those for whom political activism is less about achieving things and more about
striking a personal pose. They are the pure, the unsullied, who reject the corruptions of this
world and all those even slightly tainted – which means anyone who actually has gotten anything
done. Quite a few Sanders surrogates were Naderites in 2000; the results of that venture don't
bother them, because it was never really about results, only about affirming personal identity.
4.CDS victims: Quite a few Sanders supporters are mainly Clinton-haters, deep in the grip of
Clinton Derangement Syndrome; they know that Hillary is corrupt and evil, because that's what
they hear all the time; they don't realize that the reason it's what they hear all the time is
that right-wing billionaires have spent more than two decades promoting that message. Sanders
has gotten a number of votes from conservative Democrats who are voting against her, not for him,
and for sure there are liberal supporters who have absorbed the same message, even if they don't
watch Fox News.
5.Salon des Refuses: This is a small group in number, but accounts for a lot of the pro-Sanders
commentary, and is of course something I see a lot. What I'm talking about here are policy intellectuals
who have for whatever reason been excluded from the inner circles of the Democratic establishment,
and saw Sanders as their ticket to the big time. They typically hold heterodox views, but those
views don't have much to do with the campaign – sorry, capital theory disputes from half a century
ago aren't relevant to the debate over health reform. What matters is their outsider status, which
gives them an interest in backing an outsider candidate – and makes them reluctant to accept it
when that candidate is no longer helping the progressive cause.
So how will this coalition of the not-always disinterested break once it's over? The genuine
idealists will probably realize that whatever their dreams, Trump would be a nightmare. Purists
and CDSers won't back Clinton, but they were never going to anyway. My guess is that disgruntled
policy intellectuals will, in the end, generally back Clinton.
The question, as I see it, involves the romantics. How many will give in to their bitterness?
A lot may depend on Sanders – and whether he himself is one of those embittered romantics, unable
to move on.
I guess I am a little confused by the way this article is laid out. The article says the overall
picture is Large trade volume change, little gain (insignificant gain) and large wage drop for
poor.
Meaning, trade has increased but it has little efficiency gain on the economy and it mainly
just depressed wages for the poor in the US. So, am I missing something here?
I thought the whole point of free trade was to lower tariffs/quotas/taxes to allow for each
country to specialize based off their advantages/cost...resulting in a lower price in the international
market. This lower price would then result in benefiting everyone that has to buy that product
ie cars. So, even though you lost your job in automobiles to Mexico you would be able to buy a
new car much cheaper because labor cost is extremely cheap in Mexico. The end result would be
short term unemployment rise but given you could find another job the medium/long run unemployment
would be in equilibrium. Thus, everyone in the medium/long run are better off because of free
trade.
Does the term, "tiny efficiency gains" mean that jobs went to mexico because it was cheaper
labor/regulations and in turn the final product came back to the U.S. virtually the same price
as it was before NAFTA? If that is the case it would make sense to scrap NAFTA.
My understanding is that the benefit of NAFTA or any free trade agreement is essentially going
to be lower cost. This is because inefficient companies or rich countries like U.S. have high
living wage causing the final product to cost more and its all protected from international prices
with quotas/tariffs/import taxes. Thats not to neglect the wage drop in the US due to free trade,
but the argument is that cheaper products is far superior than a small amount of job loss/wage
drop.
I thought the whole point of free trade was to lower tariffs/quotas/taxes to allow for each country
to specialize based off their advantages/cost...resulting in a lower price in the international
market. This lower price would then result in benefiting everyone that has to buy that product
ie cars. So, even though you lost your job in automobiles to Mexico you would be able to buy a
new car much cheaper because labor cost is extremely cheap in Mexico. The end result would be
short term unemployment rise but given you could find another job the medium/long run unemployment
would be in equilibrium. Thus, everyone in the medium/long run are better off because of free
trade....
[ I need to understand this better, but I would agree and argue the adjustment process would
have occurred had the high employment years of the Clinton presidency continued to the Bush presidency
but that was not the case. The problem of trade dislocations that were not compensated for is
found during the Bush years. ]
"The idea here is to explain why targeting the economically large and persistent US trade deficit
is a reasonable policy goal.
This view is not widely accepted among economists. Everyone gets the by identity, the trade
deficit is a drag on growth, but numerous arguments push back on the idea that it's a problem.
Dean Baker and I tackle the issue here. The punchline, as suggested above, is not that the
drag impact of the trade deficit never gets offset. It clearly does, at times. But when offsets
are less forthcoming–the Fed's run out of ammo; the fiscal authorities have gone all austere–the
demand-reducing drag from trade imbalances is a problem.
Second, even in flush times, the trade deficit, which is exclusively in manufactured goods,
affects the industrial composition of employment, and it is in this regard that Trump has been
able to so effectively tap its politics. While high-ranking democrats were running around pushing
the next trade deal, he was talking directly to those voters who clearly perceived themselves
far more hurt than helped by globalization."
The U.S. went from 30% of its nonfarm employees in manufacturing to 12% because of rapid
growth in manufacturing productivity and limited demand, yes? The U.S. went from 12% to 9% because
of stupid and destructive macro policies--the Reagan deficits, the strong-dollar policy pushed
well past its sell-by date, too-tight monetary policy--that diverted it from its proper role as
a net exporter of capital and finance to economies that need to be net sinks rather than net sources
of the global flow of funds for investment, yes? The U.S. went from 9% to 8.7% because of the
extraordinarily rapid rise of China, yes? The U.S. went from 8.7% to 8.6% because of NAFTA, yes?
And yet the American political system right now is blaming all, 100%, every piece of that
decline from 30% to 8.6% and every problem that can be laid its door on brown people from Mexico.
By not making it clear that you are talking about 0.1%-points of a 21.4%-point phenomenon,
I think you are enabling that. I don't think this is a good thing to do...
"Was Trump able to capitalize on the very real losses that this and other trade agreements produced
in certain parts of the country in a way that Democrats were unable to? Again, yes."
How did he capitalize? By addressing the issue unlike the progressive neoliberals DeLong and
PGL's candidate Hillary.
Just talking about the Stopler Samuelson theorem every now and then doesn't address the issue.
"... If the American peasants were going to revolt they would have done it already. Fortunately for the rich, the peasants have been mollified by opiates, marijuana, cheap industrial calories, videogames and unlimited trash entertainment, and a fawning endless adoration for the rich and famous. And when that fails theyve got mega churches spouting hopium too. ..."
"... By the way, look around most of the country. It's designed without public squares which are necessary for protest and assembly. Look at the BLM protests, they tried to take the freeways and the whites just got furious that their fat SUVs were impeded. ..."
"... Americans are the most apathetic population on earth ..."
"... Peasants do not start revolutions. It is members of the enlightened elite who clap their hands and trigger the avalanche. Their attempts at gradual reform begin by harnessing, and thereby empowering, the threatened, desperate lower-middle class, which turns and rends their fellows and their superiors (the 90-99% in today's jargon). The breakdown of consensus in the middle orders creates chaos, which in turn empowers those who benefit from instability, especially psychopaths, who cannot last long in places with community or corporate memory, but who flourish in civil disorder. ..."
"... They are right. A french-revolution-style reckoning is coming. We will have to dismantle and redistribute their fortunes. And those that resist will not survive. ..."
"... They should be afraid, and they should know that the later the reckoning, the angrier the mob. The angrier the mob, the likelier accidents happen. ..."
"... They are mostly blind to the need to redistribute, and those that are not are blocked by the system (the neoliberal world order) from acting. ..."
"... I guess they adhere that now-old adage: He who dies with the most toys WINS. ..."
"... This very day, NYT reports that Peter Thiel has (i.e., "bought") New Zealand citizenship. And then hilariously goes on to suggest that this expedient could well be thanks to Thiel's adolescent enthusiasm for "Lord of the Rings", which is where they produced the movie, so "becoming a citizen might be the next best thing to living in Middle-earth itself ." ..."
"... The Masque of the Red Death ..."
"... And therein lies the error: they don't judge themselves by the norms they sold (or failed to sell) to us. ..."
"... I'd count the Zuck's purchase of 700 acres (similar acreage to Central Park) as a bolt-hole. And peter Thiel's in New Zealand. Guess the help will be relegated to the Blueseed floating city ..."
"... The French aristocracy was pretty surprised in 1789 how unprepared they were. I'd tend to put them in the former group. Our oligarchy? Definitely psychopaths. ..."
"... The current hedgies should watch Adam Curtis's 4 part docu "The MayFair Set". It's on utube. Or, if 4 hours is too long, they could watch just part 2, notice James Goldsmith, and then watch part 4 starting at about minute 23. Another prepper. Why all the paranoia and prepping? ..."
"... Lavish follies apparently become tiresome or expensive to maintain or lonely or in some other way unappealing after they're built. So now one can rent a villa at Goldsmith's Mexican hideaway, for a considerable sum of course. ..."
"... IF collapse came, I absolutely WOULD go on a 1%er hunt. Open season. ..."
"... Sarcasm on. Hedge fund managers anticipate They're so good at that. That's why hedge fund yields for pension funds are so much better than other fund yields for pension funds. (8^)) Sarcasm off. ..."
"... I don't understand why these pampered, self-worshipping, self-entitled rich scumbags think that New Zealanders will welcome them with open arms if SHTF. ..."
"... Yes, that's the flaw. New Zealand would be great for their purposes if not for the small problem that it's full of New Zealanders. The society is strongly egalitarian, much more so than the US, and has different core values (less about freedom and more about fairness). ..."
"... Thiel's land purchase in the South Island has been front page news lately, along with the news that he didn't have to comply with foreign investment criteria because he is a NZ citizen (which just raised the question of how and why he received citizenship). ..."
"... "What does that really tell us about our system? It's a very odd thing. You're basically seeing that the people who've been the best at reading the tea leaves-the ones with the most resources, because that's how they made their money-are now the ones most preparing to pull the rip cord and jump out of the plane." ..."
"... buying airstrips and farms ..."
"... Prime Minister Bill English has defended a decision to grant citizenship to American tech billionaire Peter Thiel, saying "a little bit of flexibility" is useful when it comes to citizenship laws. ..."
"... English said there needed to be a balance between giving everyone a fair chance of citizenship, and encouraging those who would make a positive difference to New Zealand. ..."
"... "If people come here and invest and get into philanthropy and are supportive of New Zealand, then we're better off for their interest in our country, and as a small country at the end of the world, that's not a bad thing. ..."
"... NZ First leader Winston Peters' suggestion that the Government was selling citizenship was "ridiculous", English said. ..."
If the American peasants were going to revolt they would have done it already. Fortunately
for the rich, the peasants have been mollified by opiates, marijuana, cheap industrial calories,
videogames and unlimited trash entertainment, and a fawning endless adoration for the rich and
famous. And when that fails theyve got mega churches spouting hopium too.
By the way, look around most of the country. It's designed without public squares which
are necessary for protest and assembly. Look at the BLM protests, they tried to take the freeways
and the whites just got furious that their fat SUVs were impeded.
If you want to see the future watch Idiocracy not the French Revolution. Americans are
the most apathetic population on earth .
Maybe they just have different priorities? Maybe they have come from countries where life looks
like "the s hit the f" is the norm, but still manage to make do?
Peasants do not start revolutions. It is members of the enlightened elite who clap their
hands and trigger the avalanche. Their attempts at gradual reform begin by harnessing, and thereby
empowering, the threatened, desperate lower-middle class, which turns and rends their fellows
and their superiors (the 90-99% in today's jargon). The breakdown of consensus in the middle orders
creates chaos, which in turn empowers those who benefit from instability, especially psychopaths,
who cannot last long in places with community or corporate memory, but who flourish in civil disorder.
Is Trump the reformer who triggers the avalanche – our Duc D'Orleans, later Philippe Egalite,
under which name he was guillotined? The looks on the faces of Louis XVI and Hillary Clinton were
probably equally dumbfounded when they found themselves stymied by their respective rivals at
the "Assembly of Notables."
They are right. A french-revolution-style reckoning is coming. We will have to dismantle and
redistribute their fortunes. And those that resist will not survive.
They should be afraid, and they should know that the later the reckoning, the angrier the mob.
The angrier the mob, the likelier accidents happen.
At this point, I do not see another option. They are mostly blind to the need to redistribute,
and those that are not are blocked by the system (the neoliberal world order) from acting.
A truly nutty non-solution from the greediest nastiest bastards on the planet. Just frickin
great. They know what they should do, but they adamantly refuse to do it in order to remain mired
in the greedy proflgate ways.
I guess they adhere that now-old adage: He who dies with the most toys WINS.
I wonder when the elites will make themselves Pyramids? Or are they planning to bury themselves
inside these damn bunkers instead? Using the bunkers as necropoli probably makes more sense than
what they're actually planning to use them for.
This very day, NYT reports that Peter Thiel has (i.e., "bought") New Zealand citizenship. And
then hilariously goes on to suggest that this expedient could well be thanks to Thiel's adolescent
enthusiasm for "Lord of the Rings", which is where they produced the movie, so "becoming a citizen
might be the next best thing to living in Middle-earth itself ."
The good news is, these guys will doubtless revert to cannibalism in short order .
I guess they haven't read The Masque of the Red Death .
The story takes place at the castellated abbey of the "happy and dauntless and sagacious"
Prince Prospero. Prospero and 1,000 other nobles have taken refuge in this walled abbey to
escape the Red Death, a terrible plague with gruesome symptoms that has swept over the land.
Victims are overcome by "sharp pains", "sudden dizziness", and hematidrosis, and die within
half an hour. Prospero and his court are indifferent to the sufferings of the population at
large; they intend to await the end of the plague in luxury and safety behind the walls of
their secure refuge, having welded the doors shut.
They don't subscribe to the propertarian patriarchal norms that they sold to the public, except
for appearances, which are often cited as pretexts for ejection from the halls of power. They
owe the public cultural shibboleths no real honor, especially not within their private practices.
They are not obligated to enact the stories they write or take to heart the submission they counsel
to us. They didn't get to group hegemony by competing.
I see the paralogic. They're American. Therefore, adversity and competition is the normal posture
for every interaction. Therefore, everything is a fair contest which they won fair and square
against us. Which suggests that they probably subscribe more perfectly to the same alleged social
"norms" they impose on us. And therein lies the error: they don't judge themselves by the norms
they sold (or failed to sell) to us.
If they were as crippled by someone having fun without them when there is plenty of fun to
be had, there would be no ruling class.
on the other hand they have more time and money to gain actually useful skills than wage slaves
EVER will. A variant of the rich get richer phenomena which seems to be how things usually work
out, rather than the poor getting even as mostly happens only in morality tales. Now get to work
and shut up about it!
I'd count the Zuck's purchase of 700 acres (similar acreage to Central Park) as a bolt-hole.
And peter Thiel's in New Zealand. Guess the help will be relegated to the Blueseed floating city
Jet = high time preference
Amel 64= low time preference, in fact not even so relevant to insist on staying on course to NZ.
http://www.amel.fr/en/amel-64/
W. Somerset Maugham's retelling of the tale (1933) "An Appointment in Samarra" comes to mind:
There was a merchant in Bagdad who sent his servant to market to buy provisions and in a little
while the servant came back, white and trembling, and said, Master, just now when I was in the
marketplace I was jostled by a woman in the crowd and when I turned I saw it was Death that jostled
me.
She looked at me and made a threatening gesture, now, lend me your horse, and I will ride away
from this city and avoid my fate. I will go to Samarra and there Death will not find me.
The merchant lent him his horse, and the servant mounted it, and he dug his spurs in its flanks
and as fast as the horse could gallop he went. Then the merchant went down to the marketplace
and he saw me standing in the crowd and he came to me and said, Why did you make a threatening
gesture to my servant when you saw him this morning?
That was not a threatening gesture, I said, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished
to see him in Bagdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra.
Examine the mentality of planning for a "collapse."
The hedge fund managers above all are escaping to rural areas, with clean water and air. They've
planned on how to get by with less for themselves and their families.
The article also spoke of bunkers of under ground apartment complexes, silos, etc that would be
enclaves for communities of wealthy citizens where they would ration, learn how to ration, share,
get by with less.
They all think it will be temporary while the ignorant masses destroy each other without their
surperior leadership. They imagine being able to return and begin the hard work of returning things
to the way they were, with themselves back in elite positions.
Just think. If they could imagine maybe getting by on less and used that sense of community
they expect to magically develop in their bunkers, there wouldn't be amy "collapse" to fear anyway.
If they could imagine their clean water and air natural retreats, with food, are simple things
the rest of the planet would like to enjoy and should be able to enjoy without exploitation, there
wouldn't be any collapse to fear.
So not only will their getaways be big failures, but the imagined return to the world after
the crisis is also naive.
Not only would things not be the same, you'd have to be a special kind of idoit or psycopath
to think anything would still be hunky dory with a return to the status quo..
if you survive the carnage they imagine in some kind of collapse.
"you'd have to be a special kind of idiot or psychopath"
The French aristocracy was pretty surprised in 1789 how unprepared they were. I'd tend
to put them in the former group. Our oligarchy? Definitely psychopaths.
The 0.01 percenters would much rather create doomsday bunkers than fix their own greed and
power lust. I guess they know themselves well.
I could poke so many what if holes into their daydream scenarios. Hours of fun since their
most of their scenarios depend on order and business as usual ultimately being restored. I guess
they learned nothing from what typically happens to refugees regardless of their class and they
assume that the "problem" will be localized instead of global and that their assets will be worth
more with them alive than dead.
It is impossible to convince someone afflicted with the greatest pandemic in human history
- Greed - that they are better off having a smaller % of a growing pie than a larger % of a stagnant
or shrinking pie.
The epicenters for the global pandemic are London, New York, and Washington D.C., though not
necessarily in that order.
Wait, I thought Trump was going to revoke federal funding for "sanctuary cities", as well as
the governor of Texas at the state level. Oh, wrong group?
This elite fear and their related actions have been "out there" for years. Puzzling me is what
has changed to elevate this topic in their Davos 2017 discussions?
The current hedgies should watch Adam Curtis's 4 part docu "The MayFair Set". It's on utube.
Or, if 4 hours is too long, they could watch just part 2, notice James Goldsmith, and then watch
part 4 starting at about minute 23. Another prepper. Why all the paranoia and prepping?
Maybe they should just stop destroying companies and pay taxes. They might sleep better if
they felt they were part of the country instead of pirates living apart. imo.
Lavish follies apparently become tiresome or expensive to maintain or lonely or in some other
way unappealing after they're built. So now one can rent a villa at Goldsmith's Mexican hideaway,
for a considerable sum of course.
They can never actually "go Galt" because they need us. If I remember correctly, Galt was some
sort of industrialist who built and manufactured actual things. What do most of these billionaires
provide us? It's difficult to imagine a hedge fund going very well after the apocalypse. Will
people continue updating their facebook pages when the world collapses? Can I paypal my tribal
wasteland overlord his tribute after our government has collapsed?
I suppose they'll just sitting around looking at all bank statements, bored out of their minds
waiting for the power to come back on.
It isn't just elite anxiety, this has been playing out among the lower classes as well. It's
not just prepper reality shows either; we've had almost 10 years now of zombie apocalypse themed
entertainment and a general revival of the post-apocalypse genre across multiple entertainment
platforms.
We know the empire is collapsing, we just wont acknowledge it out loud.
[Reddit CEO Steve] Huffman has calculated that, in the event of a disaster, he would seek
out some form of community: "Being around other people is a good thing. I also have this somewhat
egotistical view that I'm a pretty good leader. I will probably be in charge, or at least not
a slave, when push comes to shove."
Yeah, your skills running a content aggregate site that's become a haven for the alt-right,
that's going to be the things the masses will be looking for in a leader in a post-apocalyptic
society.
What if the guy fueling the jet pours some sugar into the tank? What if the guy who drives
the fuel truck to the airstrip gets "lost" on the day of the apocalypse? What if your driver on
the way to the airport pulls a gun on you? You better get a jumbo jet to fit everyone on that
could spoil your plan. It'll be like the end of the "Jerk". It is just terrible to have to rely
on people and to need all these badges of affluence. Why can't a rich soul be a rapacious rich
jerk, in peace?
What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
These stories really make me hope that the collapse that these people are preparing for is
a flu pandemic. In that case, no one is going anywhere as the first thing that will be done by
states is close the borders to slow down transmission of the virus. Good luck getting to New Zealand
then!
Also, let's not forget the Archdruid's (accurate) contention that the (presumably very well
armed) security staff will be eager to hunt down the elites after society collapses.
Charles Hugh Smith in his book Survival+ however does offer some good advice for elites who
want to survive collapse indefinitely: find a tight-knit community and immediately use all the
money and resources at your disposal to make sure that they're self-sustaining, well-armed and
grateful. Then learn some useful skills like playing musical instruments or blacksmithing and
move on in. Maybe someone should send these poor deluded bunker builders a copy!
"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any
material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason.
But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others,
are a solemn, basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing
compared with that of the rich.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
"The Age of Uncertainty" 1977
If this is a true quote, it does indeed make the blood come out one's ears that Galbraith could
have said it. It is so wrong that its vast wrongness can only be explained by knowing that the
guy was an economist by training. If he had bothered to learn any history–any history at all,
whatsoever, in any way, of any kind–he would never have been able to spout that inane nugget of
anti-truth.
Let's see: August 4, 1789. Just one notable one, among about 47 bajillion counterexamples to
bonehead Galbraith's alleged quotation.
Why don't they bail on the rest of the world now? They might as well get while the getting
is good, and the rest of the world will benefit from their absence. Seems like a win/win to me.
Ahem. This is part of the reason that some rich folks (*COUGH* Elon Musk *COUGH*) is pushing
so hard for (rich) people to pony up and help pay for a one-way trip to Mars. A bunch of pampered
rich people bailing out on Earth to go to the ULTIMATE gated community on Mars where they can
claim all the land from their feet to the horizon.
A pipe dream, of course. Such an endeavor would be ABSOLUTELY dependent upon continued upkeep
and support from Earth, AND Mars is NOT hospitable, at all Nonetheless, the impulse is there
for all to see: use your accumulated (unearned) wealth to get away from the Earth you have raped
to get where you are, before it's too late! Take all your marbles and just up and leave everyone
else to cook in the sewage and heat you've left behind. But at least your pillaging made it possible
for you and a select few others to get out.
As for fancy bunkers like converted missile silos. Note: as a veteran of the cold war and all
that nuke war shit, I KNOW how those things work (and don't work). Fancy air filters on missile
silos will filter out radiation, biological, and MOST chemical agents, but they will not, they
CANNOT, filter out oxygen displacing chemicals (carbon monoxide, halon, ammonia, etc). Some cluster
of rich douchebags and their immediate families think they can hide out for up to 5 years in a
luxury converted missile silo. Well I will just pull a car up to one of your air intakes, run
a line from my exhaust pipe to your intake, and pump your luxury bunker full of carbon monoxide.
Sleep the sleep of the dead, motherf*ckers.
BTW – many of the dystopian authors of the 40s, 50s, and 60s served in the military in WW II.
It is not an accident that they wrote these types of novels and short stories. They had observed
dystopian societies and their outcomes personally. I think the current 1% think they can control
the future in the same way that many of them thought in the 1780s and 1910-1945.
In Jack Womack's Dryco novels, Dryco (a kind of uber-Walmart-cum-Raytheon that owns everything)
becomes worried about CEO safety and covertly engineers a citizen "rebellion" on Long Island,
necessitating a permanently-stationed US military in Manhattan, to protect the elite. The Dryco
inner circle begins moving operations north, to the Bronx and Westchester County, to stay ahead
of rising sea levels. Those books were written mostly in the late '80s/early '90s but still resonate.
Sarcasm on. Hedge fund managers anticipate They're so good at that. That's why hedge fund yields for pension funds are so much better
than other fund yields for pension funds. (8^)) Sarcasm off.
Perhaps they have been reading too much economic doomer porn?
Just three months ago anybody who even considered voting for Sanders, Green, or Trump was a
selfish fool who just wanted to see the world burn. For the sake of our fellow man – consider
the children! – we were encouraged to fall in line to prevent our society from collapsing into
war and economic ruin. If only we'd have know that some of the wealthiest and most influential
people in the country were literally bracing themselves for the apocalypse with absolutely no
intention of helping a single soul escape or doing a thing to prevent the disaster. I guess if
you're rich enough it's OK not to give a shit about destroying the world.
It's important that as many people as possible read the NYT article to see just how crazy and
how horrifyingly self-serving the 1% really is. The idea that anybody will need bunkers or private
airstrips is stupid as hell and straight out of a zombie movie, but it's a perfect illustration
of how little these people care about the world around them.
Spread the word. This is the time to bail. Donald Trump is President. He is at war with corporate
media moguls. Even Bloomberg published an article on America's carnage. The suicide rate of women
under 75 is increasing. The cover-up of the neoliberal looting is collapsing. The millions of
refugees flooding Europe can't be hidden. Blaming Russia doesn't work. A world war is an extinction
event.
Who will be on the last plane out of East Hampton?
I don't understand why these pampered, self-worshipping, self-entitled rich scumbags think
that New Zealanders will welcome them with open arms if SHTF.
If the US were to go tits up the
way they fear. to such an extent that they actually felt the need to flee, the entire world would
get hit hard too. These same clowns talk about globalization and how the world is, and NEEDS to
be, interconnected. Well, you don't get to have it both ways. The US is a huge economic chunk
of the world. If it bites it, then so will a LOT of other nations, and New Zealand is not some
self-sufficient paradise that would be left untouched.
The LEGITIMATE people, the LEGITIMATE citizens of New Zealand, wouldn't take these leeches
in with open arms, strewing their walking paths with flowers and candy, if they abandon the US
in a collapse THAT THEY WERE LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR. They cannot run away and escape their culpability
and the fruits of their unending greed and selfishness.
Yes, that's the flaw. New Zealand would be great for their purposes if not for the small problem
that it's full of New Zealanders. The society is strongly egalitarian, much more so than the US,
and has different core values (less about freedom and more about fairness). If these people had
what it takes to be New Zealanders they would not need to leave the USA in the first place. Failing
that, they are going to be constantly under siege if they move here, in a figurative sense and
possibly a literal one if they try to engage in the same kind of behaviour that required them
to flee the USA.
Thiel's land purchase in the South Island has been front page news lately, along with the news
that he didn't have to comply with foreign investment criteria because he is a NZ citizen (which
just raised the question of how and why he received citizenship).
deep down they know they are a bunch of grifters who have produced nothing of any real value.
some of them are deluded but many know it has all been one big debt fueled scam, involving predatory
behavior (pirate equity) and risk free gambling (hedge scum managers, you lose and they still
win) further abetted by tax avoidance and other shifty activity.
[ "What does that really tell us about our system? It's a very odd thing. You're basically
seeing that the people who've been the best at reading the tea leaves-the ones with the most resources,
because that's how they made their money-are now the ones most preparing to pull the rip cord
and jump out of the plane." ]
The "Peak Oil Doomers" know very well why hedge fund jack offs are " buying airstrips and
farms "
"supposedly" (so take w/salt), the entire food supply of the Northeast flows through 4 highways
(I 90/80/76/95--sounds plausible). Ain't too hard to seize those chokepoints and disrupt the entire
Northeast.
Similarly the crossings of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers also are major chokepoints for
our just-in-time way of life.
We've all seen the empty bread shelves when 12″ of snow are forecast. I imagine that would
be nothing in the 1:1,000,000 chance civilization truly goes pear-shaped.
Prime Minister Bill English has defended a decision to grant citizenship to American tech billionaire
Peter Thiel, saying "a little bit of flexibility" is useful when it comes to citizenship laws.
(he didn't meet the criteria for citizenship under the law)
English said there needed to be a balance between giving everyone a fair chance of citizenship,
and encouraging those who would make a positive difference to New Zealand.
"If people come here and invest and get into philanthropy and are supportive of New Zealand,
then we're better off for their interest in our country, and as a small country at the end of
the world, that's not a bad thing.
(but he has money and spread a lot of it around and we like that)
NZ First leader Winston Peters' suggestion that the Government was selling citizenship
was "ridiculous", English said.
(even though everything I just said appears to confirm it)
"... Krugman dislikes Trump (as do I). He seems motivated to find fault with Trump's policies. In
fuzzy things like economics and their intersection with politics it is challenging, and perhaps actually
impossible, for most of us to remain balanced. If someone as smart and knowledgeable as Paul Krugman
subconsciously decides to dislike a policy, his brain is more than clever enough to invent reasonable
economic arguments against the policy. ..."
"... Cognitive bias. Using % of jobs that are manufacturing is relative to what was happening in
other job areas: like Reagan building up the military and civil service to buy weapons a tiny part of
the growth in that sector was manufacturing. ..."
"... I understand the textbook story is the Fed raises rates when the budget deficit increases.
I am not sure if the empirical data supports that though. Perhaps the Fed cares more about inflation
than budget deficits and perhaps budget deficits do not directly result in inflation? But if that is
correct, what is the basis for Professor Krugman's assertion that Trump's budget will push up interest
rates? ..."
"... It's like how Greenspan and Rubin told Clinton he had to drop his middle class spending bill
in order to focus on deficit reduction. Greenspan was threatening to raise rates and Clinton bent the
knee to the "independent" Fed. ..."
"... Krugman should remember that "Integrity, once sold, is difficult to repurchase - even at 10x
the original sales price." ..."
Reagan, Trump, and Manufacturing : It's hard to focus on ordinary economic analysis amidst this
political apocalypse. But ... like it or not the progress of
CASE NIGHTMARE
ORANGE may depend on how the economy does. So, what is actually likely to happen to trade and
manufacturing over the next few years?
As it happens, we have what looks like an unusually good model in the Reagan years... - it's not
part of the Reagan legend, but the import quota on Japanese automobiles was one of the biggest protectionist
moves of the postwar era.
I'm a bit uncertain about the actual fiscal stance of Trumponomics: deficits will surely blow
up, but I won't believe in the infrastructure push until I see it, and given savage cuts in aid to
the poor it's not entirely clear that there will be
net stimulus . But suppose there is. Then what?
Well, what happened in the Reagan years was "twin deficits": the budget deficit pushed up interest
rates, which caused a strong dollar, which caused a bigger trade deficit, mainly in manufactured
goods (which are still most of what's tradable.) This led to an accelerated decline in the industrial
orientation of the U.S. economy:
And people did notice. ...
Again, this happened despite substantial protectionism.
So Trump_vs_deep_state will probably follow a similar course; it will actually shrink manufacturing despite
the big noise made about saving a few hundred jobs here and there.
On the other hand, by then the BLS may be thoroughly politicized, commanded to report good news
whatever happens.
Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports. The agreement set total Japanese auto exports
at 1.68 million
vehicles in 1981-82, 8 percent below 1980 exports. Two years later the level was permitted to
rise to 1.85 million.(33)
Clifford Winston of the Brookings Institution found that the import limits have actually cost
jobs in the U.S. auto
industry by making it possible for the sheltered American automakers to raise prices and limit
production. In 1984,
Winston writes in Blind Intersection? Policy and the Automobile Industry, 32,000 jobs were lost,
U.S. production fell
by 300,000 units, and profits for U.S. firms increased $8.9 billion. The quotas have also made
the Japanese firms
potentially more formidable rivals because they have begun building assembly plants in the United
States.(34) They
also shifted production to larger cars, introducing to American firms competition they did not
have before the quotas
were created. In 1984, it was estimated that higher prices for domestic and imported cars cost
consumers $2.2 billion a
year.(35) At the height of the dollar's exchange rate with the yen in 1984-85, the quotas were
costing American
consumers the equivalent of $11 billion a year
The Reagan Record on Trade: Rhetoric vs. Reality
By Sheldon L. Richman
Executive Summary
When President Reagan imposed a 100 percent tariff on selected Japanese electronics in 1987,
he and the press gave the impression that this was an act of desperation. Pictured was a long-forbearing
president whose patience was exhausted by the recalcitrant and conniving Japanese. After trying
for years to elicit some fairness out of them, went the story, the usually good-natured president
had finally had enough.
When newspapers and television networks announced the tariffs, the media reminded the public
that such restraints were imposed by a staunch free trader. The less-than-subtle message was that
if "Free Trader" Ronald Reagan thought the tariff necessary, then Japan surely deserved it. After
more than seven years in office, Ronald Reagan is still widely regarded as a devoted free trader.
A typical reference is that of Mark Shields, a Washington Post columnist, to Reagan's "blind devotion
to the doctrine of free trade."
If President Reagan has a devotion to free trade, it surely must be blind, because he has been
off the mark most of the time. Only short memories and a refusal to believe one's own eyes would
account for the view that President Reagan is a free trader. Calling oneself a free trader is
not the same thing as being a free trader. Nor does a free-trade position mean that the president,
but not Congress, should have the power to impose trade sanctions. Instead, a president deserves
the title of free trader only if his efforts demonstrate an attempt to remove trade barriers at
home and prevent the imposition of new ones.
By this standard, the Reagan administration has failed to promote free trade. Ronald Reagan
by his actions has become the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover, the heavyweight
champion of protectionists.
[ I appreciate this reference, which is in turn extensively referenced. ]
This is simple. It means instead of shipping low end Toyota Corolla's that were small, manual
transmission, no A/C, etc., the Japanese started to make larger, more expensive cars, even luxury
cars like Lexis, etc.
If this helps, think of Volkswagen being limited to shipping 1,000 cars to the US. They would
probably send us only the top-end Porsches (VW owns that brand) and none of the more middle class
cars.
To Anne's point on whether this is an accurate portrayal of what happened: I have no recollection
and no knowledge about this.
What really happened is simple. The Japanese car companies got that quota rents (Menzie Chinn
documented this recently) from what was effectively a quota on the imports of Japanese cars. American
consumers instead imported European cars. Any benefits to US car manufacturing was trivial and
totally undo for the aggregate US economy by the massive dollar appreciation. All one has to do
is to look at the exchange rate back then and one gets why net exports fell dramatically.
Japanese manufacturers exported more expensive models in the 1980s due to voluntary export
restraints, negotiated by the Japanese government and U.S. trade representatives, that restricted
mainstream car sales. ...
Acura holds the distinction of being the first Japanese automotive luxury brand. ... In its
first few years of existence, Acura was among the best-selling luxury marques in the US. ...
In the late 1980s, the success of the company's first flagship vehicle, the Legend, inspired
fellow Japanese automakers Toyota and Nissan to launch their own luxury brands, Lexus and Infiniti,
respectively. ...
I am reluctant to disagree with Paul Krugman, as he has forgotten more economics than I'll ever
know. But my first thought as I read this was: motivated reasoning. It is quite interesting, and
affects all of us, and the brilliant folks seem to be more susceptible to it than the average
folks.
Krugman dislikes Trump (as do I). He seems motivated to find fault with Trump's policies.
In fuzzy things like economics and their intersection with politics it is challenging, and perhaps
actually impossible, for most of us to remain balanced. If someone as smart and knowledgeable
as Paul Krugman subconsciously decides to dislike a policy, his brain is more than clever enough
to invent reasonable economic arguments against the policy.
Of course, none of this implies that Krugman is actually wrong in this case.
One question for folks. Krugman says "the budget deficit pushed up interest rates, which caused
a strong dollar, which caused a bigger trade deficit, mainly in manufactured goods (which are
still most of what's tradable.)" I am wondering why a budget deficit has to push up interest rates?
In 2009 we ran a large budget deficit at low interest rates. In WW 2 we did as well (I think,
not really sure about this). Is it well established that budget deficits push up interest rates?
Cognitive bias. Using % of jobs that are manufacturing is relative to what was happening in
other job areas: like Reagan building up the military and civil service to buy weapons a tiny
part of the growth in that sector was manufacturing.
What else was going on in late 70's early 80's... a lot of growth on service sector.
It is called cherry picking the chart to make a point with non thinkers.
Right, I think the answer is that budget deficits only push up interest rates if the Fed allows
that to happen. The Fed could keep rates low if they wanted by signaling a willingness to buy
up as much federal debt as is needed to hit some low target rate. So I think Krugman is, in effect,
predicting that they will not do that, and that they will instead counteract the fiscal expansion
with tighter monetary policy on the theory that this is needed to counteract potential "overheating".
I bought a house in 1985, I bet interest rates would go down by taking a 1 year ARM. I did quite
well each year it adjusted! I sold it in 1990 and rates were low enough to go fixed conventional
on the "trade up".
It is reputed the high rates helped cause the "Volcker" recession in the gray around 82.
Thinking about it some more. If I understand this correctly, the thought is that deficit spending
is stimulative, and the economy is already at full employment, so the Fed will raise interest
rates to prevent the economy from "overheating." The increase in rates slows the economy down
by two mechanisms:
(1) when the cost of capital is higher, fewer investments get made than when it is lower (say,
a business needs to see a higher ROI when interest rates are high than when they are low). (As
an aside, outside of the housing market, I don't think this effect is very strong. Real businesses
don't change their approach to investment if rates change by, say, 100%; from 2% to 4%. At least,
not the ones I have been exposed to, which are generally looking for ~ 15% IRR on investments.)
(2) People globally may be more inclined to hold dollars when the risk-free rate is higher,
which increases demand for the currency, which means the currency gets stronger, and exports are
less competitive and imports more competitive, counter-acting the stimulus.
The thing I don't like about this line of thought is that it is fatalist. It suggests that
fiscal policy really does not matter, it will all be offset by monetary policy. There is no real
impact to the economy whether we run huge budget deficits or surpluses. Me not liking it does
not mean it is wrong, obviously, but I just don't buy it. When I run into things like this in
economics I really start to wonder how much of macro is based on empirical observations and correlations
versus 'models.'
I think I ought to take an intro econ course and actually learn something. Or read an introductory
macro text book...
Krugman says "the budget deficit pushed up interest rates, which caused a strong dollar, which
caused a bigger trade deficit, mainly in manufactured goods (which are still most of what's tradable.)"
I am wondering why a budget deficit has to push up interest rates?
In 2009 we ran a large budget deficit at low interest rates.... Is it well established that
budget deficits push up interest rates?
[ Here then is the relevant matter to be analyzed. ]
Anne, thank you. From this plot I see that during Clinton's presidency we went from a budget deficit
to a surplus. And interest rates dropped. During the George W. Bush presidency we went from a
surplus to a deficit. And interest rates dropped.
There does not appear to be any obvious correlation between the budget deficit and interest
rates.
I understand the textbook story is the Fed raises rates when the budget deficit increases.
I am not sure if the empirical data supports that though. Perhaps the Fed cares more about inflation
than budget deficits and perhaps budget deficits do not directly result in inflation? But if that
is correct, what is the basis for Professor Krugman's assertion that Trump's budget will push
up interest rates?
With war looming, it's time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage.
It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once
financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.
From a fiscal point of view the impending war is a lose-lose proposition. If it goes badly,
the resulting mess will be a disaster for the budget. If it goes well, administration officials
have made it clear that they will use any bump in the polls to ram through more big tax cuts,
which will also be a disaster for the budget. Either way, the tide of red ink will keep on rising.
Last week the Congressional Budget Office marked down its estimates yet again. Just two years
ago, you may remember, the C.B.O. was projecting a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Now it projects
a 10-year deficit of $1.8 trillion.
And that's way too optimistic. The Congressional Budget Office operates under ground rules
that force it to wear rose-colored lenses. If you take into account - as the C.B.O. cannot - the
effects of likely changes in the alternative minimum tax, include realistic estimates of future
spending and allow for the cost of war and reconstruction, it's clear that the 10-year deficit
will be at least $3 trillion.
So what? Two years ago the administration promised to run large surpluses. A year ago it said
the deficit was only temporary. Now it says deficits don't matter. But we're looking at a fiscal
crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high.
A leading economist recently summed up one reason why: "When the government reduces saving
by running a budget deficit, the interest rate rises." Yes, that's from a textbook by the chief
administration economist, Gregory Mankiw.
But what's really scary - what makes a fixed-rate mortgage seem like such a good idea - is
the looming threat to the federal government's solvency.... ]
Yes, thank you for that column from 2003. Yes, Prof. K was correct about the future trend in deficits
back then, but incorrect about the future trend in interest rates.
It is certainly conceivable that he is wrong now as well.
Krugman captures very well what happened in the 1980's. He went to work for the CEA hoping to
undo this disaster. Of course the political hacks in the Reagan White House did not listen to
the CEA. Now he watches people in the Trump White House that are even more insane than these political
hacks. You draw whatever conclusion you want but his concerns strike me as real from someone who
has been there.
pgl - thank you. I am not drawing any hard and fast conclusions, just trying to learn. I appreciate
your comment that is based on both education and experience.
I am still thinking about this Buffett proposal on trade with import certificates.
http://fortune.com/2016/04/29/warren-buffett-foreign-trade/
Jared Bernstein mentioned it in passing in an opinion piece in the NY Times yesterday. I put
a comment on his website asking him to share more of his thoughts on it, and he said that he will
if/when he has time. I hope he does.
No. Budget deficits for a country such as the US do not push up interest rates. They would in
fact lower the interbank rate if not countered by Federal Reserve actions.
If budget deficits added to aggregate demand to the point that the Fed thought its inflation
target was in jeopardy, the Fed might raise its target rate of interest in the hopes of quelling
demand.
The Fed has almost complete control over the interest rate paid by the Federal government when
it decides to issue new debt. WWII is a great example of this. So is our most recent depression.
Will Fiscal Policy Really Be Expansionary?
By Paul Krugman
It's now generally accepted that Trump_vs_deep_state will finally involve the kind of fiscal stimulus
progressive economists have been pleading for ever since the financial crisis. After all, Republicans
are deeply worried about budget deficits when a Democrat is in the White House, but suddenly become
fiscal doves when in control. And there really is no question that the deficit will go up.
But will this actually amount to fiscal stimulus? Right now it looks as if Republicans are
going to ram through their whole agenda, including an end to Obamacare, privatizing Medicare and
block-granting Medicaid, sharp cuts to food stamps, and so on. These are spending cuts, which
will reduce the disposable income of lower- and middle-class Americans even as tax cuts raise
the income of the wealthy. Given the sharp distributional changes, looking just at the budget
deficit may be a poor guide to the macroeconomic impact.
Given the extent to which things are in flux, I can't put numbers on what's likely to happen.
But I was able to find matching analyses by the good folks at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
of tax * and spending ** cuts in Paul Ryan's 2014 budget, which may be a useful model of things
to come.
If you leave out the magic asterisks - closing of unspecified tax loopholes - that budget was
a deficit-hiker: $5.7 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years, versus $5 trillion in spending cuts.
The spending cuts involved cuts in discretionary spending plus huge cuts in programs that serve
the poor and middle class; the tax cuts were, of course, very targeted on high incomes.
The pluses and minuses here would have quite different effects on demand. Cutting taxes on
high incomes probably has a low multiplier: the wealthy are unlikely to be cash-constrained, and
will save a large part of their windfall. Cutting discretionary spending has a large multiplier,
because it directly cuts government purchases of goods and services; cutting programs for the
poor probably has a pretty high multiplier too, because it reduces the income of many people who
are living more or less hand to mouth.
Taking all this into account, that old Ryan plan would almost surely have been contractionary,
not expansionary.
Will Trumponomics be any different? It would matter if there really were a large infrastructure
push, but that's becoming ever less plausible. There will be big tax cuts at the top, but as I
said, the push to dismantle the safety net definitely seems to be on. Put it all together, and
it's extremely doubtful whether we're talking about net fiscal stimulus.
Now, you might think that someone will explain this to Trump, and that he'll demand a more
Keynesian plan. But I have two words for you: Larry Kudlow.
In looking at economic trends, the other issue to take into account is private lending. Individual
debt (credit cards, etc.) is already back up to the levels before the financial crisis and Trump's
appointees are determined to deregulate financial institutions, which may contribute to a return
to the predatory lending that created the last set of booms and busts. *
It's hard to focus on ordinary economic analysis amidst this political apocalypse. But getting
and spending will still consume most of peoples' energy and time; furthermore, like it or not
the progress of CASE NIGHTMARE ORANGE may depend on how the economy does. So, what is actually
likely to happen to trade and manufacturing over the next few years?
As it happens, we have what looks like an unusually good model in the Reagan years - minus
the severe recession and conveniently timed recovery, which somewhat overshadowed the trade story.
Leave aside the Volcker recession and recovery, and what you had was a large move toward budget
deficits via tax cuts and military buildup, coupled with quite a lot of protectionism - it's not
part of the Reagan legend, but the import quota on Japanese automobiles was one of the biggest
protectionist moves of the postwar era.
I'm a bit uncertain about the actual fiscal stance of Trumponomics: deficits will surely blow
up, but I won't believe in the infrastructure push until I see it, and given savage cuts in aid
to the poor it's not entirely clear that there will be net stimulus. * But suppose there is. Then
what?
Well, what happened in the Reagan years was "twin deficits": the budget deficit pushed up interest
rates, which caused a strong dollar, which caused a bigger trade deficit, mainly in manufactured
goods (which are still most of what's tradable.) This led to an accelerated decline in the industrial
orientation of the U.S. economy:
[Graph]
And people did notice. Using Google Ngram, we can watch the spread of terms for industrial
decline, e.g. here:
[Graph]
And here:
[Graph]
Again, this happened despite substantial protectionism.
So Trump_vs_deep_state will probably follow a similar course; it will actually shrink manufacturing despite
the big noise made about saving a few hundred jobs here and there.
On the other hand, by then the Bureau of Labor Statistics may be thoroughly politicized, commanded
to report good news whatever happens.
RMO declines sharply during recessions and the worse the downturn, the harder manufacturing
gets hit. Ergo, avoiding recessions is the absolute best policy for manufacturing. Trade and the
dollar's value don't have nearly as strong correlations.
RMWW rise strongly during sustained expansions of private industry employment.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USPRIV
Trade deficits have little correlation but the correlation with private industry employment growth
is strong: 16 million new jobs since 1Q2010.
All of this should be obvious, as Keynes said: "The ideas (about economics) . . . are extremely
simple and should be obvious."
"Well, what happened in the Reagan years was "twin deficits": the budget deficit pushed up
interest rates, which caused a strong dollar, which caused a bigger trade deficit, mainly in manufactured
goods (which are still most of what's tradable.)"
Deficit spending would always stimulate an economy except the Fed controls the brakes.
The Fed is especially worried about wage price inflation spirals
When inflation pops its head above target, the Fed slams on the brakes.
At the ZLB, inflation is far below target so the Fed has its foot off the brakes.
Deficit spending is stimulatory because the Fed does not apply the brakes by raising interest
rates.
This is textbook economics
The first intelligent comment here. Yes Volcker kept real interest rate very high for a while
which led to a dramatic appreciation of the dollar. But even as Volcker took off the monetary
brakes to let the economy get back to full employment, real interest rates stayed elevated and
the real appreciation was not entirely reversed. So we got a sustained trade deficit even in the
face of trade protection. That is the simple point that some here wish to duck.
Yes but historically it does not seem like it has worked that way. There does not appear to be
an obvious correlation between budget deficits and either (a) interest rates themselves, or (b)
the change in interest rates.
It seems like the Fed is acting on inflation signals. It is not so clear that (changes in)
budget deficits necessarily result in (changes in) inflation. Unless there is a direct link between
budget deficits and inflation it is hard to credibly argue that increasing the budget deficit
results in increased inflation results in Federal Reserve raising rates to choke off inflation.
The history of budget deficits and interest rates that Anne showed above don't provide much
support for Prof. Krugman's point.
Krugman is predicting that the Fed will raise rates to counter Trump's fiscal expansion and will
appreciate the dollar. That's what happened with Volcker jacking rates to fight inflation.
He doesn't spell this out exactly.
It's like how Greenspan and Rubin told Clinton he had to drop his middle class spending
bill in order to focus on deficit reduction. Greenspan was threatening to raise rates and Clinton
bent the knee to the "independent" Fed.
That's when Clinton threw a tantrum about being an "Eisenhower Republican."
The Senate Democrats like Schumer get what the populist backlash is about. That's why they're
promising $1 trillion over 10 years in government spending rather than Hillary's $275 over 5 years.
They can do the math. They know what happened in the election. It wasn't just about Comey or
the DNC hack. The election shouldn't have been that close.
"the budget deficit pushed up interest rates" We had large budget deficits during the Great Recession
and they didn't push up interest rates. In fact Obama focused too much on deficit reduction.
"... Trump may be a Nationalist, but he is also an anti-regulatory elite with no regard for business ethics or accountability to the community. He is also for "greedy take all" and against fair distribution of profits in the economy. ..."
"... The key point here is that as long as there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism, nationalism is the only game in town for the opposition forces. That's why trade union members now abandoned neoliberal (aka Clintonized ) Democratic Party. ..."
"... Traditionally, Neoliberalism espouses privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade and reduction in government spending. ..."
"... One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings. Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and a half centuries. ..."
"... As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field is somewhere else, in the realm of actual economic exchange-which is not, however, the market. We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is often described-and this creates a lot of confusion-as "market fundamentalism," and while this may be true for neoliberal's self-promotion and self-presentation, i.e., the market as the ultimate and only myth, as were the gods of the past, I would argue that in neoliberalism there is no such thing as the market as we have understood it from previous ideologies. ..."
"... it seeks to leave no space for individual self-conception in the way that classical liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree, were willing to allow. ..."
"... I am suggesting that the issue is not how strong the state is in the service of neoliberalism, but whether there is anything left over beyond the new definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market has become the state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them. ..."
I will go with worth reading. I don't think that is controversial at all and there is way more
than an element of truth in it. But knowing is one thing and organizing politically in a manner
sufficient to bring about change is entirely another.
They are correct. We need an alternative to Nationalism and Trump.
They are not correct about mysterious elites controlling things.
The elites pursued anti-regulatory policies that allowed them to reap short term profits without
regard for stability or sustainability. It is not government control but lack of regulation that
allowed BIgF to run wild and unaccountable.
Trump may be a Nationalist, but he is also an anti-regulatory elite with no regard for
business ethics or accountability to the community. He is also for "greedy take all" and against
fair distribution of profits in the economy.
The plant closures are headlined and promote the mistaken belief that globalization is the
prime cause of job loss. These large closures are only 1/10th of the job losses and dislocations
due to automation and transformation from manufacturing to service economies. Wealthy elites are
allowed to greedily hoard all the profits from automation and not enough is being invested in
the service economy. Austerity is not a policy to control the masses, it is a policy to protect
the wealth accumulated by elites from fair distribution.
Trump is not going to bring manufacturing plants back to American rural backwaters. Those left
behind must build their own service economy or relocate to a sustainable region that is making
the transition.
The key point here is that as long as there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism,
nationalism is the only game in town for the opposition forces. That's why trade union members
now abandoned neoliberal (aka Clintonized ) Democratic Party.
All Western societies now, not only the USA, experience nationalist movements Renaissance.
And that's probably why Hillary lost as she represented "kick the can down the road" neoliberal
globalization agenda.
An important point also is that nationalism itself is not monolithic. There are at least two
different types of nationalism in the West now:
ethnic nationalism (old-style), where the "ethnicity" is the defining feature of belonging
to the "in-group"
cultural nationalism (new style), where the defining traits of belonging to the "in-group"
is the language and culture, not ethnicity.
As for your statement
"Trump may be a Nationalist, but he is also an anti-regulatory elite with no regard for
business ethics or accountability to the community. He is also for "greedy take all" and against
fair distribution of profits in the economy."
This might be true, but might be not. It is not clear what Trump actually represents. Let's
give him the benefit of doubt and wait 100 days before jumping to conclusions.
Traditionally, Neoliberalism espouses privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free
trade and reduction in government spending.
What exactly did Clinton want to privatize? What budget did she propose slashing? Did
she want to deregulate banks or environmental regulations?
She supported some trade liberalization, but also imposing sanctions. What government spending
did she want to reduce?
Fact: She supported the opposite of most of these policies.
Donald Trump promised to pursue all of these Neoliberal policies. The GOP and their propaganda
megaphone is very good at tarring the opposition as supporting the very policies they are enacting.
They made Al Gore into a liar, John Kerry into a coward with a purple band aid and Hillary into
a Wall Street shill. None of this is true. But Trump and his GOP are doing all the things you
accuse Democrats of doing.
You are wrong. Your definition of neoliberalism is formally right and we can argue along those
lines that Hillary is a neoliberal too (Her track record as a senator suggests exactly that),
it is way too narrow. There is more to it:
"One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over
in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings."
(see below)
"Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market has become the
state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them."
"In the current election campaign, Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment
of neoliberalism among all the candidates, she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe
this explains, even if not articulated this way, the widespread discomfort among the populace
toward her ascendancy. People can perceive that her ideology is founded on a conception of
human beings striving relentlessly to become human capital (as her opening campaign commercial
so overtly depicted), which means that those who fail to come within the purview of neoliberalism
should be rigorously ostracized, punished, and excluded.
This is the dark side of neoliberalism's ideological arm (a multiculturalism founded on
human beings as capital), which is why this project has become increasingly associated with
suppression of free speech and intolerance of those who refuse to go along with the kind of
identity politics neoliberalism promotes.
And this explains why the 1990s saw the simultaneous and absolutely parallel rise, under
the Clintons, of both neoliberal globalization and various regimes of neoliberal disciplining,
such as the shaming and exclusion of former welfare recipients (every able-bodied person should
be able to find work, therefore under TANF welfare was converted to a performance management
system designed to enroll everyone in the workforce, even if it meant below-subsistence wages
or the loss of parental responsibilities, all of it couched in the jargon of marketplace incentives)."
In this sense Hillary Clinton is 100% dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and neocon ("neoliberal with
the gun"). She promotes so called "neoliberal rationality" a perverted "market-based" rationality
typical for neoliberalism:
== quote ==
When Hillary Clinton frequently retorts-in response to demands for reregulation of finance,
for instance-that we have to abide by "the rule of law," this reflects a particular understanding
of the law, the law as embodying the sense of the market, the law after it has undergone a
revolution of reinterpretation in purely economic terms.
In this revolution of the law persons have no status compared to corporations, nation-states
are on their way out, and everything in turn dissolves before the abstraction called the market.
One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over
in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings.
Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic
theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and
a half centuries.
As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field
is somewhere else, in the realm of actual economic exchange-which is not, however, the market.
We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface.
Neoliberalism is often described-and this creates a lot of confusion-as "market fundamentalism,"
and while this may be true for neoliberal's self-promotion and self-presentation, i.e., the
market as the ultimate and only myth, as were the gods of the past, I would argue that in neoliberalism
there is no such thing as the market as we have understood it from previous ideologies.
The neoliberal state-actually, to utter the word state seems insufficient here, I would
claim that a new entity is being created, which is not the state as we have known it, but an
existence that incorporates potentially all the states in the world and is something that exceeds
their sum-is all-powerful, it seeks to leave no space for individual self-conception in
the way that classical liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree, were willing
to allow.
There are competing understandings of neoliberal globalization, when it comes to the question
of whether the state is strong or weak compared to the primary agent of globalization, i.e.,
the corporation, but I am taking this logic further, I am suggesting that the issue is
not how strong the state is in the service of neoliberalism, but whether there is anything
left over beyond the new definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the state has
become the market, the market has become the state, and therefore both have ceased to exist
in the form we have classically understood them.
Of course the word hasn't gotten around to the people yet, hence all the confusion about
whether Hillary Clinton is more neoliberal than Barack Obama, or whether Donald Trump will
be less neoliberal than Hillary Clinton.
The project of neoliberalism-i.e., the redefinition of the state, the institutions of society,
and the self-has come so far along that neoliberalism is almost beyond the need of individual
entities to make or break its case. Its penetration has gone too deep, and none of the democratic
figureheads that come forward can fundamentally question its efficacy.
It came as a part of series of three separate executive actions that President Trump took on
Monday.
"The first is a withdrawal of the United States from the Trans Pacific Partnership," White
House chief of staff Reince Priebus said, explaining the first executive action President Trump
was taking in the list of three. The other two were one freezing hiring of all federal employees
except in the military, and one that restores the Mexico City policy.
As President Trump signed the executive action killing the TPP, he announced for the cameras
in the oval office that it was a "great thing for the American worker, what we just did."
Trump campaigned heavily against TPP, so it's only fitting he'd crush it once and for all on
his first business day as President of the United States. It's his efforts campaigning against
it-and the efforts of failed presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)-that shook Washington's
political establishment, and eventually forced failed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary
Rodham Clinton to come out against the deal that was supposed to be a legacy achievement of now
former President Barack Obama.
Trump hammered TPP repeatedly throughout his campaign and even leading up to it in speeches
and interviews, including many exclusive interviews with Breitbart News.
"... The era of neoliberalism ended in the autumn of 2008 with the bonfire of financialisation's illusions. The fetishisation of unfettered markets that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan brought to the fore in the late 1970s had been the necessary ideological cover for the unleashing of financiers to enable the capital flows essential to a new phase of globalisation in which the United States deficits provided the aggregate demand for the world's factories (whose profits flowed back to Wall Street closing the loop nicely). ..."
"... when the bottom fell out of this increasingly unstable feedback loop, neoliberalism's illusions burned down and the west's working class ended up too expensive and too indebted to be of interest to a panicking global establishment. ..."
"... Thatcher's and Reagan's neoliberalism had sought to persuade that privatisation of everything would produce a fair and efficient society unimpeded by vested interests or bureaucratic fiat. That narrative, of course, hid from public view what was really happening: a tremendous buildup of super-state bureaucracies, unaccountable supra-state institutions (World Trade Organisation, Nafta, the European Central Bank), behemoth corporations, and a global financial sector heading for the rocks. ..."
"... Their purpose was to impose acquiescence to a clueless establishment that had lost its ambition to maintain its legitimacy. When the UK government forced benefit claimants to declare in writing that "my only limits are the ones I set myself", or when the troika forced the Greek or Irish governments to write letters "requesting" predatory loans from the European Central Bank that benefited Frankfurt-based bankers at the expense of their people, the idea was to maintain power via calculated humiliation. Similarly, in America the establishment habitually blamed the victims of predatory lending and the failed health system. ..."
"... It was against this insurgency of a cornered establishment that had given up on persuasion that Donald Trump and his European allies rose up with their own populist insurgency. They proved that it is possible to go against the establishment and win. Alas, theirs will be a pyrrhic victory which will, eventually, harm those whom they inspired. The answer to neoliberalism's Waterloo cannot be the retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the pitting of "our" people against "others" fenced off by tall walls and electrified fences. ..."
"... This is all about globalisation, specifically wage deflation for the working classes from competing with emerging markets and freedom of movement, and also from offshoring of working class jobs to emerging markets. ..."
"... Until there is a viable alternative economic philosophy, nationalism is the future, whether we like it or not. ..."
"... Enough is enough. Globalisation is now only working for the rich and powerful. The model is simple - globalisation lowers the cost for consumers of everything, because the lowest cost geography produces everything (China, India etc), which is great until nobody has a job any more, so nobody can afford anything. ..."
"... The challenge is not to stick with the status quo, it's to find an alternative to nationalism that works for everyone. ..."
"... Fine words, but we're along way from that right now. What's happening in Europe, and across the Atlantic, is really only just getting started. Our elites may well be suffering from a crisis of legitimacy, and yet they are still very much in control. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is based on the acceptance that the rich elite are deserving of their wealth and privileges. The elite have used their mouthpieces, such as tabloids and think tanks, to ram this home; but the banking crisis of 2008 helped disabuse people of this myth that justifies rampant inequality in the US and the UK in particular. ..."
"... Trump and Brexit are expressions of the paradigm shift that is underway; but up till now, rather ironically, a billionaire and a rich former stockbroker have been the voice of protest, because it is they who have the money, connections and vanity to ensure they are heard. ..."
"... These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation. But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization. ..."
"... Some of the gains of the top 5 percent could go toward alleviating the anger of the lower- and middle-class rich world's "losers." ..."
"... the history of the last quarter century during which the top classes in the rich world have continually piled up larger and larger gains, all the while socially and mentally separating themselves from fellow citizens, does not bode well for that alternative ..."
"... Social Neoliberals (mass immigration, family breakdown, individualism etc) combine with economic Neoliberals (profit maximisation, global capital movements etc) to get their way. ..."
"... I'm fairly sure that in time it will be shown that thier is a cabal of think-tanks and supranationalists who have perverted everything to thier own benefit. How and why does a Labour Peer get free accomodation on Baron Rothschilds' estate? How and why does the royal bank Coutts get bailed out by the taxpayer with no strings attached? ..."
The answer to neoliberalism's Waterloo cannot be a retreat to barricaded nation-states and the pitting
of 'our' people against 'others' fenced off by high walls
A clash of two insurgencies is now shaping the west. Progressives on both sides of the Atlantic
are on the sidelines, unable to comprehend what they are observing. Donald Trump's inauguration marks
its pinnacle.
One of the two insurgencies shaping our world today has been analysed ad nauseum. Donald Trump,
Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and the broad Nationalist International that they are loosely connected
to have received much attention, as has their success at impressing upon the multitudes that nation-states,
borders, citizens and communities matter.
However, the other insurgency that caused the rise of this Nationalist International has remained
in the shadows: an insurrection by the global establishment's technocracy whose purpose is to
retain control at all cost. Project Fear in the UK, the troika in continental Europe and the unholy
alliance of Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the surveillance apparatus in the United States are
its manifestations.
The era of neoliberalism ended in the autumn of 2008 with the bonfire of financialisation's
illusions. The fetishisation of unfettered markets that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan brought
to the fore in the late 1970s had been the necessary ideological cover for the unleashing of financiers
to enable the capital flows essential to a new phase of globalisation in which the United States
deficits provided the aggregate demand for the world's factories (whose profits flowed back to Wall
Street closing the loop nicely).
Meanwhile, billions of people in the "third" world were pulled out of poverty while hundreds of
millions of western workers were slowly sidelined, pushed into more precarious jobs, and forced to
financialise themselves either through their pension funds or their homes. And when the bottom
fell out of this increasingly unstable feedback loop, neoliberalism's illusions burned down and the
west's working class ended up too expensive and too indebted to be of interest to a panicking global
establishment.
Thatcher's and Reagan's neoliberalism had sought to persuade that privatisation of everything
would produce a fair and efficient society unimpeded by vested interests or bureaucratic fiat. That
narrative, of course, hid from public view what was really happening: a tremendous buildup of super-state
bureaucracies, unaccountable supra-state institutions (World Trade Organisation, Nafta, the European
Central Bank), behemoth corporations, and a global financial sector heading for the rocks.
After the events of 2008 something remarkable happened. For the first time in modern times the
establishment no longer cared to persuade the masses that its way was socially optimal. Overwhelmed
by the collapsing financial pyramids, the inexorable buildup of unsustainable debt, a eurozone in
an advanced state of disintegration and a China increasingly relying on an impossible credit boom,
the establishment's functionaries set aside the aspiration to persuade or to represent. Instead,
they concentrated on clamping down.
In the UK, more than a million benefit applicants faced punitive sanctions. In the Eurozone, the
troika ruthlessly sought to reduce the pensions of the poorest of the poor. In the United States,
both parties promised drastic cuts to social security spending. During our deflationary times none
of these policies helped stabilise capitalism at a national or at a global level. So, why were they
pursued?
Their purpose was to impose acquiescence to a clueless establishment that had lost its ambition
to maintain its legitimacy. When the UK government forced benefit claimants to declare in writing
that "my only limits are the ones I set myself", or when the troika forced the Greek or Irish governments
to write letters "requesting" predatory loans from the European Central Bank that benefited Frankfurt-based
bankers at the expense of their people, the idea was to maintain power via calculated humiliation.
Similarly, in America the establishment habitually blamed the victims of predatory lending and the
failed health system.
It was against this insurgency of a cornered establishment that had given up on persuasion
that Donald Trump and his European allies rose up with their own populist insurgency. They proved
that it is possible to go against the establishment and win. Alas, theirs will be a pyrrhic victory
which will, eventually, harm those whom they inspired. The answer to neoliberalism's Waterloo cannot
be the retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the pitting of "our" people against "others" fenced
off by tall walls and electrified fences.
The answer can only be a Progressive Internationalism that works in practice on both sides of
the Atlantic. To bring it about we need more than fine principles unblemished by power. We need to
aim for power on the basis of a pragmatic narrative imparting hope throughout Europe and America
for jobs paying living wages to anyone who wants them, for social housing, for health and education.
Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and Europeans can
restore to a billion people living in the west sovereignty over their lives and communities.
bag0shite
This is all about globalisation, specifically wage deflation for the working classes
from competing with emerging markets and freedom of movement, and also from offshoring of
working class jobs to emerging markets.
Liberalism has created so much wealth for the west and has dramatically reduced inequality
over the last century, however it is no longer working for those on lower incomes in the west.
Until there is a viable alternative economic philosophy, nationalism is the future,
whether we like it or not.
chantaspell -> bag0shite 1d ago
nationalism is the future, whether we like it or not.
No it's not. Because what we've got, although flawed, is far superior to Nationalism's
false promises. Nationalism will, or perhaps already has, peaked.
bag0shite -> chantaspell
... go and tell that to all the families who don't have a job because their roles were
offshored to Eastern Europe or China. Got and tell that to truck drivers who earn a pittance
because there is essentially an infinite supply of Poles willing to do it for peanuts.
Enough is enough. Globalisation is now only working for the rich and powerful. The model
is simple - globalisation lowers the cost for consumers of everything, because the lowest cost
geography produces everything (China, India etc), which is great until nobody has a job any
more, so nobody can afford anything.
The challenge is not to stick with the status quo, it's to find an alternative to
nationalism that works for everyone.
MMGALIAS -> bag0shite 1d ago
This is all about globalisation, specifically wage deflation for the working classes
from competing with emerging markets and freedom of movement, and also from offshoring of
working class jobs to emerging markets.
The working classes have voted against their own interests in the last 3 decades, now we
are all supposed to feel sorry for them when the neoliberal policies they have voted for have
come back to bite them?
Northman1
"The answer can only be a Progressive Internationalism that works in practice on both sides
of the Atlantic. To bring it about we need more than fine principles unblemished by power. We
need to aim for power on the basis of a pragmatic narrative imparting hope throughout Europe
and America for jobs paying living wages to anyone who wants them, for social housing, for
health and education.
Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and Europeans
can restore to a billion people living in the West sovereignty over their lives and
communities".
These are fine aspirations. You precede them by saying that we cannot:
"...retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the pitting of 'our' people against 'others'
fenced off by tall walls and electrified fences".
This presumably refers to physical barriers to prevent illegal immigration and tariff barriers
to prevent free trade.
Tell me though how you can achieve the aspirations you set out whilst allowing millions of
people from the third world to flood into Europe at an enormous economic and social cost and
also trading freely with countries that don't trade fairly (e.g. China with its currency
manipulation, government subsidies, product dumping and lack of environmental/ safety/ worker
protection regulations)
greenwichite -> Northman1
He's brilliant on the problem...lame on the solution.
And wrong.
The answer is to only trade freely with countries that play by the same environmental,
currency and labour-rights rules as we do.
Otherwise, we are just allowing ourselves to be undercuts by cheats.
That's not "barricading" oneself anywhere...it's basic common sense, which has
unfortunately eluded our leaders for decades. In Thatcher's case, I think she was quite happy
for mercantilist, protectionist Asian powers to destroy our industry, for her own
party-political purposes.
MMGALIAS -> Northman1
and also trading freely with countries that don't trade fairly (e.g. China with its
currency manipulation, government subsidies, product dumping and lack of environmental/
safety/ worker protection regulations)
The West doesn't trade freely either, just ask the African farmers who are tariffed into
poverty by the EU.
Tiresius -> legalizefreedom
I agree. It's a well argued piece and I agree with the conclusion that neither the neo
liberal free trade consensus , nor its reaction , will provide an answer to the worsening
economic condition of the blue collar west. I also am convinced that in the longer term the
only real answer is a return to the principles of social democracy and equity of opportunity.
This will however be a long march. Neo liberalism has been in the ascendant for over 30
years , it has brought some significant benefits to a few in the west , and many elsewhere ,
and of course a lot of Chinese billionaires , a large number of western voters have lost or
are losing faith in a system that has failed to deliver rising living standards for them ,
incurred high levels of debt and reduced social mobility.
It is a failure of the narrative of the centre left that those people are persuaded by
increasing protectionism rather than social democracy. So now we will see where the reaction
to free trade liberalism takes us , it has to run its course before the prescriptions of
social democracy can be reformulated , hopefully with more inspiring leaders than at present.
Andrew Skidmore
'Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and
Europeans can restore to a billion people living in the West sovereignty over their lives
and communities.'
Fine words, but we're along way from that right now. What's happening in Europe, and
across the Atlantic, is really only just getting started. Our elites may well be suffering
from a crisis of legitimacy, and yet they are still very much in control.
From the Trump administration Whitehouse website:
'The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration. President Trump
will honor our men and women in uniform and will support their mission of protecting the
public. The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration
will end it.'
Hmmmmmm....?
thetowncrier -> Andrew Skidmore
As ever, a master of subtlety. I expect the American Stasi to come into being by the end of
next week, with a brand new special 'badge' to go with their black shirts.
2bveryFrank
Neoliberalism is based on the acceptance that the rich elite are deserving of their
wealth and privileges. The elite have used their mouthpieces, such as tabloids and think
tanks, to ram this home; but the banking crisis of 2008 helped disabuse people of this myth
that justifies rampant inequality in the US and the UK in particular.
Trump and Brexit are expressions of the paradigm shift that is underway; but up till
now, rather ironically, a billionaire and a rich former stockbroker have been the voice of
protest, because it is they who have the money, connections and vanity to ensure they are
heard.
They, however, are very unlikely to deliver and then true and genuine voices of the people
will emerge - voices that will target the root causes of discontent rather than convenient,
nationalistic scapegoats such as immigration.
ReasonableSoul -> 2bveryFrank
"and then true and genuine voices of the people will emerge - voices that will target
the root causes of discontent rather than convenient, nationalistic scapegoats such as
immigration."
So working class people who struggle to compete for the low wage jobs and strained welfare
services that are taken by migrants are not allowed to protest immigration policy?
Recent mass migrations (of the last 30 years) are unprecedented.
In Europe, whole towns have been transformed, particularly culturally.
Imposing huge demographic changes on a people is a form of authoritarian social
engineering.
SeenItAlready
This is covered by a report in YaleGlobal (and a similar one in the Harvard Business
Review) from 2014 which adds a few stats showing how middle-class salaries in the 'Western
World' were the only ones to stagnate in the period 1998 to 2008 (and obviously drop post
2008, but that isn't covered):
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/tale-two-middle-classes
This is the last section of that report:
The populists warn disgruntled voters that economic trends observed during the past
three decades are just the first wave of cheap labor from Asia pitted in direct competition
with workers in the rich world, and more waves are on the way from poorer lands in Asia and
Africa. The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or
more.
This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or
the sustainability of globalization.
If globalization is derailed, the middle classes of the West may be relieved from the
immediate pressure of cheaper Asian competition. But the longer-term costs to themselves
and their countries, let alone to the poor in Asia and Africa, will be high. Thus, the
interests and the political power of the middle classes in the rich world put them in a
direct conflict with the interests of the worldwide poor.
These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had
little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against
globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to
control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of
the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they
have keen interest in its continuation. But while their use of political power has enabled
the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved
many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either
plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization.
Another solution, one that involves neither populism nor plutocracy, would require enormous
effort at the understanding of one's own longer-term self-interest. It would imply more
substantial redistribution policies in the rich world. Some of the gains of the top 5
percent could go toward alleviating the anger of the lower- and middle-class rich world's
"losers." These need not nor should be mere transfers of money from one group to
another.
Instead, money should come in the form of investments in public education, local
infrastructure, housing and preventive health care. But the history of the last quarter
century during which the top classes in the rich world have continually piled up larger and
larger gains, all the while socially and mentally separating themselves from fellow
citizens, does not bode well for that alternative
Personally I see the whole US election here... written a couple of years before it
happened:
Hillary as Globalisation
Trump as Populism
And Bernie (who as the report suggests wasn't even allowed by the Globalist forces to -
present himself) as Redistribution
moranet -> Rusty Woods
Just as in the 1920s early 30s, when centrist governments attempting mild redistributive
banking reforms -MacDonald, Herriot, Van Zeeland, Azaña- came up against a "Wall of Money"
when the financial markets reacted, and were overthrown in favour of orthodox liberal
governments (the 'technocratic insugency' described by Prof. Varoufakis). And when public
opinion inevitably lost its patience, propelling harder nosed reformers close to power...
that's when political and financial elites discovered rule by executive decree and the
adjournment of parliaments.
So we know very well what happens next in Europe, when liberal capitalism and
liberal-democracy find themselves on opposing teams.
anewdawn
There are two sorts of nationalism in my view. There is the nasty, evil, Nazi style that
promotes the insane social darwinism, and superiority, but a hypocritical imperialism towards
other states and countries.
There is another type of nationalism that good decent people who really care about
democracy would approve of however. It is the sort that seeks to protect the poor and the
middle classes by stopping global corporations from off shoring their jobs to sweatshops in
countries that have lower human rights records for the purpose of cheap labour and more
profit. There is the sort of nationalism that promotes local democracy as opposed to tying
countries up to TTIP and TPP which undermines the governments and laws of individual
countries. There is a type of nationalism that seeks to protect their neighbors by insisting
on fair trade and good treatment of workers in other countries.
If you listen to Trumps speech, he seems to be the second type when he promises to bring
back jobs to the rust belt, but only time will tell if he really is of the first type - it
will surface soon in his attitude to invasions of the middle east and control of the global
corporations.
ID0118186 -> anewdawn
But those same middle classes are part of the problem, they want their consumer goods,
their iPods and iPhones and iPads, but they don't want to pay the real cost of them if they
were made by well-paid and well-trained skilled workers in their own country.
You have to address the whole issue: you can't have cheap prices and protectionism, unless you
let wages fall to near the same level that they are in developing countries - also unpopular.
So if you want nationalism as you describe it, be willing to pay 50 to 100% more for many
goods and services; or buy a lot less, which kills your economy anyway.
epidavros -> anewdawn
And then there is also the phoney internationalism of the EU - which is really a turbo
charged nationalism of what will soon be 27 countries bent on protectionism, technocratic rule
and a firmly closed mindset with a firmly debunked ideology.
toadalone -> anewdawn
I like your description of the two nationalisms. I think Varoufakis' point is that that
kind of nationalism can't survive on its own, as an island in a globalised world: nationalists
of that kind have to work together with their neighbouring counterparts to make their
respective benign nationalisms function. It's a very difficult proposal to bring to fruition,
even though I think it's right.
As for Trump: I think that seasoning campaign speeches with a flavour of benign nationalism
is, sadly, little more than a well-established PR technique. I don't believe what Trump says
for an instant (partly because he constantly breaks the fourth wall by saying the complete
opposite a few days later).
Other leaders who deploy this flavour of nationalism are more complicated. Viktor Orbán, for
instance. It's very difficult to tell, with him, how much of his protectionist-nationalist
rhetoric is genuine (but impossible to implement, given Hungary's membership of the EU), and
how much of it is just more of the same
dangle-shiny-things-in-front-of-the-voters-while-doing-what-you-want. And as with Trump,
Orbán's "benign" nationalism comes as just one flavour in a dish also heavily flavoured with
demented backward-looking authoritarian nationalism, with Kulturkampf and all the other
trimmings.
The weird thing about Trump is how he turns these contradictions into a kind of conscious
performance art. It's possible to view Orbán as someone who's cracking up a bit under the
pressure of believing six impossible things before breakfast. Trump is more healthy (from the
Trump's own point of view, of course, not from ours). He's embraced the crazy completely, and
revels in it. While probably reserving some quiet time for himself, in which he can privately
drop the mask, or rather the 500 different masks.
QuayBoredWarrior -> ReubenK1
Perhaps you should read this bit again:
The answer can only be a Progressive Internationalism that works in practice on both
sides of the Atlantic. To bring it about we need more than fine principles unblemished by
power. We need to aim for power on the basis of a pragmatic narrative imparting hope
throughout Europe and America for jobs paying living wages to anyone who wants them, for
social housing, for health and education.
Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and Europeans
can restore to a billion people living in the West sovereignty over their lives and
communities.
If you need to know what the New Deal involved, I suggest you Google it or buy a book about
it. If there is a library still open near you, you might able to borrow a book for free.
I think what is suggested is a new New Deal, an interventionist strategy to replace the
laissez-faire, the-market-knows-best approaches of the 80s/90s/00s. The details of which will
need to be hammered out as we progress. BTW, the New Deal was a haphazard and piecemeal
programme that was often based on hope over accepted wisdom. The aim was stabilisation and an
end to the mass impoverishment of American workers. If we have this aim, I'm sure we can work
out what needs to be done. It won't only be professors who come up with suggestions but all
those who coalesce behind these aims.
The first thing necessary is to loosen the grip of those who bang on about deficit
reduction above all else. This counter-productive approach needs to be crushed. It works for
no one and it doesn't work for the future. The services being destroyed will have to be built
up again and the deficit-above-all-else proselytisers have no strategy for this at all. It's
as if their true aim is to see them destroyed forever.
SeenItAlready
Their purpose was to impose acquiescence to a clueless establishment that had lost
its ambition to maintain its legitimacy. When the UK government forced benefit claimants to
declare in writing that "my only limits are the ones I set myself", or when the troika
forced the Greek or Irish governments to write letters "requesting" predatory loans from
the European Central Bank that benefited Frankfurt-based bankers at the expense of their
people, the idea was to maintain power via calculated humiliation. Similarly, in America
the establishment habitually blamed the victims of predatory lending and the failed health
system.
Not only that...
They also came out with the wheeze of getting the poor to fight amongst themselves
I'm convinced that is what is behind the explosion in Identity Politics we have seen over the
last few years - where different groups are encouraged to dislike each other on gender,
gender-orientation and and racial lines. Of course social class is kept well out of any of
these discussions... in spite of it being the source of most of the real repression
SeenItAlready -> SeenItAlready
different groups are encouraged to dislike each other on gender, gender-orientation and and
racial lines. Of course social class is kept well out of any of these discussions... in spite
of it being the source of most of the real repression
Likewise immigration where the immigrants themselves are made an issue of and blamed or
defended... of course in reality salary dumping and job losses have nothing to do with them
The wealthy class who encouraged the immigration of cheap labour, who did not provide any
protection for workers impacted by it and who then effectively sacked local workers in favour
of cheaper labour have again pulled-off a very neat trick by shifting the terms of the debate
to the innocent immigrants who were simply following opportunity and invitations. Likewise the
immigrants feel that they are being persecuted by the locals...
And so the rich sit back and rub their hands with glee... poor immigrants and poor locals
fighting, poor men and poor women fighting, poor whites and poor non-whites fighting. No
chance of the pitchforks arriving for quite a while, if ever...
FreddySteadyGO -> SeenItAlready
And so the rich sit back and rub their hands with glee... poor immigrants and poor
locals fighting, poor men and poor women fighting, poor whites and poor non-whites
fighting. No chance of the pitchforks arriving for quite a while, if ever...
Absolutely, its all far too convenient.
Social Neoliberals (mass immigration, family breakdown, individualism etc) combine with
economic Neoliberals (profit maximisation, global capital movements etc) to get their way.
I'm fairly sure that in time it will be shown that thier is a cabal of think-tanks and
supranationalists who have perverted everything to thier own benefit. How and why does a
Labour Peer get free accomodation on Baron Rothschilds' estate? How and why does the royal
bank Coutts get bailed out by the taxpayer with no strings attached?
SeenItAlready -> FreddySteadyGO
My reply to you got totally deleted, it seems that saying to much about this subject is not
acceptable to these people, which I guess is no surprise considering...
I said in my removed message that I didn't think there was any 'conspiracy' and that it was
the normal divide-and-conquer behaviour which people in power have applied since time
immemorial to those they would wish to control
Now I've changed my mind...
mysterycalculator
Could it be that Francis Fukuyama got it wrong with his historicist vision of liberal
democracy as the final stage in a Hegelian dialectic? Should he have gone with Marx's
interpretation of Hegel's dialectic instead, arguing that political freedom without economic
freedom is not enough? If so, then the argument for a redistributive social justice has to be
the way forward. Though as Karl Popper was keen to point out, Hegal and historicist visions
are bunk. Though interestingly Popper had much more time for Marx. A redistributive social
justice within the checks and balances of a liberal democratic internationalist social order -
that might be a way forward!
Sven Ringling
As long as this problem is seen as a left vs right, we won't address it. Trump's ideas are
in many cases very left. He wants to subsidise jobs through tarifs/trade wars/ anything that
reduces imports and therefore benefits job creation in their large market with a large trade
deficit in the short run.
Corbyn wants to subsidise the poorer part of the population directly or through public
services taking the money directly from businesses and the rich - though he is not disinclined
to isolationism either.
Both recipies work in the short run, both are likely to backfire in the long run the way
they are currently pushed.
It was Labour's big mistake to think UKIP is on the right and therefore a risk for the
Tories only.
And this Greek clown considered left is not far from that American clown. Clowny-ness is
actually their mist defining feature.
ReasonableSoul
Maintaining funcional borders is not a "retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the
pitting of 'our' people against 'others' fenced off by tall walls and electrified fences."
Even liberal Sweden became so overwhelmed by the endless stream of migrants/refugees
arriving that it had to shut the border.
ID614534 1d ago
2
3
Why does every debate about the nation state have to be economic? Peoples of the world are
often tied to their places of birth by language religion and culture. Not every song has to be
sung in an American accent and we don't all want to replace Nan's pie recipe with a Big Mac
and fries.
Share
Facebook Twitter
Report
epidavros 1d ago
6
7
Fine words, but the problem is that there is no progressive internationalism and there are no
real progressives. The response to the EU referendum widely seen to have been a call to end
unmanaged migration and undue interference of those very supra national, unaccountable elite
bodies you mention has been to call for the UK to be punished, to pay the price, to be treated
entirely differently from trade partners like Canada and dealt with as a pariah. Not
progressive. Not international. And very much the problem, not the cure.
The huge irony here is that with all this talk of populism and barricading behind borders the
UK and USA are seeking to tear theirs down, while the EU is erecting ideological barricades to
protect its elite and their project.
One thing is for sure - the solution is not the status quo. Either in the USA or the EU.
From amazon review of his book
In the Jaws of the Dragon "Anyone who has read "The World is Flat" should also read "In The
Jaws Of The Dragon" to understand both sides of the issues involved in offshoring. Eamon Fingleton clearly
defines the differences between the economic systems in play in China and Japan and the United States
and how those differences have damaged the United States economy. The naive position taken by both the
Republicans and the Democrats that offshoring is good for America is shown to be wrong because of a
fundamental lack of knowledge about who we are dealing with. Every member of Congress and the executive
branch should read this book before ratifying any more trade agreements. The old saying of the marketplace
applies: Take advantage of me once, shame on you. Take advantage of me twice, shame on me."
Notable quotes:
"... Similar miscommunication probably helps explain the European media's unreflective scorn for Donald Trump. Most European commentators have little or no access to the story. They have allowed their views to be shaped largely by the American press. ..."
"... That's a big mistake. Contrary to their carefully burnished self-image of impartiality and reliability, American journalists are not averse to consciously peddling outright lies. This applies even in the case of the biggest issues of the day, as witness, for instance, the American press's almost unanimous validation of George Bush's transparently mendacious case for the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... Most of the more damning charges against Trump are either without foundation or at least are viciously unfair distortions. Take, for instance, suggestions in the run-up to the election that he is anti-Semitic. In some accounts it was even suggested he was a closet neo-Nazi. Yet for anyone remotely familiar with the Trump story, this always rang false. After all he had thrived for decades in New York's overwhelmingly Jewish real estate industry. Then there was the fact that his daughter Ivanka, to whom he is evidently devoted, had converted to Judaism. ..."
"... In appointing Jared Kushner his chief adviser, he has chosen an orthodox Jew (Kushner is Ivanka's husband). Then there is David Friedman, Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an outspoken partisan of the Israeli right and he is among other things an apologist for the Netanyahu administration's highly controversial settlement of the West Bank. ..."
"... As is often the case with Trumpian controversies, the facts are a lot more complicated than the press makes out. ..."
"... So far, so normal for the 2016 election campaign. But it turned out that Kovaleski was no ordinary Trump-hating journalist. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are malformed. For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if troubling, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking someone's disability. ..."
"... In any case in responding directly to the charge of mocking Kovaleski's disability, Trump offered a convincing denial. "I would never do that," he said. "Number one, I have a good heart; number two, I'm a smart person." ..."
"... other much discussed Trumpian controversies such as his disparaging remarks about Mexicans and Muslims. In the case of both Mexican and Muslims, an effort to cut back immigration is a central pillar of Trump's program and his remarks, though offensive, were clearly intended to garner votes from fed-up middle Americans. ..."
"... In reality, as the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital evidence in the Kovaleski affair. ..."
Battlefield communications in World War I sometimes left something to be desired. Hence a famous
British anecdote of a garbled word-of-mouth message. As transmitted, the message ran, "Send reinforcements,
we are going to advance." Superior officers at the other end, however, were puzzled to be told: "Send
three and four-pence [three shillings and four-pence], we are going to a dance!"
Similar miscommunication probably helps explain the European media's unreflective scorn for
Donald Trump. Most European commentators have little or no access to the story. They have allowed
their views to be shaped largely by the American press.
That's a big mistake. Contrary to their carefully burnished self-image of impartiality and
reliability, American journalists are not averse to consciously peddling outright lies. This applies
even in the case of the biggest issues of the day, as witness, for instance, the American press's
almost unanimous validation of George Bush's transparently mendacious case for the Iraq war in 2003.
Most of the more damning charges against Trump are either without foundation or at least are
viciously unfair distortions. Take, for instance, suggestions in the run-up to the election that
he is anti-Semitic. In some accounts it was even suggested he was a closet neo-Nazi. Yet for anyone
remotely familiar with the Trump story, this always rang false. After all he had thrived for decades
in New York's overwhelmingly Jewish real estate industry. Then there was the fact that his daughter
Ivanka, to whom he is evidently devoted, had converted to Judaism.
Now as Trump embarks on office, his true attitudes are becoming obvious – and they hardly lean
towards neo-Nazism.
In appointing Jared Kushner his chief adviser, he has chosen an orthodox Jew (Kushner is Ivanka's
husband). Then there is David Friedman, Trump's choice for ambassador to Israel. Friedman is an outspoken
partisan of the Israeli right and he is among other things an apologist for the Netanyahu administration's
highly controversial settlement of the West Bank. Trump even wants to move the American embassy
in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This position is a favourite of the most ardently pro-Israel
section of the American Jewish community but is otherwise disavowed as insensitive to Palestinians
by most American policy analysts.
Many other examples could be cited of how the press has distorted the truth. It is interesting
to revisit in particular the allegation that Trump mocked a disabled man's disability. It is an allegation
which has received particular prominence in the press in Europe. But is Trump really such a heartless
ogre? Hardly.
As is often the case with Trumpian controversies, the facts are a lot more complicated than
the press makes out. The disabled-man episode began when, in defending an erstwhile widely ridiculed
contention that Arabs in New Jersey had publicly celebrated the Twin Towers attacks, Trump unearthed
a 2001 newspaper account broadly backed him up. But the report's author, Serge Kovaleski, demurred.
Trump's talk of "thousands" of Arabs, he wrote, was an exaggeration.
Trump fired back. Flailing his arms wildly in an impersonation of an embarrassed, backtracking
reporter, he implied that Kovaleski had succumbed to political correctness.
So far, so normal for the 2016 election campaign. But it turned out that Kovaleski was no
ordinary Trump-hating journalist. He suffers from arthrogryposis, a malady in which the joints are
malformed. For Trump's critics, this was manna from heaven. Instead of merely accusing the New York
real estate magnate of exaggerating a minor, if troubling, sideshow in U.S.-Arab relations, they
could now arraign him on the vastly more damaging charge of mocking someone's disability.
Trump's plea that he hadn't known that Kovaleski was handicapped was undermined when it emerged
that in the 1980s the two had not only met but Kovaleski had even interviewed Trump in Trump Tower.
That is an experience I know something about. I, like Kovaleski, once interviewed Trump in Trump
Tower. The occasion was an article I wrote for Forbes magazine in 1982. If Trump saw my by-line today,
would he remember that occasion 35 years ago? Probably not. The truth is that Trump, who has been
a celebrity since his early twenties, has been interviewed by thousands of journalists over the years.
A journalist would have to be seriously conceited – or be driven by a hidden agenda – to assume that
a VIP as busy as Trump would remember an occasion half a lifetime ago.
In any case in responding directly to the charge of mocking Kovaleski's disability, Trump
offered a convincing denial. "I would never do that," he said. "Number one, I have a good heart;
number two, I'm a smart person." Setting aside point one (although to the press's chagrin, many
of Trump's acquaintances have testified that a streak of considerable private generosity underlies
his tough-guy exterior), it is hard to see how anyone can question point two. In effect Trump is
saying he had a strong self-interest in not offending the disabled lobby let alone their millions
of sympathisers.
After all it was not as if there were votes in dissing the disabled. This stands in marked contrast
to other much discussed Trumpian controversies such as his disparaging remarks about Mexicans
and Muslims. In the case of both Mexican and Muslims, an effort to cut back immigration is a central
pillar of Trump's program and his remarks, though offensive, were clearly intended to garner votes
from fed-up middle Americans.
In reality, as the Catholics 4 Trump website has documented, the media have suppressed vital
evidence in the Kovaleski affair.
For a start Trump's frenetic performance bore no resemblance to arthrogryposis. Far from frantically
flailing their arms, arthrogryposis victims are uncommonly motionlessness. This is because relevant
bones are fused together. As Catholics 4 Trump pointed out, the media should have been expected to
have been chomping at the bit to interview Kovaleski and thus clinch the point about how ruthlessly
Trump had ridiculed a disabled man's disability.
The website added: "If the media had a legitimate story, that is exactly what they would have
done and we all know it. But the media couldn't put Kovaleski in front of a camera or they'd have
no story."
Catholics 4 Trump added that, in the same speech in which Trump did his Kovaleski impression,
he offered an almost identical performance to illustrate the embarrassment of a U.S. general with
whom he had clashed. In particular Trump had the general wildly flailing his arms. It goes without
saying that this general does not suffer from arthogryposis or any other disability. The common thread
in each case was merely an embarrassed, backtracking person. To say the least, commentators in Europe
who have portrayed Trump as having mocked Kovaleski's disability stand accused of superficial, slanted
reporting.
All this is not to suggest that Trump does not come to the presidency unencumbered with baggage.
He is exceptionally crude – at least he is in his latter-day reality TV manifestation (the Trump
I remember from my interview in 1982 was a model of restraint by comparison and in particular never
used any expletives). Moreover the latter-day Trump habit of picking Twitter fights with those who
criticize him tends merely to confirm a widespread belief that he is petty and thin-skinned.
Many of his pronouncements moreover have been disturbing and his abrasive manner will clearly
prove on balance a liability in the White House. That said, the press has never worked harder or
more dishonestly to destroy a modern American leader.
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, therefore, as he sets out to make America great again.
The truth is that American decline has gone much further than almost anyone outside American industry
understands. Trump's task is a daunting one.
Eamonn
Fingleton is an expert on America's trade problems and is the author of In Praise of Hard Industries:
Why Manufacturing, Not the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity (Houghton Mifflin,
Boston). A version of this article appeared in the Dublin Ireland Sunday Business Post.
America's fate looks dicey in the showdown with the Chinese juggernaut, warns this vigorous jeremiad.
Fingleton (In Praise of Hard Industries) argues that China's "East Asian" development model of aggressive
mercantilism and a state-directed economy "effortlessly outperforms" America's fecklessly individualistic
capitalism
"... In Europe and the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass
immigration and military intervention abroad. ..."
"... Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three buttons, the importance
of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking their cue from their donors
rather than potential voters, never appreciated. ..."
"... The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa
is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important
example being the Kurds. ..."
"... Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited
in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. ..."
"... It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on
Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian leaders whose regimes were more the
symptom than the cause of division. ..."
"... Political divisions in the US are probably greater now than at any time since the American
Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity in both countries betray a deepening disunity and
alarm as people sense that they are moving in the dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible
and may no longer exist. ..."
"... Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication
of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia ..."
"... But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading for Central Europe and the
terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle East could not be contained.
They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian nationalist right and made them
real contenders for power. ..."
"... One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far he succeeds in closing down these wars,
something that is now at last becoming feasible. ..."
In the US, Europe and the Middle East there were many who saw themselves as the losers from globalisation,
but the ideological vehicle for protest differed markedly from region to region. In Europe and
the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass immigration and military
intervention abroad. The latter theme is much more resonant in the US than in Europe because
of Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three
buttons, the importance of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking
their cue from their donors rather than potential voters, never appreciated.
The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa
is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important
example being the Kurds. This is a big change from 50 years ago when revolutionaries in the
region were usually nationalists or socialists, but both beliefs were discredited by corrupt and
authoritarian nationalist dictators and by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited
in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. When Isis
forces were advancing on Baghdad after taking Mosul in June 2014, it was a fatwa from the Iraqi Shia
religious leader Ali al-Sistani that rallied the resistance. No non-religious Iraqi leader could
have successfully appealed to hundreds of thousands of people to volunteer to fight to the death
against Isis. The Middle East differs also from Europe and the US because states are more fragile
than they look and once destroyed prove impossible to recreate. This was a lesson that the foreign
policy establishments in Washington, London and Paris failed to take on board after the invasion
of Iraq in 2003, though the disastrous outcome of successful or attempted regime change has been
bloodily demonstrated again and again. It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the
troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian
leaders whose regimes were more the symptom than the cause of division.
But it is not only in the Middle East that divisions are deepening. Whatever happens in Britain
because of the Brexit vote or in the US because of the election of Trump as president, both countries
will be more divided and therefore weaker than before. Political divisions in the US are probably
greater now than at any time since the American Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity
in both countries betray a deepening disunity and alarm as people sense that they are moving in the
dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible and may no longer exist.
The mainline mass media is finding it difficult to make sense of a new world order which may or
may not be emerging. Journalists are generally more rooted in the established order of things than
they pretend and are shocked by radical change. Only two big newspapers – the Florida Times-Union
and the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Trump before the election and few of the American
commentariat expected him to win, though this has not dented their confidence in their own judgement.
Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication
of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia, but there is also genuine uncertainty
about whether he will be a real force for change, be it good or ill.
Crises in different parts of the world are beginning to cross-infect and exacerbate each other.
Prior to 2014 European leaders, whatever their humanitarian protestations, did not care much what
happened in Iraq and Syria. But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading
for Central Europe and the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle
East could not be contained. They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian
nationalist right and made them real contenders for power.
The Middle East is always a source of instability in the world and never more so than over the
last six years. But winners and losers are emerging in Syria where Assad is succeeding with Russian
and Iranian help, while in Iraq the Baghdad government backed by US airpower is slowly fighting its
way into Mosul. Isis probably has more fight in it than its many enemies want to believe, but is
surely on the road to ultimate defeat. One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far
he succeeds in closing down these wars, something that is now at last becoming feasible.
"... The strongest advocates for bringing offshore manufacturing back to the United States acknowledge automation's effect on the workforce but say it doesn't negate the need for more domestic factories. Harry Mosser, founder of the Reshoring Institute, which encourages companies to bring manufacturing operations back to the United States, said that even a highly automated factory is better for workers than no factory at all. ..."
"... These days it is more about planned/welcomed obsolescence - the product basically works, but some critical parts may be low grade, making it break after a while so you have to buy something new. This also affects "brands that used to be good". ..."
"... The internet also has played a role - online stores could underbid brick and mortar, then the latter had to cheapen and cut their offerings, driving more customers to the internet, etc. ..."
SOUTHBRIDGE - A mainstay of Massachusetts manufacturing since
the late 1800s, the Hyde Group tool company made a big leap
overseas in 2010, when it outsourced production of its mass
market putty knives and wallpaper blades to China.
"At
heart, we're manufacturers. It was the hardest thing for us
to do, us in a fourth-generation family," said Bob Clemence,
vice president of sales at Hyde Group, and great-grandson of
the man who bought the company in the 1890s. "In order for us
to stay in business and still employ people, we had to move
our low-end business off-shore. It really was like a stab in
the heart."
But the cost advantage of China has been steadily shrinking;
it's now 40 percent cheaper to make the tools there than in
Southbridge. And if that continues to fall, then Hyde might
be able to help President Donald Trump fulfill a central
campaign promise: bringing manufacturing back to the United
States.
"Forty percent [savings] is a huge number to overcome,"
Clemence said. "We've determined that if it's 20 percent or
less, we're going to do it domestically."
As Trump cajoles American companies into returning
production to US soil, experiences like Hyde's illustrate the
complex, multifaceted decisions manufacturers face as they
choose where to build their products.
The president has talked of using lower taxes, fewer
regulations, and higher tariffs to bring about a renaissance
of American manufacturing. But for factory owners, it's not
simply about cheaper labor. The costs of energy and raw
materials, the emergence of global competitors, and the
location and demands of suppliers and customers all weigh on
these decisions, a myriad of cross currents that will make it
difficult to fix the factory economy with just a few bold
prescriptions.
"It's going to be not an easy job," said Enrico Moretti,
professor of economics at the University of California,
Berkeley, who predicted that even if factories stay in the
United States, production will be increasingly automated.
"I'm not sure there is one explicit policy, a magic switch,
that executive power in Washington can switch to retain jobs
in the US."
In the eyes of factory owners, singling them out won't
necessarily solve the problem. Some say they were forced to
move production overseas by their customers. At Hyde, it was
the retail stores that carry its tools demanding lower
prices.
"It doesn't matter what they say about made in the USA,
it's all about price," Clemence said. "They've taken some
basic items and said there are commodity products and said,
'We only buy them by price.' "
In Norwood, the Manufacturing Resource Group opened a
second factory just across the US border in Mexico in 2011
because customers demanded cheaper versions of its cable
assemblies, wire harnesses, and other electric components.
"The decision to open in Mexico wasn't ours," MRG
president Joe Prior said. "We were told that, 'You need to
have a low-cost option, or we're not going to be able to do
business with you.' "
The Norwood and Mexico factories nearly mirror one
another, each employing about 70 people, with mostly the same
equipment and capabilities. The Norwood factory still
accounts for most of its business, as MRG's local customers
are willing to pay more for quicker shipping and customer
service. But other customers simply want a cheaper product -
wages at the Mexico factory are a quarter the cost of
Norwood, while health care costs about 90 percent lower.
Prior said if Trump does impose a high tariff on imported
products, as he has threatened, then that cost would probably
be shouldered by customers of the Mexican factory.
"If there is a tax, it just has to be passed on to our
customers and they'd have to make a decision about whether it
makes sense for them anymore," he said.
Since many US companies sell to customers around the
world, a high tariff might bring some production back home -
but at a cost. For Eastern Acoustic Works, that might mean
losing international customers for its sound equipment.
The Whitinsville company is closing its factory here,
laying off 27 workers and outsourcing most production of
speaker systems and subwoofers to a contract manufacturer in
China. There were just too many competitors around the world
making similar equipment for Eastern Acoustic to justify
charging higher prices for its US-made products, general
manager TJ Smith said. Eastern Acoustic will instead
concentrate on new sales, marketing, and R&D initiatives,
creating white-collar jobs that will help it grow.
"Running a factory takes a lot of focus and energy," Smith
said. "We have to ask ourselves, what are we good at? What do
we want to call our competencies?"
Smith said Eastern Acoustic might be forced to bring
production back to the United States if the Trump tariff goes
into effect. However, that move might also prompt the company
to drop its international clients - Asia accounts for 30
percent of Eastern Acoustic's sales - because the US-made
products wouldn't be competitive in overseas markets.
"It would split my business up too much, so I couldn't
support" an overseas factory, Smith said. "For our scale, I
would lean toward [choosing] the domestic market at this
point because that's what I know and I'm closer to it."
But the higher tariffs might help Eastern Acoustic in
another way - by raising prices on products its European
competitors are selling to US customers. "So that might
increase my near-term opportunity domestically," Smith said.
Raw materials, such as steel or energy, is another area
Trump would have to address. Foreign steel, especially, is so
much cheaper that it is very difficult for manufacturers not
to use. But Trump's promise to promote more domestic oil and
gas production could be a major boon to factories.
For example, US companies are benefiting from very cheap
domestic natural gas; that's especially important in
processing industries that use a lot of chemicals in their
production. ...
President Donald Trump has spoken often about trade's
effect on US manufacturing employment but has said
comparatively little about another economic force that has
caused factories to shed jobs: high-tech machines and
automation.
At the Hyde Group's Southbridge factory, the amount of
work that 100 employees do now would have required 180
workers more than a decade ago, said Bob Clemence, the
company's vice president of sales.
While the number of blue-collar assembly-line jobs at US
factories has been dropping in huge numbers for decades,
Enrico Moretti, a professor at the University of California,
Berkeley, said the number of engineers working in factories
has about doubled. Future manufacturing jobs will probably
require engineering skills and training, Moretti said.
At Hyde, the typical factory worker might operate two or
three computerized machines at a time, and the work generally
requires an associate's degree or some college education,
Clemence said. That's a far cry from 20 years ago, when the
factory used to host night classes to help employees earn
high school degrees.
"We could still do the GED," Clemence said. "But I need
someone coming in the door that already has that degree
information. I don't need somebody that is only running a
fork truck."
In his presidential farewell address Jan. 10, President Obama
highlighted the effects of technology on the workforce,
noting "the relentless pace of automation that makes a lot of
good middle-class jobs obsolete." He also called for ensuring
higher-level education, as well as stronger labor unions, to
blunt the effect.
Even if future manufacturing employees are trained to
handle robots and high-tech machines, the math is simple
enough: Machines and robots require fewer workers on factory
floors. When the appliance maker Carrier, a division of
United Technologies Corp., agreed to keep in Indiana about
800 jobs it had planned to send to Mexico, it marked an early
public relations win for Trump. Within days, however, United
Technologies' chief executive said new investments in the
Indiana factory would probably result in automation and
eventual job losses.
The strongest advocates for bringing offshore manufacturing
back to the United States acknowledge automation's effect on
the workforce but say it doesn't negate the need for more
domestic factories. Harry Mosser, founder of the Reshoring
Institute, which encourages companies to bring manufacturing
operations back to the United States, said that even a highly
automated factory is better for workers than no factory at
all.
"If you bring back any manufacturing, you bring back some
employment," he said.
"At Hyde, the typical factory
worker might operate two or three computerized machines at a
time, and the work generally requires an associate's degree
or some college education,"
What are "computerized machines," Fred? and why only two
or three?
In my personal experience (as an IT guy)
observing electronic techs in computer
manufacturing (some decades ago) monitoring
several 'computerized' testing machines at once. (Made for
interesting challenges trying to measure productivity.)
Why
only two or three? When an 'event' happens,
prompt operator response is usually called for.
No, a cnc cell will typically have 4 or 5 cnc
machines. You just need labor to feed, stack and turn one off
if there is an issue. One will do. Injection molding can be 2 to 4 presses. This is why Labor
should have been paid more as they are replacing 3 and 4
people.
We already have this environment and plants are not
crawling with engineers. They are needs for programming only
and even then an operator might be able to do it.
"We could still do the GED," Clemence said. "But I need
someone coming in the door that already has that degree
information. I don't need somebody that is only running a
fork truck."
Translation: "We will not pay for upgrading
the skills of fresh hires as long as we still have older
workers in their 50's+ with existing skills *who are not
leaving*."
And that aspect is hinted at right above - 20+ years ago,
when today's 50+ were 20/30-ish, they paid for their
education, and those people are still in the accessible labor
pool.
But they *will* age out, and then they hand wringing and
wailing about skill shortages will intensify (and you better
believe companies will *then* arrange the skill upgrades).
> In the eyes of factory owners, singling them out won't
necessarily solve the problem. Some say they were forced to
move production overseas by their customers. At Hyde, it was
the retail stores that carry its tools demanding lower
prices. "It doesn't matter what they say about made in the
USA, it's all about price," Clemence said. "They've taken
some basic items and said there are commodity products and
said, 'We only buy them by price.' "
Yup. Consumers matter.
So long as we care more about getting the lowest price than
whether the workers who made the widget were getting a fair
deal the problem will persist.
It was said elsewhere in the article that "customers"
actually meant retail chains.
With many products, including
food, the origin of the product or its ingredients is not
properly disclosed. "Made for", "distributed by", "packed
in", "packaging printed in", are not actionable.
Then with advances in manufacturing and material sciences,
it has become harder to judge the expected quality and
workmanship of a product by its external appearance - most
look well finished and spiffy, parts are fitting well, etc.
About 20+ years that wasn't the case, and it was much
easier to tell that something is cheap junk (when looking
good on the outside it may still be junk inside, but at least
there was a way of identifying the lowest category).
These days it is more about planned/welcomed obsolescence
- the product basically works, but some critical parts may be
low grade, making it break after a while so you have to buy
something new. This also affects "brands that used to be
good".
Then one can only go by price, as that's a difference that
can still be discerned. And obviously there is a feedback
dynamic - stores observe what sells, and slowly remove
variety and "mid range" products.
The internet also has played a role - online stores could
underbid brick and mortar, then the latter had to cheapen and
cut their offerings, driving more customers to the internet,
etc.
From comments: "Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity
about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble
is, Davos ain't fiction." "The biggest cabal of sociopathic criminals the world has ever
known."
Notable quotes:
"... This is not new. Klaus Schwab, the man who founded the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s, warned as long ago as 1996 that globalisation had entered a critical phase. "A mounting backlash against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a very disruptive impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries," he said. ..."
"... Schwab's warning was not heeded. There was no real attempt to make globalisation work for everyone. Communities affected by the export of jobs to countries where labour was cheaper were left to rot. The rewards of growth went disproportionately to a privileged few. Resentment quietly festered until there was a backlash. For Schwab, Brexit and Trump are a bitter blow, a repudiation of what he likes to call the spirit of Davos. ..."
"... It would be wrong, however, to imagine that business is terrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency. Boardrooms rather like the idea of a big cut in US corporation tax. They favour deregulation. They purr at plans to spend more on infrastructure. Wall Street is happy because it thinks the new president will mean stronger growth and higher corporate earnings. ..."
"... 'Policy decisions-not God, nature, or the invisible hand-exposed American manufacturing workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition, but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to keep them largely protected.' ..."
"... Good article by the way. Recommend others to read. Thanks. ..."
"... Stop trying to shackle every conservative to the desperate and ugly views of the few. Deplorables and their alt-right kin, are so small in number. We ought keep an eye on the Deplorables but little else ... they're politically insignificant. I wish you'd stop trying to throw the average Republican voter into the basket of bigoted, racist rednecks. It's deplorable! ..."
"... Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble is, Davos ain't fiction. ..."
"... Why would Daniel go into the lion's den? Trump is committed to stopping the excesses of the "swamp rats" most of whom are at Davos. The world will be turned on its head in 2017; it is going to be interesting to watch the demise of those at the top of the pyramid. ..."
"... What exactly is the "Spirit of Davos" then? A bunch of fat, rich elderly men and their hangers-on troughing themselves to the point of bursting on fine wines and gourmet food, while paying lip-service to the poor? ..."
"... One question for Davos might be: how are you going to resolve differences between the vast majority of people who exist as national citizens, and the multinational elite? It's not a new question. ..."
"... Multinationals, corporate and individuals, can dodge the taxes which pay for services we all rely on but especially citizens. ..."
"... Davos is not restricting attendance to high office bearers. Trump could have gone, had he wanted to, or he could have sent one of his family/staff - that's how Davos works. ..."
"... Bilderberg is by invitation, as far as I know, Davos by application and paying a high membership, plus fee. But the fact he is not represented could be a good sign if it means that the focus is on solving domestic issues as opposed to spending so much time and resources on international ones. ..."
"... My own take on the annual Davos circus is as follows:. It is a totally useless conclave and has never achieved anything tangible since its inception. ..."
"... This gives an excellent opportunity for those who hold so-called "numbered" or other secret bank accounts in the proverbially secretive Swiss banks to have their annual tete-a-tete with their bankers and carry out whatever maintenance has to be done to their bank accounts. After all, in tiny Switzerland, it is only a hop from one town to another. No one will miss you if you are not visible for a day or two. If any nosy taxman back home asks: "What was the purpose of your visit to Switzerland?", one can say with a straight face: "Oh, I was invited to be a keynote speaker at Davos to talk about the increasing income disparity in the world and on what steps to take to mitigate it."! ..."
"... I think globalisation is inhumane. Someone calculated that if labour were to follow capital flows we would see one third of the globe move around on a constant basis. One son in Cape Town a daughter in New York and a brother in Tokyo. It's not how human societies operate we are group animals like herds of cows. We need to be firmly rooted in order to build functioning and humane societies. That is the migration aspect of globalization the other aspect is the complete destruction of diverse cultures. ..."
Trump's influence can also be felt in other ways. The manner in which he won the US election,
tapping in to deep-seated anger about the unfair distribution of the spoils of economic growth,
has been noted. There is talk in Davos of the need to ensure that globalisation works for everyone.
This is not new. Klaus Schwab, the man who founded the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s,
warned as long ago as 1996 that globalisation had entered a critical phase. "A mounting backlash
against its effects, especially in the industrial democracies, is threatening a very disruptive
impact on economic activity and social stability in many countries," he said.
Schwab's warning was not heeded. There was no real attempt to make globalisation work for everyone.
Communities affected by the export of jobs to countries where labour was cheaper were left to
rot. The rewards of growth went disproportionately to a privileged few. Resentment quietly festered
until there was a backlash. For Schwab, Brexit and Trump are a bitter blow, a repudiation of what
he likes to call the spirit of Davos.
It would be wrong, however, to imagine that business is terrified at the prospect of a Trump
presidency. Boardrooms rather like the idea of a big cut in US corporation tax. They favour deregulation.
They purr at plans to spend more on infrastructure. Wall Street is happy because it thinks the
new president will mean stronger growth and higher corporate earnings.
In Trump's absence, it has been left to two senior members of the outgoing Obama administration
– his vice-president, Joe Biden, and secretary of state John Kerry – to fly the US flag.
Just
as significantly, Xi Jinping is the first Chinese premier to attend Davos and has made it clear
that, unlike Trump, he has no plans to resile from international obligations. The sense of a changing
of the guard is palpable.
missuswatanabe
It's the way globalisation has been managed for the benefit of the richest in the developed
world that has been bad for the masses rather than globalisation itself.
I thought this was an interesting, if US-centric, perspective on things:
'Policy decisions-not God, nature, or the invisible hand-exposed American manufacturing
workers to direct competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. Policymakers could
have exposed more highly paid workers such as doctors and lawyers to this same competition,
but a bipartisan congressional consensus, and presidents of both parties, instead chose to
keep them largely protected.'
Good article by the way. Recommend others to read. Thanks.
Paul Paterson -> ConBrio
Decent, hardworking Americans facing social and economic insecurity, whether on the right
or left, ought to be the focus. We need to deal with the concerns of the average citizen, however
it is they vote. Fringe groups don't serve our attention given tbe very real problems the country
faces.
Stop trying to shackle every conservative to the desperate and ugly views of the few. Deplorables
and their alt-right kin, are so small in number. We ought keep an eye on the Deplorables but
little else ... they're politically insignificant. I wish you'd stop trying to throw the average
Republican voter into the basket of bigoted, racist rednecks. It's deplorable!
What we should concern ourselves with is the very real social and economic insecurity felt
by many in red states and blue states alike. Those decent and hardworking Americans, regardless
of party, are joined in much. Deplorables aren't the average Republican voter and didn't win
Trump an election - they are too few to win much of anything.
What you keep referring to as Deplorables are decent Americans seeking change and socioeconomic
justice. You are mixing up citizens who happen to vote for the GOP withbwhite nationalist scum.
How dare you tar all conservatives with the hate monger brush!
Spunky325 -> Paul Paterson
Actually, before taking office, Trump strong-armed Ford and GM into putting more money in
their American plants, instead of moving more production to Mexico. He's also questioned cost-overruns
on Air Force One and several military projects which is causing companies to back off. I can't
think of another American president who has felt it was important to keep jobs in America or
who has questioned military spending. Good for him!
Paul Paterson -> Spunky325
You've made it quite clear "you can't think" as you've bought into the ruse. The question
is why are you so boastful about it? Trump's policies are even seen by economists on the right
as creating staggering levels of debt, creating more economic inequality and unlikely to increase
jobs.
Among many flaws, they point out tax proposals that hurt the poor and middle class to such
a degree it almost seems targeted. This is the same economic plot that has failed working Americans
repeatedly. You folks are getting caught up in a time share pitch and embracing policy that
has little chance to help the average American - however it is they vote. It isn't supposed
to but y'all are asleep at the wheel.
DrBlamm0
Saying Davos without Trump is like Hamlet without the prince implies a dignity about
the event which is rather far fetched. More like the Dark Side without Darth Vader ... trouble
is, Davos ain't fiction.
johhnybgood
Why would Daniel go into the lion's den? Trump is committed to stopping the excesses
of the "swamp rats" most of whom are at Davos. The world will be turned on its head in 2017;
it is going to be interesting to watch the demise of those at the top of the pyramid.
bilyou
What exactly is the "Spirit of Davos" then? A bunch of fat, rich elderly men and their
hangers-on troughing themselves to the point of bursting on fine wines and gourmet food, while
paying lip-service to the poor?
Maybe Trump just decided to trough it at his tower and avoid hanging out with a grotesque
bunch of insufferable see you next Tuesdays.
Ricardo_K
One question for Davos might be: how are you going to resolve differences between the
vast majority of people who exist as national citizens, and the multinational elite? It's not
a new question.
Multinationals, corporate and individuals, can dodge the taxes which pay for services we
all rely on but especially citizens.
James Patterson
Xi's statements on a trade war are completely self serving. But his assertions that he is
against protectionism and unfair trading practices is laughably hypocritical. China refuses
to let any Silicon Valley Internet company one inch past the Great Firewall. Under his direction
the CCP has imposed draconian regulations, which change by the week, on American Companies
operating in China making fair competition with local Chinese companies impossible.
The business climate in China is reprehensible. The CCP has resorted to extortion, requiring
that U.S. tech companies share their most sensitive trade secrets and IP with Chinese state
enterprises or get barred from conducting business there. Sadly, U.S. companies entered China
with high expectations and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in factories, labs and
equipment. This threat has caused many CEO's to sacrifice their company's long term viability
by transferring their most closely guarded technological advances to China or face the loss
their entire investment in China. Even so, multinationals are beginning the Chinese exodus
led by those with less financial exposure soon to be followed by companies like Apple despite
significant economic ties.
True, most people believe a 'trade war' with China means America is the defacto loser because
of dishonest reporting. The truth is that America's economic exposure to China is extremely
limited. U.S. exports to China represent only 7% of America's total exports worldwide; which
in turn accounts for less than 1% of total U.S. GDP (Wells Fargo Economics Group 2015). Most
of America's exports to China are raw materials, which can be redirected to other markets with
some effort. So even if China blocked all U.S. exports tomorrow, America's economy could absorb
the blow with minimal damage. This presents the U.S. government with a wide range of options
to deal with China's many trade infractions and unfair practices as aggressively or punitively
as it wishes.
europeangrayling
Poor Davos attendees. You feel for them at their fancy alpine Bilderberg. It's like the
meeting of the mafia organizations, if the mafia became legal and respected now and ran the
world economy. And I don't think those economic royalists at Davos miss Trump, Trump was a
small fish compared to the Davos people. They make Trump look like a dishwasher.
They are just pissed Trump came out against the TPP and those globalist 'free trade' deals,
and doesn't want more regime change maybe. They like everything else about Trump's policies,
the big tax cuts, environmental and banking deregulations galore, it's like Reagan 2.0, without
the 'free trade'. But they really want that 'free trade' though, those guys are used to getting
everything. Imagine if Bernie won, they would really hate that guy, he is also against the
TPPs and trade, and for less war, and against everything else they are used to. And that's
good, if those honorable brilliant Davos gentleman don't like you, that's not a bad thing.
soundofthesuburbs -> soundofthesuburbs
With secular stagnation we should all be asking why is economics so bad?
Keynesian redistributive capitalism went out with Margaret Thatcher and inequality has been
rising ever since (there is a clue there for the economists amongst us).
How did these new ideas rise to prominence?
"There Is No Nobel Prize in Economics
It's awarded by Sweden's central bank, foisted among the five real prizewinners, often to economists
for the 1% -- and the surviving Nobel family is strongly against it."
"The award for economics came almost 70 years later-bootstrapped to the Nobel in 1968 as a
bit of a marketing ploy to celebrate the Bank of Sweden's 300th anniversary." Yes, you read
that right: "a marketing ploy."
Today's economics rose to prominence by awarding its economists Nobel Prizes that weren't Nobel
Prizes.
No wonder it's so bad.
Global elites can use all sorts of trickery to put their ideas in place, but economics is economics
and if doesn't reflect how the economy operates it won't work.
Secular stagnation – what more evidence do we need?
HauptmannGurski -> bcarey
Davos is not restricting attendance to high office bearers. Trump could have gone, had
he wanted to, or he could have sent one of his family/staff - that's how Davos works.
Bilderberg is by invitation, as far as I know, Davos by application and paying a high membership,
plus fee. But the fact he is not represented could be a good sign if it means that the focus
is on solving domestic issues as opposed to spending so much time and resources on international
ones.
Meanwhile, alibaba's Jack Ma said in Davos that the US had spent many trillions on wars in
the last 30 years and neglected their own infrastructure. Money is for people, or some such
like, he said. Just mentioning it here, because the MSM tend to dislike running this kind of
remark.
Rajanvn -> HauptmannGurski
My own take on the annual Davos circus is as follows:. It is a totally useless conclave
and has never achieved anything tangible since its inception.
Did it, in any way, with all the stars in the financial galaxy gathered in one place, warn
against the 2008 global financial meltdown? The real reason why so many moneybags congregate
at a place which would be shunned by all who have no affinity for snow sports may be, according
to my own reckoning, may not be that innocent and may even be quite sinister.
This gives an excellent opportunity for those who hold so-called "numbered" or other
secret bank accounts in the proverbially secretive Swiss banks to have their annual tete-a-tete
with their bankers and carry out whatever maintenance has to be done to their bank accounts.
After all, in tiny Switzerland, it is only a hop from one town to another. No one will miss
you if you are not visible for a day or two. If any nosy taxman back home asks: "What was the
purpose of your visit to Switzerland?", one can say with a straight face: "Oh, I was invited
to be a keynote speaker at Davos to talk about the increasing income disparity in the world
and on what steps to take to mitigate it."!
Roland33
I think globalisation is inhumane. Someone calculated that if labour were to follow capital
flows we would see one third of the globe move around on a constant basis. One son in Cape
Town a daughter in New York and a brother in Tokyo. It's not how human societies operate we
are group animals like herds of cows. We need to be firmly rooted in order to build functioning
and humane societies. That is the migration aspect of globalization the other aspect is the
complete destruction of diverse cultures.
If everyone drives Toyota and everyone drinks Starbucks
we lose the diversity of culture that people claim they find so valuable. And replaces it with
a mono-culture of Levi jeans and McDonalds. Wealth inequality is really something that can
be reduced if you look various countries score higher in this regard than others while still
being highly successful market economies but I think money is secondary to the displacement
and alienation that come with the first two aspects of globalisation. I find it strange that
it is now the right that advocates reversing these neoliberal trends and the left that seems
to champion it. I was conscious during the 90's and anti-globalisation was clearly a left wing
issue. For whatever reason the left just leaves room for the right to harvest the grapes of
wrath they warned about many years ago. Don't blame the "populist" right ask why the left left
them the space.
Taking the UK out of the EU single
market would be "the greatest job-killing act in Welsh
economic history", Plaid Cymru has said.
Several of Sunday's newspapers claim Prime Minister
Theresa May will signal the move in a speech on Tuesday.
Plaid's treasury spokesman Jonathan Edwards told the BBC's
Sunday Politics Wales programme the impact on Wales would be
"devastating".
Downing Street has described the reports as "speculation".
The Carmarthen East and Dinefwr MP said pulling out of the
single market and customs union would have a "huge impact on
jobs and wages in Wales".
"The reality of what we're going to hear from [Theresa
May] on Tuesday, it's going to be the greatest job-killing
act in Welsh economic history, probably in British economic
history," he added. ...
It's a shorthand reference to one possible outcome of
negotiations between the U.K. and the EU -- the U.K. giving
up its membership in Europe's single market for goods and
services in return for gaining full control over its own
budget, its own law-making, and most importantly, its own
immigration. If that happens, British leaders will be under
pressure to quickly land a new trade pact or individual
industry-by-industry deals with the EU. Otherwise, companies
will be subjected to standard World Trade Organization rules,
which would impose tariffs on them. Banks would lose the easy
access they now enjoy to the bloc.
2. How would that differ from a softer Brexit?
A softer form would see the U.K. maintain some tariff-free
access to the single market of some 450 million consumers.
The U.K. would likely still have to contribute to the EU
budget, allow some freedom of labor movement and follow some
EU rules. That's what Norway does, as a member of the
European Economic Area but not of the EU. ...
Plaid Cymru: the Party of Wales, often referred to simply as
Plaid) is a social-democratic political party in Wales
advocating for Welsh independence from the United Kingdom
within the European Union. ... (Wikipedia)
'How can the United Kingdom possibly gain economically from
completely leaving the
European Union?'
Voters decided that the UK was paying
more to be 'in the EU' than they were
receiving (in subsidies, etc.) for
*being* members. That and they were
expected by Way Too European, welcome
foreign workers, obey crazy regulations
imposed by foreigners, yada yada yada.
(Wales, BTW, gets/got lots of aid from the EU.)
Or, is the key word 'completely'?
It was said months ago by the other major
EU members that they want Britain *out*, so
that alone should be a reason for PM May
to demand a very Soft Brexit.
After these months since the vote to leave the European
Union, where the United Kingdom had special privileges to
begin with, I still find no coherent rationale to the
decision. There is no reason to think the cost of being an EU
member was anywhere near the benefits to the UK, and evidence
to the contrary that was repeatedly promised has never been
produced.
Simon Wren-Lewis has written often on Brexit and
seems as puzzled as I am by the seeming toughness as well as
the determination of Teresa May on the leaving.
It would seem UK voters were bamboozled about
the finances. They do pay a lot *in* to be
EU members, as do other large/wealthy
members, but they also got a lot back.
They were told it was costing too much.
'they were
expected (to be) Way Too European, welcome
foreign workers, obey crazy regulations
imposed by foreigners, etc.'
Britain has always had mixed feelings
about being 'European' it seems, since
the end of their empire.
No worries. There will
still be The Five Eyes,
the 'Special Relationship'.
An exclusive club: The 5 countries that don't spy on each
other
http://to.pbs.org/2iv8mNk
via @PBS NewsHour - October 25, 2013
It was born out of American and British intelligence
collaboration in World War II, a long-private club nicknamed
the "Five Eyes." The members are five English-speaking
countries who share virtually all intelligence - and pledge
not to practice their craft on one another. A former top U.S.
counter-terrorism official called it "the inner circle of our
very closest allies, who don't need to spy on each other."
This is the club that German chancellor Angela Merkel and
French President Francois Hollande say they want to join - or
at least, win a similar "no-spying" pact with the U.S.
themselves.
It all began with a secret 7-page agreement struck in 1946
between the U.S. and the U.K., the "British-US Communication
Agreement," later renamed UKUSA. At first their focus was the
Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites. But after
Canada joined in 1948, and Australia and New Zealand in 1956,
the "Five Eyes" was born, and it had global reach. They
pledged to share intelligence - especially the results of
electronic surveillance of communications - and not to
conduct such surveillance on each other. Whiffs of the club's
existence appeared occasionally in the press, but it wasn't
officially acknowledged and declassified until 2010, when
Britain's General Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ,
released some of the founding documents. The benefits of
membership are immense, say intelligence experts. While the
U.S. has worldwide satellite surveillance abilities, the club
benefits from each member's regional specialty, like
Australia and New Zealand's in the Far East. "We practice
intelligence burden sharing," said one former U.S. official.
"We can say, 'that's hard for us cover, so can you?'" The
ease and rapidity of information-sharing among the five
"makes it quicker to connect the dots," said another
intelligence veteran. "You can't underestimate the importance
of the common language, legal system and culture," said
another. "Above all, there is total trust." ...
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for the United States
had by 2014 recovered from the international recession to the
level of 2007. Recovery for the United Kingdom came in 2015.
The recession and recovery obviously were socially difficult
and took an extended time.
Then too, there had been a time
of war from the US and UK extending from 2001.
An extended period of social turmoil that is difficult to
grasp or shut out.
PM May is in way over her head and does not know what she is
doing. Nor does she know what she says has meaning and
effects. She's not long for office, imo of course.
Brexit: The Story on Tariffs and Currency Fluctuations
The New York Times decided to tout the risks * that higher
tariffs could cause serious damage to industry in the UK
following Brexit:
For Mr. Magal [the CEO of an engineering company that
makes parts for the car industry], the threat of trade
tariffs is forcing him to rethink the structure of his
business. The company assembles thermostatic control units
for car manufacturers, including Jaguar Land Rover in Britain
and Daimler in Germany.
"Tariffs could add anything up to 10 percent to the price
of some of his products, an increase he can neither afford to
absorb nor pass on. 'We don't make 10 percent profit - that's
for sure,' he said, adding, 'We won't be able to increase the
price, because the customer will say, "We will buy from the
competition."' "
The problem with this story, as conveyed by Mr. Magal, is
that the British pound has already fallen by close to 10
percent against the euro since Brexit. This means that even
if the European Union places a 10 percent tariff on goods
from the UK (the highest allowable under the World Trade
Organization), his company will be in roughly the same
position as it was before Brexit. It is also worth noting
that the pound rose by roughly 10 percent against the euro
over the course of 2015. This should have seriously hurt Mr.
Magal's business in the UK if it is as sensitive to relative
prices as he claims.
[Graph]
It is likely that Brexit will be harmful to the UK economy
if it does occur, but many of the claims made before the vote
were wrong, most notably there was not an immediate
recession. It seems many of the claims being made now are
also false.
Great Ironies of History #23,453: Supporters of China's
Entry to WTO Now Argue for TPP as Bulwark Against China
As the protectionist supporters of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) desperately try to regroup, it's
entertaining to see how they think that China-bashing is
their best hope for success. (Yes, supporters of the TPP are
protectionist. A major thrust of the deal is to impose longer
and stronger patent and copyright and related protections on
the member countries. These are by definition forms of
protectionism, even if economists and reporters tend to like
them.)
Anyhow, we got an example of the China bashing of a TPP
supporter in a Washington Post column * by Fareed Zakaria, in
which he warned readers that China would be the main
beneficiary from a decision by Donald Trump not to pursue the
TPP as president. The economists at the Peterson Institute
for International Economics are also among those making the
argument for the TPP as an obstacle to China's growing
political strength in the region. Many of these same people
argued vociferously for allowing China to enter the World
Trade Organization in 2000 without imposing conditions like
respect for human rights or labor rights, which may have
fundamentally altered China's path of political development.
It is striking that they now think the U.S. public should now
be concerned about the growing power of a country with little
respect for these rights.
"As the protectionist supporters of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) desperately try to regroup, it's
entertaining to see how they think that China-bashing is
their best hope for success"
A New York Times
article * on Robert
Lighthizer, Donald
Trump's pick to be
trade representative,
left out some
important background
information. It notes
that Lighthizer wants
to reduce the size of
the U.S. trade deficit
with China. It then
told readers that this
could lead to major
conflicts with China:
"Exports are
important for China.
It consistently sells
$4 worth of goods to
the United States for
each $1 of imports.
That mismatch has
produced a bilateral
trade surplus for
China equal to about 3
percent of the
country's entire
economy, creating tens
of millions of jobs.
"The benefits to
China from that
surplus have been
increasing rapidly in
the past few years."
It is worth noting
that China has
actually sharply
reduced its trade
surplus in prior
years. According to
the International
Monetary Fund ** it
peaked at 9.9 percent
of GDP in 2007. It
then declined sharply
to just 1.8 percent of
GDP in 2011. It has
since edged slightly
higher, but it is
still less than 3.0
percent of GDP.
Ordinarily, we
would expect that a
fast growing
developing country
like China would be
running a trade
deficit, as capital
flows into the country
to take advantage of
higher returns. This
has not happened in
China's case as the
government has offset
inflows of private
capital by buying up
trillions of dollars
of foreign assets. It
now holds more than $3
trillion in reserves
in addition to another
$1.5 trillion in
foreign assets in the
form of sovereign
wealth funds.
Reportedly China
has recently been
trying to raise the
value of its currency.
This would suggest an
obvious path of
agreement between the
U.S. and China under
which the two
countries could act
jointly to raise the
value of China's
currency against the
dollar, thereby
putting downward
pressure on the trade
deficit.
The piece also
notes Lighthizer's
advocacy of the
efforts of the Reagan
administration to
pressure Japanese
manufacturers to
"voluntarily" limit
their exports to the
United States. It
would have been worth
mentioning that these
restrictions on
exports led the
Japanese manufacturers
to begin to set up
factories in the
United States. Today,
most of the cars that
Japanese auto
companies sell in the
United States are
assembled here,
although they still do
include a substantial
amount of foreign
content.
This piece
seriously
misrepresents a
proposal for corporate
tax reform advocated
by Republicans in
Congress as a route to
tax imports. In fact,
the tax has been
developed by
economists who are
very much conventional
free traders. The
purpose is to simplify
the tax code and
eliminate the enormous
waste associated with
the gaming of current
system. The treatment
of imports and exports
is intended to make
the tax symmetric with
the treatment of
value-added taxes in
many U.S. trading
partners. It is not
intended as a
protectionist measure
to reduce the trade
deficit.
"... In the case of the US, a Republican donor-class candidate should have been a Democrat donor-class candidate. Owing to the particular corruption of the Democratic party over the last 8 years, effectively run by the Clinton crime family, the field was unofficially limited to just one. The collapse of the Republican establishment from below still makes my heart sing. Would that the same might occur among Democrats. ..."
"... `I do not understand the pushback [against transnational causes for these events]. Do they really believe that Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, the rise of many right-wing populist parties in Europe etc. have nothing to do with economics? That suddenly all these weird nationalists and nativists got together thanks to the social media and decided to overthrow the established order? People who believe this remind me of Saul Bellow's statement that "a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is strong."' ..."
"... These are not idiomatic one-off events due to contingent political situations peculiar to each individual country. ..."
"... Something bigger is going on. If Marine LePen wins in France (and I predict she will), that will provide even more evidence. This looks like a global rebellion against globalization + neoliberal economics because the bottom 96% are realizing they're getting screwed and all the benefits are going to the top 6% of professional class + licensed professionals + top 1% in the financial robber barony. ..."
"... Because the 'soft' left, in collaboration with the soft right (and the hard right) have worked assiduously since roughly about 1979 to destroy the 'hard left'. ..."
"... If you help crush the communists then don't be surprised if, in 20 years time, you get the Nazis, because people who hate the system will vote to destroy it, and they will use whatever weapons are to hand to do so . If 'left wing' options aren't available, they will choose 'right wing' ones. ..."
"... I think that the Democratic Party is unlikely to hand over power to the average man and woman in America, but I'm sure that the Republican Party is even less likely to do so; anybody who voted Republican in 2016 because it seemed the best chance of getting power for the average man and woman was played for a sucker. ..."
"... The original Nazis emerged and rose to power in a context where the Communists were trying to destroy the system, and also seeking to crush the Social-democrats; close to the opposite of the pattern you're describing. ..."
"... And Trump, as we all know, is highly suspicious of the EU. Moreover, there is likely to be a battle between the 'liberal (in the highly specific American sense) leaning' intelligence services (the CIA etc.) and the Trump administration. ..."
"... And, thanks to Obama, the CIA, NSA etc. have far more leeway and freedom to act than they did even 20 years ago. It is also possible/likely that MI5/MI6 might be 'let off the leash' by a British (or English) nationalist orientated Conservative Government. ..."
"... you must know why you yourself aren't doing it, and the reasons that apply to you could easily apply to other people as well. ..."
"... There are people making statements daily about how what the Tories are doing is not in the interest of the vast majority of people; but with what effect? ..."
by Henry on January 5, 2017 A piece I wrote on Brexit and the
UK party system has
just come out
in Democracy. More than anything else, I wrote the article to get people to read Peter
Mair. I didn't know Mair at all well – he was another Irish political scientist, but was based in
various European universities and in a different set of academic networks than my own. I met him
once and liked him, and chatted briefly a couple of times after that about email. I wish I'd known
him better – his posthumously edited and published book,
Ruling the Void is the single most compelling
account I've read of what has gone wrong in European politics, and in particular what's gone wrong
for the left. It's still enormously relevant years after his death. The ever ramifying disaster that
is the British Labour party is in large part the working out of the story that Mair laid out – how
party elites became disconnected from their base, how the EU became a way to kick issues out of politics
into technocracy, and how it all went horribly wrong.
The modern Labour Party is caught in an especially unpleasant version of Mair's dilemma. Labour's
leaders tried over decades to improve the party's electoral prospects in a country where its traditional
class base was disappearing. They sought very deliberately and with some success to weaken its
party organization in order to achieve this aim. However, their success created a new governing
class within Labour, one largely disconnected from the party grassroots that it is supposed to
represent. Ed Miliband recognized this problem as party leader and tried to rebuild the party's
connection to its grassroots. However, as Mair might have predicted, there weren't any traditional
grassroots out there to cultivate. Mair argued that the leadership and the base were becoming
disengaged from each other, so that traditional parties were withering away. Labour has actually
taken this one stage further, creating a party in which the leadership and membership are at daggers
drawn, each able to stymie the other, but neither able to prevail or willing to surrender.
This has all changed. Class and ethnic and religious identities no longer provide secure
foundations for European parties, which have more and more tried to become "catchalls," appealing
to wide and diffuse groups of voters. People are not attached to parties for life anymore,
often waiting until just before Election Day to decide whom to vote for. Party membership figures
across Western Europe have shrunk by more than half in a generation.
Do you evaluate this change (on balance) positively or negatively? and why?
Also, since I'm commenting anyway, one minor query:
(Some European countries had different parties for Catholics and Protestants.)
Which countries did you have in mind? There are few European countries that have (or had) both
enough Catholics for a significant Catholic party and enough Protestants for a significant Protestant
party.
I know about the Netherlands, which had separate Catholic and Protestant parties until
the 1970s, when the Catholic party merged with the main Protestant parties (although there's
still a small Protestant party on the margins), but that's just one country.
Germany had a distinct Catholic party (but no specifically Protestant party) under the
Wilhelmine Reich and the Weimar Republic, but not the Federal Republic;
Switzerland has a Catholic-based party but no specifically Protestant-based party; where
else? (There's Northern Ireland, of course, but that's a bit different.) What am I missing?
The Labour Party is so weak that the Conservatives do not need to worry about Labour defeating
them in the next election, or perhaps in the election after that.
I don't think this is obvious, precisely because of the volatility of the situation. I remember
people saying this about the Cameron government in 2015 and I objected at the time that no-one
knew how the Brexit referendum will turn out. Now Cameron is gone and just about forgotten. It's
true that the Conservatives are still in, but it's a very different crew.
More importantly, we haven't yet seen what Brexit means, in any sense. May has been coasting
on the referendum result, and Labour has been wedged, unable to oppose the referendum outcome
and also unable to criticise May's Brexit policy because she either doesn't have one or isn't
telling. This can't continue forever (presumably not beyond March), and when the situation changes,
anything can happen.
Some scenarios where the Conservatives could come badly unstuck
(a) they put up a "have cake and eat it" proposal that is rejected so humilatingly that they
look like fools, then cave in and accept minor concessions on migration in return for a face-saving
soft Brexit
(b) hard Brexit becomes inevitable and the financial sector flees en masse
(c) train-crash Brexit with no agreement and a massive depression
The only scenarios I can see that would cement the current position are
(a) a capitulation by the EU on migration etc, with continued single market access
(b) an economically successful hard Brexit/non-fatal train crash
It seems to me that (a) is politically infeasible and (b) is economically unlikely
That's not to gloss over Labour's problems or your diagnosis, with which I generally agree.
" how party elites became disconnected from their base, how the EU became a way to kick issues
out of politics into technocracy, and how it all went horribly wrong."
This sounds exactly like what has happened to the Democratic party in America. Which suggests
that there's something transnational going on, much larger than the specific political situation
in any given country
The essay is excellent as we might expect, Henry. I'm not convinced that Labour had any other
choice but to elect Corbyn. Single data points are always suspect, but the decision by the Labor
bigwig (have succeeded in forgetting which) to mock 'white-van man' clearly suggests she was playing
to a constituency within Labour primed to share in a flash-sneer at the prols. I'd have
expected as much from any Tory. I have other quibbles, the decision by Labour to take a position
on the referendum and on Remain always seemed critical to forcing Labour to adopt anti-immigrant
Tory-light postures in order to have it both ways with working-class voters hostile to London
and Brussels.
More problematic is this paragraph: "Research by Tim Bale, Monica Poletti, and Paul Webb shows
that these new members tend to be well-educated and heavily left-wing. They wanted to join the
Labour Party to remake it into an unapologetically left-leaning party. However, the research suggests
that they aren't prepared to put in the hard grind. While most of them have posted about Labour
on social media or signed a petition, more than half have never attended a constituency meeting,
and only a small minority have gone door to door or delivered leaflets. They are at best a shaky
foundation for remaking the Labour Party." Your questionable decision to deploy 'they' and 'them'
muddies the reality a bit, as does your decision to rely on metrics from the past to predict future
behavior.
I take your point that failing to attend a political rally, or go door-to-door, means something
in a time when populist parties are in the 'ascent.' But as you point out this rise can only occur
because the 'old parties' have failed so badly to connect activists and members. Again, that said,
I'm still not convinced all is doom and gloom. Labour activists opposed to EU membership were
effectively gagged/shamed by the elite right up to the present. It is only now this week, that
Labour has elected to make English compulsory for new immigrants:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chuka-umunna-immigrants-should-be-made-to-learn-english-on-arrival-in-uk-classes-esol-social-a7509666.html
Labour wasn't anything but Tory-lite until Jeremy and the new influx of members. I'm not personally
in favor of the new policy. It does seem to me more Tory-lite. But the battles are now more out
in the open. My guess is that Labour will survive and will rule again, but only if the party can
persuade Scotland and Wales to remain part of the UK. Adopting Tory-lite policies is precisely
what alienated Scots Labour voters and drove them into the arms of the SNP, so that's that the
PLP gives you.
Britain is entering a period of flux: jobs, housing, respect for all – including all those
dead, white people who made such a mess of the world, and respect for all forms of work, and greater
social and economic movement within Britain will likely go over quite well with large sections
of the electorate. Strong borders and a sensible immigration policy is part of that.
@10 "This sounds exactly like what has happened to the Democratic party in America. Which suggests
that there's something transnational going on, much larger than the specific political situation
in any given country"
"This sounds " Yes, in general terms. Yet, the donor-class candidates could have and should
have won in Brexit and in the US.
In the case of the Brexit, I argued before and after that simply allowing Labour candidates
and members to express their own views publicly, rather than adhere to a (sufficiently unpopular)
particular policy set by Henry's elite would have negated the need to adopt anti-immigrant Tory
lite stances – a straddle that fooled nobody and drove Labour voters to UKIP in not insignificant
numbers.
In the case of the US, a Republican donor-class candidate should have been a Democrat donor-class
candidate. Owing to the particular corruption of the Democratic party over the last 8 years, effectively
run by the Clinton crime family, the field was unofficially limited to just one. The collapse
of the Republican establishment from below still makes my heart sing. Would that the same might
occur among Democrats.
Had, however, the Clinton campaign actually placed the candidate in Wisconsin, in Michigan,
and in Pennsylvania rather than bank on turning off voters, we'd be looking at a veneer of stability
covering up the rot now on display.
The point being: there's always something transnational going on. I explained Brexit to my
own students as a regional rebellion against London, as much as Brussels. Henry's essay is good
on Brexit and UKIP. Both the US and UK outcomes could have been avoided.
Britain is entering a period of flux: jobs, housing, respect for all – including all those
dead, white people who made such a mess of the world, and respect for all forms of work, and
greater social and economic movement within Britain will likely go over quite well with large
sections of the electorate.
If Britain were to enter a period of jobs, housing, and respect for all, with greater social
and economic mobility, it would be reasonable to expect most people to be pleased; but there's
no evidence that anything of the kind is happening, or is going to happen.
"The PLP didn't opt to get along, they opted to fight, and got mauled."
They lost the battle but are winning the war.
Corbyn has been keeping a very low profile since his re-election, proposals for reform such
as mandatory reselection seem to have been dropped, and the left of the party is squabbling over
whether it remains a Corbyn fan club or an active agent for the democratisation of the party.
Party policy remains inchoate and receives little media publicity.
Michels hasn't been disproved just yet, and I suspect the party remains immune to lasting reform,
short of a major split.
I suspect the party remains immune to lasting reform, short of a major split.
There are plenty of examples from the UK and other countries, including the Labour Party itself,
of parties undergoing major splits, and the evidence doesn't suggest that the experience is conducive
to lasting reform.
Yes, after the second election, the PLP have opted for the long game, with the expectation
that a disastrous General Election (one of the reasons why the talk up the possibility of an early
one at every opportunity) will see a return to "normality". In the meantime, the strategy is to
make Corbyn an irrelevance, hence the lack of coverage in the MSM, except for a drip of mocking
articles of which today's by Gaby Hinsliff in the Graun is typical.
Corbyn and his organisation don't help themselves but, faced with such irredentism, they have
little leverage on the situation.
You don't make a single mention of Scotland, which is a massive omission to make. (And frankly,
it's a particularly odd mistake for an Irishman: it's supposed to be the English who blithely
assume that where they live is coterminous with the whole United Kingdom).
I like a lot of the essay, but it's gravely weakened by the fact that you're prepared to discuss
things like political elites and class allegiance- and, in a European context, religious allegiance-
but you don't mention national or regional political identities. You really can't leave those
things out and give an accurate picture of current British politics.
I agree that a Labour revival isn't coming along soon. The problem is that a lot of people in
Labour think and hope that it might, and that makes them very unwilling to start thinking about
electoral alliances, because they are committed to standing candidates everywhere.
Labour, imo, needs some further and serious bad shocks to get them into the frame of mind that
could make an anti-Tory alliance possible. Once it is, FPTP could turn from the secret of Tory
success into the mechanism for their destruction. But 2020 might be too soon.
Forming coalitions and alliances requires negotiation and making trade-offs and active listening:
unfortunately there are probably too many people in the Labour Party who would find that very
difficult. They appear not to be willing to negotiate even with their own members.
I really can't see the obsession with an 'anti-Tory alliance'. Given that it involves allying
with a party who recently were effectively part of a pro-Tory alliance, it only works in any sense
if you think that the Tories have morphed into the far-right, or if you have a well-worked out
programme of constitutional reform you want to implement.
The bit that concerns involving the SNP particularly baffles me. Given that they have been
at daggers drawn with the Labour Party in Scotland, and that they are highly unlikely to step
aside from any of their 90-odd % of Scottish seats to give their alliance partner a few more MPs,
it seems a non-starter. This impression is magnified when you consider that the spectre of a Labour-SNP
minority government was thought to have scared off potential Labour voters at the last election.
Corbyn is just awful. A toxic mix of naivity, ego, and blundering stupidity.
His concept of role is almost non-existant. He walks onto a train without having pre-booked,
finds it difficult getting two seats together, and decides on the spot that all trains must be
nationalised. He spots a man sleeping rough and decides ending rough sleeping is his top priority.
He blunders around like he's just landed from another planet, sees an injustice and thinks he,
Jeremy, is the first person ever to see such a terrible thing, and decides on the spot to make
it his top priority to eliminate this evil by the simple policy expedient of saying he will eliminate
it.
He doesn't do policy in any recognisable sense. He does positioning statements which he assembles
with mates and puts on his personal web site. Take his "Manifesto for Digital Democracy". It claims
to be a policy, but in reality its just a list of Things That Jeremy Thinks Are Good. It doesn't
appear to have gone through a discussion process or approval process. It is not clear if this
is a party policy or just a personal document.
His position on Brexit is a disaster. On the issue which is coming to define politics in the
UK he is neither clearly for it nor clearly against it. He gives the impression he finds it a
dull subject. He is at best second choice for everyone, first choice for no-one; at worst, he
is an irrelevance.
Worse, he appears completely oblivious to the power games being played out in his name. Neighbouring
constituencies are to be carved up so Jeremy's seat can be preserved. His son Seb is given a job
in John McDonnell's office. He is effectively held captive by a North London clique who look after
him, tell him he's great, and then use his "policies" as a checklist against which to assess conformance
of MPs to The One True Corbyn Way and pursue vendettas.
His personality is completely unsuited to the job of Leader, let alone Prime Minister. Even
if you believe in Jeremy's policies you need to find someone else to implement them because he
lacks any of the requisite capabilities.
Nothing is going to magically get better.
No matter how bad things get, under Jeremy they can always get worse.
'Unofficially limited' dies give one the wiggle room to assert just about anything. It's a way
of lying which can't be rebutted. If you say 'but there were 3 candidates', he'll respond that
he did say 'unofficially' limited. If you say 'but two of them did quite well', he'll respond
that he did, after all, say 'unofficially' limited. So he can take a case where there was actually
a competitive race, and make it seem like there was never a competitive race. Of course, his post
is, officially, approved by the moderators
While most of them have posted about Labour on social media or signed a petition, more than
half have never attended a constituency meeting, and only a small minority have gone door to door
or delivered leaflets.
There's a strong feel of "young folks aren't doing politics the way my generation used to do
politics" about this, especially given the activities you're complaining they're not doing. Is
posting on social media achieving more or less than posting leaflets to fill up people's recycling
bins?
kidneystones @14 claims: "I explained Brexit to my own students as a regional rebellion against
London, as much as Brussels."
If that's correct, why did we get: [1] Trump/Sanders in the U.S., [2] Brexit in the UK, [3]
repudiation of Matteo Renzi along with the referendum in Italy, [4] a probable win for Marine
LePen in France (wait for it, you'll be oh-so-shocked when it happens)?
`I do not understand the pushback [against transnational causes for these events]. Do they
really believe that Trump, Brexit, Le Pen, the rise of many right-wing populist parties in Europe
etc. have nothing to do with economics? That suddenly all these weird nationalists and nativists
got together thanks to the social media and decided to overthrow the established order? People
who believe this remind me of Saul Bellow's statement that "a great deal of intelligence can be
invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is strong."'
I would suggest kidneystones is simply wrong. These are not idiomatic one-off events due
to contingent political situations peculiar to each individual country.
Something bigger is going on. If Marine LePen wins in France (and I predict she will),
that will provide even more evidence. This looks like a global rebellion against globalization
+ neoliberal economics because the bottom 96% are realizing they're getting screwed and all the
benefits are going to the top 6% of professional class + licensed professionals + top 1% in the
financial robber barony.
@43 Actually, I make no claim against trans-national developments. Quite the opposite.
Elsewhere, I've written that we are dealing with a world-wide tension between advocates of
globalization and their opponents. Where you differ is in determinations and outcomes, which I
argue are based on the actors, actions and dynamics of each state and which are, as such, unique.
There is nothing at all inevitable about any of this and JQ very sensibly reminds us of the volatility
of the present moment.
What is clear to me at least is that ideas and actions matter. Labour need not have decided
in 2014, or so, to ban members from advocating either a referendum, or leaving the EU. I dug all
this up at the time and the timeline is easy enough to recreate.
Austria stepped back from the brink, as did Greece when it repudiated Golden Dawn. The French
right and left worked together to keep the presidency out of the hands of the FN, although it's
less clear how that successful these efforts will be in the future.
The next few years will be telling. I see no reliable evidence to indicate good fortune, or
end times. The safest bet is more of the same, repackaged, with all the predictable shrieks and
yells about 'never before' etc. that usually accompanies the screwing of the lower orders. The
donor class is utterly dedicated to retaining power. I think JQ is spot on regarding alliances.
We didn't come this far just to have the wheels fall off.
The populism of the right (which I support in large measure) points the way. I'd have preferred
to see a populism of the left win, but too many are/were unwilling to burn down establishment
with the same willingness and enthusiasm of those on the right. Indeed, this thread has several
vocal defenders of an utterly corrupt Democratic party apparatus busted cold for colluding to
steal the nomination. There's a reason donors forked over 1.2 billion to the Clinton crime family
and it wasn't to help Hillary turn over power to the average woman and man in America.
Because the 'soft' left, in collaboration with the soft right (and the hard right) have
worked assiduously since roughly about 1979 to destroy the 'hard left'.
'High points' in this 'epic battle' include Neil Kinnock's purging of Militant, the failure
of the trade union establishment to (in any meaningful sense) support the miners' strike (1984),
the failure of the Democratic party establishment to get behind McGovern (1972), Carter's rejections
of Keynesianism (and de facto espousal of monetarism) in roughly 1977, Blair's war on 'Bennism',
the tolerance of/espousal of Reaganite anti-Communism by most sectors of the British left by the
late 1980s/early 1990s, and so on.
So what we are left with nowadays is angry working class people who would, in previous generations
(i.e. the 1950s, and 1960s) have voted Communist or chosen some other 'radical' left wing option
(and who did vote in such a way in the 1950s/1960s) no longer have that option.
What the 'soft left' hoped is that, with 'radical' left wing options off the table, the proles
would STFU and stop voting, or at least continue to vote for a 'nice' 'respectable' soft left
party.
What they failed to predict is that (as they were designed to do) neo-liberal policies immiserated
the working class, leaving that class angrier than ever before.
And so, the working class wanted to lash out, to register their anger, their fury. But, as
noted before, the 'traditional' way to do that was off the table. Ergo: Trump, Brexit etc.
If you help crush the communists then don't be surprised if, in 20 years time, you get
the Nazis, because people who hate the system will vote to destroy it, and they will use whatever
weapons are to hand to do so . If 'left wing' options aren't available, they will choose 'right
wing' ones.
We have all read this story book before: the 'social democrats' connived with the German state
to crush the 1918/1919 working class uprising, and then were led, blubbering, to Dachau 20 years
later. One wonders how many of them reflected that they themselves might be partially responsible
for their fate.
In the same way: the 'soft left' connived and collaborated with the Right to crush the 'radical
left' in the US and the UK (and worldwide) and then were SHOCKED!! and AMAZED!! that the Right
don't really like them very much and were only using them as a tool to defeat the organised
forces of the working class, and that with the 'radicals' out of the way, the parties of the 'soft
left' (with no natural allies left) can now be picked off one by one, at the Right's leisure.
I think that the Democratic Party is unlikely to hand over power to the average man and
woman in America, but I'm sure that the Republican Party is even less likely to do so; anybody
who voted Republican in 2016 because it seemed the best chance of getting power for the average
man and woman was played for a sucker.
(Incidentally, if 'the donor class' means the same thing as 'rich people', wouldn't it be clearer
to refer to them as 'rich people'? and if 'the donor class' means something different from 'rich
people', what constitutes the difference?)
Any tirade against Corbyn is entirely pointless, because you're not addressing the reasons
why he was elected, or what he represents. I think most of those that support him have a varying
degree of criticism, and many would prefer a more able leader. The problem for Labour is that
there is not a more able leader available that understands the need to ditch Third Way nonsense.
If any of the PLP "big beasts" had done this in any meaningful way, instead of plotting against
him, they would be leader by now.
So what we are left with nowadays is angry working class people who would, in previous generations
(i.e. the 1950s, and 1960s) have voted Communist or chosen some other 'radical' left wing option
(and who did vote in such a way in the 1950s/1960s) no longer have that option.
In the US, only tiny numbers of voters supported Communist candidates in the 1950s and 1960s.
It's true that the option of voting Communist no longer exists, because the Communist Party has
stopped running candidates, but that seems to be a realistic response by the party to its derisory
level of voter support. If there are people who still want to follow the Communist line, what
they would have done in 2016 is turn out to vote against Trump (that's what the party was urging
on its website; the information is still accessible).
In Italy, on the other hand, it's true that large numbers of voters supported Communist candidates
in the 1950s and 1960s; and in Italy, voters still have the option of supporting Communist candidates,
but the numbers of those who choose to do so have become much smaller.
People who voted for Trump weren't doing so because they were denied the option of voting Communist;
and people who voted 'No' in the Italian referendum weren't doing so because they were denied
the option of voting Communist.
If you help crush the communists then don't be surprised if, in 20 years time, you get the
Nazis, because people who hate the system will vote to destroy it, and they will use whatever
weapons are to hand to do so.
The original Nazis emerged and rose to power in a context where the Communists were trying
to destroy the system, and also seeking to crush the Social-democrats; close to the opposite of
the pattern you're describing.
Yes, and another situation where 'mostpeople' have failed to follow the logic of a situation
through. Many intellectuals can see that it is not in the EU's interests for the UK to prosper
out of the EU lest it 'encourager les autres'. Fewer have pointed out that this works the other
way, too. It is no longer in the UK's interests for the EU to prosper (or, indeed, to continue),
and a new nationalist orientated Conservative government might make moves in this direction.
As Jeremy Corbyn alone has had the perspicacity to point out, insofar as there is a political
movement in the UK that is most closely aligned with Donald Trump's Republicanism, it is the Conservatives
under May (the UK's latest intervention vis a vis the UN and Israel was a blatant attempt to curry
favour with the new American administration).
And Trump, as we all know, is highly suspicious of the EU. Moreover, there is likely to
be a battle between the 'liberal (in the highly specific American sense) leaning' intelligence
services (the CIA etc.) and the Trump administration. Assuming Trump wins (not a certainty)
it is possible/likely that Trump will use the newly 'energised' intelligence services to pursue
a more 'American nationalism' orientated policy, and it is likely that this new approach will
see the EU being viewed as much more of an economic competitor to the US, rather than a tool for
the containment of Russia, as it is primarily seen at the moment.
And, thanks to Obama, the CIA, NSA etc. have far more leeway and freedom to act than they
did even 20 years ago. It is also possible/likely that MI5/MI6 might be 'let off the leash' by
a British (or English) nationalist orientated Conservative Government.
It is not implausible, therefore, that the US and the UK will use what 'soft' power they have
to weaken the EU and sow division wherever they can. And of course the EU has enough problems
of its own, such that these tactics might work. Certainly it is highly possible that the EU will
simply not exist by 2050, or at least, not in the form that we have it at present.
"One of the consequences of the phenomenon you're discussing is that volatility is incredibly
high. I'd never before seen a politically party as totally, irredeemably fecked as Fianna Fail
in 2010, but look at them now."
I think this is just one of the features of postmodern politics. For potential governmental
parties they only have to retain enough support to be a realistic alternative, and even with 20%
of the vote Fianna Fail had enough of a profile that an opportunistic campaign of opposition could
lead to them recovering their fortunes to some extent at the next election. I suspect that even
PASOK and New Democracy will receive a similar bounce at the next Greek election.
These kind of stances usually involve avoiding too close a link to certain social groups and
maintaining a distance from potentially principled and activist party memberships. This explains
the hostility of Labour MPs towards Corbyn and the left of the party. They feel that ideological
commitments and an orientation towards the poor and disadvantaged will reduce the party's freedom
of maneuver, damaging their chances of capitalizing electorally on Tory failure.
Of course, they have not provided any reason why anyone of a left-wing persuasion should support
such a cynical and opportunistic worldview, apart from the fact that the Tories are evil. And
they then wonder why many people are alienated from politics.
"Fewer have pointed out that this works the other way, too. It is no longer in the UK's interests
for the EU to prosper (or, indeed, to continue) "
Interesting, I'd not seen that elsewhere. I'd be pretty certain that this is the objective
of people like Hannan.
".. and it is likely that this new approach will see the EU being viewed as much more of an
economic competitor to the US, rather than a tool for the containment of Russia, as it is primarily
seen at the moment."
Maybe less to do with competition than regulation? The Trump view is presumably that anything
that restricts continued plundering of the economy, especially transnational institutions.
@Igor
"I think this is just one of the features of postmodern politics. For potential governmental
parties they only have to retain enough support to be a realistic alternative "
"This explains the hostility of Labour MPs towards Corbyn and the left of the party. They feel
that ideological commitments and an orientation towards the poor and disadvantaged will reduce
the party's freedom of manoeuvre, damaging their chances of capitalising electorally on Tory failure."
"Perhaps these parties are in fact in sync with global political trends because they are
all nationalist parties and nationalism is clearly on the rise at the moment. "
Yes, they are clearly part of the nationalist turn. Or at least I assume that is true of Plaid
Cymru and the SNP, but it definitely is of Sinn Fein, who are policy wise a leftist party, but
ideologically first and foremost a nationalist one. You can see this in polling on their support
base, which tends to be more reactionary* and culturally conservative than even the irish centre
right parties, yet Sinn Fein as a political party often takes position (such as their strong support
for gay marriage) in opposition to the preferences of a large chunk of their base.
This Is particularly the case with immigration, where for going on a decade local politicians
have noted that this is one of the concerns they often hear in constituency work that they don't
make a priority in national politics. It's difficult to (as Sinn Fein does) see yourself (rightly
or wrongly) as the nationalism of a historically oppressed minority, and to support the rights
of that minority in the north (I'm making no normative claims on the correctness of their interpretation)
and then attack other minorities. This is why they're institutionally , and seemingly ideologically,
commited to diversity and multiculturalism in the south of ireland, while also being fundamentally
a nationalist party. (Question is (1) does this posture survive the current leadership , and (2)
is it enough to stave off explicitly nativist parties**) Afaict this is also true of the snp,
I don't know about PC.
But there's still a lot of poison in it. "Anti englishness" , which a lot of this, (at least
implicitly") can encourage , might be more acceptable than anti immigrant sentiment, but it's
still qualitatively the same mind set.
*this is 're a big chunk if their base, but by no means the full story.
**basically what happens to the independent vote, which is (afaict)possibly the real populist
turn in ireland.
At the risk of sounding like I'm simply saying 'but Ireland is special!' I think the (partial)
resurgence of Fianna Fail is a bit of a sui generis phenomenon. Irish politics have historically
been tribal in a way that makes UK voters look like an exemplar of rational choice theory. It
is only the very slightest exaggeration to say that my father's vote in every general election
he has participated in was determined in 1922, several decades before his birth – I'm sure other
Irish Timberteers have experienced similar. Even then, FF is still far away from the kind of hegemonic
dominance it enjoyed prior to the crash – when a poll result of 38% would have been regarded as
disastrous – and the FF/FG combined vote total is still struggling to hit 60%. While I'd agree
that this looks like pretty strong evidence for the 'resurgence of the right' thesis of European
politics at first glance, the failure of the left in Ireland is more due to a) Sinn Fein and Labour
being deeply imperfect vessels for the transmission of left-wing politics (albeit for very different
reasons) b) the low-cost of entry into the Irish political system due to PR-STV leading to a splintering
of the political left.
Additionally, the attempt by former Fine Gael deputy Lucinda Creighton to tap into the supposed
right-wing resurgence via the Renua party ended in an electoral curb-stomping as comprehensive
as it was satisfying to witness. So I don't think a surge in popularity for 'the right' is what's
going on here.
It should also be noted that Michael Martin is an infinitely more talented politician than
Enda Kenny (even though that is a bit of a 'world's tallest dwarf' comparison), and has explicitly
positioned FF to the left of FG, but also as a fundamentally 'centrist' and 'moderating' force.
In other words, he's pursuing a political strategy similar to that of Tony Blair, and is reaping
political dividends for doing so. Shocking, I know! (And FWIW – I have a deep, fundamental dislike
of FF and all it stands for and would never consider voting for them, lest anyone think I'm here
to carry water for Martin).
Unfortunately, for those arguing the 'Jeremy Corbyn is only getting clobbered in the polls
because of the perfidy of the PLP/the biased right-wing media/dark forces within MI5' the Irish
experience doesn't offer much comfort. After 2010 the various hard-left groupuscules in Ireland
put aside their factional differences and were able to mount a relatively united front in two
successive elections, and under leaders like Richard Boyd Barrett, Joe Higgins and Clare Daly.
All of these individuals are relatively charismatic, as well as possessing strong skills as political
communicators (attributes even Corbyn's most ardent defenders would admit he is lacking in).
They also had an issue, in the form of water charges, that allowed them to develop an extremely
clear, very popular political position which resonated with large swathes of the electorate in
every region of the country (again, something UK Labour is severely missing).
The results? Just over 5% of the vote in the last election for a total of 10 TDs, and basically
zero influence over the actual governance of the country.
This is not because of some vast array of structural forces and barriers are arrayed against
them (as discussed above, PR-STV makes the barrier to entry into Irish politics very low). It
is because, as with Corbyn, the electorate neither trusts them to competently administer the
state, nor supports their vision for its future socio-economic development. You can argue
that the electorate are ignorant, or mistaken in this regard, but given that Corbyn has at various
points in his career argued that East Germany, Cuba and Venezuela represent optimal socio-economic
systems, I would argue that they're probably right on this particular question.
In the US, only tiny numbers of voters supported Communist candidates in the 1950s and 1960s.
The effect is not direct. It comes down to the fact that for the average working person, there
two main ways they could be significantly better or worse off; wages could be higher, or tax could
be lower.
One of those is a thing that is promised by political parties, one isn't.
The actual rate of tax, or the feasibility or secondary effects of changing, don't really matter.
Leaving the EU, whatever else it means, means not paying tax to it. A belief that the tax paid
to the EU ends up as a net benefit to the payee requires a level of trust in the system that is
easy to argue against.
The US has lower taxes than any other developed democracy, and so presumably wouldn't carry
on functioning as one if you cut further. Which means to deliver further tax cuts, you need a
politician who doesn't understand, doesn't care, or just possibly is in hock to those who wish
the US harm.
Traditional Communists similarly considered the collapse of the system to be more of a goal
than a worry. Without them, arguments against higher wages always prevail.
Kidneystones: "Owing to the particular corruption of the Democratic party over the last 8 years,
effectively run by the Clinton crime family, the field was unofficially limited to just one."
Seconding Belle here – 'effectively run' means 'defeated by another, and forced to work your
way back up'.
The Labour Party as a functioning opposition seems to have vanished – seriously: what did the
general public hear from them over the last year or so apart from party infighting and accusations
of anti-semitism?
I still support many of Corbyn's policies and ironically
so does much of the general public . But he lost my trust with his ridiculous wavering over
Brexit and ineffectiveness as a politician in general.
I actually don't think it would be too hard to organize an effective opposition considering
the fact that the Tories have no idea at all what they are doing and their policies are not in
the interest of the vast majority of people. But you have to hit them over the head with this
on a daily basis and I have no idea why nobody does it.
Well I wouldn't say it was entirely pointless. It is important to establish a baseline, and
in this case the baseline is that Corbyn's leadership is most unlikely to deliver electoral success
for Labour.
But your main point is a fair one, so time to try a different tack.
Policy is a misleading guide to whether a party is left or right. The current conservative
party is running a significant deficit, is committed to maintaining the NHS free at the point
of use, has implemented a living wage, has introduced same-sex marriage, and at the last election
touted state spending as the way to improve economic performance. all these policies were traditionally
associated with left-wing parties.
Policy is free, and it isn't particularly sticky. Given those features, policy is not a particularly
reliable feature. No private company would make policy its chief USP as it can easily be replicated
and customers show little loyalty based on policy. So if policy is not a route to political identity,
what is?
What voters want from a political party is that the party holds them and their interests paramount
as it goes about its business. When it implements a policy, it makes sure that policy is implemented
in a way that benefits them and their group. They want to be sure that in the difficult and complex
world of politics, the people they have voted for will look after their interests. The modern
Conservative party understand this. So Teresa May puts her target market – Just managing families
– dead centre in her Downing Street speech. And so far she has very high levels of public support.
By contrast, Labour doesn't seem to know who it represents, who it is batting for, and what
it wants for them. It doesn't give clear signals about where British workers stand in its hierarchies
of priorities. Until someone stands up and clearly articulates a vision of ambition for the mass
of the people then Labour will get out-fought in all significant political debates.
Certainly it is highly possible that the EU will simply not exist by 2050, or at least,
not in the form that we have it at present.
What a weak and trivial assertion.
It is possible that the US will not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. It
is possible that the UK will not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. It is possible
that the Conservative Party [the Democratic Party] [the Labour Party] [the Republican Party] will
not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. It is possible that MI5 [MI6] [the CIA]
[the NSA] will not exist by 2050 in the form that we have it at present. [Lather, rinse, repeat.]
'The reserve of modern assertions is sometimes pushed to extremes, in which the fear of being
contradicted leads the writer to strip himself of almost all sense and meaning.' (Winston Churchill,
A History Of The English-Speaking Peoples )
@52
Yeah maybe I should clarify that. Obviously much of the UK's trade is done with the EU so in that
sense the UK does have an economic interest in the EU prospering, but only in terms of
individual states. The UK (arguably) does not have an interest, any more in the EU as a unified
political/economic entity and if, as seems plausible, the UK now moves in a more Trumpian
direction, this tendency might well continue.
@55 Your evidence argues against your own argument. You have persistently argued, across many
CT threads, that the only and sole reason that Labour is doing badly right now is because of Corbyn.
And then the evidence you provide is that the left is doing badly in Ireland too. Do you see the
problem?
The fact is that if there was any serious alternative to Corbyn, the PLP would have put him
or her forward in the recent leadership election, and s/he would probably have won. But there
is no such candidate because the problems the Labour party face are much more deeply rooted than
the current crisis caused by the Corbyn leadership and these problems are faced by almost every
centre-left political party in the West . (The 'radical' left, as I pointed out above, having
essentially vanished in almost all of the developed world).
Let's not forget that as recently as the late 1990s, almost every country in Europe was governed
by the centre left. Now, almost none* of them are. That's the scale of the collapse. Indeed the
usual phrase for this phenomenon is 'Pasokification'. Not Corbynification (at least not yet).
Corbyn certainly doesn't have a solution to this problem but then nobody else does either,
so there you go.
All elections for the last few decades:
Many people in the UK: "Can we have our share of the benefits of globalisation?"
Tacit cartel: "After the City has taken the lion's share and we've had our cut, there might be
something left that you can have."
Referendum:
Tacit cartel: "Vote Remain or everybody will lose the benefits of globalisation!"
It's obviously in the interests of (hard) Brexiteers that the EU should fail, but it's not clear
what they can do to promote this end, except in the sense that hard Brexit itself will be mutually
damaging. Supporting ideological soulmates like Le Pen might help but could be a two edged sword
(do Le Pen voters welcome British support?)
By contrast, there's a great deal that the EU can do to harm the UK at modest cost, for example,
by objecting whenever they try to carry over existing WTO arrangements made under EU auspices.
Of course, they have not provided any reason why anyone of a left-wing persuasion should
support such a cynical and opportunistic worldview, apart from the fact that the Tories are
evil.
Preventing people from doing evil seems like a powerful motivation to me.
Traditional Communists similarly considered the collapse of the system to be more of a goal
than a worry. Without them, arguments against higher wages always prevail.
It's commonplace for minimum wages to be increased without Communists playing any role.
Yes, there's a definite thread of wanting to make the EU fail from the Brexiters (at the same
time as believing that it's going to fail anyway, which is why we should get out). As you say,
it's not clear what the UK could do to make this happen, especially from the outside pissing in.
Vice versa, whatever "the EU" thinks about wanting the UK to fail, "the EU" can't do much about
it, and the interests of the member states' governments may or may not be the same. On the other
hand, if there's one way to get them to respond with one voice, the UK attempting to damage Germany's
relationship with France might be it.
What voters want from a political party is that the party holds them and their interests
paramount as it goes about its business. When it implements a policy, it makes sure that policy
is implemented in a way that benefits them and their group. They want to be sure that in the
difficult and complex world of politics, the people they have voted for will look after their
interests. The modern Conservative party understand this. So Teresa May puts her target market
– Just managing families – dead centre in her Downing Street speech.
Anybody who thinks that the Conservatives are going to hold paramount the interests of 'just
about managing' families has been played for a sucker.
Corbyn, like Trump, is the consequence – not the cause of the some twenty years of failed policies.
Vastly more popular than Corbyn isn't saying much. Some 20 percent of those who pulled the lever
in November for Trump don't believe he's qualified for his new position.
Henry's essay does a good job, I think, of identifying the general problem Labour faces. As
for the leadership, it's going go be extremely difficult to find a senior Labour PLP big beast
who did not vote for the Iraq war/Blairites, or who did not oppose even the referendum on Brexit,
not to mention Leave. Both of these issues are deal-breakers, it seems, for some of the more active
members still remaining in Labour. Left-leaning Labour voters, especially those in Scotland, are
unhappy with Tory-lite and with the pro-war positions of the Blairites. Labour voters hostile
to London generally (many in Wales), and to the focus on Europe, rather than depressed regions
of Britain, are unlikely to rally around PLP figures who spent much of the run-up to the vote
calling Leave supporters closet racists.
Actions and decisions have consequences and the discussions that seem to distress a few here
and there (not to mention Labour's low-standing in the polls) are both long overdue and essential
if Labour plans on offering a coherent platform on anything. Running on the NHS and education
and even housing was fine for a while, and might still be so. Intervening in Syria, Libya, and
Iraq complicates matters considerably, as does forcing Labour supporters to adhere to either side
of the Remain/Leave case.
A little civility and good will here and there would do a world of good, but I'm aware that
discussion is better suited to Henry's earlier post on science fiction.
"It's obviously in the interests of (hard) Brexiteers that the EU should fail, but it's not clear
what they can do to promote this end, except in the sense that hard Brexit itself will be mutually
damaging."
I don't think this is right. Australia has neighbours that we aren't in a trade and currency
and migration zone with, but I don't think Australia wants these countries to fail economically
or any other way. I don't see why Britain would want the EU to fail - the UK is better off being
neighbours with stable prosperous countries in the EU than a lot of failed states pulling out
of the EU I would think .??
"While most of them have posted about Labour on social media or signed a petition, more than
half have never attended a constituency meeting, and only a small minority have gone door to door
or delivered leaflets."
My observations is that people do more voluntary work of this hands on kind with non-profit
advocacy groups than political parties.
Maybe as the major political parties became more similar, and weren't polarised in the sense
they were in the post-war era to the 80s, people prefer to volunteer for specific causes they
believe in, rather than for major political parties.
It's not 'Britain' that wants the EU to fail; it's the people who were strong supporters of
UK withdrawal from the EU who want that, because to them failure of the EU would provide vindication,
or at least a plausible appearance of it.
you must know why you yourself aren't doing it, and the reasons that apply to you could easily
apply to other people as well.
I wasn't aware that I was supposed to organize the opposition.
There are people making statements daily about how what the Tories are doing is not in
the interest of the vast majority of people; but with what effect?
Seriously, I don't see that. Now there might be a big media conspiracy to drown out these voices,
but I think it's more plausible that the current Labour leadership is just not very good at this
game.
'I don't see why Britain would want the EU to fail - the UK is better off being neighbours with
stable prosperous countries in the EU than a lot of failed states pulling out of the EU I would
think .??'
Yeah just to be absolutely precise (again) I don't think the UK would ever want the EU to fail,
exactly. But if the perception gains ground that the EU is trying to shaft the UK (and remember
it's in the EU's interests to do just that) 'tit for tat' moves can spiral out of control and
might be politically popular.
The joker in the pack is the new Trump Presidency. Almost all American Presidents since the
war have been (either de facto or de jure) pro-EU for reasons of realpolitik. Trump might go either
way but we know he holds grudges. In recent months Angela Merkel chose to give Trump veiled lessons
on human rights, whereas the May administration has done its utmost to ditch all its previous
'opinions' and fawn all over him.Who is Trump likely to like most?
If the UK goes to Trump and begs for help in its economic war with the EU, Trump might listen.
More generally (and a propos of nothing, more or less), it might be 'number magic' but at least
since the late 19th century 'Western' history tends to divide into 30 year blocks (more or less).
You had the 40 year bloc between the Franco-Prussian war and 1914. Then of course the 30 years
of chaos between 1914 and 1945. Then the Trente Glorieuses between 1945 and 1975. Finally we had
the era of the 'two neos': neoliberalism at home, and neoconservatism abroad (AKA the 'let them
eat war' period) between 1976 and 2006.
We now seem to be moving into a new era of Neo-Nationalism, with a concommitant suspicion of
trans-national entities (e.g. the EU), a rise in interest in economic protectionism, and increasing
suspicion of immigration. Needless to say, this is not a Weltanschauung that makes things easy
either for the Left or for Liberals. One might expect both the soft and hard right to thrive,
on the other hand.
"Preventing people from doing evil seems like a powerful motivation to me."
The problem is that merely asserting that the Tories are bad does not necessarily mean that
people will (or even should) automatically assume that you are a viable or less evil alternative.
Indeed, the response of the Labour Party's leading lights after the 2015 election was to minimise
the distance between themselves and the Tories, and their actions during the 'interregnum' between
Miliband and Corbyn demonstrated that they were quite willing to connive with evil in the shape
of Tory welfare policy as they assumed it would appease 'aspirational voters'.
This is the crux of the divide within the Labour Party. Corbyn's political career has concentrated
on defending those at home or abroad who cannot or find it difficult to defend themselves. The
majority of Labour's career politicians argue that these people are politically marginal and defending
their interests will not win elections or achieve political power. To some extent they have a
point, but they fail to acknowledge that their own brand of cynical opportunism has alienated
not just many Labour members but also many potential voters.
The accusations of anti-Semitism and sympathy for dictators made by Corbyn's enemies were so
virulent not just in an attempt to smear his reputation, but also to try and salve their own consciences,
having thrown so many of their moral scruples aside in an increasing futile quest to secure the
support of the mythical median voter.
"Policy is a misleading guide to whether a party is left or right."
You what?
I would have thought that policy, by which I mean actually implemented policies and actions,
with real effects, rather than rhetoric, sound-bites or general bullshit, is precisely how we
determine if a party is left or right.
As for the remainder of that paragraph:
"The current conservative party is running a significant deficit "
As any decent economist, and even George Osborne, will tell you, the deficit is an outcome
of the economy, not under the direct control of the chancellor so, despite the rhetoric, it's
not really meaningful to use as a policy target. Further, IIRC, in the history of modern advanced
economies, I believe they have run deficits in something like 98% of years, so the presence of
a deficit is hardly unusual if you're in government.
" is committed to maintaining the NHS free at the point of use "
This is just a bullshit phrase and, in the context of actual policy, entirely meaningless.
The Tory party has a long term project to privatise large sections of the NHS, and is currently
driving it into the ground as a means to this end. New Labour laid the foundations for this to
happen, so is equally to blame. No self-respecting left party would go anywhere near those policies.
" at the last election touted state spending as the way to improve economic performance."
More sound-bites. Nothing is delivered. Believe it or not, the state spends money with this
aim all of the time. The scope of what new spending is to be delivered is likely to be small.
The other items sound like you think that we are still in the centrist liberal nirvana of Blair/Clegg/Cameron
where we were governed by managerialist technocrats, concerned with "what works", delivering much
the same policy no matter who was elected, only competing with each other on the basis of media
platitudes. But that has caused massive resentment, failed, and is the reason for Brexit and Corbyn.
Precisely because none of those parties were delivering policies that benefited most people.
Indeed, I think that you will find that 600,000 Labour Party members believe that there is,
or rather should be, a big dividing line in policy between themselves and the Tory Party.
"The modern Conservative party understand this. So Teresa May puts her target market – Just
managing families – dead centre in her Downing Street speech."
This reads like it has come directly from Central Office. Do you really believe that the Tories
give two hoots about "just managing families"? Did Hammond reduce Osborne's austerity plan in
any way in the last Budget?
Labour, as a whole, certainly doesn't seem to know who it represents ATM. There are multiple
reasons for that: an irredentist PLP, a media sympathetic to the PLP and determined to trivialise
or ignore Corbyn, and the disorganisation and incoherence of Corbyn and his organisation amongst
them. But deposing Corbyn and returning to neoliberal bullshit won't solve the reasons why he
exists.
Brexit has not happened yet, so it can be whatever you want it to be: that freedom to project
counterfactuals tends to accentuate the centrifugal not the consensual as far as diversity of
opinion is concerned. I actually think Corbyn is unusually wise for a Labour leader to mumble
and fumble a lot at this stage. If it is a personal failing, it is appropriate to circumstances.
The Tories have given themselves a demolition job to do. If your opponent is handling dynamite,
best not to get close and certainly a bad idea to try to snatch it from them.
From the standpoint of Labour constituencies like Corbyn's own in North London, taking The
City down a peg or three would possibly be a means of relief, but if any Brexit negotiating "event"
triggered an exodus of financial sector players the immediate political fallout would be akin
to the sky falling and certainly would cause consternation among Tory donor groups not that supportive
of May's brand. And, failing to invoke Article 50 is likely to be corrosive to the Tories in ways
that benefit Labour as much as the Liberal Democrats only if Labour refrains from expressions
of hostility to Leave voters - a point too subtle for some Blairites, apparently.
There are a lot of different ways for Brexit to sink the Tory ship. May could be forced to
procrastinate on invoking Article 50. Invoking Article 50 by Royal Prerogative could bring on
a constitutional crisis, or at least a dispute over whether Article 50 has been invoked at all
in a way that satisfies the Treaty. Having invoked, the EU may well step in their own dog poop,
with overtly hostile or simply opportunistic gambits, underestimating the costs imo but otherwise
as JQ suggests.
The whole negotiating scheme will almost certainly run aground on sheer complexity and the
unworkable system of decision-making in the European Council. That could result in procrastination
in an endless series of extensions that keep Britain effectively in for years and years. Or, one
side or both could just let the clock run out, with or without formally leaving negotiations.
Meanwhile, at home, in addition to The City, Scotland and Ireland are going to be nervous, possibly
hysterical.
I suppose if you think the EU is fine just as it is, it is easy to overlook the glaring defects
in its design, particularly the imperviousness to reformist, adaptive politics. The EU looks to
go down with the neoliberal ship - hell, it is the neoliberal ship! I suppose the sensible Labour
position on the EU would be a set of reform proposals that would paper over different viewpoints
within the Labour Party, but that is not possible, because EU reform is not possible, which is
why Brexit is the agenda. Corbyn's instincts seem right to me; Labour should not prematurely oppose
Brexit alienating Leave voters nor should it start a love-fest for an EU that might very shortly
make itself very ugly toward Britain.
The Euro certainly and the EU itself may well break before the next General Election in Britain
opening up policy possibilities for Tories or Labour that can scarcely be imagined now. It is
not inconceivable to me that Scandanavia, Netherlands and Switzerland might be persuaded to form
a downsized EU2 sans Euro with Britain and a reluctant Ireland.
In my view, Corbyn as a political personality is something of a stopped clock, but as others
have pointed out, Labour like other center-left neoliberal parties have been squandering all their
credibility in post-modern opportunism. A stopped clock is right more often than one perpetually
fast or slow.
Labour has a chance to remake itself as a membership party while the Tories play with Brexit
c4 (PE-4). Membership support is what distinguishes Labour from the Liberals and transforming
Labour into a new Liberal party is apparently what Blair had in mind. Let Brexit mature as an
issue and let Labour try out the alternative model of an active membership base.
I wasn't aware that I was supposed to organize the opposition.
You're not, of course. But when you wrote 'I have no idea why nobody does it', it wasn't immediately
clear to me that what you meant was 'I have no idea why the Labour leadership doesn't do it' (where
'it' referred back to 'hit them over the head with this', and 'them' referred back to 'the vast
majority of people' and 'this' referred back to 'the fact that the Tories have no idea at all
what they are doing and their policies are not in the interest of the vast majority of people').
There are people making statements daily about how what the Tories are doing is not in the
interest of the vast majority of people; but with what effect?
Seriously, I don't see that.
Perhaps that's a result of where you've chosen to look. Seriously, where have you looked? have
you, for example, looked at the Labour Party's website?
Igor Belanov
If you think Labour is just as evil as the Conservatives, then obviously you have no motivation
to support Labour against the Conservatives.
Is that what you think, that Labour is just as evil as the Conservatives?
Sidenote to J-D @ 8 on parties with religious identification
The disappearance of religious affiliation or identity as an organizing principle in Europe
is interesting. You might recall that the British Tory Party was an Anglican Party, committed
to establishment and the political disability of Catholics and Dissenters, as defining elements
of their credo. Despite the extreme decline in religious observance in Britain, I imagine there
remain strong traces of religious identity in British party identification patterns.
Elsewhere in Europe, the Greek Orthodox Church plays a political role in Greece and Cyprus,
though the current SYRIZA government is somewhat anti-clerical. Anti-clerical doctrines have been
revived in France by tensions with Muslims.
"... The decision by the Obama administration to push ahead with the TPP may well have cost Hillary Clinton the presidency ..."
"... No doubt. But the Wall St. Dems are going to keep blaming Bernie Bros and the Russians. And they'll keep helping themselves to that sweet corporate payola. ..."
"... Talk about pushing ahead with TPP, this piece is jaw dropping. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/tpp-how-obama-traded-away_b_13872926.html?section=us_politics ..."
"... I see it as karma. TPP may have been the worst thing ever tried by a US President, to date. I didn't realize that so many people understood it though, at least I didn't get that impression in central California. ..."
"... And not just Hillary Clinton. The whole Democratic party. Obama has been a disaster for Democrats. There is a piece in the WAPO by Matt Stoller today discussing just this issue. ..."
"... Excellent point. Basically will corporations pass along increased costs to consumers? ..."
"... Take a look at what happened when the price of oil spiked. Corporations that had healthy profit margins in general didn't pass on to consumers their increased costs when oil was part of their COGS (cost of good sold). Though in contrast, airlines did. At the time Airlines had low profit margins. But I suspect their pricing power is less elastic regardless – their 10Ks show their entire business model is metric'd on the price of fuel. ..."
"... Offshoring isn't about lower consumer goods prices. The cost of labor in a mass-produced product is small, often trivial. That's what mass production is designed to do. ..."
"... The addiction to foreign trade is for the money in it. The importer doubles his money, the wholesaler doubles his money, the distributor doubles his money and the retailer gets what he can. The Chinese manufacturer is satisfied but most of the street cost goes to the intermediaries. ..."
"... In this case, "sovereignty" means the power to regulate commerce. Insofar as the signatories are democracy, it also means democracy – the ability to carry out the decisions of representative bodies. ..."
"... Countries without an internationally traded currency will not willingly sign up for specious 'trade in money' sections. Galbraith the Younger wrote a famous paper on the subject that clearly established there is no such thing as a trade in money. Every way I look at it, its a rip-off, facilitated by a useful idiot in the country's central bank. ..."
"... ISDS is nothing more than a scheme to enable direct foreign attacks on the legislative process itself – even more direct and invasive than influencing elections by hacking, propaganda or whatever ..."
By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former UN Assistant Secretary General for Economic Development. Originally
published at Inter Press Service and cross
posted from
Triple Crisis
President-elect Donald Trump has promised that he will take the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Agreement (TPPA) on the first day of his presidency. The TPP may now be dead, thanks to Trump and
opposition by all major US presidential candidates. With its imminent demise almost certain, it is
important to draw on some lessons before it is buried.
Fraudulent Free Trade Agreement
The TPP is fraudulent as a free trade agreement, offering very little in terms of additional growth
due to trade liberalization, contrary to media hype. To be sure, the TPP had little to do with trade.
The US already has free trade agreements, of the bilateral or regional variety, with six of the 11
other countries in the pact. All twelve members also belong to the World Trade Organization (WTO)
which concluded the single largest trade agreement ever, more than two decades ago in Marrakech –
contrary to the TPPA's claim to that status. Trade barriers with the remaining five countries were
already very low in most cases, so there is little room left for further trade liberalization in
the TPPA, except in the case of Vietnam, owing to the war until 1975 and its legacy of punitive legislation.
The most convenient computable general equilibrium (CGE) trade model used for trade projections
makes unrealistic assumptions, including those about the consequences of trade liberalization. For
instance, such trade modelling exercises typically presume full employment as well as unchanging
trade and fiscal balances. Our colleagues' more realistic macroeconomic modelling suggested that
almost 800,000 jobs would be lost over a decade after implementation, with almost half a million
from the US alone. There would also be downward pressure on wages, in turn exacerbating inequalities
at the national level.
Already, many US manufacturing jobs have been lost to US corporations' automation and relocation
abroad. Thus, while most politically influential US corporations would do well from the TPP due to
strengthened intellectual property rights (IPRs) and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms,
US workers would generally not. It is now generally believed these outcomes contributed to the backlash
against such globalization in the votes for Brexit and Trump.
Non-Trade Measures
According to the Peterson Institute of International Economics (PIIE), the US think-tank known
for cheerleading economic liberalization and globalization, the purported TPPA gains would mainly
come from additional investments, especially foreign direct investments, due to enhanced investor
rights. However, these claims have been disputed by most other analysts, including two US government
agencies, i.e., the US Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS) and the US International
Trade Commission (ITC).
Much of the additional value of trade would come from 'non-trade issues'. Strengthening intellectual
property (IP) monopolies, typically held by powerful transnational corporations, would raise the
value of trade through higher trading prices, not more goods and services. Thus, strengthened IPRs
leading to higher prices for medicines are of particular concern.
The TPP would reinforce and extend patents, copyrights and related intellectual property protections.
Such protectionism raises the price of protected items, such as pharmaceutical drugs. In a 2015 case,
Martin Shkreli raised the price of a drug he had bought the rights to by 6000% from USD12.50 to USD750!
As there is no US law against such 'price-gouging', the US Attorney General could only prosecute
him for allegedly running a Ponzi scheme.
"Medecins Sans Frontieres" warned that the agreement would go down in history as the worst "cause
of needless suffering and death" in developing countries. In fact, contrary to the claim that stronger
IPRs would enhance research and development, there has been no evidence of increased research or
new medicines in recent decades for this reason.
Corporate-Friendly
Foreign direct investment (FDI) is also supposed to go up thanks to the TPPA's ISDS provisions.
For instance, foreign companies would be able to sue TPP governments for ostensible loss of profits,
including potential future profits, due to changes in national regulation or policies even if in
the national or public interest.
ISDS would be enforced through ostensibly independent tribunals. This extrajudicial system would
supercede national laws and judiciaries, with secret rulings not bound by precedent or subject to
appeal.
Thus, rather than trade promotion, the main purpose of the TPPA has been to internationally promote
more corporate-friendly rules under US leadership. The 6350 page deal was negotiated by various working
groups where representatives of major, mainly US corporations were able to drive the agenda and advance
their interests. The final push to seek congressional support for the TPPA despite strong opposition
from the major presidential candidates made clear that the main US rationale and motive were geo-political,
to minimize China's growing influence.
The decision by the Obama administration to push ahead with the TPP may well have cost Hillary
Clinton the presidency as she came across as insincere in belatedly opposing the agreement which
she had previously praised and advocated. Trade was a major issue in swing states like Ohio, Michigan
and Pennsylvania, where concerned voters overwhelmingly opted for Trump.
The problem now is that while the Obama administration undermined trade multilateralism by its
unwillingness to honour the compromise which initiated the Doha Development Round, Trump's preference
for bilateral agreements benefiting the US is unlikely to provide the boost to multilateralism so
badly needed now. Unless the US and the EU embrace the spirit of compromise which started this round
of trade negotiations, the WTO and multilateralism more generally may never recover from the setbacks
of the last decade and a half.
The decision by the Obama administration to push ahead with the TPP may well have cost
Hillary Clinton the presidency
No doubt. But the Wall St. Dems are going to keep blaming Bernie Bros and the Russians. And
they'll keep helping themselves to that sweet corporate payola.
I see it as karma. TPP may have been the worst thing ever tried by a US President, to date.
I didn't realize that so many people understood it though, at least I didn't get that impression
in central California.
And not just Hillary Clinton. The whole Democratic party. Obama has been a disaster for
Democrats. There is a piece in the
WAPO by Matt Stoller today discussing just this issue.
Not knowing what he does not know may be beneficial. To be freed from the straitjacket of political
sophistry that has led to previous disasters for American workers is, perhaps, a positive.
I'd be willing to pay twice as much for Chinese junk as I do now.
Corporations, Hollywood, Big Pharma and Silicon Valley will be hurt? Tough luck, they are there
to make profits and are no friend of American workers. Might as well say it, because of their
behavior, they are the enemy of progress for workers.
Short version:
Trump has done more for American workers and has obtained more net benefit out of the car companies,
before he's even sworn in than the Clintons did in ten collective years of 'public service'.
>I'd be willing to pay twice as much for Chinese junk as I do now.
And I don't think you would even have to every time you can manage to look at what it costs*
to make something in China instead of the USA, and compare it to the retail price, you get a real
"whoa".** The price is just enough less to drive the US manufacturer themselves out of business,
most of the money *does* stay in the US but it goes to the top 0.1%.
This is more about control of the proles than economics, sometimes I think.
*like anybody can totally figure it out given the Chinese state's involvement in everything,
but we can make decent guesses
**I know that American mfg cost is generally 1/2 of retail price and sometimes as low as 1/3.
I'm talking about 1/10 to 1/20th for Chinese goods.
Excellent point. Basically will corporations pass along increased costs to consumers?
Take a look at what happened when the price of oil spiked. Corporations that had healthy
profit margins in general didn't pass on to consumers their increased costs when oil was part
of their COGS (cost of good sold). Though in contrast, airlines did. At the time Airlines had
low profit margins. But I suspect their pricing power is less elastic regardless – their 10Ks
show their entire business model is metric'd on the price of fuel.
Offshoring isn't about lower consumer goods prices. The cost of labor in a mass-produced
product is small, often trivial. That's what mass production is designed to do.
It's more about dropping more of the top line to the bottom line. Along with the fake aristo
disdain for wage earners that seems to be a requirement for corporate managers.
That 35% tariff sure equals a lot of profits lost on cars made in Mexico. Therefore, they will
be made in America. Due to the competitive nature of auto sales, the lack of interest in teenagers
in buying cars, I think Detroit will not raise prices to match the labor cost difference. Also,
there will be even less demand for U.S. made cars as most of the Mexican factories will possibly
remain open for the Latin American market, which means even fewer exports of American made cars.
A scarcity of markets means lower prices.
The addiction to foreign trade is for the money in it. The importer doubles his money,
the wholesaler doubles his money, the distributor doubles his money and the retailer gets what
he can. The Chinese manufacturer is satisfied but most of the street cost goes to the intermediaries.
The Chinese governments interest for many years was simply receiving the foreign money payments
and paying out the exchange in RMB.
Trump hasn't done a thing for American workers. Indiana taxpayers (American workers) are on
the hook for Carrier taking on roughly 700 jobs of the 2000 that Trump said he would "save". We
don't even know the deep details of that "deal". If anyone thinks that Carrier signed off on that
deal without the permission of Carrier's parent, United Technologies (a pure defense firm), I
have a bridge to sell them. What future "deal" did the American taxpayer (worker) get subjected
to when this "deal" was made behind closed doors to a defense contractor whose *only* means of
revenue is from the American taxpayer (worker)?
What about the citizens (workers) of Indiana who are going to carry the financial and social
burden of the 1300 Carrier workers that Trump promised (early on in his campaign) whose jobs he
would save. The carrier deal, in fact, was virtually the same deal that Pence had put on the table
a year ago.
United Technologies has *three* air conditioning brands; their Mexican lines are still open,
and the 700 jobs that Trump said he "saved" are not committed to any kind of permanent status
in the USA. Again, the Mexican manufacturing lines remain open, operating, and ready to accept
those jobs when Carrier thinks it's appropriate.
As for the auto companies? Please. Trump did NOTHING that wasn't already planned, or that wasn't
already inspired by market forces and in the works.
FORD on the cancelled Mexican plant:
http://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2017/01/04/we-didnt-cut-a-deal-with-trump-ford-on-canceled-mexican-plant
"'To be clear, Ford is still moving its production of small vehicles to Mexico. The Ford Focus
will still be produced in Mexico, just at an existing Mexican plant instead of the canceled plant.
"[T]he reason we are canceling our plant in Mexico, the main reason, is because we are seeing
a decline in demand for small vehicles here in North America.."
Trump is a fraud and an overt liar; he's a pure clinical narcissist who doesn't work for anyone
but his frail ego – ever seeking out his next source of narcissistic supply – a supply he has
been able to control from his early days from the happy accident of inherited wealth – going on
from there to use his inheritance to enrich himself at the expense of others.
Yes, American workers have been screwed over, but they have been screwed over mostly by Plutocrats
who have owned both parties for decades. Ironically (in the face of all the anti-immigration talk),
the vast majority of those Plutocrats have been *white, male* CEOs.
Anyone looking at Trump's early appointments and Cabinet nominees – not to mentioned his unhinged
comments and tweets – who is not scared stiff by the presence of this goon in the White House
– is suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias.
Why would you be willing to pay twice as much for Chinese junk? Especially if it were still
junk? If I were going to pay twice as much for something, I would rather that something be American
not-junk rather than Chinese junk.
Given the reality that the most modern manufacturing capacity in the world is Chinese when
it comes to consumer durables, it is racist to assume that "American" products are automatically
better. The disinvestment in American manufacturing would take decades to replace.
last night listening to some folks opine re starbucks as a ubiquitous bad, the defense was
they generally treat their employees ok, better than mcdonalds certainly, homeless people are
given a little space before they get cleared out after a few hours if they are civil, which seemed
to make the "striving to be good consumers, attempting to be socially responsible" lean towards
well maybe they guessed it might be ok to go there. They all have i phones, however, and I didn't
say it as I like my job, but was thinking "how many suicide nets does starbucks have in their
global domain?" To call that racist makes me wonder about your comment, maybe if you had said
is it racist, but no further, and in direct relation to that, china got manufacturing
because suicide nets are a solution for apple that would not go over well around here. Maybe that's
why they produce there, and not because the chinese are better at manufacturing?
You can only play the race card but so many times before you wear it out. And it is pretty
thin.
I assume that American-made Science Diet dog food won't have poison in it the way I have to
assume Chinese dog food may have. I assume that American-made sheet rock won't offgas sulfur dioxide
gas which turns into sulfuric acid in moist air ( as in Florida), and destroys household appliances
in a year or less. The way some Chinese high-sulfur sheetrock did at least once in Florida. I
assume an American-made Oakland-Bay-Bridge at twice the price would not now be already having
the decay and bad-build problems which the Cheap China Crap Construction bridge is already having.
Shall I go on?
You sound like a Free Trade Treason hasbarist for China. In fact, I think you are.
You still want to call me racist? Well . . . kiss me, I'm deplorable.
>Trump's plan to enter into bi-lateral trade deals (after supposedly tearing up extant pacts)
Well we never know what the frell he is actually going to do, sure can't judge by what he says.
If he did start with and modifies "extant pacts", that would actually make a lot of sense
and maybe even go decently well at a more-than-glacial speed.
Of course – I hate when people speculate, and especially when they speculate that somebody
is going to do literally the opposite of what they said they were going to do, yet here I am doing
exactly that. My only excuse is that his personality is not to get that deep into anything, so
it just seems more likely that he would simply focus on whatever specific aspect of a given treatry
is problematical, wack a bit at that (for better or worse), and move on.
Bi-lateral trade deals can focus on relatively narrow trade areas and in this case those needn't
so much time to get negotiated and passed. I don't know if that is Trump's strategy.
This is a great summary of the recent fate of the TPP and the reasons for it. It may not be
dead yet – even though it has been unceremoniously tossed on the cart of the dead (monty python).
But the thinking behind it is terminal. Why no one ever discussed the military aspect of the TPP
can be attributed to its strict secrecy. It was obvious to lots of people that the TPP was NATO
for the Pacific and China was the target, and equally obvious that it was bad policy from any
perspective. Bilateral trade will survive this debacle and world trade will continue – but trade
will not be such a military tool, hopefully. It will be a good thing.
It was not obvious to me. It is still not obvious to me. "China" was the excuse advanced for
TPP late in the day when the Tradesters discovered that popular sentiment was turning against
the Corporate Globalonial Plantationist purpose of the TPP, and hence against the TPP itself.
First, she is much closer to correct than you re the purpose of TPP. Secondly, why would you
argue that the 'Tradesters' had to resort to 'China' in order to attempt to sell their putrid
deal if 'China' was not viewed by said 'Tradesters' as a word loaded with a host of negative associations,
most of which are based on typical US foreign policy jingoistic nonsense rooted in what is certainly
a classic case of US/Western supremacist nonsense, if not the more obvious, overt racism now making
a rather spectacular comeback?
Lesson learned is to avoid electing corrupt candidates that call it a gold standard right
away you know who is receiving, and who is paying, the gold.
And then there are sitting elected officials pushing the crap with all their might, anticipating
their gold shares maturing as soon as they leave office
Trade was a major issue in swing states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, where concerned
voters overwhelmingly opted for Trump.
Bravo! "Concerned voters" is a much better descriptor than "deplorables", "working class whites"
or even, in this case, "working class voters" as there were also sovereignty issues.
The wording of your comment is rather ambiguous – are you stating that "statistics show" that
"sexism played a big role" in the swing states? Where do you situate yourself relative to Lambert's
discussion of the subject?
The sexism card is wearing about as thin as the racism card is wearing. Clinton lost support
in the Midwest when she revealed herself to be a Free Trade Traitor against America by stating
that she would put her husband, NAFTA Bill, in charge of the economic recovery when she got elected.
That expression of support for anti-American Trade Treason guaranteed her loss right there.
Statistics show . . . that figures lie when liars figure.
" trade agreements take a long time to negotiate, typically because they also include services,
and those take way longer to sort out than the physical goods side."
My first reaction: good. Services shouldn't be in trade pacts. And if they take a long time to
get done, all the better. The fetish for "trade pacts" is mostly destructive.
Fundamentally: they're superfluous. People have always traded, mostly without "pacts." When
it comes to "absolute advantage," literally trading apples for oranges, everybody really does
benefit and barriers melt away. Under modern conditions. "comparative advantage" is a falsehood,
as a close look at the conditions Ricardo set for it will show. It requires that labor and capital
don't move at all freely between countries – true in his day, but certainly not in ours. Bizarrely,
his theory is being used, dishonestly, to promote the destructive free movement of capital, and
that's what "services" mostly means.
The point that trade agreements take a long time is probably true, as well as not an objection;
but it isn't an argument for multilateral agreements like the TPP; it's an argument for the WTO,
if it had been done right. The plan was to set up an overarching, worldwide structure for trade.
But it should have been done under the UN, and it shouldn't include attacks on sovereignty like
the tribunals. The real reason for other agreements is that the requirement for consensus in the
WTO put up a dead end sign: thus far, and no farther. So the "Washington Consensus" tried for
work arounds. But the consensus model makes sense, and the rules should be universal.
The real gist of Ricardo is that trade is NOT an unmitigated good. It easily becomes more or
less subtle forms of imperialism. Furthermore, low trade barriers make sense. Diversity depends
on barriers. They encourage a modicum of self-reliance and provide firewalls so that a financial
collapse in one country doesn't automatically go world-wide. We probably had it right in the 50s
and 60s, when the economy was far healthier. Granted, there were still a lot of actual colonies
then, so it's hard to tell how that translates to modern conditions.
I don't think I'm saying anything that isn't very familiar here. We should beware of capitalist
ideologies.
The fetish for Multilaterialism is also destructive. Multilateralism is just "french" for Corporate
Globalonial Plantationist trade pacts designed to exterminate sovereignty for dozens of countries
at a time.
" Our colleagues' more realistic macroeconomic modelling suggested that almost 800,000 jobs
would be lost over a decade after implementation, with almost half a million from the US alone.
There would also be downward pressure on wages, in turn exacerbating inequalities at the national
level."
Yes, that's what these "trade agreements" are FOR. You don't think the PTB take bullshit economics
seriously, do you?
As an aside, I never particularly liked the sovereignty argument against TPP (which I note
is omitted from this article) because I felt it painted with an overly broad brush. More specifically,
I would argue that it can sometimes be a good thing if nation-states collectively agree to be
bound by rules that supersede national legislation. The Geneva Convention is one example.
TPP would have been bad not because it compromised national sovereignty, but because of the
reasons for which it did so. Overriding national legislation to protect human rights is one thing.
Overriding it to grant multinational corporations more power over workers, consumers and governments
is quite another.
"I would argue that it can sometimes be a good thing if nation-states collectively agree to
be bound by rules that supersede national legislation. The Geneva Convention is one example."
In this case, "sovereignty" means the power to regulate commerce. Insofar as the signatories
are democracy, it also means democracy – the ability to carry out the decisions of representative
bodies.
The Pacific Rim countries might approve "needless suffering and death" if it keeps them in
the west's good books.
Countries without an internationally traded currency will not willingly sign up for specious
'trade in money' sections. Galbraith the Younger wrote a famous paper on the subject that clearly
established there is no such thing as a trade in money. Every way I look at it, its a rip-off,
facilitated by a useful idiot in the country's central bank.
These agreements, whether global or bilateral, are an invitation to central bankers to become
traitors to their own country; an attempt to take over a nation without firing a shot, a blast
from a future that permits only trade blocks and no countries.
I am convinced what the world really wants is a debate on the shape of world government. I
do not agree that the chap with the most printed money calls the shots. We are better than that.
ISDS is nothing more than a scheme to enable direct foreign attacks on the legislative
process itself – even more direct and invasive than influencing elections by hacking, propaganda
or whatever . Imagine if Vladimir Putin were to accomplish a legislative objective in the
U.S. simply by launching an ISDS extortion suit via a Russian state owned enterprise and a willing
ISDS tribunal outside the U.S. court system and not at all accountable to U.S. interests. What
would the pro TPP corporate Dems have to say then?
Are we Remainers making a simple
mistake about Brexit?
What I mean is that we think of
Brexit in consequentialist terms – its effects upon
trade
, productivity
and
growth
. But many Brexiters instead regard Brexit as an
intrinsic good, something desirable in itself in which
consequences are of secondary importance.
Thinking of Brexit in this way
explains a lot of otherwise strange behaviour:
- Why the Tories have a big poll
lead even though voters
think
they're doing a lousy job of managing the Brexit
process. If you think Brexit is worth having for its own sake,
then you'll be pleased the Tories are getting on with it,
because a second-best Brexit is better than none.
- Why most Brexiters had no plan
for the process. They just weren't thinking in consequentialist
terms.
- Why Theresa May says "Brexit
means Brexit". To consequentialists, this is pure gibberish.
From the perspective of those who want Brexit as a matter of
principle, it's not: it's an assurance they'll get what they
want.
- Why
preparations
for
Brexit
are so
chaotic
. If you regard Brexit as an intrinsic good, then
it's not so important how we achieve it. Of course, there are
good and less good types of Brexit. But if you prefer to
satisfice than optimize, this isn't necessarily decisive.
= Why the government is
offering ad hoc support to businesses likely to be hit by
Brexit, be it handouts to
Nissan
or assurances to farmers that they'll still be able
to hire cheap foreign
labour
. There isn't a systematic plan here or conception of
what Brexit should look like, just one-by-one attempts to buy
off specific discontents.
- Why technocrats and Brexiters
have a mutual incomprehension and loathing. Technocrats haven't
grasped that because Brexit is a good in itself, the process of
achieving it is a secondary detail. And Brexiters have had
enough of experts because they are irrelevant as consequences
(up to a point) don't much matter.
Of course, Brexiters might well
be under-estimating those consequences. But if so, they are not
the first people whose wishful thinking causes them to
under-estimate the force of Isaiah Berlin's
point (pdf)
that "some among the great goods cannot live
together".
All this poses the question: what
is the nature of this intrinsic good? I suspect it's to do with
self-image. Brexiters want to think of themselves as independent
people free of the yoke of Brussels, an image that trumps
technocratic consequentialist considerations – or at least is
incommensurable with them. The fact that many cannot
say
what exactly they'll be free to do after Brexit isn't
important: freedom can be desired for its own sake.
In this sense, Brexit is another
form of identity politics. Remainers who complain about its
adverse effects might be making a point that satisfies
themselves, but not one that has much influence upon many of
their opponents. As with so much identity politics, we're left
with a rather futile dialogue of the deaf.
Blissex |
January 08, 2017 at 01:32 PM
Looking at it as to the long run, "Leave" is a reverberation of
the impact of England's (and France's) defeat in WW2. Losing
that war became undeniable (for some) and at the same time
insufferable (for others) with the strategic defeat at Suez.
My
usual humorous take on the "self-image" aspect is that if the EU
were merely renamed "The English Empire of Great Britain and the
Continent" and Her Majesty were appointed as its figurehead and
opened each year the proceedings of the Imperial Parliament in
Strasbourg or Brussels, with no substantial changes, a lot of
"Leavers" would stop objecting...
:-)
One would have also to rename the European Commission as
the "HM Imperial Civil Service" and the Council of EU ministers
as "HM Imperial Council" :-).
The Daily Mail would then have fawning articles like
"Imperial Lead Minister Angela Merkel attends HM's speech at the
Imperial Parliament's opening in Brussels" and "Boris Johnson,
Imperial Commissioner for Entertainment, reports to the English
Parliament the success of the Imperial Council's policy of
banana standardization that he has promoted". :-)
"May says "Brexit means Brexit". To consequentialists, this is
pure gibberish."
Well, maybe, but for my "Remain" and
mostly-consequentialist ears it clearly means "Article 50", that
is no second referendum, no fudging with a treaty revision. Then
once Article 50 is invoked, everything else is up for grabs, but
Article 50 is the point-of-no-return that "Leavers" want to be
reassured about.
The Leavers from all voting analysis were less educated, more
rural , less prosperous and definitely older voters. They
swallowed the Brexit Tabloid media which distorted all things EU
, immigrant and economic. Now as we exit 500 million other
consumers and undo 45 years we shall know the full consequences.
Is it that the English and Welsh are just politically,
economically and socially less educated than other Northern and
Western Europeans. I think so- our tabloid media and supplicant
'Daily Express on legs' BBC is likely the worst in EU.
Spot on. Sums up this leaver's position very well. EU membership
is a historic error for the island nation, and it is well worth
paying a price to correct that error.
it
is so interesting to note that Brexiteers and Remainers seem to
be living in parallel universes with regards to the Brexit
narrative. Here in the article again: Brexiteers DO NOT see the
brexit process as being chaotic at all. This is entirely a
remainer view, not shared by brexiteers (i.e. the majority of
voters).
Yes. This would also perhaps partly explain the dishonesty with
respect to campaigning by the Leavers. The truth (or at least,
rational good faith argument) to them is less important than the
act of leaving in itself.
They see it as a fight, they want to
have a sense of the UK gaining autonomy and control, and to hell
with the consequences. I suspect this 'us vs them' identity
politics has grown out of the financial crisis and austerity.
"
- Why most Brexiters had no plan for the process. They just
weren't thinking in consequentialist terms."
They were
absolutely thinking in consequential terms:
They believed £350M a week would go to NHS etc. They believed
the EU/Euro was about to collapse and UK was better to leave
asap. They believed 400-600K immigrants would arrive each year,
for ever, and housing, medical treatment etc. would be
impossible to achieve. Those in non-immigrant areas believed
they would be next in the migrant wave queue. They believed they
had the power to eject non-performing MPs at elections. They
believed that UK would thrive once free of the EU. The Tories
are delivering all that for them.
What they do not want to believe, so will not easily change
their minds, is that the Government only wants to control
migration - not reduce it. That no one will lose their jobs, and
jobs will become even more soul destroying. That housing will be
even scarcer and more costly. That proper training and career
progression is a thing of the past. That primacy will not be
revived and they will not be first in the queue for everything.
That neither the Conservative nor Labour parties will do a thing
for the left behind and JAMs.
Once they do realise they have been taken for a ride yet
again, the anger may flow over into extremes.
Many Brexiteers, when arguing for Brexit, flip backwards and
forwards between consequentialist arguments and arguments for
Brexit as an intrinsic good. As Dominic Cummings admits, "Leave"
would not have won if they hadn't lied about the money that
could be spent in the NHS and the status of Turkey - and,
apparently, the facts that these were lies doesn't bother him.
It's bizarre, though, how a newspaper like the Daily Mail
spent 10 years pre-1973 campaigning for entry to the Common
Market and now finds everything European to be suspect. Does it
really think that neighbouring countries in Europe, that share
many of our traditions and culture, are really less congenial
trading partners than other global trading states?
"Many Brexiteers, when arguing for Brexit, flip backwards and
forwards between consequentialist arguments and arguments for
Brexit as an intrinsic good."
They are addressing both of
their main constituencies...
"neighbouring countries in Europe, that share many of our
traditions and culture, are really less congenial trading
partners than other global trading states?"
For "self-image" based "Leavers", giving up a global empire
to be just one of many "neighbouring countries" in a mere
regional alliance is simply foolish or a betrayal; the economic
or trade aspect is not that important.
For consequentialist "Leavers" trade/immigration matters but
negatively, and they weren't given an opportunity to vote
against global trade/immigration making them poorer, only
against east european trade/immigration making them poorer. They
surely would have voted against too much trade/immigration with
the other "global trading states" though.
"They believed 400-600K immigrants would arrive each year, for
ever,"
That was the big hope of the rentier/neoliberal voters
and politicians in both New Labour and Conservatives: to replace
ever more the native "uppity, lazy, exploitative" low-income
classes with ever larger numbers of docile cheap non voting
servants.
"and housing, medical treatment etc. would be impossible to
achieve."
The rentier/neoliberal voters and politicians never had such
concerns: they would be very happy to pack immigrants 4-8 to a
room everywhere paying top rents and give them minimal access to
a cut-down NHS.
"Those in non-immigrant areas believed they would be next in
the migrant wave queue."
* Those in rich non-immigration areas are simply outraged
that foreigners can move and work to *their* England without
begging for a visa. They have the attitude of landlords who want
to make sure their tenants understand that they can throw them
out anytime.
* Those in poor non-immigration areas often do look for jobs
in rich immigration areas know very well how much of a
competition even poorer eastern europeans are for jobs in rich
immigration areas. Even many polish immigrants complain about
the romanians after all.
During his recent visit to Turkey our
darling Boris Johnson stated that the UK government supported
visa-free travel for turks and EU membership for Turkey.
Probably this was said a bit mischievously, but the prospect
of a mass immigration of millions of docile cheap turkish
servants and workers make the UK (and EU) property and business
owners very excited.
They know how much money the german property and business
owners made in the 1950-1970s from cheap docile turkish "guest
workers", and are envious of the potential massive profits
today's german property and business owners are going to make
from the "syrian" refugees.
Blissex: "That was the big hope of the rentier/neoliberal voters
and politicians in both New Labour and Conservatives: to replace
ever more the native "uppity, lazy, exploitative" low-income
classes with ever larger numbers of docile cheap non voting
servants."
Agreed, when we consider British anti-poor
political rhetoric, the above does really seem to follow quite
naturally.
And I'd agree it's vital in this analysis to explicitly
identify the political class as the rentier/neoliberal class.
And I'm not even remotely a Marxist btw. It's just fact.
"explicitly identify the political class as the
rentier/neoliberal class. And I'm not even remotely a Marxist
btw."
The irony is that instead many in that
"rentier/neoliberal class" are pretty much marxists, in the
sense that they have come to much the same analysis as Karl
himself, the difference being their point of view as
beneficiaries.
FORD CITY, Pa. - He is old and gray now, he struggles
sometimes to hear, but if he closes his eyes the burly man
can easily conjure that young boy again, a lad at work in a
bustling factory that for a century formed the strong,
straight economic backbone of this proud industrial borough.
"We were poor, but we didn't realize it because all our
neighbors were, too,'' Paul Hromadik said as he gazed across
a rainy town common here at what used to be the Pittsburgh
Plate Glass works.
In 1953, Hromadik was among thousands who flooded through
a pedestrian tunnel at the corner of Third Avenue and Ninth
Street and into the glassworks. He made rear windows for cars
and trucks before he left for a stint in the Army and then a
life as a power company supervisor, father, and grandfather.
"This town is dying now,'' the 81-year-old Hromadik said
softly. "All the young people are moving out.''
That Pittsburgh Plate Glass plant is long gone, an early
harbinger of an economic collapse that has decimated the
region's manufacturing base and fueled a resentment,
particularly acute among white working-class voters, that has
become an emblem of Donald Trump's America.
And that's why I am here along the banks of the Allegheny
River, talking to Hromadik and others like him. I have
cowered under the covers long enough. Denial does no one any
good. Donald Trump is going to put his left hand on the Bible
in a couple weeks and repeat the oath of office administered
by Chief Justice John Roberts.
I do not live in Donald Trump's America, but I aim to
learn from those who do. I've rented a sturdy car. I've
enlisted a wingman with serious driving chops. And I've
pointed myself west to the land Trump found so fertile and
tilled with such skill and in a rough-shod style all his own.
West beyond Hartford. West over the Hudson River. West
through snow-dusted farmlands and tree-studded mountains and
along the vast interstate highway system named for another
Republican and political newcomer, Dwight Eisenhower.
Trump lost the popular vote, but he won the land, 3
million square miles and 80 percent of the nation's counties.
This is one of them. Forty miles northeast of Pittsburgh,
Ford City's population of 3,000 is about half the number who
lived here a century ago, when John B. Ford built what was
said to be one of the planet's biggest plate-glass factories.
There is a statue of Ford in the central park where he
stands forever staring at the factory that once was a roaring
economic engine but is now a hulking and empty reminder that
this is a city whose glory days are in the rear-view mirror.
It's not difficult to understand the appeal here of Trump,
who shakes his fist at foreign economic interlopers and
pledges at every turn to make America great again.
Make Ford City great again? That's what has Sheri Humenik
animated these days.
I encountered her at the local library last week, where
she was replenishing the racks of magazines and periodicals
and evangelizing about the beauty and the allure of
small-town life.
"I believe in this community,'' said Humenik, a
40-something full-time mom and part-time pharmacist. "This
town is the best-kept secret. Where Pittsburgh Plate Glass
was would be the perfect place for some new high-tech
business. It would bring our town back to life.''
All of Armstrong County could certainly use a lift.
Downsizing bulletins from local employers are routine. The
economic decline has been paralleled by the fading fortunes
of the local Democratic Party, whose members outnumbered
Republicans until 12 years ago. Republicans now dominate,
20,600 to 15,880. "For every Armstrong County Republican that
became a Democrat since January, three Democrats have gone in
the opposite direction,'' the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
reported last spring.
That trend does not surprise people like Humenik, who grew
up here and intends to stay put. Trump's message, she said,
was a warm and welcome salve.
"I felt like that he wants to revitalize places just like
this,'' she told me. "He wants to invest in people. He brings
a fire that has reignited hope in people. We need investments
in the small towns, not just the big cities. The small towns
are suffering. We need to recognize the hidden gems and bring
them back. I'm upbeat. I'm encouraged. I'm looking forward.''
I nearly looked over my shoulder to see if someone from
the Trump communications office was getting all of this on
film. It was so perfectly rendered. And it all felt so
genuine, which is going to take some getting used to. Because
back where I live, there you don't run into many who would
say out loud what she just did, even if they think it. And
there are plenty of disbelievers who can't bear the thought
of a President Trump.
And, truth be told, you don't have to look very far to
find them here either. The Trump-is-a-snake-oil-salesman
caucus is alive and well on the steps of the county
courthouse, where attorney Chuck Pascal has sneaked outside
for a late-morning smoke as a soft rain falls over
Kittanning, the Armstrong County seat.
"These are dangerous times,'' said Pascal, a former
Leechburg mayor and a member of the Democratic State
Committee. "I don't think Trump knows anything and I don't
think he knows that he doesn't know anything.''
But Pascal understands the allure of Trump. Comfortable
blue-collar jobs are gone. There's been an exodus of the
professional class. People wanted change. They were willing
to roll the dice on Trump.
Pascal, a Bernie Sanders supporter and delegate, knows it
is now wasted breath to dissect and analyze what went so
wrong. Hillary Clinton "was such a horrible candidate, and
now we're all going to suffer for it,'' he said. "I've never
been scared before, but this is so scary to me.''
It's scary to me, too. But that's not why I'm here. I want
reassurance that everything is going to work out fine. I want
to understand why so many of my fellow Americans have
embraced a man whose every Cabinet appointment seems like a
middle finger fiercely extended to the non-adherents he calls
enemies.
It's time to jump back into the SUV. It's a big red
country out there.
"What do you think? Ohio? Michigan?" I ask my monosyllabic
wingman.
Last week we were
surprised to learn that demand for hotel rooms at the annual World Economic Forum meeting in
Davos, where the world's billionaires, CEOs, politicians, celebrities and oligarchs mingle every
year (while regaled by their public relations teams known as the "media", for whom getting an invite
to the DJ event du jour is more important than rocking the boat by asking unpleasant questions) was
so great, not only are hotel rooms running out, but local employees may be put up in
shipping containers in car parks to free up much needed accommodations.
This scramble to attend what has traditionally been perceived as the hangout for those who have
benefited the most from "peak globalization" was in some ways surprising: coming after a year in
which "populism" emerged as a dominant global force, while sending establishment politics, legacy
policies and even globalization reeling, the message - in terms of lessons learned from 2016 - sent
to the masses from the world's 0.1% was hardly enlightened.
However, while most Davos participants remain tone deaf, one person has gotten the message loud
and clear.
According to
Reuters
, German Chancellor Angela Merkel - who faces a crucial election this year as she runs for her
4th term as German chancellor amid sagging approval ratings - is steering clear of the World Economic
Forum in Davos, a meeting expected to be dominated by debate over the looming presidency of Donald
Trump "and rising public anger with elites and globalization", which is ironic because just two years
prior, the topic was rising wealth inequality which the world's billionaires blasted, lamented and,
well, got even richer as nothing at all changed. What is surprising about Merkel's absence in 2017
is that the Chancellor has been a regular at the annual gathering of political leaders, CEOs and
celebrities, traveling to the snowy resort in the Swiss Alps seven times since becoming chancellor
in 2005. But her spokesman told Reuters she had decided not to attend for a second straight year.
This year's conference runs from Jan. 17-20 under the banner "Responsive and Responsible Leadership".
Trump's inauguration coincides with the last day of the conference.
"It's true that a Davos trip was being considered, but we never confirmed it, so this is not a
cancellation," the spokesman said.
Reuters adds that this is the first time Merkel has missed Davos two years in a row since taking
office over 11 years ago and her absence may come as a disappointment to the organizers because her
reputation as a steady, principled leader fits well with the theme of this year's conference.
There was little additional information behind her continued absencea the government spokesman
declined to say what scheduling conflict was preventing her from attending, nor would it say whether
the decision might be linked to the truck attack on a Berlin Christmas market that killed 12 people
in mid-December.
The reason for her absence, however, may be far more prosaic: as Reuters echoes what we said previously,
"after the Brexit vote in Britain and the election of Trump were attributed to rising public anger
with the political establishment and globalization, leaders may be more reluctant than usual to travel
to a conference at a plush ski resort that has become synonymous with the global elite. "
Another potential complication is that this year's Davod event concludes just hours before Trump's
inauguration. As a result, one European official suggested to Reuters that "the prospect of having
to address questions about Trump days before he enters the White House might also have dissuaded
Merkel, whose politics is at odds with the president-elect on a broad range of issues, from immigration
and trade, to Russia and climate change."
During the U.S. election campaign, Trump described Merkel's refugee policies as "insane". Like
Merkel, French President Francois Hollande, who announced in early December that he would not seek
a second term next year, will not be in Davos.
Most other European political leaders are expected to be present, despite the furious changes
in Europe's political landscape in the past year: the Forum had hoped to lure Matteo Renzi, but he
resigned as Italian prime minister last month. European leaders that are expected include Mark Rutte
of the Netherlands and Enda Kenny of Ireland. British Prime Minister Theresa May could also be there.
German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, who was elected to the WEF board of trustees last
year, is expected to attend, as are senior ministers from a range of other European countries, as
well as top figures from the European Commission.
Members of Donald Trump's team, including Davos regulars like former Goldman Sachs president Gary
Cohn and fund manager Anthony Scaramucci, are also expected. Reuters reminds us that WEF Chairman
Klaus Schwab was invited to Trump Tower last month, although the purpose of the visit was unclear.
Although the WEF does not comment on which leaders it is expecting until roughly a week before
the meeting, the star attraction is expected to be Xi Jinping, the first Chinese president to attend.
Meanwhile, it is was highly unlikely that the one person everyone would like to seek answers from
at Davos, Russian president Vladimir Putin, will be present.
This is an interesting development. Despite the use of epithets like "cunt" and "bitch" in the
oh, so valuable discussion contributions above, the German head of state is quite astute and living
in the real world. She has decided that association with the most elite of global meetings is
a negative. Don't you consider that significant?
Hardly. There are "leaks" of German Govt cables to NDR revealing how far Juncker obstructed crackdown
on corporate tax evasion when PM of Luxembourg. Clear indication Germany wants Juncker gone before
BreXit negotiations start and Wilders gains votes in NL in March.
1st Quarter in Europe is dynamite.
Davos is fluff and irrelevant.
Once UK SC delivers opinion in Jan 2017 there is a 1-line Bill to go through both Houses of
Parliament. If the Lords blocks the Bill it will lead to a 1910 Constitutional Crisis and either
Election, or abolition of House of Lords. UK is especially volatile in 2017 especially if Queen
dies.
Merkel sees nothing but danger ahead. Ukraine will probably implode and set of a refugee wave
into Germany. Turkey could well crash and burn. UK is going to be a very difficult situation.
33% French farmers reportedly earning <350 Euros/month as exports to Russia collapsed. French
election could be volatile. Italy is heading for meltdown.
Merkel is going to burn - she has failed to head off any problem
Davos doesn't care about politicians. Politicians are merely banker's puppets. Look
no further than Trump. He gets to be POTUS and what is his first act of business?
To put Goldman Sachs in charge of his Treasury and put JP Morgan in charge of White House policy.
If anyone thinks a politician will change anything, you are wrong. The banks make the
orders and plans, everything else is theatre.
It's been said that the captain of the Titanic was drunk before the ship struck the iceberg.
Given the above, maybe the Davosians are also equally intoxicated as they helm an economic ship
that's about to go under. Whether it's by psychotropics or just plain hubris, they certainly
don't seem to understand the depth of the danger they are in.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Cover to the paperback edition
The world's leading thinkers and policymakers examine what's come apart in the past year, and anticipate what will define the year ahead.
